Morning Fog

Meaningful Holidays - And A New Calendar For Them

I've long thought that Thanksgiving, now just two days away, was the quintessential "American" holiday because of its non-denominational aspect.   All of us celebrate Thanksgiving in one way or another, regardless of religious beliefs.  It's something we all have in common, and something we all share.  Further, Thanksgiving remains the only holiday that has not (yet) become just another excuse to go out shopping.  It has by and large preserved its meaning.

Now, however, Thanksgiving is under attack.  First, with the supercommittee on the deficit seemingly at a bitterly partisan dead end, it begins to appear that Thanksgiving is the ONLY thing we all share these days.  Can it survive in today's politicized environment?  Further, the greater threat is that commercialism is slowly gnawing its way into Thanksgiving, seeking to turn it into yet another shopping spree.  The Tin Lizard recommends boycotting the barbarians, but it's not likely they will be stopped. 

Nearly three years ago I wrote my ambitious new calendar of American holidays.  No one has seen fit to implement it yet, but with Thanksgiving under attack, it seems this may be an opportune time to revisit it, which you can do here.

Your Name In Headlines? Not Necessarily A Good Thing (II: Paterno)

Continuing my look at recent headliners whose mommas might have been disappointed with their current fame, I come to Joe Paterno.

I'm of mixed mind about this one.  Crimes were committed.  But Paterno wasn't the one committing them.  He reported them and those he reported them to (who were also fired after these reports came to light) were the ones who bear the most direct blame for doing nothing.  It would be rare in any university (or for that matter any large corporation, etc.) to expect the football coach to deal directly with such sensitive and explosive matters. 

When they did nothing, we can all agree today that Paterno should have followed up on the matter; yet we should also realize that Paterno's whole code of relationship to authority was formed in an earlier era.   (Sports columnist Joe Litke injects a sense of reality about those who say they would certainly have done more, in Paterno's shoes: if all cases of sexual abuse/predation were reported and appropriate action taken immediately, there wouldn't be any serial abusers.)

I'm not at all a big sports fan.  Unlike Litke and the protesting students of Penn State, I'm not particularly concerned whether Paterno got to finish his last season or not.  I do think he may have been treated unfairly; but perhaps the university's overseers, in looking into the matter, had more information than they've made public.   In any case, they could not have done otherwise now, than to throw Paterno out - the question of his guilt, his responsibility, had become suddenly irrelevant.

For me, the main point of interest here is the grip that athletic programs - football in particular - have on many of our institutions of higher learning.   In my estimation, both the failure of university officials to pursue the matter back in 2002, and the absolute need for the overseers to conduct a Wednesday night massacre, stem from the same cause:  Successful football programs bring in money.   They didn't want to rock the boat in 2002 and risk the loss of income that such a scandal might produce; but once the story was broken in 2011, they couldn't risk seeming the least bit indulgent of anyone who might have been involved.

It will be interesting to see if they made the right call.  Will football alums/fans with the big bucks accept the belated crackdown, or might they consider why nothing happened nine years ago?  Will broadcasters be less avid to cover the Nittany Lions' games?  Meanwhile, if some want to think of Paterno as a sacrificial lamb, I believe he was sacrificed on the altar of the Almighty Buck.  Absent that influence, he might still be coaching, at least to the end of the season. 

Missing The Obvious - The Washington Redskins

Reviewing news stories today and yesterday, I found a number of items that stood out to me because they appeared, one way or another, to omit an evident or crucial point -- a question not asked, a factor overlooked, or a bit of information I wished the reporter had provided.  This is the first of several of these I hope to present in the next few days.

I seldom address the wide world of sports.  I'm no expert and there's already a lot of coverage.  But I did read Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy's item about the Washington Redskins; Milloy is one who objects to the team's name as racist, and reports (in jest, I hope, or he may be redskinned himself by angry fans) that he has tried to jinx the team over several years; moreover, he reads its terrible win/lost record as a form of divine retribution for not altering the team's moniker.

