Deficit? What Deficit?

Image via WikipediaMinnesota Governor Mark Dayton dropped the usual happy talk that comes with describing the State of the State Wednesday, and laid it out to his audience of legislators jammed into the same chambers at the Capitol for the occasion.  To get this state out from under the mess Dayton's predecessor Tim Pawlenty created, the Democratic governor called for a bipartisan effort to invest (in so many words) in more jobs, more education funding, more money for transportation, and to streamline government services.

The Governor has yet to announce his budget plans, but one cat he did let out of the bag is that he still favors taxing the wealthiest Minnesotans, a leftover campaign promise.

That's not likely to fly with a Republican-controlled legislature trying to deal with a $6.2 billion deficit.  The one budget bill they did pass so far, which would have made $900 million in cuts, was just vetoed by Governor Dayton.

So what are the GOP's proposals to save the state some money?  How about . . . opening liquor stores on Sundays, so customers don't have to drive across the border to buy booze and pay their sales taxes?  Letting sex offenders go, whether they've been rehabilitated or not?  Deny funding for abortions?  Requiring voters to show some form of ID at the polls on Election Day?  This may be an unoriginal thought, but these proposals sound more like solutions in need of a problem.

In the same State of the State address, Dayton's calls for bipartisanship were undercut by his accusing Republicans of planning a government shutdown this summer if things don't go their way.  GOP leaders were flabbergasted, claiming they have made no such plans.  Well, we'll see about that.

The fireworks are just getting started in St. Paul, and it'll be interesting to see who or what gets caught in the crossfire.  Wonder if anything of significance will get done?

Showdown at Tahrir Square

Image via WikipediaTwo weeks have gone by since protesters took to the streets of Cairo, demanding the ouster of longtime Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.  In that time, the level of protests at Tahrir Square and other Egyptian cities have gone from the Summer of Love to the Age of Anger and back.

Mubarak has responded by replacing everyone in his government except himself, instituted scores of new reforms, and he has said he will remain president until new elections are held in the fall.  That is not enough for those who wanted Mubarak to step down ASAP, so the protests continue.

The Summer of Love abruptly ended when Pro-Mubarak supporters rode in on their horses and camels and crashed the party, clashing with the Anti-Mubaraks, Western journalists and anyone else who happened to stand in the way.  The Pro-Mubaraks may have a point in claiming that the worldwide news coverage has been skewed in favor of the Anti-Mubaraks.  But that doesn't excuse them from beating up and detaining journalists in a country where freedom of the press (as we know it) is unknown.  All that was really accomplished were reams of bad publicity for the regime, and for chasing all those high-value network news anchors out of Egypt.

Much to the disappointment of the Anti-Mubaraks, the Obama administration is still working behind the scenes (or dragging its feet, depending on where you stand) on a way to give Mubarak a graceful early exit.  This can be interpreted as the United States needing Egypt more than Egypt needs the U.S. when it comes to Mideast peace and terrorism.  That, and there's millions of dollars in foreign aid at stake to make sure things between the two nations go as smoothly as possible.

Back in this country, conservatives in Congress and on the airwaves seem to be using the crisis to raise fears of a Muslim planet.  Take Glenn Beck.  As ratings for his Fox News program are going downhill, he's becoming frighteningly desperate.  Beck's been telling his audience that soon Muslims will be in control of not only the Middle East, but also parts of Africa, Europe and the United States.  So buy some gold while you still can.  (What was it that the Bible said about false prophets?)

As we wait to see how this crisis will end, we must not forget that this is Egypt's chance to choose its own destiny.  Whether Mubarak steps down before September, or the military and state police crush the rebellion, all we can do is watch.

News From The House of Hubbard

Hot on the heels of purchasing a number of radio stations from a Mormon-owned media company, locally based Hubbard Broadcasting is still making news.

"The Kennedys" Have Landed

Hubbard-owned ReelzChannel, a heretofore little known cable network that runs old sitcoms and movie previews, has picked up a miniseries starring Greg Kinnear and Katie Holmes (best known these days as Mrs. Tom Cruise) about John F. Kennedy that was headed for oblivion.

The History channel, which had spent tons of money to produce the film, apparently took one look at "The Kennedys" before rejecting it.  They said it didn't measure up to their standards.  Oh?  And specials about Nostradamus, "Ice Road Truckers" and "Life Without People" do?

There's speculation that the real reason History (and other networks) passed on "The Kennedys" was the alleged influence of a certain Kennedy family member who didn't like the way JFK was portrayed, and that there were too many diversions from the truth in the name of advancing the story.

Reelz will run "The Kennedys" in April, so we'll get to decide for ourselves whether the film is accurate or not.  That is, unless someone in the Hubbard family knows a Kennedy or two.

