Jack’s Blog

By now, I’m fairly certain most people in this country have heard, and probably have an opinion on, President Obama’s comment regarding the Cambridge police acting “stupidly” toward his friend Dr. Henry “Skip” Gates.

As I watched the press conference and listened to the President say he didn’t know all the facts, but that Skip Gates was a friend, so he might be biased, I was hoping he’d say, “and because I don’t know all the facts and because I’m friends with one of the people involved, yet don’t know any of the others, I probably should just focus on what I was elected to do, which has proved to be quite a task in itself.”

Instead, he made the now well-known remarks, making all the “extremists” day.  Enter, surprise! the Reverand Jesse Jackson.  To his credit, he was briefed that Sgt. Jim Crowley (imagine if his name didn’t have the “ley” at the end) was an officer with an outstanding reputation when it came to racial profiling, so much so that he was selected to teach fellow officers a class in racial profiling and why & how it should not be done.  Not exactly Mark Fuhrman.

But the Rev. Jackson (I always think of the late George Carlin’s line, “Exactly which church is Jesse Jackson the reverand for,” inferring, as blatantly as only George Carlin could, that the title allowed him a rather clever way to be exempt from paying taxes) never gives up the “pulpit” quite so quickly.  “The charges have been dropped but the stain remains.  Humiliation remains.  These incidents are so much a national pattern on race,” Jackson said, doing what he does best, fueling the fire any chance he gets to speak out on how poor race relations are, and how much better they need to be, knowing full well that he’d never admit the country was in racial harmony, as long as there existed one bigot.

My feelings toward Jesse Jackson were formed when he referred to Jews as “Hymies” and calling New York City “Hymie-town.”  Not only am I Jewish, but, coincidentally, my father’s name was “Hymie.”  I’ve heard from several blacks (friends of mine and others I don’t know, but have heard on television) that he has since apologized for those remarks but, you’ll have to forgive me if I feel that apology was as sincere as the one Michael Richards’ gave after his infamous tirade.  “I don’t know where those words came from,” Richards claimed.  I can tell you where they came from - his heart, because that’s where they were all along - just as Jesse Jackson’s remarks about Jews.

Then, I recall how Jackson flew in (or was flown in) to console and advise then-President Clinton after his Monica Lewinsky non-sexual affair - only at the time Reverand Jackson was performing this duty, it was reported that he had recently fathered a child out of wedlock.  No wonder he was brought in to advise the prez.  Did I hear somewhere that a major problem in the African-American community is the number of children born to unwed mothers?

President Obama’s remarks brought out the best in the self-promoting Sean Hannity too.  Always on the lookout for something in his wheelhouse, i.e. that which affords him the opportunity to criticize the President, the “stupidity” comment sent Hannity into a ratings orgasm.  He devoted his next show to this very subject and, to be “fair and balanced” (as only Fox News tells us they are), he had a panel composed of a white priest (let’s everyone forgive everyone else), a black pastor (forgive, hell, it’s all about race and Dr. Gates is a victim!) and an intelligent, blond representative from Fox News (hey, what’s wrong with a little eye candy) who, somehow, happened to agree with 100% of what host Sean “I have no problem having dialogue with anyone, as long as they side with me on every issue I bring up” Hannity.  The result was one of his most successful shows, success being measured by how much of the country can be further divided and make it look like the division was caused by the Democrats, especially the head one.   

On CNN, we were treated to Roland Martin, another talking head who never lets an opportunity pass to rail against all the racial prejudice there is in the country, yet somehow fails to mention that Barack Obama wouldn’t be president unless a whole lot of white folks voted for him - so aren’t we making a little progress, Rollie?  Martin said the charges were dropped, meaning there was no case.  Yet, others said due to the events that occurred, in situations like these, it’s common for the charges to be dropped.  

Some random thoughts about the case:   How about the woman who called 911 to report two black men breaking into a house in her neighborhood?  The aforementioned black pastor actually made the statement she was the cause of the problem for not recognizing her neighbor, Dr. Gates.  Wow!  And there’s the argument that if someone shows they live in that house, shouldn’t that be enough?  Someone familiar with domestic violence cases, on one of the shows I saw yesterday (I’m watching entirely too much TV), said there have been incidents where a husband broke into his wife’s (or ex-wife’s) house and brutality followed.  So, if the Cambridge police left after realizing he, in fact, did live there, and domestic violence ensued, what word would describe the cops’ behavior?  How about “stupid?”  Then, there’s the report that when Dr. Gates was asked to show his ID, he showed his Harvard ID, which didn’t have his address on it.  Whatever the case, was it really necessary to handcuff a 59-year-old man with a cane?  And is it true that Officer Crowley did not supply his name and badge number as requested by Dr. Gates?  Why wouldn’t he, (even if the professor was enraged) if that’s what it would have taken to diffuse the situation?

