Reflections on the GOP Convention

OK, Mitt Romney isn't Ronald Reagan--at least not when it comes to speaking. But who is? Nevertheless, I thought Romney gave a good account of himself Thursday night in laying out his vision for America.

So did his running mate Paul Ryan. And so did Sen. Marco Rubio, and Gov. Susana Martinez, and former Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice and former Democrat congressman-turned Republican Artur Davis.

Each of these folks and many others gave good accounts of themselves while standing at the podium.

Even 82-year-old Clint Eastwood--without using a teleprompter--resonated with the crowd. His delivery may not have been on par with his Dirty Harry roles, but he made the audience's day with his comments on the failed policies of the Obama administration.

Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney

Perhaps the defining moment in Romney's speech came when he said: "This president can ask us to be patient. This president can tell us it was someone else’s fault..… But this president cannot tell us that you’re better off today than when he took office." The "excitement" of Obama’s election has subsided, Romney said, replaced by doubt and uncertainty about the economy and the federal budget.

"If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, you should feel that way now that he’s President Obama,' Romney said. "You know, there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as president when the best feeling you’ve had was the day you voted for him."

"President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet," Romney continued. "My promise is to help you and your family."

The Obama White House, meanwhile, derided Romney's speech and the GOP convention in general as "angry and short on solutions."

You bet there was anger at the GOP convention. When you have some 23 million Americans out of work and a president who has played something like 125 rounds of golf you have to wonder who is more out of touch with this country.

Sen. Mitch McConnell said it best: "For four years, Barack Obama has been running from the nation's problems. He hasn't been working to earn reelection. He's been working to earn a spot on the PGA tour."

I don't think anybody expected Romney or Ryan to lay out a detailed strategy for dealing with the mammoth debt and other economic woes the U.S. faces during the convention. That is something that will be disclosed during the final two months of the campaign.  

There is little doubt that Democrats were surprised by the "bring it on" attitude of Paul Ryan when it comes to debating Medicare--often considered the third rail for Republicans when it comes to social issues.

The idea that Ryan wants to jettison the elderly over the cliff my slashing or ending Medicare is ludicrous. Voters--especially those already retired or about to retire--should be more concerned about the $716 billion Obama swiped from Medicare to fund Obamacare.

Joe Biden: Gaffe-Mesiter

I am eagerly awaiting the debate on Medicare that Ryan will have with Joe Biden down the road. Biden, America's #1 "gaffe-meister," will find Ryan a formidable opponent.  And Biden will lose.

Romney vs. Obama will be a lot more competitive. I don't see this as a repeat of the Reagan-Jimmy Carter debate which Reagan won handily with his "there you go again" comment.

Obama can talk. That's about all he does. Romney is a doer, not a talker. We will see contrasting styles in these debates. But one thing Romney has going for him is his laid back style.

Obama: "Callow, thin-skinned, arrogant"

Obama, on the other hand, according to Ed Klein's New York Times best seller "The Amateur," is "a callow, thin-skinned, arrogant president with messianic dreams of grandeur supported by a cast of true-believers, all of them united by leftist politics and an amateurish understanding of executive leadership."

What Romney will have do in the debates is expose what Rep Allen West (R-FL) says Obama is doing.

"Obama is basically feeding America a crap sandwich with a smile...and it’s very important for us to win the image war in the presidential race," West said. "Because a crap sandwich with a smile is still a crap sandwich!"

Will someone please pass the ketchup!

 

Some Early Observations About the GOP Convention.

