Leaders in the Roman Empire used bread and circuses to distract the populace from more pressing issues. Likewise, President Obama is becoming increasingly adept at misdirection to avoid discussing topics he either cannot answer or does not want to confront. Consider the past three weeks: the federal budget is a mess, states are in similar bad straits, the Middle East is on the verge of either revolution or implosion, gas prices are spiking, and unemployment remains high.
The White House response? Two weeks ago, it was an announcement that the Defense of Marriage Act would no longer be defended in court. Last week, the Oval used its clout to speak out against bullying in schools. And this week, POTUS vowed to defend gender equality. Can you say "the re-election campaign is underway." How else to explain the highlighting of three issues that fly below the public's current-day radar? And to compound matters, they are directed at three constituencies - the gay community, teachers unions, and feminists - who are as reliably pro-Obama as the labor unions. Curiously, the unions actually are involved in a discussion of national significance, but the president has not had much to say on that. At least publicly. Given the frequency with which the head of the AFL-CIO visits the White House, however, there could be plenty of discussion afoot.
I realize being president is a tough job but I keep hoping that, at some point, Mr. Obama will understand that has actually won the job. Two years ago. When a corner of the world is in a state of multi-national upheaval, people everywhere expect to hear the President of the United States say something, even if it as benign as declaring America's unwavering support of individual liberty and freedom. We do not need to take up arms in Libya, Yemen, or any other Arab country; people there should plot their own destiny. But we should at least give voice to the notion of self-determination in a part of the globe that has never seen it. If people give the impression of trying to escape oppression, that has historically be the sort of thing the Oval Office supported, even if the support was only rhetorical.
Meanwhile, the budget debate (if it can be called such) continues in Congress with Dems and Repubs debating whether $60-billion or $6-billion is a more suitable reduction, from a budget of nearly 4-trillion dollars. Put a calculator to either set of proposed cuts. It is like debating what type of floor mat to put in your Bentley. If neither side is serious about actually cutting spending, and there is no reason to believe that either is, then say so and be done with it. Tell Americans they can expect continually-expanding government until far more than the 35% of US paychecks are made up of taxpayer dollars. Tell us the whole country will be one giant nanny state, where our minders will dictate the light bulbs we use, foods we eat, cars we drive, and eventually, thoughts we think.
Rome's ignoring of genuine issues led to the fall of the empire. Already, America is in a state of decline whether it wants to admit it or not. One reason is the unwillingness of elected leaders to face the problems they were elected to solve. The elephant in the living room does not disappear simply because one pretends it does not exist. The world is changing around us and the Senate Majority Leader worries about the demise of a cowboy poetry festival, the House Speaker and some of his deputies are consumed with abortion, and the President apparently stays up nights worrying about schoolkids being bullied. And, all three wonder why some of us take none of them seriously.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Wanted: Leaders, Not Politicians
We are living the Chinese proverb of being in interesting times and it is a golden era of sorts for America's chattering class. It is also a missed opportunity for the leadership class, which continues its sorry habit of trying to make things appear to be everything but what they really are. No one disputes that the nation's spending addiction is a dead-end road; yet, few people are willing to do anything that even remotely resembles a fiscal intervention.
The president proposed a budget of nearly 4-trillion dollars that, once again, ignored the elephant in the living room. Despite his own rhetoric, during the '08 campaign and even during his presidency, of the need to get the country's finances in order, he put forth a spending proposal that includes hiring 5,000 more IRS agents and continuing the boondoggle of high speed rail. In Congress, the idea of trimming less than 100-million dollars - from a budget of ALMOST FOUR TRILLION - has caused convulsions among some who consider every taxpayer dollar that is earned to be government money awaiting confiscation.
Looming is a vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling, falsely portrayed as something that could cause the nation to default on its obligations. Fresh, grade-A BS. Let me ask you this - when you max out your credit card, does that free you from paying the balance that is due? Of course, not; and the country would similarly have to pay its bills. Not raising the debt ceiling means the government cannot simply borrow even more money. Put another way - when you hit your credit card max, can you call the company and ask for your limit to be raised? Doubtful. Raising the debt ceiling is akin to borrowing from Peter to pay Paul; the downside is that you wind up owing Peter more than he lent you because of interest. When the amounts being discussed are in the billions and trillions of dollars, interest is a hefty sum.
