It seems that the only organization that is hiring these days is the White House. It appears that the President needs a "czar" for just about everything and anything.
Of course, this may be the cause of a bigger problem. For instance, who's in charge? The Senate-confirmed Secretary or the close-to-the-Oval-Office czar?
A military tenet has been "unity of command." In other words, there is one boss and one chain of command. Unless of course, you don't want to get anything done.
Curiously, this may be causing some nostalgia for the Clinton Administration -- although he used a bit of sleigh of hand -- he actually reduced the size of the White House. Although it was all style and little of substance -- he was willing to make a show of sharing the pain that America was feeling.
Better that than an employment agency for make-work czars.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Obama Being Obama
Manny Ramirez is having a tough time finding a job. Then again, who isn't in this economy? But Manny is a ballplayer -- and if you take a look at his stats -- a pretty good one at that. In fact, he was the catalyst that enabled the Dodgers to compete for the National League pennant last year.
Yet there is no team that wants to sign him for the upcoming season. Why?
Because Manny is a jerk.
He wore out his welcome in Boston last year which prompted them his trade to Los Angeles. Manny's lackadaisical play (e.g., failing to run out ground balls; taking himself out of games) was tolerated as he produced. However, this behavior, known as "Manny being Manny" became too much of a distraction. Now at the end of his career -- and just a few short weeks before the start of spring training -- Manny and his agent are scrambling.
In Washington, Obama is producing for now. However, his production is based on the fact that he's not George W. Bush. Yet annoying traits are becoming evident -- the pride, the hypocrisy, the questionable judgment.
Moreover his vaunted ability (more smoke and mirrors than anything tangible) to work in a bipartisan fashion was shattered as he could not get one Republican to vote in favor of his generational theft, er, stimulus proposal.
These may be just rookie mistakes. Then again they may not.
After a while a lot of annoying little things add up -- no matter how good you are.
Just ask Manny.
Yet there is no team that wants to sign him for the upcoming season. Why?
Because Manny is a jerk.
He wore out his welcome in Boston last year which prompted them his trade to Los Angeles. Manny's lackadaisical play (e.g., failing to run out ground balls; taking himself out of games) was tolerated as he produced. However, this behavior, known as "Manny being Manny" became too much of a distraction. Now at the end of his career -- and just a few short weeks before the start of spring training -- Manny and his agent are scrambling.
In Washington, Obama is producing for now. However, his production is based on the fact that he's not George W. Bush. Yet annoying traits are becoming evident -- the pride, the hypocrisy, the questionable judgment.
Moreover his vaunted ability (more smoke and mirrors than anything tangible) to work in a bipartisan fashion was shattered as he could not get one Republican to vote in favor of his generational theft, er, stimulus proposal.
These may be just rookie mistakes. Then again they may not.
After a while a lot of annoying little things add up -- no matter how good you are.
Just ask Manny.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Watching the Snow Fall
Thoughts as the snow falls...
I've noticed a few bloggers commenting about Maureen Dowd and Bob Herbert's op-eds in The New York Times. My thought -- do people expect something new from these guys? They've been on auto pilot (e.g., W. is responsible for everything bad) for years. Anthony Lewis made a career out of writing the same thing over and over.
Is is me but is Obama's domestic policy aimed at a foreign audience with a foreign policy aimed at a domestic audience?
Most of the young 'uns that I knew were big on Ron Paul. I guess it's because he wouldn't hand them a ginormous bill (in the form of the ineptly developed "stimulus" bill). Now, all those young folks who supported Obama -- it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Big time.
Bruce Springsteen, John Kerry's troubadour, has a new album out. There was a time when I would find that mildly exciting. However, years ago he decided that his demographic were lefties from the 1960s and 1970s. If his care for the common man was more than just a marketing gimmick, he could have played to packed houses in Iraq and Afghanistan -- even if they weren't the desired demographic. Then again, there's no money in that.
The New York sportswriters and talking heads ought to throw Joe Torre a party. His book, which I'm unsure if anyone has read yet, has caused plenty of ink to be spilled in what is the 7 lean weeks of New York sports. It was scary -- sportswriters would have to learned what constitutes "icing" in hockey and other arcana.
What happens if Blago is impeached but later not found guilty?
I've noticed a few bloggers commenting about Maureen Dowd and Bob Herbert's op-eds in The New York Times. My thought -- do people expect something new from these guys? They've been on auto pilot (e.g., W. is responsible for everything bad) for years. Anthony Lewis made a career out of writing the same thing over and over.
Is is me but is Obama's domestic policy aimed at a foreign audience with a foreign policy aimed at a domestic audience?
Most of the young 'uns that I knew were big on Ron Paul. I guess it's because he wouldn't hand them a ginormous bill (in the form of the ineptly developed "stimulus" bill). Now, all those young folks who supported Obama -- it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Big time.
Bruce Springsteen, John Kerry's troubadour, has a new album out. There was a time when I would find that mildly exciting. However, years ago he decided that his demographic were lefties from the 1960s and 1970s. If his care for the common man was more than just a marketing gimmick, he could have played to packed houses in Iraq and Afghanistan -- even if they weren't the desired demographic. Then again, there's no money in that.
The New York sportswriters and talking heads ought to throw Joe Torre a party. His book, which I'm unsure if anyone has read yet, has caused plenty of ink to be spilled in what is the 7 lean weeks of New York sports. It was scary -- sportswriters would have to learned what constitutes "icing" in hockey and other arcana.