Big Change at 1500ESPN

It's the end of "Saturday Morning Sports Talk" as we know it, and Joe Soucheray must be feeling fine.

Starting in mid-February, Soucheray won't be working weekends at KSTP-AM any more.  He'll be leaving the Saturday show to longtime broadcast partner Patrick Reusse and his new co-host Judd Zulgad, a Minneapolis Star tribune sportswriter who used to moonlight at KFAN-AM.

Reusse and Soucheray will still be together for one hour weekdays, but now the focus shifts to Soucheray's popular "Garage Logic", where he can still bash liberals and deny climate change in afternoon drive.  So, uh, why is there still a political talk show on what's supposed to be a sports station?

When "Sports Talk" began 30 years ago on Sunday nights (later Mondays), it was like no other talk show on Twin Cities radio.  It used to be wild and crazy with some of the quirkiest callers you've ever heard.  As the program migrated to Saturdays, it became old and boring with Soucheray and/or Reusse checking out some weeks, leaving producer "The Rookie" to hold the fort.  It got worse when (A) "Sports Talk" became an extension of "Garage Logic", and (B) the bottom-of-the-hour newscasts became extended and unlistenable when Soucheray or Reusse interrupted the newscaster all the time.

Since leaving the sports beat at what is now the Star Tribune a quarter-century ago, Soucheray hasn't written much about sports in his other job as a general columnist for the St. Paul Pioneer Press.  Now he doesn't have to pretend any more.

Triumph of the Trivial

Image by Getty Images via @daylifeSometimes, a nation's priorities get off balance.  Blizzards are socking the East and Midwest.  We need to use less salt in our diets.  Charlie Sheen goes into rehab, shutting down production of his popular TV sitcom.  The Super Bowl is next Sunday, and previews of the commercials that will air during the game are already on the air.

Oh yeah.  There's a bunch of people rioting in Egypt, one of America's biggest allies.  Its president, Hosni Mubarak, has said he's stepping down after elections in September.  The multitudes who remain on the streets of Cairo just want him to go away ASAP.  You may have heard about it.

There's a reason for the triumph of the trivial.  TV networks have slashed budgets in their news departments to the point where there are hardly any bureaus in cities around the world (unless you're CNN), and they have to rely on international broadcasters like the BBC and first-person accounts from whoever is wielding a camera phone or has Internet access.

If a story is so big that it requires extra people to cover it, then the networks will send Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer and Brian Williams to anchor their evening news live from the scene.

Much of this event-driven international news coverage can also be explained this way:  The networks claim that Americans don't care about what goes on beyond their own borders.  Not unless it involves Our Brave Troops who are marking time in Iraq and Afghanistan, how China and India are taking away our jobs, or what Kate Middleton is going to wear at her royal wedding.  Is there a natural disaster or a political riot somewhere?  We're so there, dude.

Meanwhile, we turn on Fox News instead of CNN so we can listen to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck react to international crises, in the hope that they know more than the rest of us.  Or maybe even Jon Stewart and his "Daily Show" colleagues can find the funny in the situation.

Some people have been calling on cable and satellite services to start adding the Arab news channel Al-Jazeera English to its lineup, as a way to balance out the lack of international coverage they get at home.  Just one problem.  Isn't Al-Jazeera best known as the go-to channel for Osama bin Laden's videotaped rants, and for its perceived anti-American slant?

If broadcasters and cable networks are too cash-strapped and ratings-blinded to tell you what's happening in the rest of the world, there's always the Internet, where you can find plenty of sites that cater to international news.  That is, until net neutrality takes over.

Meanwhile, we can all look forward to coverage of a certain groundhog seeing his own shadow.

Solving a Modern Riddle of the Sphinx

Image via WikipediaWhen a leader of a country has been in power for a long time and people are getting tired of the act, what happens?  If this were the United States, that leader would be voted out every four years.  If this were a country where said leader rigs elections and crushes whatever opposition there is, you'd start taking taking to the streets.

Emboldened by the overthrow of the government in Tunisia, the people of Egypt are trying the same thing with President Hosni Mubarak, who is desperately hanging on to power in the face of anti-government rioting that has so far killed 74.  His response has been to shut down social media services and Internet access, as well as kicking the Arab TV network Al Jazeera out of the country for allegedly inflaming the situation.  Just a thought:  Why hasn't China, Iran and other authoritarian regimes thought of that instead of merely restricting the new mediums?

Obviously, the United States would like every country to be as democratic as they are.  Since that's not possible, they've had a history of holding their noses and supporting whatever leader with a dubious reputation will keep them safe from the evils of the world.  Once upon a time, it was communism.  Now it's terrorism, particularly when it comes to Al Qaeda.