Now, honestly, the political correctness of the team's name isn't one of the issues I've ever been able to get terribly worked up about.  Lawsuits over this continue, though a recent one, as I recall, was something of a setback to those who find the name offensive, as Milloy does.  But in arguing for a name change, I think Milloy missed a key argument:

The Skins ought to change their name now to hide their embarrassing, atrocious record.

After all, this is a time-honored strategy for changing unfavorable public perceptions.  Right here in the Washington area, you may recall that the State Department had a little dustup recently over a nasty incident involving a contract security company called Blackwater.  Hardly had this incident made headlines before the company suddenly had a new name:  Xe!   Surely this would work in football too?

Actually, while we're discussing the Redskins, let's look at another overlooked point.  Notwithstanding all the euphoria in the press about the appointment of a new team general manager (Bruce Allen) and a new coach (Mike Shanahan), what's getting overlooked is that this business of bringing in a coach who might have had a great record somewhere in prehistory has been tried before (Joe Gibbs).  Not only has that not worked for the Redskins, but (per the report of one television sportscaster) it has never produced a championship performance for any team.  So let's keep our hopes up but not too high, please. Repairing the Redskins franchise (or whatever they call themselves when they change their name?) will take time and patience.

Charles Gibson - Anchor Or Albatross

So, Charlie Gibson retires from anchoring the ABC World News after a relatively short stint in the driver's seat.  Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post's media watcher, provides interesting background, specifically that Gibson realized he doesn't have the star power needed to keep viewers coming back to the show.  

That seems honest on Gibson's part.  He seems a relatively colorless figurehead, and unfortunately for him, when he tries to look serious he looks just grumpy.  Also, I'd like to know where he buys his ties - let's find that unimaginative haberdashery and burn it down!  I also got the impression from Kurtz's piece that Gibson is just tired - tired of the schedule, and tired of fighting to keep network news from becoming just another form of entertainment.  Certainly, in that fight, he had few allies and his own network, owned by cartoon king Disney, was not among them.  

On the other hand, it's difficult to imagine that Gibson or anyone else thinks his former Good Morning America partner, Diane Sawyer, has any more "buzz" than he does.  Of course, there may be an initial spurt of interest, as there was with Couric, but it's unlikely to last; and Sawyer's hard news credentials in my view leave a lot to be desired - I've heard her ask some incredibly inane questions on those occasions when she was sent off to do "news," as in a trip to Korea a year or so ago.

Network news has a problem.  I can imagine a model for a personality-driven news show (which seems to be what under-40s want these days) in which the personality also has enough authority to deliver less one-sided reportage than the non-traditional media are currently offering.  Sawyer isn't the one to pull it off, though.

Chicago, The Olympics, and Obama

The political analyst herd seemed to have concluded, within hours of its announcement, that the International Olympic Committee's decision to award the 2016 Summer Games to Rio de Janeiro rather than Chicago, was a setback for Obama both at home and abroad. 

I'd say the Olympic sideshow was more of a no-win for Obama.  Had he not gone to Copenhagen to make the pitch, he would have been roundly criticized here for not going the extra mile to bring this supposedly prestigious event to the U.S.  I'm sure that he knew, too, that if he went and the decision went against Chicago, he'd be criticized for "failure" and even for making the trip in the first place.  And of course, the critics would have been largely the same people in either case.

Personally, when I heard the Obamas were planning to go try to sway the vote, I figured it was a lost cause.  Nothing ventured, nothing gained, but the strength of Rio de Janeiro's claim as the first nation on the South American continent to get a serious chance to host the games was indisputable; it was unimaginable that the President's appearance could have changed that.

Before the decision, and before Obama's trip, there were predictions that Chicago was slightly in the lead, but (because of Rio's clear claim) that seemed dubious even at the time, and was probably the product of overzealous boosterism either from the Windy City or from the U.S. Olympic Committee.  In fact, Chicago's last-place finish also had a dual logic which had nothing to do with Obama.  The big problem seems to have been bad blood between the IOC and the USOC.  I hazard the guess that a second problem, if one were needed, was the nature of Chicago's candidacy:  as I heard it, they had put forward a plan aimed at keeping costs low, including fewer permanent structures and less pomp.  I think that makes a lot of sense, but I doubt the self-impressed and regal IOC saw it that way.

