The first threat to Sunday's Super Bowl's highest-ever TV ratings?

With apologies to Sir Walter Scott: Oh, the tangled web we weave when health care reform we did conceive.

This news yesterday in CNN's politicalticker:

Washington (CNN) - President Obama's bipartisan meeting on health care reform planned for February 25 will be broadcast live, a senior administration official said Monday.

Coverage details were not complete, but the official said the White House expected "the whole thing to be live."

Most of the comments I read that people had posted to this announcement appeared political and vituperative in nature.

Then this was posted today on NPR.org's front page:

Expectations Low For Obama's Health Care Summit  by Liz Halloran

President Obama's plan to hold a televised health overhaul summit with Republicans and Democrats is still more than two weeks away, but reviews of the get-together are already in. And they're not optimistic.

Critics are characterizing the plan as a purely political gambit designed to give the appearance of momentum for the president's health care bill, now stalled on Capitol Hill.

Supporters of the president — and the legislation — say the bipartisan give-and-take will provide Obama the opportunity to publicly portray the opposition as bereft of solutions.

The comments made on the NPR site were pretty close in flavor to those attached to CNN's announcement that the meeting would be televised. Although there was a spate of comments made supporting the idea of the summit.

Then came the news today in the Washington Post's Michael Shear's 44 Politics and Policy blog/column that the House Republicans might not even show up for the conference.

Top House Republicans throw cold water on health-care summit

Leading House Republicans raised the prospect Monday night that they might refuse to participate in President Obama's proposed health care summit if the White House chooses not to scrap the existing reform bills and start over.

In a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) expressed frustration at reports that Obama intends to put the Democratic bills on the table for discussion at the Feb. 25 summit.
"If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate," Boehner and Cantor wrote.

I am soooooooo confused. I thought Republicans wanted to sit down with the President and discuss their ideas on healthcare. Is it the fact that the discussion is going to be on television causing them problems? What about all the claims by politicians that "the American people want this" and "the American people want that?" Are they shy about telling us what we want while we're off from work and actually able to watch and listen to them?

I, for one, am delighted by the prospect of having an opportunity to see politicians discussing healthcare with the oft-quoted American people watching. Let's start a WMRA-roots campaign to have more Americans listen to/watch the Health Care Summit on February 25th than watched the Super Bowl.

The pompatus* of "Who Dat!!"

Today, it's short and it's personal. Today this blog is just one more celebration of the joyful fact that the New Orleans Saints actually did it! Drew Brees and company won the Super Bowl, riding the resilience of their drowned city, playing for all of us who've ever had to bounce back.

My condolences to Colts fans, of course. But you've won many, many games. And you will win many, many more. You are lead by Peyton Manning, who, we are endlessly told, studies so hard -- and certainly always looks so serious on the sidelines.  Surely it's appropriate in these dreadfully serious times for a quarterback who actually looks as though he's playing a game to carry off this year's Superbowl MVP award.

Charlie and I watched last night with hope in our hearts -- if not expectations in our head. Both of us were decked out in the rag-tag detritus of my long-ago New Orleans visits. I wore Mardi-Gras beads; Charlie, who's not been to the Big Easy yet, wore my old New Orleans Jazz Festival t-shirt draped over his head like a kufiya.

So today, as WMRA's blogger-in-chief, I'm taking a journalistic break. I just cannot wrap my mind around anything but celebration!

"Who dat? Who dat? Who dat say dey gunna beat dem Saints?"

Reuters

*  from Wikipedia: The word pompatus (also spelled pompitous, pronounced /ˈpɒmpɨtəs/) is a neologism used in the lyrics of Steve Miller's 1973 rock song "The Joker"^[1]:

Some people call me the space cowboy.

Yeah! Some call me the gangster of love.

Some people call me Maurice,

'Cause I speak of the pompatus of love.

Digging out, . . .

 Dictionary.com's first definition of compromise is:

1) a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.

