You are what your record says you are.
- An oft-quoted rule of football coach Bill Parcells
I guess the old saw about old dogs and new tricks is correct, at least when talking about the Democratic party. Today's Los Angeles Times reported that in a poll the paper conducted with Bloomberg, 27 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, a rating lower than that of the unpopular, lame duck President.
I can't pity the Democrats, since they have brought this on themselves with their gutless approach to "leading" in Congress. In fact, after Congressional Democrats caved and passed a war funding bill without a troop withdrawal provision, I wrote an article in this blog (on May 22) predicting that the fallout for the party would be catastrophic.
The Democrats are repeatedly portrayed by the Republicans as being weak. I wish I could argue that the charges are part of the Republican propaganda machine, but as much as it hurts to admit it, they're right. It's a really messed up, circular dynamic. The Democrats, beaten up for years for being weak, are terrified of ever appearing weak. So, in an effort to avoid looking weak, they play into the Republicans' hands on issues and abandon their positions, thus looking (and being) weak. It's like the Democrats need to attend some kind of political version of Al-Anon.
The Democrats' dismal approval ratings can be traced back to the decision to lie down on the Iraq funding bill. According to the Los Angeles Times article, 63 percent of the respondents said that the Democrats are running Congress in a "business as usual" manner, not making the changes that they promised on their way into office. And nowhere is that lack of change felt more than on the issue of the Iraq war.
When the Democratic Congress asserted itself and passed war funding legislation with limits and troop withdrawal dates, it was following its marching orders. The Democrats were sent to Washington in November 2006 almost entirely on the Iraq war issue. Americans were tired of the war and wanted someone to stop Bush.
The Bush administration, as it always does, moved to divert the issue, accusing the Democrats of being weak and not supporting the troops. Faced with a difficult fight (with only a one-vote advantage in the Senate), the Democrats had two choices: Cave in to avoid being painted as troop haters or keep on fighting, even if it meant keeping any war funding legislation from being passed.
Here is where the messed up dynamic kicked in. If you were in the Democrats' shoes, simple logic would tell you to fight on. The American people told you to fight to end the war. And, the people calling you troop haters were the very people who dropped the troops into the middle of a five-year civil war with insufficient planning, insufficient troop levels, and insufficient supplies; instituted a back-door draft, calling National Guard and Reserve units back time and time again for extended tours; and welcomed home the troops to shoddy medical treatment facilities and insufficient benefits.
But, suffering from some odd political version of post-traumatic stress disorder, the Democrats, terrified of being painted as weak, stopped the fight and passed war funding legislation, making sure nobody could say they weren't supporting the troops. Well, they got what they wanted, as nobody is talking about the Democrats failing to support the troops. Of course, the price they paid is that the party is being painted as being weak for not continuing the fight for their proposed policies, and, even worse, doing a bad job in running Congress.
The Congressional Democrats were given one job by the American people: Stop Bush on Iraq. But, they decided not to follow through on it, and they are paying the price. You can't blame the electorate for being pissed off. After all, if you hired an employee for your business and gave him one job to do, and he didn't do it, how would you feel? You would fire that employee faster than Bush hands out no-bid contracts to Haliburton.
And that is how and why the Democrats find themselves with a 27 percent approval rating. Worse, they have made it hard for themselves to retain Congress in 2008, and handed an additional set of barriers to Democrats seeking the White House in that election. What makes the situation so outrageous is that, by all rights, the Democrats should be romping to victory in 2008. The war and other issues have left this Republican administration in ruins, and it would have taken the most basic effort of not shooting themselves in the foot for the Democrats to step in and take the reins. Unfortunately, that blast you heard was the Democrats wounding themselves by playing into Republican hands and failing to keep up the fight on Iraq. This is being called a "change" election, but there will be no change if the Democrats make the American people want to change them even more than the Republicans.
