Rerun Season

Originally posted Friday, April 22, 2005


10 things i've learned about business strategy and planning


1. Drucker was right*. There really are only two business functions: marketing and innovation. I doubt that one company in 20 incorporates this bedrock fact into their culture or mindset or strategy.

2. Given #1, strategy should spend 80% of its time on marketing and innovation. If this is not happening, the firm is not leveraging the time it spends on strategic planning. Even worse, it is a strong indication that the firm is operating as a business-manqué.

3. The best marketing has nothing to do with gimmicks or bold advertising. It is all about communicating real value to the right audience. #2 is not an invitation for accountants to play copywriter.

4. Often, strategic success does not look like marketing. During Coke's great years in the 1980s and 90s, they focused on logistics and distribution. However, this was in service of a profound strategic insight and a clear marketing objective.

5. Most corporate data are close to useless for strategic planning. It is inward-looking and does not focus on customers, markets, or innovation.

6. Very little of the experience gained in internal operations is applicable to marketing challenges. Thus, participatory strategic planning runs into a problem: the participants are inexperienced and not apt.

7. The biggest, most important strategy questions require hard thinking. There are not easy answers.

8. Many people will try to make money by convincing you that #7 is not so. Consultants, software vendors, even internal advocates will argue that they have the magic bullet that will make the hard work disappear.

9. "A will to system is a lack of integrity". Shortcuts require templates that can create false expectations and analytical blinders. Surprise and disappointment are the inevitable results.

10. The devil is not in the details of the plan. It is in the big issues that are ignored while tinkering with the minutia.


* The Practice of Management, (1954).

Rerun Season

Originally posted Wednesday, August 06, 2003

The Meaning of Defeat and the Utility of Victory

An interesting discussion on US military prowess and how it shapes post-war outcomes is going on. It was kicked off with this post by Vodka Pundit and then this response by One Hand Clapping.

I find myself agreeing with Vodka Pundit when he says:

Need to understand why West Germany gave up on Nazism? Because it got every single one of their major cities reduced to rubble, courtesy of the 8th Air Force and the RAF.

The high price Germans paid for Hitler's adventures drove a wedge between the Nazis and the German people. It was not just that the Nazis were evil (Germans managed to ignore that in 1941), it was that they betrayed the German people and allowed them to be crushed, starved and raped.

But he loses me when he writes

Want to know why West Germans feared Soviet tanks? Because they saw firsthand what Patton's tanks could do.

Sorry, the Germans feared Soviet tanks because they had firsthand knowledge about the Red Army. They saw more Russian tanks than American tanks. Berlin, after all, did fall to Zhukov, not Patton.

OHC rightly points out that the

Fighting the modern way is certainly not more difficult than before. It is not easy - Stephen is right that war is never easy - but to imply that this year's Iraq campaign was somehow more difficult than, say, the Normandy invasion or the Battle for Manila is just plain wrong. America's modern way of war enables us to defeat the enemy much faster than ever, and there is no way that means war is more difficult than it was, oh, at the Battle of Gettysburg.

But modern US commanders do face one factor that was not present in World War Two or the Civil War. Patton and Nimitz did not have worry about the political fallout of operational victory. During the August 1944 breakout, the German army tried to escape from the Falaise pocket before Allied armies encircled them. Tactical air power and artillery pounded the retreating Germans. Yet there was no domestic outcry in the US about the uneven combat with a retreating enemy. This is in stark contrast to the "Highway of Death" hysteria in 1991.

The American way of war calls for the deployment of overwhelming firepower at the decisive point to win rapid victory with a minimum of casualties. That used to mean American and civilian casualties. Today it means enemy combatants as well. This is a complexity the World War Two and Civil War generals did not face.

OHC also writes that

The Iraqi soldiers who survived the war this year are not claiming that they were not really defeated. Many of them have been beaten by the US twice - 1991 and 2003. They know they were beaten badly and could not have prevailed even with better generalship. Modern technology enabled us to defeat Iraq's military without killing enormous casualties among Iraqis.

As i read this i was reminded of an incident Col. Harry Summers related in On Strategy. After the ceasefire in South Vietnam, an American officer said to an NVA officer, you never defeated us on the battlefield. His counterpart replied, that is true, but it is also irrelevant. (Paraphrasing from memory here).

Victory on the battlefield does not automatically mean that we gain our strategic objectives.

Clausewitz wrote that "War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will" . In Iraq I, our victory compelled the Iraqi's to leave Kuwait and also allowed us to destroy much of their WMD program. However, in Iraq II, we have the much more difficult challenge of creating a functioning polity that is stable and somewhat liberal. Decisive military victory against Saddam's conventional forces was a necessary but not sufficient condition to achieve this.

One factor needed is a patriotic rallying point for Iraqis that is untainted by the Saddam regime. In West Germany, for example, Adenauer was an anti-Nazi and thus an acceptable politician to lead them during and after the occupation. Perhaps more important, though, were the officers who tried to kill Hitler in 1944. Though they failed, they preserved the "honor" of the army. A German patriot could admire their bravery, repudiate Hitler, and still take some pride in his country's history.

DeGaulle and the French Resistence served similar roles in the restoration of French pride and confidence. French soldiers helped liberate Paris and that helped ease the pain of the defeat in 1940 and the shame of Vichy.

After the Civil War, Robert E. Lee served a symbol for reconciliation and stability. The North and South could agree that he was a good general and honorable man. By accepting defeat and repudiating guerrilla war in 1865 he brought the bloodshed to an end and opened the possibility for a better civil society in the post-war South. Unfortunately, there was a shortage of Adenauer-types to lead the states and insufficient troops to police the occupied South.

At this point, unfortunately, we don't seem to have either type of rallying point in Iraq. They are beaten, liberated, and occupied. But all of that is due to an external power. I worry that if a heroic, patriotic figure emerges, he will do so by fighting or opposing the US. Sort of the way the Communists emerged in China and Vietnam as both anti-colonial and anti-Japanese.

See also:

"Defining and Achieving Decisive Victory "

Nancy Grace: Insight into the PR offensive

Rebecca Dana has a piece in the NY Observer that is not to be missed.

Nancy Grace’s Unmanageable Crisis

In the days after Melinda Duckett’s suicide, Ms. Grace utilized the services of Anna Cordasco, who is the managing director of the New York firm Citigate Sard Verbinnen, which specializes in below-the-radar corporate-image resuscitation.

Ms. Cordasco, who has Martha Stewart as another high-profile TV client, is old friends with Ms. Grace’s executive producer at Headline News, Dean Sicoli. Ms. Cordasco and her colleagues immediately set to work restoring the fire-breathing former prosecutor to her pre-Duckett level of dignity and national esteem.

Except, according to three sources close to Ms. Grace, once the crisis manager stepped in, the crisis just got worse.

Well, as Nancy herself would say, "you can put lipstick on a pig....."

I find it interesting, though, that Ms. Straight Shooting Former Prosecutor opted for a PR firm that "specializes in below-the-radar corporate-image resuscitation."

Rerun season

Originally posted Wednesday, June 25, 2003


Agency Integration

Ad Age (6-16-03) reports on a recent survey of big advertisers. One key finding is that on 43% of the clients think it is "very important" that "a single agency offer fully integrated services." This presents a problem for big agencies which have spent the last couple of decades acquiring a variety of firms in order to become a "one-stop shop" for big clients. Those agencies paid a premium to develop capabilities that most of their clients do not see as valuable.

"One stop shopping" is a convenience, and convenient channels are valuable only when the underlying good or service is unimportant or similar across outlets. Coke is Coke, so it makes sense to buy it where you shop for groceries or gas instead of making another stop. Has anyone every chosen a college solely because the campus was closer to the airport? "Gee, Oberlin is a great school, but Ohio State is much easier to get to. Guess I'll go there instead."

As one survey respondent said, "I go to a specialist; I don't go to the same doctor for everything."

For key business services, convenience is not a big concern. Marketers after all have people on staff whose job is to manage the programs and vendors. One mega-agency or three small one, it is not really big deal in the scheme of things. It is also not a differentiator that can be used in decision-making either. "Hey, Mr. Senior Vice President of Marketing, I think we should select WPP because I'm kind of sick of juggling three different agencies for this project." Saying that out loud would be a CLM-- "career limiting move."