Ann Romney

Ann Romney. What a partner she is for Mitt. Her speech Tuesday night was absolutely on target. Did you notice, she didn't mention Obama once? Didn't need to. Her job was to talk about Mitt, her husband and father of her five boys. She did that perfectly. Did you also notice that she didn't dwell on her own problems--the fact that she is battling multiple sclerosis and breast cancer? So how will the Democrats respond? Even though Obama says family members should be off limits, his attack dogs have consistently attempted to paint Ann Romney as a rich woman out of touch with Middle America. The fact is she IS Middle America. Her father was an immigrant from Wales who came to this country with nothing and rose to be mayor of his town. She did not grow up wealthy. And neither did Mitt Romney. As Ann Romney pointed out in her talk they struggled financially early on while Mitt attended both business and law school at the same time. Obama, on the other hand, got free rides and has plenty of time to indulge in recreational drugs, speak at anti-American, communist-backed protest rallies and generally goof off--which is why he has spent a lot of money to keep his college records secret.  

Chris Christie. Was this the rousing "Obama and the Democrats can go to hell' speech a lot of the delegates were expecting? No it wasn't. In weaving a lot of his personal life into his talk, Gov Christie did not follow the script many Democrats were predicting he would. His direct attack on Obama was minimal. Instead of the brash, no-holds-barred verbal punch-fest, Christie spent most of the time talking about being a Republican governor in a state controlled predominately by Democrats. One area where he fell a bit short, I thought, was his rather feeble attempt to sell Romney. His first mention of the Republican presidential nominee didn't come until some 15 minutes into his speech. Instead, he spent a lot of time talking about the direction the Republican party should be taking in the future. It was almost as if he were setting himself up to run in 2016. Maybe he was.

LIBERAL MEDIA COVERAGE. In a word, the left-leaning mainstream media has done a mendacious job of covering the GOP convention.  One of the left's favorite attacks on the Republican Party is that it is the party of old white people, devoid of diversity and most likely racist. I hope you weren't watching MSNBC’s coverage of the Republican National Convention Tuesday night. If you were you might be inclined to believe those assertions, because missing from the coverage was nearly every ethnic minority that spoke during Tuesday’s festivities. But in case you were watching MSNBC and missed some of the best speeches here are what a few of these diverse Republicans had to say.

Mia Love

MIA LOVE. Who is Mia Love? She is a 36-year-old black Mormon congressional candidate, exploded onto the national stage with her speech at the Republican National Convention on Tuesday night. Because nobody really knew who Mia Love was her name topped all others in Google searches Wednesday. Love is running against incumbent Rep. Jim Matheson (D) in Utah’s newly formed 4th district and if she wins in November, she will become the first black Republican woman elected to Congress. Tuesday evening she talked about how her parents came to the United States from Haiti with "$10 in their pockets and a hope that the America they heard about really did exist." She said Obama was a president who didn't value entrepreneurship and added: "Mr. President, I'm here to tell you that the American people are awake, and we aren't buying what you're selling in 2012." She described Obama's vision for the country as a "divided one" that is "pitting us against each other based on our income level, gender and social status." 

Artur Davis

ARTUR DAVIS. Here is how petty the My Socialist NBC network (otherwise known as MSNBC) is. It declined to cover the rousing speech by former Alabama Democrat Rep. Artur Davis, who delivered one of the nominating speeches for Barak Obama at the 2008 Democrat convention. In 2010, Davis had seen enough and switched parties. "The Democrats' ads convince me that Gov. Romney can't sing, but his record convinces me he knows how to lead, and I think you know which skill we need more," Davis told the audience Tuesday night. He accused Obama of bamboozling voters four years ago with "flowery words" and charged that the incumbent has lost the "halo" his supporters thought he had in 2008. "America is a land of second chances, and I gather in this close race you have room for the estimated 6 million of us who know we got it wrong in 2008 and who want to fix it," Davis told the delegates.

