The mean streets of Glens Falls
I think it's about time for New York's Republican Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno to bow out with whatever grace he has left.
I
wrote earlier about his refusal to talk to
The Times-Union on a story that revealed some dubious travel practices of his, only later to whine that the Albany paper didn't tell his side of the story. He also acted like he was in more danger than a GI in Baghdad. Late last year, it was revealed that Bruno was the subject of
an FBI investigation into his outside earnings.
In the latest twist,
Bruno claims that his archrival, Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer is spying on him. The state's top Republican compared Spitzer to a "Third World dictator."
It's been such a rough eight months that even having his very own
taxpayer-financed ballpark named after him probably doesn't lift his spirits very much.
But despite the travails, the majority leader hasn't lost his pugnacity.
“I grew up in the toughest part of Glens Falls, next to the boxcars, where kids would come up to you when you weighed 90 pounds and they weighed 120 and just punch you right in the mouth just because you were Italian, O.K., or just because you lived next to the boxcars, or just because they felt like it,” he said. "That’s how I grew up, O.K.? So swing away.”
As a current resident of Glens Falls, I nearly wet myself laughing at this description. I know Glens Falls is less hardscrabble than it was in the '30s and '40s when the majority leader grew up. But give me a break? Did he grow up on South Street's bar alley?
Bruno is not the first politician to exaggerate the dangers of this relatively placid area for political reasons.
Businessman Bill Brown waged a campaign a few years ago trying to get the city to 'clean up' Ridge Street, which tried to convince people was more dangerous than East L.A. He is running for political office for the third time this year. And while I appreciate the work he does for the Boxcar Derby, he has never gotten my vote. And unless his opponent is named George W. Bush, he never will.
In 1996, the late-Congressman Jerry Solomon, berated Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy during a debate on a gun control bill in one of his more (but not by any stretch his only) infamous comments.
Our local loudmouth dared the nephew of the assassinated John and Robert Kennedy to "step outside," adding, "My wife lives alone five days a week in a rural area in upstate New York. She has a right to defend herself when I'm not there, son. And don't you ever forget it."
I used to bike by their house all the time. They lived in a swanky residential suburb, about a mile away from one of the busiest intersections between New York City and Montreal.
I must've missed the boxcars.
Full disclosure: apparently Bruno is distantly related to me, though I must declare unambiguously: I am not nor have I ever been a passenger on a state aircraft. I also have never been shot at by Mrs. Solomon.Labels: Eliot Spitzer, Glens Falls, Jerry Solomon, Joe Bruno
Independents increasingly turning on Bush
I was interested to see
some poll results conducted by the American Research Group. (Kudos to my friend Mark for pointing them out)
The discovered that respondents were almost even split (45% yes, 46% no) on whether the House should begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and that a majority (54%) believed they should do so against Vice-President Cheney.
64% of all respondents disapproved of President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison time and 84% would oppose an eventual pardon for the vice-president's former chief of staff.
Apparently, most Americans don't buy the administration's mind-numbing
Snow Job that the commutations 'strengthen the rule of law and increase public faith in government.'
Not surprisingly Democrats tended to support impeachment and oppose the clemency for Libby with vice versa being true for Republicans.
Bush obtained a massive 27% overall approval rating (67% disapproval).
But what interests me is the tendency among independents (by which I presume the pollsters include BOTH members of smaller parties and members of no party).
A majority of independents support impeachment for both Bush (50% for, 30% against) and Cheney (51% for, 29% against).
Independents are actually MORE opposed to Libby's commutation than Democrats (80% to 76%).
Independents are significantly MORE opposed to a potential pardon for the convicted felon than Democrats (97% to 82%).
Some have criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for taking impeachment 'off the table.' It was a political decision, not a justice-related one. Can you blame her? The cardinal rule of politics is that when your opponent is commiting suicide, stay out of the way.
The fact that such a huge portion of independents have turned against Bush and Cheney has to be a serious worry for the 2008 GOP presidential contenders.
It also demonstrates that dissatisfaction with everything about the administration can hardly be blamed on partisan Democrats.
Labels: Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, independents, polls
Mixed messages on youth soccer
One of my favorite topics to read and think about is youth soccer coaching. I don't write about it much here because it's not a sociopolitical topic but
here's one time I did.
Anyways, one of the common themes I read about in the soccer magazines and coaching journals is how overstructured American youth soccer. Kids don't play enough pickup soccer, which is where they learn how to be creative.
I always encourage my kids to go to the park as often as they can with their friends and just kick around or even find a wall somewhere. Some coaches don't see much value in this. If they aren't pontificating from their deep well of brilliant wisdom or drilling or running the kids into the ground, it must be a waste of time. Somehow the old maxim 'The game is the best teacher' gets lost in the shuffle.