Clients worry that the one-stop shops end up having second-rate services. While media buying might be first-class, the creative could be ho-hum, or the direct marketing unsophisticated. It is worth a little aggravation to get all the parts right for a marketing campaign.

I suspect that one of the key reasons agencies prefer integration is that they do not want to play with their competitors. While understandable, this concern is the agency's problem, not the clients. As such, clients will be unsympathetic.

These findings offer hope to smaller agencies who focus on a single niche (interactive services, say, or cutting-edge creative). If they are willing to play well with others, they still have a shot at working for large clients.

If they really wanted to set themselves apart, they could embrace the disaggregated approach and show that they are eager to work with competitors. If they developed tools and a methodology to provide integrated campaigns even when they did not control all aspects of the marketing, they could get clients attention.

Blogs, it seems to me, should be an integral part of that effort. They are superior to email or meetings for keeping a whole team up to speed and for thrashing out differences.

Nancy Grace: Still trying to ride the dead mother bounce

Sadly, some local cops are willing to help her. From an outstanding column by Lauren Ritchie:

Marion officials jump on Grace's bandwagon

Having Nancy Grace come to town is bad enough.

The CNN Headline News host last week put on two fast-moving, error-laced, psycho-babble shows that consisted of repetitive speculation on what happened to Trenton Duckett, the 2-year-old missing from his Leesburg home since late August.

But to have law enforcement wallow in Grace's theatrical caldron of gossip is just plain bizarre. It is unprofessional. It cheapens the life -- and perhaps the death -- of a child whose destiny seems to be as a victim.

RTWT

Rerun Season

Originally posted on Friday, November 26, 2004

Like tasteless cotton candy

Some TV news stories are pointless but appear like clockwork. Reporter on a beach as a hurricane approaches, reporter standing outside a polling place on election day, reporter at a mall on Black Friday. It fills air time but the beach is the worst place to track the hurricane, 20 minutes at one polling place tells you nothing about turnout, and crowded malls on Black Friday is not evidence that spending is up for the Christmas season.

Duke lacrosse

Frontpage magazine has a long interview with KC Johnson:

Duke's Rush to Judgement

Pondering W

Joe Katzman is puzzled by the Gates nomination.

Rev. Donald Sensing wonders if there is any "organizing principal" to the Bush administration. David Foster offers one in the comments.

I've tackled facets of the question here:

Five quick points about the conservative tantrum

The Bush-Rumsfeld legacy

GWB and his MBA

Duke lacrosse: The incentive structure of the the hoax

Dr. William L. Anderson has an interesting article that applies economic theory to prosecutorial misconduct.

Why the Duke Hoax Continues
Part III: Courts of the State – and the State of Justice

See also.

Another look at Nancy Grace

Atticus Finch doesn't work here

Criminal justice and the Rosenhan Experiment

The Cold War we lost

David Horowitz has a long review of Bettina Aptheker's memoirs. (Aptheker is the daughter of Herbert Aptheker, a historian and long-time leader in the Communist Party USA).

The daughter followed iun her father's footsteps and was deeply involved in the radical causes of the 60s and 70s.

The striking thing about her history is the ease with which Communists moved into the academy and advanced each other's careers.

In 1974, after the publication of her book, Aptheker had joined a major migration of radical activists from the streets of protest to the faculties of American universities. She signed up for a masters program at San Jose State in “speech-communication,” one of the fields leftists were busily re-defining to accommodate their political agendas. Because other leftists had preceded her, the department offered her a job as well, “a position as a ‘graduate teaching associate,’ a title they invented for me since there were no provisions for teaching assistantships at the universities.” While some university officials viewed her arrest record and non-scholarly career skeptically and opposed her appointment, others were “enthusiastic about my arrival,” and with the help of the Communist Party’s civil liberties lawyer they prevailed. She received her masters in June 1976 and began teaching a course on the “History of Black Women,” which was jointly offered by two of the politicized departments radicals had recently created, Women’s Studies and Afro-American Studies.

[SNIP]

To pursue a university career she would need a Ph.D. credential, so she enrolled in the “History of Consciousness” graduate program, which had been created by the historian Page Smith, as he told an interviewer, in order “to prove the Ph.D. was a fraud.”[76] Aptheker’s political alter ego, Angela Davis, was already a professor on the faculty and, as if, to validate Smith’s hypothesis, the department awarded the cocaine-addicted felon and Black Panther leader, Huey Newton, a doctorate for a self-serving political tract titled, “War Against the Panthers: Repression in America.” In Aptheker’s own description, the “History of Consciousness” major was “an interdisciplinary program with an emphasis in twentieth century radical and Marxist philosophies.”

The Bush-Rumsfeld legacy

Assessing presidential legacies is risky. They evolve over time as events unfold long after the actors leave the stage. Ronald Reagan’s legacy was in doubt when he left office in January of 1989. The collapse of of the Soviet Union and then the performance of the military in Gulf War I ratified his most controversial foreign policies and turned a former actor into a visionary statesman.

Often legacies hinge on decisions that have little to do with the matters that leaders are most remembered for. Lincoln is the Great Emancipatorthe man who ended slavery after a terrible war. Yet he is remembered as such only because he found Grant in 1863. With Grant he got Sherman. Grant was the strategic genius who won the war, but Sherman was the general who took Atlanta in 1864 and secured Lincoln’s re-election.

It is quite possible that without Sherman’s victories Lincoln would have lost to McClellan. We (in the North) might remember Lincoln as the divisive, ineffective bumpkin whose ineptitude and meddling wasted hundreds of thousands of lives in an ill-considered war that ruined all chances of a political settlement.

The Bush-Rumsfeld years hinge on two similar failures. First, they could never define the strategic-military key to the situation in Iraq. They never found the equivalent of Vicksburg and Atlanta: those battles that made victory inevitable. Second, Bush never found his Sherman or Grant: the generals who could win those decisive battles.

Those two tasksdefining the key to victory and finding the men to win it-- are crucial but they are also inter-related and messy. Roosevelt found Marshall and it was with Marshall’s advice that he forged the grand strategy for World War II. Lincoln shuffled through a half dozen generals before he found Grant. Churchill appointed and relieved more than that before he found the right men and had them in the right place.

Bush has been notably quiescent on that score. He stuck with Rumsfeld and Rice and treated his military commanders as though they were interchangeable functionaries.

That, too, may be a result of his MBA training. Harvard case studies are big on analysis and decision. They ratify the conventional wisdom and promote a safe uniformity of opinion. What they do not do is capture the importance of the singular individual. A good pre-HAPW MBA will select Bradley over Patton every time; Grant and Sherman will never make the cut if a Burnside or McClellan is available.

See also:

Eating our seed corn

So now Martinez?

More evidence of the nature and form of Bush's loyalty.

I really thought Michael Steele would be a great RNC chair.

Remember, it was Martinez's office that completely changed the terms of debate during the Terri Schiavo case. The best spin he could come up with was that the memo was "unauthorized" meaning he, Martinez, was inept in staffing and running his small Senate staff. This is the guy who is supposed to rebuild a defeated party?

Borat

Steve Sailer has been posting a lot of interesting thoughts on the movie and the comedian who stars in it. Scroll down through here for more.

This is pretty good, too.

Borat's Attack on the Rural World

Top 10 Reasons you can’t blame Kordell Stewart for the loss in the 2001 AFC Championship Game

Many Steelers fans hate Kordell Stewart. I find that odd since he had a winning record and got us to a couple of AFC Championship games. Hating Neil O’Donnell I understand, but the hostility directed at Kordell puzzles me.

Stewart haters like to point to the upset loss to the Patriots in the 2001 AFC Championship game. Slash threw three interceptions as New England won 24-17. That game essentially ended Stewart’s career in Pittsburgh. Early in the next season the glorious Tommy Maddox era dawned for the Black and Gold.

That’s the history but the history is more fiction than fact. There are many reasons why the Steelers lost to the Patriots and most of them were out of #10’s control.

10. Mike Tomczak. The Steelers back up QB was nothing like Stewart. The offensive playbook could never fully leverage Slash’s skills because the plays had to be run by Tomczak as well as Stewart. We had a Ferrari in the garage but kept low octane fuel in the pumps because our other car was a Sentra.

(After O’Donnell took the money and ran to the Jets, Randall Cunningham was available for a song. Just imagine what the late 90s could have looked like for Pittsburgh if both their QBs had been fast and mobile.)

