Jack’s Blog

Politics in America today have turned into theater, which may be appealing to the performers but does little for many of us who would like to hear what they think of the real issues and how they plan on improving the country.  So, representing this brand of individual is none other than yours truly.  Here are the (my) rules:

1) The moderator is equipped with a taser to be used as soon as one candidate a) so much as mentions the other’s name, b) refers to what my opponent’s plan is or will be and c) talks over the other, out of turn.  In other words, tell Americans about you and what electing you would mean to us.  Note: If a taser is deemed to be overly excessive, the rule shall be amended, to, rather than tase the offender, mute his/her microphone.

2) Each candidate will be allowed to bring a special adviser, whomever he or she considers an expert on the subject being discussed and whose views reflect those of the candidate.  These advisers will or will not necessarily be a current or potential Cabinet member.  The reason for this rule is simple.  The job of president is entirely too difficult for one person to do by him or herself.  The candidate will answer the question but will be allowed to confer with his or her adviser before doing so.

The nation, if not the world, has become one of specialists.  No one ought to be expected to know everything.  It is now commonplace for an honest gaffe to be recorded and YouTubed forever.  A candidate may has changed his or her opinion from years ago, yet the former version is still out there for anyone and everyone to see, hear, email, text or tweet.  Everyone’s job - especially the POTUS - is infinitely more difficult since the invention of the Internet.

3)  There should be a gallery of people who have used dishonest methods in the past to attain personal fame, power or fortune.  Should candidates find it necessary to use any such person in their campaign, it should be duly noted and the candidate should disclose his or her reason for wanting to be associated with such an individual.  This is not negative campaigning as the agenda of each of these people has been exposed and we should see them for what they are - people who will win at any cost.  There shouldn’t be any room for such people in politics.  Examples are Michael Moore, Karl Rove and hundreds of others - on both sides.

4) Each candidate must explain how he or she plans to work with members of the opposing party.  Once again, there is to be no speaking over the opponent.  In this one case there will be an exception and each candidate will have a limited amount of time (two minutes?) to explain why his or her opponent’s “across-the-aisle” techniques won’t succeed but there needs to be evidence why the methods won’t work .

Why, you might ask, would I, someone who admittedly knows next-to-nothing about politics - and cares just a smidgen less - would decide to come up with something like the above?  The recent negativity in campaigning is, or at least out to be, embarrassing to all Americans - and outlawed.  Plus, it’s hard to blog on something every day!  Seriously, if selecting a leader is vital - and it is - how important is picking someone to lead the country for the next four years?  Seemingly, the overwhelming majority of our citizens aren’t happy with the direction our nation is headed in so many areas - educationally, economically, taking care of our seniors, younger folks being able to take care of themselves, the use of our military, . . .  whatever!   We have a chance to improve it but only if we change our attitudes.

As best selling author John Maxwell says:

“It’s not our conditions that determine our choices; it’s our choices that determine our conditions.”

Bill O’Reilly, on his way out of the country, took the time last night to speak out (on his own show) on a subject that is becoming all too familiar in our country: a political leader with the morals of a sewer rat.

O’Reilly, host of the #1 cable news show for the last 8 years (I’m not sure that O’Reilly doesn’t think the 8 ought to be on its side), was incensed that those from the left are, in his words, “celebrating” the downfall of South Carolina governor (for the time being), Mark Sanford.  This, from a person who, if he disagrees with you, calls you a “pinhead” on national television.  O’Reilly mentioned something to the fact that when former governor John Edwards fell off the fidelity wagon, conservatives may have criticized him, but none of them celebrated his indiscretion.  I was curious as to why BOR didn’t bring up that Monica girl and the guy who was president at that time and replay video footage of the comments made by him and his other fair and balanced colleagues.  Possibly he had put it behind him.

In what I initially thought was a moment of comic relief, he brought on one of the nation’s most kind-hearted human beings, a veritable saint, with a warmth toward his fellow man that few, if any other, member of this, or any other society, possesses.  Naturally, I’m speaking of Karl Rove.  In acknowledging Rove, O’Reilly said, “You’ve been (referred to) as a hatchet man by people who don’t like you.”  Now, how could someone not like an honest, above-board gentleman who, in an effort to help his man win an election, broke into the office of the competitor so he (Rove) could steal letterhead and then print up flyers, inviting people, i.e. voters to a (fictitious) party offering free drugs and prostitutes? A note of clarity: the actual word “prostitute” may not have been used - I mean, what kind of guy would do something so despicable - but there was no way anyone could not have understood the gist of the mesage.  Guess what?  His man won!  Good campaigning. 

