You would think that, as a native New Yorker who doesn't participate in online pools, I would have little or no vested interest in who wins tonight's NCAA basketball championship game. Yet I still feel conflicted. As one who roots for President Obama to succeed, should I support his ESPN pick of the University of North Carolina? Or should my empathy for those affected by the devastating unemployment situation in Michigan, make me choose Michigan State?
Whoever wins tonight, our domestic and foreign crises will still be there tomorrow. But sports gives us a welcome respite from those looming issues, because at the end of the game, there is a clear winner. The losing team can't demand a recount, and no championship has ever been decided by the Supreme Court.
Such easy resolutions don't often occur in politics and diplomacy. When was the last time two countries reached a peace agreement after one meeting? Some countries like North Korea and Iran may play "hard to get", but with persistent, direct diplomacy, real progress towards peaceful coexistence can be made.
It might be more dramatic to heave a half court shot at the buzzer, but a slow, deliberate march up the court, with smart passing while waiting for the best shot, has a higher chance of success. That's the strategy our basketball loving President likes to follow. And even though I'm not one to wager on sports, or even make predictions for no money online, I'm betting on this President not only to win, but to play the game with skill, intelligence, class and respect.
And while we're at it, why not have online pools for things other than NCAA sports? How about predicting which global conflicts will end first? Wouldn't it be great if the Sports Book in Vegas covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I'd love to watch a bunch of bettors yelling, "Go Peace! C'mon you can do it! Negotiate! Go Peace!"
Now that's an online pool I'd be happy to be in.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
A Comedian's Guide To The Economic Crisis
I never thought I would need an MBA to make jokes about the news. But for the past several weeks, both onstage and in The Strategy Room at FoxNews.com, I've been searching for the side-splitting humor in credit default swaps, derivatives, and other words I had never thought about, much less uttered in public. But then I realized the so-called "financial experts" who actually know what those terms mean, didn't know(or didn't want to know) about the conditions that led to the financial meltdown. In fact, the talking heads on the business networks are as accurate as TV weathermen, but not as likable. And when weathermen get the forecast wrong, we don't lose lots of money. We just get a liitle wet.
Just as I was understanding "toxic assets", they changed it to "troubled assets". Troubled assets sound like assets with emotional problems. I can hear a troubled asset saying "I was happy until I got caught up in that subprime mess. Now I'm in therapy three times a week." At least if you're a troubled asset, you still have friends. Toxic assets must be pretty lonely. Now they're called "legacy". The assets may still be troubled, but now they have a better chance of getting into a good college.
Good banks and bad banks confuse me too. I don't want to demonize the 99% of bank employees who are decent and hard working, but the last time there was a good bank was in "It's A Wonderful Life". What do banks do for us anyway? They give us the privilege of depositing our money there, where it earns a lot of money for the banks and not so much for us. Especially after those $39 returned check fees. With the exception of the small number of local and regional banks who played by the rules and deserve to be commended, what is a good bank anyway? Do you ever hear someone extoll the virtues of a bank on Facebook? "I LOVE CHASE! It's SO much cooler than Citbank!"
Everyone's talking about how we don't want "our money" going to AIG bonuses. First of all, the vast majority of AIG employees did their job well, and had no connection to those who committed the reckless, risky and unethical activity. The bad apples don't deserve a penny, and should have been fired immediately. But "our money?" Of course, technically it's our money, but we're not going to have to pay for those bonuses ourselves. Our taxes won't go up because of it. It would be another thing altogether, if you looked at your bank statement and you saw a whopping "Bailout Charge" on it.
I understand the populist rage over inappropriate compensation, but where were the tea parties to protest the trillion dollars spent so far on the Iraq War? Distorting intelligence and deliberately misleading the American people should have gotten more people angry enough to take to the streets.
People can disagree about President Obama's economic policies, but those who challenge his work ethic have it wrong. An intelligent, well-rounded person like our President is capable of working hard on every important issue, and still take a few minutes to do his NCAA bracket. And I'm glad he's been on TV a lot lately. In stark contrast, George W. Bush had one press conference in his first nine months in office.
When we're faced with something as difficult to grasp as our financial crisis, we need our President to talk to us, explain to us, and ultimately reassure us. And those troubled assets.
Just as I was understanding "toxic assets", they changed it to "troubled assets". Troubled assets sound like assets with emotional problems. I can hear a troubled asset saying "I was happy until I got caught up in that subprime mess. Now I'm in therapy three times a week." At least if you're a troubled asset, you still have friends. Toxic assets must be pretty lonely. Now they're called "legacy". The assets may still be troubled, but now they have a better chance of getting into a good college.