9. No continuity at offensive coordinator. The AFCC game is seen as proof that Stewart would never fulfill his potential. If so, some of the blame has to go to the Steelers organization. The offensive coordinator’s office had a revolving door during the Stewart era. That’s tough on a young, raw QB. The problem was aggravated because until 2001, the Steelers did not have a quarterback coach.

8. No continuity at receiver. Again, if Stewart looked less than polished in 2001, part of the reason is that there was constant turnover in his receiving corps. His top targets had a way of leaving in free agency (Thigpen, Johnson) to be replaced by highly drafted rookies (Blackwell, Edwards, Buress). Even worse, the coaches kept demoting Hines Ward to get those top picks on the field. Slash never had the chance to find his go-to guy. Manning, Young, Aikman Unitas; Harrison, Rice, Irvin, Berry. QB’s do best when they are part of a deadly tandem.

Even Tom Brady admitted that the loss of Deion Branch knocked him off his stride this season. That’s coming from a guy with three rings.

7. Special teams futility. The Steelers fell behind the Patriots because they gave up two TDs on special teams. This is a recurring theme in the Cowher-era. His special teams put his QBs in a hole in big games.

6. Game plan? Who needs a game plan? For the AFCC loss to really count against Stewart, it would have to be exceptional. Sadly, many different Steelers quarterbacks have lost AFCC games. Maybe this is less a reflection on the guys under center and has more to do with a stubborn coach who can’t prepare and can’t make adjustments against quality opponents.

I think the point I made after the loss in the 2004 AFCCG still stands:

Cowher blamed the QB for the interceptions that led to the loss. I'm not buying it. To paraphrase Goldfinger: One big game lost to interceptions; that's poor play at QB. Two big games lost that way is a bad break. Five big games lost on interceptions by three different QBs-that's play-calling and coaching.

5. The interceptions. Yeah, he threw three interceptions. Two of them were in the last three minutes with his team trailing. Take away the disaster on special teams and he ends the game with just one pick and a trip to the Superbowl.

4. One-dimensional players. The late-Cowher formula on offense relied on very specialized players. The running back ran between the tackles. The fullback and tight end blocked for the running back. None of them figured into the passing game. Against good teams, the offense was predictable and easy to stop. The quarterback never had the element of surprise because personnel and formation tipped-off the defense.

3. Drew Freaking Bledsoe. Tom Brady was injured with two minutes left in the first half and the score 7-3. Bledsoe drove the Patriots 40 yards in one minute to take a 14-3 lead. Kordell Stewart was not on the field when Bledsoe made the defense look like chumps.

2. Troy Brown, the best big game player of his era. Sometimes you lose because the other team has better players. The Patriots had Troy Brown. He returned a punt for a TD. He recovered a blocked field goal and then lateraled which resulted in another TD off a return. He caught 8 passes for 121 yards. On the only touchdown drive by the Patriots offense, he caught a 28 yard pass when the Pats faced 3rd down on their 32 with two minutes left in the half.

It wasn’t a fluke game for Brown. He caught big passes on the winning drives in the Super Bowl against St. Louis and Carolina.

No other player in the Super Bowl era had Brown’s versatility. Returner, receiver, defensive backhe could make big plays in all phases of the game. More importantly, he did make big plays in big games.

1. The Bus broke down. The whole point of the Cowher offense was to push people around and beat teams into submission with Jerome Bettis. But #36 was injured and inactive for the five games prior to the AFC title game. He managed only 8 yards on 9 attempts against the Patriots and the Steelers were held to 58 yards rushing.

Reaping what you sow

Dean Barnett

First, a little anecdote. Along with a host of other bloggers, I was on a conference call with Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia on Wednesday. I usually don’t write anything about these conference calls because they’re reliably dull as dishwater. But this one actually had an interesting moment. Kingston let on how a bunch of Republican members of the House have grown pretty tired carrying water for the administration, and suggested that the water-carrying days are over. (I’m paraphrasing, but I’m sure the other bloggers on the call can verify the rough sentiment.)

The cracks in the relationships that the Bush administration has with just about everybody are beginning to show. As the administration enters its lame duck phase, it’s going to be pretty short on friends.

I wrote this back in May:

Bush's loyalty has been to "his people"-White House staffers, cabinet officers, etc. He shows very little loyalty, sympathy, or understanding for the broader coalition he leads-Republicans, conservatives, the military. He too often treats them as pawns whose only role is to obey the decisions he has made. He was willing to embarrass Senate Republicans by nominating Miers to the Supreme Court, he is willing undercut the Republican House on immigration, he panders on gas prices and was wobbly on the rights of gun owners. He is a wartime president who passes out Medals of Freedom to Muhammad Ali and neocon polemicists.

In sum, I see more reasons for pessimism than Lifson. The last couple of years of any administration are difficult. The habits of mind that GWB formed at HBS might make his especially difficult.

The heart of the matter

Michelle Malkin has an interview with a genuine American hero: one of the men who flew with Jimmy Doolittle on his raid on Tokyo in 1942. His thoughts on our current situation:

"We're at war. We ought to get on a war footing and get the job done."

If Red American is disenchanted with Bush (and i think it is) it is not because they disagree that we are at war. Rather, they wonder why he refused to go to a real war footing and are impatient because they suspect that he and his administration does not know how to get the job done.

It was not a choice between cut and run versus winning. It was a choice between cut and run versus stay and hope. That is, a choice between losing fast or losing slow.

I knew Bush and the Republicans were in trouble back in the spring. I was helping out at an American Legion barbeque in the reddest of Red America. Their disgust with the handling of the war was palpable. This was not a group of kumbayah singing pacifists. But they were sick of reading about fighting for the same town over and over again.

Yes, they thought it sounded like Vietnam and they were willing to use the Q-word.

Bush as Party Leader: a solid C

With the mid-terms out of the way, we can see how GWB stacks up as a party leader compared to other post-war presidents. Despite the doom and gloom from Tuesday, it turns out that he has been exceedingly average.

Take his re-election victory in 2004. His 50.8% puts him in the middle of the pack.

Percent of popular vote

Truman	49.8
Eisenhower	57.8
Johnson	61.3
Nixon	61.8
Carter	41.7
Reagan	59.2
Bush '41	37.7
Clinton	49.3
Bush '43	50.8

Same thing for his effecton his party's standing in Congress. Republicans have lost under Bush, but his is not the worst performance by a two term presidency.

Change in Congessional seats

Administration	Senate
Truman	-9	-9
Eisenhower	-13	-46
Nixon	+1	-43
Reagan	+4	+19
Clinton	-11	-52
Bush '43	-6	-23

This measures the change in seats between those held at the time of the president's first election race and those held after the second mid-term. As noted here, the numbers are skewed by the Democratic reliance on the Jim Crow South between 1945 and 1970.

If Bush's performance has not been the worst among recent presidents, neither has it been stellar.

OTOH, i am still surprised at how bad Clinton's performance was. Why do Dems love the guy so much?

On the election

Now it is Republicans turn to learn this lesson.

I think that Mark Tapscott gets the big lesson right in this post:

the essential framing of the GOP congressional campaign would be left to Rove. Rove's strategy was built on the tried-and-true GOP Establishment axiom that "conservatives have no place to go," and therefore the biggest challenge was getting them to turnout on election day in sufficient numbers to overcome the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media.

It was essential for the Rove strategy to create the appearance of sufficient progress on key issues in order to "get the GOP base stirred up." But the "progress" was little more than smoke and mirrors and everybody in Washington knew it, as did millions of conservative voters who had heard the same broken record over and over again in the past.

The rewards for loyalty:

The House GOP has been remarkably loyal to GWB. Contrast that with the way the House Republicans treated Bush '41 over the tax increases in 1990. I wonder if this passivity has anything to do with the loss of Tom Delay?

UPDATE: Irish Pennants note that Iraq was not the over-riding issue:

Though I think Iraq was the dominant issue -- a big dog in itself which colored voter perceptions of every other thing -- the exit polls indicated that more voters (42 percent as opposed to 40 percent) said they were most concerned about corruption. This is a wound the Republicans in Congress inflicted upon themselves.

On corruption, he blames Delay first and foremost.

I disagree. For one thing, some of the worst corruption took place in the states (especially Ohio and Illinois.) Oddly enough, the GOP has been wrecked in those two states by "moderate" "pragmatists" who were also morally deficient. (When your prime focus is to compromise and get along with everyone, you end up going along with the wrong kind of people.)

