Giving Thanks in 2013

Image by None via CrunchBase

OK, so Thanksgiving was a month ago.  As we close 2013, we'd like to salute (backhanded and otherwise) some of the people and events that made this year what it was.  So in the spirit of all those award-show acceptance speeches:

We'd like to thank . . .

• Edward Snowden.  For years we've wondered if Big Brother was watching us.  Because of classified documents Snowden has released under dubious circumstances, we have our answer.  They are watching us.
• Pope Francis.  In the short time that he's been pontiff, he's been saying things about social matters that makes the Catholic Church seem less stuffy.  Wonder how long that'll last?
• Pope Benedict for getting out before being carried out.
• Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, for proving that Americans do not hold a monopoly on sex-crazed and drug-addicted politicians.
• Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer, for helping influence people like Ford.
• Republicans in Congress, who brought the nation to its knees in ridiculous arguments over raising the debt ceiling and trying to kill the Affordable Care Act.
• the government healthcare website, which was so screwed up that they affected President Obama's job approval rating.
• Michele Bachmann for raising the national IQ with her announcement that she's not running for Congress again.
• Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, for picking up where Bachmann left off.
• Miley Cyrus, who proved that twerking, sticking out her tongue and getting naked with a wrecking ball is a great way to remind folks that she's not Hannah Montana any more.
• Robin Thicke, for reminding a new generation of what a Marvin Gaye song sounded like.  Unfortunately, so do attorneys who represent the Gaye estate, who are suing him.
• law enforcement officials who shut down the city of Boston, in search of the suspect allegedly involved in the Boston Marathon bombing.  It was more like Boston strong-arm tactics.
• Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad for seeing the Arab Spring as his chance to declare war on his own citizens, while classifying his opponents as terrorists.
• the states that have so far approved same-sex marriage, whether through the ballot box or  judicial fiat.  It may not be something Phil Robertson of TV's "Duck Dynasty" approves of, but we have become so used to gays and lesbians that who really gives a quack?
• the former director of Minnesota's health insurance exchange, for being an example of why it's never a good time to take a vacation when you're in the public eye.
• George, the newborn son of Prince William and Kate Middleton.  Great.  Another royal family member the tabloid media can swoon over for the rest of this century.
• Paula Deen for learning there is no recipe for undoing the damage the N word can do.
• Jennifer Lawrence for proving you don't need to watch the "Hunger Games" movies to see what a good actress she's becoming.
• the Kardashians for being the kind of family few want to keep up with.
• Kanye West for being his humorless, self-important self.  However, he did do us a favor by not overexposing his baby by partner Kim Kardashian, and for naming her North instead of something that starts with the letter K.
• Lara Logan, who took a few too many lessons from Dan Rather in how to mess up "60 Minutes'" reputation.
• Ray Price, Nelson Mandela, Joan Fontaine, George Jones, Jean Stapleton, James Gandolfini, Tom Laughlin, Peter O'Toole, Lou Reed, Esther Williams, Cory Monteith, Sylvia Browne, Tom Clancy, Marcia Wallace, Karen Black, Eileen Brennan, Dennis Farina, Joyce Brothers, Jonathan Winters, Bonnie Franklin, Annette Funicello, Elmore Leonard, Vince Flynn, Eydie Gorme, Ray Manzarek, Phil Ramone, Richie Havens, Margaret Thatcher, Ed Koch, David Frost, Helen Thomas, Roger Ebert, Pauline Phillips (the original Dear Abby) . . . just for being here.
• you the reader.  Thanks for finding us.  Please visit again.

WCCO: May We Help You Today?

English: The WCCO building in downtown Minneapolis, 2006 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

WCCO-TV (CBS 4), in its never-ending quest to promote itself to death, recently revived a onetime Twin Cities icon in its version of the Northwestern Bank Weatherball.  Erected atop its Nicollet Mall studios in downtown Minneapolis, the Weather Watcher (as they're calling it) lights the skyline with the CBS eye atop the letters WCCO.

Much like the original Weatherball (more on that later), the Eyeball (as we're calling it) flashes the current conditions this way:  Red is for warmer weather.  Blue is for cooler weather.  Green is for snow or rain.  White is for no change.

If you've spent more than enough time in Minnesota, you know that weather is a big deal here.  So the local TV stations have resorted to gimmicks to make their weathercasts stand out.  It's not enough to get the First Forecast on the air following breaking news coverage of a cat being rescued from a tree, or seeing who has the biggest Doppler radar.  KARE-TV (NBC 11) has had a Backyard for three decades, for the perverse pleasure of watching their meteorologists brave the elements.  WCCO has added a rooftop studio adjacent to their Eyeball in belated response.

Not to get all "Lost Twin Cities" on you, but a little history is in order.  The original Weatherball was introduced in 1949 by Northwestern National Bank on top of its downtown Minneapolis headquarters.  It stood twelve stories, or 157 feet tall, according to the website forgottenminnesota.com   Eventually, the bank's catchy jingle (first on radio, then TV) created enough awareness and business to warrant little Weatherballs at their branches all over town.

The Weatherball stood for more than three decades until Thanksgiving 1982.  That was when fire destroyed an entire block of downtown Minneapolis, including Northwestern Bank and Donaldsons department store.  The ball, which miraculously survived the fire, was moved to the Minnesota State Fairgrounds.  It sat there for 17 years before being consigned to the junk heap.

By 1983, Northwestern Bank had become Norwest, with a big green 'N' for its logo.  They merged with Wells Fargo in 1998, which has an icon of its own with a stagecoach and a team of horses.  That burned-out hulk has since been rebuilt as one of the tallest buildings in Minneapolis, and is now known as Wells Fargo Tower.

So there it stands, the WCCO Eyeball--ahem, Weather Watcher, taking its place with the Foshay Tower,   IDS Center and Mary Tyler Moore statue among the landmarks of downtown Minneapolis.  It might serve as great promotion for a TV station that hardly needs it.  But in this age when checking the weather is literally in the palm of your hand, who's gonna look at an eye in the sky?

Nelson Mandela (1918-2013)

Português: Brasília - O presidente da África do Sul, Nelson Mandela, é recebido na capital federal. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

To understand the impact that Nelson Mandela, who died at age 95 after a long illness, had on South Africa and the world, you had to understand the social and political climate of the country he lived in.

We talk about the Civil Rights movement in the United States in the 1950s and 60s, combating the Jim Crow laws in the American South with marches, boycotts and sometimes violence.  In South Africa, Jim Crow was called apartheid, another way of saying the races were meant to be separated with white people on top.  There it was national policy  Period.

Mandela, as a member of the African National Congress, spent his adult life trying  to convince the white-run government that blacks and those of mixed race deserved equal treatment with Caucasians.  For that, he served 27 years in prison.

While incarcerated, Mandela's legend grew as his name was censored in his own country.  "Free Mandela" protests became common all over the world.  Countries and noted figures refused to do business in South Africa.  The pressure on the government intensified as protests grew louder, tempers got shorter and apartheid laws were strengthened.

Then Mandela was released from prison to cheering crowds in 1990.  He worked with white President F.W. deKlerk to rid South Africa of its racist system, and helped to create a new country in the process.  Mandela served as President for one term, then oversaw the election of his successor.  For this, he shared the Nobel Peace Prize with deKlerk in 1993.

Granted, Mandela wasn't always considered the hero he is today.  The United States government first labeled him a communist because they wanted to get in good with South Africa during the Cold War era.  And it took until 2008 to get Mandela off the terrorist watch list.

South Africa today is still on shaky ground with its multi-cultural government, but so far things seem to be holding together compared to the rest of the continent.  It's anyone's guess what will happen with Mandela's passing.  Will things remain peaceful, or will it go the way of so many African countries into war, terrorism and dictatorship?

Nelson Mandela chose to help change South Africa from a white-based method of legal discrimination against people of color to a democratic, multicultural society, and he chose to do it peacefully.  For this, he was an inspiration to his country and to millions around the world.  It is a legacy well deserved.  