O’Reilly went on with his introduction of this bastion of integrity (Rove) with what might be in the running for understatement of the year, “Politics is a rough business - you do what you’ve got to do to get your guy in.”  I can’t remember much after hearing that.  I was even less interested in hearing what Karl (with a K, like Marx) had to say. 

Then, Bernard Goldberg came on and admitted that he “used to be on that side.”  By that side, I think he meant both “left” and “wrong.”  He sounded extremely sure of his views, probably like he did when he was on “that side.”  Could Bernie have another change of heart some time in the near future and head back over?  He’ll say no way, just as he would have if he were asked oh so many years ago, but if the right numbers were proposed for a book deal, . . . well, everyone has his price.

One man who was on the receiving end of Goldberg’s wrath was Paul Begala, Democratic strategist (see one of my earliest blogs, 4/22/07 for a sensational perspective - mine - on political strategists) and member of the fivehead club - as in most people have a forehead, but Paul goes us all one better.  There was a film clip of Begala ranting over the apparent brain freeze of Sanford.  Yet, he, too, never mentioned Monica what’s-her-name.  Do all these guys suffer from selective memory?

John Savage, a name mentioned often on this website, was a brilliant man.  I learned more from him during the seven years I was honored to know him, than I did from 99% of others I’ve met (using a conservative estimate) throughout the years.  John used to speak to hundreds of insurance salespeople (his actual vocation) or to similar numbers when he was hired as an inspirational speaker.  His style was basic, down-to-earth (what all of us could only wish was) common sense.  

Occasionally, during a presentation, John would say, “You guys out there who are running around on your wives - you’re all frauds!”  This caught everyone’s attention mainly because it was so unlike John’s personality.  Then, once he had everyone’s attention (statements like that tend to earn the audience’s total focus), he’d wryly say, “And if you disagree with me, I’d be happy to debate it with you on local TV - in your hometown.”

This always brought a laugh, with some (usually those wiping their faces and necks) a tad more nervous than others, but it managed to get his point across.  John, who died in February of 1993, used to say a good motto was, “One wife, no girlfriends.”  Like I said, common sense. 

Lost in all of this sniping is the fact that a governor, for an extended period of time, was derelict in his duty, having left his office (not to mention his mind) and told no one where he was.  Hey, buddy, you’re in charge, and have the final say of, what happens in your state.  There are only 50 of your type in this nation and it’s a job that carries with it an extremely high degree of responsibility.  (And to think there were times people would say women couldn’t govern because of their inability to think straight when they were menstruating).  Come to think of it, wasn’t Sanford gone for about 4-5 days?

The knee jerk reaction of nearly all of these talk show hosts (because their livelihood is driven, not by what’s right or wrong, but by ratings), is to circle the wagons if the mistake is made “by one of ours” or attack, attack, attack if the blunder is made by someone on the other side.  How about discussing the right thing to do and what effect the mistake could have on the country?

Doesn’t this sound familiar?  Today, the “right” is absolutely tearing apart the current administration and how every decision that’s being made and every act that’s taken is heading the country into complete ruin.  But, where things so great before this administration took over - what - six months ago?  The country was going to hell in a hand basket when the “right” party was in power (according to the left).  Now that the worm’s turned, it’s the Republicans’ opportunity to complain.

The lesson to be learned is this: it’s far better to be the party out of power - because then, you can criticize and be as loud as you want.  The other side has to justify what they’re doing.  Many Americans will be on your side - those without jobs, houses and portfolios that are worth half of what they were.

This country has completely lost its sense of what it means to be a member of a team.  The motto has changed from, “There’s no I in team,” to “Yeah, but there’s a me in it.”  If only solving our unity problem was as easy as explaining the Sanford, Edwards, Spitzer, Clinton, (add in your favorite).  Those actions are easily explained by one of the best and brightest -Robin Williams - who observed:

“God gave man two heads, but only enough blood to operate one at a time.”  Â

Although I’m not sure who it was who thought up the idea of talk radio and television, there ought to be a statue of whoever it was in the backyard of every successful pundit’s mansion.

