I’ve endeavored to join as many political discussions with as many different people as possible over the past month or so. My intent has not been to offer my opinion, but rather to ask just enough questions to get the other person or people to open up about what they see with the current landscape. Here are a few of my (admittedly unscientific) findings:
1) The depth of hatred for Hillary Clinton inside the Democratic Party. This one really surprises me. Even though I’ve long held (and still do) that she’s unelectable, I figured that Democrats would largely have a neutral or resigned position about her, if not a positive one. Wrong, at least among the people I’ve been able to engage. They’re using words like “evil,” “Satan,” “power-hungry” and other less pleasant and…ahem…descriptive terms. In fact, I have yet to find more than a single person who rallies around her. (And that person is a female in New England who has traditionally been a Republican.) Now that may say a great deal about the people I can and do rub elbows with, but wouldn’t you think I could find at least one supporter, especially in a place like Austin?
2) Republican support for Mitt Romney. This one’s also a bit of a surprise to me. I’ve heard a lot of this, too: “If (the candidate I support) doesn’t win, Romney would be ok.” Does this mean he’s the actual leader to get the nomination, as he’s the one guy the party can agree on across the board?
3) And the virtual winners are Obama and Giuliani. Centrist Democrats like Giuliani. Centrist Republicans like Obama. Since neither one’s actual history or views jibe with the opposite party’s, I have to believe there are other factors that lead to their current popularity with would-be enemies. In Giuliani’s case, my guess is that it’s his name recognition, plus his perceived legacies of turning around NYC and his handling of 9/11. Obama? Must be because he’s likeable as a person and not being Hillary, because his political stances really don’t align with Republicans one iota. Once the majority of the party faithful actually see where each one stands, their support will waiver. (To me, this is supported by the lack of support for Giuliani among northeastern Democrats, who know him a bit more than the rest of the country.) Nonetheless, will we see some people voting outside of their party’s primary to help nominate these two? And if so, will it be in significant enough numbers to help?
4) Bill who? Fred who? John who? John who again? Again, I have to qualify: there is a limited number of people I’m able to come in contact with, no matter how many I perceive it to be. But since I do converse with people from all over the country and of virtually every political stripe, I find it interesting that everyone not named Romney, Obama, Clinton, or Giuliani has been virtually written off. Does this mean that someone’s campaign could be revived by an early win or two? Sure. But don’t hold your breath.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Friday, November 09, 2007
NOT SO FAST
Beware the easy prognostications of "here come the Democrats" because one can look to Kentucky, Virginia, and Indianapolis and see a trend. And it’s not necessarily the trend that the Dems think they see, nor the trend the GOPers think they see.
The trend in all probability is “throw the bums out, regardless of affiliation.”
See, it doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you hail from. If an incumbent's constituents are the least bit unsettled the signs are saying that the bar is much lower than normal to bounce them from office. What I don't see is a mandate for Democrats to re-take power, nor an “all-clear” signal for Republicans that a significant slice of the electorate is still in their camp. The electorate as a whole is very dissatisfied, and if you appear to be part of the problem, regardless of party, you are in deep doo-doo.
Indianapolis is a great case study. Marion County has been becoming increasingly Democratic for the past 15 years to the point where it was the only county in Indiana to vote for Kerry in 2004. But a relative unknown and underfunded Republican upset Bart Peterson, 2-term Democratic mayor, the City-County Council turned majority Republican, and the large suburb of Lawrence ousted its Democratic mayor.
I don’t mean to suggest that this possible groundswell doesn’t favor Democrats, but that's only in places where they don't currently hold office AND there is an incumbent. All bets are off in races where the incumbent isn't running. This feels like the same simmering disappointment that turned into voter anger in both 1976 and 1980. And its roots are not just Iraq or worries about the economy. The general sense is that the country is foundering and people are wanting a clear direction.
In other words, don’t be so sure that any one of us knows the outcome of any race, especially the presidency. And don’t rule out a third party candidate suddenly coming on full force after the Dem & GOP candidates are known.
The trend in all probability is “throw the bums out, regardless of affiliation.”
See, it doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you hail from. If an incumbent's constituents are the least bit unsettled the signs are saying that the bar is much lower than normal to bounce them from office. What I don't see is a mandate for Democrats to re-take power, nor an “all-clear” signal for Republicans that a significant slice of the electorate is still in their camp. The electorate as a whole is very dissatisfied, and if you appear to be part of the problem, regardless of party, you are in deep doo-doo.
Indianapolis is a great case study. Marion County has been becoming increasingly Democratic for the past 15 years to the point where it was the only county in Indiana to vote for Kerry in 2004. But a relative unknown and underfunded Republican upset Bart Peterson, 2-term Democratic mayor, the City-County Council turned majority Republican, and the large suburb of Lawrence ousted its Democratic mayor.
I don’t mean to suggest that this possible groundswell doesn’t favor Democrats, but that's only in places where they don't currently hold office AND there is an incumbent. All bets are off in races where the incumbent isn't running. This feels like the same simmering disappointment that turned into voter anger in both 1976 and 1980. And its roots are not just Iraq or worries about the economy. The general sense is that the country is foundering and people are wanting a clear direction.
In other words, don’t be so sure that any one of us knows the outcome of any race, especially the presidency. And don’t rule out a third party candidate suddenly coming on full force after the Dem & GOP candidates are known.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
WHY SPORTSMANSHIP IS STILL IMPORTANT
There has been a lot of talk about the New England Patriots this season, to say the least. I think they're providing a great metaphor. Let's start with just the football aspect:
Right now, there seem to be two camps on the Patriots running up the score: those that think they are and see it as a very bad thing, and those that either don't think they are (ahem) or that because it's pro football, there need be no mercy. No surprise, Group 2 is comprised almost entirely of Patriots fans.
We all want an excuse as to why our team or our own actions are justified. But when you do things like going for it on 4th down with a 5-touchdown lead and leaving your starters in when the other team has no chance is difficult to defend. The reason? They are on a mission to prove they're the best team despite the "Spygate" incident earlier in the season and they seem to think this is the way to remove all doubt. Hmmm...
All the Pats are doing is ensuring that the rest of the nation loathes them, and that other teams will stick it to them when they can. That probably won't be this season, but coaches, fans and players have very long memories when it comes to this sort of behavior. And so do GMs, owners, and front office personnel. Don't be surprised if next year or the year after that some team injures Tom Brady with a purposeful late hit. Or, GMs consistently refuse to make trades with the NE brass...or every road game in a down year (which will happen) turns into “how much can we embarrass the Patriots,” Essentially, Bellichick is threatening to create 20 years of paybacks with one season of a raised middle finger.
Now the non-football portion: how much does this translate to our lives, our politics, our interactions with others? Are we ever truly in a place where "it doesn't matter so long as you win"? Yet from our foreign policy to CEO compensation to presidential campaigns, sportsmanship seems to have taken a back seat. Unfortunately, it does come with consequences.
Also, it is very difficult to build up a great reputation, but extremely easy to destroy it. Witness political figures, celebrities, and others who fall from grace. But once a reputation is destroyed, it is an even longer process to remake it, if it can ever be done.
I'm not saying that everything needs to be done in the utmost manner of politeness, but there does deserve to be some simple respect, even when the stakes are high. Maybe especially when the stakes are high. But somewhere we seem to have forgotten that if you're going to tread on someone in any arena that they will make it their mission to take you down. And they, too, have long memories. Even armies who are bent on killing each other understand that once you've defeated your opponent, you have to give them some grace in defeat, or it will come back to haunt the victors.
So root for your team, Patriots fans. You may even go undefeated and win a championship. Just remember that when your team is being taken apart unmercifully in a few years. Unless your team's ownership starts thinking about their long-term future.
Right now, there seem to be two camps on the Patriots running up the score: those that think they are and see it as a very bad thing, and those that either don't think they are (ahem) or that because it's pro football, there need be no mercy. No surprise, Group 2 is comprised almost entirely of Patriots fans.
We all want an excuse as to why our team or our own actions are justified. But when you do things like going for it on 4th down with a 5-touchdown lead and leaving your starters in when the other team has no chance is difficult to defend. The reason? They are on a mission to prove they're the best team despite the "Spygate" incident earlier in the season and they seem to think this is the way to remove all doubt. Hmmm...
All the Pats are doing is ensuring that the rest of the nation loathes them, and that other teams will stick it to them when they can. That probably won't be this season, but coaches, fans and players have very long memories when it comes to this sort of behavior. And so do GMs, owners, and front office personnel. Don't be surprised if next year or the year after that some team injures Tom Brady with a purposeful late hit. Or, GMs consistently refuse to make trades with the NE brass...or every road game in a down year (which will happen) turns into “how much can we embarrass the Patriots,” Essentially, Bellichick is threatening to create 20 years of paybacks with one season of a raised middle finger.
Now the non-football portion: how much does this translate to our lives, our politics, our interactions with others? Are we ever truly in a place where "it doesn't matter so long as you win"? Yet from our foreign policy to CEO compensation to presidential campaigns, sportsmanship seems to have taken a back seat. Unfortunately, it does come with consequences.
Also, it is very difficult to build up a great reputation, but extremely easy to destroy it. Witness political figures, celebrities, and others who fall from grace. But once a reputation is destroyed, it is an even longer process to remake it, if it can ever be done.
I'm not saying that everything needs to be done in the utmost manner of politeness, but there does deserve to be some simple respect, even when the stakes are high. Maybe especially when the stakes are high. But somewhere we seem to have forgotten that if you're going to tread on someone in any arena that they will make it their mission to take you down. And they, too, have long memories. Even armies who are bent on killing each other understand that once you've defeated your opponent, you have to give them some grace in defeat, or it will come back to haunt the victors.
So root for your team, Patriots fans. You may even go undefeated and win a championship. Just remember that when your team is being taken apart unmercifully in a few years. Unless your team's ownership starts thinking about their long-term future.
Friday, October 19, 2007
IF AL GORE IS SERIOUS
Let’s start with a reality check: Al Gore is not going to win the presidency in 2008. He will not be able to get organized, raise enough money, or campaign fast enough to make a dent in the front-loaded primaries, and he’s certainly not going to enter the fray as a 3rd party candidate. The question should be: does Gore ever run for public office again? His eventual answer to that will tell you whether he’s really in it for public service or for ego.
Forget personal prejudices about Gore’s ability (or lack thereof) to often walk the walk he talks, or what his real purpose was about agreeing to make “An Inconvenient Truth.” He has still been an important part of raising the consciousness in this country about climate change, and has caused the debate to intensify. If he is truly interested in serving the public and effecting a change, then he needs to continue to make his case as Al Gore, Private Concerned Citizen. But if this is just a ploy to re-make himself politically, then he’s not interested in public service at all, but power.
I don’t know the answer here. Gore has always championed environmental protection as his #1 cause, and that makes you want to believe that he’s really in it to educate the country and make a difference. But if you watch his movie with a critical eye, you don’t just gloss over all the references to the 2000 election. Instead, you wonder why it’s included. After all, if this is about raising consciousness on what we’re doing to the planet, who cares about how you lost the election?
That is the dichotomy with Al Gore, and why a lot of people struggle with or discount what he stands for, or what he purports to stand for. If you’re really in this for environmental change, why do you try to show how “unfair” the 2000 election was to you? And if the environment is that fragile, why do you live your extremely environmentally abusive lifestyle and think that by buying “carbon credits” you can excuse your behavior?
See, this is the problem with career politicians. They think they’re above the fray, and they think they’re entitled to positions of privilege. Hey…I’m an agoraphobic person who has partially been rewarded by a lifetime of being on stage instead of down with “the rabble.” So on some level I understand. The difference is that I’m not in a position to make policy. I’m just saying that whatever you see Al Gore do in the future with respect to seeking public office should tell you a great deal about his true motivations.
Forget personal prejudices about Gore’s ability (or lack thereof) to often walk the walk he talks, or what his real purpose was about agreeing to make “An Inconvenient Truth.” He has still been an important part of raising the consciousness in this country about climate change, and has caused the debate to intensify. If he is truly interested in serving the public and effecting a change, then he needs to continue to make his case as Al Gore, Private Concerned Citizen. But if this is just a ploy to re-make himself politically, then he’s not interested in public service at all, but power.
I don’t know the answer here. Gore has always championed environmental protection as his #1 cause, and that makes you want to believe that he’s really in it to educate the country and make a difference. But if you watch his movie with a critical eye, you don’t just gloss over all the references to the 2000 election. Instead, you wonder why it’s included. After all, if this is about raising consciousness on what we’re doing to the planet, who cares about how you lost the election?
That is the dichotomy with Al Gore, and why a lot of people struggle with or discount what he stands for, or what he purports to stand for. If you’re really in this for environmental change, why do you try to show how “unfair” the 2000 election was to you? And if the environment is that fragile, why do you live your extremely environmentally abusive lifestyle and think that by buying “carbon credits” you can excuse your behavior?