Second, the GOP refused to fight back against the "culture of corruption" charges with their most effective weapons. They hoped the issue would go away instead of bringing up Alcee Hastings and William Jefferson.

One last note. I was on the receiving end of the GOP GOTV efforts. I must have received ten calls in the 72 hours before the elections as well as half a dozen emails. But while i was inundated with admonitions to vote, I never heard a compelling "reason why". Maybe they figured that i was part of the base and that the big matter was to get me to the polls. OTOH, they forfeited the chance to really energize the base and use them as secondary transmitters of their message.

Good column on the Steelers's woes

Perfect description for 2-6 Steelers ... Sorry

By the same token, though, the Steelers have earned every bit of 2-6 this season. They keep making the same mistakes week after week, the ones Cowher promises to correct but never does. If there's any injustice, it's that the Cleveland Browns blew a second-half lead against San Diego yesterday. The Steelers deserve to be in last place by themselves.

[SNIP]

The Steelers had another bad special-teams game. It wasn't just Holmes' fumble on a kickoff return early in the game that set up the Broncos' second touchdown or Smith's personal foul on a Broncos' punt return. Kicker Jeff Reed missed a 40-yard field goal that would have cut Denver's lead to 14-10. Don't blame special-teams coach Kevin Spencer for the ineptitude. The special teams are Cowher's baby. He has done nothing to rectify their season-long problems.

[SNIP]

"I don't know what to tell you. I really don't," Cowher said of the Steelers' woes. "I'm at a loss for words."

I'm not a big fan of most statistical "analysis" when in comes to the NFL. It's too static and ignores the dialectical nature of the competition. It often also ignores the importance of time and the overall game situation. It reminds me of the post-war analysis of the Fall of France in 1940. It did not matter that the Allies had more and better tanks and fighter planes. The crucial fact was that the Germans had local superiorities at the crucial place and time.

In the Steelers case, it would be wrong to treat all of yesterday's turnovers as equal. The last Roethlisberger pick and the Ward fumble came in desperation time.

All season long the critical mistakes are those early (esp. special team) errors that put the Steelers in a big hole. Am i the only person in Steeler Nation who wonders why we can't correct them?

One other echo of 1940. Eventually, the French high command fell into a calm, hopeless acceptance of the disaster. Hopeless acceptance. Sound like any head coach we know?

Hmmm. Could this be the problem?

The most recent Steelers Digest ran an interview with Safety Ryan Clark. This Q&A is worrisome.

Q: What are some of the differences between the Steelers and the Redskins?

A: I would definitely say the practice schedule. It’s a lot more player-friendly here. Coach Cowher definitely takes care of us and lets us get some time at home with the family.

I’m not sure a family-friendly practice schedule is the right tonic for this team. They were 0-4 in pre-season and are 2-5 in games that count. Most of those losses were due to horrible, sloppy mistakes--fumbles, interceptions, dropped passes, and stupid penalties.

"It's not the will to win, but the will to prepare to win that makes the difference."

(Bobby Knight, Bear Bryant, Vince Lombardi)

Maybe that’s what is lacking this year. The team (coaches and players) are relying on their will to win on Sunday while ignoring the need to prepare Monday through Saturday.

Police trainers have a saying that fits in here:

"You won't rise to the occasion - you'll default to your level of training."

NFL: Considering the punt return

A couple of weeks ago Tuesday Morning Quarterback had this interesting tidbit:

A year ago at the Hall of Fame reception in Canton, Ohio I found myself sitting between Bill Walsh and Don Shula. I posed this question: In a day when the Bears line up five-wide and Texas Tech passes 60 times a game, are there any fundamental innovations that have not been tried? Walsh supposed someone might try using trick formations for an entire game. Shula twinkled his eyes and said: "Someday there will be a coach who doesn't punt."

Given the Steelers's problems with punt returns, i wonder about the flipside of this. What if a team did not return punts?

What is gained?

1. No more fumbles on punt returns. Your most sure-handed player is back there calling for a fair catch.

2. More blocked kicks. Since there is no need to set up a return, you can have an effective, relentless rush.

The averages and conventional wisdom says that teams which do this will lose about eight yeards per punt. But that may no be so. Currently, punters still get the kick away on most low or bobbled snaps. In the face of a determined, full-out rush, many or most of those slight miscues will become game-changing blocks or sacks.

Which is better: eight possessions starting on the 30 or seven possessions that start on the 20 PLUS one that begins at the opponents 20?

In addition, it is quite possible that this strategy will force punters to adjust by kicking quicker while sacrificing distance.

Best theory yet for the Steelers's woes

Pro Football Outsiders

Roethlisberger’s life the last four months is worthy of a bad soap opera. In June, he got in a major motorcycle accident. He recovered amazingly, but just before the start of the regular season he had to undergo an appendectomy. After struggling early, he finally started playing well only to suffer a concussion.

As a commenter notes, no soap opera would be complete without the Evil Twin. It is Evil Ben who is throwing all those picks. The real Big Ben is being held somewhere by a Patriots's fan or maybe Archie Manning.

But when did the switch happen? Maybe in the two weeks before the Superbowl. (Come to think of it, Holmgren would make a pretty good criminal mastermind in a soap opera). Except, the plan did not work. It was no match for the Bettis destiny ride.

So maybe the "injuries" are just ploys to explain Evil Ben's performance and to keep Charlie Batch on the bench.

Of course, if this is a soap, the Steelers's season can still be saved. Seems to me that the plot should go something like this......

Twenty minutes before kickoff against the the Broncos, a large bus drives into the end zone at Heinz Field. When #36 opens the door, out steps the real Big Ben suited up and ready to play. 100,000 eyes zoom onto the the other #7 standing on the Steelers sideline. Panicking, he tries to run out of the stadium. Before he can reach the tunnel he is slammed to the ground by a figure in street clothes (Jack Lambert don't need no stinking pads to tackle a quaterback.) Joe Greene rips the mask off the imposter and reveals......

Neil O'Donnell.

Harman versus Hastings

How will this help improve our intelligence organizations?

Pelosi's Unintelligent Choice

If Democrats win control of the House next week, Nancy Pelosi's first test as speaker will arrive long before the 110th Congress convenes. Her choice to head the House intelligence committee -- unlike other House committees, this one is left entirely up to the party leadership -- will speak volumes about whether a Speaker Pelosi will be able to resist a return to paint-by-numbers Democratic Party interest-group politics as usual.

Pelosi is in a box of her own devising. The panel's ranking Democrat is her fellow Californian Jane Harman -- smart and hardworking but also abrasive, ambitious and, in Pelosi's estimation, insufficiently partisan on the committee. So Pelosi, once the intelligence panel's ranking Democrat herself, has made clear that she doesn't intend to name Harman to the chairmanship.

The wrong decision, in my view, but one that's magnified by the unfortunate fact that next in line is Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings. In 1989, after being acquitted in a criminal trial, Hastings was stripped of his position as a federal judge -- impeached by the House in which he now serves and convicted by the Senate -- for conspiring to extort a $150,000 bribe in a case before him, repeatedly lying about it under oath and manufacturing evidence at his trial.

Is all publicty good publicty?

Of sketches, Hugh Laurie and 'SNL'

Amy Poehler is wonderful even in sub-par sketches, and her recent Nancy Grace imitation captured that anchor’s condescending monstrousness perfectly.

Commentary: Who needs Halloween? TV is scary enough

We savor the madness of Nancy Grace. (What's scarier than that?)

On the popularity of Freakonomics

David Warsh has interesting things to say:

CSI: Economics

Duke lacrosse: The hits just keep coming

It is a measure of how things have changed in the last six months that the News and Observer's Ruth Sheehan is now out of patience with DA Mike Nifong:

To most of us, the Duke lacrosse case is such a disaster that Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, up for re-election, should be preparing for a trouncing.

Robert KC Johnson's blog remains essential reading. He has the best on-going analysis of the many parts of this miscarriage of justice.

Johnson's most recent post discusses the most shocking revelation so far: DA Nifong's admission that the case is going forward because Durham needs a political show trial for closure and healing.

Some weeks ago William Anderson suggested that the Duke hoax was a new Reichstag fire. At the time, i thought his analogy was over the top. Now, though, the DA has confirmed that the case is exactly that.

