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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

E-MAIL ALERTS

The "new" Blogger is live, and one of the new features is that readers can receive e-mails when a new post is published.

So, for those who are interested, let me know if you'd like to be put on the Centrist Dude e-mail list, and you'll know whenever there's a new posting. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that you can set this up yourself; the blog publisher has to submit the e-mail address.

FUN WITH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

One of the wonderful things about a blog is the potential for feedback. So that’s what I’m going for here: your opinions.

It may be two years out, but we’reseeing the current presidential hopefuls shake out. Evan Bayh has sadly (but wisely) already taken his hat out of the ring, as has Mark Warner. (Well Mark, if you can’t keep your current job you probably shouldn’t seek the boss’s job.) But the following have either formally declared their candidacy, formed exploratory committees, or are generally expected to run:

DEMS
-Hillary Clinton
-John Edwards
-Dennis Kucinich
-Barack Obama
-Bill Richardson

GOP
-Rudy Guiliani
-John McCain
-Mitt Romney
-Newt Gingrich

Let’s take it as a reasonable assumption that no dark horse candidate will enter the fray (I mean, isn’t Kucinich dark enough??) So let’s have some fun: I’m going to take each candidate separately, but let’s start with something basic: who do you like, who do you not like, and (of course) why?
We’ll take each one separately over the coming months, but let’s take this one as a tiny pulse.

I AM STUPID. SO SAYS THE MEDIA.

In my morning readings I came across this gem:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-12-11-seattle-reading_x.htm

The summation of the articles is that it's a listing of the "10 most literate cities in America," along with a bit of explaining of the criteria used to determine who made the list and some tidbits masquerading as factoids.

At first glance, this might seem like a bit of harmless fluff that allows people in the top cities to pat themselves on the back. But something didn't ring right with this, so I read it a second time a bit more carefully. In doing so, several things seemed a bit odd:

1) With the exception of Atlanta, every city at the top is in a cold climate. Isn't it quite probable that people in San Diego, Durham, Austin and Charlotte might be doing less recreational reading because they're not confined indoors?

2) Newspaper circulation and checking out library books (as well as the number bookstores) are the main factors in how literate your city is. So... if you're getting the paper online instead of subscribing, how are you being counted? It's the same for podcasts and audiobooks winning out over library subscriptions. I, as an example, read quite a bit daily: periodicals, books, and online news. (I do declare that I got this article came from USA Today online!) I haven't seen the inside of a library nor subscribed to a newspaper in 8 or 10 years.

I am not alone. The public's habits have changed; how can John Miller even suggest that newspaper circulation is "one of the best indicators of literate behavior," and that if you don't subscribe to a newspaper that the next best source is whether you go to the library for news? What kind of a dinosaur is this guy? In his world, I'm not even counted.

3) What kind of agenda is being pushed forward by trying to imply that "literate" cities voted for Kerry and, therefore, "illiterate" cities voted for Bush? News flash: urban areas (sometimes known as "cities") largely vote Democratic. C'mon; Marion County (Indianapolis) IN voted for Kerry! It's more news that any major metropolitan areas vote Republican.

It's troubling that this snippet made it through the editorial department. Not only was the last presidential election was 2 years ago (ahem...get over it) but politics are a bit deeper than "dumb asses vote Republican while geniuses vote Democratic." What we have is a blatant example of finding some piece of evidence and using it to make a sweeping judgement to attempt to subtly sway public opinion. Eisenhower warned of the military/industrial complex. I say that equally troubling is the media/educational institution complex.

I certainly don't doubt that the cities mentioned have extremely literate people as they all have high levels of college graduates and people in creative and technical fields. But this study is not just flawed; it shouldn't even be given credence.

LONG TIME, NO POST

I think a year is a long enough time to go without a new post. Time to begin anew, especially now that I'm no longer in Indianapolis, having relocated to Austin, TX.

Topics you can reasonably expect me to comment on:

-why Austin might be the coolest and most creative city in America
-fixing America's political landscape
-a newcomer's view of Texas politics, values, and misconceptions

To those of you who actually come back to read after this long of a hiatus, thanks.