See, this is the problem with career politicians. They think they’re above the fray, and they think they’re entitled to positions of privilege. Hey…I’m an agoraphobic person who has partially been rewarded by a lifetime of being on stage instead of down with “the rabble.” So on some level I understand. The difference is that I’m not in a position to make policy. I’m just saying that whatever you see Al Gore do in the future with respect to seeking public office should tell you a great deal about his true motivations.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
WHAT'S WRONG WITH ADVERTISING (or lessons from working in gaming)
Some of you know that my company works with ad agencies in addition to video game companies. I was just forwarded an article where an agency owner who thinks very highly of himself was pontificating on what's wrong with the industry.
Yeah, this is beyond the normal scope of this blog, but since I haven't been posting anything lately, I thought I'd offer my own take on what seems utterly apparent, and it's considerably different than what Johnny Loveshimselfalot has to say.
For ad agencies to be socially relevant again they must --
1) Have independence. This means freedom from shareholders. One of the single dumbest ideas was to collect agencies in these big holding companies and go public. A creative company needs an environment that allows that it to sink or swim based on taking some chances with ideas, otherwise there will never be "big ideas' or because no one will be willing to allow the potential risk. Nothing sucks the life out of creativity like Wall Street.
2) Hire actual creative types. Virtually every ad agency is now populated by account executives who dress funky to show how creative they are. In reality, most of them are simply immature bad salespeople, more Herb Tarlick than J. Walter Thompson. Scratch that: Herb could at least sell. Agencies don't need more AEs who pretend to be creative: they need CDs and Producers and Copywriters who actually know what they're doing. Which means you might need to hire some weirdos who want to crawl into a corner and draw. Take the gaming approach -- throw a twinkie over the cubicle wall and leave him to his craft. Don't worry...he'll come out eventually.
3) Have a SMALL number of people over the creatives (like one or two) who have proven that they a) know what good creative is and b) have some business acumen. This is where the David Ogilvys and Lester Wundermans of the world really made their mark. They weren't writing all the ads or going on all the shoots -- they were letting the weirdos do their thing and acting as the filter, THEN bringing the best ideas to light. Or, in a gaming scenario, they were the publishers, the creatives were the developers. Somehow, that very simple idea has been lost.
4) When something is working, DON'T SCREW WITH IT. In the gaming world, how much money has Blizzard made on World of Warcraft? How much money has EA made on Madden, Need for Speed and The Sims? How much money has Midway made on Mortal Kombat? How much money has Activision made on Spiderman, World Series of Poker, and Guitar Hero? And it doesn't matter if the producer changes -- you don't mess with the formula until it stops working. This is even MORE imperative with advertising, yet every new AE-who-thinks-he's-a-producer has to stamp out the life of what was happening before and do something new. And it never, ever, ever works. Why? See 3) above.
Also note that this does not mean that new ideas aren't encouraged or allowed to surface. It simply means that change for the sake of change is misguided.
Until then, advertising will continue to decline. If they get to the point where they're irrelevant (and that's not very far away) then nothing will resurrect the trade. It will become the equivalent of used car sales.
You know, I always thought the book "Who Moved My Cheese?" was so ridiculously obvious that anyone who read it should have been saying, "Well, duh." The advertising industry is making me reconsider that opinion....but I'm scratching my head the entire time.
Yeah, this is beyond the normal scope of this blog, but since I haven't been posting anything lately, I thought I'd offer my own take on what seems utterly apparent, and it's considerably different than what Johnny Loveshimselfalot has to say.
For ad agencies to be socially relevant again they must --
1) Have independence. This means freedom from shareholders. One of the single dumbest ideas was to collect agencies in these big holding companies and go public. A creative company needs an environment that allows that it to sink or swim based on taking some chances with ideas, otherwise there will never be "big ideas' or because no one will be willing to allow the potential risk. Nothing sucks the life out of creativity like Wall Street.
2) Hire actual creative types. Virtually every ad agency is now populated by account executives who dress funky to show how creative they are. In reality, most of them are simply immature bad salespeople, more Herb Tarlick than J. Walter Thompson. Scratch that: Herb could at least sell. Agencies don't need more AEs who pretend to be creative: they need CDs and Producers and Copywriters who actually know what they're doing. Which means you might need to hire some weirdos who want to crawl into a corner and draw. Take the gaming approach -- throw a twinkie over the cubicle wall and leave him to his craft. Don't worry...he'll come out eventually.
3) Have a SMALL number of people over the creatives (like one or two) who have proven that they a) know what good creative is and b) have some business acumen. This is where the David Ogilvys and Lester Wundermans of the world really made their mark. They weren't writing all the ads or going on all the shoots -- they were letting the weirdos do their thing and acting as the filter, THEN bringing the best ideas to light. Or, in a gaming scenario, they were the publishers, the creatives were the developers. Somehow, that very simple idea has been lost.
4) When something is working, DON'T SCREW WITH IT. In the gaming world, how much money has Blizzard made on World of Warcraft? How much money has EA made on Madden, Need for Speed and The Sims? How much money has Midway made on Mortal Kombat? How much money has Activision made on Spiderman, World Series of Poker, and Guitar Hero? And it doesn't matter if the producer changes -- you don't mess with the formula until it stops working. This is even MORE imperative with advertising, yet every new AE-who-thinks-he's-a-producer has to stamp out the life of what was happening before and do something new. And it never, ever, ever works. Why? See 3) above.
Also note that this does not mean that new ideas aren't encouraged or allowed to surface. It simply means that change for the sake of change is misguided.
Until then, advertising will continue to decline. If they get to the point where they're irrelevant (and that's not very far away) then nothing will resurrect the trade. It will become the equivalent of used car sales.
You know, I always thought the book "Who Moved My Cheese?" was so ridiculously obvious that anyone who read it should have been saying, "Well, duh." The advertising industry is making me reconsider that opinion....but I'm scratching my head the entire time.
Friday, May 04, 2007
The Early Debates
On consecutive Thursdays I've watched 8 Democratic and 10 Republican declared presidential candidates "debate" the issues on MSNBC. (A better term than debate might be...outlined their stump speeches?) Lots of takeaways and impressions. In no particular order:
-Everyone should donate $20 to Mike Gravel's campaign. Of course he has no chance of winning, but where else are you going to see James Stockdale melded into Peter Finch and saying "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more! Now, if I could only remember why I'm mad as hell!!"
-Dennis Kucinich was looking at Mike Gravel going off and a big smile crossed his face. I know what he was thinking: “I’m not finishing last THIS time!”
-Mitt Romney looks and sounds like the perfect Republican candidate. Which is why he has no chance of getting elected, unless he's running against Hillary Clinton.
-HRC will beat no one in a general election. She exudes smarmy and drips with venom, no matter how nicely she talks. Her latest accent, a hard-core northeastern clip she has developed, is emblematic of the distrustworthiness and charade of her entire being. It's quite amazing to me how she has been able to go from Chicago nasal to Arkansas drawl to midwestern accentless to New York in very short periods of time. And no one seems to notice. (But then, no one else seemed to notice what a low-class hoodlum Michael Vick was until now, either.) Trust me on this one, folks: she won't be your next president.
-The pundits at MSNBC don't want Guiliani to win for some reason that I haven't yet figured out. I'll bet his poll numbers don't take a hit after this debate, though, which tells me the rest of those paying attention don't share their reasoning.
-Bill Richardson was a major disappointment. He seemed largely ill-prepared. When he did give confident answers, he came off as naïve and simplistic. Definitely not presidential.
-Obama is able to hold himself in a debate. I no longer doubt his ability to sway opinions to many of his points-of-view.
-John Edwards is much better prepared than he was 4 years ago. Which makes sense since that’s the only reason he has even been in politics is to run for president. Again…I don’t think he’s electable, especially since his message is to those ‘disadavantaged’ in America. Oops…they don’t vote in large numbers.
Joe Biden would be very electable if he weren’t so arrogant and played loose with facts. Alas…
I still see nothing that sways me from my early prediction of Guiliani vs. Obama.
-Everyone should donate $20 to Mike Gravel's campaign. Of course he has no chance of winning, but where else are you going to see James Stockdale melded into Peter Finch and saying "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more! Now, if I could only remember why I'm mad as hell!!"
-Dennis Kucinich was looking at Mike Gravel going off and a big smile crossed his face. I know what he was thinking: “I’m not finishing last THIS time!”
-Mitt Romney looks and sounds like the perfect Republican candidate. Which is why he has no chance of getting elected, unless he's running against Hillary Clinton.
-HRC will beat no one in a general election. She exudes smarmy and drips with venom, no matter how nicely she talks. Her latest accent, a hard-core northeastern clip she has developed, is emblematic of the distrustworthiness and charade of her entire being. It's quite amazing to me how she has been able to go from Chicago nasal to Arkansas drawl to midwestern accentless to New York in very short periods of time. And no one seems to notice. (But then, no one else seemed to notice what a low-class hoodlum Michael Vick was until now, either.) Trust me on this one, folks: she won't be your next president.
-The pundits at MSNBC don't want Guiliani to win for some reason that I haven't yet figured out. I'll bet his poll numbers don't take a hit after this debate, though, which tells me the rest of those paying attention don't share their reasoning.
-Bill Richardson was a major disappointment. He seemed largely ill-prepared. When he did give confident answers, he came off as naïve and simplistic. Definitely not presidential.
-Obama is able to hold himself in a debate. I no longer doubt his ability to sway opinions to many of his points-of-view.
-John Edwards is much better prepared than he was 4 years ago. Which makes sense since that’s the only reason he has even been in politics is to run for president. Again…I don’t think he’s electable, especially since his message is to those ‘disadavantaged’ in America. Oops…they don’t vote in large numbers.
Joe Biden would be very electable if he weren’t so arrogant and played loose with facts. Alas…
I still see nothing that sways me from my early prediction of Guiliani vs. Obama.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
A much needed road trip
It's amazing what hitting the road for a couple of weeks will do for your soul, or at least for my soul. Hence, an overdue travelog blog.
After a slow 1st quarter, the CW and I have been graciously slammed with work. Two of these projects have required me to travel to the west coast to do a bunch of voice-over talent direction & recording. Because I had to be in 3 different places (San Jose, L.A., Las Vegas) I used that as an excuse to drive instead of fly. As much as I've driven around the country, going west from Austin was an excursion I had not had the opportunity to make.
There is something about driving cross-country in America that makes one reconnect with being American. The independence, the vast differences in landscape, the way the sky changes, the things you glean by talking to various people in bars, restaurants and hotels. Plus, there is the learning experience when you watch and listen to people who aren't native to the place you're visiting, whether they're tourists or transplants. It's even more fascinating to talk to transplants who are originally from the various areas of the country you call home, and understand what they want out of life and their new locale. It's a fabulous eye-opening education.
One of the things I had the opportunity to do was to drive up the Pacific Coast Highway from L.A. to San Jose. All I can say is...wow. I've had some fantastic drives in my years of road trips, but I think that one ranks at least #2 if not taking over the top spot in "breathtaking drives I'd take again." (The others on that list would be driving the Florida Keys, going through Yoho & Banff National Parks in the Canadian Rockies, and driving down the Outer Banks of North Carolina.) I could spend paragraphs describing it, but there is no camera or even an IMAX that could do it justice. It was an unbelievable experience.
I stopped at Monterrey to get some seafood. Unfortunately, I hit Fisherman's Wharf, which is not to be confused with the same place in San Francisco. The SF version is fabulous; Monterrey's....not so much. More of a tourist trap for overweight, underflavored midwesterners to go for the "California experience." My wine was crap (especially for NoCal), my eggplant appetizer was old and bitter. However, the oysters I had were to die for. And they were blue points! No one's doing blue points any more; how come? They were meaty, sweet, and had that taste of the sea that you can only get from oysters. Plus, I was sitting outside on the bay. How bad could life be?
San Jose has always held a lot of charm for me. It's the centerpiece of Silicon Valley, but it's also in a verdant valley between two mountain ranges with the ocean just over the western coastal range. It's big enough to have culture, yet small enough to be accessible and not overwhelming. Go Sharks.
Even with its flaws, California is probably the greatest state in the union, at least in terms of beauty. However, every state has its asshole, and California's is the biggest: L.A. How and why people continue to move and exist there is beyond me. The metro area is huge, overcrowded, and ugly. The people are pretentious to an absurd point. The traffic is probably the worst in the world. The real estate is so out-of-bounds that it makes the Bay Area and NYC look like bargains. Even the "beautiful people" have the help of silicone and surgeons.
However, the drive I took north out of L.A. through the mountains (California Hwy 2, mostly) was another breathtaking display of what Cali has to offer. I love being in Texas, I love the landscape of Austin, and at times I miss the verdancy of the midwest. But man...the varied vistas, the greenery, the floral displays, the ocean scenes, the canyons...it's an unbelievably gorgeous state.