Why?  Because the premise was: be marginally (or completely) outrageous, stir up the emotions in your listeners (your “kind” - e.g. liberal or conservative will gravitite to whichever you are) and stimulate lively chatter.  I was going to say “debate” but it’s usually not debate at all.  It’s one side preaching to its choir, while the other side does the same to its own clones.  And it’s worked beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.

The problem that has stemmed from it is this: all of this rhetoric is based on which side can WIN!  Except the question is: Win What?  Which side can be more flip and embarrass the other more?  It’s great entertainment (depending on which side you’re on and whether you’re listening to your “friends” or your “enemies”).  You can have a barrel of laughs at the other side’s expense or have your blood pressure skyrocket hearing the fanatics blather on using “facts” they pretty much they manufactured (as did your side, but that’s OK because it’s proving your case).

There are two topics that, I don’t believe, have been brought up (other than in a few of my previous blogs: 4/22/07, 6/30/08, 9/27/08 - this is a subject that hits my “hot button”).  One is that , while, initially this was brought up to add interesting discussion on radio and TV, it has blossomed into the anti-team motto: “What’s Right Is More Important Than Who’s Right.“  Every successful group, team, club, organization, company has at its core this fundamental belief.  Because of our attachment to these shows (and their hosts), we have lost the team concept that made America so great.

What these shows have done is violate Stephen Covey’s Fifth Habit of Highly Successful People - Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood.  If you’ve ever listened to one of these shows, especially if opposing sides are represented, all one side does, is to find a hole in their opponent (right there, we have pitted members of the same team - the United States of America - against each other) and wait … until they hear whatever tidbit they’ve been waiting to pounce on and, rather than listening all the way through, they interrupt (displaying what’s become a great American trait) and if their counterpart won’t stop talking, it turns into a shouting match to see which individual can yell over the other, thinking that whoever finishes the thought is declared the winner.

That has not - ever - been the case.  People who believed what they believed prior to the high decibel debate will still cling to their original belief.  In other words, what started out as good audio or visual entertainment, has polarized the nation - and, this is me being a realist more than a pessimist (although I hope I’m wrong) but I don’t believe we’ll ever be the same country we once were (at least when it comes to teamwork).

Right now, since the Democrats (liberals) are in power, the Republicans (conservatives) simply lie in wait for something - anything - to happen, whether it’s  a new policy, idea or proposal (independent of if, deep down, they think it’s great for the country) or some misstep, flub, or semi-controversial comment made by their opponent (which is how we look at those who disagree with us).  When that inevitably happens, it’s “OK, what’s wrong with it, how can we exploit it, twist it, repeat it thousands of times (even though it was only said once), to make us look good and, more importantly, them look foolish?

Should someone in the liberal camp be reading this and thinking, “Yeah, those bastards, that’s exactly what they do,” don’t be so righteous.  When the roles were reversed, the actions were identically reversed as well.  

The reason for the “statue” comment at the beginning of the blog is that many of the debates between the two fanatical groups deal with the financial well being of the citizens of the country: is the (upper) middle (working) class, because of their strong work ethic, getting wrongfully punished and therefore are expected to do more for those unfortunate or should the lower class (even though, many are good people who’ve been hit hard by the economy, lost their jobs and homes, and, basically, have next to nothing) start earning their keep, by pounding the pavement and pull themselves up by their bootstraps - similar to the rest of the country (other than those who form the “Lucky Sperm Club,” entrance of which is mandated by choosing one’s parents correctly)?

The ironic part of this entire dialogue is that every host, regardless of which side they’re on, have one trait in common: every last one of them is filthy, stinking rich as all get out.  Yeah, they have their charities and foundations, but so do Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony, Mark McGwire and the rest of the overpaid athletes (also entertainers).  And while those philanthropic (aka tax write-offs) are truly terrific gestures, don’t think for a minute that the “heads” of those foundations weren’t taken care of first - and in an extremely comfortable first class manner - before a dime was given away. 

Oh, to be a fly on the wall when some of these radical thinkers and screamers - on opposing sides - get together.  As pompous and egomaniacal as every last one of them - be it Rush Limbaugh, Jesse Jackson, Sean Hannity, Anderson Cooper, Karl Rove or even “fair and balanced” Bill O’Reilly, a dollar to a nickel says there are at least some, “Is this a great country or what!” exclamations echoed throughout their little inner sanctorum.

Maybe it’s impossible, but what would be nice would be to have a television (or radio) show about people like us (call us the middle class) hosted by people like us.  And if the show topped the ratings, the hosts got no raises.  The money would go to those who deserved it.  Who?  That’s another verbal battle for another day.

