Sunday News Shows

I watched a bunch of news shows today. The main topics were health care, Bill Clinton's trip to N. Korea, the economy and cash for clunkers, and the Sotomayor confirmation and swearing in. 

I have to say that the quote of the day goes to John McLaughlin, who, in response to a comment by Monica Crowley that Bill Clinton's trip to North Korea would have "unintended consequences," stated, "isn't that the history of man?" I loved that! It's so true.

But the unique show of interest for the day's series had to be the special show that the PBS show, "To the Contrary," which features all female panelists usually, and discusses issues pertinent to women. But today, they had a special, which was a 1/2 hour documentary on why the mainstream, national "environmental movement" had abandoned population control as one of their major environmental issues. I thought it was fascinating, although it had an overemphasis on the impacts of immigration. Immigration is a red herring issue when talking about population, because it deals with people that are already here. Sure, maybe if you deal with immigration, you can somewhat "control" the population in your country, but globally, it's irrelevant. And aren't the serious environmental problems now global? 

But the show did raise important questions. And while I agreed to an extent some of the theories set forth as to why the "environmental movement" as a whole has abandoned population control as a major campaign. They said it was because the population growth in the U.S. had shifted from the whites, which were the source of most of the increase during the post world war II baby boom, to minorities. The environmental organizations, already sensitive about being almost exclusively white, didn't want to be branded as taking a racist stand on populations control. 

In my opinion, there is some merit to that, but it isn't the only reason. I honestly think that repeated columns (which I have read) over the last number of years talking about how, if population falls too fast, the baby boomers will break the bank in collecting medicare, medicaid, and social security, because there won't be enough workers to pay the bill, have had their effect. Baby boomers like me, we want our social security and medicare. We feel like we've paid for it. So, if it takes us turning a blind eye to population in order to insure that we get our benefits, well, in combination with the racial aspect of it, is enough for us to de-prioritize it. But I give kudos to "To the Contrary" for their special. It was very interesting and thought provoking.

In regard to the health care issue, I do agree that Obama's strategy of staying on the sidelines and not having a clear message to the public about what they have to gain from this is one of the main reasons why he is encountering such flak. But it frustrates me that the mainstream pundits are seeming to give a free ride to those in the public that are disrupting the town hall meetings. There's no doubt that this is a political ploy. But even worse is that they seem to forget that when environmentalists, or civil rights or peace activists use disrupting civil disobedience tactics, that yes, they get on the news, but the news pretty much portrays it critically. But here, we have these people using disrupting, violent tactics, and the news media apologizes for it, saying, "oh, well, it's just a fringe few, but there is a legitimate concern behind it." Oh yeah, and the same thing isn't true regarding the environment, war, and civil rights? No, it's one way or the other. Either these kind of tactics are out of the mainstream or they aren't. 

The republican commentators all had a consistent message regarding Bill Clinton's visit to North Korea. They all said, "oh sure, we're glad the gals are free, but "Bubba" (they all referred to him as "Bubba") undercut "our" policy toward North Korea. In reality, what they meant was that the failed Bush policy toward N. Korea, where they built more nuke bombs under him than any other president, was being changed. Thank goodness for that. 

A republican acquaintance of mine, who I don't know real well, told me at a social gathering Friday evening, that he had voted for Obama, and that, while a lot of people were criticizing Obama, he wasn't hearing anyone say, "I wish we had Bush back." I think that is very true.

Why is Trigg County, Kentucky, cashing in on the stimulus money?

I heard the interview below last night on Jim Lehrer News Hour on PBS. It was between Jeffrey Brown and Michael Grabell, who has a political website called ProPublica http://www.propublica.org/site/author/michael_grabell/ . I hadn't heard of him before, but he's apparently done some research on where the stimulus spending has ended up thus far. I would say it is a big deal for a "blogger" to make it to a major national news program. 

I found it interesting because of the reference below to Trigg County, Kentucky. Trigg County is in Western Kentucky, with land adjacent to and within the Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area, a border with Tennessee, very rural, with a relatively low but predominantly white population. Cadiz is the county seat. 

Grabell says that Trigg County has done well in getting stimulus money. That's very interesting, isn't it? Especially considering that Kentucky went for McCain, 57% - 41%, and Trigg County was even worse for Obama - voting 64% - 34% for McCain. Sen. minority leader Mitch McConnell voted against the economic stimulus, and did their long time republican congressman, Ed Whitfield. So why is Trigg County so rolling in the money? 

According to Grabell, "a lot of the money that has gone out has gone through these existing channels, these existing formulas that we have in our government." Therein lies the first item of interest. Typical republicans! They vote against progress, but then are the first in line with their hands out to get the money. No doubt that McConnell, with his clout as minority leader, and Obama wanting to have some bipartisanship, made it easy for McConnell to find his way close to the front of the line. This would be especially true if "existing channels," which, in Trigg county are no doubt very republican and very much a "good ol' boys and gals club" are being used. And, one of those big existing channels is the Land Between the Lakes, (LBL) a National Recreation Area administered by the U.S. Forest Service. LBL has land within and adjacent to Trigg County.