Going Nuclear (Or Not)

Aside from the disaster that is the Affordable Health Care Act and plunging approval ratings, the last few days have been rather significant for President Barack Obama and the Democrats.  How significant remains to be seen.

A temporary deal to limit Iran's alleged nuclear program.  U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan for another decade.  And the Senate does something about filibusters.  In all, it's quite a gamble.

Iranian Nukes Frozen

After months of secret negotiations, the United States and Iran came up with this deal:  The Iranians will stop making the nuclear materials allegedly intended to be weaponized, in exchange for some economic sanctions to be lifted.  Already it has had an effect in the U.S., where gas prices have been going down.

But the deal is for six months, with a more substantial agreement to be negotiated.  That has America's allies, especially Israel, on edge because they were not taken into consideration during the negotiations.  Congressional Republicans (and some Democrats) feel the same way, believing that the tougher sanctions that have been in place are still the way to go.

Should there be no deal, however, all bets are off.  Truth be told, the Israelis would rather bomb the Iranians  than negotiate with them.  And some of the more conservative Iranians aren't crazy about the idea either.  It's been 34 years after U.S.-Iranian relations were severed over the the American diplomats being taken  prisoner for over 400 days.  "Death to America" is still a common refrain heard around Tehran.  But more moderate leaders are in power now, and that's what led to this apparent thaw.  For now.

Another Decade in Afghanistan

Despite a promise by President Obama to get U.S. soldiers out of Afghanistan by this time next year, it looks as if this country's longest war will get longer.  Under a proposed new agreement with the Afghan government, as many as 10,000 American military personnel would remain there in a noncombat role through 2024.  The Afghans say they are now in a position to handle their own security, so what do they need the U.S.'s help for?  Or is there more to this than that?  Afghanistan just happens to sit right next to Iran and Pakistan.

The Senate Nukes Filibusters  

Senate Democrats, tired of watching their Republican brethren using stalling tactics to stop important legislation dead in its tracks, have decide to do away with the filibuster by way of the so-called "nuclear option".  From now on, a simple majority is needed to pass the President's agenda and most of his judicial appointments.  But the Democrats can only get away with this as long as they have a numerical advantage in the Senate.  The 2014 midterm elections are less than a year away, and the "nuclear option" could come back to bite them if the GOP gains enough seats.

All these issues and more could either help or hurt President Obama and the Democrats in the next few years.  What they can't count on is whether voters "go nuclear" themselves at the ballot box.
 

JFK: The End of Innocence

Cover of John F. Kennedy

At one p.m. Central Standard Time on November 22, 1963 in a Dallas hospital, President John F. Kennedy was pronounced dead of gunshot wounds.  An hour earlier he, with First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy riding alongside him in a motorcade, smiled and waved at the crowd gathered along the parade route.

Suddenly, this youthful-looking, forty-something President who had inspired a nation, saved the world from nuclear destruction, and projected an image of vitality and glamour was gone.  In his place was a much older man who could have been his father.  And the world faced a new reality.

Fifty years later, there are more questions than answers about what really happened that day in Dallas.  Lee Harvey Oswald may have been fingered as the trigger man, but did he really act alone or was there someone else behind it?  All of those involved are now either dead or sworn to secrecy.  Everybody seems to have their own theory, but it doesn't really matter who did it or why.  JFK is still dead.

Fifty years ago, America was a fat and happy country living on the edge of annihilation (but only if you ignored rumblings from the Civil Rights Movement), where everybody did the Twist, the Rat Pack was in full flower, and "The Beverly Hillbillies" was the number one show on TV.  After November 22, America became a scared, distrustful country.  In some ways, it still is.

Never again would people trust their government to have all the answers as they once did.  Wars, political scandals, economic decline, security breaches, etc., pretty much took care of that.

Never again would a President be allowed a scintilla of privacy.  We didn't know until years later that Kennedy allegedly had extramarital affairs, and that his poor health left him addicted to painkillers.

Never again would the news media be as docile, because by 'gentleman's agreement' Kennedy's private foibles weren't reported.  If this 'agreement' was still in place, Richard Nixon would have been President for eight years instead of six.  And we never would have heard of Oliver North or Monica Lewinsky.

Never again would we be surprised when another sniper or terrorist commits mass murder, whether it's in a place of business or a pillar of learning.  If there's one thing we've learned, this has made Americans more--not less--willing to lock and load, as if the Second Amendment gave them the God-given right to do so.

Most of all, never again would we have the confidence to go forward in our daily lives without watching our backs.  We lock our doors, keep the kids inside, make fortresses out of public buildings, and get searched at the airport before boarding a flight.  Being safe is not the same as being free.

That's why what happened on a parade route on the streets of Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963 still matters in 2013.  John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, wasn't the only one who died that day.  So did America's innocence.

Bully Nation

They say what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.  If you have been getting threats day after day, night after night because of the way you look, sound, act, where you came from, what you believe,what your sexual preference is, etc, that gun in your hand, that noose hanging overhead, or that cup of poison looks mighty tempting right now, doesn't it?  Before you go that far, keep reading.

We are all bullies.  It's been that way since the dawn of humanity.  Because of that, wars have been fought.  Kings, queens and dictators have come and gone.  Races, sexes and nationalities have been enslaved, subjugated and discriminated against.  Millions have died because of bullying.

In the modern world, bullying isn't restricted to schoolyards and cyberspace  You don't even have to be a child.  Bullying happens in the workplace, corporate boardrooms, sports locker rooms and inside the halls of Congress.  It happens at home:  Parents bully their kids.  Kids bully their parents.  Men rape, beat--and even murder--their women.  It also happens on TV, in the movies and in video games.  College campuses call it 'hazing'.  In the mean streets of the big city, people aren't safe from bullying even inside their homes.

If you choose to be in the military, you are bullied from the moment your drill instructor starts yelling at you to the moment they put a rifle in your hand and tell you who to kill.  If you're part of the police department, that "protect and serve" stuff goes out the window the moment they give you your badge.

In church, preachers bully their flock with what they say is the word of God.  They also bully young people into committing acts the Bible says you shouldn't do.  Certain religions bully the female population into covering themselves and accepting the consequences of unmarried sex.

Bullying also happens when terrorists bomb an airplane or a marathon, and when governments spy on and intimidate its own citizens--often in reaction to what terrorists do.

This supposed 'epidemic' of bullying has led to calls for new laws on the state and federal levels to make it illegal.  Why?  Any proposed law would be as effective as the ones that tell you not to rob a bank, steal other people's property, or shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater.  Bullies don't care about the law.  They just hire bullies of their own to represent them in court.  After they're tried and convicted (in most cases), they're sent to prison.  No shortage of bullies there.

If, by now, you've decided against using that gun, drinking the poison or jumping off the bridge and decided instead to stand up to the bullies in your life, good for you.  Just remember that retaliation makes you just as much a bully as everyone else.  Only you know if it is really worth it.

It's a vicious circle, isn't it?

Performing Surgery On a Sick Website

The Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) went into effect a month ago.  Despite many Republican efforts to defund or kill it, we are well into an era where millions of Americans who couldn't get health insurance either because it was too expensive or pre-existing conditions prevented them from getting it, now can.  And President Barack Obama, for whom the ACA is his baby, promised everyone that if we liked the health care we had before, we can certainly keep it.

That is, if you've been able to get on the website.

HealthCare.gov is supposed to be the starting point for those who want to buy policies, unless your state has its own insurance exchange (such as Minnesota).  So far, however, the site has resembled Murphy's Law, where anything that can go wrong did.

Those who have accessed the site (or tried to) encountered long waits, security glitches, lost information, no browsing through plans unless you're registered, etc.  There have also been media reports that HealthCare.gov had too many flaws, and not enough time to fix them before it went live.

Remember that promise the President made about keeping your health insurance if you liked it?  Well, some people got the word that their plans were being dropped because they were not compatible with the ACA.  So they're forced to go on HealthCare.gov, finding that the plans there are much more expensive than what they had previously.