What happens if Blago is impeached but later not found guilty?
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Loose Ends
Hopefully, the final word on a host of issues:
Treasury Secretary Geithner. History will remember him as the tax cheat who became a Treasury Secretary. Unless he engineers a global and long stand recovery and expansion, he will, alas, be known primarily as a tax cheat. (BTW, we're not going to spend our way into a recovery, much less an expansion.) Why he didn't have the decency to resign is a mystery to me.
Caroline Kennedy. Reports indicate that the Kennedy clan is upset at how Governor David Paterson treated Caroline. In the words of the playground taunt, "So what are you going to do about it?" My thinking -- not much. Caroline was the last hope for a Kennedy in the Senate. Alas, Edward Moore Kennedy has an inoperable brain tumor and is not long for this world. His son Patrick, a representative from Rhode Island is better known for his substance abuse than his legislative prowess. Paterson will have his worries in '10 -- the Kennedys will be the least of them.
NYDN's Agenda. It was typical of the mediocre Mikes to blame, well, Paterson for Kennedy's shortcomings. The curious fact remains that it's the New York Times that is battling with the Harlem Congressman and not the populist left-wing rag. They sure give him a space to deny the allegations. It's one of those things that makes one go, "Hmmm."
Lastly, add Filip Bondy to the list of those who think fans should pay more so he can see an improved team play for free.
Treasury Secretary Geithner. History will remember him as the tax cheat who became a Treasury Secretary. Unless he engineers a global and long stand recovery and expansion, he will, alas, be known primarily as a tax cheat. (BTW, we're not going to spend our way into a recovery, much less an expansion.) Why he didn't have the decency to resign is a mystery to me.
Caroline Kennedy. Reports indicate that the Kennedy clan is upset at how Governor David Paterson treated Caroline. In the words of the playground taunt, "So what are you going to do about it?" My thinking -- not much. Caroline was the last hope for a Kennedy in the Senate. Alas, Edward Moore Kennedy has an inoperable brain tumor and is not long for this world. His son Patrick, a representative from Rhode Island is better known for his substance abuse than his legislative prowess. Paterson will have his worries in '10 -- the Kennedys will be the least of them.
NYDN's Agenda. It was typical of the mediocre Mikes to blame, well, Paterson for Kennedy's shortcomings. The curious fact remains that it's the New York Times that is battling with the Harlem Congressman and not the populist left-wing rag. They sure give him a space to deny the allegations. It's one of those things that makes one go, "Hmmm."
Lastly, add Filip Bondy to the list of those who think fans should pay more so he can see an improved team play for free.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Saturday's Musings
He may have been sworn in, but Barack Obama's mind is still on the campaign trail. That's the only explanation I have for his zinger directed at conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh. Bill Clinton also made the same mistake of attacking -- and thus elevating -- Rush Both gentlemen forgot the rule when dealing with a critic -- that's to ignore him.
Speaking of Clinton, it's curious to hear Obama & Biden claim that the economy is worse than they thought. Clinton made the same charge when he took command of the Oval Office. It wasn't like they were praising it during the campaign. But by claiming it's worse -- well, that gives them a whole lot of room to maneuver.
For a guy who cannot properly file his taxes, Timothy Geithner must have some other redeeming qualities to make him a must for Secretary of the Treasury. It's not like he did a bang up job at the New York Fed is it? When the economic stimulus fails -- and it will -- Geither's scalp will be the first to fall.
The rationale -- "we'll figure something out" -- doesn't wash when it comes to where are we going to put the Gitmo detainees in a year's time. Don't file the Gitmo matter under "decisiveness" any time soon.
The mediocre Mikes -- Daly & Lupica of the New York Daily News probably spent most of yesterday wiping the eggs off their faces. Both fawned over Caroline "You Know" Kennedy in her run up to what was supposed to be an inevitable selection by Governor Paterson. However, taxes, a nanny "issue", and a supposed extra marital affair ruined her chances. It may be best for Ms. Kennedy to return to a more private life.
It was interesting to see David Brooks on PBS last night and realize that he's in the employ of a Mexican businessman. I'm sure that some of the $250 million will be paying salaries for those working for The New York Times. We'll see soon what kind of coverage a quarter of a billion dollars can buy.
You know when we'll hit the rock bottom of this recession? When the gossip tabloids and magazines start laying off personnel.
Future mea culpas (or "what was I thinking?"):
Speaking of Clinton, it's curious to hear Obama & Biden claim that the economy is worse than they thought. Clinton made the same charge when he took command of the Oval Office. It wasn't like they were praising it during the campaign. But by claiming it's worse -- well, that gives them a whole lot of room to maneuver.
For a guy who cannot properly file his taxes, Timothy Geithner must have some other redeeming qualities to make him a must for Secretary of the Treasury. It's not like he did a bang up job at the New York Fed is it? When the economic stimulus fails -- and it will -- Geither's scalp will be the first to fall.
The rationale -- "we'll figure something out" -- doesn't wash when it comes to where are we going to put the Gitmo detainees in a year's time. Don't file the Gitmo matter under "decisiveness" any time soon.