This is important because Land Between the Lakes' relationship to the region is very complex. The brutal history of
TVA's forced removal and almost complete destruction of the then long established rural community, based on false promises, in the mid to late 1960's, has split the community and created the deepest wounds that will last generations. TVA, at first, and now the Forest Service, uses money and it's high profile to try and keep enough loyalty throughout the region to fend off questions about their management of the area. They don't want the questions asked too loud, because that means that they might actually have to acknowledge that the government did something really bad, and that something needs to be done to rectify the situation. Cadiz is situated outside of LBL, and interestingly, while all this government is pouring in, has been rather tranquil over the years when former residents speak out about the injustice. 

to be continued....

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec09/stimulus_08-05.html

JEFFREY BROWN: ...And we take a closer look now at some of the stimulus spending and where the money's going. Michael Grabell is the lead reporter covering the stimulus beat for ProPublica, an independent, nonprofit news Web site that features original and investigative reporting.

Welcome to you.

MICHAEL GRABELL, ProPublica: Thank you.

There are some really hard-pressed counties that are getting a lot of stimulus money. And there are some really hard-pressed counties that are getting very little at this point. 

JEFFREY BROWN: One issue you've just looked at is whether the money is going to communities most in need, places like Elkhart, and it sounds like you found a mixed picture.

MICHAEL GRABELL: We did. What we did -- we were able to get, put together a database of nearly all the contracts, grants and loans that have been awarded so far in the stimulus package, and we found kind of a mixed picture.

There are some really hard-pressed counties that are getting a lot of stimulus money. And there are some really hard-pressed counties that are getting very little at this point.

A perfect example of this is Trigg County, Kentucky. It's an area that saw its unemployment rate going to 15.8 percent last month as a result of sort of the spiraling of the auto industry crisis. They had a car seat manufacturer that went out of business.

And they, in turn, now have received about -- you know, a large road project, Forest Service contracts. They've received a biomass facility or funding for a biomass facility. And it works out to -- if you tally it all up -- it works out to about $2,400 per person.

On the other end of that is LaGrange County, which is actually right next to Elkhart, hit by the same R.V. industry problem that Elkhart's having. It has the same unemployment rate as Trigg County, but it's only getting $33 a person, pretty much nothing more than the education and rural housing funds that every county is getting.

JEFFREY BROWN: So when you ask the White House or the administration for an explanation of what looks a little bit like a haphazard process here, what's the explanation?

MICHAEL GRABELL: They say that, at this point, a lot of the money that has gone out has gone through these existing channels, these existing formulas that we have in our government...."

COMMENTS ON TOMORROW'S SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST'S "EXOTIC SPECIES IN NATURAL AREAS" TOUR

While "non-native" species can be a problem, depending on what management regime one might want for a piece of land, they present a unique condition when seen in the light of "natural area management." Illinois has a state law, and at the time was the first in the nation I believe, that set up a commission to establish and protect a set of officially designated "natural areas." These can be on both public and private land, and they are mostly dependent upon being habitat for a species that is on the state of Illinois' threatened and endangered species list. Once designated, the Nature Preserves Commission works with the local IDNR natural
heritage biologist and either the land owner or the land management agency to craft a "management plan" for the specific area. Their protection has the force of law, and, in some urban areas, their consideration has caused developments to be altered.

Many of the designated natural areas are very small pieces of land of only a handful of acres that are surrounded by farmland upstate in Illinois. Unlike in the hills of Southern Illinois, they are beloved but they are subjected to heavy human intervention. Well, many of the Shawnee natural areas are also, but it's recreational overuse, for which planning and law enforcement have been ineffective in preventing, and not direct management purportedly for a particular purpose.

The Shawnee National Forest, being federal, doesn't really have to comply with the Illinois Natural Areas Law - well it's a good question anyway. They probably would tell you they don't. I don't know if the IDNR would agree with that kind of black and white analysis. But, the Shawnee does recognize the Illinois designated natural areas that are on the Shawnee in it's land and resources management plan. However, oftentimes these designations have been made with as much politics as actual on the ground conditions. There are places on the Shawnee where they have drawn arbitrary boundaries around areas and called them "natural areas" where on one side of the boundary is just like the other with no good explanation as to why one side is "natural area" and other not. And then there are places where areas subject to disturbance ended up inside natural area boundaries. 

While it is good that the areas where some of these rarer species exist are known, in reality the "natural areas" protection program is completely inadequate to deal with problems like climate change, the carbon cycle, and larger landscape issues of environmental protection such as severe fragmentation and isolation of habitats, chemical and nuclear contamination of the environment, and long term sustainability. But these problems are making it more difficult to maintain many of these areas in conditions theorized to be before white man settled. (although the accuracy of that is a whole other issue)

If a particular natural area has a condition in which a known population of rarer species is being invaded by an agressive newcomer, then that population should be removed manually, and very carefully so as to minimally disturb the environment in which the species is currently maintaining a population. That does not include using man-made chemical poisons as removal agents. These compounds don't even exist "naturally," so how can they be appropriate for "natural areas?" 

Otherwise, careful monitoring of the situation in which exotics are in natural areas to determine which components of the natural area are adapting to the exotic, how rapid the spread is, and perhaps establishing small test plots in which manual techniques for successful removal with minimum impact are studied, is a more appropriate management strategy. 

It is more appropriate because undisturbed environments provide benefits to humans just by existing. They remove CO2 from the atmosphere, collect carbon and put it in the soil, protect watersheds, provide shade cover for the earth, produce oxygen, clean particulates from the air, and are utilized by native species, even if non-native species are present. Unmanaged environments in our temperate forest area provide these "ecosystem services", which economists are starting to give dollar values, and they provide these benefits with no costs.