Countries like Brazil and Argentina repeatedly produce some of the most exciting players in the world. Though 'produce' isn't really the right verb. Creative players aren't manufactured. They are fostered. Argentina and Brazil don't fabricate such players by drilling them into the ground or making them run four miles a practice. The environment in those countries allows such players to evolve. One of the reasons is that such players are playing street soccer or pickup as often as they can when they are young. There is no overcoaching to crush the creative spirit and burn them out from the game.
The other most common theme I hear from the experts is how youth soccer in the US is too obsessed with results on the field and not enough concerned with player development. This is because if I really work with a player to improve his skills or foster his creativity, the improvement might not be immediately evident until the following season... when he might be playing for another coach. The whole concept that we are all part of the development of US Soccer is something many coaches don't truly buy into.
Some coaches are mainly in it for the trophies. On the more elite clubs, coaches are paid (I'm not) so trophies are an easy way to justify their paycheck and a thing to point to when demanding parents ask why they are spending bucketloads of money. Big bucks want tangible results.
Some parents push their kids into elite soccer so they can be viewed by college scouts. Both of these factors make it so elite teams are constantly playing tournaments all over the region or even the country. Tournaments where they might be playing 3-6 games in a weekend.
The recent
Soccer America magazine did a piece (not available online apparently) on the new Development Academy created by US Soccer. It includes a quote from the coach of the Under-15 (U-15) boys' national team coach. who said, "It was never more clear to me that things in our youth soccer structure needed change than at our first U-15 camp last summer when about half of the players, on the very first day of national team camp, told the coaches that they were tired of soccer."
I know many hardcore soccer nuts and when they tell you they are "tired of soccer," you know there's a serious problem. Even more so when it's at something as prestigious as a national team camp.
Soccer America actually does a lot of articles on good ways to improve youth soccer in this country, both its structure and its atmosphere. Usually it involves encouraging everyone to worry more about having fun (so as not to burn out!) and improving skills than about short-term results. But even then, the magazine itself sends mixed messages.
A friend of mine gave me sold old issues of the magazine. The cover story of the October 2006 issue: Winning at what cost?
US players pay the price for the emphasis on results at the youth club level.Then I looked at the next magazine, the September 2006 issue, which had the following headline:
National youth soccer champions are crowned.Like many in the youth soccer community,
Soccer America seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth.
I won't lie and say winning is completely irrelevant to me. I go into every game trying to win. But I am not obsessed by it. I will not refuse to play or give only derisory playing time to certain players just because it would give us a better chance to win. Not only does everyone play a lot but everyone gets a chance to play quality minutes in parts of the game that matter. I've found that some players you least expect will rise to the challenge if only given the opportunity.
I see my role as helping all players develop, not just the starters. Contrary to all the pathetic rationalizations some coaches offer, a player does not develop when he sits on the bench all the time. A player can learn something when he sits on the bench for a little bit of time, but at some point, he has to be given the chance to implement what he learns. Otherwise, the player doesn't develop. Unlike some coaches, I make a point of doing as much as I can to help the weaker players on my team. Perhaps this is related to the fact that I was/am crap as a player. And since everyone on my team plays a lot, I don't want there to be any conspicuously weak links.
I try to win but I don't obsess about results. I don't berate my players when they lose (or for any reason other than bad sportsmanship). I am more concerned about my team and kids playing the right kind of soccer. I try to instill the belief in them that if they play good skill soccer for 90 minutes, the results will take care of themselves. If nothing else, this hopefully fosters good habits and the right attitude.
I don't need trophies to justify my position. Fortunately, I've been consistently blessed with a great group of parents (and kids). If I ever get a group of either who are only worried about trophies, then they can find somebody else. I'm not getting paid. The kids aren't getting paid. I know too many people, coaches and players, who've gotten burned out on the sport because that sort of mentality. And I do everything possible to prevent that from happening to me or my kids.
Labels: coaching, soccer, youth sports
"No comment... now stop refusing to tell my side!"
Glens Falls'
Post-Star managing editor Ken Tingley had a good column
blasting NY Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno.
A few days ago, the Albany
Times-Union ran a piece detailing how Bruno allegedly used taxpayer-funded aircraft to attend political fundraisers. Additionally, the Albany paper obtained documents where Bruno had asserted the aircraft were used for official state business.
Essentially, Bruno was committing the same offense that forced the resignation of then-state comptroller Alan Hevesi. Bruno had demanded Hevesi quit.
Bruno refused to comment for the
Times-Union article but later
held a press conference to answer the allegations.