Then, there is the issue of public sector unions in several states. Curiously, the states enduring the most crushing problems are the ones with the largest obligations to public employees. There is likely a correlation there but I could be wrong. Regardless, here is my question: why should membership in a union be a requirement for working in the public sector? And does it seem curious that the consistently pro-choice Democrat Party has an issue with people making choices on the most personal of things? Second, does it seem fair to you that, along with compulsory membership, union dues are automatically deducted from an employee's paycheck, whether the employee is okay with that or not? Third, this process reeks of conflict of interest and here's how: the union dues are typically used to fund electoral campaigns of Democrat officials, though it would be just as wrong if the money went toward Republican candidates. In essence, unions siphon off taxpayer dollars in order to give to the campaigns of politicians whom they will lobby later for even more taxpayer dollars. That's not the democratic process, that is a Mafia-style protection racket.
Voters spoke loudly and clearly in November, screaming "no" to more government spending. Whether you agree or disagree with that is immaterial. Elections have consequences; we spent two years hearing that from a Congressional majority that rammed through as many things as possible, public opinion be damned. With the shoe firmly on the other foot, the same folks are now squawking about bipartisanship, compromise, and negotiation. Here's a clue: how about the lot of you stop acting like children, stop treating the federal treasury and state budgets as your personal slush funds, and do what even elementary school kids know has to be done.
It's called leadership and I realize that it is a scarce commodity among the political class. Today's soundbite culture makes it easy to vilify anyone who proposes anything that smacks of responsible government. And, responsible government can happen; I have seen it done by honorable men and women who realized that compromise is not a dirty word. It just means no one gets everything they want; at the same time, action that benefits the masses winds up being taken. Stop with talk of government shutdowns, stop running away to other states to avoid your constitutional responsibility, and stop whining and talking past each other. In short, do your damn jobs. No one made you run for office; politics is a choice. So is being responsible.
The president proposed a budget of nearly 4-trillion dollars that, once again, ignored the elephant in the living room. Despite his own rhetoric, during the '08 campaign and even during his presidency, of the need to get the country's finances in order, he put forth a spending proposal that includes hiring 5,000 more IRS agents and continuing the boondoggle of high speed rail. In Congress, the idea of trimming less than 100-million dollars - from a budget of ALMOST FOUR TRILLION - has caused convulsions among some who consider every taxpayer dollar that is earned to be government money awaiting confiscation.
Looming is a vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling, falsely portrayed as something that could cause the nation to default on its obligations. Fresh, grade-A BS. Let me ask you this - when you max out your credit card, does that free you from paying the balance that is due? Of course, not; and the country would similarly have to pay its bills. Not raising the debt ceiling means the government cannot simply borrow even more money. Put another way - when you hit your credit card max, can you call the company and ask for your limit to be raised? Doubtful. Raising the debt ceiling is akin to borrowing from Peter to pay Paul; the downside is that you wind up owing Peter more than he lent you because of interest. When the amounts being discussed are in the billions and trillions of dollars, interest is a hefty sum.
Then, there is the issue of public sector unions in several states. Curiously, the states enduring the most crushing problems are the ones with the largest obligations to public employees. There is likely a correlation there but I could be wrong. Regardless, here is my question: why should membership in a union be a requirement for working in the public sector? And does it seem curious that the consistently pro-choice Democrat Party has an issue with people making choices on the most personal of things? Second, does it seem fair to you that, along with compulsory membership, union dues are automatically deducted from an employee's paycheck, whether the employee is okay with that or not? Third, this process reeks of conflict of interest and here's how: the union dues are typically used to fund electoral campaigns of Democrat officials, though it would be just as wrong if the money went toward Republican candidates. In essence, unions siphon off taxpayer dollars in order to give to the campaigns of politicians whom they will lobby later for even more taxpayer dollars. That's not the democratic process, that is a Mafia-style protection racket.
Voters spoke loudly and clearly in November, screaming "no" to more government spending. Whether you agree or disagree with that is immaterial. Elections have consequences; we spent two years hearing that from a Congressional majority that rammed through as many things as possible, public opinion be damned. With the shoe firmly on the other foot, the same folks are now squawking about bipartisanship, compromise, and negotiation. Here's a clue: how about the lot of you stop acting like children, stop treating the federal treasury and state budgets as your personal slush funds, and do what even elementary school kids know has to be done.