All the more reason for Duke president Brodhead to speak out.

Highly recommended

Forget the Black Dahlia, Wonderland is the LA true crime movie to see.

Nancy Grace: Another batch of shameless lies

Lauren Ritchie of the Orlando Sentinel has the sad details.

Grace's search for Trenton is about ratings

Grace's rantings are stale. So rev up the Trenton ratings machine.

The overblown, error-filled announcement of her arrival is typical of the "it's-all-about-me" way that Grace pathetically clings to the only story that has given her a recent ratings bump.

It's sickening to watch her play on emotions in a real-life tragedy to increase her dwindling viewing audience.

Read the article and then read Grace's "response" on her Friday show here.

Note especially how Grace continues to twist the facts (blaming Ritchie for the errors that NG's PR person made in the email.) Beyond that, however, the rambling response-- incoherent, bathetic, belligerent-- is an embarrassment to any news professional. It sounds like the rantings of a drunk in a bar.

It is no longer surprising when Grace is caught distorting the truth. Such revelations have become as predictable as the full moon. The really important question is why she still has a job at CNN. How can that network remain the Most Trusted Name in News when it gives an anchor chair to someone who is so uninterested in getting the facts right or thinking logically.

UPDATE: Lauren Ritchie prints some of the email she recieved after her column.

On deserving to lose

Michelle Malkin on the Webb/Allen race in Virginia

Political strategists in the belt are exulting that "Webb is toast" as a result of this Drudge/Allen bomb. But if this what Republican Senate candidates need to do to win elections, I don't think any of us should be cheering.

I think the recent attacks on Webb's novels are pathetic. Even worse is listening to Republicans justify it. Does anyone remember the outrage at the LA Times when they dredged up accusation against Schwarzenegger at the last minute?

At least the LA Times was reporting stuff that may or may not have happened. Allen is using material from a novel. A freaking novel!

Even worse, in my mind, is their attempt to attack Webb on his stand on women in the military. During the Clinton years, conservatives were very concerned about the attacks on military culture that followed in the wake of Tailhook. Webb was one of the stalwart in that fight and one of the few national figures outside of the uniformed services who stood up and spoke out against the witch hunt and the Great Military Re-education.

So now we see Republicans trying to attack him on the issue. Which means that they (implicitly) endorse the agenda of NOW and Hillary.

What is the point of winning an election if you have to abandon all your important positions to do so?

Wrongful Conviction

Here's an old but timely Columbia Journalism review article on wrongful convictions.

Three Books and Ten Lessons for Journalists

The author offers the pious hope that his ten lessons will "encourage realistic investigations into possibly wrongful convictions, and perhaps help prevent wrongful convictions." But his earnest wish is not match for the customs of the journalistic guild and news outlets thirst for ratings and readership. The Nancy Graces of the world still taint jury pools in sensational cases. Crime reporters still protect useful sources and, consequently, enable bad prosecutions.

It is a shame that no one at the News and Observer read this piece. DA Mike Nifong seems determined to go a perfect 10 out of 10 on the wrongful conviction checklist provided in the article. In the Duke lacrosse case we see a miscarriage of justice played out in real time. Except for a few hardy souls like Stuart Taylor, the MSM has played their assigned role of cheerleader and enabler.

Atticus Finch doesn't work here

John Grisham's new book is a terrific read and an important work. It is non-fiction and tells the story of two wrongly convicted men. I hope that Grisham's popularity will bring much needed attention to this issue.

We live in a media world that encourages these type of mistakes. If the police arrest no one, they will be excoriated for days, weeks, even years if the case is high profile. (See Natalie Holloway, Jon Benet Ramsey, etc.) But if they charge and convict the wrong man, his exoneration is a one day local story.

At times, media coverage of criminal matters seems like a reversion to our primitive history. Watching Nancy Grace or Greta van Sustren brings to mind images from the Roman Coliseum. The goal isn't truth or justice, it is closure. Closure demands that someone must pay for the crime. Someone can easily become anyone, guilty or not.

I suspect that this is why the tabloid media continues to bash Aruba, but has lost interest in Chandra Levy. Both crimes are unsolved, but the DC police get a pass. Levy's murder, though, did cost Gary Condit his seat in Congress. Someone paid. That he was innocent of her murder is of little concern.

David Klinhoffer looks at Michael Savage

Savaged

There is much about him that would suggest, not an ideologue at all, but simply a performer. Then again, sometimes you get the feeling that a refugee from Air America (the failed experiment in liberal talk radio) has been writing scripts for him based on a lefty’s cartoon mental picture of a ranting right-wing caveman.

See also:

The Demented World of Michael Savage

Michael Savage: agent provocateur?

Presswatch

Two good columns by Jack Shafer

Newsbooks:The triumph of a journalism genre

The scoops found in the newsbooks indicate that the competitive pressure of the daily deadline buries as much potential news as it unearths. David Corn tells me that sources on Capitol Hill often won't disclose inside information about what's happening todaywhich every reporter is asking them aboutbut these same sources will be more forthcoming about last week's events, which are no longer the hot subject of the moment. By standing outside of today's news cycle, newsbook authors can recognize patterns and make connections that escape beat reporters filing four or five pieces a week.

Maybe I’m missing something but the same argument can be made in defense of the best bloggers. They add context and offer analysis that is often missing from stories written on deadline.

Having Climbed Out Onto a Limb That Cracks …How should a newspaper crawl back?

So, why are newspapers so hesitant to acknowledge their flawed work? Among other things, no journalist ever got a raise for saying, "I got it wrong." The whole incentive structure encourages journalists to deny or otherwise obfuscate the mistakes and miscues they and their publications commit.

I think there are three forces at work here. The first derives from David Warsh’s concept of “explanation space”:

the lofty region where short-term causal explanations of events are forged.

This is where journalists compete with others in the guild. Admitting errors undercuts their competitive position.

The second comes from the hold that sources have over reporters. Warsh again:

What is important to understand is that beneath the glitz, newspapers actually operate as favor banks, to use novelist Tom Wolfe’s phrase from Bonfire of the Vanities. That is to say, newspapers are forever paying favors forward, in expectation of reciprocal acts of kindness from players yet unknown, accepting deposits of information and emphasis, making grants of credit and blame.

Newspapers reward their culture heroes and presidential favorites, penalize those with whom they disagree, further the activities of which they approve and ignore those which they do not, hoping all the while that the intricate web of transactions actually is in the black over time. No accountant could ever hope to make sense of it. That’s what they pay publishers and editors to do.

When a story goes wrong, it is often because reporters relied on the wrong sources. Revising the story means challenging those sources or portraying them in a bad light. This is hard because the reporter may still want those sources in the future.

Newsweek’s Susannah Meadow copped to half this charge in a recent media panel on the Duke lacrosse case.

Later, in response to a question about why the media seemed to assume the players were guilty, Meadows made this comment: “You had a public official [Nifong] who said, ‘I am sure!’, and say it to your face. We expect our public officials to know what they’re talking about.”

As noted before, crime reporters need the DA’s office to do their stories. Hence, they grant prosecutors much more credibility than most other officials. Can you imagine Evan Thomas quietly accepting a Rumsfeld pronouncement and then explaining it away by saying “we expect our our public officials to know what they are talking about”?

One last factor is the issue of worldview and explanation space. Important stories are written and published as part of a grand narrative. Journalists remain convinced that the big story is true even if some of the details are wrong. (Dan Rather, “fake but accurate”.) So why correct “trivia” at the risk of obscuring “the big picture”? This tendency has also been on ample display during the Duke lacrosse case.

Dots?

I was struck by a point made by Andrew McCarthy in his article on Lynne Stewart and her apologists:

According to Preston’s article, Harris has told the judge that the terrorism counts against Ms. Stewart were “unwarranted overkill.” Harris reportedly elaborated that Stewart “didn’t have a clue that the stick she was poking in the government’s eye was going to have consequences beyond her imagination.”

I was curious to know more about this Clinton appointee who rallied to the defense of a terror-supporter. A little googling turned up this old Robert Novak column which is especially interesting:

[Fran] Townsend moved to the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan -- notoriously liberal-laden amid a Republican administration. Townsend's boss and patron there was Jo Ann Harris, whose orientation was liberal Democratic.