Who's to blame for all this?  Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services secretary, has offered herself as a sacrifice.  That's noble of her, but she's not the only one.  Whoever designed the website is also responsible.  Those who were in charge of the planning also are, as well as those whose job it was to adequately explain the ACA and how the website works to everybody.

Politics, of course, has plenty to do with how the ACA has turned out.  It was initially passed in 2010 by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by Obama, and not one Republican voted for it.  The GOP now has control of the House and is inching toward a majority in the Senate, so they've gotten a lot bolder about getting rid of the ACA--to the point where they threatened to shut down the federal government over it.  Oh wait, that's already happened.

Progressives say that, despite all the problems with HealthCare.gov, the ACA will come out smelling like a rose.  Well, so far it's smelling like something else, and it's not roses.  Even if the website were fixed tomorrow, it has planted doubts in people's minds about the effectiveness of the ACA, and whether the cure is worse than the disease.

Maybe a delay of a few months to a year for the deadline to enroll in health care coverage might not be such a bad thing, if only to allow time for people to get to know the plans without being rushed into them to avoid paying a penalty.  Until then, the Affordable Care Act will continue to be more of an albatross than a feather in the cap for President Obama.

Back From The Brink. Again.

The government shutdown that took 16 days, cost billions of dollars, put thousands of employees not considered 'essential' out of work, and threatened to turn the country into the world's biggest deadbeat is finally over.  Both houses of Congress passed bills to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling limit, averting a default.  For now.

So what did all the hollering and grandstanding that took place over the last few weeks really accomplish, as a frustrated and angry nation looked on?  Not a whole lot.  The Tea Party proved themselves to be the uncompromising jerks we always thought they were.  House Speaker John Boehner couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag, watching his fellow Republicans sink into chaos.  President Barack Obama and the Democrats weren't in much of a compromising mood either, holding the line on what they wanted until the GOP said uncle.

On the one issue that caused this unnecessary crisis--defunding the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare--the Republicans failed miserably.  Not only did the ACA remain intact, it has also somehow survived a rocky start as glitches abounded here and there.

Around the world, as people stared in disbelief while Washington played with the possibility of economic havoc, the country is reduced to a laughingstock.  It will be a long time before anyone trusts the U.S. government to get its house in order and stimulate the world economy.

Guess what, folks?  We get to do this all over again in a few months.  The government funding only lasts until January of 2014, and the debt ceiling has to be raised again the following month.  What's going to be the excuse this time?

If there's one thing Congress is particularly good at, it's kicking the can down the proverbial road.  What's going to happen when there's no more can to kick?  You really want to know?

Shutdown Won't Change a Thing In Congress

The second partial federal government shutdown since the Bill Clinton administration has raised passions everywhere you look.  President Barack Obama, the Democrats and Republicans all blame each other for not passing the necessary funding bills to keep the lights on, instead letting a battle over a health care initiative that just became law put the country on the brink.

All this finger-pointing has led to closed parks and museums, furloughed employees, delayed paychecks for those still working, delays in research, and so on.  It has also led to decreased international prestige (the President had to cancel a trip to Asia) and made national security more vulnerable.

About the only thing the shutdown hasn't stopped is the one thing that brought it about in the first place--the Affordable Care Act became law, with federal and state health insurance exchanges now available in most of the country.  Unless, of course, you happen to live in a state run by a Republican government that doesn't think you need health insurance.

All over the country, people are venting their anger over politicians who won't do their jobs while they're losing theirs, threatening to never vote for them again.  Most blame the Republicans, but others aren't cutting the President and the Democrats any slack, either.

Yes, folks, vent your spleen at those numbskulls in Washington all you like.  Just remember that you voted for these people in the first place.  And it's likely you'll be voting for them again.  Here's why:

• Short Memories  The midterm elections aren't until a year from now, which is why incumbents feel confident that the shutdown will be all but forgotten by then. 
• Money Talks  These same incumbents have campaign war chests of millions of dollars, along with front groups who kick in millions more on behalf of (but not directly to) the candidate.  So they can afford to saturate the airwaves and Internet with negative advertising against their hopelessly outspent and overmatched opponent, while seldom promoting their own record.
• Rigged Elections  Many congressional districts are set up in such a way that it's almost impossible for an incumbent to lose his/her seat.  New voter ID laws in some states might restrict access to the ballot box for some people.  Third parties?  Are you kidding?
• "Congress sucks, man.  But my Senator/Representative is doing a great job!"
• Take This Job and . . .   Unless you're fabulously wealthy and more than a bit power-hungry, why would you want to run for Congress?

The first government shutdown lasted nearly a month.  This one looks like it's headed in that direction, unless some kind of deal can be struck between the President and Congress to turn the lights back on.  And the worst may be yet to come, because the debt ceiling has yet to be raised so the government can avoid defaulting on its loans.  Shutdowns may not last forever.  Neither does partisanship and incumbency.  It just seems that way.

Federal Budget (and Obamacare) In Critical Condition

Here we are again, folks.  Another showdown over the federal budget in Congress, threatening to harm the American economy if they don't pass some kind of short-term fix before the end of September.

This time around, it's the debt ceiling--currently at $16.7 trillion--that needs raising again because, as everyone knows, government tends to spend more money than it takes in.  But it's being held hostage by a group of Republicans who see this as one last chance to gut the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare, which is due to begin on the first of October.  They're even willing to shut down the government over this.

One version which has already passed the GOP-controlled House couples the debt limit with the defunding.  The Democratic-controlled Senate's version keeps the new debt limit, but loses the defunding.because President Barack Obama won't sign anything that renders the biggest accomplishment of his administration useless.

This has led to the spectacle of Republican Ted Cruz of Texas commandeering the Senate floor for over 21 hours, making it the fourth-longest filibuster in history.  (Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina had the longest at around 25 hours in 1957, when he railed against the Civil Rights Act.)  In it, Cruz talked--and talked--about how ACA would cost too much money, discussed the Revolutionary War, and quoted from Dr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham.  Anything to fill time, right?

So what did this stalling tactic accomplish for Senator Cruz?  Kudos from the Tea Party, and not much else.

As open enrollment under ACA gets underway, all the noise in Washington points up a basic problem:  The reason the GOP has been successful in casting doubts about Obamacare is that it has been poorly understood by most of the general public.  Yes, it will lower your rates.  No, companies can't deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.  Yes, you need to get coverage or you will face a penalty.  Other than that, the Obama administration has not done a good job in educating the public.

Even state-run exchanges like Minnesota's MN Sure has been having their problems.  Despite being cited for having the lowest premiums in the country, all the TV ads featuring Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox can't explain how MN Sure works, either.  It also doesn't help that there have been glitches that might compromise people's privacy.

And the Republicans want to replace Obamacare with what, exactly?  They haven't done a good job of explaining that one, either.  Or maybe they don't have to.  They seem to want to go back to the way things were, when Big Medicine ran things.

Unless something resembling a compromise (rare in Washington these days) can be reached by Monday, the federal government will be unable to pay its bills.  Government buildings and parks will close.  Employees, military personnel and others will either be paid less or laid off.  Is this what the Republicans want?  Starving the country while feeding their egos over a president and a health care bill they don't like?

And you wonder why Congress has a 14 percent approval rating.  Oh, that's right.  We elected these guys.  Shame on us.

Emmys 2013: Night of the Living Dead

65th Primetime Emmy Awards – Show (Photo credit: samsungtomorrow)

Leave it to the Television Academy to screw up their biggest night, the 65th Primetime Emmy Awards.  But then again, when haven't they? Whether it's undeserving actors or TV shows winning awards, or a telecast that makes you feel as if you wasted half your life just watching it, that deserves a special Emmy of its own.

Still, this year's Emmy telecast on CBS did have its moments:

• Will Ferrell drags three bored kids from soccer practice to the ceremony to watch him announce the awards for Best Comedy and Drama shows, which were won by ABC 's "Modern Family" (for the fourth consecutive year) and AMC's "Breaking Bad", in that order.
• "The Ryan Seacrest Center for Excessive Hosting" skit was all too true, in the case of host Neil Patrick Harris.  By now, you expect him to host every awards show there is.
• Merritt Wever of Showtime's "Nurse Jackie", surprise winner for Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy, said it best:  "Thank you so much.  Um, I gotta go.  Bye!"
• Stephen Colbert's "The Colbert Report" breaks the decade-long dominance of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" in the category of Best Variety Show.
• Jeff Daniels of HBO's "The Newsroom", not Bryan Cranston or Jon Hamm, wins for Best Actor in a Drama.