Why are these “gonifs” (thieves) as my grandfather used to call them doing so well?  As a speaker I once heard (I believe it was Danny Cox of Orange County, CA) say, when asked if it was really possible to create emotion: 

“Did you ever go to a movie and laugh?  Ever go to one and cry?  Do you think it’s something they put in the seats?”

After President Obama spoke, I watched the “post-game” analysis on both CNN and FOX.  Whether it was Larry King, Anderson Cooper, David Gergens or Paul Begala (CNN) or Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove or Dick Morris (FOX), how either of those two stations refuse to admit they have a predetermined, personal bias when any politician, but especially the president, speaks, is not giving the American people enough credit for possessing even one collective brain among us.

Larry King has paid his dues in longevity if nothing else, so he’s got a pass to be open with his political beliefs because he’s been on the air since he covered - live - the Gettysburg Address.  I have to admit I am an ardent admirer of his, if for no other reason than his Rolodex.  He is to getting guests on The Larry King Show what, on a much lesser level, Jerry Tarkanian is to getting guests on his radio show.  I’m sure there were some people who refused to go on with him (I remember Larry discussing the regrets he had regarding people whom he never got to interview - and I know it wasn’t because his people didn’t make an attempt) but that list is a mighty short one.  Same with Tark and coaches.  Each guy has his flaws, but I admire the heck out of both.

As for Cooper, Gergan and Begala, Larry King is making them into household names - outside of their own households.  It’s understandable that each has a belief regarding how the government should function, but they shouldn’t even try to come off as even handed in their comments.  It was overly apparent they began listening to the president last night, waiting for something they could praise.

On the other side, Hannity makes no bones about which side he’s on (according to him, the right side - waaaaaaay right), but, in O’Reilly’s case, he made a point of asking each of his guests (from the left) if they thought his show was presented in a fair manner.  Certainly, it was fair to have both sides represented, but was his assessment and view fair?  Hardly, and it never is - because, when it comes down to it, he’s a conservative.  It’s not a vulgar word, just a descriptive one.  When he listened to the president speak, it was with as jaundiced an ear as the CNN guys did, only he was waiting for something he could pounce on and tear to shreds.  When it comes to political beliefs, he feels all men are created equal, just that some are more equal than others (just like the person he has on frequently, the one God ruined making a perfect asshole by giving her teeth, Ann Coulter).  The amazing thing about both Hannity and O’Reilly (and Coulter) is they do their shows indoors.  Whoever constructed those studios need to be applauded.  How anyone could build something enclosed that would be able to house the egos of those three is remarkable.  But I’d better be careful what I say - O’Reilly will call me a pinhead (since I’m Jewish, I already know, from her appearance on Donnie Deutsch’s The Big Idea, that Coulter sees me as imperfect - and if she’s perfect, I want to be as far from perfect as I can be.  Besides, I have a similar name for those two, but the first part isn’t “pin.”

Rove and Morris are what they are - and both are articulate and well read on the subjects they discuss, Rove having a rather shaky past, but if someone didn’t know, they’d have to find his analysis extremely enlightening.

Speaking of backgrounds - or other flaws in character - it’s almost comical the way each side presents its case for whatever issue is the topic of the day.  The first four men mentioned will constantly refer to President Obama inheriting this mess. to which O’Reilly retorted, “Yeah, but he didn’t inherit AIG.”

When President Bush was in the Oval Office, few people heard O’Reilly saying anything derogatory of the way the economy was handled.  Now, that the worm has turned, it’s time to deflect criticism where it belonged - the absolutely irresponsible job the Bush administration did handling the budget to the absolutely irresponsible job the Obama administration has done with the AIG fiasco.  So it’s not about who is screwing up the country (worse), it’s about placing blame.  And, most of all, … being right.

One note of interest to anyone else who watched both networks.  CNN kept heaping praise on “our own Ed Henry” who asked the president why he waited so long to make a public statement about the AIG mess.  I didn’t think anyone could speak so highly about someone asking a question that, visibly pissed off a guy who few have ever seen ruffled.  That is, until I saw Ed Henry being interviewed and saw how much adulation he had for himself. 