My fears expressed in my May 22 blog article are coming true before my eyes. I'm not sure if it's too late for the Democrats to salvage things, but they better get going and show some backbone if they want to try and get back in the game. To use a sports expression, they have to stop "playing scared." They have to remember their marching orders and move forward, confident in the fact that if they stick to the policies they were elected to fight for, no amount of rhetoric from the Republicans can stop them.
I am not optimistic. Bill Parcells's quote is very apt. Bush has been allowed to continue pouring money and American lives into the war, so the Democrats have failed. There are no acceptable excuses. The Democrats are who they are. At least, that is, until they're not. They can still fight back, and they can do what they were elected to do. Let's hope they get the message and become who they need to be. If they don't, it's the American people who will pay the price.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
Revival of "Jericho" Shows Power of the People
Say you want a revolution/We better get on right away/
Well you get on your feet/And out on the street
Singing 'power to the people'
- "Power to the People" by John Lennon (1971)
The most powerful people in television are not the network executives who choose the shows, the executive producers who run them, or the actors that perform in them. No, the most powerful people in television are the millions of consumers who decide to watch a show (or not to, as Aaron Sorkin can tell you). Especially the viewers in the coveted 18 to 49 age demographic.
Nothing happens without the viewing public. If people watch something, the network executives will give them more of it, and the industry flows from there. Without viewers (or the hope of attracting viewers in the future), shows (and genres, like the sitcom) go off the air. It's that simple. The viewers run the industry. There is, of course, both a positive and negative impact of the audience holding such absolute control over the content of television.
On the negative side, the reason why CNN has evolved from a serious news organization to the Celebrity News Network, tracking the exploits of the latest talentless media whores du jour (welcome to the limelight Paris Hilton; don't let the door hit you on the way out to rehab Lindsay Lohan), is that Paris and Lindsay get higher ratings than George W. Bush and Harry Reid. If people watched CNN when they ran actual news stories, CNN would run actual news stories. But, because people clamor to hear more about Lindsay Lohan passed out in her car or Britney Spears shaving her head and melting down in a tattoo shop, CNN gives the people what they want. Power to the people.
Luckily, the door of power swings both ways. When the television networks announced their schedules for the 2006-2007 season, one of the evident trends was the popularity of serialized shows that carry a storyline through an entire season, thanks to the success of hits like "Lost" and "24." Most of the serials were soon cancelled. "Heroes" became a hit, and the CBS show "Jericho," about a small town in Kansas caught in a seemingly post-apocalyptic world, was fairly successful, too.
"Jericho" premiered to strong ratings, but suffered from another trend of the 2006-2007 season, the hiatus. The network took shows like "Jericho," "Heroes" and "Lost" off the air for a long period of time, and then brought them back to finish out the season. The networks' thinking seemed pretty sound. People hate reruns, and by airing the show in two continuous blocks, reruns could be avoided. Only, what the networks found was that absence did not, in fact, make the heart grow fonder. Instead, it was more of a case of out of sight, out of mind, as the serials all took rating hits upon their returns. For "Heroes" and "Lost," the drop was disappointing, but the shows were still hits. "Jericho" was not so lucky. When it returned without a big chunk of its post-hiatus audience (falling from 10.5 million to 8.1 million viewers), CBS decided to pull the plug on the show, choosing not to renew it for the 2007-2008 season.
For most television programs, such a decision marks the end of the story. History is littered with the carcasses of critically beloved, low-rated shows with rabid fan bases ("Arrested Development" is a recent example) that are cancelled and never heard from again. But in the case of "Jericho," the fans did not take the cancellation decision lying down, following John Lennon's call to arms and asserting the power of the people. Taking a cue from an expression of one of the characters on the show, fans inundated the network with peanuts. Yes, the fans sent peanuts through the U.S. Mail to CBS, 20 tons of them according to USA Today. As a result, according to a Yahoo!/AP article, the network picked up the show for a short seven-episode run next year, with the chance to return for a full run the following season if the level of viewership warrants it.