If there was one overriding theme for this year's Emmys, given Hollywood's current obsession with zombies and vampires, it was death.  It would have been understandable had there been a recent national tragedy, or if a major star had passed away shortly before the ceremony.  Neither happened this time.

Instead of the typical "In Memorium" segment, where images of deceased performers fly by like spirits across our TV screens while someone like Sarah McLachlan croons "I Will Remember You", we got the spread-out approach.  During the course of the Emmy telecast, five people were singled out for tributes--Jean Stapleton (Edith Bunker on "All In The Family"), Jonathan Winters, James Gandolfini (Tony Soprano on "The Sopranos"), Corey Monteith (TV's "Glee") and Gary David Goldberg (produced the 80's sitcom "Family Ties").  All the tributes were tastefully done by the people who knew them.

But Andy Griffith, Jack Klugman, Larry Hagman and Andy Williams also died in the past year.  Where were their stand-alone tributes?  Instead, they were all lumped into a separate "In Memoriam" segment with other notables and TV industry folk, deserving of nothing more than black-and-white head shots and mournful cello music.

You'll also notice that there were no clips of the deceased's performances during any of the tributes.  Is it because the Emmy producers couldn't afford the rights to the clips?  Or did they think the show had gone on long enough?

Other segments of the Emmy telecast also reminded us of people who are no longer here.  They even gave an award to a writer from "Homeland" who had passed a few months ago, which his widow accepted on his behalf.

Michael Douglass, Matt Damon and Elton John paid tribute to Liberace, the subject of the HBO movie "Behind the Candelabra" (which won for best TV movie).  Liberace died in 1987.

Don Cheadle hosted a segment on how TV covered the major events 50 years ago:  The March on Washington, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and the Beatles' first appearance on "The Ed Sullivan Show".  Then you remember that not only is JFK dead, but so are Martin Luther King, Walter Cronkite, Ed Sullivan, John Lennon and George Harrison.

Then there were the musical numbers, where Harris sang and danced, and a group of dancers interpreted the nominated shows.  If Harris had been born 20 years earlier, he might have had his own TV variety show.  As it is, song-and-dance men went the way of the old Hollywood musical.

Come to think of it, TV as we knew it is also pretty much dead or dying.  The broadcast networks are struggling for survival.  Cable is being threatened by Internet streaming.  The nomination of "House of Cards" means that a show doesn't have to be on TV to be successful.  Most of us are no longer stuck watching a show at the same time on the same station, thanks to smartphones and tablets.

As the Emmys spent three-plus hours on broadcast TV congratulating themselves, they were also tolling the bell for the way TV was.  The future is literally in the palm of our hands.

Just Another Day In America

Here's what you really need to know about the latest mass shooting, which occurred Monday in Washington, D.C. at the Navy Yard:

Thirteen people are dead including the alleged shooter, who police have identified as Aaron Alexis.  Media and police reports tell us that Alexis was allegedly having some kind of mental problem that no one took seriously.  They also tell us that Alexis allegedly bought his weapon in Virginia, whose gun laws are much less strict than in the District of Columbia.

Shootings like this one have become all too common in the past few years.  It's not like the assassinations of the 1960s, when everyone grieved over the man and what he represented.  It's ordinary people whose names we will never know, who were just living their lives until someone with a gun ended it for them.  And that someone is usually either dead or mentally incompetent to stand trial, denying us a clearer picture of why they did what they did.

In times like these, we've learned to expect less from our elected officials because groups like the National Rifle Association own them lock, stock and gun barrel.  Two sitting legislators in Colorado were defeated in a recall election because they dared to vote for gun reforms, in a state where high school students and moviegoers were murdered.  Not even the killing of elementary students in Connecticut was enough for Congress to pass meaningful gun legislation.  The Second Amendment conquers all.

So we lock down our buildings, public and private, employing armed guards and metal detectors to search us for weapons.  Others institute the "no-gun zone" in the hope that whoever brings one of those can read signs.  Starbucks now says that guns are neither welcome in their restaurants, nor are they banned.

We used to have mental institutions to warehouse the people who had conditions deemed threatening to the general public.  They were shut down because, thanks to modern medicine and those who thought they were doing the right thing, many of these cases can now be treated and lead normal lives.  What about those who couldn't be rehabilitated?  That's where prison comes in, used only as a last resort (unless you live in a state where the death penalty exists) after a crime had been committed.  We could bring back the mental institutions (or whatever they're called these days) if we really thought that public safety was being endangered.  But that ship has already sailed.

Unless we get serious about reforming existing gun laws and the people who shouldn't have access to them, expect more mass shootings such as the one at Washington's Navy Yard.  By then, it will no longer be breaking news.  It'll be just another day in America.

Syria: Holding Off The Missiles of September

A Russian proposal currently being negotiated to let an international team dismantle all the chemical weapons Syria supposedly has in stock has succeeded in cooling, at least temporarily, threats by the United States to reduce parts of the country to cinders.

This development has left President Barack Obama without a leg to stand on as he tries to avenge a poison gas attack near Damascus that killed nearly 1400 people, which was allegedly attributed to Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose country is in the midst of a civil war that has so far taken at least 100,000 lives.

Obama's efforts to mount airstrikes on Damascus and thereabouts have been met with resistance from Congress and most of the American public, who are sick to death of ten years of wars in the Middle East.  On the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and the one-year anniversary of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, there's no point in creating another Middle Eastern enemy.  As it was, the Russian proposal forced the President to tone down his prime-time speech Tuesday night, asking Congress to postpone a vote on approving the missile strike, but leaving open the possibility of firing away if diplomacy fails.

There was one part of Obama's speech that was disturbing.  On the basis of the video of the chemical attack's aftermath (which we have no way of knowing if it was staged or not), the President noted that 400 of the victims happened to be children.  He seemed to suggest that if the video wasn't enough to convince folks that limited airstrikes are needed to teach Assad a lesson, then we should think of The Children as a reason to stop chemical weapons.  That is the worst reason in the world for going to war, as well as the worst excuse to justify anything.  No one, let alone the President of the United States, should be putting The Children up on pedestals.  They're human beings, not property or objects of sympathy and sentimentality.

As for the removal of weapons, the U.S. is taking a skeptical eye over the proposed deal.  It's one thing to say that you're getting rid of the chemical stockpile.  It's quite another to actually do it.  According to one report, the U.S. and the Russians have vast amounts of experience in handling the removal of chemical materials.  Syria does not.  So this could mean that there could be those so-called "boots on the ground", which Obama has promised would not happen, landing in Syria.

Don't think for a moment that anyone holds the moral high ground as far as chemical weapons are concerned.  Mustard gas was used in World War I.  Hitler used chemicals to kill six million Jews during World War II.  Even the good old U.S.A. used napalm and Agent Orange during the Vietnam war on Communists, civilians and soldiers alike.  And let's not forget that America used two atom bombs to help end their war with Japan.

None of this, of course, is going to end the fighting in Syria's two-year old civil war.  The Assad regime is as dug in about staying in power as their enemies are about driving him out.  The major objective right now is to keep the conflict from spreading to other Middle Eastern countries.  Taking chemical weapons out of the equation might go a long way toward accomplishing that.  And President Obama can keep his powder dry.

Getting Serious About Syria

To date, more than 100,000 people have been killed in Syria's two-year old civil war.  More than two million have fled the country as Syrian rebels of various stripes battle for the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad, whose family has controlled the country for over four decades.  Outside of arming some of the rebels, the United States has kept its nose out of the war.  Until now.

Reports of a chemical weapons attack a couple of weeks ago that killed more than 1400 civilians, allegedly instigated by Assad, has caused President Barack Obama to seriously consider ordering airstrikes against Syria.  He would have done so by now, had it not been for his late decision to step back and run it by Congress first.