Although CNN made that question out to be the sharpest and most direct asked of a president since Dan Rather asked his famous, “No, sir, are you?” to Richard Nixon, when Nixon asked Rather if he were running for something (public office).  Funny, but that question was never even brought up, never mentioned, on FOX.  Maybe they didn’t hear it.  Or maybe, by acknowledging the “other” station asked it, they would be giving credibility to CNN - and we know that can’t happen, because there’s only room for one “Big Man” (station) on TV. 

Regarding King, Cooper, Hannity or O’Reilly, it’s all about ratings.  Every one of these gentlemen talk about the plight of “Average Joe” and how, whoever’s in power isn’t looking out for us - like those four and the rest of us middle class Americans are getting shafted.  These guys are so far out of our league, if we ever stopped and thought about it, they are nothing more than entertainers.  And high priced entertainers at that.  I wonder if anybody thinks even one of those guys - and now I’m including all eight, and probably every other “regular” on those shows - received a stimulus check last year.

None of the people who are on those shows a number of times as a contributor, has filled out the short form in quite a while.  To them, it’s a game, a ruse, if you will, to inform the public, but mainly to outdo the other guys’ shows so that their ratings are higher, meaning they influence more people than their competitors (and don’t think that they don’t look at their colleagues’ numbers, those who inhabit the same side politically).  It’s a metter of money, fame, ratings, power and ego.

Who’s the winner?  I’m not sure but I can tell you who the loser is - and it’s the guy typing this blog and the people who are kind enough to read it.  It’s been said there’s no “I” in “TEAM.”  True, but there is “ME.”  That’s why the cheer has become:

“T-E-A-M, Goooooo ME!”    Â

This country is in such bad shape now that, unless a newly elected president got up and stuttered and stammered through his speech, it would have to brighten the mood of the people.  The speech is always interesting, but for most Americans, present blogger included, what is usually of greater benefit is listening to the “experts” afterward.

Naturally, partisanship must be factored in, whether it be in the polls that follow or the guests who do.  The polls after a president’s speech are skewed, so we are told, along his party’s line because the only people who are polled are those who actually listen to the speech and, of those who listen, the majority are from the same party as the speaker.  So, it’s no surprise that the “those who approve” category was in the upper 60’s to mid 70’s (in terms of percent).

After hearing those results, it was time to listen to the other “pols” and representatives (whether they be talk radio or television hosts, columnists or others with a predetermined agenda - for either side).  The Obama supporters were giddy, listening to their summation of the speech while the anti-Obama’s will acknowledge the fact that the president is a good speaker (mainly because if they didn’t, no one would ever take them seriously again), but then got into the “pork” and the bigger government and other items of note they picked out which they claimed had been tried and failed in previous administrations.

The one person, of all those “interpreters,” for lack of a better term, I listened to following the speech (and that number was probably between 15-20) who showed the greatest amount of balanced opinion was none other than the president’s biggest (former) rival, John McCain.

I don’t pretend to be able to read minds, especially not one as savvy as Senator McCain’s - with all the experience he’s had and all the adversity he’s gone through (how’s that for an understatement), but one possible reason for his evenhandedness might be that he is the one person in the nation listening tonight who could have had the thought running through his mind, “There, but for the grace of a number of voters, go I.“  This thought process may have influenced his evaluation of what was said, keeping in mind that if the speaker actually had been him, he’d have hoped for an objective breakdown of the points he’d have covered. 

I saw Senator McCain on Larry King, during an interview in which The King asked him about most of the critical topics that were mentioned.  The Senator listened, as Stephen Covey advises, with the intent of understanding and replying to the question (as opposed to circumventing it to throw in a pointed criticism or an idea of his he thought would sound better to the American public), and on many issues he agreed with the president.  On others he agreed in principle but not in the actual practice (e.g. how Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was shut down) and on still others, he voiced his disagreement, but in a civil, logical and response.  That, among other traits, is what separates him from the over-the-top commentators and individuals with private agendas, wise as they may be, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Nancy Pelosi and Jesse Jackson (undoubtedly the first time those five names were mentioned in the same sentence).

Regarding Bernard Baruch’s line, I don’t think President Obama has to worry, but I think Senator McCain showed he doesn’t either.  That line was:

“A political leader must keep looking over his shoulder all the time to see if the people are still there.  If they aren’t still there, he’s no longer a political leader.”