Nikki Haley

NIKKI HALEY. The Republican Governor of South Carolina and the daughter of Indian immigrants delivered a blistering speech condemning Obama. "Don't tell me that my parents didn't build their business," Haley said, referring to Obama's "you didn't build that" remark a several weeks ago. "My parents started a business out of the living room of our home and, 30-plus years later, it was a multimillion dollar company," she said. "But there wasn't a single day that was easy and there wasn't a single day my Mom and Dad didn't put everything they had into making that business a success. So, President Obama, with all due respect, don't tell me that my parents didn't build their business." Haley then accused the Obama administration of launching an all-out assault on her state. "The hardest part of my job continues to be this federal government, this administration and this president," Haley said, going on to say that "Obama will do everything he can to stand in your way," even if you play by the rules."

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. Beyond the weird clothing and hats that seems to have become de rigueur at American political conventions in the past few decades, I agree with House Speaker John Boehner: these things should be shorter. “I’m not sure that having a four-day convention, for the future, makes a lot of sense,” Boehner said at a luncheon hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. He also suggested that the party platform should be cut down to one page. “Anybody read the party platform?” he asked. "I’ve never met anybody who has."

AMEN

Did He or Didn't He? Here's an Idea: Ask the IRS!

Forgive me if this sounds a bit simplistic, but with "Dirty" Harry Reid charging that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is a tax cheat couldn't this be resolved if someone were to ask the IRS if it is preparing a tax evasion case against the former Massachusetts governor?

I mean if Romney hasn't paid any income taxes for the past 10 years, as Dirty Harry suggests, wouldn't that qualify for some prison time? Isn't that the way the Feds got Al Capone in Chicago?

But wait, didn't Tim Geithner fail to pay taxes also? But, of course, he is a Democrat and Obama minion, so I guess that's OK. Right Harry?

During several years, Treasury secretary nominee Timothy F. Geithner failed to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes totaling some $26,000, even though he was advised by his employer, the International Monetary Fund, to do so. Instead he signed an agreement indicating that he understood that such payments were his responsibility and received extra pay from his employer specifically for that purpose.

Mr. Geithner "came clean" only when he was caught, first by an IRS audit that found he owed Social Security taxes for 2003 and 2004 and then when additional tax liabilities for 2001 and 2002 were discovered after his nomination as Treasury Secretary.

So, if Mitt Romney has, like Geithner, failed to pay taxes, why wouldn't an IRS audit indicate that?

The answer is quite likely that the IRS has never done such an audit and that Romney has indeed paid his taxes for the past 10 years.

Of course, this doesn't stop the Chicago political mafia led by David Axelrod and the Chick-fil-A  hating Mayor Rahm Emanuel from slinging slime at Romney.

Hey, that's Chicago politics. It's the way the game is played in the Windy City and its where our feckless leader in the White House learned the rules.

Don't think the filthy tactics are finished with the Dirty Harry rant in the Senate, either. The Obama/Axelrod mafia has just begun its descent into the dung heap that is Chicago politics.

As a general assignment reporter for the Chicago Tribune in the 1970s I witnessed my share of the corruption that has long been a trademark of Chicago's Democratic machine.

A recent report by the Political Science Department of the University of Illinois revealed that Chicago is Number 1 in public corruption while the State of Illinois is ranked Number 3 so far as corrupt states go.  The report said that since 1976 - federal prosecutors rung up a total of 1,531 public corruption convictions in the Northern District of Illinois. The 1,828 total convictions for Illinois lagged only behind California and New York.

Since the 1970s, four of Illinois’ seven governors have been convicted (Otto Kerner, Dan Walker, George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich) of corruption. In addition, dozens of Chicago alderman and other city and county public officials have been found guilty.

Corruption is intertwined with Chicago city politics, the report said, adding that about a third of sitting alderman since 1973 have been corrupt and the city has averaged 51 public corruption convictions each year since 1976.

With this kind of pedigree is anybody surprised then that the Obama campaign is pulling out all the stops to smear Gov. Romney and anybody who supports him?

Is it any wonder that the Obama campaign is dead set against any kind of voter identification law? After all, while Chicago may not be the home of AMCTV's the "Walking Dead" it has always been the home of the "Voting Dead."