Heavy handed agency management, such as burning, chemical pesticides, and mechanical tree cutting, cost the public significant sums of money in planning, in materials, and in labor. In addition, when an area is burned, it allows CO2 that is being stored by the forest to be released into the environment and to go directly into the atmosphere, where already CO2 levels are nearing, according to many of the top scientists, a "tipping" point where environmental changes will become so sudden, severe and unpredictable that it will test man's ability to survive. It puts significant amounts of particulate pollution into the air. Already particulate pollution in the ambient, everyday air that we breathe are high enough, and particularly in some places, to be a threat to human health. These are but two examples of how the value of the ecosystem services after the action has been degraded by the action. 

But, land management agencies see an opportunity to fund large "exotic species control" actions. It's an action that could requires materials and manpower and planning - good for presenting in a proposed budget. It's typically the way that agencies view these kind of issues. And none of these issues are black and white. But, it is important for the public not to get sucked into a false choice that the agency will present that we either need to "treat" this area or that, but to examine the Forest Service expenditures and management activities against a backdrop of their total budget and where the money is going and not going and how that relates to the public interest. 

There are many many hundreds of "exotic species" and many of them are well established across a large geographic area. It would be a gargantuan, impossible, and extremely expensive undertaking to try and remove all of the exotic plant species, or even just the more agressive ones, across their entire ranges of existence. And, even if that were possible, which it isn't, then what would come next over such a large geographic area having been manipulated? Agencies like the Forest Service have a very poor record of accurately predicting the results of their management. They have been repeatedly wrong, and the consequences have been severe. In fact, many of the worst problems of exotic species were caused by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, of which the FS is part and parcel. And in the end, the agency says that the public benefit is to "increase biodiversity" but they have no credible way to measure it. It's a very esoteric benefit that is not apparent in day to day life, although "biodiversity" as an issue is a real issue. So the legitimate question is, with the costs, both dollars and environmental costs, and the less than apparent benefits from this expenditure to the general public, should we be spending it?

If the agency is to "maximize net public benefit," then shouldn't the priorities be to invest in making the land user friendly to the public, while protecting the ecosystem services? Isn't ultimately that what maximizes net public benefits? A more realistic and holistic look at the expenditures and priorities of the Shawnee National Forest would reveal that while careful exotic species control management does have a place in their plan, that place is modest, in the context of the tight federal budget and the federal deficit. The costs are too high and the benefits not enough. With deficits soaring and every federal dollar under review, the entire budgetary priorities for the U.S. Forest Service needs close scrutiny. The national forests are a great legacy, and yet they have been allowed to get in disrepair and are less than user friendly for a lot of the public. So let's have some close scrutiny by the legislators of what the Forest Service is doing with our tax dollars, and what the public is really getting for their money.

Jack Conway's son of a bitch comment at Fancy Farm

There is a race in the Democratic party for the nomination to run for Jim Bunning's U.S. senate seat. Bunning gave it up about a week ago when he couldn't raise any money for his reelection. Blame that on Mitch McConnell. 

The Dems have a decent chance to take that seat, even in Kentucky, which didn't vote for Obama. The primary race for the nomination is between Dan Mongiardo, currently the lt. gov. Mongiardo is pretty darn conservative. 

His opponent is Jack Conway, the attorney general of Kentucky. They had a recent split when Mongiardo wouldn't even support the pathetic "cap and trade bill" which came out of the U.S. house. And believe it - it wasn't because it was too weak. 

Conway is supporting it. But at the Fancy Farm picnic this last weekend, Conway referred to himself as a "son of a bitch" when it came to defending himself. Wow, it's stirred up a hornet's nest, and Conway today sort of apologized. I guess he felt he should with all of the news coverage.

But it's so early, I don't believe that in the long run it will hurt him. I think Mongiardo, who lost to Bunning, although closely, 6 years ago, has the stigma of loser to overcome, which is pretty big. Conway as a fresh face has an advantage. And maybe having a mean son of a bitch going against the republicans is just what we need. I don't know. I'm definitely not endorsing Conway. I'm just saying that I don't think that this SOB incident is going to be the last say in this race.

Republicans shooting themselves in the foot over Sotomayer nomination

Today mainstream news announced that John McCain, the last republican nominee for president, was not going to vote for Obama's supreme court nominee Sotomayer. This isn't going to cause Sotomayer to lose - she's in. 

But one has to wonder what McCain and the other republicans are thinking in shunning the first Hispanic nominee to the high court? Do they really think, as is reported by some media outlets, that the NRA's threat of opposing them in the next election outweighs the backlash that is to come from the hispanic population? I can't believe that someone from a state with such a significant Hispanic population would make that kind of judgment. I think that we are seeing the last of McCain in the U.S. senate.

Sunday News Shows

Although the digital age has cut me out of a couple of my favorite shows, Stephanopolous and Face the Nation, I still watch a number of news shows. While overwhelmingly, the pundits talked about health care more than anything, which I think has to make the Obama people sigh a sigh of relief, although the discussion isn't optimum. 

I have to give the interesting tidbit of the day to an interview of Chicago richdude Sam Zell in an interview on Bartiromo's show. He said that he thought there could be big problems with commercial real estate in about 3 years. I hadn't heard that anywhere else. The reason he gave was problems meeting mortgages if interest rates change, which he seemed to be implying would go up.