It's called leadership and I realize that it is a scarce commodity among the political class. Today's soundbite culture makes it easy to vilify anyone who proposes anything that smacks of responsible government. And, responsible government can happen; I have seen it done by honorable men and women who realized that compromise is not a dirty word. It just means no one gets everything they want; at the same time, action that benefits the masses winds up being taken. Stop with talk of government shutdowns, stop running away to other states to avoid your constitutional responsibility, and stop whining and talking past each other. In short, do your damn jobs. No one made you run for office; politics is a choice. So is being responsible.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Dad would have enjoyed it
My father would have enjoyed watching Auburn raise that crystal trophy this week. He had seats at Jordan-Hare when it was still Cliff Hare Stadium with one end zone still open. My earliest memory of watching the Tigers was when the defense intercepted Florida's John Reaves 9 times in an upset win back in '69. In those days, fans could walk down onto the field and exit underneath the stands in the corners of the end where the dressing room sits. No dogs, no yellow-coated security guards, and no people acting stupid. It was mostly a treat for the kids to be on the grass their Saturday heroes had just trampled.
Auburn never won a national title during that time. There were the undefeated years of '93 and '04, several Iron Bowl wins, and some other big games, but never that one season where the combination of good play and good fortune united for the whole year. Then came 2010, perhaps the most unlikely season in which Auburn would rule college football. Dad died almost a year ago but he was curious as to what the upcoming season might hold. Honest Auburn fans will tell you they approached this season with optimism but not overconfidence and, for many, 9 - 10 wins seemed a reasonable expectation between the advantage of the schedule and the anticipation of a couple of breaks going our way. Perhaps I should have known it would be different on opening night.
Our seats were the second and third from the aisle; the aisle seat had one of those pre-installed chairbacks some ticket holders pay for, but whoever arranged that didn't show that night. Or at the next home game. Or the one after that. My bride and I took turns using the seat and it is nice to be able to lean back from time to time. It was her idea that the empty seat was more than a seating chart mistake, that it was a purposeful act. It was dad's seat and he would take the ride with us, week in and week out, win or lose. Obviously, lose never came, with an overtime thriller followed by turnover-filled victory as Auburn became the unlikely South Carolina state champion setting up the year's two decisive home games.
The scores you already know, but my brother, who came in for the LSU game, walked away with the same feeling my wife had - there was something about that seat that had been paid for and equipped with a seatback, yet no one claiming it. It had to be dad's spot and surely he was enjoying not just the team winning but the excitement the Tigers and their big kid of a quarterback were generating. How could any long-time fan not get swept up in the excitement of a player seemingly having the time of his life and wanting an entire stadium to know about it.
Perhaps the real key that the seat belonged to dad was the Auburn seemed to master the football question he always asked - how come teams don't have a special play for short yardage that is a virtual lock? Sending a back into a pile or running a sneak is never guaranteed to be successful and, time and again, he would ask how it was that a team could fail to pick up 6 inches or two feet. This year provided the answer - you put a 6-foot-6, 250 pound quarterback in the shotgun, after the snap he takes two steps forward, and dives over the pile. First down. Or touchdown. Worked every time. Without fail. Of course, the challenge becomes finding a player to replicate that feat game after game, year after year. But, for one season at least, that nagging question was answered. And for one season at least, the Tigers won the last game of the year. I hope dad enjoyed the season as much as the rest of us did.
Auburn never won a national title during that time. There were the undefeated years of '93 and '04, several Iron Bowl wins, and some other big games, but never that one season where the combination of good play and good fortune united for the whole year. Then came 2010, perhaps the most unlikely season in which Auburn would rule college football. Dad died almost a year ago but he was curious as to what the upcoming season might hold. Honest Auburn fans will tell you they approached this season with optimism but not overconfidence and, for many, 9 - 10 wins seemed a reasonable expectation between the advantage of the schedule and the anticipation of a couple of breaks going our way. Perhaps I should have known it would be different on opening night.
Our seats were the second and third from the aisle; the aisle seat had one of those pre-installed chairbacks some ticket holders pay for, but whoever arranged that didn't show that night. Or at the next home game. Or the one after that. My bride and I took turns using the seat and it is nice to be able to lean back from time to time. It was her idea that the empty seat was more than a seating chart mistake, that it was a purposeful act. It was dad's seat and he would take the ride with us, week in and week out, win or lose. Obviously, lose never came, with an overtime thriller followed by turnover-filled victory as Auburn became the unlikely South Carolina state champion setting up the year's two decisive home games.