For the past week, Obama and other government officials--most notably Secretary of State John Kerry--have been telling us that they have "overwhelming evidence" that there's more chemical weapons being stockpiled by Assad.  And if we don't do something about it, by golly, bad things are gonna happen in the Middle East.  Like the price of gasoline would go up a zillion percent.

Doesn't this remind you of President George W. Bush and his cronies, successfully conning Congress, the United Nations and the American People into believing that Saddam Hussein hid weapons of mass destruction all over Iraq?  They never were found, but it was already too late.  The U.S. found itself stuck in a war they couldn't get out of (to paraphrase the great philosopher Bono), until they finally did.

Obama has promised that Syria would be different.  Airstrikes would be limited, just enough to send a message to Assad that he shouldn't be gassing his own people.  No American soldiers would be sent to fight in Damascus, after having just fought in Kabul and Kandahar.  But no effort would be made to remove Assad from power.  That one the Syrians have to figure out on their own.

However, this approach might create more problems than it solves.  Russian President Vladimir Putin is Assad's BFF.  Most of the world is not siding with the U.S. on this issue, with the notable exception of France.  There are no 'good guys' among the rebels in Syria, some of whom happen to be aligned with Hezbollah and Al Qaeda.  And what if Assad retaliates with a chemical attack on Israel, or sends one of his agents onto American soil?

You might remember that President Obama once won the Nobel Peace Prize on the strength of winning the 2008 election as an African-American.  He hasn't done much to earn it since:  Heating up, then simmering down, two wars.  Drone attacks.  The killing of Osama bin Laden.  Alleged spying of American citizens, etc.  Maybe the Nobel committee should call the White House and ask for its Peace Prize back?

Right now Congress, returning early from their Labor Day break, is looking at the evidence the White House is showing them, then debating the wisdom of shooting missiles at Syria.  Well, they can debate all they want.  The Obama administration is going to go ahead and bomb anyway, whether Congress approves or not.  Because who are you gonna believe?  The President or a murderous dictator?

Since 1945, the United States has involved itself in wars where fighting the Communists or the terrorists somewhere else somehow translated into fighting for freedom and democracy at home.  Syria is not a national security risk now.  But it could become one if President Obama orders the airstrikes.  Why create a new enemy when you don't have to?  And why can't you leave well enough alone?  Because this is America., where any excuse to save the world from evil, even if it's a dictator in a small country that's no threat to this one, is greatly appreciated.  And you wonder why America's reputation around the world has declined.

The Dream, 50 Years Later

Crowds surrounding the Reflecting Pool, during the 1963 March on Washington. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On a late August day in 1963, an estimated 200,000 came from all over to gather at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington after marching to support the equal rights that had been denied African Americans for so long.  There were many speeches and songs that day, but we remember it half a century later because of a man who said he had a dream.  A dream that one day America would be free from divisiveness, hatred and injustice.

At this point the civil rights movement, led by this man with a dream, was midway between sit-ins at whites-only lunch counters and troops being sent to enforce Federal school desegregation laws in the American South to President Lyndon Johnson signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  After that, things went sour.  There was rioting in major cities.  Some African Americans did not think change had come quickly enough.  And the man with the dream paid the price on a Memphis hotel balcony.

So what has become of the dream this man spoke about 50 years ago?  As we have said countless times before, most of it came true, but there's still a lot of work left.  It's even possible that we're backsliding.

Beyond athletes and entertainers, there is a lot more opportunity for African Americans to succeed than there was 50 years ago.  While we thankfully don't hear much any more about the First Black This-or-That, it's no longer a surprise to see some that have climbed the corporate ladder or the annals of political power.  Need we mention that there is now a President of the United States who is African American?  What would the man who said he had a dream have thought of that?

Divisiveness and injustice?  Sure, there's still plenty of that.  The Supreme Court gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act, because they thought there was no longer a need for certain states to be held to a higher standard when it came to allowing African Americans to vote.  This includes the many states that now require voters to provide a picture ID at the polls, which is a big problem for those whose records were lost or destroyed.

African Americans, statistically speaking, are more likely to be unemployed, prison-bound and dead of gun violence than whites.  They're also more likely to be stopped by police for some dubious traffic violation.

There may be no Jim Crow laws, separate facilities or demonstrators attacked by fire hoses and snarling dogs.  But discrimination for African Americans still exists at more subtler levels, and will continue to be that way as long as people keep electing politicians who go against their interests.

By 2063, the 100th anniversary of the March on Washington, America will become a country where the majority population are minorities.  Will we be any closer to fulfilling the man's dream he spoke of a century earlier?  Or will it be a case of the more things change, the more things remain the same?

Three New Channels With Something On

Cable channels are more numerous than they used to be, which makes it harder for a new one to stand out from the crowd.  So if you can break away long enough from "Duck Dynasty", "Breaking Bad" and preseason football (and if your provider offers it), you might want to seek these new channels out.

Al Jazeera America is the new domestic face of the worldwide Qatar-owned news channel, praised around the world for its commitment to quality journalism.  In America, however, Al Jazeera is best known for being an anti-Israeli channel that gave Osama bin Laden and his ilk a forum, which is why half of the cable providers have so far refused to carry AJA.  Image problems aside, what we're seeing so far of AJA is a major step up from its predecessor Current TV, with its news coverage resembling "PBS News Hour" with a bigger budget.  They strive to look homegrown with the presence of several minor-league former network correspondents filling out the roster.  AJA is promising no sensationalism, no celebrities and no shouting matches--you know, the kind of stuff that dominates the other news channels.  Let's see how long that lasts.

Fox Sports One has been hyped to the heavens by Rupert Murdoch's other platforms for months, and now it's finally here, replacing the Speed channel.  As America's new alternative to behemoth ESPN, FS1 has been promising its viewers coverage of Major League Baseball, NASCAR and college sports.  That's later on.  Right now it's mostly coverage of UFC matches and soccer, followed by talk shows starring blonde women and analysts who used to be athletes yukking it up.  Oh, and did we forget Regis Philbin?  Meanwhile, ESPN has responded by bringing back its prodigal sons, Jason Whitlock (who they poached from Fox) and Keith Olbermann (we assume he'll stick to sports).

NBC Sports Network has actually been around for over a year, having previously been known as Versus.  In recent developments, the channel is being renamed NBCSN, which makes sense when you consider that "NBC Sports Network" is a mouthful.  They're also making hay out of the fact that they now have the exclusive American TV rights to English Premier League soccer, as well as taking over the second half of the NASCAR schedule from ESPN in 2015.  That's added to NBCSN's current portfolio of NHL hockey, MLS soccer and the Canadian Football League--the kind FS1 currently lacks.

Both FS1 and NBCSN (as well as CBS Sports Network) face an uphill climb against ESPN, which has had a thirty-year head start on the consciences of the American sports public.  They can be found on several channels (with the occasional use of ABC), a magazine and a radio network to spread its brand.  And having the National Football League doesn't hurt either.

Fox News also faced an uphill climb before it supplanted CNN as the dominant cable news channel within a 10-year period.  So for the new cable channels, there's hope that enough viewers will come their way if they get tired of the same old stuff.  If not, there's still "Duck Dynasty".

To Aid or Not to Aid Egypt? That Is The Question.

The United States has never had it easy in the Middle East, with its presence made necessary by its almost blind support of Israel and by its addiction to oil.  Most Arab countries would just as soon see the Eagle fly somewhere else, if it weren't for the war on terror and for the billions they get from our government.

One of the U.S.'s most critical allies in the region is Egypt, and they're in turmoil right now.  After longtime President Hosni Mubarak was driven from power by citizens taking to the streets, new elections were held with the promise of a new democracy.  What they got instead was Mohammed Morsi, who represented the Muslim Brotherhood.

When Morsi tried to take Egypt into a more Islamist direction, to the country's dismay, the generals who actually run things went into action.  They swept Morsi out of power, installed a military government, and that's when the chaos started.