"Since I have been leader I was told by the State Police that there were so many threats on my life that they could not cover them," said Bruno.
I know Albany's a morass but to listen to his rant, you'd think the politico was in more danger than a GI in Baghdad.
Anyway, Tingley rightly lambastes Bruno. During his temper tantrum, the crybaby senator insisted he was going to cancel his subscription to the
T-U and encouraged everyone else to do the same.
I'm sure Hearst Newspapers is quaking in its boots!
Tingley also called Bruno on what is a huge pet peeve of mine. Bruno consciously refused to provide a comment for the
T-U article only later to snivel that... the paper only provided one side of the story.
I think anyone who does this should be publicly tarred and feathered. How is a media outlet supposed to provide your side of the story if
you refuse to give it to them?
[Full disclosure: apparently Bruno is distantly related to me, though I've never received a ride in state aircraft nor have I received any of the other perks that have gotten him into trouble.]Labels: Joe Bruno, Ken Tingley, Post-Star, Times-Union
Kidnaped BBC reporter released
After four months as a hostage and
huge international outrage, the BBC's Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston
has finally been released by his captors.
The journalist was handed over to the Hamas government, regarded as a terrorist group by the US.
I believe Johnston was the only western journalist based in the Occupied Territories. As such, he was generally well-regarded by Palestinians for telling their story, in contrast to most British and North American media which tends not to portray Palestinians as human beings.
Sadly, his ordeal will only make it less likely that international journalists will dare to venture to the Palestinian territories to tell more stories. But his release is certainly welcome news for his family and for all those part of the world's most respected news outlet.
Labels: Alan Johnston, BBC
Bush's amnesty proclamation
There's been a hullabaloo in the last day or so even since President Bush commuted the sentence of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff Scooter Libby, who had been found guilty of perjury (lying under oath) and obstruction of justice. The commutation spares Libby any prison time. Bush has
not ruled out a full pardon for the convicted felon. Personally, I'd be shocked if Bush DOESN'T pardon Libby at some point, most likely sometime between Election Day 2008 and Inauguration Day 2009.
Presidential pardons and commutations for their cronies aren't exactly new. It seems every president issues a rash of these orders in the waning days of his presidency. But Bush's clemency is odd behavior from someone whose party claims to represent law and order. Then again, those who scream loudest about law and order are usually those with the least respect for either. Just ask anyone who ever wore a 'Nixon-Agnew' button.
In a way, Libby is lucky. Not just because of who he knew but because of his job. Does anyone think he would've been granted amnesty for his multiple crimes if he'd been, say, an illegal immigrant who threatened America by picking strawberries?
The ironic part, assuming irony is not dead with the current administration, is this.
Scooter Libby spent less time in jail than Paris Hilton. I have no idea what Hilton did but I doubt it was more grave than lying under oath and obstructing justice?
A few weeks ago, one far right commentator opined:
Hilton is an example of what happens when you don't obey the law and don't obey a judge's orders. Hilton apparently thinks the rules don't apply to her, she has another thing coming and she'll find that out in the slam very quickly. A lot of folks think that celebrities get special treatment when they run afoul of the law and while that may on some level be true it isn't always the case. It's important for the public to know that the law applies to everyone.Yet the very same commentator said of Libby:
This case was such nonsense in the first place... Bush should have pardoned Libby from the beginning.The law 'applies to everyone' but not to the vice-president's chief of staff. Does that mean Libby is no one? Does that mean the vice-presidency is some sort of legal vacuum? Ok,
maybe it is.
The same far right commentator added that:
Even if Libby lied, he didn't lie under oath in a formal proceeding.The person who said this is also a lawyer and thus should know that perjury is indeed the crime of lying under oath.
Then again, he's not the only right-winger who's changed his tune.
While many conservatives now pooh-pooh the severity of the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, they seemed to think they were a pretty big deal
nine years ago!
Update: Joan Walsh over at Salon.com also takes to task Rudy Giuliani. 'America's Prosecutor' has apparently jettisoned (temporarily I presume) the populist law and order demagoguery that has been the pillar of his presidential campaign and decided to give the thumbs up to Bush's amnesty for a convicted felon. Walsh sneers: Way to stand with a beleaguered U.S. attorney, Rudy! What a wuss.Labels: amnesty, George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, Scooter Libby
"The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable"
Former
Los Angeles Times staff writer Ken Silverstein has
a great guest column in his old paper. He concludes that the
Washington press corps is too busy cozying up to the people it covers to get at the truth.One of my regular criticisms of the political press corps (Albany as well as Washington) is that they are so obsessed with access that they are too timid to ask truly tough questions. Sure, they ask acceptably tough questions but they all too rarely challenge the boundaries of establishment, transcription journalism.