The mediocre Mikes -- Daly & Lupica of the New York Daily News probably spent most of yesterday wiping the eggs off their faces. Both fawned over Caroline "You Know" Kennedy in her run up to what was supposed to be an inevitable selection by Governor Paterson. However, taxes, a nanny "issue", and a supposed extra marital affair ruined her chances. It may be best for Ms. Kennedy to return to a more private life.
It was interesting to see David Brooks on PBS last night and realize that he's in the employ of a Mexican businessman. I'm sure that some of the $250 million will be paying salaries for those working for The New York Times. We'll see soon what kind of coverage a quarter of a billion dollars can buy.
You know when we'll hit the rock bottom of this recession? When the gossip tabloids and magazines start laying off personnel.
Future mea culpas (or "what was I thinking?"):
- Overdoing the inauguration of President Obama. It was embarrassing. (Big Media)
- Betting on the Steelers in the Super Bowl. (Bettors)
- Thinking that government spending will revitalize the economy. (Democrats)
- Approving Eric Holder as Attorney General (Republicans)
Friday, January 23, 2009
USN&WR, RIP
I'm a bit late when it comes to noting the demise of U.S. News & World Report as a weekly print(heck it's been a semi-monthly for months) news magazine, but I have some thoughts.
Back in the day when newspaper advertising meant something, USN&WR highlighted the fact that it had loyal readers. If memory serves, it was akin to the American Express credit cards ads which highlighted that such and such newsmaker was a subscriber from way back when.
I started subscribing to in the late 1970s, when it was a more conservative, and less fluffy, alternative to Time and Newsweek. I recall Marvin Stone's right-leaning editorials on the back page and the and the usual article about how the US was in better shape than the USSR. The magazines, MO, if you will, was not to focus a current event (say Tim Geithner's nomination for Treasury Secretary) but would take a step back and take a look at the big picture (say, tax cheating). In short, it was solid and informative. (They even had a section on the latest tax court rulings!)
The magazine had its critics. One friend thought it was so conservative that the pages tweaked. Another labeled it as "Useless News and World Distort." But, hey, I liked it.
Over time, the magazine was sold and it landed in the hands of Mortimer Zuckerman. The change wasn't pretty. A dizzying array of features such as book reviews came and went in an effort to make the magazine look and feel like the popular newsweeklies.
Sometimes I would let my subscription lapse for months and then I would renew it. However, it came to an complete end about a dozen years ago. Living the nomadic life, I would actually take boxloads of the magazines from place to place. Then in 1997, I asked myself -- why am I schlepping these boxes for? I then took a final look at old those dog-eared copies. I was struck by the covers of 1992 -- it seemed that week after week President George W.H. Bush just couldn't do anything right. It was amazing. So I asked myself, why am I subsidizing this?
Over time, USN & WR found a niche by its ranking system -- whether it was schools or hospitals. The following story was told to me by a business school professor, so it sounds a bit too good to be true:
There were a number of students at a a top-flight school who were unhappy with the course of instruction, so they were going to vent their wrath by informing the editors of USN &WR. Upon hearing this, the dean assembled the students and informed them that if the school's rating slipped, the students weren't as likely to be recruited by blue-chip firms and consequently their honesty would hit them were it hurts -- in the wallet. The students folded like a lawn chair and the school's ratings remained high.
In 2009, the magazine became a monthly with updated news to be found on its website.
I was in a barber shop a couple of weeks ago and noted that they had an undated copy of USN & WR. It was the recent January edition with 50 suggested New Year resolutions.
Here's mine: just end it.
Back in the day when newspaper advertising meant something, USN&WR highlighted the fact that it had loyal readers. If memory serves, it was akin to the American Express credit cards ads which highlighted that such and such newsmaker was a subscriber from way back when.
I started subscribing to in the late 1970s, when it was a more conservative, and less fluffy, alternative to Time and Newsweek. I recall Marvin Stone's right-leaning editorials on the back page and the and the usual article about how the US was in better shape than the USSR. The magazines, MO, if you will, was not to focus a current event (say Tim Geithner's nomination for Treasury Secretary) but would take a step back and take a look at the big picture (say, tax cheating). In short, it was solid and informative. (They even had a section on the latest tax court rulings!)
The magazine had its critics. One friend thought it was so conservative that the pages tweaked. Another labeled it as "Useless News and World Distort." But, hey, I liked it.
Over time, the magazine was sold and it landed in the hands of Mortimer Zuckerman. The change wasn't pretty. A dizzying array of features such as book reviews came and went in an effort to make the magazine look and feel like the popular newsweeklies.
Sometimes I would let my subscription lapse for months and then I would renew it. However, it came to an complete end about a dozen years ago. Living the nomadic life, I would actually take boxloads of the magazines from place to place. Then in 1997, I asked myself -- why am I schlepping these boxes for? I then took a final look at old those dog-eared copies. I was struck by the covers of 1992 -- it seemed that week after week President George W.H. Bush just couldn't do anything right. It was amazing. So I asked myself, why am I subsidizing this?
Over time, USN & WR found a niche by its ranking system -- whether it was schools or hospitals. The following story was told to me by a business school professor, so it sounds a bit too good to be true:
There were a number of students at a a top-flight school who were unhappy with the course of instruction, so they were going to vent their wrath by informing the editors of USN &WR. Upon hearing this, the dean assembled the students and informed them that if the school's rating slipped, the students weren't as likely to be recruited by blue-chip firms and consequently their honesty would hit them were it hurts -- in the wallet. The students folded like a lawn chair and the school's ratings remained high.