Bringing the dead from their graves to support Chicago's Democratic Machine would be more difficult if they had to show voter IDs. And of course, the same can be said for the millions of illegal aliens who show up at the polls to vote for the Democrat party candidates--not to mention those who vote multiple times.

What we are seeing in the Obama administration is the Chicago-ization of national politics.

Dirty Harry Reid's despicable performance in the Senate last week reminded me of watching a Chicago City Council meeting in full swing--you don't want to wear clean clothing in that noble chamber when the mud-slinging starts.

When Barack Obama was elected President he promised there would be no "politics as usual." He was right. Instead we are getting politics at its worst--a huge dose of political corruption, chicanery and thievery courtesy of Chicago's Democratic crime family of which Obama is an offspring.   

The Newsroom, Episode 3: I Give Up

OK, I have watched three episodes of HBO's series "The Newsroom." Enough is enough.

What I was hoping would be a breakout, first class TV series about journalism, how it is done and why it is important to our country has nose-dived from that lofty perch into the abyss of partisan political diatribe.

Three episodes ago the show began with what I thought was promise. Sure, there were gaffes (correspondents being embedded in Vietnam which didn't happen; nobody on the staff actually doing any reporting; and lots of soapy chatter about who is sleeping with whom, etc), but I could forgive some of those.

In last Sunday's episode any thought that this show would portray reporters and producers actually doing their jobs without inserting their own political biases into every event, interview or broadcast was snuffed out.

Jane Fonda as Media Mogul Leona Lansing

Instead, we get a dose of fictional Atlantis Cable Network (ACN) anchor Will McAvoy (initially the token conservative in The Newsroom) ranting and raging at the Tea Party and others who disagree with the Obama administration as though he were the White House Press Secretary. My advice to Obama: Fire Jay Carney and hire Will McAvoy.

Apparently, McAvoy's avowed super-liberal executive producer (MacKenzie McHale) has managed in just three episodes to exorcise McAvoy's imprudent conservative demons and convert him into a more agreeable (but no less ill-informed) version of MSNBC's über-liberal ersatz journalist Chris Matthews.

Like Matthews, McAvoy bellows at the camera and insults those with whom he disagrees.

So THAT is who the McAvoy character is modeled after. I was hoping it might be somebody who has the integrity to keep his/her opinions under wraps while actually reporting the news. But sadly, that is not to be the case in The Newsroom.

With a newsroom full of producers, writers and others who view the world through a defective prism that can only reveal the left side of any issue, any hope that this series would provide viewers with a glimpse of how real journalists work has vanished.

Just about everybody on the show violates the Code of Ethics produced by the Society of Professional Journalists and that at least some of us try to adhere to. Indeed, that code might as well be toilet paper in The Newsroom's lavatories.

The Preamble to the SPJ's code states:

"Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice."

I won't duplicate the entire code here but there are at least three areas where The Newsroom is in obvious violation:

·       "Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible."

·       "Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context."

·       "Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant."

Ostensibly, News Night 2.0 (the new name of the show), is a return to good old-fashioned news. Give them what they need, not what they want--even if it hurts.

Yet Will McAvoy, in laying out the format of for his viewers, says: “My party’s being hijacked....something that began as a “middle-class movement responding to bad trends” was “co-opted by the radical right.” Because he is a confessed Republican (holy crap!), Will apparently believes he is the perfect person to take the tea party to task. So now the Tea Party is the target. 

Enter Jane Fonda as Leona Lansing, the woman who owns Atlantis World Media which includes Atlantis Cable News. And here Fonda is REALLY acting--playing the role of a cold-hearted conservative cable network owner. Now THAT does strain credibility.

Charlie (the Sam Waterston character who is the boss of ACN's news show) stresses the urgency of criticizing Tea Party congressmen, and makes a comparison between Senator Joseph McCarthy and Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann.