That's they key: While the peanut-sending "Jericho" fans succeeded in showing enough people power to accomplish something rarely done, getting a network to reverse its cancellation of a show, the power only extends so far. In the end, the larger body of viewers has to watch the show, or no amount of nuts or other food products will save "Jericho" again. As CBS Entertainment President Nina Tassler said in the Yahoo!/AP article, "You got our attention; your emails and collective voice have been heard ... But, for there to be more 'Jericho,' we will need more viewers."
I've only seen "Jericho" once. Aside from "Heroes," I'm not a fan of the serials. I watched an episode of "Lost" once and found it to be exceptionally well-written and well-acted, but I was put off by the level of commitment needed to keep up with the characters and storylines. While "Jericho" was far less confusing than "Lost," I still wasn't sucked in enough to make the time investment necessary to be a fan. But I was thrilled to read of CBS's decision to pick up the show for next year. "Jericho" is obviously a quality show, worthy of a slot on the schedule, certainly more than the 17 variations on reality series with the theme "So You Think You Can [Fill in the Blank]" (or the celebrity versions thereof).
Even more importantly, it's nice to see a network realize that the power of the people doesn't always reside in the statistically-questionable Nielsen ratings, and that power can be asserted through the organization and passion of a smaller group of fans. I'll be rooting for "Jericho" to attract an audience that meets or exceeds the 10.5 million it originally attracted, if for no other reason than to inspire more displays of people power when good shows are canceled in the future. Of course, as Tassler noted, the effort will be for naught if the numbers for "Jericho" slip into the single-digit millions. The power of the people only extends so far, limited only by the power of the Nielsens.
Well you get on your feet/And out on the street
Singing 'power to the people'
- "Power to the People" by John Lennon (1971)
The most powerful people in television are not the network executives who choose the shows, the executive producers who run them, or the actors that perform in them. No, the most powerful people in television are the millions of consumers who decide to watch a show (or not to, as Aaron Sorkin can tell you). Especially the viewers in the coveted 18 to 49 age demographic.
Nothing happens without the viewing public. If people watch something, the network executives will give them more of it, and the industry flows from there. Without viewers (or the hope of attracting viewers in the future), shows (and genres, like the sitcom) go off the air. It's that simple. The viewers run the industry. There is, of course, both a positive and negative impact of the audience holding such absolute control over the content of television.
On the negative side, the reason why CNN has evolved from a serious news organization to the Celebrity News Network, tracking the exploits of the latest talentless media whores du jour (welcome to the limelight Paris Hilton; don't let the door hit you on the way out to rehab Lindsay Lohan), is that Paris and Lindsay get higher ratings than George W. Bush and Harry Reid. If people watched CNN when they ran actual news stories, CNN would run actual news stories. But, because people clamor to hear more about Lindsay Lohan passed out in her car or Britney Spears shaving her head and melting down in a tattoo shop, CNN gives the people what they want. Power to the people.
Luckily, the door of power swings both ways. When the television networks announced their schedules for the 2006-2007 season, one of the evident trends was the popularity of serialized shows that carry a storyline through an entire season, thanks to the success of hits like "Lost" and "24." Most of the serials were soon cancelled. "Heroes" became a hit, and the CBS show "Jericho," about a small town in Kansas caught in a seemingly post-apocalyptic world, was fairly successful, too.
"Jericho" premiered to strong ratings, but suffered from another trend of the 2006-2007 season, the hiatus. The network took shows like "Jericho," "Heroes" and "Lost" off the air for a long period of time, and then brought them back to finish out the season. The networks' thinking seemed pretty sound. People hate reruns, and by airing the show in two continuous blocks, reruns could be avoided. Only, what the networks found was that absence did not, in fact, make the heart grow fonder. Instead, it was more of a case of out of sight, out of mind, as the serials all took rating hits upon their returns. For "Heroes" and "Lost," the drop was disappointing, but the shows were still hits. "Jericho" was not so lucky. When it returned without a big chunk of its post-hiatus audience (falling from 10.5 million to 8.1 million viewers), CBS decided to pull the plug on the show, choosing not to renew it for the 2007-2008 season.