Perhaps hosting the Olympics isn't worth the effort anyway?  It seldom makes a profit, and the glamor and legitimacy of the event are growing a little dull.  My reforms would consist mainly of getting back to basics:  Get rid of most of the team sports that have crept in over the years, especially those that are played in only a few countries around the world; and dump events that depend upon judges' scores.  And here in the U.S., give us thorough coverage, please, rather than just the events that our own teams may win. 

Slow Economy Brings Down Regional Icons - Greenbrier

A second troubled icon of the Washington DC region is The Greenbrier, a major resort near Hot Sulphur Springs West Virginia that has existed under its current name since 1913, and was owned and operated since then by the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad (now CSX).   It's on the National Register of Historic Places, it's a designated National Historic Landmark, and it has on its premises a special bunker designed as an emergency go-down for the U.S. Congress during the cold war.  Quite a place, as you can see.

 But The Greenbrier has been in the news lately, not in a good way, having lost $133 million last year and having trouble filling its 700+ rooms.   Owner CSX, like many companies these days looking to reduce costs by cutting adjunct businesses, decided to throw it into bankruptcy.  Marriott Corp. was seemingly prepared to buy it when a West Virginia coal and real estate magnate, James C. Justice II, stepped in with a better offer.  The good news for the resort (probably) and the people in the surrounding area (most definitely) is that Justice says he won't operate the place in "standard hotel mentality" - presumably meaning to keep its unique features.

While the locals are understandably excited about the prospect of in-state ownership and a better chance of keeping their jobs, it remains to be seen whether the resort can return to profitability.  The current economy has only exacerbated trends that were already in play, most importantly declining bookings.  Maintenance costs must be immense, and the facility, according to some, needs serious updating.  Even if major renovation were to occur, it's unclear whether it would be enough; the place is a dinosaur, built to meet the expectations of a very different era.

A Tough Economy Exposes More Weak Spots - Horse Racing

A bad economy tends to reveal weak points (companies, sectors, individuals) whose struggles might not have been noticed in a flusher economic environment.  Chrysler and GM are the clear examples lately - nationally iconic brands that are struggling to survive and may disappear - but regional icons can also be affected, regional icons like thoroughbred racing in Maryland, Kentucky, and other equestrian states.

Last Saturday's Preakness, held at Pimlico Race Course in Baltimore, Maryland, was an exciting few minutes, as Rachel Alexandra became the first filly to win the race in 85 years, followed closely by Mine That Bird, the surprising long-shot that won the Kentucky Derby a few weeks before. 

The Sport of Kings is an interesting anomaly; horse racing most of the year is the province of a relatively small group of "horse people," plus bettors who come to the tracks (or OTBs) to try their luck.  Only for three weekends a year, when network TV broadcasts the three races that make up the Triple Crown of racing, does the sport attract a mass following. 

That's why I suppose many of the people who tuned in the race Saturday don't realize that the future of the Preakness, which was first run in 1873, even before the Kentucky Derby, is somewhat in doubt.  Pimlico was endangered when its owner, Magna Entertainment, declared bankruptcy; the Maryland legislature has sought to pull it back from the brink, using eminent domain to prevent the property's being sold at bankruptcy auction while another owner is sought to keep the track open (and the Preakness in Maryland).   Still, I'm guessing that any "save" may be temporary. 

The fact is that the sport of racing itself is in trouble.  Tracks are closing or threatened in a number of places, due to higher costs and pressures on the real estate that the major tracks occupy.  Sponsors for the TV broadcasts of racing's major events are dropping out.  Attendance at tracks is dwindling; if, as reported, more money was bet on the Preakness this year than last, I'd chalk that up to the excitement created by the first filly to have a chance in nearly a century.  Other suggested fixes, like a shorter racing season (wouldn't fewer races with fewer horses attract fewer bettors, and wouldn't the fixed cost of maintaining a track be spread over less revenue?), or slot machines at the track (which have nothing to do with racing), will not serve to remedy things. 

The Sport of Kings may need to redefine itself as The (or Another) Sport of the Masses.  Even so, it's difficult to see how racing can survive without radical changes to its current business model.