Blaming the Victim

---

---

I've been following politics most of my life.

I understand how the game is played and how one side or the other is apt to use things — appropriately or inappropriately — to score points in political campaigns.

That is how it was with the alleged "war on women" that the Democrats used — admittedly, effectively — against the Republicans in 2012.

Sexism is like racism — in the sense that it really does no good to deny that it exists. Clearly, it does exist — but it isn't the exclusive domain of one political party. That's where propaganda comes in.

To assert that it is the domain of one side or the other renders the accuser no better — indeed, probably worse — than the accused, for the accuser gives in to the very prejudice that supposedly is being decried.

Right here in Dallas recently, we had a blatant example of how sexism is not limited to a particular party — or, for that matter, a particular gender.

A district judge — a Democrat named Jeanine Howard who is unopposed in her bid for re–election this year — issued a ruling in a rape case that was nothing more than a case of old–time victim blaming and shaming. Howard sentenced the defendant, now 20 (18 at the time of the assault), to probation.

"He is not your typical sex offender," she said.

The victim, a 14–year–old girl, "wasn't the victim she claimed to be," Howard said and imposed an incredibly light sentence on the girl's rapist, who had confessed to the crime.

Howard also suggested the crime was not a rape because the victim apparently was not a virgin, that she had been promiscuous and had given birth to a baby. Really. The judge might just as well have said the victim asked for it.

By Howard's logic, any female who has had sexual intercourse cannot possibly be raped — even if she says "no," which, apparently, the victim in this case did. Several times.

(The victim did consent to intercourse away from the school grounds, but the young man attacked her at school.)

Also, the victim and her mother both say she has never been pregnant. Not that that should matter — except, apparently, in Howard's courtroom.

Meanwhile ...

In Montana, an astonishingly lenient sentence for rape handed down by a district judge in that state has been overturned. G. Todd Baugh sentenced a former teacher to one month for raping a 14–year–old student — who later took her own life.

Baugh said the victim was mature for her age and asserted that she was "probably as much in control of the situation" as her attacker.

CNN's Carol Costello wrote an opinion piece on the two cases that was posted on CNN.com (she may have delivered it on the air, too; I seldom watch CNN anymore so I don't know). She wondered — a bit naively, I thought — "Is America really clueless about the meaning of rape?"

I think the answer to that is that a certain portion of America has always been clueless about sexual assault — and probably always will be. Costello never mentioned Howard's political affiliation; the Dallas Morning News did. She never mentioned Baugh's political affiliation, either. I tried to find it, but I couldn't.

Perhaps Montana is one of those states where judicial candidates run nonpartisan campaigns. That really isn't the point, though.

The point is that, regardless of what Americans may have thought would be the outcome of electing the first nonwhite president in the nation's history, a post–partisan America is one of those achievements that is easier said than done.

America has always been a nation of laws, but it is a lot easier to change laws than to change minds. It takes time, and I'm not speaking about the inevitable disappearance of a generation because attitudes tend to be handed down from one generation to the next.

I don't know how old Howard is, but I have seen pictures of her, and I know she isn't of Donald Sterling's generation. Hillary Clinton is much closer, I'm sure, and we heard allegations today from Monica Lewinsky that the former secretary of State blamed the women around her husband — herself included — for the affair.

As long as offenders are given that kind of pass, any improvements in gender relations (and racial relations, for that matter) will be cosmetic at best.

Getting It First vs. Getting It Right

---

---

The pursuit of the Boston Marathon bombers has been a great opportunity for journalism professors like myself to explore the emphasis in today's media on being first with a story — regardless of whether it is right.

When I was in journalism school, the emphasis was reversed. Getting it right was more important than reporting it first.

I don't mean to suggest that being first wasn't important. It certainly was. Always has been. But the difference is that we were told repeatedly that accuracy took priority. Publishing rumor, hearsay or something that was not independently verifiable was unacceptable.

That was something aspiring journalists learned from reading "All the President's Men." Woodward and Bernstein inspired a generation of young journalists with their coverage of an imploding presidency, but they insisted on having at least two sources for anything they wrote.

As a result, they were rarely wrong about anything. They were often impugned by their adversaries in the White House, but they were seldom wrong.