Good banks and bad banks confuse me too. I don't want to demonize the 99% of bank employees who are decent and hard working, but the last time there was a good bank was in "It's A Wonderful Life". What do banks do for us anyway? They give us the privilege of depositing our money there, where it earns a lot of money for the banks and not so much for us. Especially after those $39 returned check fees. With the exception of the small number of local and regional banks who played by the rules and deserve to be commended, what is a good bank anyway? Do you ever hear someone extoll the virtues of a bank on Facebook? "I LOVE CHASE! It's SO much cooler than Citbank!"
Everyone's talking about how we don't want "our money" going to AIG bonuses. First of all, the vast majority of AIG employees did their job well, and had no connection to those who committed the reckless, risky and unethical activity. The bad apples don't deserve a penny, and should have been fired immediately. But "our money?" Of course, technically it's our money, but we're not going to have to pay for those bonuses ourselves. Our taxes won't go up because of it. It would be another thing altogether, if you looked at your bank statement and you saw a whopping "Bailout Charge" on it.
I understand the populist rage over inappropriate compensation, but where were the tea parties to protest the trillion dollars spent so far on the Iraq War? Distorting intelligence and deliberately misleading the American people should have gotten more people angry enough to take to the streets.
People can disagree about President Obama's economic policies, but those who challenge his work ethic have it wrong. An intelligent, well-rounded person like our President is capable of working hard on every important issue, and still take a few minutes to do his NCAA bracket. And I'm glad he's been on TV a lot lately. In stark contrast, George W. Bush had one press conference in his first nine months in office.
When we're faced with something as difficult to grasp as our financial crisis, we need our President to talk to us, explain to us, and ultimately reassure us. And those troubled assets.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Defend Love, Not Marriage
Among the many things we're fighting for in this country, the defense of marriage should not be one of them. And I say that as a very happily married man.
And as unlikely as it sounds, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act is exactly the right issue to bring liberals like myself, and conservatives together for a change. One change would be to provide health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. The only thing standing in the way of President Obama fulfilling this campaign pledge is his desire not to alienate already uncooperative Republican lawmakers.
This is the time for Obama to stand firm on an issue that means so much to so many of his most passionate supporters. And also a time for true conservatives to have their desire not to have government intrude upon our personal lives, apply to gay lives as well. Not only is that the right thing to do, but it would actually help Republicans broaden their base as well.
The Defense of Marriage Act was passed during the Clinton presidency in 1996, approved by an overwhelming majority of Democrats as well as Republicans. It was the biggest display of bipartisan stupidity and hypocrisy Washington has ever seen. With all the domestic and international threats looming then, they considered marriage to be under attack, and declared that it only applied between a man and a woman. After the vote, some of them ran home to their bad marriages, or to the Mayflower hotel for illicit trysts.
One Republican congressman, Vito Fossella of Staten Island who voted for the bill, and who was a great champion of "family values", was forced from office when it was discovered that in addition to his wife and kids at home, he had another wife and kids near Washington. Apparently, Fossella's idea of family values was having as many families as possible.
The origins of marriage came out of purely financial considerations, so there is absolutely no "sanctity of marriage" to protect, as some sanctimonious Congressmen and Senators claim.
While marriage is not sacred, love is. And the right for every American to love freely is a basic and fundamental one that should be embraced by liberals and conservatives alike. And it follows rationally that same sex couples deserve the same health benefits and other rights that other couples enjoy now.
And hey, at $67 million a year to cover health benefits for same sex federal employees, it's practically a steal compared to other expenditures we're seeing these days.
But the cost of giving equal rights to all couples shouldn't be an issue.
Because you can't put a price on love.
And as unlikely as it sounds, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act is exactly the right issue to bring liberals like myself, and conservatives together for a change. One change would be to provide health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. The only thing standing in the way of President Obama fulfilling this campaign pledge is his desire not to alienate already uncooperative Republican lawmakers.
This is the time for Obama to stand firm on an issue that means so much to so many of his most passionate supporters. And also a time for true conservatives to have their desire not to have government intrude upon our personal lives, apply to gay lives as well. Not only is that the right thing to do, but it would actually help Republicans broaden their base as well.
The Defense of Marriage Act was passed during the Clinton presidency in 1996, approved by an overwhelming majority of Democrats as well as Republicans. It was the biggest display of bipartisan stupidity and hypocrisy Washington has ever seen. With all the domestic and international threats looming then, they considered marriage to be under attack, and declared that it only applied between a man and a woman. After the vote, some of them ran home to their bad marriages, or to the Mayflower hotel for illicit trysts.