When Attorney General Reno in 1993 summoned Harris to Washington as assistant attorney general running the Criminal Division, Harris immediately brought Townsend along as her aide. Townsend was promoted to oversee international law enforcement and then became counsel to the attorney general for terrorism and head of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) -- a political Reno appointment for a supposed career slot.

See also here and here.

Why Jason Whitlock is the best

His latest AOL column gets to the heart of the matter on Miami (FLA)'s problems, the real reason Howard Cosell's popularity, and the legend of Edgerrin ("Jesse") James.
I've never been a big fan of James. IMO, he was given a pass at Indy while Manning was made the scapegoat for all the post-season failures. Hundreds of columns have been written about Manning's "inability to win the big game" despite "all his offensive weapons."

Without James, the Colts are 5-0. Without Manning, James averaged less than two yards a carry against the Bears and the Cardinals are 1-5. Maybe Manning's weapons weren't all that great. Maybe, just maybe, James racked up big numbers because teams worried more about Archie's boy than they did "the Edge."

One thing is clear to anyone who watched last year's playoffs. The Colts would have beaten the Steelers if James had not been stopped short of the goal line by Larry Foote in the first half. That failure was all James.

9/11 was a long time ago

The Coast Guard wants to train with machine guns in the Great Lakes. The New York Times finds plenty of people who are opposed to the idea.

We live in strange times. We demand that the government connect every dot and protect us against every contingency. Then, we nitpick every step the government takes to meet these expansive demands.

Andrew McCarthy offers another example: the muted reaction to Lynne Stewart's connivance with terrorists.

Cable news: get it fast, get it wrong

Cable news too fast, not final

The cable news networks, in the hyperdrive of a huge news story, or because of dogfight competition against others with the same technology, air stuff they have not properly checked out. Speed kills... their credibility.

Last year, management theorist Shoshana Zuboff wrote an interesting column for Fast Company. In it she noted that corporations were cutting costs by outsourcing work to their customers.

It seems to me that this is part of the business model cable news has adopted.

In the past, reporters and producers would conduct interviews, verify information and add context, write and edit the story, and then present the audience with a two-minute report. Cable, however, just fills air time with raw interviews. The audience has to do the work of verifying and assessing the information.

It is cost-effective because it is so cheap.

What i don't understand is why the respectable media plays along. Why do real reporters go on shows like "Nancy Grace" and provide grist for the mill? Many of these pseudo-newscasts would wither on the vine if they did not have real reporters doing their work for them.

Yes, indeed, a heartland World Series

No Yankees, no Mets, no Red Sox. Let the whining begin at ESPN.

Citizenship and education

Jeffrey Hart offers a definition given by his old professor Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy:

He also said that the goal of education is the citizen. He defined the 'citizen' in a radical and original way arising out of his own twentieth-century experience. He said that a citizen is a person who, if need be, can re-create his civilization.

Of course, if this is true, then we are doomed. Our institutions of higher learning are in the hands of people who loathe this civilization and are eager to remake it into something else.

When you win 45-7,

You get featured in TMQ:

Sweet Play of the Week: Pittsburgh leading 7-0, the Steelers had a first-and-10 on the Chiefs' 47. Pittsburgh ran a sweet-looking play in which Ben Roethlisberger faked the hitch pass right, then faked a handoff up the middle, then threw deep to the unguarded Nate Washington on the skinny post -- touchdown, and the walkover was on. Not only did Kansas City defensive back Greg Wesley let Washington go deep, not even attempting to cover him; not only was Wesley making the high school mistake of "looking into the backfield" trying to guess the play rather than guarding his man; check the tape of what happened once Wesley turned and realized Washington was behind him. Wesley merely stood there and watched the touchdown, jogging a little in the general direction after it was too late. This is the sort of defensive esprit de corps that would later in the game result in Kansas City taking over the mantle of TMQ's Single Worst Play of the Season So Far (see below).

Actually, I think this deserves to be the sweet and sour play of the week. A Chiefs DB had a chance to tackle nate Washington, but instead went for the big hit so beloved by highlight shows. The Pride of Tiffin College took the hit, bounced off, and went into the end zone. Had the DB wrapped up, the Steelers would have had first and ten in the red zone leading 7-0.

Big Ben has a history of costly interceptions down close. He threw pick-sixes to both the Jets and the Patriots in the 2004 playoffs. We squeaked by the Jets, but the interception against the Patriots was a back breaker. (It made the score 24-7 at the half.)

In SuperBowl XL, it was his interception at the goal line that let the Seahawks score their only touchdown. It kept the game close when it might have become a rout. (Blitzburgh loves a 21-3 third quarter lead).

This season the Steelers were leading the Bengals 7-0 and were driving (sound familiar?) Ben threw an interception in the end zone and left the door unlocked for the Bengal’s comeback.

All of this illustrates why the Chiefs’ play was inexcusable. Anything can happen in the red zone. Even if the Chiefs don’t get an interception and 95 yard return, they may have recovered a fumble or blocked a field goal. Even a successful field goal would have made the score only 10-0 and would have let the Chiefs defense keep a little of their confidence.

So it was a sweet play, a sour play, and a hidden play (unplay?). I sometimes wonder if this isn’t one of those areas where hustling teams (cough, Patriots, cough) reap their reward. They don’t give up cheap touchdowns and so have a chance to force the red zone turnover in the first place. Or they hold their opponent to a field goal. Over the course of a season that can translate into 30 or 40 unscored points and one or two extra victories.

Foley and "the List"

When this kind of thing involved liberals and Stalinists, we called it blacklisting and now consider it an abomination.

From World Magazine (a newsweekly aimed at evangelicals):

Around 8 p.m. on Oct. 4, a Democratic Party henchman clicked "send" on an e-mail that sent a list to Focus on the Family claiming to out as homosexuals 19 high-level Republican staffers on Capitol Hill. The List included the names of nine chiefs of staff for Republican congressmen. According to many homosexual groups, efforts by some gay-rights activists to "out" closeted gays represents salacious and vicious gossip with the intent to destroy the careers of political staffers.

Media stories indicate conservative Christians initially passed around The List, but Focus received the list from a Yahoo! e-mail account registered to the Health & Policy Research Foundation, a small California AIDS awareness charity run by former Democratic National Committee operative Rick Reidy.

Duke lacrosse

The "60 Minutes" segments on the case were well done and were absolutely devastating to Nifong.

Robert KC Johnson has been on the story for months and this post provides an exhaustive summary of the lies and missteps.

Jason Whitlock calls for the dismissal of the charges.

As i watched the "60 Minutes" piece, i was reminded again of the power of real journalism. Ed Bradley laid out the facts and told a story. This case has been a staple of the cable tabloid shows since the DNA dragnet back in March. Unfortunately those shows subscribe to the "Crossfire" model of journalism where the goal is screaming debate, not fact-finding. Tucker Carlson needs Georgia Goslee or Wendy Murphy. Ed Bradley did not. We were all better for their non-appearance.

Double standard?

After this story broke, Duke suspended the team for the remainder of the lacrosse season. The ostensible reason was the repeated bad behavior of the team with the party being the straw that broke the camels back. That seemed harsh and a little disingenuous: Duke maintained that it was the party, not the rape allegations that triggered the action. Most sportswriters accepted the action as understandable and just.

Would it be fair, then, to suspend the University of Miami (FLA) football team for the remainder of the season? The brawl/gang fight has been caught on tape. There is no doubt about what happened on the field on Saturday. Nor can anyone doubt that players at the U have had a pattern of bad behavior.

Steelers blogging

This Ed Bouchette column is outstanding.

As bad as things might seem in Steeler Nation, do not -- repeat, do not -- pull the quarterback.

i also like that he is willing to acknowledge that some of the blame for Kordell Stewart's problems should go to the coaching staff. Slash became a whipping boy among Steelers's fan, but i think it was largely undeserved. He got us to the AFC Championship game twice. His performance in the 2001 game against the Patriots was more than good enough to win. I can think of five or six reasons we lost that have nothing to do with Stewart.

Duke lacrosse

An outstanding column by William Anderson.

Duke and the Death of Academe

Universities to some extent have prided themselves on being "other-worldly," in that they have seen themselves as places of refuge from the real world. Unfortunately, instead of being refuges from the bad aspects of life, they have become a nightmare of political correctness, in which professors have come to view their campuses as huge re-education camps.