In 2009, the magazine became a monthly with updated news to be found on its website.
I was in a barber shop a couple of weeks ago and noted that they had an undated copy of USN & WR. It was the recent January edition with 50 suggested New Year resolutions.
Here's mine: just end it.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Soured on Caroline
Years ago, I had a friend who, in the midst of the Little League season, took off for a vacation in Italy. The guy was a decent player but he was no All-Star. So when it came time to choose an All-Star team for the district championships, he was with his parents visiting the kinfolk. He wasn't chosen. Some of us thought -- as we were wont to do -- that he purposefully took off to Italy to avoid the indignity of not being selected.
In retrospect, it's hard to imagine him pleading with his parents to go to Italy at that particular time to avoid a pre-teenage traumatic event.
It's less harder to believe that Caroline Kennedy is bailing out before she goes through the indignity of having someone -- other than her -- selected to complete the term of Hillary Rodham-Clinton. In fact, reporters for The New York Post say as much.
Like the little kid who said that he wasn't going to the birthday party even if he was invited; he's still viewed as, well, someone who is going to miss the fun.
She was a dreadful candidate, you know. More importantly she wasn't going to win Governor Paterson's any votes in 2010, so he thought it was best to jettison her now.
She might want to go to Italy. I hear it's lovely this time of year.
In retrospect, it's hard to imagine him pleading with his parents to go to Italy at that particular time to avoid a pre-teenage traumatic event.
It's less harder to believe that Caroline Kennedy is bailing out before she goes through the indignity of having someone -- other than her -- selected to complete the term of Hillary Rodham-Clinton. In fact, reporters for The New York Post say as much.
Like the little kid who said that he wasn't going to the birthday party even if he was invited; he's still viewed as, well, someone who is going to miss the fun.
She was a dreadful candidate, you know. More importantly she wasn't going to win Governor Paterson's any votes in 2010, so he thought it was best to jettison her now.
She might want to go to Italy. I hear it's lovely this time of year.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inauguration Day
A few months before 9/11, I caught Jerry Seinfeld in performance. I cannot say enough about how funny he was that evening. He had the audience in the palm of his hand.
However, in the course of a brief Q&A session with the audience after the show, he came off as, well, a jerk.
I was never able to watch another episode of Seinfeld without realizing that if he were not reading a script, I would be watching something else.
A decade and a half earlier, a friend – at the time, a sports reporter for a college radio station – had me listen to a tape he made inside the locker room of a professional sports team. A star players went into an obscenity-laced tirade. The tape was never aired although it probably would have been big news for a day or two. Had it aired, it's a safe bet that my buddy probably would not be allowed inside a locker room ever again. The player is now in the Hall of Fame and my friend is a big time news executive.
I bring these two points up because we really do not know the folks in the limelight. Their public, scripted appearances can be odds at what they are really like. Moreover, the press is under no obligation to show us at their worse, especially if it could mean a loss of access.
The same can be said about our new President – Barack H. Obama. Nobody really knows him – and if they do, they are not talking. (Recall how his college classmates were asked not to speak to the press.) He is a cipher. He had a liberal voting record and railed against the war in Iraq, yet he chooses to keep his predecessor’s Secretary of Defense. He is for abortion yet is against gay marriage.
David Brooks, the erstwhile conservative, noted during his friendly weekly chat (they stopped being debates a long time ago) with Jim Lehrer and Mark Shields that Obama is not bound by ideology – he is more of an empiricist – he will go with what works. Perhaps.
This has not stopped people who should know better (e.g., pretending to know Obama) from comparing Obama to JFK, or even C. B. Sullenberger. Then again, paper does not refuse ink.
Therefore, you will excuse me if I take a pass on the festivities today – the thought of listening to the clueless anchors, scripted analysts, and know-nothing reporters babbling about Obama and “what he means” all day long will be too much to bear. (About 20 minutes of GMA this morning was enough to confirm my worse fears.)
Give him some time; we will see the real Obama and the press will not be in a position to filter out the bad stuff.
However, in the course of a brief Q&A session with the audience after the show, he came off as, well, a jerk.
I was never able to watch another episode of Seinfeld without realizing that if he were not reading a script, I would be watching something else.
A decade and a half earlier, a friend – at the time, a sports reporter for a college radio station – had me listen to a tape he made inside the locker room of a professional sports team. A star players went into an obscenity-laced tirade. The tape was never aired although it probably would have been big news for a day or two. Had it aired, it's a safe bet that my buddy probably would not be allowed inside a locker room ever again. The player is now in the Hall of Fame and my friend is a big time news executive.
I bring these two points up because we really do not know the folks in the limelight. Their public, scripted appearances can be odds at what they are really like. Moreover, the press is under no obligation to show us at their worse, especially if it could mean a loss of access.
The same can be said about our new President – Barack H. Obama. Nobody really knows him – and if they do, they are not talking. (Recall how his college classmates were asked not to speak to the press.) He is a cipher. He had a liberal voting record and railed against the war in Iraq, yet he chooses to keep his predecessor’s Secretary of Defense. He is for abortion yet is against gay marriage.
David Brooks, the erstwhile conservative, noted during his friendly weekly chat (they stopped being debates a long time ago) with Jim Lehrer and Mark Shields that Obama is not bound by ideology – he is more of an empiricist – he will go with what works. Perhaps.
