Morning Fog

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. 

Your Name In Headlines? Not Necessarily A Good Thing (I: Cain)

Mothers, I presume, still dream that their sons and daughters will grow up to be famous, and see their names in the headlines.   Yet sometimes the dream can become a nightmare - 15 seconds of the wrong kind of fame can wreak havoc with an entire life of sterling public record, or derail a Presidential candidate's chances.

Right now there is a wealth of examples but our media often seem to treat each one as if it were the most serious infraction possible.  Cain, Paterno, Perry - each story is different. If I were to rank them in order of seriousness ... well, gosh, it seems I just did.  Let's look first at: 

Herman Cain, after four charges of sexual harassment, some of them very specific, continues to deny them all.  Is he lying?  The best case that can be made is that perhaps he really does NOT remember; often the sort of offense we're talking about is so common as to become insignificant in the minds of those who commit them.  Kathleen Parker has been through the exercise of putting herself in Cain's shoes, and found them uncomfortable. 

But even if we concede Cain just doesn't recall, then even his fans ought to be thinking he may not be Presidential timber; certainly they would think so if similar charges surfaced involving some Democrat?  Most observers, however, might suppose that one anonymous charge is vindictiveness, but when they see three or four, they're more likely to think, "Iceberg ahead! Man the lifeboats."

Also stirring doubts are Cain's rather desperate attempts to deflect attention from the issue.   
(a) He says he is being persecuted by some cabal who just don't like him.   There may be some such people; could it be that his name alone stirs a sense of unease among the religiously literate?   E.g., the Rick Perry crowd? 
(b) He suggests there is a conspiracy in the land to keep a "businessman" out of the White House.  Really?  In a nation whose constitution reveres property rights above all else, and whose political practice tends to leave more power to business than to any other entity?  Actually businessmen have been elected.  Never a pizza king, but George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Warren Harding and maybe Herbert Hoover.  Come to think of it, if voters consider that record, maybe they DO have a bias against businessmen. 
(c) Finally, there is Cain's protest that he won't let "politics" sway him from pursuing the Presidency;  but from where I sit, it seems that in running for President, "politics" is not an incidental factor.

The Cain story hasn't been fully told yet but when it is, in the coming months, I suspect he'll end up politically Abel. 

Virginia Election Results Inconclusive

Political observers had hoped to be able to read tea(party?) leaves for the 2012 Presidential elections in yesterday's Virginia election for state senators, delegates, and local offices -- but were disappointed.  The results showed no clear trend.

Republicans increased their existing majority in the lower chamber; in the Senate, where Democrats controlled up to now by a slim margin, results aren't final yet.  One Democratic candidate lost to his Republican opponent by only 86 votes and is almost certain to request a recount.  IF that Democrat ultimately is declared the loser, Republicans will enjoy an evenly split Senate in which the Republican Lieutenant Governor will cast tiebreaking votes.

Republicans are already crowing about a grand victory.  But while the 50-50 split represents an improved situation for them, the actual outcome needs to be juxtaposed against the rosy expectation.  It is hardly the rout that GOP strategists had hoped for.  In many areas and offices, incumbent Democratic candidates they had hoped to topple by linking them to Obama held their own, even in some downstate districts that are really Republican territory. 

If there's a message in this election in Virginia, it's that  voters remain uncertain where to look for answers, and 2012 could still produce surprises for either party. 

Basic Scientific Research

Annalee Newitz's defense of basic scientific research (and of funding for government entities to conduct it) is a good review of the essential truths about the subject:  Private interests generally do applied research that is focused on their specific products or product areas or which clearly promises a profitable way of using it; yet most of the more far-reaching scientific breakthroughs have resulted from "basic" research, which is focused on understanding something without knowing in advance how it might be utilized or where it might lead.

Politicians have sought to cut funding for government scientific research on the grounds that it duplicates, or competes with, industry research.  These are often the same politicians who have denied climate change, done nothing about environmental issues, and believe that "creationism" should be taught in schools. 