An Opportunity to Fix New Orleans

Other than extreme partisans or idiots, it should be clear to everyone that there have been failures at every level in dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, including FEMA and Bush. Mayor Ray "dont-blame-me-for-anything" Nagin and Governor Kathleen "when-and-how-should-I-ask-for-help" Blanco are equally culpable, if not more so.

This has been one of the most disappointing events in my lifetime, and there are loads of examples pointing to things most of us have known for decades about this country: the cowardice and failure of people in "public service" to plan for anything beyond their watch; the attentiveness of politicians in an election year contrasted with their unconcern when not up for re-election; the culture lawlessness a citizenry acquires when personal responsibility is zoned out and it's-not-your fault platitudes become the norm; the idiocy of not paying attention to obvious environmental problems in the name of progress...I could, of course, go on.

You can easily ascribe which ostrich holes one party or the other will stick their heads into, which is again a problem in itself: no one speaks for me, no one speaks for you, no one seemingly speaks for America. Most politicians only speak for themselves and their "base." Until we quit electing career politicians and start electing true public servants we will continue to have severe problems in crisis situations. 9/11 was different in a sense, because we actually came together as a country. With respect to New Orleans, all there seems to be is finger-pointing and Soviet-style blame-passing.

Since I try to follow my own advice of give solutions, don't just point out the problems, here goes:

1) Shoot the looters and the roaming gangs. Period. They're bad for the country and they're not going to be the ones rebuilding.

2) Ask for the resignation of FEMA Director Michael Brown. If he won't give it, fire him. This is not all his fault, but he's not blameless, and there are times that a leader makes a change to restore confidence to workers and constituents. FEMA isn't like being the ambassador to Sweden, or some other non-important cushy post; appoint someone with a job history of crisis management, not someone who needs a political favor.

3) Bush needs to apologize for the failure of FEMA and not split hairs about it. However, since lots of people seem to want to blame the federal government for not bailing them out all along, the federal government gets to have a very heavy hand in restoring the city. As in:
3a) Put Bernard Karik (or another corruption-reducing big-city police chief ) in charge of restoring the New Orleans police force. Fire the current idiot police chief who can't even speak the English language or accept any share of the blame. The idea is to permanently change the image of the NOPD.
3b) Create an enterprise zone to encourange re-development of the area that will be in place for a minimum of 5 years.
3c) Send the Army Corp of Engineers in to rebuild the levees AND reclaim the wetlands; they get to set the parameters after sending a contingency to The Netherlands to look at how people actually build dikes & seawalls that work. Houses and businesses in the former wetlands will have to be eliminated. (This is when eminent domain is not only acceptable but necessary.) That will upset both environmentalists and industrialists. Too bad.
3d) Impose 90 days of martial law. If you're in the city and out past sundown, you get arrested. If you resist, you get shot. That will hasten the evacuation a bit.

4) Tourism must be restored, and the first place to start is by imposing new rules on the French Quarter. It needs to be a safe place to bring your family. Mardi Gras will never be the same, but again...too bad. If you're that hard up for debauchery, go to Vegas and spend your money on gambling or a prostitute. At least you aren't likely to get rolled.

5) Create a new slogan for the city. No more "Big Easy." I don't have a name (nor am I qualified to come up with one), but it should harken to the history, the people, or the natural beauty. There are plenty of places to head with this (jazz, cajun, creole cooking, blues, the delta), but it needs a new feel and a new direction that isn't rotten and sodden.

6) Offer discounted (or even at-cost) housing to anyone who left the city and wants to come back to rebuild. This will take care of whatever insurance doesn't cover and/or encourage people to rebuild even better structures. In return, participants must sign up to work for the reconstruction of the city for a minimum period (2 years seems good). There will be lots of positions needed: construction workers, office workers, logistics people, even low-skill jobs like clean-up crews. Bottom line, if you're serious about working, the jobs will be there for you. If they are not completely filled up by people who were displaced, offer the same deal to outsiders so as to repopulate the city with fresh blood.

