The Bosque Boys

If you need a break from politics and serious issues, check out this site. String Fever is a UK performance group that combines good musicianship with goofyness. I especially recommend the History of Music in Five Minutes. Thanks to photognome.

Leslie Moonves is in the public eye today castigating the masses for their "vitriol" and "sexism," blaming rampant prejudice against women news anchors for the plummeting ratings for the CBS Evening News (story from the Financial Times here). It seems an appropriate moment to reissue my review from last fall.


October 8, 2006

Katie Couric arrived at CBS News a few weeks ago in a big way, making news as well as reading it. Her ratings initially spiked, then dived, then leveled and now may be inching up. We will continue to watch as the story unfolds, but the decision to hand over the CBS Evening News franchise to Couric exists within a larger framework of the Feminization of American News Culture.

Some positive observations on Katie Couric (although, admittedly, I have not watched her newscast much):

1. The voice over of Cronkite. I am thrilled every time I hear Walter Cronkite say: "the CBS Evening News..."

2. The "Free Speech" segment. It is innovative. At least it is something new in the way that everything old is new again. The commentary at the end of the newscast hearkens back to the days of Eric Sevareid adding his perspective to Cronkite's newscast. Of course, the segment is designed to be light and popular; thus far, it certainly lacks the erudition and penetrating analysis of Sevareid.

3. The leg shot at the end of the show. One of these days, undoubtedly, we will look back and all agree that Mary Hart was a great pioneer in broadcast journalism. Although I am distressed that Couric seems to be wearing more pant-suits.

Some cranky (crankier) observations:

1. Couric contorts her face into an uncomfortable and unattractive mask when she segues into serious news.

2. The good news in that regard is that serious news is not nearly as prevalent as you might think on a network evening news broadcast. There is a lot of time for good-natured banter and teasing of colleagues and cute cajoling of newsmakers. In an interview with New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Tom Kean, in the midst of Democratic scandals in the state, Couric focused on Kean and whether he wanted President Bush to visit him. "Come on now," she giggled, persisting in several humorous attempts to portray Kean as running away from the President in a blue state. It was all very cute--but not very Cronkite-ish.

3. Some of the copy seems better suited for a satire of a bad news program. For example: After watching a four-year-old drum phenom on You Tube, Katie intones: "drums not your bag? [cue film of a bagpiper] Maybe these are. More after we pay the piper."

Serious question: Why not just cut to the chase and offer Oprah Winfrey the franchise?

I stand by my observations. Link to original post: here.

FOR FURTHER READING. Another Bosque Boys post on media (here): The Genius and Humor of "Fair and Balanced" (I'll opine, you decide).

Oh, the things you will hear; oh, the things you will see...

watching network morning TV.

This morning on GMA:

In between stories about the "hottest bachelors," clothing that provides the "best UV protection," Michael Moore, Tina Brown on Princess Di, promoting the new Nancy Drew movie and deciding how long dropped-food can sit on the ground and still be edible--the mood turned serious.

Dateline: Tyler, Texas. GMA reports:

"Would you watch a former swimsuit model read the evening news?

"Fox is betting you will. The network's new reality show Anchorwoman...stars former model Lauren Jones, who is trying to make it as an anchor at KYTX-TV, the local CBS news station in Tyler, Texas."

Additional info: "Jones isn't just a former model. She's also a former soap star and World Wrestling host."

"While few people deny the buxom blonde is pleasing to look at, many are outraged that someone with no reporting experience has been put in the anchor seat for the sake of entertainment."

They are "making a mockery" of our profession, exclaims an irate competitor (full story here).

The GMA on-air crew was aghast, huffing repeatedly at how some are willing to compromise journalistic integrity for the sake of entertainment and glitz.

Shame. Shame.

Next, we will be right back with Sam Champion on the beach with Miss USA in her bikini...

Oh what power the gift would give us, to see ourselves as others see us...

Last month we very briefly discussed the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber case in which the Supreme Court ruled against a female plaintiff claiming salary discrimination based on gender (you may review here).