But most of the discussion surrounded Obama, health care, and how he is running into problems, some of them of his own making, in advancing the health care issue. I have to agree with those pundits that say that it is way too early to tell how this is going to wash out. Who would have guessed that "Mine that Bird" was going to win the Derby easily going around the halfway turn? I repeat - if the Republicans think they can base their "comeback" on blocking Obama getting something done on health care reform, they are more delusional than I thought.

The question, to me, is when a bill finally starts to ooze out of congress and look like it's getting some momentum, and it doesn't have all of the components that Obama has been saying needed to be in a bill, whether or not he is going to use his bully pulpit to have it changed, or he is just going to go along to get along? Honestly, I am not sure yet. The devil's in the details, as it usually is. 

I want to make a comment about a couple of the commentators I heard today that I am beginning to think are exceptional. One is Eugene Robinson, an African American commentator from the Washington Post, who was on Chris Matthews. The other is Nina Totenberg, long time NPR reporter who is on "Inside Washington." Both of these folks speak the truth with a common intelligence and I am liking them more and more.

"Beer Summit" a bit of a letdown

I don't if anyone else felt this way, but I thought the beer summit fell a little flat. I don't know if the beer was flat or not, but I do note that up until the end the mainstream media had reported that Gates was having a Red Stripe - an appropriate choice I thought. But then there were interviews with the Sam Adams brewery guy, who brews out of Boston, asking him why neither of these Boston guys was having a Sam Adams, and low and behold, when the meeting actually happens, it's reported that Gates is having a Sam Adams. Go figure?

Ok, it's been pretty much settled that both Gates and Crowley acted less than completely honorably at the time of the incident. My sympathy still goes toward Gates cause he was in his home and the home is supposed to be sacred in the U.S. But no doubt the cops don't need their job to be harder than it is. 

But what's this conflict between the woman's statements that actually called in the report, and the 911 call transcripts, and Crowley's written reports? If Crowley truly added, falsely, that the report had been that there were two "black" men, that is serious in my mind. It has all kinds of implications.

But the USA, in their last story covering it, as well as a number of other major media, only reported the discrepancy without delving into it more. I wonder why? 

I wanted the meeting to be open to the public. They didn't allow that. Bad choice. If they wanted a teachable moment that went anywhere, we all needed to be included, not roped off tens of yards away where we couldn't hear what was going on. There's a time for confidentiality, and a time to let it all hang out. This was a time for the latter, and I think a great opportunity was missed and the whole thing fizzed out a bit.

Sunday News Shows

Of course, the biggest subjects on the news shows today were health care and the Prof. Gates arrest and Obama's comments at the press conference. There is no doubt, as I, and every other pundit has said, that the mainstream media jumped on Obama's comments at his press conference earlier in the week, and elevated the racial profiling issue to the front of the news cycle and pushed back the health care debate. Obviously this isn't what Obama wanted. 

But I am starting to think that there is an organized effort by the republicans to try and damage Obama and protect the insurance companies by repeating the mantra that "the more the public knows about health care reform the more they are turning against it." I think that is a bunch of BS. I'd like to know what makes them think that. 

The public is desperate for relief on the health care front. Everything from the difficulty of getting coverage, the cost of premiums, the red tape, and the deductibles and out of pocket expenses makes the system hard to access and navigate, especially if one has a chronic illness. 

I believe that an overwhelming majority of people are on the edge of their seats hoping against hope that meaningful health insurance reform happens that either makes it possible for them to get coverage or makes their current coverage easier and more affordable and stable. If the republicans think they can base a political strategy against Obama based on trying to block health insurance, I believe that is a strategy that will fail, and fail badly. 

As far as the racial profiling incident goes, I believe that the police have been allowed to have too much power in our country for so long now that they oftentimes have a difficult time knowing when they have gone too far. I'm not saying that's an excuse, and sometimes that power is exercised vindictively or as the result of bias or prejudice, which shouldn't be tolerated, but they are just so used to being the ones calling the shots in any kind of situation that their sense of judgment is clouded when they feel threatened, either physically or emotionally. A physical threat is one thing, but an emotional one is not grounds for mistreating a person in their own home.

My opinion is that the policeman went too far and should have backed off when he learned that it was Gates and he was in his own home. I watched the cop being interviewed on TV, and I thought he came off as shaky. The fact that his fellow policemen supported him is as predictable as the sun coming up. Nevertheless, Obama did put the police on the defensive by saying they acted "stupidly." They did, but there were more diplomatic ways to say it, especially if you are president. 

There was interesting, albeit short discussion on Chris Matthews about a Time Magazine expose about the rift that formed between Bush and Cheney in the latter days of the administration over Bush's refusal to give Scooter Libby a full pardon. Time says that Bush did his own independent investigation and determined that Libby had lied, and didn't want his legacy tied to that and thus, didn't pardon him. Cheney was very upset. Michelle Norris, from NPR, commented astutely that it was too bad that Bush hadn't done that kind of independent investigation of the Iraq situation before launching the invasion in March, 2003. 

It's sad that I'm no longer able to get Stephanopolous or Face the Nation, thanks to the digital divide. Something needs to be done about that.