One Republican congressman, Vito Fossella of Staten Island who voted for the bill, and who was a great champion of "family values", was forced from office when it was discovered that in addition to his wife and kids at home, he had another wife and kids near Washington. Apparently, Fossella's idea of family values was having as many families as possible.
The origins of marriage came out of purely financial considerations, so there is absolutely no "sanctity of marriage" to protect, as some sanctimonious Congressmen and Senators claim.
While marriage is not sacred, love is. And the right for every American to love freely is a basic and fundamental one that should be embraced by liberals and conservatives alike. And it follows rationally that same sex couples deserve the same health benefits and other rights that other couples enjoy now.
And hey, at $67 million a year to cover health benefits for same sex federal employees, it's practically a steal compared to other expenditures we're seeing these days.
But the cost of giving equal rights to all couples shouldn't be an issue.
Because you can't put a price on love.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Look Who's Talking
When President Obama said, "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.", apparently he was referring to House Republicans. While the President's extended hand was met by clenched fists by all but three Republicans in Congress, his diplomatic outreach is being received warmly abroad.
After eight years of virtually no diplomacy, which is a diplomatic way of saying the Bush Administration alienated allies and antagonized foes, a veritable sea change has come to our foreign policy. America is talking again. Secretary of State Clinton announced this week that high level talks will take place between the U.S. and Syria. This is in stark contrast to Bush's disdain for Israel and Syria's attempts at diplomacy. Bush's view was probably that, "Israel and Syria should not talk peace until they fully explore all their military options."
And talking about the Middle East, a place where less talking went on the past eight years than at a dysfunctional family dinner, the U.S. is doing a lot of talking. Clinton talked to Israeli President Shimon Peres, because she would have had to do a lot of talking if she talked to all 35 of Israel's political parties. One party actually merges Holocaust survivors with those wishing to legalize marijuana. Which shows that Israel, despite its pressing problems, still has a sense of humor.
And while Clinton met with Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, she didn't talk to Hamas, because it is considered a terrorist group. People forget that not too long ago, Fatah was considered a terrorist group that shouldn't be talked to. So while it's good to talk to your friends, you have to also talk to your adversaries. Israel can talk to Canada if it has some hockey or health insurance related questions, but when it comes to peace they must talk to Hamas.
Conservatives were aghast when a "secret" letter Obama wrote to the Russian President was revealed. I guess it's not too secret when it's on the front page of every newspaper. The letter supposedly raised the possibility of the U.S. not putting missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic if Russia used its influence to get Iran to pull back from its nuclear ambitions. Besides the fact that many Poles and Czechs really didn't want the shield anyway, and that it might not even work and still cost billions, if Iran could be persuaded not to develop those weapons, there would be no need for a missile shield in the first place. And the Russian President must have been pretty impressed to receive a snail mail letter. Because President Obama knows you don't text Russia to negotiate with Iran. "Hey Dmitri, can u c what u can do about Iran? Thnx. B" Emily Post would be so proud.
"All talk, no action" used to be a derogatory term. But after eight years of disastrous actions with hardly any talk, our very diplomatic President is giving us change we can believe in, as well as talk about.
After eight years of virtually no diplomacy, which is a diplomatic way of saying the Bush Administration alienated allies and antagonized foes, a veritable sea change has come to our foreign policy. America is talking again. Secretary of State Clinton announced this week that high level talks will take place between the U.S. and Syria. This is in stark contrast to Bush's disdain for Israel and Syria's attempts at diplomacy. Bush's view was probably that, "Israel and Syria should not talk peace until they fully explore all their military options."
And talking about the Middle East, a place where less talking went on the past eight years than at a dysfunctional family dinner, the U.S. is doing a lot of talking. Clinton talked to Israeli President Shimon Peres, because she would have had to do a lot of talking if she talked to all 35 of Israel's political parties. One party actually merges Holocaust survivors with those wishing to legalize marijuana. Which shows that Israel, despite its pressing problems, still has a sense of humor.
And while Clinton met with Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, she didn't talk to Hamas, because it is considered a terrorist group. People forget that not too long ago, Fatah was considered a terrorist group that shouldn't be talked to. So while it's good to talk to your friends, you have to also talk to your adversaries. Israel can talk to Canada if it has some hockey or health insurance related questions, but when it comes to peace they must talk to Hamas.