The scores you already know, but my brother, who came in for the LSU game, walked away with the same feeling my wife had - there was something about that seat that had been paid for and equipped with a seatback, yet no one claiming it. It had to be dad's spot and surely he was enjoying not just the team winning but the excitement the Tigers and their big kid of a quarterback were generating. How could any long-time fan not get swept up in the excitement of a player seemingly having the time of his life and wanting an entire stadium to know about it.
Perhaps the real key that the seat belonged to dad was the Auburn seemed to master the football question he always asked - how come teams don't have a special play for short yardage that is a virtual lock? Sending a back into a pile or running a sneak is never guaranteed to be successful and, time and again, he would ask how it was that a team could fail to pick up 6 inches or two feet. This year provided the answer - you put a 6-foot-6, 250 pound quarterback in the shotgun, after the snap he takes two steps forward, and dives over the pile. First down. Or touchdown. Worked every time. Without fail. Of course, the challenge becomes finding a player to replicate that feat game after game, year after year. But, for one season at least, that nagging question was answered. And for one season at least, the Tigers won the last game of the year. I hope dad enjoyed the season as much as the rest of us did.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Things I hope to never hear again
Sometimes it is painful being a sports fan. So many cliches, so many attempts at humor that fall flat, so many announcers hoping to be clever and carve out a signature phrase that will live forever. Perhaps the play by play guys could simply focus on describing the action and the analysts could, well, analyze. In so doing, this is a starter list of words and phrases to NEVER say again:
--'the next level' in describing the NFL. Players are not going to the next level of football; they are going to the pros, to playing for a living, even to playing on Sundays, but NOT the next level. Levels are things people encounter in video games. No one ever says the shortstop in Double-A is going to the next level; he's going to The Show. The NFL lacks its equivalent of baseball's The Show, though a couple of guys have used The League, which is a lot better than the next level.
--'elevate.' No, basketball players and some football receivers do not elevate, they jump. Just like guys run fast, not accelerate. Cars accelerate and hydraulic lifts elevate; people run and jump.
--"a buck (fill in the blank)" when referring to a player gaining more than a hundred yards, or instances of a minute and some number of seconds left to play, or an anemic batting average during a slump. The buck analogy has been done, overdone, cooked, fileted, baked, fricasseed, and grilled to a point that is the opposite of original. A buck-something means money and while some players are certainly money, they're long past the point of worrying about a buck-anything.
--the tendency to turn football into rocket surgery, and football announcers are by far the worst offenders. For all the schemes coaches devise, it remains a basic game - blocking and tackling. The team that does those two things better invariably wins. Much like baseball is about catch the ball, throw the ball, hit the ball. There are no scientific formulas being used, no atoms being split, no petrie dishes employed, not even for Gus Malzhan's offense. However, you will hear an endless cacophony of teams "disguising" pass coverages or something similar that conjures up notions of Houdini ball.
With so many games and so many announcers, everyone wants to be the next Madden or Vitale or Berman. Unfortunately, the mix tends to include too many folks who can barely speak English. Pat Summerall was as understated as could be and for good reason - he worked on television and realized it. The power of the medium is visuals; sometimes, it's best to simply be quiet and let them tell the story. Of course, expecting change is barking at the moon. But, it would be nice.
--'the next level' in describing the NFL. Players are not going to the next level of football; they are going to the pros, to playing for a living, even to playing on Sundays, but NOT the next level. Levels are things people encounter in video games. No one ever says the shortstop in Double-A is going to the next level; he's going to The Show. The NFL lacks its equivalent of baseball's The Show, though a couple of guys have used The League, which is a lot better than the next level.
--'elevate.' No, basketball players and some football receivers do not elevate, they jump. Just like guys run fast, not accelerate. Cars accelerate and hydraulic lifts elevate; people run and jump.
--"a buck (fill in the blank)" when referring to a player gaining more than a hundred yards, or instances of a minute and some number of seconds left to play, or an anemic batting average during a slump. The buck analogy has been done, overdone, cooked, fileted, baked, fricasseed, and grilled to a point that is the opposite of original. A buck-something means money and while some players are certainly money, they're long past the point of worrying about a buck-anything.