This has not stopped people who should know better (e.g., pretending to know Obama) from comparing Obama to JFK, or even C. B. Sullenberger. Then again, paper does not refuse ink.
Therefore, you will excuse me if I take a pass on the festivities today – the thought of listening to the clueless anchors, scripted analysts, and know-nothing reporters babbling about Obama and “what he means” all day long will be too much to bear. (About 20 minutes of GMA this morning was enough to confirm my worse fears.)
Give him some time; we will see the real Obama and the press will not be in a position to filter out the bad stuff.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Geithner Gone?
A few items lead me to suspect that Tim Geithner will not be Obama's Treasury Secretary.
First, the Senate Committee that will confirm Geithner -- chaired by the Democrats -- has adjourned for a week to review the matter of Geithner's taxes and the status of a foreign national whom he employed.
I think the facts on both matters are evident. In my view, the Committee has given Team Obama a week to come up with a replacement that can be announced in tandem with Geithner's resignation. Also, they are probably looking for a soft landing for Geithner somewhere in the Administration that wouldn't require Senate confirmation or with a sympathetic think tank.
Moreover, when asked about the matter, the President-elect chose to discuss the fact that everyone makes mistakes. He did not say that he intends to have Geithner as his Treasury Secretary.
Furthermore, Geithner is in a weak political state. For instance, Hillary can withstand criticism of her husband receiving boatloads of foreign donations for his endeavors, because any rejection of Hillary as the Secretary of State will cause serious discontent from a significant faction of the Democratic Party. The splash from throwing Geithner over the side of the boat, in constrast, will be minimal. Nobody will grieve over his dismissal.
Lastly, Obama is all about image. Having a tax-dodger on his team will send the wrong signal about tax compliance, respect for the law, and double standards. Geithner is not worth the hassle.
On a couple of related notes, Senate Democratic Leader Reid's initial defense of Geithner continues to show how Reid's political tone deafness is making him increasingly irrelevant in the political process. Given his missteps, it's only a matter of time before people will stop listening to him.
Lastly, Mickey Kaus, notes that a lot of Democrats are worried about this whole issue.
First, the Senate Committee that will confirm Geithner -- chaired by the Democrats -- has adjourned for a week to review the matter of Geithner's taxes and the status of a foreign national whom he employed.
I think the facts on both matters are evident. In my view, the Committee has given Team Obama a week to come up with a replacement that can be announced in tandem with Geithner's resignation. Also, they are probably looking for a soft landing for Geithner somewhere in the Administration that wouldn't require Senate confirmation or with a sympathetic think tank.
Moreover, when asked about the matter, the President-elect chose to discuss the fact that everyone makes mistakes. He did not say that he intends to have Geithner as his Treasury Secretary.
Furthermore, Geithner is in a weak political state. For instance, Hillary can withstand criticism of her husband receiving boatloads of foreign donations for his endeavors, because any rejection of Hillary as the Secretary of State will cause serious discontent from a significant faction of the Democratic Party. The splash from throwing Geithner over the side of the boat, in constrast, will be minimal. Nobody will grieve over his dismissal.
Lastly, Obama is all about image. Having a tax-dodger on his team will send the wrong signal about tax compliance, respect for the law, and double standards. Geithner is not worth the hassle.
On a couple of related notes, Senate Democratic Leader Reid's initial defense of Geithner continues to show how Reid's political tone deafness is making him increasingly irrelevant in the political process. Given his missteps, it's only a matter of time before people will stop listening to him.
Lastly, Mickey Kaus, notes that a lot of Democrats are worried about this whole issue.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Early Confirmation Notes
Some notes as the nascent Obama Administration begins to take shape:
- During the early stages of the Bush 43 administration, Colin Powell was spinning the concept of "smart sanctions" against Iraq. It was a case of "old wine, new bottle" but it prompted someone to ask if the old sanctions, which had been in place for a decade, were "stupid." I'm picking up the same vibe when I hear Ms. Rodham-Clinton discussing "smart power diplomacy". Were we practicing "stupid power diplomacy" for the past 16 years? I ask since I thought the liberation of 15 million people wasn't, well, a moronic thing to do.
- Tim Geithner's tax dodging has been described as a "hiccup" by the Senate majority leader and as a "distraction" by Candy Crowley on CNN as he faces confirmation hearings. (You'll have to trust me on this but she said it last night. Curiously, as I write this, there is no mention on CNN's home page about this issue. Go figure.) How about this -- a f*ck up? Moreover, he certainly gives the appearance that if he wasn't going to be named as Secretary of the Treasury then the IRS wasn't going to get a check. He may get confirmed, but he's damaged goods.
- In the schoolyards, we all learn at a young age, never to make a threat that you cannot carry out. More importantly, if you have to choose a side, go with the guys likely to win. I say this because Obama came out in support of the Senate Democrats who opposed Rod Blagojevich's selection of Roland Burris to be his successor. Now that Burris will be the new Senator from Illinois, it looks like Team Obama would have been wise to have kept quiet.
- The noted philosopher, Michael Tyson, once noted: Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth. So it goes with Obama's plan to spend the remaining $350 billion of TARP money without limited Congressional strings. Moreover, his economic "recovery" plan also faces opposition. I trust that Team Obama has developed a Plan B (and C, for that matter.) Bloody mouths are not pretty.
Well, we're only a week out. Things should get even more exciting!