This week, Stuart Taylor, the brilliant, implacable and incorruptible legal journalist discussed the case in his column for the National Journal.

Quoting Taylor:

This headline ["Injustice 5, Justice 4'"], borrowed from a New York Times editorial, pretty well sums up the news media's portrayal of a May 29 Supreme Court ruling (here) [PDF] that an Alabama woman suing her former employer for sex-based pay discrimination had not filed her claim within the congressionally prescribed time limit.

Taylor examines the media bias in reporting the decision as well as an enlightening discussion of the ruling itself. Read the full article here.

Another Taylor quote to whet your appetite:

Are Alito and company really such heartless, pro-discrimination brutes? Hardly. Ginsburg's dissent was well put. But Alito had the better of the argument as to congressional language and the Court's own precedents, in my view. And as a policy matter, it's far from clear that justice would be better served by the Ginsburg approach of opening the door wide to employees who, like the plaintiff in this case, wait for many years to claim long-ago -- and thus difficult to disprove -- pay discrimination.

Excellent. Thank you to Tocqueville for passing this along.

As the euphoria wears off from the thrilling victory against the President's immigration reform, and the reality sets in, we shall come to see that not much has changed. We are where we were.

Today Tocqueville points us to a Thomas Sowell column (here): Bipartisan Betrayal: “Where is the fence?”

Although he probes some telling subjects, I would argue that even Sowell, one of the most incisive thinkers in the conservative movement, is still in fundamental denial concerning the reality of the moment.

Sowell writes:

With immigration, as with other issues, the most important decision is: Who is to make the decision?

Important point. Sowell uses this truism to launch into an assertion of American sovereignty. But the more practical answer to his question of who?--is the Congress of the United States.

America is sovereign, and the will of the people, in theory, should drive the process to regulate the flow of immigrants, secure our borders and establish procedures for naturalizing would-be Americans.

The rule of the people is fine in theory--but, even in theory, we are not a direct democracy. Popular sovereignty is filtered through a complex political process, which is the product of a constitution and centuries of rules and traditions and personalities.

In reality, all federal legislation is dependent upon party interests, composition of the Congress, timing, leadership, media, awareness, and much, much more. Making law is an art--not a science. More telling, it is an "art of the possible."

What is possible?

Take a look at yesterday's vote on Alberto Gonzales (roll call here). Although the Gonzales question is completely unrelated to immigration, the vote is, nevertheless, instructive. When push came to shove, there were 38 Senators willing to stand up to the grandstanding Democrats. Take a look at the list (roll call here once again).

My suspicion is that most of those thirty-eight Republicans are not fans of Gonzales; we know that they are fairly disenchanted with the President. But there they were, casting their "votes of confidence" like fearless patriots of a embattled cause. In essence, these are your stalwarts. These true believers are most likely the full extent of the "cultural conservatives"* on immigration in the United States Senate (plus or minus one or two).

I noted recently the logical fallacy of reading the polling data that indicates only 22 percent of Americans supported the late immigration bill and then assuming that 78 percent are for the cultural conservative alternative (sealed borders and no amnesty for the twelve million illegals). It is also naive to assume that last week's victory in blocking the reform bill in the Senate (where it takes sixty votes to legislate) is tantamount to building a coalition for positive action acceptable to cultural conservatives.

One more thing: as for the will of the people. The people have not demonstrated an employable interest in a hard-line immigration package. Yes, there is polling; there is talk radio; there is anger among certain segments. But the power of the cultural conservatives on this issue has yet to be demonstrated at the ballot box.

Reminder: Republican leadership in the 109th Congress, beset by scandal, dissatisfaction on Iraq and fiscal malpractice, sacrificed serious discussion of solutions to place all their hopes for survival on immigration as an emotional issue to save their rotten skins. The strategy proved a dismal failure.

I will believe immigration "hardlining" is an effective electoral strategy when I see it. Or, perhaps when Tom Tancredo rises above 1 percent in the national polls. I don't say all this because I think politics should drive policy (in fact, I bemoan that GOP mistake every chance I get). But elections matter in that they carry "mandates." So far, there is no electoral mandate for hardcore immigration action; as a result, there is little chance for cultural conservative success in passing legislation.