Thursday, I had lunch with my good friend Judy, and we talked, as we often do, about how gratuitously argumentative our elected officials are. Most of today's politicians, Judy pointed out, seem completely uninterested in compromise. Which, said we two pizza-fueled women, is pointless, because our system of government only gets things done when there's political compromise. And, boy howdy, do we need to get things done!

So much for Thursday. Friday the Blizzard of 2010 began. Charlie and I settled in. We'd already stocked up on food at the grocery store and on books and videos at the library. Yesterday, we ate, read, took naps. We watched the snow and talked about how beautiful it is where we live. During the evening we watched a BBC drama about Vichy France. It was a very contented, feel-good day.  We slept well.

It's now Saturday morning. We have to face up to reality: At some point the snow will stop falling. It's time to think about digging out, which will entail a lot of hard work. Charlie stood out on the front porch and photographed our challenge:

If that's not graphic enough, here's the car I need to drive to work day-after-tomorrow.

As I'm a political animal, I naturally found a political metaphor in the Blizzard of 2010.

As long as the now falls, it's like an election.  It's okay to just cut loose and feel during an election. The whole process is fueled by rhetoric and emotion. Compared to the work of governing, elections are right much fun. We don't have to find a way to effectively get things done.  We know there is hard work ahead, but it's work we can't even get started on until  the votes are counted.

Whenever the snow stops it will be like actual governance. It will be the time hard work actually begins. Blizzard-wise, Charlie and I have already set a goal--we want to dig out enough by Monday morning so that I can go to work. Or at least get out of our driveway. Before we can accomplish that we know we will both be cold, wet, tired, and hungry, but that's okay because we're determined to accomplish that goal. If we just stay warm, dry, rested, and well-fed inside, any goal-setting we do becomes empty rhetoric.

Steven Pearlstein had a very interesting column in yesterday's Washington Post. Its title, "The myth of Washington bipartisanship and the art of true compromise." About half-way through the column is this paragraph:

The only way a democratic system like ours can work is if the majority party acknowledges that winning an election means winning the right to set the agenda and put the first proposal on the table, though not the right to get everything it wants. By the same logic, if members of the minority party want to influence that policy, they have to understand that it will require them to accept some things they don't like to get some things they do.

Compromise is not very glamorous or feel-good, but it is what fuels the real work of governance. And I would suggest that it's fondness for (addiction to?) empty, inflammatory rhetoric that largely fuels Washington's failures in the compromise department. Isn't uninformed, argumentative, political nonsense what we respond to? Aren't we loathe to trade the emotional buzz we get from political anger, for the quiet accomplishments of compromise?

It does seem to me today, as I think about shoveling vast amounts of this beautiful snow, that governance really  is somewhat like a blizzard. Both are amusingly dramatic, but  both bring with them a lot of hard work that we avoid at our own peril.

"Make one's life revolve around festivals, not festivals around one's life!"

The title of this blog post is taken from today's WMRA Civic Soapbox, by Greene County home builder Brad Lovelace. It's an essay which, as I prepare to endure more seriously dreary winter weather, struck me as an auditory gift from the gods, most of whom are about to be honored in New Orleans during Mardi Gras, which is what Brad's essay is about. (Mardi Gras graphic is credited to tephies)

Of course Mardi Gras, the largest religious festival in the United States, doesn't technically take place until February 16th, a week from Tuesday. But since the Saints are in the Super Bowl this weekend, I'm sure the partying is well underway, and I did think our wintry souls could use a blast of virtual participation in the rompings and stompings of the Who Dat nation.

The essay is about how last year at this time, Brad and his wife packed up their kids and went to Mardi Gras on impulse (the only real way to attend Mardi Gras, don't you think?) There's no point in rehashing his Civic Soapbox--just click on this link and listen to it, or on this link and read the text. (Unless of course, your life just has too much fun in it already and you don't need a dose of romping and stomping.)