That's all pretty well known, so when I read Newitz's article the other day I didn't think of it as unusual, or particularly important.  Today, I saw it in a different light.

Cigarette companies are fighting in court based on their "freedom of speech" to prevent the rather gross illustrations the FDA wants to require on their packages.  A federal district court judge has sided with the companies, bought into the spurious argument that corporations are "people" with free speech rights, and prevented the new labeling from being implemented for now.  

I think people ought to know by now that smoking is dangerous and make their own decisions.  On the other hand, cigarette companies haven't played responsibly and still don't.  So I don't much care about the eventual decision on the packaging.  The labels are extreme, but largely irrelevant. 

But I did start to think again about the need for basic research.  The cigarette companies are a prime example of why we must have basic research being conducted outside of, and independently of, business interests.  Where would we be today in our knowledge of the nexus between smoking and health if cigarette companies had monopolized scientific research on the topic?  We don't have to guess about the answer; back in the 1960s, when in fact they still did monopolize research on the topic, the companies' efforts mysteriously couldn't find any conclusive link between smoking and cancer.

  

Plenty Of Targets For Occupy Wrath

Alec MacGillis's essay ("Occupy what ...") in Sunday's Washington Post  was clever and thought-provoking.  Indeed there are many places legitimately to lay blame for the current state of our affairs ... some that might not occur to us immediately, or that may even seem counterintuitive.  I dare say there are others that could be added to the list too.

I particularly like "Occupy Tysons Corner," for the movement toward contracting out government functions has always been a foolish indulgence of small minds who thought that it didn't matter what you were paying to get a job done so long as it was off budget. It also debunks the myth that private enterprise is always cheaper and more efficient.  (Or does it perhaps "bunk" the reality that the complexity of many government jobs is often considerably higher than supposedly equivalent jobs in the private sector?  If not, why do contractors have to pay double the government rate to find employees to do them?) 

As for adding to this list, how about "Occupy the 99 Percent."?   The entire housing bubble could only have occurred in a market full of people ignoring reality, deceiving themselves about values, and far too focused on get-rich-quick schemes.

Nothing is quite as simple as it seems.  In a complex, interconnected global economy, no single factor or person can be identified as the only cause of a trend or phenomenon.   

The American No-Party System

For a long period that covers the entire living memory of most of us, the U.S. has had a two-party political system.  Not that other parties can't be, or haven't been, formed, but real political power has always been held by either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party (note to writers and speakers, please: it's not the "Democrat Party.")  

In civics classes in high school, or in political science classes in college, the two-party system, which is nearly unique in the world, was usually credited for providing political stability, and its surprising duration without serious challenge was explained by reference to a broad national consensus on most political issues.   

It's interesting that even in these times of seemingly deep divisions among us about such basic matters as the role of government, the guiding principles of our economy, the church-state relationship, equal rights, immigration, and a host of others, the two-party system hasn't shown signs of breaking up - not yet, anyway.   What has changed, perhaps, is that our two parties used to represent very similar versions of the American dream, with only slight differences of emphasis; now, they seem to have a harder edge, seeking to differentiate themselves under pressure from the extremes of right and left, respectively.

Whether this endangers our two-party system or not, it's too soon to tell.  We might have some clues if tea-party dissatisfaction with the Republican convention's eventual choice of a candidate boils over into a third-party movement, and that movement does demonstrably better at the polls than third-party movements historically have done.  My guess is, it won't happen.

Meanwhile I've noticed a new phenomenon that I might call the "no-party" system.  With elections for state/local offices taking place here in Virginia next Tuesday, the usual political signs have sprouted along roadsides in greater-than-usual numbers.   Yet almost to a man (or woman), the candidates don't identify their party affiliation.   Democrats and Republicans alike seem very shy of labeling themselves as such, preferring just to mention the office they seek:  "Virginia Senate," "Arlington County Board," "School Board" and the like.  The exceptions seem to be exclusively Democrats (in this admittedly Democratic area).  In effect, they're camouflaging themselves, hoping to attract voters of both parties just by plastering the landscape with their names.   It's deceptive, but there's a reason for it.