I’ll be checking into the Stanford Pain Clinic for a couple days, so please enjoy some of the early archived blogs in my absence (I’ve done nearly 500 since the beginning of April, 2007).  Look to the right side of the blog and see month and date.  For the earliest posts, i.e. April, ‘07-July, ‘07, click on August ‘07 and scroll down.  You may even have to click on “Previous Entries” to get to the originals.  For the others, just click on the appropriate month and year. 

You’ll also see links for ads above the blogs which are a brand new addition to my site. 

The chronic pain I’ve experienced is something I hope none of you ever have to go through, but I also fully realize there are so many more people out there whose pain, or whose family member’s pain, is much greater than mine.  It’s that time of year to be thankful. 

That said, this past weekend, especially yesterday (Sunday), I spent most of the day in bed (because the pain is less there).  When I wasn’t sleeping (got up at 1:00 pm, then back to bed for a two-and-a-half hour nap at 3:30 pm), I was either correcting math tests or - and no one who knows me will ever believe this - I was watching CNN or Fox News, as opposed to the NFL.  The reason for this choice is a first in six decades for me, but the fascination of the recently completed presidential campaigns, the state of the union and whom President-Elect Obama is going to pick as his “team” to assist him in fixing an ailing country vs. “just another week” of pro football had me glued to the political scene.  Kind of like the days leading up to the draft.

Later on, I found out that the Tennessee Titans lost their first game of the year and Peyton Manning led a last minute drive to turn a tie with the hard luck San Diego Chargers into a Colts’ win, neither of which was shocking to me.  I never thought I’d hear myself saying it but the political arena is actually more exciting than the athletic one right now.  Maybe it’s because of my age and the fact I have a lot more riding on the events in the political world than I ever did on the NFL.  Based on my past, this will surely change, but for now, with the mess the US is in, and it being such a historic time, the decisions that are made will either begin a healing process (especially if the right wing zealots at least give the new administration a chance, instead of searching for things to complain about or fault finding/creating irrelevant dirt from the past, i.e. “Karl Roving”) or the distance between us in this nation will widen even further.

It would be wise for the United States (as a team), although maybe not for certain individuals or parties, to pull together (see the top of most team sport standings), rather than bicker among ourselves or act a devisively (see the teams at the bottom of the standings).  Since the other factor that separates good teams from bad ones is talent and we have an overwhelming abundance of that ingredient in this country, it would be interesting to see what would happen if we were to work together.  As John F. Kennedy said:

“The basis of effective government is public confidence.” Â

Sean Hannity is blaming the current stock market woes and economic crisis our (and his) nation’s facing on - Barack Obama - after only nine days of him being President-Elect!  Hasn’t Hannity ever been taught that when you lose, even if your side gets trounced, at the very least, try to maintain some dignity?  Would it be that difficult to give the new guy a chance?  We’re not talking about a middle school football game where his kid threw two “pick-6’s,” the team got beat 14-10 in the championship game and he felt the need to come to the kid’s rescue because everybody was saying his own flesh and blood was a loser.  What you’re disparaging - at a mighty high income level, with an extremely large platform, to an awful lot of people - is our country.  The country all of us inhabit.

Hannity and the rest of his kind wanted to win (naturally), but they didn’t, so now it’s time to whine and cut down the man who soundly beat them.  If they were the leaders, and could recruit others for their administration, the last people they’d select would be those exactly like themselves - because they realize that type can divide and destroy a team, should anyone dare to disagree with them.  

Look, the American people said Obama is the guy we want to lead us - by a fairly substantial margin.  Yet, these “talking heads” continue to use “politics of fear” because they feel it’s their job, as spokesmen for the right wing, to stir up controversy rather than being “team players” as we were all taught growing up.  What’s so sad is that with all the supporters Hannity and others of his ilk have, how much influence they could exert in an effort to UNIFY this great nation of ours, they make the selfish choice instead.  Each one of them makes the conscious decision to violate rule number one of any successful team, organization, company, group - or even country - and that is: WHAT’S RIGHT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHO’S RIGHT. 

And we wonder why people outside the United States think our country’s a little (lot) screwed up?  It’s because we have no team concept.  Every one of these pontificators are making more money than 99% of their listeners.  All the preaching they do “for the good of the average, hard working Americans (like Joe the Schmuck) is as disingenous as their claims of fair treatment of each side in the past election.  That means one side ripped a candidate to shreds and then the other side did the same to his opponent, making the election more about whom not to vote for as it was who the best candidate was.