Vegas is another world unto itself.
This was the CW's first visit to Sin City, and it figured to to be interesting to see it through her eyes; I expected that she was going to hate it. I can't say that she did, but I can say that it isn't going to be a destination for either of us. Neither of us are gamblers (unless you want to count my love of very-low-stakes home poker games). The food in Vegas, quite frankly, sucks. At least it used to be cheap, but now you don't even have that to recommend it (and it's expensive not only in the casinos but also far away from The Strip). And there's something sadly amusing about the blatant sex. Maybe it's because of my years on the road and having it shoved in my face, but something about the advertising of it basically says "if you don't get it anywhere else, at least you can get it here." And frankly, that is sad. Based on the tourists I see whenever I'm there, though, the message is hitting the target audience.
The drive back on the back roads of Arizona and New Mexico was extremely interesting. The deserts were in full bloom, so it was probably the most beautiful time of the year to traverse them. The most fascinating part is how often they change; every 20-30 miles the vegetation is different, the mountains are different, and the temperature is different. I found myself wondering, though, about the people who live in this area of the country. How did they get here, why do they stay, and what the hell do they do for a living? It's hard not to answer that with "they were born here, they know of nothing else, and look at their abodes; they're on welfare." I'm sure that's not the majority of the backroads desert denizens, but it's got to be a high percentage.
The trip also confirmed something else: Austin is indeed home. As much as I enjoyed (and probably needed) the excursion, it was exciting as we got closer to the ranch. This is where I belong.
After a slow 1st quarter, the CW and I have been graciously slammed with work. Two of these projects have required me to travel to the west coast to do a bunch of voice-over talent direction & recording. Because I had to be in 3 different places (San Jose, L.A., Las Vegas) I used that as an excuse to drive instead of fly. As much as I've driven around the country, going west from Austin was an excursion I had not had the opportunity to make.
There is something about driving cross-country in America that makes one reconnect with being American. The independence, the vast differences in landscape, the way the sky changes, the things you glean by talking to various people in bars, restaurants and hotels. Plus, there is the learning experience when you watch and listen to people who aren't native to the place you're visiting, whether they're tourists or transplants. It's even more fascinating to talk to transplants who are originally from the various areas of the country you call home, and understand what they want out of life and their new locale. It's a fabulous eye-opening education.
One of the things I had the opportunity to do was to drive up the Pacific Coast Highway from L.A. to San Jose. All I can say is...wow. I've had some fantastic drives in my years of road trips, but I think that one ranks at least #2 if not taking over the top spot in "breathtaking drives I'd take again." (The others on that list would be driving the Florida Keys, going through Yoho & Banff National Parks in the Canadian Rockies, and driving down the Outer Banks of North Carolina.) I could spend paragraphs describing it, but there is no camera or even an IMAX that could do it justice. It was an unbelievable experience.
I stopped at Monterrey to get some seafood. Unfortunately, I hit Fisherman's Wharf, which is not to be confused with the same place in San Francisco. The SF version is fabulous; Monterrey's....not so much. More of a tourist trap for overweight, underflavored midwesterners to go for the "California experience." My wine was crap (especially for NoCal), my eggplant appetizer was old and bitter. However, the oysters I had were to die for. And they were blue points! No one's doing blue points any more; how come? They were meaty, sweet, and had that taste of the sea that you can only get from oysters. Plus, I was sitting outside on the bay. How bad could life be?
San Jose has always held a lot of charm for me. It's the centerpiece of Silicon Valley, but it's also in a verdant valley between two mountain ranges with the ocean just over the western coastal range. It's big enough to have culture, yet small enough to be accessible and not overwhelming. Go Sharks.
Even with its flaws, California is probably the greatest state in the union, at least in terms of beauty. However, every state has its asshole, and California's is the biggest: L.A. How and why people continue to move and exist there is beyond me. The metro area is huge, overcrowded, and ugly. The people are pretentious to an absurd point. The traffic is probably the worst in the world. The real estate is so out-of-bounds that it makes the Bay Area and NYC look like bargains. Even the "beautiful people" have the help of silicone and surgeons.
However, the drive I took north out of L.A. through the mountains (California Hwy 2, mostly) was another breathtaking display of what Cali has to offer. I love being in Texas, I love the landscape of Austin, and at times I miss the verdancy of the midwest. But man...the varied vistas, the greenery, the floral displays, the ocean scenes, the canyons...it's an unbelievably gorgeous state.
Vegas is another world unto itself.
This was the CW's first visit to Sin City, and it figured to to be interesting to see it through her eyes; I expected that she was going to hate it. I can't say that she did, but I can say that it isn't going to be a destination for either of us. Neither of us are gamblers (unless you want to count my love of very-low-stakes home poker games). The food in Vegas, quite frankly, sucks. At least it used to be cheap, but now you don't even have that to recommend it (and it's expensive not only in the casinos but also far away from The Strip). And there's something sadly amusing about the blatant sex. Maybe it's because of my years on the road and having it shoved in my face, but something about the advertising of it basically says "if you don't get it anywhere else, at least you can get it here." And frankly, that is sad. Based on the tourists I see whenever I'm there, though, the message is hitting the target audience.
The drive back on the back roads of Arizona and New Mexico was extremely interesting. The deserts were in full bloom, so it was probably the most beautiful time of the year to traverse them. The most fascinating part is how often they change; every 20-30 miles the vegetation is different, the mountains are different, and the temperature is different. I found myself wondering, though, about the people who live in this area of the country. How did they get here, why do they stay, and what the hell do they do for a living? It's hard not to answer that with "they were born here, they know of nothing else, and look at their abodes; they're on welfare." I'm sure that's not the majority of the backroads desert denizens, but it's got to be a high percentage.
The trip also confirmed something else: Austin is indeed home. As much as I enjoyed (and probably needed) the excursion, it was exciting as we got closer to the ranch. This is where I belong.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
WATCH THE BELT BUCKLE
There are lots of pundits, both amateur and professional, making all sorts of predictions about the 2008 presidential race. I'm no different in that regard. And, we all probably think we see things that allow us to draw conclusions that may or may not have any shred of reality to them by the time the election rolls around. However...
...when I was a wee lad, my father tried to teach me to football. He did at least succeed in giving me a love for the sport that I have for no other, not even the ones I actually did play well (like tennis or track). An unintended consequence was that a phrase he gave me while trying to show me the intracicies of defending and tackling in the open field became a great life lesson:
"Randy, watch the belt buckle."
This meant that a receiver or a running back would always try to fake you out before moving in the direction they were actually going to go. Their hands might flail, their head might pivot, their shoulders might juke, they might step one way and cut another. But the belt buckle would never move anywhere but where the body was actually going to go.
This same philosophy holds true for life, including politics. We're going to be told all sorts of things: Hillary's got lots of money, Obama's got the buzz, Giuliani's too abrasive, McCain has the support of party insiders, on and on and on. What's really going on?
Watch the belt buckle.
In this case, "the belt buckle" is the actual direction that someone's campaign is going, or the personal effect and perception they have with the electorate.
We'll be told that Elizabeth Edward's cancer will give John Edwards some sympathetic attention. Does it give him a shot? Watch the belt buckle. I see a man who still polls very high negative numbers, and compared to the other "front runners" he's not having much luck building a war chest even though he's been running for president since he came to the Senate in 1998. He's going to the turf for a loss of 3 yards.
We'll be told how much money Hillary Clinton has raised, how Bill will give her a boost, and how great of a campaigner she is. Does she get the Democratic nomination? Watch the belt buckle. Hillary's negatives are over 50% in some polls. Even in the more favorable polls her "won't vote for her no matter what" numbers are in the high 30s. Essentially, she's juking and spinning, and she might spin down the field for a few yards. But she has little chance to get to the end zone.
I don't want to overuse the football analogy because that's not really the point. What IS the point is to not be swayed by your own personal feelings or anyone else's for a candidate. Nor should you be swayed by the story-of-the-moment, or some minor jump or drop in the polls.
So when you see that the media is already trying to pile on Giuliani, yet his positive numbers rise while his negative numbers fall, the media is trying to juke you. When Fred Thompson hasn't even "taken off from the line of scrimmage" and people are trying to put him in the White House (Wesley Clark kind of comes to mind), you might want to see how well he runs down the field first. When John McCain is the supposed "chosen guy" of the Republican Party, but he's being caught handily from behind...well, you get the idea.
Watch the belt buckle.
By the way, Obama's got 70 yards of open field with only two defenders to beat, and one of them's turned the wrong way....
...when I was a wee lad, my father tried to teach me to football. He did at least succeed in giving me a love for the sport that I have for no other, not even the ones I actually did play well (like tennis or track). An unintended consequence was that a phrase he gave me while trying to show me the intracicies of defending and tackling in the open field became a great life lesson:
"Randy, watch the belt buckle."
This meant that a receiver or a running back would always try to fake you out before moving in the direction they were actually going to go. Their hands might flail, their head might pivot, their shoulders might juke, they might step one way and cut another. But the belt buckle would never move anywhere but where the body was actually going to go.
This same philosophy holds true for life, including politics. We're going to be told all sorts of things: Hillary's got lots of money, Obama's got the buzz, Giuliani's too abrasive, McCain has the support of party insiders, on and on and on. What's really going on?
Watch the belt buckle.
In this case, "the belt buckle" is the actual direction that someone's campaign is going, or the personal effect and perception they have with the electorate.
We'll be told that Elizabeth Edward's cancer will give John Edwards some sympathetic attention. Does it give him a shot? Watch the belt buckle. I see a man who still polls very high negative numbers, and compared to the other "front runners" he's not having much luck building a war chest even though he's been running for president since he came to the Senate in 1998. He's going to the turf for a loss of 3 yards.
We'll be told how much money Hillary Clinton has raised, how Bill will give her a boost, and how great of a campaigner she is. Does she get the Democratic nomination? Watch the belt buckle. Hillary's negatives are over 50% in some polls. Even in the more favorable polls her "won't vote for her no matter what" numbers are in the high 30s. Essentially, she's juking and spinning, and she might spin down the field for a few yards. But she has little chance to get to the end zone.
I don't want to overuse the football analogy because that's not really the point. What IS the point is to not be swayed by your own personal feelings or anyone else's for a candidate. Nor should you be swayed by the story-of-the-moment, or some minor jump or drop in the polls.
So when you see that the media is already trying to pile on Giuliani, yet his positive numbers rise while his negative numbers fall, the media is trying to juke you. When Fred Thompson hasn't even "taken off from the line of scrimmage" and people are trying to put him in the White House (Wesley Clark kind of comes to mind), you might want to see how well he runs down the field first. When John McCain is the supposed "chosen guy" of the Republican Party, but he's being caught handily from behind...well, you get the idea.
Watch the belt buckle.
By the way, Obama's got 70 yards of open field with only two defenders to beat, and one of them's turned the wrong way....
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Republican straw poll
There's another blog I visit frequently, and they're conducting a straw poll of the Republican candidates. (You don't have to be a Republican to participate.) It might be interesting to see where it leads.
Go here to vote: http://presidentialpolitic.blogspot.com
Go here to vote: http://presidentialpolitic.blogspot.com
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Mashing Up Hillary...or Who's Afraid of Barack?
So how many still think Hillary's got a chance in hell to win the Democratic nomination? She's definitely making the news...as the butt of a very clever joke in the mashup of the 1984 Apple commercial...and it doesn't help her cause. (NOTE: For the 5 people in the country that may not have seen the ad, here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo )
Just for fun, turn this attack ad around and say it had been done by an HRC supporter attacking Obama, perhaps showing that he's idealistic and really doesn't understand the complexity of the issues, but he's got everyone mezmerized. Just react, don't think: you would see it as mean, spiteful and totally uncalled for, right? But in its present form you say "Wow, that's powerful." Know why? Because in the gut of most Americans they believe that HRC is a grasping, power-hungry person who might do or say anything in her pursuit of the presidency. Obama, on the other hand, is seen as a trustworthy person who is truly different. We believe his campaign when they say they have nothing to do with the ad, and we also see more than just a little grain of truth in the message.
This doesn't mean that Obama is going to get through unscathed. But, while the perception of Obama may change as the campaign progresses, Clinton's negatives aren't going anywhere. And that's what this ad really drives home.
The Democratic nomination has become a two-horse race in a hurry. I'm not going to be so bold as to say that no one else can enter the fray, but if you were a donor looking to give money to a campaign, what compelling reason is there to give the money to John Edwards or even Bill Richardson? It's hard to believe that you won't soon see withdrawals from Christopher Dodd and proclamations of "I'm not a candidate" from Al Gore. Wesley Clark and Dennis Kucinich aren't even worth the mention I just gave them.