Leona dismisses that as baseless: rabid anti-Communist McCarthy, she says,  was "obviously bad" whereas Tea Party supporter Bachmann is nothing but "a bad hairdo" and not anyone to worry about.

Perhaps the most cringe-inducing comment made during episode three, as far as journalists are concerned, comes from Charlie who, in response to the perceived imbalance of News Night 2.0's presentation of the news says: “balance is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the truth, logic or reality.”

OK, I've got it. ACN is now the fictional twin of MSNBC. And Will McAvoy is evolving into Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann all rolled into one persona.

My advice: Don't stay tuned.

The Newsroom Episode 2: Journalism or Soap Opera?

Last week I gave a barely passing grade to HBO's incursion into the world of professional journalism. This week, I am giving it a big fat F.

The series, though filled with enough clichés about the news business to choke the most lenient journalism professor, did get off to an interesting start in its inaugural show. It dealt with the 2010 BP oil platform explosion off the coast of Texas that poured millions of gallons of oil into the ocean.

On last Sunday's show fictional producer MacKenzie decides the BP story is old news, even though in reality that story was being covered by every other major news organization on the planet because of riveting images of the oil rig sinking beneath the waves.

Instead, she wants to lead with SB 1070, Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.

Emily Mortimer as Producer MacKenzie McHale

Ahhhh yes, here is where we see Hollywood flexing its liberal biases. The SB 1070 story is good because Gov. Jan Brewer is a racist, as is apparently every other person living in Arizona who believes that something must be done to protect the state's borders from the daily and nightly invasion of illegal immigrants.

When anchor Will McAvoy protests that the BP oil rig story is good television, MacKenzie climbs aboard her contrived journalistic soapbox and barks back: "We don't do good television, we do the news!"

Oh, I get it. The BP story is not news. At least not when "News Night 2.0" (the new name for the fictional news show) can attack a conservative governor who is trying to get the federal government to do its job and protect the nation's borders.

Maggie, a young producer who wears her politics on her sleeve like a Valley Girl wears a tramp stamp, is assigned to do the pre-interview with Jan Brewer's office. Naturally, she has to let the Brewer staffer know just what she thinks of SB 1070 (a racist bill aimed at Mexicans).

Then we find out she dated the staffer when she was in college and a remark he makes about Obama leads her to make a vulgar remark about his skill (or lack thereof) in the sack.

The result is that Jan Brewer bails on the interview with Will McAvoy and goes to CNN instead. In reality such a dumb performance by a junior producer would get her fired. But not on News Night 2.0. She is, after all, the correct political flavor. Perhaps if she had been right of center....

None of this stops our executive producer MacKenzie from soldiering ahead with the SB 1070 story. Just 90 minutes before air time the show rounds up three other guests: a second runner up in the Miss USA pageant who insists her support of the bill cost her a chance to be first runner up; a wacko militia-man who does the interview holding his rifle (which he has named "Jenny"); and a self-published "professor" from an online diploma mill.

Is it a coincidence that all three come across as callous right wing nut cases while the Newsroom's left wingers are allowed to demonstrate their decency via PC homilies about immigration? Or am I letting my misgivings of Hollywood show through? Nope, I don't think so.

The show makes another point about obtuse conservatives when it airs footage of Sarah Palin making a gaffe about Norway and The Netherlands (she confuses the two during a short sound bite), and the beat goes on.

Is News Night 2.0 in the tank for President Obama? I am willing to take bets on it. Is the Newsroom spiraling into a soapy newsroom version of General Hospital? It appears so, but I hope not.

There is much about journalism and those who practice it that is worth watching. It just hasn't become apparent with this show--yet. Maybe it will.

Maybe the show will forgo all of the cliché-ridden interpersonal relationships (who is sleeping with whom? and why? and why not?) and actually show how good reporters, editors, producers, etc. work a story. To date, that has not happened. In fact, no one ever leaves the newsroom to pursue a story. They just seem to drift from one office to another with an occasional appearance in the newsroom.