Far fewer sources apparently were required by CNN when it reported — erroneously — that a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings was in custody. This was more than 24 hours before the release of the photographs of the suspects by the FBI led to the death of one and the eventual apprehension of the other.

---

---

The audience bears a certain amount of responsibility for this atmosphere.

We live in a culture that not only desires but expects instant gratification. Nothing demands discipline anymore. We have hundreds of TV stations from which to choose — and the ability to record multiple programs for viewing at our convenience. We have numerous options for quick, filling (and mostly absent any nutritional value) food to eat and pills to take to fall asleep at night.

If we experience pain, we can get pain relievers over the counter that promise instant relief. Landline phones are disappearing; everyone has his or her own personal phone now — along with his or her personal water bottle in case of a sudden attack of thirst.

And people in the 21st century know that they can go to multiple web sites — in addition to the traditional stand–bys, the broadcast and print media — for news and information. There is no shortage of sources, and each one seems eager to go with any story it has — even if that story is wrong.

Being first is what counts with the audience.

And the pressure to be first guides the often ill–advised actions of media outlets.

Being right is what should matter to all journalists

When I was a journalism student — and then a young journalist — I knew I was up against competition for the readers' time and attention. Competition is part of the business, just like it is part of any other business. And scooping the competition is definitely not a new concept. If I could scoop my competition, that was great. But my professors and editors insisted on accuracy.

I believed in it then, and I still believe in it. Double checking isn't just a good idea for insurance companies eager to attract customers with discounts, you know. It's a good idea for journalists, too, and it used to be underscored with the words Libel Manual emblazoned on the cover of the AP Stylebook — the journalist's bible.

Now, libel is treated almost like an afterthought by the AP — but I know it isn't. It couldn't be. Libel is still a significant portion of media law, and any media outlet that acts as if it isn't is playing with fire. At the very least, it is tempting fate.

E.J. Dionne laments, in the Washington Post, this rush to judgment in the media. And that judgment usually supports whatever the journalist is predisposed to believe.

There is every bit as much partisan rushing to judgment on the left as there is on the right.

In Boston, Dionne observes, "there was an immediate divide between those who were sure the attack was a form of Islamic terrorism and those just as convinced that it was organized by domestic, right–wing extremists. ... [A]bsolutely no one imagined what turned out to be the case: that two young immigrants with Chechen backgrounds would be held responsible for unleashing the violence."

This is not what I believe journalism is about. Journalists report the news. They are not cheerleaders for one side or the other. They report the facts, even if the facts contradict their personal beliefs, and allow the readers to reach their own conclusions.

OK, a few journalists are cheerleaders. They write opinion columns — and, in most cases, those columns are labeled as opinion.

If it isn't clear whether an article in a newspaper is a news report or an opinion column, I would not recommend that you continue reading that publication.

---

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

---

There was a time when I would recommend to people that they turn to CNN for reliable news coverage.

I would have made that recommendation as recently as four years ago, when CNN was the only news outlet (as far as I know) that didn't jump to conclusions based on the observations of unauthorized personnel — and waited until someone who was authorized to do so confirmed that Michael Jackson had died.

That decision prevented CNN from being first; CNN, however, retained its integrity.

But, as the attached clips so clearly show, CNN yielded to the dark side in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings and joined (nay, led) the rush to judgment. There were lesser news outlets that did what CNN should have been doing, what CNN used to do — what all media outlets should have done — the responsible thing.

Next time, undoubtedly, it will be someone else who does the right thing. And, rest assured, there will be a next time.

Responsible journalists do not report rumor, innuendo and hearsay. They do not take their lead from "canine dogs" barking in the darkness or what other outlets may be doing.

They do their job. They report the news.

When Jon Stewart makes you the recipient of his razor–sharp witticisms twice in a week's time, your credibility is pretty much shot.

The Writing on the Wall

---

---

The Pew Research Center released its State of the News Media 2013 report yesterday.

For someone like me, who worked for newspapers and a trade magazine for many years — in fact, I earned my master's degree while working full time for a newspaper — and now teaches journalism in the Dallas community college system, there is much to read and absorb.

And, since we are on spring break this week, I may spend a lot of my time doing precisely that.

But I've been doing some reading already, and there are a few initial conclusions I can reach.

On the one hand, I am heartened — somewhat — by Pew's conclusion that "[f]or the first time since the deep recession that began in 2007, newspaper organizations have grounds for a modicum of optimism."