To date, nearly a thousand people have been killed and scores arrested as the violence spread all over Cairo.  Much of that has been directed toward members of the Muslim Brotherhood, because it seems that the military wants the organization eradicated.

And there's this:  Mubarak is scheduled to be released from prison soon, where he had been serving a sentence for corruption.

President Barack Obama's administration has been put into a box over this.  He's denounced the violence and called on the Egyptian military for new elections.  But the White House held off saying the change in Egypt's government was a military coup because they don't want to be seen as supporting a dictatorship.  That's all well and good, but in this instance it makes the administration look wishy-washy to the rest of the world.  Especially to the Egyptians who had been counting on the U.S. for help.

There have been calls for the U.S. to suspend military aid to the Egyptians--which totals over a billion dollars a year--until things settle down, but the administration has been cautious about doing that, too.  Is withholding money really the answer in such a volatile situation?  Besides, if the U.S. quits paying, countries like Saudi Arabia which supported the coup will be more than happy to pick up the slack.

But no amount of money should detract from the fact that the so-called Arab Spring is wilting away, as if it were ever allowed to bloom in the first place.  Is there going to be a real sense of democratic reforms in the Arab world, or will they just go back to the dictatorships that have served everyone but the people so well for so long?  The answer might have a big impact on American security and influence going forward.

Media Legacies For Sale

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos starts his High Order Bit presentation. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Thanks to your generous contributions to an online website that sells just about everything from fashion to Kindles, you have helped enable the founder of Amazon.com to become the proud new owner of a newspaper that once helped to bring down a President of the United States.

Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, plunked down a reported $250 million to buy the Washington Post from the Graham family, which had owned the newspaper for decades.  The Post is best known for its coverage of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, which forced President Richard Nixon to resign and elevated reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein into journalistic icon status.

But that was 40 years ago.  Today the Post, like every other mainstream news organization, is struggling to remain relevant in the digital age.  Some newspapers have done nothing but subtract staff and limit the days they do publish.  Others just quit printing altogether and go exclusively online, making the newspaper on your doorstep even more quaint.

Bezos is not the first high-profile business figure who still believes in newspapers, and may not be the last.  John Henry, who owns baseball's Boston Red Sox, bought the Boston Globe from the New York Times Company for $70 million.  Warren Buffett owns a few papers, including the ones in Buffalo and Omaha.  And the Koch brothers are reportedly interested in taking over the Tribune Company's newspapers in Chicago, Baltimore and Los Angeles.  That's quite a change from the anonymous private equity groups who currently run papers such as the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

It's too early to say what Bezos has in mind for the Post, except that it will be run separately from Amazon.  Will he improve on the paper's legacy or trash it?  Being in the seat of national power, will he use the Post to advance his views on business and politics?  And, less seriously, will Amazon Prime customers get a special deal on Post subscriptions if they buy a Kindle Fire?

This is one of several deals involving media companies that have taken place in the last few weeks.  Here are some others:

• Newsweek, which is now a digital magazine, has its third different owner since the Post's former parent company sold them in 2010.  This time it's IJT, which bought the brand from the Daily Beast.  If Tina Brown couldn't do anything with Newsweek, what makes IJT believe they could do better?
• In broadcast TV, Gannett--the owners of KARE-11 and USA Today--bought up the Belo Corporation and its stations in Seattle, Phoenix, St. Louis and Dallas.  Tribune purchased Local TV and its roster of stations.  But the biggest concern is Sinclair, the owners of WUCW (Channel 23) in the Twin Cities.  They purchased the Albritton and Fisher stations, which include WJLA in Washington, D.C. and KOMO in Seattle.  Progressives in particular are worried that Sinclair's cookie-cutter local news formats and conservative views are going to be shoved down viewers' throats.
• Let's not forget radio.  The House of Hubbard (KSTP, 1500 ESPN, KS95 and MyTalk 107.1) expanded its profile to the West by buying the Sandusky radio stations in Seattle and Phoenix, to go along with the ones they bought from Bonneville last year.

There will be the usual complaints about how so much media is concentrated in so few hands.  But when companies and individuals are willing to invest their money in media that may have seen better days, it's quite a gamble.  We'll soon see whether that gamble pays off or not.

Anthony Weiner: Been There, Done That

Anthony Weiner, NYC, May 2011 (Pre-"Weinergate") (Photo credit: Tony Fischer Photography)

Stop us if you've heard this before.  A Democratic congressman from New York had to resign a couple of years ago because he was caught tweeting pictures of his private parts on his phone to different women.  Now he wants to run for mayor of New York City, but he's still allegedly doing it, this time texting ten different women while referring to himself as "Carlos Danger".

OK, so you have heard this one.  The man we're referring to is Anthony Weiner, who has once again embarrassed his wife (who used to be an aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who knows a thing or two about such matters), family and constituents with his seeming inability to focus on serving the people instead of serving himself.

Poll numbers, such as the one taken by New York's WNBC-TV and the Wall Street Journal that has Weiner trailing his Democratic opponent by nine points, aren't quite enough to convince Weiner to drop out of the mayoral race.  And he shouldn't.  Voters have enough bad choices as it is.  Why should Weiner be any different?

Weiner is just one of a few individuals who have lately grabbed headlines for behaving badly in public, but insist on staying in politics anyway.  The others:

• Bob Filner, the Democratic mayor of San Diego, is accused of sexually harassing several women.  Despite pleas from city officials and concerned citizens for Filner to resign from office, he has so far refused to.  But he did say he'd go into treatment for a couple of weeks.  We'll see if any of it took.
• Mark Sanford resigned as governor of South Carolina in 2011 after his affair with an Argentine woman became public, all the while claiming he was hiking up the Appalachian trail when he was really in Buenos Aires with his sweetie.  After his divorce from his wife and subsequent engagement to that Argentine woman, Sanford is now a Republican congressman.
• Eliot Spitzer was once Governor of New York, until his alleged dalliances with prostitutes forced him to resign.  Two failed TV talk shows later, Spitzer is running for office again, this time for New York City comptroller.  Oh, and he's on a tour to promote his latest book.

We hate to harp on this time and again.  With Syria and Egypt in crisis, Detroit in bankruptcy, Bradley Manning going to prison and Edward Snowden stuck in Russia for unearthing classified documents, the news media seem to be more interested in a couple of politicians who couldn't keep it in their pants.

They need help.  And so do we.

The "Seinfeld" Prince

In the aftermath of news that Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, has given birth to a baby boy that will someday become the King of England, a thought occurs:  As third in line to the throne, that kid will be waiting decades behind (in ascending order) father Prince William and grandfather Prince Charles.  However all of them will have to wait until Queen Elizabeth II's reign is over.  She recently celebrated her 61st year on the throne, and show no signs of slowing down.

The name of the future king is George Alexander Louis, or Prince George of Cambridge.  The name might be a tribute to British monarchs of the past, but it sounds like the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge might also have been fans of the 1990s sitcom "Seinfeld".  Let's break it down:

• George is for George Costanza.
• Alexander is for Jason Alexander, who played Costanza.
• Louis is for Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who played Elaine Benes on the show.

Whether it was intentional or not, the new prince has a lot riding on his shoulders.  Royalty may not be what it used to be, reduced to figureheads who don't do much except sit in huge palaces, do charity work and become fodder for the tabloids.

There have been six kings named George in British history.  Two of them who stood out were George III, who managed the feat of losing the American colonies.  George VI was the last man to rule prior to Elizabeth II, having ascended to the throne in the wake of Edward VIII's abdication so he could marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson in 1936.  George VI served during the World War II era and afterwards until his death in 1952.

The person missing from all this is Princess Diana, Prince George's grandmother.  She was singled out by a celebrity-obsessed public and media because of her seemingly fairy-tale romance with Prince Charles, the details of her personal life breathlessly chronicled by Fleet Street, until she was in a fatal car accident caused in part by the very same celebrity-obsessed media.  Thanks to her, the royal family will never know another moment's peace.