Maybe the reporters in The Newsroom (by the way, where are they?)  and producers (plenty of those) will curtail their overt left wing biases and focus on how exceptional journalism is done, rather than behaving like a collection of unpleasant narcissists who see journalism as their personal ladder to fame and wealth.

On the other hand, maybe The Newsroom will continue to devolve into nothing more than another Hollywood left wing political vehicle that views the world as an "us and them" proposition--where "us" equals good and "them" equals evil.

Whatever happened to objectivity, fairness and accuracy? Stay tuned. Maybe those critical journalistic qualities will appear in future episodes of The Newsroom.

I'm not holding my breath!

"The Newsroom:" Hollywood's Latest Foray into Journalism

Reporters have been the subject of something like 2,100 feature films since Hollywood discovered that, like cops, doctors and lawyers, they lead interesting lives.

Television also has tackled the news business. Since the 1950s there have been something like 40 programs devoted to newspaper and TV newsrooms. Those older than 40 may remember the Mary Tyler Moore Show in the early 1970s. Or they may recall its dramatic, Emmy-winning spin-off, Lou Grant that ran from 1977 to 1982. Or how about Murphy Brown, which ran from 1988 to 1998?

OK, let's be honest.

 Anybody who has ever worked in a real newsroom knows that Hollywood, bless its money-grubbing heart, just can't get it right when it comes to what goes on inside the newsrooms of a daily newspaper or a television station.

 But that doesn't keep it from trying.

 Take Hollywood's latest foray into the world of those who gather the news. It's an HBO vehicle called "The Newsroom." I watched the pilot this past week and while I was really trying to give the show a chance, there were several instances when I had to yell "No! No! No!" at my big screen TV.

Jeff Daniels as Will McAvoy

Take, for example, the scene in which the boss of this fictional cable news outfit tells his #1 anchorman that he was "embedded" with an Army artillery unit in Vietnam. This character, played by Sam Waterston, should know better. After all, he played the lead character in 1984's "The Killing Fields," about the Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia in 1975.

 Here's a news flash: Reporters in Vietnam were never embedded. That was the beauty of Vietnam (if indeed that phrase can ever be used to describe that war). Reporters were free to go where they wanted with whomever they wanted. Sorry Sam, no embedding! That began with the second Gulf war.

 Then there is the producer who gets upset because anchorman Will McAvoy, played pretty well by Jeff Daniels, yells at him in front of the staff. What? Heaven forbid!

 Listen, if I had a quarter for every time I was yelled at when I was a struggling general assignment reporter for the Chicago Tribune in the late 1960s and early 1970s, well I probably could fill up the gas tank in my gas-guzzling SUV. And that is saying something!

 Luckily for me, I managed to escape the Tribune's cavernous newsroom after about 5 five years and spend the rest of my career away from Chicago as a foreign correspondent in Asia and Latin America where crabby editors couldn't yell at me anymore.

 The other irritant in The Newsroom is the way people talk. There is a lot of pontificating about what journalism is or should be. Help! Reporters, editors and producers don't talk that way in newsrooms. They may do so in bars or when talking to journalism students on college campuses, but even then only rarely.

 Instead the conversations in newsrooms deal with stories that need to be covered; about how stories should be written or produced; what kinds of photos or graphics should go with a package; how a story is edited; what video should be used; and where a story will be played in the paper or during a 30-minute broadcast.

 Often there is a lot of arguing and yelling as editors, producers and reporters disagree over what the lead of a story is or how it should be played.

 Yet in The Newsroom, which takes place in 2010 and has, as its inaugural story the explosion of British Petroleum's oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico, nobody seems to know what to do.

The Newsroom Staff

Incredibly, nobody picks up a phone to check out the bulletin that has come over the Associated Press wire. They just stand around waiting for more updates. Finally, a field producer who has arrived with McAvoy's new executive producer MacKenzie McHale (played by Emily Mortimer) manages to figure out what is going on.