As bad as this situation is, here is a golden opportunity to improve an entire city, while showing the rest of the world as well as U.S. citizens what America can do when crisis strikes. Anything less is unacceptable.

This Land is NOT Your Land

As has been said, the United States is an idea. We are not held together by common ethnic backgrounds, geographical similarities, or even a connected reason for leaving our homelands to come here. What binds us together as a nation are a few basic ideas: the right to own property, the personal freedom to succeed or fail at whatever we choose, and the expectation of living without undue interference from our government. So when the Supreme Court rules that a developer in New London, Connecticut can take people’s homes to develop a shopping center, I have to ask: what is going to continue to keep us united as Americans? How many more slaps in the face of this magnitude can we as citizens take?

(To read the actual judicial ruling, opinions and dissenting opinions, go to http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108.)

To put this in perspective, how easy is it to leap from a developer clearing out some lower income people in a blighted neighborhood (as the current story coming out of New London goes) to seizing and bulldozing homes in a growing area simply to make it easier to develop? And by the way, who in their right mind has ever counted on construction companies to use reason? These are the same people who have the temerity to mow down forests and eliminate acres of natural habitats so that they don’t have to build around those pesky trees.

Worried about corruption in politics? How tempting will it become for developers to line the pockets of politicians in exchange for carte blanche to do what they want? If it's legal to push people off of their land for "economic reasons" the ethics become increasingly fuzzy. And since this is more likely to happen in growing areas how will you give people a fair market value for their properties?

Let’s pretend this is happening in an upside-down real estate market such as Los Angeles. How do you take someone who paid $95,000 for their 2-bedroom home 25 years ago, bulldoze it, and expect them to find a place to live in the same market where you can no longer get that same house in a safe neighborhood for under $950,000? Not to mention the emotional wrenching of forcing someone off of their land. It brings to mind pictures of Tevye in ‘Fiddler On the Roof’ when his Russian “friend” is telling them they have to leave.

There has been a steady erosion of personal civil liberties over the past 30 years, and surprisingly many of them have come during Republican administrations and from a conservative-leaning court. If this is conservative politics, then I wish no part of it. I expect conservatives to try to chip away at my civil liberties by restricting abortion, allowing cops to beat my ass for no good reason, and to force me to worship their god. I certainly don’t expect them to protect me from myself by making me wear a seat belt or ride a motorcycle with a helmet; I don’t expect them to tax the holy hell out of my business; and I don’t fathom them allowing people to take my land for questionable reasons. Yet, all of this has happened under the administrations of Bush Sr. & Jr.

I expect Democrats to be wacky and lean towards a socialistic communal utopia. I expect conservatives to be wacky and lean towards “every person for themselves.” That’s ok; they kind of balance each other out. But they both have to exist; otherwise, there is no balance. Therefore, if this is the new brand of conservatism, then kiss America the Idea goodbye.

Something can be done. Now is the time for Americans to overrule the Supreme Court by pressing their state and federal representatives to pass laws restricting the scope of eminent domain.

MEDIA BIAS IS ULTIMATELY YOUR PROBLEM

I’m probably the last person on earth to read Bernie Goldberg’s “Bias.” What is striking to me is how little real information I’ve gleaned from it. The anecdotes are funny, the bias is both real and sad, but I’ve constantly found myself saying “Well…duh!” Perhaps the only eye-opener is the degree to which the majority of journalists can’t see that they are completely out of touch with mainstream America.

What amazes me more is how most of my liberal friends can’t see how biased journalism is. To them, the Wall Street Journal is a right-wing nut collection and Fox News is downright evil. But somehow, CNN is fair. National Public Radio is centrist. The New York Times is a voice of authority and reason. They'll start commentary with “I was reading in the Boston Globe this morning and it said…”, without it even crossing their minds that maybe, just maybe, there’s a serious agenda behind the story.