I am, however, going to augment the Civic Soapbox experience with a few pictures, taken with the Lovelace cell phone, since the Lovelace camera got left behind during their impulsive departure.  This means the fun looks a bit blurry, but when you think about it, that's probably not all that inappropriate. All picture commentary is by Brad Lovelace.

As they say in every restaurant I don't like: Enjoy!

After Orpheus almost O' Bead....  Niall and I after the Orpheus parade.  I had so many beads around my neck I couldn't stand up straight....  During this parade I made a heroic leap and snagged a Jim Belushi throw,  a set of purple beads.

 Zulu cigar. . . . That is my daughter Addy with her Zulu cigar.  Zulu is a mainly black Krewe. They dress up with Al Jolson face paint and grass skirts.  They look like characters out of the old King Kong or Tarzan movies.  Their signature throws are cigars, really cool Zulu necklaces and they hand out coconuts.

Lundi Gras....  That is me, my eldest daughter Annalise, who is so enthralled with New Orleans that she moved there, and Addy.   Lundi Gras is when  Zulu gives a big party on the waterfront.  There is a great fireworks show, and then the night is topped with the Proteus and Orpheus parades.

Street cleaners . . .  This is a truly impressive operation of street sweepers, fire hoses, skid loaders and guys with leaf blowers....  They do an incredible job of cleaning streets one would think could never get clean, but every night they are out there.

Laissez les snowy bon temps rouler!

Go Saints!

Lightening up . . .

I was driving back from the gym yesterday afternoon listening to the usual Wednesday political discussion on Talk of the Nation. It was all terribly serious until Neal Conan and his Wednesday sidekick, Ken Rudin (pictured left -- who knew he looked like that?), welcomed one Don Steiner to the show. And then serious went out the window. Or at least out of the studio.

Don Steiner is a Philadelphia-based writer who, among other literary endeavors, runs the blog America Bowl: U.S. Presidents vs. Super Bowls. This blog is based on the lovely, lunatic, innately American concept that anything can be made into a competition. And that since we have now had 44 presidents and are about to have our 44th Super Bowl, it's now perfectly reasonable to pit one against the other in historical order.

In his blog, Mr. Steiner uses football language to discuss both the Presidents and the Super Bowls. Which kind of works in a wacky wonderful way. Take LBJ, for example. (This post is excerpted below.) Vietnam is referred to as the hole in President Johnson's game. As a sports fan who lived through Vietnam and has also read some about it, I can't think of a more accurate way to put it -- at least a more accurate way to put it concisely. Besides, it's amusing. And I'm not sure I've ever before found anything said about Vietnam amusing.

"America Bowl" is lite history -- as in lite beer or lite music. It's party history. And, as we Americans remain mired in political vituperation, bless Mr. Steiner's heart for giving us something politically lite to debate come Monday: President Obama vs. Super Bowl XXXXIV

If you want to listen to Don Steiner talking with Neal Conan and Ken Rudin on Talk of the Nation, click here and go to about 20:30 in the sound file.

And here's the aforementioned excerpt.

Game 36: Lyndon B. Johnson vs. Super Bowl XXXVI

  Here is a story of two eager backups thrust by emergency into Number One roles under less than ideal circumstances. Lyndon B. Johnson, who'd never enjoyed being Vice President to John F. Kennedy, was rushed to Dallas and sworn in as the 36th President after Kennedy was shot on November 22, 1963. Novice QB Tom Brady, who'd played in only one NFL game in his career, stepped in as the Patriots' starting quarterback after Drew Bledsoe went down with an injury in Week 2 of the 2001 season.