For most television programs, such a decision marks the end of the story. History is littered with the carcasses of critically beloved, low-rated shows with rabid fan bases ("Arrested Development" is a recent example) that are cancelled and never heard from again. But in the case of "Jericho," the fans did not take the cancellation decision lying down, following John Lennon's call to arms and asserting the power of the people. Taking a cue from an expression of one of the characters on the show, fans inundated the network with peanuts. Yes, the fans sent peanuts through the U.S. Mail to CBS, 20 tons of them according to USA Today. As a result, according to a Yahoo!/AP article, the network picked up the show for a short seven-episode run next year, with the chance to return for a full run the following season if the level of viewership warrants it.
That's they key: While the peanut-sending "Jericho" fans succeeded in showing enough people power to accomplish something rarely done, getting a network to reverse its cancellation of a show, the power only extends so far. In the end, the larger body of viewers has to watch the show, or no amount of nuts or other food products will save "Jericho" again. As CBS Entertainment President Nina Tassler said in the Yahoo!/AP article, "You got our attention; your emails and collective voice have been heard ... But, for there to be more 'Jericho,' we will need more viewers."
I've only seen "Jericho" once. Aside from "Heroes," I'm not a fan of the serials. I watched an episode of "Lost" once and found it to be exceptionally well-written and well-acted, but I was put off by the level of commitment needed to keep up with the characters and storylines. While "Jericho" was far less confusing than "Lost," I still wasn't sucked in enough to make the time investment necessary to be a fan. But I was thrilled to read of CBS's decision to pick up the show for next year. "Jericho" is obviously a quality show, worthy of a slot on the schedule, certainly more than the 17 variations on reality series with the theme "So You Think You Can [Fill in the Blank]" (or the celebrity versions thereof).
Even more importantly, it's nice to see a network realize that the power of the people doesn't always reside in the statistically-questionable Nielsen ratings, and that power can be asserted through the organization and passion of a smaller group of fans. I'll be rooting for "Jericho" to attract an audience that meets or exceeds the 10.5 million it originally attracted, if for no other reason than to inspire more displays of people power when good shows are canceled in the future. Of course, as Tassler noted, the effort will be for naught if the numbers for "Jericho" slip into the single-digit millions. The power of the people only extends so far, limited only by the power of the Nielsens.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Bush Needs to Remember He Is President, Not Pastor
Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state'...is absolutely essential in a free society.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1808
Religion has a way of taking over debates in this country and clouding the central issues. According to the First Amendment and an array of U.S. Supreme Court opinions, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. While that theory might be applied in explicit incidents involving prayer or religious symbols, religion is at the heart of numerous policy decisions made by the Bush administration.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) sent out an email on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee today in which he urged people to oppose President George W. Bush's threatened veto of a bill that would lift Bush's restrictions on stem cell research. The proposal has passed in the U.S. Senate and, according to Schumer's email, will pass the U.S. House of Representatives this week.
There will be lots of rhetoric from the Bush administration as to why this is bad legislation, but at its core, the issue is really quite simply the placing of his religious beliefs ahead of the good of the country. While no medical research path is guaranteed to produce results down the line, there is close to uniform agreement that stem cell research could potentially lead to treatments for conditions ranging from Alzheimer's to multiple sclerosis and paralysis. The American Medical Association has supported stem cell research, including the cloning of stem cells for research and treatment purposes. So, there is no objective reason to oppose the proposed legislation. Unless, of course, your religious beliefs tell you that stem cell research is wrong.