Sowell points out that we, in fact, have a current policy of open borders and de facto amnesty.

Sowell blames both parties and avers:

Neither wants to risk losing the Hispanic vote, though it is doubtful whether all Hispanics are in favor of open borders.

That strikes me as a facile explanation. Why?

1. Historically, Hispanics have not shown themselves especially active voters. Isn't this much ado about not much?

2. Lets assume Sowell has a salient point: It may work for Democrats, but it seems an oddly indirect strategy for Republicans. Hispanics have always leaned Democrat. Instead of trying to legitimate, activate and then convert Hispanic voters, why wouldn't the GOP prefer to just round them all up and shut down the borders--if the issue was merely about elections and stopping immigration was an option. Instead of hoping for the best, we could kill the problem in its cradle.

I tend to think the motivations here are much more complicated and less sinister than Sowell suggests. Let me think about it for a while; I will try to return to this question at some later date.

Sowell attempts also to address some of the more familiar arguments for immigrants:

The first of these frauds is the argument that the economy “needs” illegal immigrants to fill “jobs that Americans won’t take.” Both parts of this argument ignore the most obvious three-letter word that is left out: Pay.

Virtually any job is a job that Americans will not take, if the pay is low enough. Nor is there any reason for pay to rise if illegal immigrants are available at low pay.

This is true enough on its face. If we paid enough to have our lawns mowed and our toilets cleaned, I suppose we could recruit college graduates from wealthy families to do these jobs. But is it really in our interest to initiate a massive restructuring of salaries?

A dirty little secret: low-skilled workers have been essential to our increasingly pampered, high-powered, low-inflation existence over the past few decades.

There is an important humanitarian question in all this: are we willing to exploit the most unfortunate among us (granted: the victims are complicit in all this) in order to maintain our elevated lifestyles? By the way, this is a potential point of agreement among cultural conservatives and soft-hearted liberals. Cultural conservatives should pursue this possible alliance.

More Sowell:

Then there is the “family reunification” fraud which claims that we cannot in good conscience keep out the families of illegal immigrants who are living in the United States but must let those families reunite.

Of all the cultural conservative demands, this one disturbs me most. Have a heart. Let people in or don't let people in. Give them a path to citizenship or don't. But if someone is good enough to be an American citizen, have some compassion for the basic human need for family. I don't see that brand of cultural conservative thinking as at all traditional.

More Sowell:

The grand fraud of all is the claim that we must have “comprehensive” immigration reform — that is, simultaneously deal with border control and the legal status of illegal immigrants already here.

There is no logical reason why these two issues must be dealt with together, though there are political reasons why elected officials want to do so. Passing border laws described as “tough” gives Congress political cover when they legalize the illegals.

Historically, comprehensive solutions have always proved the necessary glue for divisive legislation. Comprehensive solution is the highway of compromise, the bridge over impasse. Neither side is ever willing to accept defeat on the promise that compensation will come later at some unspecified date. Too often later never comes. Neither side trusts the other in this case, and there is no reason to trust. Get it done sooner rather than later--but neither side is going to take a bullet on this issue without getting something tangible in return.

Finally, from Sowell:

Last year, the sop to the American people was the promise of a fence on the border. This year, the big question is: “Where is the fence?”

This is the reality. There is no fence. There will be no fence. There are not enough votes for a fence. There is not enough will for a fence.

Deal with it. Accept it. Try to change it. But wishing and wailing are not constructive solutions.
--------

*Note on language: For lack of a better word, and as a result of my conversation with Tocqueville, I am referring to conservatives who are against liberal immigration reform as cultural conservatives.

From the Washington Post:

This article. Thanks to the Rott.