Johnson had great moments, but he was a one-way player. Domestically he was first-string, maybe a Hall of Fame candidate. His tenure from 1963 to 1969 -- which included a landslide election win in 1964 -- saw passage of landmark legislation including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawing racial discrimination, the Voting Rights Act of '65 banning racist polling rules, and the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 to create public TV and radio. He launched Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Head Start, environmental protection laws, the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities. Foreign policy was the hole in his game, though. He hated having to devote time and resources to the war in Vietnam. But he refused to lose and increased rather than drew down U.S. involvement. Ultimately it was his frustration with ceaseless war issues, at home and abroad, that led LBJ to choose not to run in 1968.

Tom Brady came up huge in the Patriots emotional 2001 season, which was played in the dark shadow of the 9/11 attacks. With the poise of a veteran, Brady led New England to an unlikely division title. He seemed charmed. The Pats got a break in a snowy playoff versus the Raiders when what looked like a Brady fumble was ruled an incomplete pass, and the Pats kept the ball for a game-tying score.

In Super Bowl XXXVI the Patriots would face the Rams with their relentless passing attack, the "Greatest Show on Turf."  The Rams had led the NFL with 503 points. QB Kurt Warner threw a league-topping 36 TD passes to a receiving corps that included Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Az-Zahir Rakim, Ricky Proehl, and running back Marshall Faulk, who also ran for 1,382 yards. But the Pats' defense attacked Warner. CB Ty Law picked off a Warner pass intended for Bruce and took it to the house for New England's first score. After three quarters, the Pats were up 17-3. It wasn't enough. The Rams drove for two touchdowns to tie the score at 17 with 1:30 left. Brady marshaled the Patriots downfield one last time and spiked the ball to stop the clock at the Rams' 24 yard line with 8 seconds left.  Then kicker Adam Vinatieri did it again, nailing a 41-yard FG to ice the game. It was an all-time classic.

LBJ made his mark. The Patriots launched a dynasty. Score this for the Super Bowls.

Score after this match: Presidents 19, Super Bowls 17

Learning from the public washing of other's journalistic dirty linen. . .

The pace of internet journalism is anything but measured and contemplative. And blogs are ravenous beasts, always demanding to be fed.

It's true that I write most of this particular blog, but it's also true that I'm writing it as a staff member of WMRA public radio.This makes it an appropriate platform for me to ask hard questions, site incidents from my own and others' experiences, and offer researched information. In my opinion, it does not make it a platform for my personal opinion.

Yes, I am opinionated. Quite heatedly so, at times. So, Tom DuVal, our generally cool, calm and collected (as long as you keep him away from his always-ailing computer) General Manager reads this blog behind me. His mission is not to rewrite as much as it is to remove what an old NPR editor of mine used to call "Martha-isms," those times in a piece or a post when there's too much of me and not enough story. Tom keeps me heeled to my ethical master, the canons of  journalism. For which I am, most of the time, very grateful.

In my opinion (and we'll see if Tom allows me to opine about this), good journalism is the product of the tension between writer and editor. And this is not always a smooth and pretty process. Particularly now that all these reporter-written blogs (mine included) have entered the picture. Blogs are inherently more personal. So where does that leave blogs written by reporters?

Anyway, it was with great interest that I read today's Omblog, in which The Washington Post Ombudsman gives voice to readers' concerns about the paper, both the on-line and on-the-page versions.

It's a long and, to me, interesting column about an internal Post flap, that begins with this,

An "inappropriate" blog item causes a stir

In his “D.C. Schools Insider” blog on Wednesday, education reporter Bill Turque offered a fascinating behind-the-scenes explanation of how The Post’s newsroom and editorial page operate independently.

He described being scooped the previous day by a Post editorial. It had included information from the office of D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee on her recent claims to a national business magazine that some teachers had been laid off because they “had sex with children,” hit them or were chronically absent. Turque wrote that Rhee’s office had provided fresh information to the editorial board -- but not him -- and noted that The Post’s editorial page support of Rhee had been “steadfast, protective and, at times, adoring.” He said this, coupled with Rhee’s comfort level with editorial board member Jo-Ann Armao, who writes education editorials, had assured Rhee a “soft landing spot for uncomfortable or inconvenient disclosures -- kind of a print version of the Larry King Show.”