As for the conservatives and their new Bible, talk radio, all I can say is that while I disagree with the vitriol and some of the short-sighted “all big media is evil” speak, they at least should be applauded for coming out up front and admitting their political leanings and objectives. I find the Sean Hannitys and Bill O’Reillys of the world to be unlistenable, but you can’t say they’re misleading the listener by acting as if they’re objective, and I respect that a lot more than Maureen Dowd or Peter Jennings trying to convince me that they have any inkling of objectivity. However, that doesn't mean that Rush Limbaugh et al should be your information source, because it's just as short-sighted and ludicrous when someone starts with "Rush was talking about..."

If we are truly going to be an informed society, then it is incumbent upon us to start holding the media’s feet to the fire. Since I don’t expect any major news organization to suddenly start hiring capable reporters & commentators of the other side or even true centrists (since they all think they ARE centrist), then we must actually start pulling news from a variety of sources, even ones we might disagree with initially. If all you’re reading is the Hartford Courant or the Indianapolis Star, and all you’re watching is the local & network news, then it’s time to broaden your horizons a bit. A few suggestions, all of which are online in part or in full:

-The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com). They are pro-business, and they are definitely conservative when it comes to world politics. However, they are still New York City journalists, and there is a lot more liberalism in their slant than most people realize.

-U.S. News and World Report. (www.usnews.com ) Possibly the single best print publication in America when it comes to balanced reporting. Gloria Borger, Michael Barone, John Leo, Mortimer Zuckerman and Lou Dobbs are regular columnists. It doesn’t get much more diverse politically than that without retaining extremists.

-The Drudge Report (www.drudgereport.com). Yes, Matt does lean conservative. However, there are regular links to Maureen Dowd, Dick Morris, Helen Thomas and other liberals, as well as the BBC and the major news outlets (ABC, CBS, NY Times, Boston Globe, etc.).

-NPR (www.npr.org) – They’re liberal and yes, they have an agenda. But they do try hard to present both sides of the story and they keep alive what liberalism is supposed to be about, instead of the elitist version that is currently practiced by the Democratic Party, the Bay Area, and the entire northeast corridor.

The Chicago Tribune (www.chicagotribune.com) – Liberal by Midwest standards, conservative by coastal standards. Enough said.

INAUGURATION OBSERVATIONS

Ahhh, the 2nd Bush term. Panacea if you’re a hard-core Republican, the end of the world if you’re a hard-core Democrat. Almost like the 2nd Clinton term in reverse.

Watching the inauguration yesterday was an interesting character study. The behaviors and images shown may not tell the whole story, but they do shed light into a few likely future and past politicians:

Hillary Clinton – Could she have looked more bored? It was quite obvious that at best she was taking mental Cliff’s notes. It was as if she felt too smart to be there and besides, what would that evil man at the podium have to say of note anyway? To all of you Bush haters who think Hillary is a savior, examine your criticisms of Bush’s personality and tell me where Hillary’s style is going to be an improvement. You may not wish to believe it, but she’s unelectable and will bring the Dems down further nationally if she’s nominated. Or as the former Indianapolis city treasurer diplomatically told me today, “She’ll definitely ensure a big turnout.” And he wasn’t talking about Democrats.

Bill Clinton – A study in contrast from his wife. Say what you will about him, but as he hung on every word Bush had to say. Not because he may have agreed, but because he understood: the place, the reason for the message, the gravity of what Bush is dealing with. A prediction: unlike what I previously believed, Bill Clinton will continue to grow in stature as an ex-president.

Rudy Giuliani – He was visibly freezing, but also paying close attention. Rudy seems to be unpretentious (for a New Yorker), and no-nonsense. He’ll tell you what he thinks, but he’s extremely smart, and his mannerisms at the inauguration say the same thing. He’s my early pick to win the GOP nomination.

John McCain – Looked confident and statesman-like. Quite electable on the national stage. If I only believed that the RNC would actually fund him I’d have more confidence in his chances. But I don’t think the conservative wing of the Republican Party will allow it, and that’s too bad. He deserves a shot. Note to Republicans: quit paying undue attention to the religious right. They will be your albatross, just as the fringe groups are to the Democrats.

Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter – They both looked like ministers, especially Jimmy, as if the weight of the day was all they felt along with compassion for the man behind the microphone. Side note: I know she’s at least in her 70s, but Rosalynn looks like 55. What is she eating? Or not eating?

John Kerry - Gracious but extremely tense. Only Al Gore, on the podium as the outgoing Vice-President at the last inauguration and in full glare of the cameras, could have been in a worse spot. Teresa should have suggested he not show up to this one.

Jenna and Barbara Bush – I’d like to see them replace Paris & Nicole on “The Simple Life.” Seriously, they seem imbued with a great mix of confidence borne out of both worldliness and youthful ignorance; Jenna seems to possess it in spades. As with all presidential children, it will be interesting to see where they end up in a few years.

NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION - BLOG MORE

It’s amazing how much havoc the holidays can wreak on your everyday routines. ‘Tis way past time to get back to my regular postings.

Watching a new Indiana state administration (Mitch Daniels) and a returning national administration (George W. Bush) already has me looking ahead to 2008. Some early predictions:

-Hillary Clinton is unelectable. If the Democrats wish to re-take the White House they must find someone who can win in the Republican strongholds, like Evan Bayh. I must say though, even being from Indiana, there is something about Bayh that makes me question whether he’s actually presidential material. But he is a Democrat who can win in normally Republican country. Unlike John Edwards, who had zero influence even in his own home state (as was also the case with Al Gore), Bayh would likely take Indiana and swing Ohio over to the Democrats, which would almost assuredly win the race.

-The game is no different for Republicans, even with the apparent success in the last election. The country is almost white-knuckling over how conservative it’s become. A centrist candidate would have wiped the mat with Bush, and only the provincialism of the Democrats kept any real candidates from even getting into the game. It will take a Republican who can grab the center. Since I don’t believe that John McCain will actually get the financial support from the GOP coffers (for lots of obvious reasons), look for someone like Rudy Giuliani. If Giuliani merely holds the current “red states” and takes New York out of the Dems column (which he would) it would a 62-point electoral vote swing…a landslide. One downside of Giuliani: I doubt that he has national coattails.

In my home state of Indiana, big changes are afoot. Mitch Daniels has come in with the same vigor and mandate for change as Ronald Reagan did some 24 years ago. The difference in Daniels case is that he must break the pattern of behavior of Indiana residents borne out over the past 200 years: provincialism, distrust of outsiders, resistance to new industries, and self-deprecation. (Or, to use one phrase, Hayseed Hoosierism.) I have no doubt that he can do it, though, as I watched Evan Bayh shift the mindset for 8 years, only to be undone by the tragically late-but-still-incompetent good-ole-boy Frank O’Bannon. For those outside of Indiana this might be a sideshow for you to watch. If Daniels is able to re-make the economy of this state, as I believe he will, it will mold new-style Republicans out of previously staunch Democratic areas and industries. This, in turn, will catch the attention of the GOP and become a model for economic and political growth across the country. IF…Daniels is successful.

On a personal side note, I met now-embattled Ohio Republican Ken Blackwell some 20 years ago. My stepfather was the chair of a Cincinnati community cable TV company, and Blackwell and Jerry Springer (yes, the Jerry Springer) came to this very small gathering to preside over their awards show, and I'm sure they weren't compensated for their time. If they were, it couldn't have been much. I found them both to be personable and very giving of their time. This from two politicians on opposite sides of the aisle who were then the most recent Cincinnati ex-mayors. I have no moral or conclusion to the story, other than to be fascinated by the paths their lives have since taken.

Go Colts.

TROUBLE AFOOT...HOW DO WE HANDLE IT?