 How? In cell phone calls he learns from his former college roommate (how astoundingly convenient!) who is an insider at BP that BP doesn't know how to fix the spill. Then he gets a call from his sister (how impressively auspicious!) who works at the EPA and she fills in all the relevant details.

 Voila! There you have it. The complete story of the worst oil spill in history, wrapped up in about 45 minutes.

 Sorry folks, it simply doesn't happen that way. Huge stories like that take weeks or maybe even months to fully report and understand.

 OK, I recognize that TV and movie scripts need to be tight and dramatic license dictates that all the boring stuff like actual reporting, exhaustive research, interviewing of sources face to face and writing or producing a compelling story is like dropping silly putty into the gas tank of a Ferrari when it comes to movies and TV shows.

 Yet, I wonder if some of the donkey work might not make for good drama also.

 That is, after all, what good journalism is all about. It's the tedious digging through records, reading old clips or viewing old stories, interviewing, observing, analyzing, discussing, agonizing over accuracy, writing and sometimes rewriting that real reporters worth their salt do.

 I have talked to lawyers about how they are portrayed by Hollywood. An attorney told me once: "If people really knew what lawyers do nobody would go to law school. Unlike TV shows that show lawyers waxing brilliant in courtrooms, most of our time is spent briefing old cases, seeking precedents, or involved in what can only be called old-fashioned drudgery."

 Of course, that wouldn't make for good drama or those much-needed "eureka" moments when the cop figures out who dun-it or when the virtuoso lawyer gets the "real" culprit to confess right there in court.

 Good journalism and discovering the truth is more of a slog through a muddy bog than an unimpeded supersonic flight. Another bothersome plot in The Newsroom is the Waterston character's altruistic confession to reluctant anchor McAvoy that he wants to return a perfectly profitable news operation with good ratings to an era when good old-fashioned journalism ruled the day and costs be damned.

 Who cares about ratings, about the expense of actually sending reporters out of The Newsroom to cover stories? Americans need quality journalism and news organizations should provide it, rather than indulge them with the insipid and gratuitous infotainment that they would rather have.

 Ahem. One suspects that as soon as the suits in the upper echelons of this fictional cable news network discovered this plot they would purge the place of such crass idealism. In fact, that battle is looming in the series and guess who plays the CEO of the parent company? You guessed it: It's (Hanoi) Jane Fonda. Now there is a bit of brilliant casting.

 Here's an idea. Why not have Jane send Waterston to a Vietnamese re-education camp until he learns that today's news business is interested more in maximizing profits than in spending the millions of dollars it takes to effectively cover the world we live in?

 While I may seem overly critical of The Newsroom I am actually withholding my final judgment for another few episodes. Perhaps Aaron Sorkin, the executive producer of this peek into the world of journalism, will be the one Hollywood mogul who gets it right.

 Stay tuned....

Bullied Bus Monitor: A Sign of Our Narcissistic Society

We have all heard and probably seen the viral video of Greece, N.Y. school bus monitor Karen Klein's vicious verbal bullying at the hands of several 7th grade boys.

We now know that outraged folks who watched the pitiless taunting of the 68-year-old grandmother have donated almost $600,000 to her on the crowd-funding site Indiegogo.com.

And we also know that at least two of the boys and their parents sent her written apologies for the episode aboard the middle school bus.

Karen Klein

My question, after watching the video and seeing the many stories about this unconscionable incident, is why it happened in the first place?

In case you haven't seen it, here is the youtube version of the taunting video: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E12R9fMMtos

How could 7th graders behave in such a merciless and heartless way? What kind of parents are putting kids like this on our streets?

It doesn't take an expert in child rearing to understand what is going on in our country. Listen to the violent music (if you can call it that) being produced by "gansta rappers" and other no-talent thugs who call themselves musicians. Look at the vicious and sadistic video games and movies that venerate carnage and bloodshed.