Conservatives were aghast when a "secret" letter Obama wrote to the Russian President was revealed. I guess it's not too secret when it's on the front page of every newspaper. The letter supposedly raised the possibility of the U.S. not putting missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic if Russia used its influence to get Iran to pull back from its nuclear ambitions. Besides the fact that many Poles and Czechs really didn't want the shield anyway, and that it might not even work and still cost billions, if Iran could be persuaded not to develop those weapons, there would be no need for a missile shield in the first place. And the Russian President must have been pretty impressed to receive a snail mail letter. Because President Obama knows you don't text Russia to negotiate with Iran. "Hey Dmitri, can u c what u can do about Iran? Thnx. B" Emily Post would be so proud.
"All talk, no action" used to be a derogatory term. But after eight years of disastrous actions with hardly any talk, our very diplomatic President is giving us change we can believe in, as well as talk about.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
My Jumbotron View of The Inauguration
Never before have so many traveled so far to see a slightly obstructed view of a Jumbotron screen, light years away from where the swearing in ceremonies were taking place. And that's the real story of the Obama Inauguration.
Contrast that to the final months of the Bush administration, when turning on a remote to watch Bush stumble his way through a news conference, was simply not worth the effort.
It was incredibly moving to see the very young and old, the infirmed and the slow of foot, brave the cold and the claustrophobia to witness this historic day.
But for the rest of us whose journey was nowhere near as difficult, we should retire our war stories about getting up early on a cold morning and being squished as we valiantly tried to see above the person blocking our partial view of the Jumbotron.
When President Obama(that's the first time I've typed those words and it feels really good) called on us to perform public service, I don't think he considered standing in the cold to be a fulfillment of that requirement. Using a port-o-potty doesn't absolve us from any future activism or participation in worthwhile causes.
My Jumbotron view of the Inaugural concert two days earlier, was unobstructed, and at least I knew the general direction of where the entertainment was taking place. Change was certainly in the air when a bald eagle was gently brought on stage to flutter about for a few moments. If this were Bush's inaugural, Dick Cheney would have shot the bald eagle. And simultaneously taken it off the endangered species list. While I was in DC, I saw Cheney's limo whisk by one day. I knew it was Cheney because instead of a siren, a voice from the limo barked, "Get out of my way. I'm right and you're wrong."
Happily the tone has changed. Even more happily, so has the cast of characters. All of us who were there were extras(or background actors as SAG and AFTRA remind us) in all this, but if we're going to play a more principal role in helping our incredibly gifted President, we're going to have to do a lot more than just stand there.
Contrast that to the final months of the Bush administration, when turning on a remote to watch Bush stumble his way through a news conference, was simply not worth the effort.
It was incredibly moving to see the very young and old, the infirmed and the slow of foot, brave the cold and the claustrophobia to witness this historic day.
But for the rest of us whose journey was nowhere near as difficult, we should retire our war stories about getting up early on a cold morning and being squished as we valiantly tried to see above the person blocking our partial view of the Jumbotron.
When President Obama(that's the first time I've typed those words and it feels really good) called on us to perform public service, I don't think he considered standing in the cold to be a fulfillment of that requirement. Using a port-o-potty doesn't absolve us from any future activism or participation in worthwhile causes.
My Jumbotron view of the Inaugural concert two days earlier, was unobstructed, and at least I knew the general direction of where the entertainment was taking place. Change was certainly in the air when a bald eagle was gently brought on stage to flutter about for a few moments. If this were Bush's inaugural, Dick Cheney would have shot the bald eagle. And simultaneously taken it off the endangered species list. While I was in DC, I saw Cheney's limo whisk by one day. I knew it was Cheney because instead of a siren, a voice from the limo barked, "Get out of my way. I'm right and you're wrong."
Happily the tone has changed. Even more happily, so has the cast of characters. All of us who were there were extras(or background actors as SAG and AFTRA remind us) in all this, but if we're going to play a more principal role in helping our incredibly gifted President, we're going to have to do a lot more than just stand there.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Israel Seeks Three Hour Ceasefire for Screen Actors Guild Awards Show
Although Israel is planning many more days of bombing and killing in Gaza, it reportedly wants a three hour ceasefire to allow its troops to watch the 15th annual Screen Actors Guild awards, live from Hollywood on January 25. "It's the only awards show where only actors vote for actors", said a government spokesman.
Israel will not seek a ceasefire for the Academy Awards on February 22 even though "Waltz with Bashir", an Israeli film about the futility of war will probably be nominated. "We have no interest in watching a film that thinks war is futile", said the Israeli government spokesman. "We think war is moral, ethical, effective and a great political tool to keep indicted Prime Ministers in office."