So Bush voters thought his re-election would send a message to the rest of the world that would ultimately make us safer, while anti-Bush voters believed that ousting Bush would make us more secure. A quick spin around the world says that no one was right; the world is in flux regardless of current U.S. policy. Consider the bad:

-Unless you’re an idealistic ostrich, it’s fairly obvious that Iran is trying to move towards a nuclear arsenal. Did they speed the program up because of U.S. involvement in Iraq? Perhaps, but except for the tunnel-visioned who blame everything on Bush, the history of their nuclear program says that this was going to happen regardless of U.S. policy.

-Russia is trying to re-exert its power in the region, as evidenced by the Ukranian election. Couple that with the Chechnyan conflicts and the U.S./European/Soviet history, and it’s pretty tough policy figuring out how to deal with the Russians.

-Al-Qaeda has likely been weakened, but is far from being torn asunder.

And, consider the good news:

-It’s early, but Palestinian leaders seem to be softening their stance towards Israel since the death of Yasser Arafat. Recently, Abbas personally has called for Palestinian media to quit broadcasting and publishing anti-Jewish pieces.

-Kofi Annan is finally being exposed for the trough-feeding bureaucrat that many people have suspected him to be, and his leadership is perhaps about to end. If that happens, a strong leader at the U.N. could actually give that organization one more shot at being something other than a debating body that squanders and bleeds Western money.

-Say what you will about Bush, but the Fallujah offensive in Iraq is a smart moved that should have been done a long time ago. We’re not looking at the end of the insurgency, but the Arab community has a long, long history of only responding to force. It’s time we apply a bit more of it, and by winning the election Bush has some time to use it.

The future could take a million different paths. However, here are some realistic and credible things I believe we can do as a nation to insure that we head down the right one:

-Err on the side of military pressure in Iraq. Again, Arab culture has historically responded to force. Don’t think of Al-Qaeda, Palestine and Iran with American and European values. To them, diplomacy is a sign of weakness; just witness Yasser Arafat turning down the Palestinian homeland, the assassination of Anwar Sadat after the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, and miles of history in the brutality of those who ascend to leadership in the Arab world (Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, King Farouk, the Ottoman Empire, and Syria's Hafiz Assad of Syria’s, just to name a few in the 20th century). These are people who respect little other than the big stick. Use it.

-Recognize Russia as an opponent, but not an enemy. Russia has centuries as a powerful nation, which is something the U.S. cannot relate to. (We could perhaps counsel England for some insights.) Neither the Russian people nor their leadership has taken kindly to their reduced role in the world, and we’re starting to see them play a heavy hand in their own region. If left unchecked they will start doing the same on a wider scale.

This is a delicate situation. Russia will be a world player just due to the size and population of their nation. Throw in their history and you have a country that will be willing to fight to regain supremacy for years, decades, or even centuries. We need to treat the Russians as you would a colleague in the same situation; with a mixture of deference, camaraderie, and a firm understanding of both the power you hold and how to use it without waving it in their face. Lots of neo-con haters have their concerns misplaced. The arrogance this administration is capable of will actually work well vs. the Middle East. Russia, however, is a different story. Perhaps Bush recognizes this, which is why he refers to Vladimir Putin as his friend. It will take a long, concerted effort, but we can make Russia our friend as well if they see us as allies on the world stage for the long haul. Not an easy proposition, but not impossible, either.

-China is Russia times 10. And the Chinese seem to have a way of “doing business” that would make the most ruthless capitalist blush. Take that into account, and add in their history: China was the most innovative culture for 1000 years before being decimated by the upstart Europeans and by internal problems (drugs, corrupt government); the tentatively re-built government was torn asunder by WWII; they underwent a short revival of sorts under a brutal Communist regime; they are now embracing their own hybrid form of government again, a quasi capitalist-socialist mix.

Going back to the “colleague” analogy above, what would you do with a business associate who had built a successful company, was ousted, had a new company that failed, and was now going back to the old company to revive it? (See: Steve Jobs & Apple.) You would greet this person with reverence, but also with a certain amount of skepticism in both your policy and your tone of voice. This isn't easy, because China can bluster like Arabs (as does North Korea), but in reality they are still re-finding their feet. But it's the right course. We shouldn't thwart the Chinese from re-finding their footing, but we don’t need to help them either. Make it known that we aren't interfering, and stand back while they make mistakes, which they will. Just look at how their handling their own AIDS epidemic.