But nobody will acknowledge anyone else’s statements unless they are in line with their own.  Because it’s all about personal agendas (except for those who are also ratings-conscious) and as long as private agendas trump what’s good for the nation, we will continue to sink deeper into the abyss the individual has created.  Right now, we’re near, if not below, sea level. 

As far as my take on the situation (if you’ve read this far, you might as well finish), I’d say to the President (even though I don’t recall him asking), “Remember who you are.  The POTUS, as the CIA guys refer to you.  The majority of Americans voted for you to unify the country and to fix the overwhelming number of major problems that are currently destroying it.  Isn’t that a big enough task?  Was it really necessary to inject your opinions toward this case when you weren’t fully informed?  Isn’t that what your dissenters and the media do?”

We all understand he’s human (probably one of the reasons so many people like him is he’s shown more of a human side than others in that office), but he should make sure not to empower those who want to destroy him by promoting their own personal views and causes.  It’s not like he’s been checking off accomplishments he’s taken care of that were on his campaign promise “to do” list. 

A major point of contention in this overblown “Gatesgate” is the refusal by everyone involved to apologize.  Each person involved is a leader. One is the President of the United States, one is a leader of policemen (teaching peers against racial profiling) and one is a leader of the leaders of tomorrow (at one of the premier institutions of higher learning in America).  In The One Minute Apology by Ken Blanchard and Margaret McBride, there’s a quote that each of these gentlemen ought to heed (and if they don’t, possibly they’re not the leaders they make themselves out to be):

“The failure of many leaders begins when they are unwilling to admit to themselves that they’ve done something wrong.  It’s their job to accept responsibility for their actions.” 

 Â

Talk about a humbling experience!  Yesterday’s blog was about the term, “X Factor.”  In the post, I mentioned that an “X Factor” was not referring to a superstar, or even a starter, but, rather, to a player no one thought much about, but who could have a major impact in deciding who would win the game.  In addition, I said the X Factor in the game shouldn’t be spoken about until after the game had been completed.  Only at that time, could one select the X Factor, e.g. the team member who performed so well, unbeknownst to everyone prior to the game, it was that contribution that actually determined which team (the X Factor’s) won. 

At the end of the blog, I mentioned, “If you think I’m wrong, let me know.”  Yikes!  I don’t know if I should be flattered that so many people read my blogs or demoralized so many people think my opinion isn’t worth donkey dust (for lack of a more descriptive term).

There was certainly no shortage of opinion.  People got in touch with me I hadn’t heard from in years.  “Just read your blog.  See you haven’t changed much.”  I’m not sure, but I have a sneaking suspicion that was not meant as a compliment. 

Others were gracious enough to offer medical advice (probably because he is a loyal reader and truly understands the pain I’ve had to endure).  “So, you don’t think someone like Kobe or LeBron can be considered an X Factor?  You need to have your head examined.“  Made an appointment with a psychologist right after reading that and am looking forward to our session.  Wonder if I should send a copy of the blog ahead so she can have a better insight to her new patient?  On second thought, I think it might be better if I surprised her.

Still other readers were complimentary of my potential.  “An X Factor has to be a reserve?  Come on, Jack, you’re better than that.“  It’s refreshing to know I haven’t reached my max yet.

There were others, many of them more colorful.  Two of them were from 1) someone I ran into at the store (lucky I was in the Express lane) and 2) a call from a friend in New Jersey, who gave me advice on how to be taller (as only someone from New Jersey can).  “If you believe what you blogged yesterday, you ought to spread your legs as wide as you can . . . and see if you can pull your head out.”