An excerpt:

The insurgents who kill our young soldiers are ruthless, but we have sometimes been cautious in our response. Take the question of targeting bomb makers: There may be an unlimited supply of explosives in Iraq, but there is not an unlimited supply of people who know how to wire the detonators. In 2004, CIA operatives in Iraq believed that they had identified the signatures of 11 bomb makers. They proposed a diabolical -- but potentially effective -- sabotage program that would have flooded Iraq with booby-trapped detonators designed to explode in the bomb makers' hands. But the CIA general counsel's office said no. The lawyers claimed that the agency lacked authority for such an operation, one source recalled.

I am not sure I can respond to this information without a torrent of obscenities. But, I'll try. "War is hell." Just make sure that it's hell for the other side. If that means using our lawyers as walking IED bait, then so be it.

My Mantra for Campaign 2008: Nobody Knows Anything.

On the other hand, George Will knows more about politics than most, and he is smart enough to ask intelligent questions. Will writes today in Newsweek to caution against Thompson mania, reminding us that we still have much to discover about the stately and celebrated senator from Tennessee.

Anyhow, Will offers several points and rhetorical flourishes worth noting:

1. Some say he is the Republicans' Rorschach test: They all see in him what they crave. Or he might be the Republicans' dot-com bubble, the result of restless political investors seeking value that the untutored eye might not discern and that might be difficult to quantify but which the investors are sure must be there, somewhere, somehow.

A bit off the subject, but this borrowed gem applied to Ronald Reagan and his recent posthumous rebirth as a near-great president with gravitas is priceless and absolutely true:

2. "The four stages of the highbrow treatment: first, he was derided, then ignored, then accepted, then discovered."

And then this paragraph in which Will agrees with my analysis from a while back is perhaps my favorite (and, truth be known, a compelling reason for this post; if you don't toot your own horn--who's gonna do it?):

3. When the resolutely uncharming John McCain ran in 2000, only four of his Senate colleagues supported him. Thompson was one. Today Thompson is John McCain without McCain's heroism, Vesuvian temper and support for the current immigration legislation. Although Thompson presents himself as a strict constitutionalist and an advocate of limited government, he voted for, and still supports, the McCain-Feingold law, which empowers the government to regulate the quantity, content and timing of speech about government.

Read the full version of Will here.

Don't get me wrong. I still like Fred and remain fairly optimistic. But Will makes an important point. Nobody Knows Anything.

Every Friday afternoon, NPR's All Things Considered features a sports-week wrap-up conversation with Wall Street Journal sportswriter Stefan Fatsis. Last week, Fatsis and Rebecca Roberts chatted mostly about Jason Giambi and the ongoing tragedy concerning the use of performance-enhancing drugs in MLB (listen here).

They also commented briefly on a story in the Seattle Weekly in which a Boston Red Sox fan trespassed against a code of conduct (heretofore unknown to him or me) for guests at Safeco Field, home of the Seattle Mariners.

The Code:

•Foul/abusive language or obscene gestures

•Intoxication or other signs of impairment related to alcohol consumption

•Displays of affection not appropriate in a public, family setting

•Obscene or indecent clothing

•Any disruption of a game or event, including throwing of objects or trespassing on the playing field or other restricted areas

•Sitting in a location other than the guest's ticketed seat

•Fighting, taunting or making threatening remarks or gestures

•Smoking or the use of tobacco products, in any form

Fans are issued Red Cards for "abusive behavior," which is a final warning before removing the violators from the arena without refund. An entertaining story and worth the read (here).

Fatsis referenced the Sports Law Blog, which had weighed in on the issue with their post "Speechless in Seattle" (here and more here).

Quoting Sports Law Blog (abridged):

"[F]an-conduct policies have been the major focus for my arguments about the [First Amendment] constitutional protection for "cheering speech."

"The Mariners essentially are trying to enforce civility norms in a public space--something that the First Amendment does not permit."

End quote.

Wow! Let's hear it for the Rights Revolution. We now have the right to get drunk and be obnoxious at the ballpark; it's in the Constitution!

The NPR discussants laughingly made the point that this story reinforces West Coast baseball versus East Coast baseball stereotypes.

I love West Coast baseball.