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Don't Just Do Something, Stand There
Back in the mid-1990's the Army was embroiled in a nasty sexual harassment case. Apparently, some officers and NCO's, who should have known better, were sexually involved with trainees at Aberdeen Training Grounds in Maryland.
Whether it was consensual or not, wasn't the issue. It was wrong and everyone who was involved knew it was wrong. In fact, the highest ranking officer involved in the case, then-Captain Derrick Robertson, received training on sexual harassment three weeks before he committed his offense.
This being the Army and given the high level press coverage that the case took -- something had to be done.
So the Army initiated a chain teaching program. Generals would teach colonels then colonels would teach their subordinates until Private Snuffy was made aware that sexual harassment was wrong.
I recall sitting in an auditorium listening to the brigade commander go through the entire teaching program -- chapter and verse. After that block of instruction, the only thing I had to show for it was that I was two hours behind schedule. If I didn't know the difference between right and wrong, I had no business being in the Army.
In the end, everyone clapped himself on the back -- after all the Army "did something" and we could all move on.
Unfortunately, by 2007 according to one poll, one-third of Army females who were interviewed, reported that they were on the receiving end of sexual harassment. So much for all that chain teaching.
What the Army did was create a process, in effect, "do something" which a decade later didn't solve the the problem of sexual harassment.
This scandal comes to mind as President-elect Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress begin to develop a trillion dollar "recovery" plan for the economy. Given the bleak economy (but not dire) there is strong sentiment to do something to get things back on track. So the current plan is to spend a ton of money (that we don't have) on a lot of potential make-work programs.
They may no longer call them "earmarks" but when easy money is spread around -- everyone wants a piece of the action. The potential for fraud, waste, and abuse is monumental.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that this will work. The only certainty is that our country will be in even greater debt.
But every elected office holder believes that they have to do something, so the focus is on the process (i.e., how much to spend, where to spend it on) rather than solving the problem at hand. (Here is one potential low-cost solution.)
Perhaps we need to focus more on the problem than with a solution.
Whether it was consensual or not, wasn't the issue. It was wrong and everyone who was involved knew it was wrong. In fact, the highest ranking officer involved in the case, then-Captain Derrick Robertson, received training on sexual harassment three weeks before he committed his offense.
This being the Army and given the high level press coverage that the case took -- something had to be done.
So the Army initiated a chain teaching program. Generals would teach colonels then colonels would teach their subordinates until Private Snuffy was made aware that sexual harassment was wrong.
I recall sitting in an auditorium listening to the brigade commander go through the entire teaching program -- chapter and verse. After that block of instruction, the only thing I had to show for it was that I was two hours behind schedule. If I didn't know the difference between right and wrong, I had no business being in the Army.
In the end, everyone clapped himself on the back -- after all the Army "did something" and we could all move on.
Unfortunately, by 2007 according to one poll, one-third of Army females who were interviewed, reported that they were on the receiving end of sexual harassment. So much for all that chain teaching.
What the Army did was create a process, in effect, "do something" which a decade later didn't solve the the problem of sexual harassment.
This scandal comes to mind as President-elect Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress begin to develop a trillion dollar "recovery" plan for the economy. Given the bleak economy (but not dire) there is strong sentiment to do something to get things back on track. So the current plan is to spend a ton of money (that we don't have) on a lot of potential make-work programs.
They may no longer call them "earmarks" but when easy money is spread around -- everyone wants a piece of the action. The potential for fraud, waste, and abuse is monumental.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that this will work. The only certainty is that our country will be in even greater debt.
But every elected office holder believes that they have to do something, so the focus is on the process (i.e., how much to spend, where to spend it on) rather than solving the problem at hand. (Here is one potential low-cost solution.)
Perhaps we need to focus more on the problem than with a solution.
Monday, January 12, 2009
College Football and Big League Money
Now that the clamor over the college national champion has died down a bit, let me offer my two cents.
Consider me old school when it comes to a college football championship. I liked the idea of some 6-5 team getting a chance to play one more game. After all, they're just students that are playing. So what, if two or three teams could claim to be the best team in the country after New Year's Day? It would be long forgotten after the first kickoff that following August.
However, the pernicious impact of money has sullied the game. Given the way the Bowl Championship Series has defined a champion -- with the attendant prize money -- you have the worst of all possible worlds: an undisputed champion that creates a lot of dispute.
According to the rankings, here are the top ten teams in the country -- along with their odds of winning it all as of 27 March 08:
1. Florida 13-1, 5/1
2. Utah 13-0, (Field, 18/1)
3. USC 12-1, 7/2
4. Texas 12-1, 15/1
5. Oklahoma 12-2, 8/1
6. Alabama 12-2, 40/1
7. TCU 11-2, 250/1
8. Penn State 11-2, 25/1
9. Ohio State 10-3, 7/2
10. Oregon 10-3, 70/1
I don't know if the odds for these teams improved or worsened since 27 March. What I do know is this -- no Vegas odds maker was expecting the undefeated Utes to play as well as they did -- in fact they weren't worthy of consideration.
But if you're going to pay out -- it better be at 5 to 1 odds than at 18 to 1 odds.
I'm not implying any link between professional gambling and the college game. But when money -- whether it's prize money or gambling money -- is involved, it only worsens the situation.
There are two possible solutions -- take the money out of the game or have some type of championship playoff.