Nancy Grace: Belle of the Freakers Ball

That's what Stephen King call her in his Entertainment Weekly column. Yeah, she's too creepy and nasty for the King of Horror.

Oh, by the way. I wonder who he was quoting here?

One politics-and-business blog calls this ''the dead mother bounce.''

Any ideas?

Nasty business

This column by Cliff Kincaid is a nasty bit of gay-bashing in the wake of the Foley scandal. Just one example:

Foley's progression from "friendly" to "explicit" Internet messages was part of his pattern as a homosexual pedophile predator.

The only part of that statement that is explicitly true is that Mark Foley is gay. He certainly was not a pedophile. The degree to which his behavior was predatory is what is under investigation.

I wonder how many people who blast Foley would also label Hugh Hefner a "perv"? Based on what we know now, Foley and Hef have a lot in common. They are both dirty old men who lust after teen-agers. Michelle Malkin, at least, is consistent. I don't doubt that she is as disgusted by Hefner as she is Foely. But i wonder how many others believe that?

Strange Days: Duke lacrosse

In 2004, "60 Minutes" tried to make news with the forged TANG documents. They got busted by Powerline and Little Green Footballs. In their defense of Dan Rather, the MSM poured scorn on bloggers.

This Sunday, "60 Minutes" will look at the Duke lacrosse case. CBS is reaching out to bloggers and encouraging them to watch. Check out this email from CBS at Lie Stoppers.

Five quick points about the conservative tantrum

1. I think most on the Right accepted that compromise was necessary. What aggravates us is that the Bush administration has been inept at the art of the deal. It capitulates on some issues but never gets the quid pro quo that allows it to achieve any of its conservative objectives.

2. On some of the biggest issues, the administration's actions have not matched its rhetoric. Take the revelations about secret operations in the War on Terror. The right was outraged. I suspect that a majority of Americans are opposed to intelligence officials who break their oaths and leak secrets to the Times and the Post. Yet, there is no indication that Bush and his appointees are serious about dealing with the arrogant bureaucrats who broke the law.

Net message of #1 and #2: The Bush style is to placate his enemies and ignore his base. (It may be a family trait.)

3. Given that, his right-wing supporters are in a tough spot. Their very public defense of all things Bush makes it hard to climb down. That is one of the key points made by Gardner in his book "Changing Minds." Hence the search for a scapegoat.

4. The polarized nature of political debate, especially in the blogosphere, has exacerbated this problem. Too much of what passes for debate has been thrust and parry between "wingnuts" and "moonbats."

It is hard to admit mistakes when that seems to confirm the "moonbats" were correct on any point. Once again, this is a situation where a scapegoat comes in handy.

5. Congressional Republicans and the right in general, have been trapped by an odd set of historical circumstances. Even before 9/11 we over-committed to Bush because he was in a peculiarly weak position. Remember, he was a minority president who needed a Supreme Court decision to confirm his victory. A few months into his term, his party lost control of the Senate. There was a very real danger of a Jimmy Carter type of failed presidency.

It was understandable that we rallied to the only leader we had. It was even more understandable that we rallied to a war president after we were attacked.

Unfortunately, in Bush we had a weak political leader who was also an energetic, self-confident CEO. He pursued his own course with little concern for the domestic coalition he led. Worst of all, he does not recognize that political loyalty is reciprocal.

Why are conservatives mad at the GOP?

Ace has a great post on the subject. Personally, i think he is on to something.

So I wonder if there's a bit of buyer's remorse here, magnifying the GOP's failings on other issues due to a possibly-unconscious need to lash out at Bush for the continuing chaos and violence in Iraq.

I would add that i think that the Right is lashing out because they invested so much hope in Bush as a conservative, as a political leader, as a war leader. Rather than admit that GWB was not what we wanted him to be, we look for scapegoats. Today, the chosen object of hate is the House GOP.

Should we arm the teachers?

Rev. Donald Sensing has a thoughtful post on the subject. He's not ready to have teachers start packing just yet.

I am reluctant to agree that arming teachers is a solution. They didn’t sign up for it when they entered the profession. There is enough on teachers’ plates without expecting them to stay proficient in handgun use. A teacher poorly trained or untrained in effective use of firearms could be just as dangerous to the kids as an intruder. If such a teacher gets downed, then the bad guy has another weapon.

As i see it, having armed teachers in classrooms will increase the number of accidents. If a teacher misplaces their gun (it's been known to happen even to police officers) the firearm will fall into the hands of curious twelve year olds or cocky teen-agers. That is a recipe for disaster.

Keeping schools gun-free is not a good solution, either. In a shooting like Columbine, an immediate armed response will save lives.

Right now, i lean toward permitting firearms in schools where they can be kept secured and away from students. A gun locked up in a principal's office is still better than no guns at all.

Rev Sensing's idea about trained volunteers has a great deal of merit and is another way to address the trade-off between preparation and accidents.

If we go down this road, however, we will need new training to make it effective. The scenarios are a hybrid. You cannot expect teachers or volunteers to become accomplished SWAT operators. At the same time, they confront much different challenges than those faced by a civilian CCW-holder.

Den Beste on the realty-based community and its entertainment preferences

It is today's must read.

The Unreality-based Community

There's a peculiar thing that's begun to happen to the left in the last few years: when reality is, apparently, too difficult to bear; when things don't go the way they wish things had gone, then they retreat into fantasy. And they're doing it out in public.

Long ago i discussed one specific example of this.

I felt better the moment i hit send

I emailed this to Pardon the Interruption. i know i won't do any good, but hey, i got a post out of it.

You're right. It is an outrage that Mr. O'Neil is not in the Hall of Fame. What say you show some guts and call out the brainless wonders who failed to vote him in when they had the chance.

When a quarterback throws a dumb pick we don't say "the Steelers had a pass intercepted". Oh, no. Sportswriters (Wilbon) and misplaced lame comedians (Kornheiser) will rant for hours about the bad pass that Roethlisberger threw, the poor decision-making Big Ben displayed, #7's complete inability to do the job.

In short, sportswriters call out players by name.

But it is different, isn't it, when the shoe is on the other foot?

So do it. Who were the idiots who left Buck O'Neil out of the Hall of Fame?

Or just shut up if you don't have the spine to challenge some of your colleagues.

Duke lacrosse: New York Magazine

A strong article that gives credit where due:

Rape, Justice, and the ‘Times’

In the movie, Tom Hanks would play K. C. Johnson. He’s the most impressive of the “bloggers who have closely followed the case,” in the Times’ tacitly pejorative construction. But Johnson is the Platonic ideal of the species—passionate but committed to rigor and facts and fairness, a tenured professor of U.S. history (at Brooklyn College), a 38-year-old vegetarian who lives alone in a one-bedroom Bay Ridge apartment and does pretty much nothing but study, teach, run, and write.

Johnson has no connection to Duke. (His B.A. and Ph.D. are from the Harvard of the Northeast.) His attention was grabbed in April by the “deeply disturbing” public comments of Duke faculty that righteously indulged in invidious stereotypes and assumed the lacrosse players’ guilt. “One area that the academy, especially since McCarthyism, is supposed to stand up is cases where due process is denied,” he says.

He usually posts at least once a day—not standard autoblog rim shots, but carefully argued, deeply researched essays running 1,000 words or more.

Two good posts on the Foley Mess

Michael Barone: level-headed as always.

Clarice Feldman: some thoughts on scandals, emails, privacy and double-standards.

Yankee fans take heed

Beware the curse of the carpet-bagger. Do you really want six more years of heartbreak and frustration? History is against you. (Remember 1964!)

Yankee go home

Sometimes i love baseball

Yankees' mystique now in tatters

BTW, this editorial is exactly right:

Honors for O'Neil overdue

MEMO to the Baseball Hall of Fame: Hold an emergency meeting today. Elect Buck O'Neil unanimously. Don't make any more excuses. You've already waited too long.

It wasn't just baseball that lost a treasure Friday night when O'Neil died at age 94. Mankind did.

I was surprised to learn that O'Neil was not already in the HoF. And i still am mystified that the brainless wonders passed him over last year. I guess being an arrogant jerk is part of the job description for HoF voters.

Did Joe McCarthy ever stoop this low?

The post and comments at the HuffPo are unbelievable. This isn't some cyber ranter on a message board. This is Mr. Larry O'Donnell, Democratic operative, Hollywood producer, favorite pundit of Chris Matthews.