By the time George VII becomes King sometime during the second half of the 21st century, we will know a lot more about him than any other ruler in history.  Will he accept his role with dignity and grace?  Or will he be just like George Costanza?

George Zimmerman: "Not Guilty" Doesn't Mean Guilt-Free

Six women jurors in a Florida courtroom gave George Zimmerman a new lease on life Saturday night, acquitting him of the murder of Trayvon Martin.  How long that lease lasts is anyone's guess.

The jurors ruled that Zimmerman did have the right under Florida law to defend himself against a 17-year old wearing a hoodie, who he thought was up to no good in the neighborhood he lived in.  No matter that the young man was unarmed, just coming home from a trip to the convenience store.  One confrontation later, and the young man was no longer a threat to the community.

Even with an African-American man in the White House, the state of race relations in this country vaulted what would have otherwise been a local Orlando news story into a national controversy.  Politicians, demonstrators, and 24/7 news coverage made sure we didn't forget that Zimmerman was white and Martin was black.

Because it happened in Florida, the whole world got to see the trial televised live.  The problem with that is, while we hear about possible clues and speculation from legal analysts, a sequestered jury only gets to hear the evidence presented to them by the defense and the prosecution, as dictated to by the presiding judge.  So a lot of the evidence which would have turned the case around against Zimmerman (who didn't testify in his own defense) never made it to the jury.  As it was, the jury did the only thing they could do under the circumstances, which was to acquit Zimmerman.

This trial went the way of similar verdicts involving O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony, in which most of America thought they got away with murder.  George Zimmerman may be a free man today, but in truth he really isn't.  He's in hiding because of all the death threats he's been getting, and the legal system may not be done with him yet.  We hate to say this, but Zimmerman might have been better off if he were convicted.

Aside from a few skirmishes, the reaction to the verdict across the country has so far been gratefully muted.  We may not like the decision, but we have to live with it.  Just like we have to live with those trigger-happy people who have delusions of grandeur, heroically defending their lives, their property and their loved ones from real or perceived miscreants as if this were still the Wild West.  We also have to live with racial profiling, (fill in the blank) While Black, and being careful what you're wearing so nobody else gets the wrong idea.   And that is why Treyvon Martin is dead today.

Oh, "Big Brother"

English: Julie Chen and Les Moonves at the Vanity Fair celebration for the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

"Big Brother", a reality competition TV show CBS promotes as lightweight summer entertainment, got some unwanted publicity.  Three of its contestants are in hot water for uttering racist and sexist comments live on the air, and two of them have been fired from their day jobs.  Until recently, the network declined to address this matter either to the contestants or the viewers, and they've taken serious heat for this.  But it's better late than never.

We'll talk more about this later.  But first . . .

"Big Brother" is a European import that's been running the American version on CBS since 2000, and is currently in its 15th season.  It takes 16 strangers (known as "houseguests")--mostly of the young and beautiful variety with the occasional minority, middle aged person and gay/lesbian contestant thrown in--and moves them into a specially-designed "house" with cameras, microphones and one-way mirrors everywhere, cut off from the real world.  The last one to survive weeks of backstabbing, "showmances", silly games and other assorted drama wins a half-million dollars.

Julie Chen, who used to be a CBS morning news anchor, has hosted "Big Brother" from the beginning.  Her husband is President and CEO Les Moonves, who has guided the network to the top of the broadcast TV heap for more than a decade.  Which means that as long as Chen remains married to Moonves, she'll always have a job at CBS.  Right now, her other gig is co-hosting "The Talk", the network's daytime ripoff of ABC's "The View".

Now back to our story.  The three houseguests made their allegedly racist and homophobic comments on the live feed that runs 24/7 on CBS' website.  Two of  the women have been fired from their jobs outside of the show (for the record, they were for a modeling agency and as a pageant coordinator), and the other's employment status is pending.

Since the 16 original contestants entered the "Big Brother" house, they are cut off from the outside world.  No TV, no Internet, no smartphone.  It's also possible that they could not have known about Paula Deen's career implosion, caused by her alleged use of the N word decades ago.

Some people would like to see the offending houseguests booted off of "Big Brother".  It's not likely that it will happen before the show concludes its run in September, because once the other houseguests vote to evict them, some of them will remain sequestered to serve as a jury to determine the show's eventual winner.

In reality television, producers don't look for solid citizens.  Instead, they want people with outsized personalities and good looks who could shake things up.  They do conduct background checks, but sometimes let things slide with disastrous results.  It's all about goosing up the ratings.  The more controversial the contestant, the better the network and its advertisers like it.

So what's a couple of people who say nasty things about gays and minorities?  For a show that's struggling in the ratings as "Big Brother" is, you can't buy this kind of publicity.  Now all they have to do is to stem the tide of viewers spending more of their time outdoors, instead of watching a bunch of pretty and obnoxious people hamming it up in a closed environment.

Paula Deen: Recipe for Disaster

Paula Deen holds court (Photo credit: Bristol Motor Speedway & Dragway)

Until recently, Paula Deen was a popular TV chef who sold her Southern brand of cooking (meaning lots of butter, sugar and fat) to an America that had grown weary of dishes that were good for them, instead of food that tasted good.

Now Deen's desperately trying to save her livelihood, becoming the latest celebrity to lose credibility and millions of dollars for saying something inappropriate.  It came in a deposition for a lawsuit filed against Deen, in which she allegedly admitted to having uttered the N word way back when.

With that, at least a dozen companies have so far bailed on Deen, including Walmart, Target and Sears.  Her TV show has been canceled by Food Network.  Because nobody wants to do business with a racist, whether real or perceived.

Deen's Apology Tour has so far succeeded only in making her look like a sad and desperate woman.  She got mixed reviews on her "Today" show appearance, in which she wept, read Bible passages, and declared "I is who I is".

It's been almost 150 years since the end of the Civil War, when thousands of soldiers died because both North and South had different visions of what the future of the United States should be.  The North wanted to keep the union together.  The South wanted to form their own country, so they could keep their slaves and their cotton.

Today, we're still fighting that war, even though thousands of Northerners have come South in search of better jobs and a better climate.  The political structure of the nation is weighted toward the South, but much of the economy is in the North.  Racial attitudes have improved considerably, but there's still work to do.

We castigate public figures who use racial or sexual slurs, whether they're innocent or not.  Why do they do it?  Is it because it's part of the environment they live in?  Do they think it's cool?  Or do they think that, once they've said it, it won't come back to haunt them some day?

Deen should have known that the antebellum South of "Gone With The Wind" and the attitudes that came with them are, well, gone.  She may now claim to have the utmost respect for the African Americans and anyone else she offended for what she allegedly said long ago, with her bank account and reputation in tatters.  Once she gets familiar with her new reality, she can let the healing and forgiveness begin. 

Supreme Court: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

English: The United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, in 2010. Top row (left to right): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Bottom row (left to right): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As conservative as the makeup of the current United States Supreme Court is, they can always be counted on to do the Right thing.  But sometimes they can rule on an issue that puts them in the right with those who don't agree with them.

First, the justices roll back the main portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which civil rights activists in and out of government fought so hard to get passed.  The Court ruled that local election laws in some southern states no longer need the federal government's permission to be implemented on account of possible racial bias.

The Court says things have changed in the South in the past 50 years.  More African-Americans are voting than they did then.  Elections are a lot fairer than they used to be, except for the occasional hanging chad.  Republicans have replaced Democrats as the dominant party in the South, and now rule the country at large.  There are minorities such as Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal who happen to be Governors of southern states (and who also happen to be Republican). And do we need to tell you that there's an African-American President in the White House?  All this wouldn't have been possible without the Voting Rights Act.

So who needs the Voting Rights Act?  Why fix what isn't broken?  Maybe its gutting won't bring back the days of poll taxes or IQ tests on Election Day.  But it sure won't make African-Americans' experiences at the voting booth or in public office any easier.

Second, the Court did gay couples in 12 states a big favor by striking down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.  This means that, in states where same sex marriage is legal, gay and lesbian couples could file joint tax returns and receive federal benefits previously denied them.  Just like any other couple.