Consider me old school when it comes to a college football championship. I liked the idea of some 6-5 team getting a chance to play one more game. After all, they're just students that are playing. So what, if two or three teams could claim to be the best team in the country after New Year's Day? It would be long forgotten after the first kickoff that following August.
However, the pernicious impact of money has sullied the game. Given the way the Bowl Championship Series has defined a champion -- with the attendant prize money -- you have the worst of all possible worlds: an undisputed champion that creates a lot of dispute.
According to the rankings, here are the top ten teams in the country -- along with their odds of winning it all as of 27 March 08:
1. Florida 13-1, 5/1
2. Utah 13-0, (Field, 18/1)
3. USC 12-1, 7/2
4. Texas 12-1, 15/1
5. Oklahoma 12-2, 8/1
6. Alabama 12-2, 40/1
7. TCU 11-2, 250/1
8. Penn State 11-2, 25/1
9. Ohio State 10-3, 7/2
10. Oregon 10-3, 70/1
I don't know if the odds for these teams improved or worsened since 27 March. What I do know is this -- no Vegas odds maker was expecting the undefeated Utes to play as well as they did -- in fact they weren't worthy of consideration.
But if you're going to pay out -- it better be at 5 to 1 odds than at 18 to 1 odds.
I'm not implying any link between professional gambling and the college game. But when money -- whether it's prize money or gambling money -- is involved, it only worsens the situation.
There are two possible solutions -- take the money out of the game or have some type of championship playoff.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Toothless Joe
There always seem to be an "alternating current" in management.
When I was in Korea, the commanding general was big on quality of life issues. He was followed by a hard-ass who focused on readiness. A struggling baseball team fires a "player's coach" and replaces him with a "disciplinarian." (It also works the other way around too.)
In short, the folks who do the hiring think the new guy has the strengths of his predecessor and will also - simultaneously - compensate for his weaknesses too.
I would add that Joe Biden was selected (don't laugh Republicans -- Sarah Palin also fitted the bill) to be an alternative to Dick Cheney.
Now Cheney isn't a popular guy with Big Media. (Those guys who do well with Big Media tend to suck up to them.) Biden of course is, more or less, adored. In other words, nobody knows Cheney as well as they know Biden -- so speculation tends to make up for the factual shortcomings.
The problem -- for want of a better word -- is that Biden is overcompensating. Where Cheney could be viewed as thinking, deliberative and serious -- Biden is coming off as the opposite.
Take his current junket with his Senate cronies. Obama is working on his first 100 days plan and Biden isn't in the room. In fact, he's getting silly badges from the Pakistan government. (Click here to see the badge.)
Moreover, he's not the Vice President yet. Furthermore, nobody knows how much of a foreign policy heavyweight he will be in the Administration. Hillary Clinton will be the Secretary of State and a somewhat diminished John Kerry will be swinging away as the incoming chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs committee.
The visited leaders are making nice to him but whether they respect him also remains to be seen.
Hopefully, if the theory holds, will get a better Veep in 4 to 8 years.
When I was in Korea, the commanding general was big on quality of life issues. He was followed by a hard-ass who focused on readiness. A struggling baseball team fires a "player's coach" and replaces him with a "disciplinarian." (It also works the other way around too.)
In short, the folks who do the hiring think the new guy has the strengths of his predecessor and will also - simultaneously - compensate for his weaknesses too.
I would add that Joe Biden was selected (don't laugh Republicans -- Sarah Palin also fitted the bill) to be an alternative to Dick Cheney.
Now Cheney isn't a popular guy with Big Media. (Those guys who do well with Big Media tend to suck up to them.) Biden of course is, more or less, adored. In other words, nobody knows Cheney as well as they know Biden -- so speculation tends to make up for the factual shortcomings.
The problem -- for want of a better word -- is that Biden is overcompensating. Where Cheney could be viewed as thinking, deliberative and serious -- Biden is coming off as the opposite.
Take his current junket with his Senate cronies. Obama is working on his first 100 days plan and Biden isn't in the room. In fact, he's getting silly badges from the Pakistan government. (Click here to see the badge.)
Moreover, he's not the Vice President yet. Furthermore, nobody knows how much of a foreign policy heavyweight he will be in the Administration. Hillary Clinton will be the Secretary of State and a somewhat diminished John Kerry will be swinging away as the incoming chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs committee.
The visited leaders are making nice to him but whether they respect him also remains to be seen.
Hopefully, if the theory holds, will get a better Veep in 4 to 8 years.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Why the Headache?
President-elect Barack Obama officially announced that Leon Panetta as his choice to be the Director of Central Intelligence. Ordinarily this would be big news, but he also selected Admiral (Retired) Dennis Blair to be his Director of National Intelligence.
I'm at a loss as to what the difference is between a "central" and a "national" intelligence capability, but I do know that the latter is an added (but not necessarily a "value-added") layer to the intelligence bureaucracy. It does, however, diminish the CIA. A mid-level staffer told me a couple of years ago that it wasn't quite the same -- as the ONDI serves as a filter to the policymaker. Further, when your boss -- the DCI -- is no longer regularly meeting with the President -- the organization loses a bit of its luster.
Nonetheless, heading the CIA is more or a terminal gig rather than a stepping stone -- just ask Deutch, Tenet, and Goss. For Panetta, at age 70, he knows that this is the capstone assignment.