A public conflict between Editorial staff member and beat reporter is, itself, interesting. But what really set me thinking as a reporter/blogger were these three paragraphs from deep in the piece (bolding and italicizing were done by me).

Turque said his original item had been read by his editors, including education editor Craig Timberg and Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, a high-ranking editor who oversees The Post’s local coverage. Both took the blame.

“This whole thing was my fault,” Garcia-Ruiz messaged me. “I saw the original post, approved it, and should have edited the opinion out of it. The issue of beat writers straying from analysis to opinion in blog posts is one we dealt with when I was [in his previous job as Sports editor] and I know better. When it was brought to my attention last night, I edited the piece as I should have done originally, called Bill to explain why I made the changes I made, and then republished it.”

Similarly, Timberg said he had approved the post. "I feel really badly about the way this turned out," he said. "I feel as though I misjudged the extent to which there was room for a rough and tumble conversation" in the blog. "I feel like I've embarrassed the news organization and I wish that weren't so."

That's the end of the "Omblog" excerpt.

What I'm curious about is your take on the issue of opinionated reporters who blog. Is it still possible for you to trust the impartiality of our news reporting once we stray on-line, unchecked, from "analysis to opinion?" You know we all have opinions, so are we being transparent or simply taking advantage of our blog pulpits when we express them on these ephemeral on-line pages?

Why?

I'm sure you all remember the "Swift Boat" ads run by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group mostly funded by the largest Republican campaign donor in Texas. Their mission was to sink Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, which they pretty much did. Or were an integral part of his sinking.

If you don't remember the details of the Swifties controversial allegations, here's a link to the Annenberg Foundation's FactCheck.org's summation of them.

The term "swift-boating" has since passed into American political parlance, to mean tactics that essentially stoop to smear campaigning. The point of swift boating is simply to attack, not to attack truthfully.

More recently famous, and of longer-lasting, legally entrenched impact, is what many see as the "swift-boating" of Hillary Clinton, through Hillary the Movie.

Hillary the Movie was put together by Citizens United

"an organization [according to its website] dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens."

Whether or not Citizens United is an organization dedicated to telling the truth continues to be very much a matter for debate. As does whether or not the Swift Boaters were dedicated to telling the truth. In these attack ads, the truth is not the point; the attack is its own point. And, thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United vs. FEC, such controversial ads may now legally be funded and distributed anytime during the American election process by corporations and unions, as well as by Political Action Committees such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

To me, the penultimately distressing part of this situation is that not only do a lot of political ads not wish to tell the truth, there's also no legal compulsion for them to do so.  This came to me from Dr. Roger Soenksen, a JMU Professor who knows a lot about media law:

"The law truly protects political speech.  The FCC gives no power to fact check to TV/radio.  If they sell political commercials, they must run them uncensored.  They can only refuse ads due to poor technical quality.

Political ads are protected by libel laws [and] . . . the litigation process would require that the groups that pulled the ad together acted with 'actual malice' or 'reckless disregard for the truth.'  Attack ads pride themselves on exaggeration and are protected under the law."

What worries me most, however, is why such dubiously-sourced advertisements are effective. Whether we're for or against the candidate or issue these ads attack, we seem generally titillated by their existence, as though it's okay to make our election about generating emotions, rather than accurate information.

I'm worried we pay less and less attention to platforms, proposed programs, nuanced arguments, because it's just more fun to wade in and start slinging (or parrying) the mud.

I'm worried we increasingly expect the election process to entertain rather than inform us. I mean, I do have friends who think Rush Limbaugh lies, but listen to him anyway because they think he's funny.

No matter what the Supreme Court says, no matter what corporate America funds, our decisions on whom to vote for remain our own. The truth is that attack ads only matter if we pay attention to them. It's each of us as individuals who must to decide whether or not to degrade our vote by being too lazy to sort out the truth from the blare.