--the tendency to turn football into rocket surgery, and football announcers are by far the worst offenders. For all the schemes coaches devise, it remains a basic game - blocking and tackling. The team that does those two things better invariably wins. Much like baseball is about catch the ball, throw the ball, hit the ball. There are no scientific formulas being used, no atoms being split, no petrie dishes employed, not even for Gus Malzhan's offense. However, you will hear an endless cacophony of teams "disguising" pass coverages or something similar that conjures up notions of Houdini ball.
With so many games and so many announcers, everyone wants to be the next Madden or Vitale or Berman. Unfortunately, the mix tends to include too many folks who can barely speak English. Pat Summerall was as understated as could be and for good reason - he worked on television and realized it. The power of the medium is visuals; sometimes, it's best to simply be quiet and let them tell the story. Of course, expecting change is barking at the moon. But, it would be nice.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
How Auburn should, and still could, handle the Cam Newton story
As a recovering journalist and corporate spokesman currently attending graduate school while on professional hiatus, I have turned my tongue into Swiss cheese watching Auburn gyrate its way through the Newton incident. There were answers I hated hearing as a reporter or giving as a PR rep than "no comment". It's like a vegetarian Thanksgiving; something is missing, but everyone pretends that it isn't and that they are better for the missing piece. Since no one else will do it, I'll designate myself the school's communication point man on this issue in calling the news conference that has yet to be held:
Ladies and gentlemen of the press, I appreciate your time and will not waste it. Over the past few weeks, a lot of has been said about this institution, the football program, Cam Newton and his family, the coaching staff, and the state of college athletics in general. Almost all of it has been based in rumors and allegations, speculation and inuendo. Today, I offer you the facts of this case, limited as they are.
If you take issue with this list, I'll stand here and answer your questions until each of you is fully satisfied with the response. If new facts emerge or if the circumstances surrounding known facts change, I will do the same thing. I will not, however, put Coach Chizik, Cameron, or any other player in that spot. They have already told you what they know or don't know; they will talk football with anyone who wants to listen, but they will not be discussing this.
Fact 1: neither the Southeastern Conference nor the NCAA has accused or implicated Auburn University of any wrongdoing in the recruiting of Cameron Newton.
Fact 2: mutliple other coaches - Bob Stoops of Oklahoma and Lane Kiffin while at Tennessee come to mind - have likewise said that there nothing unusual or illegal occured during their recruiting of Cameron Newton.
Fact 3: there has been one and only one institution with which the issue of money is said to have been raised.
Fact 4: that institution neither offered money during the recruiting of Cameron Newton nor paid any.
Fact 5: there is no evidence to date that any institution was, in fact, solicited during the recruiting of Cameron Newton.
Fact 6: the lone individual who has suggested that Cecil Newton sought money in return for his son signing a letter of intent is Kenny Rogers.
Fact 7: Rogers' story has had some inconsistencies and he has no proof of any sort that Cecil Newton sought money from Mississippi State or from any other institution.
Fact 8: every story has been based on the word of unnamed accusers who effectively inoculate themselves from cross-examination. Aside from Rogers, there is not a single person who has gone on the record to connect Cecil Newton with talk of money during Cameron Newton's recruitment. John Bond and Bill Bell have been interviewed, but neither offers more than second- or third-hand information, and Bond's story has changed.
Fact 9: the NCAA believes something wrong was done, yet its ruling hints at a lack of clarity as to what did or did not happen. The organization cannot definitely state whether Cecil Newton asked for money, if Kenny Rogers offered money, or some combination of those two possibilities occured and no one else has been able to, either.
Ladies and gentlemen, those are the indisputable facts as we know them. The rest of the talk is about the alleged presence of a smoking gun despite the concrete absence of a body. Maybe something did happen, maybe it didn't. The NCAA believes the former, yet even the organization's own announcement indicates some uncertainty. When two individuals are offering diametrically opposing accounts, it is not likely that both accounts are true. This isn't a movie with a subjective plot line. Money either was or was not discussed. Cecil Newton either did or did not solicit funds. Kenny Rogers either did or did not offer them. But thus far, no one has been able to separate the either from the or. Both Auburn and Mississippi State have chosen to separate themselves from the principals in this case.