It doesn’t look to me like the world is coming to an end, but the USA, like the rest of the globe, is at a crossroads. We have the mantle of supremacy at the moment; how we deal with the other world players will determine whether we keep that mantle in the next 20-50 years. I would like to know what those of you out in blog-land think. Comment below or e-mail me.

MOTOWN BRAWL AND WHAT IT MEANS

Being in Indianapolis, the Pacers-Pistons brawl has personal significance, and has hit me like it has many other people: shock, disgust, and anger. It has also brought up a flurry of thoughts.

1) Character matters. Along with a lot of the national media, I believe that Ron Artest had justification to go after the fan(s) throwing things at him, especially after he was hit in the face. In a lot of respects, though, that didn’t ultimately matter because it doesn't excuse him.

Unlike many other sports cities, Indianapolis doesn’t deal well with prima donnas or spoiled brats, and the local franchises have always stuck with high-character players. Artest, though, has been an anomaly. He's a loose cannon, and he needed to be traded as soon as possible for whatever the franchise could get; otherwise, he could blow up in the team’s face. Well…guess what? The bomb went off. Now the Pacers, who have been as clean as any team in professional sports, have an indelible stain that may never be wiped away.

In my years on the road playing music, I learned that, although there are a lot of extremely talented musicians, talent is not what matters. Yes, there has to be a minimum level of talent, but once someone has reached that threshold the most important thing is their character. Do they buy into the system of the organization? Can they get along with the other members even in times of adversity? Do they have bad habits (e.g. substance abuse, temper problems) that will cost you down the road? I don’t think that’s much different in any other organization, including sports teams. If your choice is between a guy with incredible talent but character flaws vs. the guy who is workmanlike but is a team player, take the latter without hesitation.

2) There has to be culpability for ALL organizations. Yes, the Pacers were the ones who went into the stands. But the conflict started because a) Piston center Ben Wallace shoved Artest, b) the Piston bench emptied prompting the Pacer bench to do the same, and c) the Pistons fans started throwing beer, ice, and anything else they could get their hands on at the Pacers. Then, the fans excerbated the conflict by coming onto the court, and continuing to throw objects and pour beer onto the Pacers. Yet it’s the Pacers who have had their season ruined by the suspensions that have been doled out. The Pistons are essentially getting off scot-free. How about a fine so large that it prevents them from signing players? Or banning them from selling beer for the remainder of the season? Or something novel, like a $100 million dollar fine, which is reduced $1MM for each offending fan they identify and prosecute (there were easily 100 fans involved)?

Without coming down hard on the Pistons the NBA punishment is hollow, unfair, and it will come back to haunt them, perhaps in ways they don’t even see now.

3) Society needs to clean itself up. What is the parentage of people who think it’s ok to show up at a sporting event and behave that way? How has violence become a solution in situations that don’t call for it, whether it’s at a sporting event or on the highway? At some point, we need to examine ourselves in the mirror and change a few things about our daily lives, and acknowledge that it's not always "the other guy." Perhaps that’s what was meant by “moral values” at the polls.

4) Why the hero worship of those who aren’t heroes? Ron Artest isn’t the kind of athlete who engenders hero worship because he’s a strange combination: a normally quiet loner with tremendous talent, and an anger management problem. But other “self-promoters” have had legions of followers, such as Dennis Rodman, Terrell Owens, Warren Sapp, and Randy Moss, while having questionable to serious character flaws. Why? What has happened in our society where these people are actually revered? And no, it’s not lost on me that all of the above are black. Is that just me as a white person missing something about the black community that allows or even encourages this type of behavior to flourish?

I don’t have all the answers, but I do see the problems. And I know we need to start finding and focusing on answers, without prejudice as to what and where the problems and solutions are found.