Years ago, I would have argued with each and every one of these people.  It’s amazing at how strongly people will argue - even when the other side has proven they’re wrong; at how they’ll try to redirect the valid point just made by the person they’re speaking with, or blurt out a sarcastic remark, diverting atention from their mistake - so they won’t have to be thought of as that dreaded word . . . wrong.  If you’re not sure the type of person I’m talking about, just listen to Ann Coulter when she is having a conversation with anyone but Sean Hannity, e.g. someone who disagrees with the gospel according to Ann.  If you think I’m not a particularly big fan of Ann’s, consider that I’m Jewish and her remarks on Donnie Deutsch’s Big Show about Jews needing to be perfected were quite offensive to me.  In fact, if Ann Coulter is perfect, I want to be about as far from perfect as is humanly possible.

Honestly, I was so influenced by the number of people who cast dissenting votes against what I posted last night that I have (drum roll, . . . ) changed my mind!  The one argument that did it was, “when the Cleveland Cavaliers played the Pistons, if LeBron wasn’t the X Factor, i.e. the guy who made the glaring between the two teams, the one guy who the Pistons did not have that the Cavs did, please tell me who was.”

Checkmate.

What I learned in situations such as these can be summed up in a quote from the former head of Intel, Andy Grove.  Put this practice to use and, not only will you walk away from “discussions” quite a bit more intelligent, not to mention, informed but you won’t have to go back to your hotel room, or house, or office, thinking, “Gee, did I make an ass out of myself today.  Why can’t I ever give in to even a minor point?”  Try it and you’ll immediately gain more credibility.  Andy’s line? 

“Fight like you’re right; listen like you’re wrong.”    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

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.”

With the economic state the country’s in, everyone thought the “bailout” package would most assuredly pass.  It didn’t and the excuses have topped triple digits.

First, it’s the Republicans because they had 12 “aye’s” change their minds.  However, 93 Democrats also voted against it, rendering the dirty dozen moot if more Dems nodded instead of shook.  Our political leaders (and anyone with a party affiliation) immediately started, in crucial times as these, to do what they’re best equipped to do - start blaming others.  Whom to blame?  Simple.  People who disagree with what you believe.

The biggest problem in America is that we’ve lost our sense of TEAM.  Every coach knows when things go wrong, the absolute worst thing to do, the thing that will polarize and destroy the club quicker than anything else, thus assuring failure, is to point fingers.

Yet, this is exactly (no surprise to anyone who’s ever followed politics) what happened. The Republicans said the vote was already to go through until Nancy Pelosi - during one of the greatest crises that’s ever faced our nation - felt the need to make a partisan speech, slamming the opposition party.  It wasn’t enough for her to say we’ve come together to give hope back to the country by passing this emergency legislation; she needed to grandstand and give it a political agenda.  The result was the proposal fell and so did the market, costing the taxpayers $1.2 trillion.  Thanks, Madame Speaker, you now have shown you truly have the cojones you’ve always longed for.

On the Democratic side, remarks were heard, “Oh, just because some Republicans had their feelings hurt, they decided to change their vote.”  True, but these were also congressmen (and possibly, congresswomen - wouldn’t want to offend Pelosi) who had been bombarded by their constituents not to vote in favor of the bail out.  In times of high unemployment, the is only one job statistic a congressperson cares about - do I still have a job?  Listening to, and not offending the people they represent is the most surefire way of remaining on the employment side of the unemployment-employment topic.

Yes, in truth, it may have cost some legislators their jobs and if they caved in because they truly believed they needed to serve their constituency, I’ll buy it, but if it really was because Pelosi wanted to make it look like all of this was the Republicans’ fault and the Democrats came to the rescue, shame on everybody.  The team is most important and politicians constantly lose sight of that fundamental principle.

The talking heads weighed in.  Hannity and Colmes did as they always do - pound away at numbers and facts that favor their side, deflect and ignore those that are contrary, all the while Sean and Alan never having to worry about filling out the short form when April 15 rolls around (yet they sound so righteous when discussing the poor guy on “Main Street“).  Meanwhile, Bill O’Reilly puts up with interviewing guests who take up valuable time he could be using to promote his latest book.

After hearing all the pundits had to say, I’m certain I know who’s at fault.  It’s always the same person.  Somebody else.

In an athletics depatment where I once worked, when a problem was brought up and blame was to be assigned, what followed reminded me of the old Three Stooges movies - when Moe turn and slap Larry, then Larry would turn and slap Curly.  Finally, Curly would turn and there’d be no one to slap.  That’s when I came up with my rule of survival:

“Don’t be Curly.”    Â