I cannot control what you write nor do I want to. I believe in the First Amendment and freedom of the press, but just as strongly believe in the presumption of innocence. I believe Cameron is owed that and it is clear that the University has earned it. If you have facts that contradict anything that you have heard today, please bring them forward and, as previously stated, I will answer questions until each of you is satisfied with the response. If my accounting of the facts is in error, please point out where and I will make the appropriate correction.
It is a shame that what we have witnessed on the football field these past several weeks cannot simply be enjoyed on its own merit. Not just the skills that Cameron Newton has or the work that goes into cultivating them, but rather, the sheer unadulterated joy this young man brings to football. When was the last time any of you saw a player of his magnitude having so much fun playing this game? Now, what questions do you have for me?
------
This probably would not make the story go away, certainly not with Auburn headed to a national title game and the attendant media hoopla. But, it is a start and it is major step forward from no comment and from terse statements that certain questions will not be asked. Frankly, it is not a kid's job to say such things; that is what media/public relations folks do. There is nothing wrong with setting the tone for interviews or establishing certain ground rules. "You can ask all the non-football questions you want, but each will produce a version of the same answer - I cannot answer that, I don't know the answer to that, I am not going to discuss that. The media are going to ask the questions they want to ask and tell the stories they want to tell; the task on this side of the microphone is to effect conditions to the extent possible and tell the truth afterward.
Ladies and gentlemen of the press, I appreciate your time and will not waste it. Over the past few weeks, a lot of has been said about this institution, the football program, Cam Newton and his family, the coaching staff, and the state of college athletics in general. Almost all of it has been based in rumors and allegations, speculation and inuendo. Today, I offer you the facts of this case, limited as they are.
If you take issue with this list, I'll stand here and answer your questions until each of you is fully satisfied with the response. If new facts emerge or if the circumstances surrounding known facts change, I will do the same thing. I will not, however, put Coach Chizik, Cameron, or any other player in that spot. They have already told you what they know or don't know; they will talk football with anyone who wants to listen, but they will not be discussing this.
Fact 1: neither the Southeastern Conference nor the NCAA has accused or implicated Auburn University of any wrongdoing in the recruiting of Cameron Newton.
Fact 2: mutliple other coaches - Bob Stoops of Oklahoma and Lane Kiffin while at Tennessee come to mind - have likewise said that there nothing unusual or illegal occured during their recruiting of Cameron Newton.
Fact 3: there has been one and only one institution with which the issue of money is said to have been raised.
Fact 4: that institution neither offered money during the recruiting of Cameron Newton nor paid any.
Fact 5: there is no evidence to date that any institution was, in fact, solicited during the recruiting of Cameron Newton.
Fact 6: the lone individual who has suggested that Cecil Newton sought money in return for his son signing a letter of intent is Kenny Rogers.
Fact 7: Rogers' story has had some inconsistencies and he has no proof of any sort that Cecil Newton sought money from Mississippi State or from any other institution.
Fact 8: every story has been based on the word of unnamed accusers who effectively inoculate themselves from cross-examination. Aside from Rogers, there is not a single person who has gone on the record to connect Cecil Newton with talk of money during Cameron Newton's recruitment. John Bond and Bill Bell have been interviewed, but neither offers more than second- or third-hand information, and Bond's story has changed.
Fact 9: the NCAA believes something wrong was done, yet its ruling hints at a lack of clarity as to what did or did not happen. The organization cannot definitely state whether Cecil Newton asked for money, if Kenny Rogers offered money, or some combination of those two possibilities occured and no one else has been able to, either.
Ladies and gentlemen, those are the indisputable facts as we know them. The rest of the talk is about the alleged presence of a smoking gun despite the concrete absence of a body. Maybe something did happen, maybe it didn't. The NCAA believes the former, yet even the organization's own announcement indicates some uncertainty. When two individuals are offering diametrically opposing accounts, it is not likely that both accounts are true. This isn't a movie with a subjective plot line. Money either was or was not discussed. Cecil Newton either did or did not solicit funds. Kenny Rogers either did or did not offer them. But thus far, no one has been able to separate the either from the or. Both Auburn and Mississippi State have chosen to separate themselves from the principals in this case.
I cannot control what you write nor do I want to. I believe in the First Amendment and freedom of the press, but just as strongly believe in the presumption of innocence. I believe Cameron is owed that and it is clear that the University has earned it. If you have facts that contradict anything that you have heard today, please bring them forward and, as previously stated, I will answer questions until each of you is satisfied with the response. If my accounting of the facts is in error, please point out where and I will make the appropriate correction.