For President Barack Obama, the choice (if there is one) boils down to this:  Either stick by an ally who has more or less kept the peace between Egypt and Israel since the treaty was signed more than three decades ago, and who has helped keep terrorists from America's doorstep.  Or accede to the wishes of the Egyptian people and try to work with whatever government succeeds Mubarak, even if it happens to be run by Islamic fundamentalists.

What's important to note is that so far, the Obama administration has declined to take a side in this crisis.  Which is understandable since this is the first world situation the President has had that wasn't inherited, or that involved Mother Nature.  To solve this modern riddle of the Sphinx, he must walk a fine line.

For the people of Egypt, seeking to topple a pyramid that they believe has been making their lives miserable for decades, it's not enough to say that things would get better if they succeeded in getting Mubarak out of the way.  They also have to make sure they're not just replacing one pharaoh with another.

"Winning The Future" While Mending The Present

Image by Getty Images via @daylifePresident Barack Obama's State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress was played under slightly different rules, due to the recent shootings in Arizona resulting in the absence of Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (for which a chair was left unsat).  There were no shouts of  "You lie!", no finger-wagging from a Supreme Court justice, and members of both parties sat next to each other as if the House chambers were a 1950s malt shop.  Still, there was the requisite number of unnecessary standing ovations that pushed the speech to an hour.  (ABC's George Stephanopoulous counted 45.)

The President talked about "winning the future" in ways which made him sound like the Republican he isn't, as a gesture of goodwill to the new GOP majority in the House, as well as echoing the challenges John F. Kennedy laid down 50 years ago this month.  Obama recited the usual laundry list of proposals (the details would come later) intended to improve the economic picture.  He even asked for a freeze on domestic spending for the next five years.  And he defended the health care law that was passed in the last session, pleading with the new Congress not to gut it in favor of the insurance companies.  All in the spirit of bipartisanship.

The GOP response was given by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who basically said that the United States could turn into the next Greece if the budget deficit isn't solved soon.  But he sounded like an adult next to Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who was speaking for the Tea Party in what had to be an awkward moment for the Republicans.  She brought up many of the same themes Ryan did in a more animated fashion complete with charts and graphics.  (If you were watching CNN, however, you'll notice that Bachmann wasn't making eye contact with the camera.)  Both of them talked about how government spending had gone up since Obama took office, without bothering to mention that if George W. Bush hadn't wasted the budget surplus bequeathed by Bill Clinton on two wars when he was President, we wouldn't be in this mess.

President Obama talked plenty about a rosy future for the United States and waxed optimistic about the people in it, which is what someone in his position should be doing.  Maybe the President should concentrate on winning the present, because with the economy going at a snail's pace, that's what a lot of people are facing right now.

Keith Olbermann Takes a Sanity Break

Image via WikipediaThe departure of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC was neither sudden nor surprising.  The sportscaster-turned-liberal firebrand has had run-ins with network executives before, and people in the know say that this move had nothing to do with Comcast taking over NBC.  Maybe not, but getting a brief suspension for making campaign contributions to Democratic candidates certainly greased the skids.

When "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" started eight years ago, its apparent premise was what would happen if a news channel did its own version of "The Daily Show", minus Jon Stewart and the studio audience.  By the end, it became a straight newscast with little room for snarkiness, but plenty of room for The World According to Keith.

Olbermann interviewed the same, like-minded guests (usually liberal journalists and the ubiquitous Arianna Huffington and Michael Moore), and his "Special Comments" became a cry for help.  In taking impassioned potshots at conservative commentators and Republicans, he became the type of person he was criticizing:  Lonesome Rhodes, a character from the 1957 film "A Face In The Crowd" played by Andy Griffith (please rent it, or catch it the next time it appears on TCM.  You won't regret it.).

The recent shootings in Arizona changed the way Olbermann did business.  His pledge to tone down the political rhetoric and challenging others to do so, and suspending his signature "Worst Persons In The World" segment (again) meant "Countdown" had to be kind and gentle.  Olbermann doesn't do kind and gentle.

Conservatives may be cheering over Olbermann's departure.  But while "Countdown" was the highest-rated program on MSNBC (putting that network on the map because now it had direction it didn't have before), the most recent ratings tell us that it only ranked fifth among cable news shows.  The top four, led by Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, belong to Fox News Channel.  And their audience numbers doubled those of "Countdown".

Contrary to popular belief, MSNBC is not all liberal, all the time.  They employ conservatives Joe Scarborough as a morning host and former presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan as a commentator, just to name two.  But the remaining progressives--Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz--will stay on the air as long as Comcast allows.

Olbermann?  It's hard to say.  Having crossed over to the dark side of news, it's hard to imagine him crawling back to sports.  It's also hard to imagine any other network taking him on, knowing what we know now.  Given what's been going on recently, maybe we all need a sanity break.