Hillary will continue to reap money, as she has a minting machine for a husband. But Obama is now getting real money, real fast. A fundraiser in HRC's backyard, New York City, netted a cool $1MM ten days ago. Obviously, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg and David Geffen have no problem getting a few cronies together for some cool change, nor any issues with taking swipes at Geffen's former "friends."
Like it or not, 2008 is about change, and it's looking more and more like the field is getting whittled early to Obama and Guiliani, the only two who seem to never waver in what they have to say. Maybe John McCain gets a another change because of his former maverick image, but it's starting to look like the general perception is someone that toed the party line instead of his own principles. Could someone else get the nomination(s)? Sure. Will they win a general election? Not a chance.
So to repeat: how many still think Hillary's got a chance in hell to win the Democratic nomination?
(That's good, Bill, Hill, and Chelsea: you three go put some money down in Vegas then.)
Just for fun, turn this attack ad around and say it had been done by an HRC supporter attacking Obama, perhaps showing that he's idealistic and really doesn't understand the complexity of the issues, but he's got everyone mezmerized. Just react, don't think: you would see it as mean, spiteful and totally uncalled for, right? But in its present form you say "Wow, that's powerful." Know why? Because in the gut of most Americans they believe that HRC is a grasping, power-hungry person who might do or say anything in her pursuit of the presidency. Obama, on the other hand, is seen as a trustworthy person who is truly different. We believe his campaign when they say they have nothing to do with the ad, and we also see more than just a little grain of truth in the message.
This doesn't mean that Obama is going to get through unscathed. But, while the perception of Obama may change as the campaign progresses, Clinton's negatives aren't going anywhere. And that's what this ad really drives home.
The Democratic nomination has become a two-horse race in a hurry. I'm not going to be so bold as to say that no one else can enter the fray, but if you were a donor looking to give money to a campaign, what compelling reason is there to give the money to John Edwards or even Bill Richardson? It's hard to believe that you won't soon see withdrawals from Christopher Dodd and proclamations of "I'm not a candidate" from Al Gore. Wesley Clark and Dennis Kucinich aren't even worth the mention I just gave them.
Hillary will continue to reap money, as she has a minting machine for a husband. But Obama is now getting real money, real fast. A fundraiser in HRC's backyard, New York City, netted a cool $1MM ten days ago. Obviously, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg and David Geffen have no problem getting a few cronies together for some cool change, nor any issues with taking swipes at Geffen's former "friends."
Like it or not, 2008 is about change, and it's looking more and more like the field is getting whittled early to Obama and Guiliani, the only two who seem to never waver in what they have to say. Maybe John McCain gets a another change because of his former maverick image, but it's starting to look like the general perception is someone that toed the party line instead of his own principles. Could someone else get the nomination(s)? Sure. Will they win a general election? Not a chance.
So to repeat: how many still think Hillary's got a chance in hell to win the Democratic nomination?
(That's good, Bill, Hill, and Chelsea: you three go put some money down in Vegas then.)
Sunday, March 11, 2007
A Little Perspective, Please
Just got back from a week in San Francisco, a city that is a lot like Austin except someone has secretly put caffeine in everything the populous consumes and tripled the rent on anyone that’s farther right than George McGovern to drive them out. Oh…and has the worst homeless problem in the country, if not the world.
SF is truly an international city, at least by American standards. One hears more languages and sees more ethnic diversity walking down the street than even in New York, where things often are a bit more segregated into ethnic neighborhoods. Yet for all of the international flavor, I’m not sure that very many residents ever leave the bay area. If they did, there might be a bit more diversity in thought about how to solve the proliferation of homeless people. Instead, it seems that the problem is made worse due to the lack of any dissenting voice.
(Austin, are you listening?)
First, most Bay Area citizens don’t seem to understand that this is NOT the way it is in all major cities; other places simply do not have the same numbers of homeless roaming the streets. But because SF citizens seem to think that this is just the way it is everywhere and because there doesn’t seem to be any diversity of political thought, their solution is “more of the same,” which is to throw more money at social services and give the underbelly a dollar or two when walking by. I find it sadly amusing that the same people who will accuse Bush of intractability can have this same “stay the course” mentality in the face of abject failure.
How bad is it? The homeless are sleeping in every 3rd or 4th doorway. They’re sleeping in the parks. They panhandle mercilessly. When they congregate in groups they intimidate passers-by. They stink because they see no reason to bathe, change clothes, brush their teeth, or wipe themselves. Despite all of the homeless shelters, government and private institutions that provide clothes, meals and job training and all of the dollars that are thrown at it, the majority refuse to work, help themselves or find any shame in being homeless. In short, no one seems to recognize the obvious: most of these people are not down on their luck, they are mentally ill and/or socially checked out. Like a family member with a drug habit, the solution is not to enable them. Yet, due to any voices to the contrary and, sadly, no conception of what things are like elsewhere, San Francisco is making their problem worse and worse. Societal dropouts actually MOVE to San Francisco so they can remain homeless. The weather rarely changes, so it’s liveable outside virtually year-round. And if things ever get too bad they can hit a shelter for a day or two to get themselves fed or get free medical care.
It’s unfortunate because SF has so many wonderful things about it; it’s easily the greatest culinary city in North America, if not the world; the green rolling hills, the bay, and the cliffs of the Pacific make it stunningly beautiful; it has managed to resist the homogenization that most of the U.S. has undertaken. And I'm not suggesting that all of these people get locked up or thrown into mental institutions (although that is the correct answer for some of them). But there has to be some accountability. Other cities have taken some novel approaches, such as making it a crime to panhandle without a license, having to check in with social services daily, etc. Once it's no longer easy and their presence isn't simply tolerated, it's amazing how many people move on. Again...99% of these folks are NOT people who are simply down on their luck.
I don’t see this changing any time soon, so like other travelers, I’ll continue to live with this as just one of the aspects of San Fran. But I can’t help but think how much they are hurting themselves economically by this systemic acceptance of the homeless as part of the landscape.
SF is truly an international city, at least by American standards. One hears more languages and sees more ethnic diversity walking down the street than even in New York, where things often are a bit more segregated into ethnic neighborhoods. Yet for all of the international flavor, I’m not sure that very many residents ever leave the bay area. If they did, there might be a bit more diversity in thought about how to solve the proliferation of homeless people. Instead, it seems that the problem is made worse due to the lack of any dissenting voice.
(Austin, are you listening?)
First, most Bay Area citizens don’t seem to understand that this is NOT the way it is in all major cities; other places simply do not have the same numbers of homeless roaming the streets. But because SF citizens seem to think that this is just the way it is everywhere and because there doesn’t seem to be any diversity of political thought, their solution is “more of the same,” which is to throw more money at social services and give the underbelly a dollar or two when walking by. I find it sadly amusing that the same people who will accuse Bush of intractability can have this same “stay the course” mentality in the face of abject failure.
How bad is it? The homeless are sleeping in every 3rd or 4th doorway. They’re sleeping in the parks. They panhandle mercilessly. When they congregate in groups they intimidate passers-by. They stink because they see no reason to bathe, change clothes, brush their teeth, or wipe themselves. Despite all of the homeless shelters, government and private institutions that provide clothes, meals and job training and all of the dollars that are thrown at it, the majority refuse to work, help themselves or find any shame in being homeless. In short, no one seems to recognize the obvious: most of these people are not down on their luck, they are mentally ill and/or socially checked out. Like a family member with a drug habit, the solution is not to enable them. Yet, due to any voices to the contrary and, sadly, no conception of what things are like elsewhere, San Francisco is making their problem worse and worse. Societal dropouts actually MOVE to San Francisco so they can remain homeless. The weather rarely changes, so it’s liveable outside virtually year-round. And if things ever get too bad they can hit a shelter for a day or two to get themselves fed or get free medical care.
It’s unfortunate because SF has so many wonderful things about it; it’s easily the greatest culinary city in North America, if not the world; the green rolling hills, the bay, and the cliffs of the Pacific make it stunningly beautiful; it has managed to resist the homogenization that most of the U.S. has undertaken. And I'm not suggesting that all of these people get locked up or thrown into mental institutions (although that is the correct answer for some of them). But there has to be some accountability. Other cities have taken some novel approaches, such as making it a crime to panhandle without a license, having to check in with social services daily, etc. Once it's no longer easy and their presence isn't simply tolerated, it's amazing how many people move on. Again...99% of these folks are NOT people who are simply down on their luck.
I don’t see this changing any time soon, so like other travelers, I’ll continue to live with this as just one of the aspects of San Fran. But I can’t help but think how much they are hurting themselves economically by this systemic acceptance of the homeless as part of the landscape.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Sad State of Affairs
I was reading an article in my old town newspaper (the IndyStar) yesterday, when I happened upon a story about the Indianapolis Museum of Art's new foray. Essentially, they are going to revamp part of the grounds into a nature park and have commissioned 10 original sculptures to be integrated into the landscape, each one by a different artist. What caught my attention is that there were artists from New York, from The Netherlands, San Francisco, Chile, even Cuba...but not one from Indiana.
This probably wouldn't be an issue if it was one piece, or three pieces. But ten?? And there was no way they could justify one person from Indiana to do a piece? Let's take an even wider scope: there was not one person chosen from the Midwest. The closest is a sculptor from Richmond VA.
I found this to be so illustrative of one of the main reasons I finally gave up the fight in Indy. Here is one of the gems of the city, a truly world-renowned art gallery. And yes, they do showcase local artists, mostly in short-term showings (although they do have a permanent area devoted to local artists). But when something "really important" comes along, the Board of Governors didn't even look close to home.
I've seen this time and time again in all of Indy's creative industries. More unbelievable, the same people that go to New York, L.A. or elsewhere for their art or talent will decry the lack of local talent and wonder why no one with any skill stays around unless they're stuck in Indy. And then wonder why their creative businesses lose clientele.
It pains me to read about this. I know talented people back in Indy who want to stay and try to do all they can to change the culture. One by one, they're all fleeing or getting out of the creative business they love altogether. Being in Austin and seeing a culture that nutures and heavily supports local artists, as well as being a cauldron of creative energy, the gulf that Indy and the Midwest have to leap seems more daunting than ever, because the problem and the viewpoints are so systemic and engrained.
The most depressing part was reading the forum postings in the Star, and how many people thought that criticism of the IMA was misplaced...because there's no good talent in Indiana. In essence, IMA has given credence to the stereotype. I'm sure they don't see it that way, and their decision to commission the sculptors they did was not intended to send this sort of a message (at least I hope it was unintentional); nonetheless, it still speaks volumes.
Watching events like this punctuate how glad I am to be in Austin, and how much long-time residents here take for granted. That doesn't mean it doesn't sadden me to see such myopic, provincial behavior in my old hometown.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Obama Rally Recap
When one is going to go to a political rally, there are a few things one should remember.
First rule of thumb: don't stay up until 3am when you're going to do something that requires thought the next day, even if you're having a really good time.
Second rule of thumb: when it's 70 degrees in Austin bring a jacket. 70 degrees isn't really that warm here, especially if there's wind.
Third rule of thumb: 20% chance of rain means that there IS a chance of rain. And it's not a warm rain in February, even in central Texas.
Sadly, the CW and I ignored all three.
Despite all that, this was quite the interesting event. The setting was at Auditorium Shores, which is actually a field on the south shore of Town Lake in downtown Austin. It could easily be called "Dog Shit Smelling Field at Town Lake" or "Nice View, No Seating Park" or something else more readily identifiable.
Other than Obama merchandise and 658 people soliciting everyone in sight to sign up and work for the Obama campaign, there was nothing to eat or drink besides soft drinks, water and $2 packs of junk food. This wouldn't have been an issue, except that the local paper, The Statesman, published press releases that said they were going to limit the crowd to the first 10,000 people; since there were already requests for over 16,000 tickets we figured we needed to be there early, so we arrived a little before 1pm (Obama being scheduled to speak at 3pm). Two hours without any place to sit or food to speak of was a bit tiring (especially given the breaking of the aforementioned rules of thumb), and as it turned out, wholly unnecessary. We could have shown up at 2:55 and been fine. No one limited the crowd and there was plenty of room to put more people in. The final tally came in this morning as "at least 15,000 people."
The crowd had an air of Woodstock about it. The average age couldn't have been over 26, and they were all enthused, engaged and...well...very 1968. Long hair, loose clothes, tie-died T-shirts, frisbees, live bands playing protest songs, artists & poets mingling, old hippies, braless women, everyone talking of love and change, teenage parents with $8.34 between them playing with their kids. All that was missing was the smell of pot and a couple or two getting it on in a tent. It was almost surreal. I'm not a stranger to standing out in a crowd, but usually it's not because I'm the one who looks like the wealthy Republican plant.
One thing that struck me soon after walking in was how difficult it was going to be to secure this area. (See some of the photos at http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/photos/02/022307_reader_obama.html ). Not only was the stage in an open field, there were tall buildings all within relatively easy rifle range. Behind us (south of downtown) were an entire construction crew building a new structure, as well as the Palmer events center, all within 1000 yards of the venue. And the security to get in was lax as well: women's bags were searched before entry, but we saw people who came in with backpacks (which you weren't supposed to be able to bring), umbrellas, food (would have been nice to have), and one person even got in with her dog. Anyone could have walked in with a small weapon without a problem.