Is it any wonder when children are exposed incessantly to this kind of violent behavior that a few might become inured to the very violence they see on TV and in movie theaters or listen to on their I-pods?

Yes, I know. There are always those who point to studies that say watching violent or aggressive behavior doesn't mean a child will imitate the conduct they see.

I don't buy it. I never have.

Think about the themes that are contained in the products created by the multi-billion dollar gaming, movie, and music industry:

·        the killing of people or animals

·        the use and abuse of drugs and alcohol

·        criminal behavior, disrespect for authority and the law

·        sexual exploitation and violence toward women

·        racial, sexual, and gender stereotypes

·        foul language, obscenities, and obscene gestures

According to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry:   "studies of children exposed to violence have shown that they can become: immune or numb to the horror of violence, imitate the violence they see, and show more aggressive behavior with greater exposure to violence. Some children accept violence as a way to handle problems. Studies have also shown that the more realistic and repeated the exposure to violence, the greater the impact on children. In addition, children with emotional, behavioral and learning problems may be more influenced by violent images."

Are we to ignore such evidence simply because the entertainment industry is earning billions of dollars by producing blood-soaked video games and films and the dissonant vicious racket called rap?

The academy also points out that "a concern to many interested in the development and growth of teenagers is the negative and destructive themes of some kinds of music (rock, heavy metal, hip-hop, etc.), including best-selling albums promoted by major recording companies." 

The following themes, which are featured prominently in some lyrics, can be particularly troublesome, the Academy points out:

·        Drugs and alcohol abuse that is glamorized

·        Suicide as an "alternative" or "solution"

·        Graphic violence

·        Sex which focuses on control, sadism, masochism, incest, children devaluing women, and violence toward women

I grew up in the 1950s when Rock 'n Roll was pretty tame by current standards. The themes of that music, for the most part, had to do with teenage relationships, dating and going steady, etc.

Overt sexual activity was not something we saw on American Bandstand or anywhere else for that matter--certainly not on TV or movie theaters. The most shocking sexual conduct in high schools and junior highs was a forbidden dance called the "dirty bop" or perhaps Elvis Presley's pelvic gyrations. (That's why he was called "Elvis the Pelvis.")

"Making out" in the hallways got you in deep doo-doo with the principal and smoking anywhere near the campus could get you suspended. Today, both of these activities appear to be commonplace in American high schools where the concept of discipline has gone the way of buggy whips.

Today high school students shout down teachers and in some cases even attack them physically. And middle school students humiliate and bully bus monitors and other forms of authority.

Is this simply because kids watch too much violence on TV and in video games or listen to venomous music?

Only blaming the entertainment industry is wrong. While it is indeed culpable for some of the behavior of out of control middle-schoolers and teenagers, I think a larger part of the blame needs to be laid at the feet of parents.

Ultimately parents are responsible for the behavior of their children. But too many seem to have abrogated their responsibility to schools and teachers. Then, when there is a problem, too many parents side with their children and contest whatever punishment is handed down by the school.

Teachers seem unable to establish any form of classroom discipline without incurring the wrath of parents blind to the bad behavior of their offspring.

"You can't discipline my kid," parents will shout, "that's my job." If that's the case, then why are so many kids undisciplined today?

In a society that glorifies celebrity and fame beyond any normal parameter and elevates aberrant behavior because it is "cool," why are we surprised when kids emulate famous, but dubious idols?

In a society where civility and plain old-fashioned good manners are almost totally extinct and aggressive behavior is the new norm, is it any wonder that 7th graders can bully a 68-year-old woman on a school bus?

I wonder what kind of punishment these boys will receive from the school they attend or, for that matter, from their parents?

I know what would have happened to me if I had behaved toward an adult the way these brutish brats behaved toward Karen Klein--and believe me, it would have been a hell of a lot more than a severe tongue lashing or a (heaven forbid) grounding.