If indeed "all politics is local," these candidates are telling us that they recognize the voting public is leery of the extremes the two parties have come to represent.  They believe their chances of election are better if they disguise themselves.  That may be a hopeful sign for the future, and for an eventual swing back towards moderation.   At this point, however, more than usual in American politics, the party affiliation does matter, and voters should inform themselves accordingly. 

 

The Economy - Can We Aspire To Be Greece?

As Thanksgiving draws nigh, pundits have begun to look at the deficit "supercommittee" set up back in August as part of the deal that allowed us to increase the national debt ceiling.  It's been very quiet, for the most part.  Most reports suggest that the group remains split, with neither side budging from its maximalist positions, and no agreement in sight.  The latest to express doubt is former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, who yesterday offered his own plan before the committee, out of concern, he said, that they might otherwise let the country down.

No surprise there.  The commission was engineered to "fail the country," as Bowles puts it, as soon as each party appointed its most stalwart, uncompromising partisans to be its members, eschewing those (such as Bowles) who had already worked on addressing the issues.  As I said then (along with many others, I'm sure): 

"...all our currently dysfunctional political system has to do is create a committee, agree on a huge menu of very difficult and controversial steps, get that done before Thanksgiving, and fashion and pass legislation to implement the cuts recommended.  Given what we've seen so far, does anyone think that's a realistic expectation?"

Is it possible, as some members of the Commission report, that progress is being made behind closed doors?  Let's hope so.  Otherwise, we're back where we started (or worse), with foreign governments and international markets seeing reason to doubt that we are competent to resolve our own problems.   With the example of Greece very fresh in people's minds at the moment, parallels will be drawn.

 

Halloween Political Hijinks - Or Is It Lowjinks?

National elections are a year away still but here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, we're having a little election next week just for practice - and to elect various state and local officials.

An election event on Halloween should be fun, right?   That's reportedly why the Republican Party cadre of Loudoun County, a rural backwater an hour's drive west of downtown D.C. that is rapidly evolving into yet another Washington DC bedroom community, put out this illustration as part of an e-mail promoting a local Halloween political parade:

As you might imagine, this "promotional" illustration, especially the photo of Obama done like a zombie, and with what looks like a bullet hole in his head, became an overnight web sensation once it got into the public eye, with most people's reaction being that it was inappropriate and unfunny.  The state GOP Chairman rushed to condemn the use of this imagery, saying it had no place in the state's politics; and our Republican Governor called it "shameful and offensive." 

Gee, do ya think?  Or are we maybe just being too sensitive these days?  Some people think so: 

Mark Sell, chairman of the Loudoun County Republican Committee, issued a statement late Monday saying the e-mail was “a light-hearted attempt to inject satire humor into the Halloween holiday.”  “Apparently, some individuals have interpreted an image of Barack Obama that appeared within the e-mail as intending to portray the president as a victim of a violent crime,’’ Sell said. “Nothing could be further from the truth, and we deeply and sincerely apologize to the president and anyone who viewed the image if that was the impression that was left. The LCRC deplores any effort to display, suggest or promote violence against the President or any other political figure.”

Well, I admit to some doubts that "nothing could be farther from the truth." The intention seems rather clear.  It's also gratuitous, since this is a county party organization that isn't remotely an actor in an effort to unseat President Obama - unless of course they are thinking of doing so violently.  If I were a Loudoun County Republican, I'd consider whether Mr. Sell's apparent obliviousness to the current tense state of our politics didn't disqualify him as Chairman.  But let's take him at his word -- say it was an honest misjudgment, yet in several respects a damaging one nevertheless.   The appropriate action is for him to resign, which could lend some credibility to the claim the offense was unintended.