By my estimation, Panetta has his work cut out for him -- at least on the analytical side. Who knew that Russia would invade Georgia, and that Iraq would turn out for the better? Certainly not the CIA. (I'd be curious if they were right about the price of oil plummeting.)
Whether or not the Agency contorted intelligence to fit the views of Vice President Dick Cheney is an issue, I'll leave for the historians. What's obvious though, is that their analysts didn't appreciate having their assessments reviewed rather than taken for fact.
Moreover, there seems to be a few sensitive souls walking the halls of Langley. For an organization that's geared for the rough and tumble world of international espionage -- there are those who can't take a butt-chewing.
Let me note that the CIA, like any organization has its studs and duds. And of course, intelligence successes are rarely, if ever, praised -- along with the DoD, they are the only other government entity directly engaged in the Global War of Terror with boots on the ground.
Regardless, Mr. Panetta has his work cut out for him in developing a first rate spy agency especially since his hometown of Monterey, California is lovely this time of year.
I'm at a loss as to what the difference is between a "central" and a "national" intelligence capability, but I do know that the latter is an added (but not necessarily a "value-added") layer to the intelligence bureaucracy. It does, however, diminish the CIA. A mid-level staffer told me a couple of years ago that it wasn't quite the same -- as the ONDI serves as a filter to the policymaker. Further, when your boss -- the DCI -- is no longer regularly meeting with the President -- the organization loses a bit of its luster.
Nonetheless, heading the CIA is more or a terminal gig rather than a stepping stone -- just ask Deutch, Tenet, and Goss. For Panetta, at age 70, he knows that this is the capstone assignment.
By my estimation, Panetta has his work cut out for him -- at least on the analytical side. Who knew that Russia would invade Georgia, and that Iraq would turn out for the better? Certainly not the CIA. (I'd be curious if they were right about the price of oil plummeting.)
Whether or not the Agency contorted intelligence to fit the views of Vice President Dick Cheney is an issue, I'll leave for the historians. What's obvious though, is that their analysts didn't appreciate having their assessments reviewed rather than taken for fact.
Moreover, there seems to be a few sensitive souls walking the halls of Langley. For an organization that's geared for the rough and tumble world of international espionage -- there are those who can't take a butt-chewing.
Let me note that the CIA, like any organization has its studs and duds. And of course, intelligence successes are rarely, if ever, praised -- along with the DoD, they are the only other government entity directly engaged in the Global War of Terror with boots on the ground.
Regardless, Mr. Panetta has his work cut out for him in developing a first rate spy agency especially since his hometown of Monterey, California is lovely this time of year.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Wednesday's Wondering
Why do the New York Jets want Brett Favre for another year? Since his status is uncertain -- it's going to be tough getting a new coach for the team. In retrospect, losing the conference championship to the subsequent Super Bowl champion -- wouldn't be a bad way to cap a career. But like Jordan and Sinatra who also came out of retirement, a wonderful career was tarnished by a mediocre return to the limelight.
Is it me, or is Tom Cruise's latest movie, propping up the TV industry? For a middling flick -- it's everywhere on TV. Of even greater curiosity -- it's been out for a couple of weeks and I still see the advertising. Is Tom too big to fail?
I'm not sold that Governor Paterson has picked Caroline Kennedy to be the Empire State's junior senator. He has to ask the all important question -- how does she help get Paterson elected in 2010. Given her less then stellar campaign (despite the help from the hacks at the New York Daily News) Caroline Kennedy hasn't answered that question yet.
The luckiest guy in 2008 had to be the joker who constantly lamented about losing "another loan to Ditech." I'm sure he lost business to Ditech because he wanted his borrowers to have a steady income and buy a house they could afford. You'll notice that they don't run those ads anymore.
Whatever happened to the lone private eye on TV? Guys like Jim Rockford, Joe Mannix, or Harry O. fought crime by themselves. (OK, they had unofficial help from the local police department.) Now, crime (at least the TV variety) is fought by heavily staffed government entities -- whether it's a CSI outfit, the Closer (geez, she's got eight guys working for her -- all one one case!), or that FBI unit in Criminal Minds. Fighting crime used to be a lot more cost efficient and effective back in the 1970s.
Is it me, or is Tom Cruise's latest movie, propping up the TV industry? For a middling flick -- it's everywhere on TV. Of even greater curiosity -- it's been out for a couple of weeks and I still see the advertising. Is Tom too big to fail?
I'm not sold that Governor Paterson has picked Caroline Kennedy to be the Empire State's junior senator. He has to ask the all important question -- how does she help get Paterson elected in 2010. Given her less then stellar campaign (despite the help from the hacks at the New York Daily News) Caroline Kennedy hasn't answered that question yet.
The luckiest guy in 2008 had to be the joker who constantly lamented about losing "another loan to Ditech." I'm sure he lost business to Ditech because he wanted his borrowers to have a steady income and buy a house they could afford. You'll notice that they don't run those ads anymore.
Whatever happened to the lone private eye on TV? Guys like Jim Rockford, Joe Mannix, or Harry O. fought crime by themselves. (OK, they had unofficial help from the local police department.) Now, crime (at least the TV variety) is fought by heavily staffed government entities -- whether it's a CSI outfit, the Closer (geez, she's got eight guys working for her -- all one one case!), or that FBI unit in Criminal Minds. Fighting crime used to be a lot more cost efficient and effective back in the 1970s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)