I saw exactly two police officers, a male and a female, who stayed together the entire time, one sheriff's deputy, and one Secret Service agent patrolling the crowd, who stuck out like a sore thumb way more than I ever could with his tailored suit, Secret Service pin on his lapel and shoes polished to blinding. Nice undercover work; I wonder if the feds are that stealthy all the time. Oh, and a police helicopter circling for about 10 minutes before Obama hit the stage. It makes me wonder if the Obama campaign is just naive enough to be reckless about his safety.
For some reason, there was an almost constant running dialog from the stage about New Orleans. Yes, there are still evacuees in Austin, and yes it's fashionable to talk about the failing of the government there. (No one ever referred to the grotesque failings of the Lousiana & NOLA local officials; to hear it from this forum GWB is responsible for everything.) Given that Obama barely brought it up, I have to wonder what purpose there was to grinding that axe.
The final band relocated to Austin from NOLA, which is the only reason I can figure out why they were allowed to play. The horn section was tight...by the 2nd verse of every tune, the female singer was consistently 1/4 step sharp and kept "going for it" in vocal places that she should have left unexplored. As CW said about their self-penned protest songs: "Generally speaking, protest songs are quite badly written." Note to band: there are more lyrical choices than a recounting of what happened. We all know the story of Katrina, we all know the story of Rosa Parks. Don't give us a blow-by-blow recap and expect anyone to pay attention when your lyrics are along the lines of "She was just tired/and needed a well-deserved rest/ so when they asked her to stand/ she just sat." Thanks for the history lesson...now go take some music lessons. When they played their one cover, Stevie Wonder's "I Wish," there was a lot of wishing all right -- wishing they would go away. They did accomplish one thing, though: I have now seen a bad Austin band.
After another girl got up to speak about Katrina, Obama finally hit the stage to..."Rock and Roll Part 2." That's good. Pull out that burnt back catalog of British pedophiles. Always a crowd-pleaser.
Of course, Obama is extremely charismatic and articulate. It's also easy to see that he's very early in his crafting of a stump speech. I was kind of surprised at how many times he said 'uh,' and paused and seemed to have to gather his thoughts. He's so smart and has his positions so well organized in his head that he probably still believes that he can get up on stage and wing it extemporaneously, and to some extent he can. But I will be very surprised if he doesn't start forming a much better template soon. He's in for the long haul and he's going to start getting tired. There are times that it's better to perform than to think, and I think he has yet to learn that.
Obama's four main points were 1) universal health care, 2) rebuilding the country's infrastructure (including broadband access to everyone), 3) more funding for education, specifically more money to teachers, and 4) getting the country out of Iraq. As with any set of campaign goals, the "how do we pay for it" portion was left out, but a campaign stop is not necessarily the forum to go over the details. Finally, he ended with an explanation of what "The Audacity of Hope" means and the emotion of what he wants to accomplish; very powerful and compelling. He left the stage to "Long Train Running" which kind of made sense.
Now the true problem: he has fired up the youth, but despite all the talk to the contrary this is not who you court to win the presidency. They have no money. They don't get registered to vote. They don't vote when they are registered. For all of the "change" in the 60s and the nostalgia of how politically connected everyone was, the last time I looked Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern did not occupy the White House; instead it was Richard Nixon. If this is Obama's sole crowd he has no chance to win, no matter how much enthusiasm is generated.
All in all, my opinion remains the same: Obama is intriguing, likeable, and passionate. There seems to be very little pretense about him; he is the real deal. But there are places where we have fundamental differences of opinion on the issues, and there are little clues that leave me wondering if he is ready to truly lead. (For instance, he doesn't talk about winning, he talks about being an agent of change.) But he has the two qualities that make an effective leader: charisma, and a clear direction on where he wants to go.
I wonder who else will be coming to town...
First rule of thumb: don't stay up until 3am when you're going to do something that requires thought the next day, even if you're having a really good time.
Second rule of thumb: when it's 70 degrees in Austin bring a jacket. 70 degrees isn't really that warm here, especially if there's wind.
Third rule of thumb: 20% chance of rain means that there IS a chance of rain. And it's not a warm rain in February, even in central Texas.
Sadly, the CW and I ignored all three.
Despite all that, this was quite the interesting event. The setting was at Auditorium Shores, which is actually a field on the south shore of Town Lake in downtown Austin. It could easily be called "Dog Shit Smelling Field at Town Lake" or "Nice View, No Seating Park" or something else more readily identifiable.
Other than Obama merchandise and 658 people soliciting everyone in sight to sign up and work for the Obama campaign, there was nothing to eat or drink besides soft drinks, water and $2 packs of junk food. This wouldn't have been an issue, except that the local paper, The Statesman, published press releases that said they were going to limit the crowd to the first 10,000 people; since there were already requests for over 16,000 tickets we figured we needed to be there early, so we arrived a little before 1pm (Obama being scheduled to speak at 3pm). Two hours without any place to sit or food to speak of was a bit tiring (especially given the breaking of the aforementioned rules of thumb), and as it turned out, wholly unnecessary. We could have shown up at 2:55 and been fine. No one limited the crowd and there was plenty of room to put more people in. The final tally came in this morning as "at least 15,000 people."
The crowd had an air of Woodstock about it. The average age couldn't have been over 26, and they were all enthused, engaged and...well...very 1968. Long hair, loose clothes, tie-died T-shirts, frisbees, live bands playing protest songs, artists & poets mingling, old hippies, braless women, everyone talking of love and change, teenage parents with $8.34 between them playing with their kids. All that was missing was the smell of pot and a couple or two getting it on in a tent. It was almost surreal. I'm not a stranger to standing out in a crowd, but usually it's not because I'm the one who looks like the wealthy Republican plant.
One thing that struck me soon after walking in was how difficult it was going to be to secure this area. (See some of the photos at http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/photos/02/022307_reader_obama.html ). Not only was the stage in an open field, there were tall buildings all within relatively easy rifle range. Behind us (south of downtown) were an entire construction crew building a new structure, as well as the Palmer events center, all within 1000 yards of the venue. And the security to get in was lax as well: women's bags were searched before entry, but we saw people who came in with backpacks (which you weren't supposed to be able to bring), umbrellas, food (would have been nice to have), and one person even got in with her dog. Anyone could have walked in with a small weapon without a problem.
I saw exactly two police officers, a male and a female, who stayed together the entire time, one sheriff's deputy, and one Secret Service agent patrolling the crowd, who stuck out like a sore thumb way more than I ever could with his tailored suit, Secret Service pin on his lapel and shoes polished to blinding. Nice undercover work; I wonder if the feds are that stealthy all the time. Oh, and a police helicopter circling for about 10 minutes before Obama hit the stage. It makes me wonder if the Obama campaign is just naive enough to be reckless about his safety.
For some reason, there was an almost constant running dialog from the stage about New Orleans. Yes, there are still evacuees in Austin, and yes it's fashionable to talk about the failing of the government there. (No one ever referred to the grotesque failings of the Lousiana & NOLA local officials; to hear it from this forum GWB is responsible for everything.) Given that Obama barely brought it up, I have to wonder what purpose there was to grinding that axe.
The final band relocated to Austin from NOLA, which is the only reason I can figure out why they were allowed to play. The horn section was tight...by the 2nd verse of every tune, the female singer was consistently 1/4 step sharp and kept "going for it" in vocal places that she should have left unexplored. As CW said about their self-penned protest songs: "Generally speaking, protest songs are quite badly written." Note to band: there are more lyrical choices than a recounting of what happened. We all know the story of Katrina, we all know the story of Rosa Parks. Don't give us a blow-by-blow recap and expect anyone to pay attention when your lyrics are along the lines of "She was just tired/and needed a well-deserved rest/ so when they asked her to stand/ she just sat." Thanks for the history lesson...now go take some music lessons. When they played their one cover, Stevie Wonder's "I Wish," there was a lot of wishing all right -- wishing they would go away. They did accomplish one thing, though: I have now seen a bad Austin band.
After another girl got up to speak about Katrina, Obama finally hit the stage to..."Rock and Roll Part 2." That's good. Pull out that burnt back catalog of British pedophiles. Always a crowd-pleaser.
Of course, Obama is extremely charismatic and articulate. It's also easy to see that he's very early in his crafting of a stump speech. I was kind of surprised at how many times he said 'uh,' and paused and seemed to have to gather his thoughts. He's so smart and has his positions so well organized in his head that he probably still believes that he can get up on stage and wing it extemporaneously, and to some extent he can. But I will be very surprised if he doesn't start forming a much better template soon. He's in for the long haul and he's going to start getting tired. There are times that it's better to perform than to think, and I think he has yet to learn that.
Obama's four main points were 1) universal health care, 2) rebuilding the country's infrastructure (including broadband access to everyone), 3) more funding for education, specifically more money to teachers, and 4) getting the country out of Iraq. As with any set of campaign goals, the "how do we pay for it" portion was left out, but a campaign stop is not necessarily the forum to go over the details. Finally, he ended with an explanation of what "The Audacity of Hope" means and the emotion of what he wants to accomplish; very powerful and compelling. He left the stage to "Long Train Running" which kind of made sense.
Now the true problem: he has fired up the youth, but despite all the talk to the contrary this is not who you court to win the presidency. They have no money. They don't get registered to vote. They don't vote when they are registered. For all of the "change" in the 60s and the nostalgia of how politically connected everyone was, the last time I looked Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern did not occupy the White House; instead it was Richard Nixon. If this is Obama's sole crowd he has no chance to win, no matter how much enthusiasm is generated.
All in all, my opinion remains the same: Obama is intriguing, likeable, and passionate. There seems to be very little pretense about him; he is the real deal. But there are places where we have fundamental differences of opinion on the issues, and there are little clues that leave me wondering if he is ready to truly lead. (For instance, he doesn't talk about winning, he talks about being an agent of change.) But he has the two qualities that make an effective leader: charisma, and a clear direction on where he wants to go.
I wonder who else will be coming to town...
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
WHERE ARE THE PATRONS OF THE ARTS?
Living in Austin often makes some "eureka" moments occur. One happened recently. After having various creative discussions, visiting some new theaters, listening to the plights of some artists it hit me that we've lost a serious creativity avenue.
A lot of us pay lip service to patronizing the arts. Some of us go farther, buying season tickets to the theater or the symphony, purchasing local bands' CDs, or buying a painting here and there from local artists. A few souls do a bit more by becoming "patrons" of various organizations.
What isn't happening is the nurturing of individual artists. There's no modern-day replacement for an artist taken under the wing of a wealthy patron or even a government and then allowed the freedom to simply create. Instead, artists compete for a fickle public's ears and eyes, or surrender themselves to bureacracies that might mean well but need to turn a profit, or just go all the way and try to bend to the whims of the corporate culture. If they don't, they are faced with the unexpected choice of making their passion and talent a side hobby, or starving for their art. But how much would this change if even a small percentage of talented artists were allowed to create for the sake of creation, without financial worries?
Don't misunderstand me. There are lots of pitfalls: giving someone a full-time job to create art ain't cheap. People sometimes donate to organizations they wouldn't otherwise for tax breaks and to feel good about themselves while they're being entertained; they're not going to cotton to the idea of sponsoring a playwright or poet. And I'm not suggesting some sort of charity ride for people simply because "they wannabe a painter or a songwriter." But the point is this: few of us ever consider giving a promising artist or even a more mature artist the opportunity for a period of time to work on their craft while being able to live a normal life.
We've all seen the person that we believe is talented enough to "make it" or change the way their chosen craft is performed in the future. But usually, years later we're either wondering what happened to them or why they've changed so much. Perhaps those of us who have been a bit more fortunate financially might wish to consider an alternative to blindly throwing money at an entity, and instead giving more support to an individual that needs the opportunity to free themselves from that which takes them away from their craft.
A lot of us pay lip service to patronizing the arts. Some of us go farther, buying season tickets to the theater or the symphony, purchasing local bands' CDs, or buying a painting here and there from local artists. A few souls do a bit more by becoming "patrons" of various organizations.
What isn't happening is the nurturing of individual artists. There's no modern-day replacement for an artist taken under the wing of a wealthy patron or even a government and then allowed the freedom to simply create. Instead, artists compete for a fickle public's ears and eyes, or surrender themselves to bureacracies that might mean well but need to turn a profit, or just go all the way and try to bend to the whims of the corporate culture. If they don't, they are faced with the unexpected choice of making their passion and talent a side hobby, or starving for their art. But how much would this change if even a small percentage of talented artists were allowed to create for the sake of creation, without financial worries?