What's happening is that the religious views of a vast minority of Americans are holding up a promising course of medical research. (According to the Schumer email, surveys show that two-thirds to three-quarters of Americans support stem cell research.) Or, more accurately, the religious views of one man, the President of the United States, are dictating policy to the country in violation of the beliefs of a vast majority of the citizens. Remember, the limits on the federal funding of stem cell research targeted by the legislation Schumer was writing about were not enacted by Congress, but instead resulted from a Bush executive order. In a society with a barrier between church and state, the religious beliefs of one man standing in the way of potential medical breakthroughs is appalling.
The notion of a President imposing his personal religious beliefs on the country is not a good precedent to set. What's next? A Jewish or Muslim chief executive banning ham and bacon because it's not kosher or halal? Bush's actions on stem cell research are no less ridiculous, but far more damaging.
Any doubt that the country, by and large, disagrees with his stem cell stance can be seen as states scramble to fund their own stem cell research programs, trying to fill in the gap left by the federal government. But that very fact shows the failing of the Bush administration. On important problems, we are supposed to look to the federal government to lead the way, not to throw up roadblocks for states to maneuver around.
Bush has injected his right-wing religious beliefs into virtually everything he has done as President, from making policy to appointing judges and government officials. (As I wrote about in an April 16 blog article about competency in government, 150 graduates of Pat Robertson's university, ranked in the bottom quartile by U.S. News and World Report, work in the U.S. government.) And, Bush is still going strong. Today, a Yahoo!/AP article related that Dr. James Holsinger, Bush's nominee to be Surgeon General, the highest-ranking medical official in the government, has some disturbing views on homosexuality. According to the article, Dr. Holsinger wrote in 1991 that homosexual sex is unnatural and unhealthy, and that he helped found a Methodist congregation that believes that homosexuality is a choice that can be cured. Not surprisingly, in addition to being a medical doctor, Dr. Holsinger holds a master's degree from the Asbury Theological Seminary.
Just as someone can believe that stem cell research is wrong, Dr. Holsinger has the right to hold any beliefs on the nature of homosexuality that he desires (no matter how disgusting, narrow-minded, self-righteous, and illogical someone like, say, me, might find those views to be). But, we're not talking about Dr. Holsinger's private beliefs. Dr. Hoslinger has been nominated to serve the American people as Surgeon General. And, like with the stem cell issue, his religious beliefs clash with reality. While Dr. Holsinger might believe that homosexuals can be "cured," the American Medical Association believes the exact opposite, stating in its Official Statement Concerning Homosexuality that it "opposes, the use of 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation."
These two recent news stories illustrate Bush's continuing insistence on forcing his religious beliefs on the country. For the minority of Americans that agree with him, they are being well-served. But, for the vast majority of U.S. voters who disagree with the President's policies, it is important for them to keep in mind this increasing trend of religion in government. At a recent debate, three of the ten Republican Presidential candidates declared that they did not believe in evolution. Americans need to stand up and say, "If religion clouds your judgment to the point that you turn your back on objective facts and conclusions in favor of dogged faith in unprovable beliefs, you are not fit to lead this country." A country, again, with a constitutional directive separating church and state.
It's time for U.S. voters to stand up and demand that its leaders act based on the evidence in front of them and the desires of the electorate, not the religious dogmas that they subscribe to. The Bush administration says they are fighting Islamist extremists in the war on terror. It's time for Americans to fight religious extremists in this country who are carrying out a war on common sense.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1808
Religion has a way of taking over debates in this country and clouding the central issues. According to the First Amendment and an array of U.S. Supreme Court opinions, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. While that theory might be applied in explicit incidents involving prayer or religious symbols, religion is at the heart of numerous policy decisions made by the Bush administration.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) sent out an email on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee today in which he urged people to oppose President George W. Bush's threatened veto of a bill that would lift Bush's restrictions on stem cell research. The proposal has passed in the U.S. Senate and, according to Schumer's email, will pass the U.S. House of Representatives this week.