The sorriest part of all of it is that if John McCain had won, we’d have the exact same scenario in reverse.  It’s almost like our nation’s mantra is: “We know that United We Stand, let’s see if we can take the challenge of trying to stand divided too.”  In best selling author Ken Blanchard’s book, High Five!, he makes the following statement that would improve our country’s morale and, I sincerely believe, productivity if we were to adopt it:

“When you focus on the positive, you develop the habit of doing things right.  By concentrating on doing things right, you actually wind up doing fewer things wrong.”

I’ve had eight back surgeries - all major.  Of course, I once heard minor surgery is what it’s called when it’s done to someone else; it’s major when they cut you.  For those fortunate of you who’ve never experienced surgery, take my word for it, the last statement’s true.

Since I’ve been confined to bed since I got back from the Emergency Room at 4:00 am on Tuesday morning, I’ve done nothing but sleep, watch CNN and read a  book entitled Minestrone for the Mobster’s Soul (co-written, believe it or not, by an assistant coach for the Chicago Bulls, an 30+ year basketball coaching lifer - 15 at Gordon Tech High School in Chicago, a brief stay in college and the last 20 years in the NBA - named Bob Ociepka - pen name Bobby Madura, and his cousin, Bruno).  Nothing, that is, other than writhe in pain every minute I’m awake - which could account for the tone of this blog.  Bear with me if you disagree.

The sleeping part is great, until the waking up part happens.  The book is so enjoyable because, while it’s certainly not a book for everybody (I defy anybody to name one that is, including, unfortunately, The Holy Bible), it’s as real a book as I’ve ever read (and I’m considered a rather voracious reader).  This blog’s not about that book however (although I anticipate writing one once I finish it).

What may have exacerbated my condition was the news that was reported all within a period, it seemed, of a couple hours: President Bush’s address on the economy (or what’s left of it), Senator McCain’s statement on suspending his campaign and his suggestion to postpone Friday’s debate and Senator Obama’s answer to Senator McCain that, while the economic crisis certainly is a monstrous problen, a president must be able to deal with more than one crisis at a time, i.e. the campaign and the debate must go on.

First, President Bush’s address.  It sounded sincere and who am I to doubt the President’s sincerity?  I just have one question: Where the hell has this guy been?  How in the world does someone who has as much responsibility as he does for the American citizens, let the country we’ve entrusted to him get into such bad shape to begin with?  I can’t believe nobody in his advisory council saw any of this financial collapse coming?  When I lost faith in the President (and I have to admit, I voted for him) was the day, quite a while back, he was questioned about gas costing over $4/gallon.  His response was, “It is?  I did not know that.”  Is that how you run up a nine trillion dollar deficit?  In math terms, that’s $9,000,000,000,000.  That ought to bother even people making a whole lotta money. 

When Dick Cheney, his vice-presidential choice, was discovered to have the connections he did with Halliburton, it was the being of the end of trusting the current administration.  To someone who’s as ignorant of the business world as I am, what’s going on now and what happened with Halliburton stinks of one common human flaw: greed.  How anyone can screw over so many people for personal financial gains, independent of how much they end up cashing in on (7, 8 or even 9 figures) just shocks me - and I’m definitely no babe in the woods when it comes to dishonestly.  (After all, I did recruit basketball players in the SEC from 1980-87.)  When trust goes, there’s nothing substantial left.

These people (the CEO’s who cash in and take off) should be subjected to Bobby O’s form of justice - but they ought to be made to read the section on it in Minestrone first - so they know what’s coming, just not when.

As far as Senators McCain and Obama, there is no question in my mind that each is a true public servant.  Both want what’s best for the American people.  It’s the small, but oh-so-powerful nameless and faceless minority behind them, running their campaigns, so hell-bent on winning, that their every move is toward political, as opposed to human, needs.  I don’t know why (or maybe I do), but every time I see (and hear) Karl Rove, I think of this type of person - someone who’s the absolute best at smearing opponents, yet when asked about a weakness of someone he supports, diverts the query and returns to smearing.  He should be the first person to read Bobby’s book.

I tell my classes every year the story of Copernicus, the person who told everybody that the world, in fact, did not revolve around us, that we were part of something bigger - and that even though he was right, his reward was … getting killed.  (Maybe that’s where honesty got a bad rap).  Yet, his main message lives on - and it would do all political candidates (and their committee members and supporters - which means, pretty much, everyone), to take heed:

“It’s not about us.  We’re part of something bigger.” ¼/p>