I have to say "somewhat" because, more than five years later, newspapers are not healthy, and Pew is clear on that point. Each encouraging development in the newspaper business that Pew observes is "mostly promise rather than performance. The most basic indicators have not turned around. The industry is little more than half the size it once was. Considerable dangers persist."

Good — if not long overdue — adjustments are being made in the newspaper business, and I deeply hope they will herald a revival. But so far the promise still far exceeds the performance.

I am cautiously optimistic that will change even though Pew pulls no punches when it comes to the challenges still facing the print news industry.

Advertising continues to be a major problem. For six straight years now, print advertising revenue have dropped, and digital advertising seems to be leveling off, which, as Pew notes, "suggest[s] that corporations are shifting their advertising dollars to other platforms."

That is important, given the business' "historic over–dependence on advertising." To be sure, there are many more options for advertisers than there were when I graduated from college, and it makes sense that newspapers would lose a portion of that advertising revenue on which they have depended for so long.

It also makes sense that, in order to survive, newspapers would look for new ways to compensate for that loss. Unfortunately, many have resorted to the same old strategy, providing fresh examples of the truth of the old Einstein adage that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

As is typical when times are hard, many newspapers have tried to make up for that lost revenue by trimming their payrolls — "Estimates for newspaper newsroom cutbacks in 2012 put the industry down 30% since its peak in 2000," Pew writes in its overview of the industry, "and below 40,000 full–time professional employees for the first time since 1978."

In most instances, journalists have been no different than anyone else who was affected by the recession. Their careers were interrupted through no fault of their own, and I am hopeful that, ultimately, print journalism will survive — albeit in a different form.

Their absence has been noticed. In Pew's words, "Nearly a third of U.S. adults, 31%, have stopped turning to a news outlet because it no longer provided them with the news they were accustomed to getting."

The product will have to improve, but it can only do so when newspapers have an adequate number of people on their payrolls to get the job done. I am cautiously optimistic that this can be achieved.

On the other hand, I am dismayed (but not really surprised) by Pew's confirmation of the many problems I see within broadcasting. Since many Americans simply do not read anymore, broadcasting is where most get their news, and that places a special burden on broadcasters.

Unfortunately, they are not meeting it. Instead, they pander to the lowest common denominator.

"In local TV," Pew writes, "sports, weather and traffic now account on average for 40% of the content produced on the newscasts studied while story lengths shrink."

Pew says it sees "a news industry that is more undermanned and unprepared to uncover stories, dig deep into emerging ones or to question information put into its hands."

That contributes to a general impression of bias in the media, an accusation that most often seems to be aimed at Fox News.

I am not an admirer of bias of any kind in the media, and I am quick to criticize the bias I have seen coming from Fox News (the most frequent target of such criticism) — but Fox isn't the only culprit, and Pew does not spare the others. MSNBC was far more biased in its reporting than either Fox or CNN, Pew reported, but all three were guilty of bias.

Bias is never justified in news coverage. It is acceptable in opinion pieces but only marginally. The thing that I believe is important to remember is that journalists, whether they report the news or comment on it, are guaranteed the same First Amendment rights American journalists have always been guaranteed.

I tell my news writing students to be like flies on the wall when they report the news. The reader, I tell them, should not be aware of their presence. That cannot be done in opinion writing. Thus, it is important that newspapers clearly label opinion columns and editorials as such, but it is also important for writers to use language that is appropriate for the kind of articles they write.

In recent semesters, I have been adding a segment to my news writing course on opinion writing, but I emphasize to my students that there is a huge difference between reporting the news and commenting on it, and I encourage them to respect that difference.

That doesn't mean that readers always recognize that difference.

At the community college where I teach, one student recently wrote a column that was critical of the Obama administration. This set off a virtual tidal wave of responses on the faculty email system that demonstrated all too clearly that supposedly educated adults, not students, didn't understand the difference between news reporting and opinion writing ...

Even though the column was clearly labeled "OPINION."

One respondent, who wrote a letter to the editor (which was published), erroneously called the column an "editorial," which is an opinion piece, but the terms editorial and opinion column are not interchangeable.