Speaking of media shamelessness

This is just horrible:

One member of the media apparently tried to sneak into the private funerals, state police said, by dressing as an Amish woman.

Troopers caught her, they said, because she was wearing a “pink-ish colored dress,’’ instead of the traditional black.

No names, of course. The MSM always protects its own.

Bless Mike Gallagher? My ass

In an otherwise outstanding column on the Amish and their reaction to the massacre of their children, Rod Dreher gets one thing terribly wrong:

The wicked Rev. Fred Phelps and his crazy brood of fundamentalist vipers even planned to protest at the Amish children's funeral, until Dallas-based radio talker Mike Gallagher, bless him, gave them an hour of his program if they would only let those poor people bury their dead in peace.

Mike Gallagher deserves no praise. He gave no peace to the mourning families. They already have the "peace that passeth understanding". What can a radio yakker add?

Any community that can collect money for the family of the man who killed their children can weather the ranting of the Fred Phelps Clan.

What Gallagher did was despicable. He tried to grab ratings by giving a microphone to the shrieking mutants from Kansas.

Fred Phelps and those who denounce him have a symbiotic relationship. They provide each other with publicity. There is nothing inherently newsworthy anymore to the "protests" at funerals. Yet the cameras still come out when the Phelps bus pulls into town.

Why?

It is just a cheap way to fill airtime. It is not news, but it will fill a spot on a news program. What Phelps says is not important, but it does give radio yakkers something to yak about.

Such is the way of the world. Publicity whores will always find a way to get publicity. But let's not confuse the issue by pretending that some of the whores are doing something noble.

Can Howard Kurtz read?

In his latest he details David Corn's 'revelation' that there is a list of gay GOP staffers circulating in Washington. He then uncritically gives us Kevin Drum's opinion that this is GOP dirty work.

Has Kurtz ever heard of John Aravosis or Mike Rogers? Are they GOP hardliners? Does Kurtz even read what he cuts and pastes? Here's Corn on the list and its source:

The List -- drawn up by gay politicos.

So why did Kurtz go on a GOP bashing jaunt and show so little interest in the on-going outing of gay Republicans by gay liberals?

The Foley Mess: Anti-gay window advertising

"gay window advertising," a strategy that permits gays and lesbians to "read into an ad certain subtextual elements" --that is, queer subtextual elements--while heterosexual consumers remain unaware of such elements.

The Foley case, like Kerry's "outing" of Mary Cheney, is an example of anti-gay window advertising. The scandal may evaporate under scrutiny, but many of the people who stage-managed this don't care about that. In the end, they are happy that they drove home the message to the conservative base---- Foley Gay Republican, Foley Gay Republican, Foley Gay Republican.

They pretend to deplore the bigotry of the "Christian right", yet they are willing to exploit that bigotry if it will suppress turnout.

Keep checking Macsmind for the best coverage of the twist and turns.

Welcome Instapundit readers. While you're here, why not check out a couple of the blogs on my blogroll? Also, it's pretty easy to add this blog to your RSS reader, so why not give it a try for a week or so? I'll be posting more on Foley and the election when i get a few minutes.

Peters vs. Drucker: Genius and mediocrity

Tom Peters unleashes on on Peter Drucker. I knew they had different views on management, but i was surprised at the depth of the animosity on display here.

I'm of two minds about this post. I'm surprised at the dour cynicism of Drucker's comments. At the same time, his idea that schools exist to make the mediocre more competent has an element of truth. It is not so much that A, B, and C are mediocre people. Rather, A, a salesman, is not a numbers whiz (except when it comes to quotas and his bonus). On his own, he is unlikely to become a star financial analyst nor is he interested in becoming one. However, with training and education, he can become more adept at reading income statements, marketing reports, etc. Increasing his competence in those areas makes him a better salesman and raises his value to his company.

Random bits on Foley, Hastert, and the drive-by media

Good post over at the American Thinker. Two points that really hit home.

Democrats who see nothing suspicious about homosexual men who want to be scoutmasters are now claiming that the Speaker of the House should resign because he ignored the “red flags” and failed to initiate an inquisition into Foley’s sexual practices. Their blatant hypocrisy is as transparent as their lust for political advantage.

And

The tactical calculation behind the Foley scandal is the same as the calculation that drove both John Kerry and John Edwards to babble on about Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation in nationally televised debates. Democrats believe that they can suppress the evangelical vote by suggesting that the GOP is too gay friendly and they aren’t about to let mere scruples stand in their way. Kerry’s lesbian gambit failed because the targeted voters were not the troglodyte simpletons of the Democrats’ imagination. They largely recognized and resented the condescension motivating the attack, and affirmed their respect for tender love within a family.

There is a lot of hypocrisy on this issue by the Democrats and the MSM. They know that the gay angle makes it especially shocking to some and they are willing to exploit that.

Hastert took a beating in the press when he stood up for the rights of Congress by condemning the search of a House office. The subject of the investigation was a Democrat found with $90,000 stashed in his home freezer. Now Pelosi and company are attacking Hastert for not tearing Foley’s office apart because of an email.

Weren’t the Democrats worried about aggressive use of wiretaps when it came to terrorism? Why the change? I mean other than the election.

Hmmm. With Foley the scandal is the story. During the Clinton years, it was often the unearthing of the scandal that became the MSM’s story. (Scaife, American Spectator, VRWC, etc.) Why is no one interested in the facts that Mac’s Mind has unearthed and compiled?

I’ve heard several pundits “explain” that Republican scandals are covered more harshly because of the “hypocrisy.” Yeah, right. We know from the Starr Report that Bill and Monica used to rendezvous on Sunday afternoons. After, that is, Bill and Hill went to church and got their picture taken for the newspapers. Can’t get much more hypocritical than that. Yet, somehow, that part of the Clinton scandals never received much coverage.

Duke lacrosse: Auto de fe

According to Wikipedia

The phrase auto de fe refers to the ritual of public penance of condemned heretics and apostates that took place when the Spanish Inquisition or the Portuguese Inquisition had decided their punishment (that is, after the trial). Auto de fe in medieval Spanish means "act of faith". The phrase also commonly occurs in English in its Portuguese form auto da fe (or auto da fé).

History

The auto de fe involved: a Catholic mass, prayer, a public procession of those found guilty, and a reading of their sentences . They took place in public squares or esplanades and lasted several hours: ecclesiastical and civil authorities attended.

I think this medieval custom explains a lot about the MSM’s poor performance in Durham. They cared little about the crime per se: respectable journalists and highly paid pundits don’t do crime stories. The case just provided a setting--a publicity hook--where they could deliver their sermons on racism, sexism, privilege, the sins of white athletes, and the need for change.

Everything was made ready. The potbangers had attracted the cameras, the guilty parties had been identified: 46 white lacrosse players. Tom Wolfe could not write a better script. The crowd had been gathered by the sensational headlines. Now they would hear the righteous sermons. “Esteemed” professors had already started to deliver their denunciations.

And then the facts came out.

A few hardy souls actually read the court documents and raised questions. Others soon joined them.

It’s hard to deliver a homily at an execution when the crowd is shouting that the condemned are innocent. What good are prepared notes in those circumstances?

It is embarrassing to be caught short on facts by the audience you intend to lecture. Preachers and priests do not go to the pulpit to debate; they go to preach and admonish.

What to do? What to do?

Maybe just sit down and hope it blows over. After all, it is their pulpit. Let the crowd disperse. Wait for the next big case and deliver the lectures there.

Most of all, hope that no one notices that the esteemed and mighty pundits know less than they pretend to. If that idea gets into circulation, who will listen to the sermons?

Voice of his generation?

Slate looks at Zach Braff and is not amused:

If Zach Braff is the voice of my generation, can't someone please crush his larynx?

An astute observer of modern media identified the core of Braff's critical appeal years ago:

Rock critics like Elvis Costello because rock critics look like Elvis Costello.

David Lee Roth

Words cannot convey

just how sick I am of hearing about Terrell Owens. There is a network for soap operas and that is the right place for the off-field melodrama of Jerry, Tuna, and TO.

On the field, as a player in the Ultimate Team Sport, he is far from the best at his position. He loses big points for the melodrama; his game production just cannot overcome the deficit. If I was building a team, I’d take Troy Brown, Marvin Harrison, and Hines Ward. I’d avoid TO like the plague and not lose one minute of sleep over the decision.