Don't misunderstand me. There are lots of pitfalls: giving someone a full-time job to create art ain't cheap. People sometimes donate to organizations they wouldn't otherwise for tax breaks and to feel good about themselves while they're being entertained; they're not going to cotton to the idea of sponsoring a playwright or poet. And I'm not suggesting some sort of charity ride for people simply because "they wannabe a painter or a songwriter." But the point is this: few of us ever consider giving a promising artist or even a more mature artist the opportunity for a period of time to work on their craft while being able to live a normal life.
We've all seen the person that we believe is talented enough to "make it" or change the way their chosen craft is performed in the future. But usually, years later we're either wondering what happened to them or why they've changed so much. Perhaps those of us who have been a bit more fortunate financially might wish to consider an alternative to blindly throwing money at an entity, and instead giving more support to an individual that needs the opportunity to free themselves from that which takes them away from their craft.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
THE ROMNEY FILES
-Mitt Romney: right-wing conservative.
-Mitt Romney: centrist Republican who can win blue states.
-Mitt Romney: Mormon out of step with America.
-Mitt Romney: Can-do businessman who understands how to lead.
Is he any of these? All of the above? None of the above? Unless you're from Massachusetts or possibly Utah, you likely don't know either. As it is, I'm just now beginning to even find snippets of information deep enough to chew on about the man. Here's the thumbnail:
-Romney made his fortune as a successful venture capitalist in Massachusetts. He ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, putting the fear of God into Teddy before losing a close race in which Romney spent over $6MM of his own money. In 2001 he was brought in to salvage the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002, and took the Games it from a looming financial disaster into a successful and profitable venture. He parlayed that into the governorship of Massachusetts the same year.
Romney's biggest hurdle seems to be convincing voters where he actually stands on issues, and like McCain and Giuliani where he lands may be more crucial to his chances in the Republican primaries than the general election. Romney has been pro-choice for his entire life, but seems to have recently undergone a "conversion" based on a conversation with Harvard scientists who Mitt says horrified him with things they're doing in the lab with human embryos. Whether it's true or not, it rings of a conversion of convenience.
Also hot on his heels is Mitt's religion: he's a Mormon. Most people in the U.S. don't know what Mormons are all, so about stereotypical images are often associated with the religion, such as polygamy. Many fundamentalists apparently don't even see it as a Christian religion, even though they worship Jesus.
Now in my book, neither of these have squat to do with the major problems facing the country. Abortion especially is a hot-button issue that continues to obfuscate other issues and disproportionately dominate the conversation. This is not to suggest it's not important to a large segment of the population, but we are rejecting or electing candidates based on their abortion stance, and it's far from the only issue that is crucial to our lives and well-being. Yet, this may be where Romney's success will be predicated on his ability to walk that line, because if he falls too heavily on one side or the other of the abortion issue he offends that same number on the other side. And there's a real danger that no one believes whatever he says because of his "conversion," even if it's for real, in which case his candidacy is doomed. Sad, but true.
On the actual legislative side of things, Romney has had success as a conservative in an ultra-liberal state where Democrats control both houses. He signed a universal health care plan into law that, among other things, allows employees to take their insurance coverage with them when they change jobs; it also provides vouchers for the poor. It's probably too early to tell where the successes and pitfalls of his plan will be (and I don't live in Massachusetts so far be it from me to have any insight), but in an era where everyone acknowledges that the system is broken it's a welcome sign of action. He also successfully fought the state Supreme Court's efforts to legalize gay marriage. Score one for each side of the red-blue divide.
My early impression is that most of us don't know enough about Romney to draw any real conclusions; I certainly do not. He reminds me of what ESPN's Bill Simmons wrote about New Orleans Saints rookie Reggie Bush at the beginning of the NFL season, which paraphrased was "No one comes in with more expectations in every direction. If he lives up to the hype, most won't be surprised. If he fails miserably, most won't be surprised. In short, all things and no things are considered possible or even probable, sometimes by the same people."
12 months away from the first primaries, that seems an apt description of Mitt. However, if he takes the bait and goes hard after the right wing of the Republican Party, I'll lay lots and lots of money that he will never come within sniffing distance of the White House. The country has tired of the right-wing rhetoric.
-Mitt Romney: centrist Republican who can win blue states.
-Mitt Romney: Mormon out of step with America.
-Mitt Romney: Can-do businessman who understands how to lead.
Is he any of these? All of the above? None of the above? Unless you're from Massachusetts or possibly Utah, you likely don't know either. As it is, I'm just now beginning to even find snippets of information deep enough to chew on about the man. Here's the thumbnail:
-Romney made his fortune as a successful venture capitalist in Massachusetts. He ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, putting the fear of God into Teddy before losing a close race in which Romney spent over $6MM of his own money. In 2001 he was brought in to salvage the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002, and took the Games it from a looming financial disaster into a successful and profitable venture. He parlayed that into the governorship of Massachusetts the same year.
Romney's biggest hurdle seems to be convincing voters where he actually stands on issues, and like McCain and Giuliani where he lands may be more crucial to his chances in the Republican primaries than the general election. Romney has been pro-choice for his entire life, but seems to have recently undergone a "conversion" based on a conversation with Harvard scientists who Mitt says horrified him with things they're doing in the lab with human embryos. Whether it's true or not, it rings of a conversion of convenience.
Also hot on his heels is Mitt's religion: he's a Mormon. Most people in the U.S. don't know what Mormons are all, so about stereotypical images are often associated with the religion, such as polygamy. Many fundamentalists apparently don't even see it as a Christian religion, even though they worship Jesus.
Now in my book, neither of these have squat to do with the major problems facing the country. Abortion especially is a hot-button issue that continues to obfuscate other issues and disproportionately dominate the conversation. This is not to suggest it's not important to a large segment of the population, but we are rejecting or electing candidates based on their abortion stance, and it's far from the only issue that is crucial to our lives and well-being. Yet, this may be where Romney's success will be predicated on his ability to walk that line, because if he falls too heavily on one side or the other of the abortion issue he offends that same number on the other side. And there's a real danger that no one believes whatever he says because of his "conversion," even if it's for real, in which case his candidacy is doomed. Sad, but true.
On the actual legislative side of things, Romney has had success as a conservative in an ultra-liberal state where Democrats control both houses. He signed a universal health care plan into law that, among other things, allows employees to take their insurance coverage with them when they change jobs; it also provides vouchers for the poor. It's probably too early to tell where the successes and pitfalls of his plan will be (and I don't live in Massachusetts so far be it from me to have any insight), but in an era where everyone acknowledges that the system is broken it's a welcome sign of action. He also successfully fought the state Supreme Court's efforts to legalize gay marriage. Score one for each side of the red-blue divide.
My early impression is that most of us don't know enough about Romney to draw any real conclusions; I certainly do not. He reminds me of what ESPN's Bill Simmons wrote about New Orleans Saints rookie Reggie Bush at the beginning of the NFL season, which paraphrased was "No one comes in with more expectations in every direction. If he lives up to the hype, most won't be surprised. If he fails miserably, most won't be surprised. In short, all things and no things are considered possible or even probable, sometimes by the same people."
12 months away from the first primaries, that seems an apt description of Mitt. However, if he takes the bait and goes hard after the right wing of the Republican Party, I'll lay lots and lots of money that he will never come within sniffing distance of the White House. The country has tired of the right-wing rhetoric.
Monday, February 05, 2007
EXORCISING DEMONS, PART 3
As I told the Conservative Wife, savor this for you may never see it again.
The Colts have slain another dragon. It's unfair that one game carries so much weight, but that's the reality. Among the things that will or might come out of this:
-Marvin & Peyton were already going to the Hall of Fame. (So is Vinatieri, but he'll go in as a Patriot.) Now, Tony Dungy and Bill Polian will likely join them. Dungy validates his years of success not only with the Colts but with rebuilding the culture at Tampa Bay. Polian is no longer a man who can build teams to put up regular season numbers only to falter. Now, he's someone who builds teams to go the the Super Bowl. All because of this one win, the 90s Bills are no longer failures but are now part of a winning pattern orchestrated by Polian. All because of a championship.
-If they continue to perform at a high level, this win provides a road map for Reggie Wayne, Jeff Saturday and Dwight Freeney to the Hall; it also opens the door a crack for Tarik Glenn, Dallas Clark and Bob Sanders. Kind of like the difference between the Cowboys and Bills of the 90s. Without this win, it's only Harrison & Manning who get in. All because of one game.
-On the flip side, the performances by Joseph Addai and Dominic Rhodes will put Edgerrin James's career in doubt. James seemed a lock for the Hall, but his performance with the Cardinals and his replacements' success make him look much less worthy. He could have come back to Indy for slightly less money. Now, his apparent greed for the extra $1MM might not be worth it to him in 20 years. All because of one game where his former team didn't miss him.
-The clock is ticking on Rex Grossman. Yes, it's his first full season, but does anyone really think the Bears don't have a chance to win the game if they add a quarterback they could rely on? Pick any QB from any of the other playoff teams and ask yourself if you feel more comfortable with them behind the center at 22-17. Trent Green? Chad Pennington? Even Tony Romo or Eli Manning? Those are the four that got bounced in the first round. How about Jeff Garcia, Matt Hasselbeck, Steve McNair or Philip Rivers? Not to mention Tom Brady or Drew Brees. Lovie Smith may be saying all the right things to support Grossman, but at best Rex is on borrowed time. All because of one horrible performance on the biggest stage.
-A new legion of Colts fans has just been born. People who wouldn't have watched will now pay attention. Those previously sitting on the fence will make the Colts their favorite team. And kids who grew up with mild interest will turn into rabid, hard-core fans as they get older. Because their ranks will grow outside the city the Colts will turn into a regional and semi-national team. All because of one win.
-Even as a northern city, Indy has a shot at hosting a Super Bowl. The joyous and notably peaceful celebrations in Monument Circle after the game and the parade later today will show Indianapolis as a city that knows how to celebrate. The city had virtually no shot to host the 2011 game before. Indy still can't be favored, but now it's a legitimate contender. All because they just won a Super Bowl.
No matter what does happen, it was wonderful to see a team win with the type of character and grace that the Colts exhibited, not only this season but throughout the past 5 years. In an era of screaming coaches who compete with their players for face time, demonstrative wide receivers who seem to want attention more than victory, and fans who have more hate for opponents than love for anything, this team did it the right way. They outworked, outplayed, outcoached and outclassed everyone else. Even in victory there was very little gloating, save Robert Mathis's comment asking "the haters to please shut up." Much like the Patriots of 2001, they won as a team, not as individuals.
Now, for the Colts to be spoken in the same breath as the legendary great teams, they're going to have to do it again. And that might be harder than getting there in the first place. So Colts fans, you may be witnessing the birth of a dynasty, but it's also likely that this is it. So savor it, because you may never see it again.
The Colts have slain another dragon. It's unfair that one game carries so much weight, but that's the reality. Among the things that will or might come out of this:
-Marvin & Peyton were already going to the Hall of Fame. (So is Vinatieri, but he'll go in as a Patriot.) Now, Tony Dungy and Bill Polian will likely join them. Dungy validates his years of success not only with the Colts but with rebuilding the culture at Tampa Bay. Polian is no longer a man who can build teams to put up regular season numbers only to falter. Now, he's someone who builds teams to go the the Super Bowl. All because of this one win, the 90s Bills are no longer failures but are now part of a winning pattern orchestrated by Polian. All because of a championship.
-If they continue to perform at a high level, this win provides a road map for Reggie Wayne, Jeff Saturday and Dwight Freeney to the Hall; it also opens the door a crack for Tarik Glenn, Dallas Clark and Bob Sanders. Kind of like the difference between the Cowboys and Bills of the 90s. Without this win, it's only Harrison & Manning who get in. All because of one game.
-On the flip side, the performances by Joseph Addai and Dominic Rhodes will put Edgerrin James's career in doubt. James seemed a lock for the Hall, but his performance with the Cardinals and his replacements' success make him look much less worthy. He could have come back to Indy for slightly less money. Now, his apparent greed for the extra $1MM might not be worth it to him in 20 years. All because of one game where his former team didn't miss him.
-The clock is ticking on Rex Grossman. Yes, it's his first full season, but does anyone really think the Bears don't have a chance to win the game if they add a quarterback they could rely on? Pick any QB from any of the other playoff teams and ask yourself if you feel more comfortable with them behind the center at 22-17. Trent Green? Chad Pennington? Even Tony Romo or Eli Manning? Those are the four that got bounced in the first round. How about Jeff Garcia, Matt Hasselbeck, Steve McNair or Philip Rivers? Not to mention Tom Brady or Drew Brees. Lovie Smith may be saying all the right things to support Grossman, but at best Rex is on borrowed time. All because of one horrible performance on the biggest stage.