A great example in New York state politics is WAMC Northeast Public Radio supremo Dr. Alan Chartock. He rightly excoriates the New York state legislature for secrecy and for gerrymandering. He refers to the body's redistricting efforts as the 'incumbent protection program' and he is spot on.
He's done countless interviews with Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno. The interviews are inevitably chummy and cordial. Chartock sounds almost embarrassed when he asks something vaguely resembling a tough question.
Bear in mind that Silver and Bruno run their chambers with an iron fist, giving rank and file members (even of their own parties) little power. They could ram through true electoral reform and institute a fair electoral system in the snap of a finger, if they really wanted to. Of course they are more than content with re-election rates that are higher than the Communist Chinese National Assembly.
But to listen to Chartock, apparently this gerrymandering takes place in a vacuum. As far as I know, not once has Chartock held Silver's or Bruno's feet to the fire regarding the 'incumbent protection program.' If he did, he might lose his chummy monthly interviews with big shots.
After all, what's the point of having the vaunted access if you don't use it? Maybe being invited to fancy dinner parties is more important.
And on those rare occasions when journalists do push the boundaries, they are often the object of scorn more so than the corrupt folks they are reporting on.
In an investigation for
Harper's magazine, Silverstein passed himself off to some as
the representative of a London-based energy company with business interests in Turkmenistan. He contacted some of Washington's elite lobbying firms and told them he wanted to burnish the image of Turkmenistan, not mentioning that the country is run by a neo-Stalinist, cult of personality regime. He was sure they already knew and didn't care.
Silverstein writes:
the lobbyists I met at Cassidy & Associates and APCO were more than eager to help out. In exchange for fees of up to $1.5 million a year, they offered to send congressional delegations to Turkmenistan and write and plant opinion pieces in newspapers under the names of academics and think-tank experts they would recruit. They even offered to set up supposedly "independent" media events in Washington that would promote Turkmenistan (the agenda and speakers would actually be determined by the lobbyists).Yet Silverstein's work was attacked by
Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz.
Even though Silverstein's work exposed an extremely serious corruption of journalism.
Silverstein notes how things have changed in the corporate media landscape. Media docility has made serious investigative journalism much rarer.
He writes:
there's a long tradition of sting operations in American journalism, dating back at least to the 1880s, when Nellie Bly pretended to be insane in order to reveal the atrocious treatment of inmates at the Women's Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell's Island in New York City.
In the late 1970s, the Chicago Sun-Times bought its own tavern and exposed, in a 25-part series, gross corruption on the part of city inspectors (such as the fire inspector who agreed to ignore exposed electrical wiring for a mere $10 payoff). During that same decade, the Chicago Tribune won several Pulitzer Prizes with undercover reporting and "60 Minutes" gained fame for its use of sting stories.Silverstein believes that this timidity is due in large part
to the 1997 verdict against ABC News in the Food Lion case. The TV network accused Food Lion of selling cheese that had been gnawed on by rats as well as spoiled meat and fish that had been doused in bleach to cover up its rancid smell. But even though the grocery chain never denied the allegations in court, it successfully sued ABC for fraud — arguing that the reporters only made those discoveries after getting jobs at Food Lion by lying on their resumes. In other words, the fact that their reporting was accurate was no longer a defense.No doubt increasing media ownership by large media companies demanding ever-increasing profits above less profitable quality journalism has played a crippling role. This is evidenced by the now virtually indistinguishable line that once separated news and entertainment.
Perhaps the most telling comment came from former 60 Minutes' producer Chick Lewis. Lewis told Silverstein, "The values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable."
And I think this encapsulates how journalism has changed in the last half century. Journalists were once considered blue collar and identified with working class folks. They took their obligation to public service seriously. They believe it important to stand up for the little guy.
Now, journalism is considered white collar. A college degree is now generally considered an entry requirement. Political journalists now tend to identify more with the politicians they cover, who tend also to be educated and white collar, than with their more diverse readership.
In theory, higher education should lead to higher quality journalism. But in practice, it leads to far more caution. Journalists are taught the boundaries of establishment corporate journalism and more important, to never question them. Journalists learn from textbooks and professors instead of honing their instincts through experience.
Their preconceptions are formed before they ever publish their first piece as a paid reporter. A preconception being that they are transcribers rather than investigators. A preconception being that objectivity and neutrality are the same thing, when
they're not.
Will mainstream corporate journalism ever return to being something more than mere transcription? Something more than CSPAN in print? If Silverstein's experience is anything to go by, probably not.
Labels: Alan Chartock, Ken Silverstein, media, neutrality, objectivity