International Crane Foundation (ICF)

Last weekend, while visiting Kristi's folks, we all took about an hour drive to the northwest to visit a place Kristi and I have always wanted to visit - the "International Crane Foundation," just north of Baraboo, Wisconsin.  http://www.savingcranes.org/

No, I don't mean the kind of cranes that lift heavy things to upper floors of tall buildings. I mean the kind of cranes that fly and have long necks and beaks. I mean crane birds. Cranes are large birds that have long necks, long beaks, and occur around the world. There are 15 species of cranes around the world, and many of them are in trouble, because they compete with human populations for food such as fish and grain. In addition, they often are very specialized in their habitats, and have long migration routes which have lots of danger. 

The ICF was formed by two young men who had a passion about these birds. One of their parents let them use some family land to establish the foundation. Somehow, they have been able, through international efforts, to obtain, care for, and successfully breed pairs of all 15 species. They apparently supply reintroducction efforts all around the world. 

At the Foundation's site, they have all 15 species on display, although not all of them will absolutely be out and visible at all times. But we were fortunate to be able to see most of them. While most pairs are enclosed in fenced in areas (including top fences to keep them from flying off), two species were out in open areas. One of those species was the highly endangered whooping cranes, from the U.S. I posted a photo recently of one of the whooping cranes that are available for viewing, if you happen to be there.

While it was a little zoo like to see these beautiful, large birds in cages, including cages above to keep them from flying, it was good to see them and know that there are strong efforts to protect them and keep them going. 

One of the species, the "Sarus" Crane from Siberia, stood taller than me. Their profile said that they were sometimes 6' tall. I believe it. They are impressive birds.

The U.S. has two species of cranes - the highly endangered whooping cranes and the more common sandhill cranes. Both are large, impressive, beautiful birds. The whooping cranes have made the news in the last several years because of the skillful efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to imprint the young coming from the artificially inseminated mom with dolls that look pretty much like natural whooping cranes. Then, after imprinting them, they fly them down near Kissimmee Florida, leading them with an ultra light plane, which the young ones have been trained to follow. Thus far, for the most part, it's been successful even though there have been setbacks. 

Following I'm going to post a picture from the Foundation. This photo is sort of a landscape of some of the outdoor compartments that they keep the cranes in. We were very impressed by their work. If you get a chance, visit there and see what they are doing.

This is a general view of the grounds of the International Crane Foundation http://www.savingcranes.org/ just north of Baraboo, Wisconsin. This gives you an idea about how the facility is laid out. It's an impressive place!

Obama caves in a bit on the Gates racial profiling

Obama, pretty consistent with what I predicted, contacted the policeman that arrested Gates in Cambridge, and Gates himself. He did backtrack a bit and said that he hadn't used the right language when he said that the Cambridge police acted "stupidly." 

The fact is that the police, while they do have a difficult job a lot of the times, do make mistakes and human bias plays significantly into these mistakes. It is good when a high level official like the president calls them on it. Your home is supposed to be "sacred" and only subject to disruption by police for the most egregious of reasons. I agree that once it had been determined that Gates was in his own home, that he should have been left alone. And that belief comes from having experienced my home being violated by police in the worst way.

I guess Obama didn't have a choice. The mainstream media loves these kinds of controversies that are stir up trouble, and were saturating the waves with discussion of this. While it is good that the country gets more aware of racial profiling and how biases affect police behavior, it is a disservice to the public that the press got off of health care for this. Health care reform should be the issue of the moment. Hopefully the press will get back onto it.

I want Obama, Crowley (interesting that he has the same last name as Monica from McLaughlin Group, the conservative radical) and Gates to have that beer, and the mainstream media should interrupt their programs and broadcast every word said between them. That may very well do more to heal racial wounds in this country than most things.

Endangered Whooping Crane

This is a photo of an endangered whooping crane taken at the International Crane Foundation just north of Baraboo, Wisconsin. Kristi and I visited there last weekend. I'm going to write a post about our visit there, but I wanted to post the photo of the whooping crane, because they aren't that common to see, even in captivity.

The Morning After

I had the local news tuned in when the Today Show came on this morning. I was curious about how the Today Show, which is, for better or worse, sort of the "consummate" American show of it's genre, and it delivers the top headlines to a lot of Americans. 

So what was the top headline? Was it "healthcare?" It should have been considering about 90% or more of the press conference was on that subject. But NOOOOOOOOOOOO!, as John Belushi would say. They focused on Obama saying that the Cambridge policeman that arrested Professor Gates had acted "stupidly." It's the typical sensationalism that defines shows like the Today Show and commentators like Matt Lauer. 

I thought that might happen and was why I made the comments I did in my previous column. I figure that Obama and his people knew exactly what would happen if he made such comments, so he must have wanted to make news on this front and felt that he had the time to squeeze it in. He also admitted up front that Gates was a "friend" of his and that he was biased.

The Fox News TV network has posted a story picked up by Google news http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/23/police-officer-obama-butt-arr...
quoting the policeman as basically saying that Obama should stay out of it, and that it was a "local" issue. While that may rally the anti-Obama crowd, it's dangerous to try and take on a popular president. Obama has a way of disarming his "enemies." I can just see it - a visit to the White House with a discussion of the issues - a press conference - media saturation - it's perfect for the Obama team. This policeman is about to become political fodder. And for that, he is stupid. 

But the big time media is stupid too for letting the sensationalism be the top story. Should it be covered - yes, of course - it's an important story. But should it have been the top story on Today? Not at all. Especially when Williams, Gregory, and Todd did not elevate the story immediately after the press conference last night. To me, that shows a deliberate effort to elevate the issue by brass at NBC overnight.