-A new legion of Colts fans has just been born. People who wouldn't have watched will now pay attention. Those previously sitting on the fence will make the Colts their favorite team. And kids who grew up with mild interest will turn into rabid, hard-core fans as they get older. Because their ranks will grow outside the city the Colts will turn into a regional and semi-national team. All because of one win.
-Even as a northern city, Indy has a shot at hosting a Super Bowl. The joyous and notably peaceful celebrations in Monument Circle after the game and the parade later today will show Indianapolis as a city that knows how to celebrate. The city had virtually no shot to host the 2011 game before. Indy still can't be favored, but now it's a legitimate contender. All because they just won a Super Bowl.
No matter what does happen, it was wonderful to see a team win with the type of character and grace that the Colts exhibited, not only this season but throughout the past 5 years. In an era of screaming coaches who compete with their players for face time, demonstrative wide receivers who seem to want attention more than victory, and fans who have more hate for opponents than love for anything, this team did it the right way. They outworked, outplayed, outcoached and outclassed everyone else. Even in victory there was very little gloating, save Robert Mathis's comment asking "the haters to please shut up." Much like the Patriots of 2001, they won as a team, not as individuals.
Now, for the Colts to be spoken in the same breath as the legendary great teams, they're going to have to do it again. And that might be harder than getting there in the first place. So Colts fans, you may be witnessing the birth of a dynasty, but it's also likely that this is it. So savor it, because you may never see it again.
Friday, January 26, 2007
HILLARY CLINTON - THE EASY ONE
Unelectable.
Ok, so a one-word column might be a bit too neat. As conservative California friend 'John Wayne' points out, Hillary is a "30-percenter": 30 percent of the people are going to vote for her no matter what and 30 percent are going to vote against her no matter what. So on paper, Clinton needs to attract half out of the remaining 40 percent of the voters to win. But this is a more daunting task than it sounds.
On issues, Hillary certainly is not the classic liberal Democrat. She voted to approve the war in Iraq, supported some meaningful tax cuts, and has been more or less pro-business, at least with issues that impact cities in New York. On the other side, she also supports many traditional Democratic positions: support of Roe v. Wade, increasing the minimum wage, and her continued support for universal health care.
Yet it doesn't seem likely that her position on issues is what will sway potential voters to support her or not. Rather, it rests more on the questions of whether she can lead and if her intagibles weigh on the positive side of the scale or the negative.
Outside of New York, Hillary will be colored and judged by her years in the White House. She gets sympathy for the embarrasment we all assume she suffered when Bill admitted to the Lewinsky affair; she also gets positives for being a strong woman. Knocking those out, though, are the negatives:
-the botched and confusing attempt at universal health care
-her role in the Whitewater scandal
-Travelgate
-she is perceived as a power monger
-she comes off as having a cold, calculating public personality
One must also take into consideration that Clinton is only slightly more experienced at governing than Barack Obama. Until 2000 she never held elected office, and she has only been in the Senate, not in a mini-management office, such as mayor or governor, that might prove as a test case for the presidency. And having been First Lady is only going to carry so much weight, as observation doesn't count as much as experience.
Not to be overlooked is how Americans react to the prospect of our presidential lineage going Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr, Clinton II. My suspicion is: not favorably. (Thank God Jeb's not running in this election cycle or the country's collective head might just implode at the horror created by a Bush v. Clinton campaign.)
Whether her fault or not, Hillary seems to embody most of Bill Clinton's negatives without the benefit of his positives. This is almost insurmountable. It will be so easy for any opponent to remind potential voters of her image, and this could even happen as early as the Democratic primaries. Individual voters don't have to dislike her personally to believe that they'd be backing a loser to support her, and that's why Hillary has an almost impossible task ahead of her in trying to land the swing voters. She may have a chance to win the Democratic nomination, but she is unlectable as president unless the Republicans put up a candidate so repugnant that the voters have to hold their nose and vote for her. Hey...it's how she won the Senate in 2000, so it's not impossible. Ultimately, though, if she is the Democratic nominee the GOP has to trip over their own genitalia to lose.
Ok, so a one-word column might be a bit too neat. As conservative California friend 'John Wayne' points out, Hillary is a "30-percenter": 30 percent of the people are going to vote for her no matter what and 30 percent are going to vote against her no matter what. So on paper, Clinton needs to attract half out of the remaining 40 percent of the voters to win. But this is a more daunting task than it sounds.
On issues, Hillary certainly is not the classic liberal Democrat. She voted to approve the war in Iraq, supported some meaningful tax cuts, and has been more or less pro-business, at least with issues that impact cities in New York. On the other side, she also supports many traditional Democratic positions: support of Roe v. Wade, increasing the minimum wage, and her continued support for universal health care.
Yet it doesn't seem likely that her position on issues is what will sway potential voters to support her or not. Rather, it rests more on the questions of whether she can lead and if her intagibles weigh on the positive side of the scale or the negative.
Outside of New York, Hillary will be colored and judged by her years in the White House. She gets sympathy for the embarrasment we all assume she suffered when Bill admitted to the Lewinsky affair; she also gets positives for being a strong woman. Knocking those out, though, are the negatives:
-the botched and confusing attempt at universal health care
-her role in the Whitewater scandal
-Travelgate
-she is perceived as a power monger
-she comes off as having a cold, calculating public personality
One must also take into consideration that Clinton is only slightly more experienced at governing than Barack Obama. Until 2000 she never held elected office, and she has only been in the Senate, not in a mini-management office, such as mayor or governor, that might prove as a test case for the presidency. And having been First Lady is only going to carry so much weight, as observation doesn't count as much as experience.
Not to be overlooked is how Americans react to the prospect of our presidential lineage going Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr, Clinton II. My suspicion is: not favorably. (Thank God Jeb's not running in this election cycle or the country's collective head might just implode at the horror created by a Bush v. Clinton campaign.)
Whether her fault or not, Hillary seems to embody most of Bill Clinton's negatives without the benefit of his positives. This is almost insurmountable. It will be so easy for any opponent to remind potential voters of her image, and this could even happen as early as the Democratic primaries. Individual voters don't have to dislike her personally to believe that they'd be backing a loser to support her, and that's why Hillary has an almost impossible task ahead of her in trying to land the swing voters. She may have a chance to win the Democratic nomination, but she is unlectable as president unless the Republicans put up a candidate so repugnant that the voters have to hold their nose and vote for her. Hey...it's how she won the Senate in 2000, so it's not impossible. Ultimately, though, if she is the Democratic nominee the GOP has to trip over their own genitalia to lose.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
EXCORCISING DEMONS, PART 2 (of a 5-act play)
The Indianapolis Colts have wished for this for years: a home field playoff game to go to the Super Bowl against the New England Patriots. And now, their wish has been granted.
There are more angles for media stories to this one than an origami swan: Peyton Manning trying to win "the big one", Tony Dungy's playoff failures, the comparisons of Brady & Bellicheck to Montana & Walsh, Adam Viniateri now a Colt instead of a Patriot, a playoff game in Indy instead of Foxboro, etc.
Here's one I want to know: why do Patriots fans (and for that matter most of the northeast) hate Peyton and the Colts? Baltimore I can understand (although after stealing the Cleveland Browns their gripe is one of duplicitious hypocrisy), but Patriots fans? I mean the Pats have owned the Colts until recently, and went through the playoffs on Indy's backside. The national media certainly has annointed Brady as the superior QB, and why not? He's got 3 rings, Peyton hasn't even been in The Game. So what's to hate? The Colts are stocked full of classy players and coaches who's only sin with the media is generally not giving anything quotable or controversial.
Maybe it's because the northeast is so full of people who work in absolutes: the Yankees HATE the Red Sox and Boston HATES New York. Philadelphia HATES the Giants (and anything else that steps into their stadiums). Baltimore Ravens fans apparently just HATE. It's as if somehow those fans believe that their actual lives are bettered by their team beating another team, even though they neither know or control any of the players on the field. Or do they just have a deep-seated need to hate something?
Maybe that's it: they don't understand that in most of the midwest, people don't actually have a high culture of hate. They can love their team and passionately want to beat the opponent, but can also sit next to an opposing fan without coming to blows. Maybe Patriots fans think Indianapolis fans must be filled with hate and must be targeting it at the Patriots, so they have to defend themselves by sending that hate back.
If that is indeed true, then note to New England: the Colts aren't the Yankees and their fans aren't from New York. The Indianapolis fans aren't sending evil thoughts back at you or even your team.
If that's not it, then I'd love a better explanation than "Because I just hate Peyton Manning" or by listening to someone recount stats as an actual justification to hate another human being. Obviously, I've missed something.
Here's another question: just like the above seeming unending vile thrown from The Corridor in the general direction of Indiana, is there really a point where Manning can ever stop hearing the pundits trying to tear him apart? They've beaten the Patriot the past two games (both in Foxborough)...actually, they dismantled them...but still the story of the upcoming game is 'the Patriots have the Colts number.' Apparently, it's now just an ownership in the playoffs, so the other two games don't really count. If Peyton wins this game? 'Well, he hasn't won a Super Bowl.' If he wins the Super Bowl it's kind of hard to believe the next one won't be 'he's only won one' or if he doesn't throw for 300 yards with a QB rating of 135 it will be 'the Colts won in spite of Manning.' I guess if he wins 3, the critics will be spouting something like 'he didn't do it in a 4-year stretch.'
The only thing that the Colts in general and Peyton in particular can hope to put to rest with a win this Sunday is to exorcise the demons of New England once and for all. Nothing more. And they can do it if they remember one thing that San Diego apparently forgot: for all the hype and all the head games, Indianapolis is the better team. If Indianapolis plays with the fervor and passion they did last year in the Monday night drubbing of the Patriots they will go to their first Super Bowl. They will permanently end any talk about NE owning them on any level or at any venue. And really, there should be no additional pressure on Indy, because what if they lose? They simply are back to the same spot they've been for years. It doesn't get any worse.
It does kind of makes one wonder, though: if they can summon a bit of disgust and distaste for their opponent and the critics, just this once, perhaps it would be a good thing.
There are more angles for media stories to this one than an origami swan: Peyton Manning trying to win "the big one", Tony Dungy's playoff failures, the comparisons of Brady & Bellicheck to Montana & Walsh, Adam Viniateri now a Colt instead of a Patriot, a playoff game in Indy instead of Foxboro, etc.
Here's one I want to know: why do Patriots fans (and for that matter most of the northeast) hate Peyton and the Colts? Baltimore I can understand (although after stealing the Cleveland Browns their gripe is one of duplicitious hypocrisy), but Patriots fans? I mean the Pats have owned the Colts until recently, and went through the playoffs on Indy's backside. The national media certainly has annointed Brady as the superior QB, and why not? He's got 3 rings, Peyton hasn't even been in The Game. So what's to hate? The Colts are stocked full of classy players and coaches who's only sin with the media is generally not giving anything quotable or controversial.
Maybe it's because the northeast is so full of people who work in absolutes: the Yankees HATE the Red Sox and Boston HATES New York. Philadelphia HATES the Giants (and anything else that steps into their stadiums). Baltimore Ravens fans apparently just HATE. It's as if somehow those fans believe that their actual lives are bettered by their team beating another team, even though they neither know or control any of the players on the field. Or do they just have a deep-seated need to hate something?
Maybe that's it: they don't understand that in most of the midwest, people don't actually have a high culture of hate. They can love their team and passionately want to beat the opponent, but can also sit next to an opposing fan without coming to blows. Maybe Patriots fans think Indianapolis fans must be filled with hate and must be targeting it at the Patriots, so they have to defend themselves by sending that hate back.
If that is indeed true, then note to New England: the Colts aren't the Yankees and their fans aren't from New York. The Indianapolis fans aren't sending evil thoughts back at you or even your team.
If that's not it, then I'd love a better explanation than "Because I just hate Peyton Manning" or by listening to someone recount stats as an actual justification to hate another human being. Obviously, I've missed something.
Here's another question: just like the above seeming unending vile thrown from The Corridor in the general direction of Indiana, is there really a point where Manning can ever stop hearing the pundits trying to tear him apart? They've beaten the Patriot the past two games (both in Foxborough)...actually, they dismantled them...but still the story of the upcoming game is 'the Patriots have the Colts number.' Apparently, it's now just an ownership in the playoffs, so the other two games don't really count. If Peyton wins this game? 'Well, he hasn't won a Super Bowl.' If he wins the Super Bowl it's kind of hard to believe the next one won't be 'he's only won one' or if he doesn't throw for 300 yards with a QB rating of 135 it will be 'the Colts won in spite of Manning.' I guess if he wins 3, the critics will be spouting something like 'he didn't do it in a 4-year stretch.'
The only thing that the Colts in general and Peyton in particular can hope to put to rest with a win this Sunday is to exorcise the demons of New England once and for all. Nothing more. And they can do it if they remember one thing that San Diego apparently forgot: for all the hype and all the head games, Indianapolis is the better team. If Indianapolis plays with the fervor and passion they did last year in the Monday night drubbing of the Patriots they will go to their first Super Bowl. They will permanently end any talk about NE owning them on any level or at any venue. And really, there should be no additional pressure on Indy, because what if they lose? They simply are back to the same spot they've been for years. It doesn't get any worse.