There will be lots of rhetoric from the Bush administration as to why this is bad legislation, but at its core, the issue is really quite simply the placing of his religious beliefs ahead of the good of the country. While no medical research path is guaranteed to produce results down the line, there is close to uniform agreement that stem cell research could potentially lead to treatments for conditions ranging from Alzheimer's to multiple sclerosis and paralysis. The American Medical Association has supported stem cell research, including the cloning of stem cells for research and treatment purposes. So, there is no objective reason to oppose the proposed legislation. Unless, of course, your religious beliefs tell you that stem cell research is wrong.
What's happening is that the religious views of a vast minority of Americans are holding up a promising course of medical research. (According to the Schumer email, surveys show that two-thirds to three-quarters of Americans support stem cell research.) Or, more accurately, the religious views of one man, the President of the United States, are dictating policy to the country in violation of the beliefs of a vast majority of the citizens. Remember, the limits on the federal funding of stem cell research targeted by the legislation Schumer was writing about were not enacted by Congress, but instead resulted from a Bush executive order. In a society with a barrier between church and state, the religious beliefs of one man standing in the way of potential medical breakthroughs is appalling.
The notion of a President imposing his personal religious beliefs on the country is not a good precedent to set. What's next? A Jewish or Muslim chief executive banning ham and bacon because it's not kosher or halal? Bush's actions on stem cell research are no less ridiculous, but far more damaging.
Any doubt that the country, by and large, disagrees with his stem cell stance can be seen as states scramble to fund their own stem cell research programs, trying to fill in the gap left by the federal government. But that very fact shows the failing of the Bush administration. On important problems, we are supposed to look to the federal government to lead the way, not to throw up roadblocks for states to maneuver around.
Bush has injected his right-wing religious beliefs into virtually everything he has done as President, from making policy to appointing judges and government officials. (As I wrote about in an April 16 blog article about competency in government, 150 graduates of Pat Robertson's university, ranked in the bottom quartile by U.S. News and World Report, work in the U.S. government.) And, Bush is still going strong. Today, a Yahoo!/AP article related that Dr. James Holsinger, Bush's nominee to be Surgeon General, the highest-ranking medical official in the government, has some disturbing views on homosexuality. According to the article, Dr. Holsinger wrote in 1991 that homosexual sex is unnatural and unhealthy, and that he helped found a Methodist congregation that believes that homosexuality is a choice that can be cured. Not surprisingly, in addition to being a medical doctor, Dr. Holsinger holds a master's degree from the Asbury Theological Seminary.
Just as someone can believe that stem cell research is wrong, Dr. Holsinger has the right to hold any beliefs on the nature of homosexuality that he desires (no matter how disgusting, narrow-minded, self-righteous, and illogical someone like, say, me, might find those views to be). But, we're not talking about Dr. Holsinger's private beliefs. Dr. Hoslinger has been nominated to serve the American people as Surgeon General. And, like with the stem cell issue, his religious beliefs clash with reality. While Dr. Holsinger might believe that homosexuals can be "cured," the American Medical Association believes the exact opposite, stating in its Official Statement Concerning Homosexuality that it "opposes, the use of 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation."
These two recent news stories illustrate Bush's continuing insistence on forcing his religious beliefs on the country. For the minority of Americans that agree with him, they are being well-served. But, for the vast majority of U.S. voters who disagree with the President's policies, it is important for them to keep in mind this increasing trend of religion in government. At a recent debate, three of the ten Republican Presidential candidates declared that they did not believe in evolution. Americans need to stand up and say, "If religion clouds your judgment to the point that you turn your back on objective facts and conclusions in favor of dogged faith in unprovable beliefs, you are not fit to lead this country." A country, again, with a constitutional directive separating church and state.
It's time for U.S. voters to stand up and demand that its leaders act based on the evidence in front of them and the desires of the electorate, not the religious dogmas that they subscribe to. The Bush administration says they are fighting Islamist extremists in the war on terror. It's time for Americans to fight religious extremists in this country who are carrying out a war on common sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