It is a shame that what we have witnessed on the football field these past several weeks cannot simply be enjoyed on its own merit. Not just the skills that Cameron Newton has or the work that goes into cultivating them, but rather, the sheer unadulterated joy this young man brings to football. When was the last time any of you saw a player of his magnitude having so much fun playing this game? Now, what questions do you have for me?
------
This probably would not make the story go away, certainly not with Auburn headed to a national title game and the attendant media hoopla. But, it is a start and it is major step forward from no comment and from terse statements that certain questions will not be asked. Frankly, it is not a kid's job to say such things; that is what media/public relations folks do. There is nothing wrong with setting the tone for interviews or establishing certain ground rules. "You can ask all the non-football questions you want, but each will produce a version of the same answer - I cannot answer that, I don't know the answer to that, I am not going to discuss that. The media are going to ask the questions they want to ask and tell the stories they want to tell; the task on this side of the microphone is to effect conditions to the extent possible and tell the truth afterward.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sparky's gone, and Mary's not doing too well, either
If there is something more gut-wrenching than watching someone mentally deteriorate, I don't want to know what it is, because it has to be something truly horrible. We tried to keep Mary, my mom, at home for a time but, unlike physically-debilitating conditions, those of the mental variety soon outpace the ability of family members to keep up. The neighbor ringing the doorbell at 4 am with mom in tow put the exclamation point on the effort at home-based care. Mary is now at a nice facility, cared for by a round-the-clock staff and surrounded by older folks who are sometimes part of this world and, at other times, in their own universe. The typical conversation includes a lengthy spell of trying to figure out the context of what she is talking about: did something happen at the facility, did a friend say something, is what she is talking about even real.
Some weeks ago came word that former baseball manager Sparky Anderson had died, just a few days after being put into hospice care during the last days of dementia. I was a huge fan of the Big Red Machine in the 1970s, a baseball team that always finds a spot on lists of best ballclubs ever. Sparky was a character, a latter-day Casey Stengel type who knew baseball but had a habit for mangling the English language. His death was a stark reminder that while people sometimes beat back physical ailments, no one gets over on things like dementia and Alzheimer's. Imagine knowing the day you talk with someone who has such a condition is the best day that person is going to have; that the next day will be a little bit worse, as will the one after that and the one after that.
If there is an upside, it is that such patients are not in pain, not spending their last days and months in agony. Mom has her own world that she sometimes lets us into; at other times, it is virtually impossible to know what she is talking about. So, you nod where it seems appropriate, say clever things like "uh-huh" and "really?" to give the impression that you are following along a narrative that may as well be in another language. Frankly, visits are depressing but what do you do. We visit and try to make the most of it.
The most maddening thing is that these patients retain a good deal of social skill; in other words, they can fool someone who is unfamiliar with things like the 4 am wakeup, or her calling for a husband who's been dead 9 months, or the other people she sees that no one else does. But, if you don't know that, she can ask enough general questions or carry on enough of a conversation to leave you believing that the problem is just a few "senior moments". Those who visit often, however, learn that is not the case. It's a nasty thing, this dementia. People don't get a choice but if they did, my recommendation is ask for a physical ailment at the end; the mental type is much harder.
Some weeks ago came word that former baseball manager Sparky Anderson had died, just a few days after being put into hospice care during the last days of dementia. I was a huge fan of the Big Red Machine in the 1970s, a baseball team that always finds a spot on lists of best ballclubs ever. Sparky was a character, a latter-day Casey Stengel type who knew baseball but had a habit for mangling the English language. His death was a stark reminder that while people sometimes beat back physical ailments, no one gets over on things like dementia and Alzheimer's. Imagine knowing the day you talk with someone who has such a condition is the best day that person is going to have; that the next day will be a little bit worse, as will the one after that and the one after that.
If there is an upside, it is that such patients are not in pain, not spending their last days and months in agony. Mom has her own world that she sometimes lets us into; at other times, it is virtually impossible to know what she is talking about. So, you nod where it seems appropriate, say clever things like "uh-huh" and "really?" to give the impression that you are following along a narrative that may as well be in another language. Frankly, visits are depressing but what do you do. We visit and try to make the most of it.