Obama's press conference tonight

All of those white house reporters were sitting there listening to Obama spit out all this info about what is going on with the health care (and other issues) and thinking to themselves - "geez, this guy is a lot smarter than me." If they weren't, their egos are out of control.

Hey, it isn't that I think Obama is doing everything perfect. I've criticized him before and will continue to do so. But it is apparent to me that the guy is incredibly intelligent, and that he wants he wants to be the Roosevelt of his era. He seems to truly be out for the little guy and gal. 

There are a lot more little guys and gals in our society than there are otherwise. If they decide to step up and strongly support Obama then the wealthier minority will have few choices left. I thought Obama said several things that were pretty controversial. I'm going to wait and see what the mainstream media reports. Then I'll comment on it. I listened to Brian Williams, David Gregory, and Chuck Todd, talk for a few minutes afterward, and they ignored the controversies and went to some of the substantial issues in the health care issues. That was encouraging, but we'll have to wait till the morning after. The big issue, according to Gregory, was that Obama said that he wanted everyone covered in his health issurance plan. 

And that was a big surprise? Geez, those guys missed a chance. But let's see what bubbles to the surface. I thought it was Obama pretty much at his best. He has conquered the back and forth, reading the teleprompters head movements that have characterized previous speeches. His mental capacity to delve into a number of issues and have command over them all at the same time is pretty impressive, to say the least.

Anyone who doesn't think that our health care system is pretty messed up hasn't had to use it in one form or another. It's worse than what Obama was saying. And Mitch McConnell says, "we don't want to rush it." Oh, hasn't it been like 20 years or more since we have been talking about reforming this broken system? I don't call that a hurry. That's delay and obfuscation, and McConnell shares a lot of the blame for it. And, the Republicans are playing a high risk game in playing politics with this.

YellowRedYellow: Gladiolas in Full Sun

These are some beautiful glads that were ablaze in color in full sun a couple weeks ago. Alack and alas, they are no longer in full bloom. This is incredible color.

Sunday News Shows

I watched a number of Sunday news shows today. I already wrote about the McLaughlin group, which I saw Friday evening. For the moment, until we solve our antenna issue, we have been limited to talk shows that are on NBC and PBS, which are pretty numerous. We've lost Stephanopolous and Face the Nation, which I regret but that's the way it is. Hopefully in the future that can be fixed. Living in a rural area like we do means that in terms of connectivity that we are like a third world country. Our dialup internet connection barely functions, and we don't have access to cable TV. I guess we could get satellite, but I'm not really interested in that kind of intrusion. 

Today, the major subjects were Obama's poll numbers and the lag in the economy, health care legislation, and Palin for the most part. 

Obama has slipped in the polls compared to his early numbers. That's not really surprising. But, and the administration's spin meisters can spin it here and yonder, the economy hasn't yet responded to the "stimulus" with any great gusto. Biden said that "everyone" got it wrong in terms of how bad it is. Oh Oh. He shouldn't have said that! They have one poll in Ohio on the economy which shows Obama under 50%

For once, though, I have to agree (gag me with a spoon) with Charles Krauthamer, who said that his poll numbers now don't matter, and what Obama is looking for is some recovery late next year before the mid-term elections. Nina Totenberg speculated that Obama could be looking at losing seats in congress. Of course, that is normal for a 1st term president, but I think it's way too soon to be saying anything like that.

A lot of the pundits are saying that the economic mess is now Obama's to own. I don't necessarily agree with that. The problems are so severe, and combined with any number of messes that Bush left Obama, I think most people believe that Obama is trying, is intelligent, and are not ready to judge him adversely yet. 

But, this ties in with the interview that Maria B. from Wall Street Journal Report had with Paul Krugman. I only hope that continued criticism from blogs like this one pushed NBC to make her interview a point of view other than her big shot CEO corporate buddies. Geez, she and her rich friends are so out of touch with most of America.

Krugman has been consistent in saying from the beginning that Obama's "stimulus" bill wasn't going to be enough. He repeated his oft made call for more stimulus. But more interestingly, he said one thing that I hadn't heard anyone else say - and that is that the cost of the health care bill was insignificant compared with the total projected cost of healthcare in the U.S. for the next decade. Many politicians are flogging the cost of health care reform as a reason to abandon change. A Nobel Prize winning economist saying that the cost was minor undercuts totally the political exploitation of the issue. Bartiromo didn't say a word. One thing that was expressed more than once was that Obama, who decided early on that letting congress come up with the health care reform stood a better chance of getting thru if it was initiated by congress, is going to have to get involved and take a stand eventually and "knock heads around" in congress if he really wants something to pass. Perhaps it isn't quite time yet, but the time is near, and I believe that is correct.

Most of the pundits believe that Palin has been hurt politically, and will forever, on the political front, be labelled a quitter - a label that will stop her from getting very far. I agree. I hate to even mention her. She is so shallow and not worthy of the attention. I couldn't believe that McCain, on Meet the Press, still is defending her. Of course, he is right, although he didn't mention it specifically, but sort of generally referred to it, that his statement, the morning that Lehman Bros. collapsed, that the economy was "fundamentally strong" was the main cause of his campaign failure. 