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was recently indicted for the second time on corruption charges. Olmert said he is not interested in making a deal with Hamas. "The only deal I'm interested in", Olmert said, "is a plea deal to keep me from going to prison." With the war in Gaza popular with most Israelis, Olmert hopes that his war crimes will make voters forget about his crimes of bribery and corruption.
While Olmert supports the SAG Awards ceasefire, he is against a week-long "humanitarian" ceasefire proposed by his rivals Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak.
If SAG awarded a "Chutzpah" award, Livni and Barak would win it for asking for a "humanitarian ceasefire" to deal with a humanitarian crisis they helped create.
Today an Israeli artillery attack set the UN compound in Gaza on fire, destroyed tons of food and humanitarian supplies and forced hundreds of refugees sheltering inside to flee. And Israel wonders why it's not too popular with the United Nations.
Barak denied reports that he called the attack on the UN headquarters "a grave mistake". "It's a grave", Barak said, "but it's not a mistake".
Israel will not seek a ceasefire for the Academy Awards on February 22 even though "Waltz with Bashir", an Israeli film about the futility of war will probably be nominated. "We have no interest in watching a film that thinks war is futile", said the Israeli government spokesman. "We think war is moral, ethical, effective and a great political tool to keep indicted Prime Ministers in office."
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was recently indicted for the second time on corruption charges. Olmert said he is not interested in making a deal with Hamas. "The only deal I'm interested in", Olmert said, "is a plea deal to keep me from going to prison." With the war in Gaza popular with most Israelis, Olmert hopes that his war crimes will make voters forget about his crimes of bribery and corruption.
While Olmert supports the SAG Awards ceasefire, he is against a week-long "humanitarian" ceasefire proposed by his rivals Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak.
If SAG awarded a "Chutzpah" award, Livni and Barak would win it for asking for a "humanitarian ceasefire" to deal with a humanitarian crisis they helped create.
Today an Israeli artillery attack set the UN compound in Gaza on fire, destroyed tons of food and humanitarian supplies and forced hundreds of refugees sheltering inside to flee. And Israel wonders why it's not too popular with the United Nations.
Barak denied reports that he called the attack on the UN headquarters "a grave mistake". "It's a grave", Barak said, "but it's not a mistake".
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Israel Blames Bernie Madoff For Civilian Casualties
Israeli authorities revealed today that losses from investments with Bernie Madoff, forced Israel to cut one of The Ten Commandments, "Thou Shall Not Kill", and led to the deaths of over 600 men, women and children in Gaza.
Israel also said Madoff was a member of Hamas, just so they could blame Hamas for the killings too. "When you steal money from people, that's a terrorist act", said an Israeli government spokesman. When asked if bombing and killing civilians was also an act of terror, he said " We don't target civilians. We target the buildings we know civilians are hiding in."
Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said "There is no humanitarian crisis in the Strip and therefore there is no need for a humanitarian truce." Livni also said that the earth is flat.
Livni is right that it's not a humanitarian crisis-it's a humanitarian disaster.
Before the Israeli invasion, it was a humanitarian crisis. Four of five Gazans lived on $2 or less a day. Seven of 10 were out of work. Electricity lasted for a quarter to a third of the day. But compared to the current situation, those were the good old days.
Israel is expected to continue fighting until January 20 at noon, when Barack Obama takes the oath of office.
When it comes to speaking out against the war crimes of Israel and Hamas, Obama needs to drop the "We only have one President at a time" schtick. After all, does anyone really consider George W. Bush the President anymore?
Israel also said Madoff was a member of Hamas, just so they could blame Hamas for the killings too. "When you steal money from people, that's a terrorist act", said an Israeli government spokesman. When asked if bombing and killing civilians was also an act of terror, he said " We don't target civilians. We target the buildings we know civilians are hiding in."
Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said "There is no humanitarian crisis in the Strip and therefore there is no need for a humanitarian truce." Livni also said that the earth is flat.
Livni is right that it's not a humanitarian crisis-it's a humanitarian disaster.
Before the Israeli invasion, it was a humanitarian crisis. Four of five Gazans lived on $2 or less a day. Seven of 10 were out of work. Electricity lasted for a quarter to a third of the day. But compared to the current situation, those were the good old days.
Israel is expected to continue fighting until January 20 at noon, when Barack Obama takes the oath of office.
When it comes to speaking out against the war crimes of Israel and Hamas, Obama needs to drop the "We only have one President at a time" schtick. After all, does anyone really consider George W. Bush the President anymore?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)