It does kind of makes one wonder, though: if they can summon a bit of disgust and distaste for their opponent and the critics, just this once, perhaps it would be a good thing.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
OBAMA: LINCOLN, TRUMAN OR CARTER?
I'm more than halfway through Barack Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope," and it is some of the most compelling reading of any political manifesto in decades (unless you're firmly in the religious right/ultra-conservative/Atilla-the-Hun-was-a-wimp camp). He is articulate in the expressions of his views. He posesses great intellect; he thinks and speaks well on the fly. What is most compelling is that he shuns any sort of divisive qualities. He speaks well of George Bush the man, even as he disagrees with his policies. He bemoans his party's inability to find anything of value in Republican viewpoints, and praises those who find common ground. Even in his "rebuttal" interview after Bush's address about increasing troops in Iraq, Barack went out of his way to say that, even though he disagreed, the President was doing what he truly believed is the best for the country. He also singled out Republicans who feel as Obama does. He is charismatic, articulate, reasoned, and sincere. But...
Obama is also young, inexperienced, and what experience he has is a few years as a senator and a few more as a member of the Illinois state house. As my liberal Colorado friend says, that qualifies him membership in the world's greatest debating club, but it doesn't identify whether he has the credentials to be President. He's never held office as a mayor, governor, or any other political job that could be considered a sort of minor league proving ground for the presidency. So that begs the question: is he a modern day Abraham Lincoln, an erstwhile Harry Truman, or is he the next Jimmy Carter?
All three of these past presidents were radical politicians for the time, vastly different than their predecessors. They all posessed new approaches and fresh idea of how to shape the country, and all came to the office at a time of great turmoil and transition. They conveyed large amounts of charisma and were able to speak to the common man as a colleague. They also came from what is now referred to as flyover country (Illinois, Missouri, and Georgia). But their results were vastly different: one truly changed a nation for the better (albeit by fire), one was unpopular during most of his tenure, only years later being seen as a great president, and one was...well, let's say that Jimmy Carter wasn't much beloved for anything he ever did in office. And that's the dilemma of Obama: he could be anything from a presidential legend to a political disaster.
Obama has come out of academia, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Is someone who debates ethical questions about the Constitution with college students ready for the maniacal gloves-off fervor of someone who passionately believes differently, while also posessing a "damn the facts, I know what I believe" attitude? This same man was soundly defeated in a bid for a congressional representative seat, and were it not for Jack Ryan's sex club/swinging marriage fiasco would probably have been soundly defeated in his Senate race as well. And yet, Obama makes so much sense when you listen to him, and does so without defiling the opposition that it's no wonder that he is achieving rock star iconic status. He is a breath of fresh air, the voice of reason that has been so absent for 12 years or more. He represents both the fear of the unknown on one hand, the hope of a better brand of politics on the other. He is an idealist, and he is a blank slate.
Obama is the wild card this presidential season. He will likely run and he is the antithesis to Hillary Clinton, as well as to any jaded politicians. I don't agree with many of his positions, but who does jibe perfectly? He seems to have a moral compass and a grounded sense of self, with the capacity to listen and assimilate. Unlike how the right is likely to paint him, he does not come across as a left-wing liberal, but as someone who understands and fits more within the center. He may or may not get my vote, but he has my attention.
Obama is also young, inexperienced, and what experience he has is a few years as a senator and a few more as a member of the Illinois state house. As my liberal Colorado friend says, that qualifies him membership in the world's greatest debating club, but it doesn't identify whether he has the credentials to be President. He's never held office as a mayor, governor, or any other political job that could be considered a sort of minor league proving ground for the presidency. So that begs the question: is he a modern day Abraham Lincoln, an erstwhile Harry Truman, or is he the next Jimmy Carter?
All three of these past presidents were radical politicians for the time, vastly different than their predecessors. They all posessed new approaches and fresh idea of how to shape the country, and all came to the office at a time of great turmoil and transition. They conveyed large amounts of charisma and were able to speak to the common man as a colleague. They also came from what is now referred to as flyover country (Illinois, Missouri, and Georgia). But their results were vastly different: one truly changed a nation for the better (albeit by fire), one was unpopular during most of his tenure, only years later being seen as a great president, and one was...well, let's say that Jimmy Carter wasn't much beloved for anything he ever did in office. And that's the dilemma of Obama: he could be anything from a presidential legend to a political disaster.
Obama has come out of academia, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Is someone who debates ethical questions about the Constitution with college students ready for the maniacal gloves-off fervor of someone who passionately believes differently, while also posessing a "damn the facts, I know what I believe" attitude? This same man was soundly defeated in a bid for a congressional representative seat, and were it not for Jack Ryan's sex club/swinging marriage fiasco would probably have been soundly defeated in his Senate race as well. And yet, Obama makes so much sense when you listen to him, and does so without defiling the opposition that it's no wonder that he is achieving rock star iconic status. He is a breath of fresh air, the voice of reason that has been so absent for 12 years or more. He represents both the fear of the unknown on one hand, the hope of a better brand of politics on the other. He is an idealist, and he is a blank slate.
Obama is the wild card this presidential season. He will likely run and he is the antithesis to Hillary Clinton, as well as to any jaded politicians. I don't agree with many of his positions, but who does jibe perfectly? He seems to have a moral compass and a grounded sense of self, with the capacity to listen and assimilate. Unlike how the right is likely to paint him, he does not come across as a left-wing liberal, but as someone who understands and fits more within the center. He may or may not get my vote, but he has my attention.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
THE COLTS AND INDY
Fond though I may be of the place, I have in many ways divorced myself emotionally from Indianapolis. My friends, strangely enough, are not associated with Indy even though many live there. Maybe that's because several were friends before any of us moved there, or maybe it's been my nomadic existence for the bulk of my life that keeps me from identifying a friend with a point on the map. Regardless, one thing keeps me still caring about the city and its well-being: the Indianapolis Colts.
I can still watch the RCA Dome, Peyton, the crowd, Monument Circle at game time, and put myself there. I realize how much that team means to the city, and what it was like when it seemed that they might leave for L.A. (Oh, and I remember my thoughts about them coming there from Baltimore, which happened well before I was a resident, but that's a different discussion.)
If there is a city in this country that deserves a championship, it has to be Indianapolis. It's not like Indy is downtrodden or fighting for its economic survival, but it's not special. Don't get me wrong; Indianapolis, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Birmingham, Phoenix, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Milwaukee...there are lots of cities that are very liveable and have good people, but despite the best efforts of their local politicians, media, and citizenry they cannot escape the fact that there is and probably never will be a real reason for large scales of people to seek out and fall in love with their town. Living in Austin has made me face this. But it also makes me understand why Indianapolis deserves and needs a champion, especially if it comes from a team like the Colts.
The midwest doesn't do well with thugs, loudmouths, or lazy bums. Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Plaxico Burress...dare I say Mike Vanderjagt?...these are not the kind of people that are welcome. I understand this because I am a midwesterner. The work ethic and plethora of good people is as engrained in my soul as the distaste for slackers and chest-thumpers. And this is why the Colts need to win a championship for those good people of not only Indianapolis, but also all the other perceived also-ran cities of the midwest.
Tony Dungy, Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, Tom Moore, Ron Meeks, Reggie Wayne, Dwight Freeney, Rob Morris, Tarik Glenn: these are players who personnify class and hard work. They are people who mesh with the general ethics and personalities of the population of central Indiana, people who often want nothing more than to raise a good family, be around friends, and have some interesting diversions, and are willing to work hard to get it. The Colts may not be America's Team (and God please tell me that the Cowboys aren't either), but they are Everyman's Team.
This is a team built around doing it the right way: outwork your competition, study harder and be smarter. Don't be dirty, don't cheat. Don't say or do stupid things away from the field or on it. Be pleasant to the media: give them your time as well as being available for the fans. And win and lose as a team, not as individuals.
Yes, the Patriots are the other team that seems to have these qualities, and you can also make the argument that the Saints have picked that persona up this year. But the Saints are a newcomer to the good guys scene. New England? A big city team, as well as the 800 pound gorilla in the NFL. Would anyone be shocked if they unseat the #1 seed Chargers next week? Contrast that with this year's Colts, who are given the same labels generally reserved for the midwest: no one's darling, not from big city, and perceived as flawed and soft. How perfect.
The Colts are going to have their work cut out for them this week, going into their old home of Baltimore, playing against a team of players that not only wouldn't be saleable in Indianapolis but would previously have never been saleable in Baltimore, either. And should they survive that test, they will have to either face this year's most balanced team (the Chargers) or their old nemesis New England. It's not an easy road. But perhaps there should be no easy road for a midwest champion.
It won't surprise me if the Colts bow out before reaching the Super Bowl. Last year was when everything had reached its nexus that would vault the Colts not only to a championship but into a pantheon of great teams, until James Dungy's suicide cast a pall that trivialized and ultimately seemed to undo everything. Fast forward to the 2007 playoffs, and the Colts being almost off the radar. Their defense played the game of the season against Kansas City, but does anyone truly think they can keep it up? Still, there seems to be something special about this team, if only because they are now playing from the same point on the field that Indianapolis the City always seems to be playing: not quite good enough for prime time.
Would it not be fitting if this was the year that the Colts reached for that place deep within their souls, and won one for all the good guys?
I can still watch the RCA Dome, Peyton, the crowd, Monument Circle at game time, and put myself there. I realize how much that team means to the city, and what it was like when it seemed that they might leave for L.A. (Oh, and I remember my thoughts about them coming there from Baltimore, which happened well before I was a resident, but that's a different discussion.)
If there is a city in this country that deserves a championship, it has to be Indianapolis. It's not like Indy is downtrodden or fighting for its economic survival, but it's not special. Don't get me wrong; Indianapolis, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Birmingham, Phoenix, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Milwaukee...there are lots of cities that are very liveable and have good people, but despite the best efforts of their local politicians, media, and citizenry they cannot escape the fact that there is and probably never will be a real reason for large scales of people to seek out and fall in love with their town. Living in Austin has made me face this. But it also makes me understand why Indianapolis deserves and needs a champion, especially if it comes from a team like the Colts.
The midwest doesn't do well with thugs, loudmouths, or lazy bums. Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Plaxico Burress...dare I say Mike Vanderjagt?...these are not the kind of people that are welcome. I understand this because I am a midwesterner. The work ethic and plethora of good people is as engrained in my soul as the distaste for slackers and chest-thumpers. And this is why the Colts need to win a championship for those good people of not only Indianapolis, but also all the other perceived also-ran cities of the midwest.
Tony Dungy, Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, Tom Moore, Ron Meeks, Reggie Wayne, Dwight Freeney, Rob Morris, Tarik Glenn: these are players who personnify class and hard work. They are people who mesh with the general ethics and personalities of the population of central Indiana, people who often want nothing more than to raise a good family, be around friends, and have some interesting diversions, and are willing to work hard to get it. The Colts may not be America's Team (and God please tell me that the Cowboys aren't either), but they are Everyman's Team.
This is a team built around doing it the right way: outwork your competition, study harder and be smarter. Don't be dirty, don't cheat. Don't say or do stupid things away from the field or on it. Be pleasant to the media: give them your time as well as being available for the fans. And win and lose as a team, not as individuals.
Yes, the Patriots are the other team that seems to have these qualities, and you can also make the argument that the Saints have picked that persona up this year. But the Saints are a newcomer to the good guys scene. New England? A big city team, as well as the 800 pound gorilla in the NFL. Would anyone be shocked if they unseat the #1 seed Chargers next week? Contrast that with this year's Colts, who are given the same labels generally reserved for the midwest: no one's darling, not from big city, and perceived as flawed and soft. How perfect.
The Colts are going to have their work cut out for them this week, going into their old home of Baltimore, playing against a team of players that not only wouldn't be saleable in Indianapolis but would previously have never been saleable in Baltimore, either. And should they survive that test, they will have to either face this year's most balanced team (the Chargers) or their old nemesis New England. It's not an easy road. But perhaps there should be no easy road for a midwest champion.
It won't surprise me if the Colts bow out before reaching the Super Bowl. Last year was when everything had reached its nexus that would vault the Colts not only to a championship but into a pantheon of great teams, until James Dungy's suicide cast a pall that trivialized and ultimately seemed to undo everything. Fast forward to the 2007 playoffs, and the Colts being almost off the radar. Their defense played the game of the season against Kansas City, but does anyone truly think they can keep it up? Still, there seems to be something special about this team, if only because they are now playing from the same point on the field that Indianapolis the City always seems to be playing: not quite good enough for prime time.
Would it not be fitting if this was the year that the Colts reached for that place deep within their souls, and won one for all the good guys?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