One thing I have to note, because I think we will see the term in the future, is that Helene Cooper, on Chris Matthews, sort of stumbled on her words, talking about how the team of David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel spins events well to keep Obama out of too much trouble, and seemed to refer to them as "AxelRahm." That's what I thought I heard, and it was noted on the show. If that term takes hold, she could very well get credited with coining it. 

All in all, I give it the "slow news day" rating.

McLaughlin Group tonight

I have to say that the McLaughlin Group discussion was pretty milktoast tonight. Obama's meeting with Russian leaders and Palin (oh pulease!) were the top discussion points. Boring. 

Monica Crowley wasn't there. She was replaced by an overweight white male from something called the Washington Examiner. Never heard of it. He was a cliche of himself. Come on McLaughlin, summer is tough, but you can do better than that.

OK, OK, there was one part that we had to give McLaughlin credit for - he did recognize Michael Jackson's philantrophy and said he should be credited for it. Thanks for that John. I've already written about Michael Jackson's passing on my myspace page. www.myspace.com/markdonhammusic . I liked Michael. But the conservative press especially has beat up on his a lot. So I was a bit surprised by McLaughlin's outreach. Is that called "compassionate conservatism?" The republican party would do well to listen to McLaughlin more, and Limbaugh less. But even that isn't going to help them that much in the short run.

Sunday News No Show - I Watched Wimbledon instead

I still can't believe that Paxton media cancels Chris Matthews and allows "Hometime" to be shown when they have something like the Wimbledon finals interrupting their Sunday morning schedule. That tells you a lot about the priorities of the their company.

I gave up on the news shows, though, and tuned into the Federer/Roddick Wimbledon final. I do have a more than average insight into these matches, because, in another lifetime, many years ago, I was an accomplished tennis player for my age and demographic and economic category. I don't play much these days, but I understand the game.

It was hard for me to decide for whom to cheer on to victory. I have always admired Federer. He's the epitome of the great sportsman - gentlemanly, consistent, calm, and usually performing at the highest level. 

Roddick, on the other hand, had always not reached his potential - always a bit of a disappointment - although undoubtedly really great at his sport. But, the sports reporters had said that he had taken a new coach recently who had him under a new training regime, and his attitude and strategies had changed. I could tell.

In many ways, Roddick should have won. In many ways he outplayed Federer. He fell short in one important category - winning. 

There's a psychology that goes into such a match. An underdog like Roddick has to truly believe that he/she can win against what they know is the better player. That's a steep mountain to climb. Roddick tried valiantly. Federer hit some easy forehands into the net throughout the match, and I wondered where his mind was. 

But as we got deeper into the magical 5th set, I kept noting to Kristi that Federer was beginning to consistently win more points on Roddick's serve than Roddick was winning on Federers. I said that did not bode well for Roddick. I guess I was right. I felt a bit of sadness for Roddick, but his sadness will pass quickly when he gets his hefty 2nd place paycheck, and he realizes that he is part of one of the greatest matches of all times. 

Congratulations to Roger Federer. He's a great athlete - few have his mental and emotional control - especially under pressure - and he deserves all the accolades. He did, in fact, win fair and square. 

There were lots of weird bounces and McEnroe, one of NBC's announcers, said he had never seen the court so dry. The servers were serving aces like I've seen. If this doesn't open some eyes to climate change, what will? 

I watched the women's final between Venus and Serena Williams the morning before. Serena played better and deserved the win. I never know which sister to favor. I like them both. They are incredible women, the both of them. 

I have never played on grass. I have a hard time imagining it. And the haughtiness of Wimbledon is a bit over the top. But it is the top tournament on the big time tennis circuit. This year's singles finals were worthy of the top tournament. I enjoyed watching them both.

Sunday News shows

I watched several news shows today. The topics were pretty much the same across the shows that I watched. (1) Health Care reform; (2) Iran; (3) Michael Jackson, and (4) Mark Sanford. 

The McLaughlin Group had an interesting twist on the health care issue. McLaughlin asked whether or not Obama represented a "realignment" in U.S. politics. He defined realignment as a significant shift in party control over the politics with major changes that last at least 25 years. McLaughlin himself said that Obama does represent a realignment. He compared it to LBJ. I guess I was too young to understand the major changes that LBJ brought to U.S. politics. I think it's too soon to say about Obama.

Chris Matthews had the most interesting discussion about Iran. They actually got down to discussing whether or not Iran was heading for war with the West. Wow! I mean, that's the 800 lb.
gorilla in the room, but no one is wanting to talk about it. And, no one on Matthews panel wanted to admit this might happen. But the fact that Matthews brought it up means it is being talked about. Scary stuff.

Of course Israel took out Iraq's nuclear facility a couple decades ago, but this is a horse of a different color. Most analysts that I have heard talk about this say that it is going to be difficult if not impossible to take out Iran's facilities because they are underground and no one knows for sure exactly where they are. 

If we or anyone aligned with us attacks Iran, we can expect terrorist attacks and whatever for the foreseeable future. They are a powerful nation and have a lot of resources. And, as they say, "all's fair in love in war." They will do whatever they think they can accomplish and will hurt us. 

But Obama has staked some political capital on talking to Iraq. But now he's faced with talking to an administration that the major western media has now defined as oppressive and anti-democratic, regardless of what the real outcome of the election was - and I sure can't answer that question. A number of mainstream U.S. media have conceded that Ahmadinajad had actually won the election. And lets not kid ourselves. U.S. police have cracked down on much lesser protests in the U.S. using
violence. 