The justices also declined to act on a lower court ruling which overturned Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage in California.  So make that 13 states.

What the Court did not do was to rule on the constitutionality of gays and lesbians getting married in the first place.  Thirty-six states currently outlaw it either by statute or constitutional amendment.

Then there are those who believe government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches.  Since marriages are as much a legal and business matter as well as an emotional one, that's kind of naive.  Besides, if we left it up to the churches, the matter of same sex marriages would be settled.  There just wouldn't be any.

As the Supreme Court's nine justices take off for the summer, only to don the robes again come the first Monday in October, they're leaving behind a mixed legacy.  They might not be the big, bad conservative monsters progressives and other Washington pundits have led us to believe they were.  But they've done enough damage to the country's sense of fairness to make it seem that way.

Security Nation

The seal of the U.S. National Security Agency. The first use was in September 1966, replacing an older seal which was used briefly. For more information, see here and here. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The revelations published by the Washington Post and The Guardian that the United States government has been snooping into our phone records and Internet use for some unspecified reason other than wanting to keep us "safe" should come as no surprise.  After all, the American people are just children to them, to be talked down to when trying to justify matters that only they can understand.  Such as using drones to kill those big bad terrorists, invading foreign countries and pretending it's for national survival, and tapping domestic communications just for the heck of it.

So how come it took an IT guy named Edward Snowden, who had worked for only three months for a contractor named Booz Allen, to claim credit for spilling the beans on what the National Security Agency was really up to?  He now joins Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Daniel Ellsberg as individuals we should either thank or blame for exposing some of the government's secrets.

It isn't just the government that takes advantage of gullible Americans through data mining.  It's also big business who tracks your online habits, whether intentional or not, then uses that information to either sell you stuff or embarrass you.

You can put on the latest and greatest security system on your smartphone or computer.  But they'll still be subject to hacking and snooping.  It also doesn't matter that government and big business has equipment that's far better technologically than anything sold to the general public.  Not unless cyberterrorists and amateur hackers can find a way around them.

Can anything be done to ensure whatever is left of our electronic privacy?  Don't count on it.  Congress passed the Patriot Act years ago without so much as having read it first, and they're too intimidated by all the intelligence briefings they're getting to change it now.

President Barack Obama, who once campaigned against the abuses of national security so prevalent in the George W. Bush administration, has softened his stance once he got into office.  Obama has maintained the status quo in his use of drones and in domestic surveillance begun by Bush, and has led to some successes in rooting out certain members of Al Qaeda while alienating countries like Pakistan.

The President's assurance that nobody in government has been listening to domestic phone calls is kind of hollow to those who already feel betrayed by his two-faced policy on surveillance.  This controversy could wind up damaging the remainder of Obama's presidency.

We wouldn't be talking about any of this if the Bush administration had been taking care of business in the days and months prior to September 11, 2001.  Since then, it has been one security nightmare after another.  Conservatives complain about the 'nanny state', but here they may not be crying wolf.

It was President Ronald Reagan who once coined the phrase "trust, but verify", which was in reference to his negotiations with the Soviet Union over nuclear weapons.  In this case, government and big business ask us to trust them, because they know what they're doing.  The thing is, we can't verify.  It's all classified.  If they can't trust us, how can we trust them?  It's a two-way street.

Reshuffling the WCCO Dawn Patrol

Everlasting DeRusha (Photo credit: Jason DeRusha)

We've said this before, but it bears repeating:  WCCO-TV (Channel 4) likes to brag that more Minnesotans watch their newscasts than any other TV station, and that it's not a coincidence.  They lead at 5, 6 and 10 not just because viewers seem to like (or at least tolerate) Mr. and Mrs. News a.k.a. Frank Vascellaro and Amelia Santaniello, but also CBS' prime time shows.

There's one newscast WCCO doesn't brag about as much, and that's in the morning.  As more and more folks head off to work earlier and earlier, the news is now from 4:30 to 7 a.m. (In some places, it's 4 a.m.)  That's 2 1/2 hours (longer if you're a Fox station or an independent) of warmed-over headlines from last night, weather, traffic reports and fluff before the networks take over.  They've become a cash cow for local stations.

WCCO's morning news currently sits in third place out of four stations.  We don't know who's in first because no one makes local news ratings public any more, unless you happen to be in advertising or station management.

So WCCO makes some changes.  In this town, anything WCCO does becomes headline news.  Nobody cares what the other stations do,

Jason DeRusha and Jamie Yuccas (part of the 'CCO Blonde Patrol, so named for the station's tendency to hire golden-haired female on-air talent) are the new co-anchors, replacing Mike Binkley and Angela Davis (no relation to the activist).  They're moving to Sundays and to substitute anchor work.

For DeRusha, this could be a career game changer.  Up until now, he has parlayed his "Good Question" reporting gig into a magazine column, as a substitute radio host, and an almost constant presence on social media.  (Yes, we follow him on Twitter.  And he follows us.  Why?  That's a good question.)  He's traded it all away for an audience that treats its TV as if it were all-news radio.

Replacing DeRusha on "GQ" is Heather Brown, who recently returned to WCCO from a stint at WNYW/Fox 5 in New York.  Brown is the third reporter in that role, which was originated by current CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy.

There's one other reason why WCCO's ratings are lagging in the morning, and it's a problem shared by other CBS affiliates:  the presence of "CBS This Morning".  Now, the network has never had much luck with its morning news broadcast when compared to NBC's "Today" and ABC's "Good Morning America".  But this version, with Charlie Rose, Norah O'Donnell and Gayle King as co-anchors, has gotten so much positive buzz for emphasizing news over fluff that you wonder why that hasn't translated into more viewers.

Only time will tell if WCCO's morning ratings will rise and shine, but we do know one thing:  The hype machine will continue to turn its reporters and anchors into stars, while the quality of its journalism sinks into the abyss.  Always.

Michele Bachmann: Exit, Stage Right

English: Official photo of Congresswoman (R-MN) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On a slick, overproduced video released on You Tube in the middle of the night, Representative Michele Bachmann announced she was not running for a fifth term in Minnesota's Sixth District come 2014.

Bachmann has a year and a half to go in her current term, and will have served eight years by the time she's done.  In that time, she has made herself a household name among conservatives, Tea Party activists and the religious right.  She also became an embarrassment to Minnesotans and the Republican Party, a lightning rod for progressives and fodder for late night TV comedians.

Space does not permit listing all the wacky statements and misinformation that came out of Bachmann's mouth over the years, whether she believed them or not.  Suffice it to say there were so many of them, the fact checkers just gave up trying to correct them.

The Congresswoman's accomplishments in getting things done in her home district is not well known, unless you count all the time spent railing against Obamacare.  But Bachmann did put in a public appearance shortly before the video was released.  She was part of a public ceremony launching the construction of a new bridge over the St. Croix River bordering Minnesota and Wisconsin, which she helped take credit for.

Bachmann didn't say why she wasn't running for re-election in the video.  Then again, she didn't have to.  There's an ethics investigation into her 2012 presidential run that's attracted the FBI's interest.  She nearly lost a close election last fall to Democrat Jim Graves, which resulted in her dialing things back a notch.  She also maybe realizes that the public is sick of her and her antics.

All this is very bad news for Graves, who wanted a second shot at Bachmann because he believed she can be defeated.  Instead, he'll be running against some lesser-known Republican who will likely win because the Sixth District is a conservative stronghold.

As much as people wish Michele Bachmann would just go away, don't think for a moment we've heard the last of her.  She just might want to challenge Democrats Mark Dayton for Minnesota's Governor, or Al Frnaken for the U.S. Senate in 2014.  Or she might make another run at the White House in 2016.  Or she might be drawing fat checks as a Fox News commentator.  Or she could get out of politics altogether and bang the drums for the Lord.  Michele Bachmann's next chapter begins now.

UPDATE:  Graves has decided to take himself out of the running, which all but guarantees the seat will remain in Republican hands.  Truth be told, Graves more or less admitted that the only reason he got into the race in the first place was to get rid of Bachmann.  Well, he doesn't have that any more, so what's the point?