» Read More

Yesterday, based on a conversation with some local Democrats, the Okie Gardener reported from Iowa:

"They had the following thoughts: (1) Anyone the Democrats nominate in 08 can beat the Republican candidate, except Hillary. So, Hillary must not be nominated. (2) When the dust clears Edwards will be the strongest candidate for the Democrats to put forward."

My Reaction:

First: My Mantra: Nobody knows anything.

Having said that, I think Hillary can win it all. She can be beaten if we get the right candidate, we play it smart, we get a couple of big breaks, and the stars align.

I think the local consensus that the Gardener encountered provides more insight into what is happening on the ground in Iowa--than a truly national judgment.

Edwards is working very hard in Iowa. His ambition to be president hangs on his success in the Hawkeye State. He cannot afford to lose there. He cannot afford to be out-campaigned there.

If Iowa Democrats were not leaning toward Edwards at this point, frankly, there would be no reason for Edwards to be away from his home and family.

In re Edwards: I have been reluctant to acknowledge his viability. To my mind, he lacks the seriousness to be President of the United States.

An aside: I felt the same way about Bill Clinton. I liked him (he fascinated me), but I considered him the kind of person one dated but didn't marry. Infatuation over true love. A host of Democrats famously saw George W. Bush as lacking "gravitas."

Of course, the obvious moral of those two stories: anything can happen. Nobody knows anything.

The Gardener reminds us:

"In politics perception helps to build reality. Nobody knows anything, but what people think they know matters. Hillary is in trouble in Iowa, not that it matters as much as it did with the current primary schedule. From my conversation, it would seem that she is in trouble with Iowegeans because they fear she is not electable."

The Gardener articulates a key point, and I agree completely. Objectively, it is easy to envision a scenario in which Edwards emerges.

As I have said, Edwards is banking on Iowa as a momentum-building, watershed moment in the race.

It is not a stupid strategy. Stranger things have happened.

As for Hillary in trouble, all of this is day to day. Nobody knows anything. But I'll pose this question, if you were running for president, who would you rather be than Hillary right now?

In terms of the importance of Iowa, I refer back to the Gardener's "perception and reality" formula. Iowa is only important as long as Iowa can convince the country and the candidates that Iowa is important.

I am not unsure how meaningful Iowa will be this time around. But as I have said before, I would darn-sure rather win the Iowa caucus or straw poll than lose it.

For more thoughts on Campaign 2008, click here and scroll down.

Tomorrow our denominational assembly will vote on whether or not to adopt the Belhar Confession provisionally for a period of two years. After the two years we would vote on whether to adopt it as part of our church constitution. The Belhar confession comes from the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. One of our Reformed sister communions adopted this statement, that elevation of origins or differences to an absolute status is wrong and contrary to the Gospel.

Today, in large measure due to the efforts of Christian leaders in South Africa, the nation has been able to end apartheid without a bloodbath. Thanks be to God.

Sometimes things work out better than we hope. God is at work in our everyday, in the messy events of history. And sometimes we see signs of the coming kingdom.

At our denominational meeting--and we do not use quotas, each classis (local group of churches) sends delegates--I have met and talked with African Americans, immigrants from India and Taiwan and Brazil and the Dominican Republic and the Caribbean, Korean-Americans, all elders or ministers of Word and Sacrament in our denomination. Thanks be to God.

Our outgoing president spoke concerning God's future, and the need to anticipate it and work for it now. He closed his remarks with a poem by Langston Hughes, written in 1940.

When I get to be a composer
I'm gonna write me some music about
Daybreak in Alabama
And I'm gonna put the purtiest songs in it
Rising out of the ground like a swamp mist
And falling out of heaven like soft dew.
I'm gonna put some tall tall trees in it
And the scent of pine needles
And the smell of red clay after rain
And long red necks
And poppy colored faces
and big brown arms
And the field daisy eyes
Of black and white black white black people
And I'm gonna put white hands
And black hands and brown and yellow hands
And red clay earth hands in it
Touching everybody with kind fingers
And touching each other natural as dew
In that dawn of music when I
Get to be a composer
And write about daybreak
In Alabama.

Audacious hope in 1940, closer to reality today. Thanks be to God.