But Obama is a bit boxed in here. If he meets with Iran, he's supporting oppression. But if he doesn't meet with them, he's going back on a campaign promise, and not talking isn't working. 

As far as Michael Jackson goes, I wrote a piece on his death on my MySpace page www.myspace.com/markdonhammusic . And Sanford...what can you say? He's a nutcase. How do people like him get to be governor?

Health Care Reform in Congress

I read a really great article in yesterday's New York Times business section about what is going on with health care reform in congress. The by line was for Jackie Calmes. I don't think I had heard that name before. But, in combination with all the other news coverage of what is going on, it stiched a lot of things together for me.

Apparently all of the public concern about the deficit, which the republicans are trying feabily to exploit, got Obama to take a position that health care "reform" has to be payed for and not add to the deficit. Congress didn't really want Obama to insist on that, because that means they have to actually make some harder choices about either raising funds or cutting something somewhere else.

According to this article and other sources, congress is discussing three different ways to raise the money - (1) taxing upper income people more, (2) including all or some of the money that employees get for health care policies from their employers as taxable income, or (3) sin taxes, such as on beer, tobacco, and soft drinks. 

All of these ways of raising money are feasible, but all have supposedly "politically powerful" interest groups that are adamantly against it for a number of reasons. The top Democrat on the Senate Finance committee, Baucus, which is taking this up, isn't keen on any of the ideas because he can't get republican buy in. 

They should use all three methods to raise the money to pay for health care. But there are also a lot of places in the federal budget to pick up savings - military, public land management, farm subsidies. It doesn't have to be drastic either on the revenue or the cost side, but if the trends were going in the right direction, it would blunt much of the impact that a flat out deficit funding would have. This would do as much or more to improve the economy than most things. It would befuddle the republicans, who would have a hard time opposing it. 

Another aspect of this that has gotten a lot of airplay is the so-called "public or single payer option." This is a government run health care program that would compete with the insurance companies. I thought maybe Obama would not stand firm for this, but it seems like he's trying to get it in the bill. The republicans like to call it socialism. That's so lame. So much of our society is already "socialist" under their definition, and much of it was instituted by their people!

It's going to be interesting to see how it all comes out. If the Dems don't have the guts to actually raise the money and work out some cost cutting measures in order to make the program a "paygo" program, and the reform effort fails like past efforts, it will cost both parties in the longer term. But any side that looks like they aren't willing to give a little for the benefit of the nation, is going to be scorned and seen in low esteemed.The health care system is really bad - it's not based on compassion - it's based on profit. It's not based on efficiency, it's based on maximizing treatments. It's complicated and for the seriously ill, it's too much to deal with when you are trying to get well. Oh, and did I say that it is tremendously expensive?

Congress, quit listening to lobbyists and do the right thing. Pass true health care reform and raise the money to pay for it. The people will support you.

Brookport Phlox Festival?

Brookport, Illinois is my "hometown" I guess, as much as I have one. It's been my mailing address for about 30 years, although I don't live in town. But, because of the geography and the Ohio River, the Brookport rural mail routes are very large and not that many people. That's where I live. But I consider myself a Brookportian.

Brookport is directly across the river from Paducah, Kentucky, at the foot of the Brookport Bridge, an amazing structure carrying U.S. Highway 45 across the Ohio that opened in 1929.  http://bridgehunter.com/il/massac/brookport/
I will say this. It's old, it's narrow, and it's long. But the view is stunning and I feel a lot safer on the Brookport bridge than I do on the nearby I-24 bridge.

Brookport is a town of about a thousand people. It isn't a very "quaint" town, or scenic, or with a nice square. The downtown isn't well defined. It's stretched along and a few blocks either side of Hwy 45 as it comes off the bridge. A lot of the historic buildings are gone, although some remain. The view of the river is blocked by the concrete flood wall. You just have to see it to know what I mean. Most people would consider it depressed and poor. But I know it as a town with many great people who care about their town and are trying to make it better. It's about as far away from power centers in Illinois as you can get, and really is more a part of Kentucky than Illinois. Because of these anomalies, Brookport as a unit has little political influence and has been left to itself to deal with its day to day problems.

A couple years ago, Brookport got some grant money to hold a series of town meetings to try and figure out what it could do to improve the town. I went to several of the meetings. It isn't easy, because the bank owns some key property which is a parking lot which is the heart of the town when people come off the bridge. 

Old gas stations which have environmental issues and sit vacant and can't get rented also dot this stretch. It's difficult to figure out what to do. And, not much has come out of these series of meetings, although it was obvious that people did care.

But I think what the town should do is to start propogating the phlox that I showed in the previous photo entry. Every space where it is possible to plant something along the main downtown roads should be lined with these phlox. Actually, every road in town should be lined with these phlox. And there are probably other varieties of phlox with other colors and bloom timings that could add to this. 

Then, when they are in full bloom, have a phlox festival. Encourage people to come to Brookport to view the phlox-lined streets. The city could sell phlox starts to raise money, and have some events, music and art, for example to go with the festival. I guarantee you that it would generate some money for the town. 

I didn't advance that idea at those series of meetings because I hadn't thought of it. But I thought of it now, and while kind of a wild idea, is it really? It may be just the right idea. Obviously, these gorgeous phlox grow great in Brookport. As they say, "if you got it, flaunt it," and what could you flaunt that would be more beautiful?