The most maddening thing is that these patients retain a good deal of social skill; in other words, they can fool someone who is unfamiliar with things like the 4 am wakeup, or her calling for a husband who's been dead 9 months, or the other people she sees that no one else does. But, if you don't know that, she can ask enough general questions or carry on enough of a conversation to leave you believing that the problem is just a few "senior moments". Those who visit often, however, learn that is not the case. It's a nasty thing, this dementia. People don't get a choice but if they did, my recommendation is ask for a physical ailment at the end; the mental type is much harder.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Facts are facts, except when they aren't
It has not been a good run for journalism. From the open cheerleading of the '08 and '10 electoral campaigns to the trading in speculation that has marked the Cam Newton "story", the profession continues to be its own worst enemy. As a former reporter - not a journalist, not a commentator, not a pundit (though I did have the chance to be one of those - it is troublesome to see such a casual disregard of the basics of the profession. Stories require facts, usually supplied either by documentation or on-the-record interviews. Maybe the most valuable lesson that any J-school can teach students today is that a reporter can only burn a source one time. After that, the source will never talk to you again, will discourage others from doing so, and will let anyone within shouting distance know of your unscrupulousness.
A generation ago, Reagan-era Transportation Secretary Raymond Donovan asked where he could go to reclaim his reputation after being acquitted of some very shaky charges. The question seems a quaint relic from different time when pesky little things like facts were considered staples of journalism. It may be that Newton will be come the Shoeless Joe Jackson of his generation but, thus far, there is not a shred of evidence, a trade of data, or a single person going on the record to accuse of him of anything. Not. One. Thing.
To keep the story alive, the narrative has relied on a combination of second- and third-hand allegations from shady characters and un-named sources who offer nothing to back up their stories, and internal navel-gazing and canibalism over the state of the profession. A few writers have taken shots at other writers which will last until the next round of allegations is launched so another batch of Heisman voters can self-righteously wax about wanting to avoid another Reggie Bush.
The voters' role is not elect the good citizen of the week, mister congeniality, or a public official; it's to choose the most outstanding college football player in the country and I do not hear any debate over who that is. And, the writers who chastise colleagues do so only after inserting some version of "if this turns out to be true" into their stories. Well, if the allegations are proven true, so be it. Cam will suffer, and it appears that Mississippi State will, too. Auburn appears in the clear all the way around save for wins that would have to be vacated in the case of a negative finding. We are a long way from such a finding, however; in fact, we are a long way from anything of substance.
The 24-hour media monster is aided and abeted by a public that demands to know everything about everyone, five minutes ago. That leads to sloppy reporting, rumor passed as fact, and an over-reliance on sources who may have axes to grind or are looking to cover their own hides. It's not pretty and if the industry does not take serious efforts to get its house in order, the next generation's Raymond Donovan is just an allegation away.
A generation ago, Reagan-era Transportation Secretary Raymond Donovan asked where he could go to reclaim his reputation after being acquitted of some very shaky charges. The question seems a quaint relic from different time when pesky little things like facts were considered staples of journalism. It may be that Newton will be come the Shoeless Joe Jackson of his generation but, thus far, there is not a shred of evidence, a trade of data, or a single person going on the record to accuse of him of anything. Not. One. Thing.
To keep the story alive, the narrative has relied on a combination of second- and third-hand allegations from shady characters and un-named sources who offer nothing to back up their stories, and internal navel-gazing and canibalism over the state of the profession. A few writers have taken shots at other writers which will last until the next round of allegations is launched so another batch of Heisman voters can self-righteously wax about wanting to avoid another Reggie Bush.
The voters' role is not elect the good citizen of the week, mister congeniality, or a public official; it's to choose the most outstanding college football player in the country and I do not hear any debate over who that is. And, the writers who chastise colleagues do so only after inserting some version of "if this turns out to be true" into their stories. Well, if the allegations are proven true, so be it. Cam will suffer, and it appears that Mississippi State will, too. Auburn appears in the clear all the way around save for wins that would have to be vacated in the case of a negative finding. We are a long way from such a finding, however; in fact, we are a long way from anything of substance.
The 24-hour media monster is aided and abeted by a public that demands to know everything about everyone, five minutes ago. That leads to sloppy reporting, rumor passed as fact, and an over-reliance on sources who may have axes to grind or are looking to cover their own hides. It's not pretty and if the industry does not take serious efforts to get its house in order, the next generation's Raymond Donovan is just an allegation away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)