Since there apparently are people out there who do not know (or will not acknowledge) the difference between them, here it is in a nutshell. An editorial is typically published without a byline and purportedly speaks for the entire staff (hence, the use of the editorial we) whereas an opinion column speaks only for the person whose byline runs with it.

Both opinion writers and editorial writers are entitled to the same First Amendment protection as reporters.

There is much work to be done to repair the damage the recession has done to journalism, but it must be done if freedom is to be preserved, and it will take the best efforts of those who have dedicated their lives to the profession to accomplish it.

If that does not happen, the writing truly will be on the wall.

The Day Reagan Was Shot

---

---

On this day in 1981, the president of the United States was shot by a would–be assassin — a (thankfully) rare occurrence as it is, but this time was unique in American history.

This president lived to tell the tale.

That president, Ronald Reagan, wasn't the first to be the target of an assassination attempt, but he became the first president to survive being shot.

There were many reasons why that probably should not have been so, but it was.

Fortunately, Americans have been spared the agony of the shooting of their president for three decades now — and you just about have to be in your mid–50s (at least) to remember the last such attempt that succeeded.

I don't know why that is so. Are protection methods so much better now?

Surely, the Secret Service's methods must have evolved, but they would have to have done so quietly, wouldn't you think? I mean, I presume the changes that have been made in presidential protection have not been publicized — sort of like the policy that prevents most police departments from revealing certain details of high–profile cases.

They know that, many times, the guilty party will reveal himself because he has knowledge that only the person who committed the crime would have.

It is the same sort of thinking (in a kind of reverse fashion) that tells me that anything law enforcement knows and prepares for without the knowledge of any would–be assassins improves the chances that such an attempt will fail.

That would make sense to me. I played some poker in college. I wasn't very good at it, but I knew there was a lot of value in bluffing and keeping your opponents in the dark.

And I also know (or, at least, I think I know) that the murders — or attempted murders — of public figures were far more commonplace when I was growing up than they seem to be today. Presidential assassinations have been rather infrequent in our history, but there was a time when I was growing up when two attempts were made on the life of a president within a month of each other.

I can only conclude that presidential protection methods must have improved in the last 30 years, but it also seems to me that — with the exception of the recent shootings in Arizona — the methods for protecting most public figures have improved as well.

It may not seem like attacks have declined appreciably — maybe the preferred targets have shifted, from public figures to private (or, at least, less public) ones — but the atmosphere seems entirely different today than it was when I was growing up.

If anything, the political dialogue is more venomous, more toxic than I can recall at any other time in my life — and, for all I know, actual death threats may be more numerous than they have ever been, as well — but actual attempts on the lives of public figures are way down from what they once were.

---

---

When I was small, two of the most admired men in America, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, were assassinated within a couple of months of each other. A few years later, political firebrand George Wallace was paralyzed in an assassination attempt.

In the years that followed, John Lennon was murdered, and Pope John Paul II was shot but survived.

Sometimes it seemed like the world was a shooting gallery, but even the attempts on Gerald Ford's life in 1975 didn't spark the chaos that Reagan's shooting did on this day in 1981.

On a day that was as confused and bewildering and filled with uncertain moments as any I have witnessed in my life, perhaps the most noteworthy was Secretary of State Al Haig's pronouncement that "I am in control here" in spite of the fact that the vice president, the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate are ahead of the secretary of State in the constitutional line of succession.

Haig insisted that he was not speaking of presidential succession but rather of the chain of command in a crisis. But, even on that point, he was on shaky ground.

In addition to loopholes in the chain of command that were exposed by the shooting, there were problems in presidential protection that were uncovered as well.

Lead Secret Service agent Jerry Parr told Ari Shapiro of NPR that "we still took a defensive posture" on March 30, 1981.

"With this event we realized that wouldn't work anymore, and we did it in a flash. That's what came out of it."

Perhaps the four presidents who followed owe their lives to the lessons that were learned that day.

And what of the man who tried to kill Reagan 30 years ago today?

John Hinckley Jr. is "moving closer to the day his doctors may recommend he go free," CNN's James Polk reported a few days ago.

The assessment of the doctors at the mental hospital where he has been held for nearly 30 years is that he is no longer a threat to anyone.

And, because Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity — even though video and still photographs taken at the scene show beyond any doubt that he was the man who pulled the trigger — his case is handled differently. He has received privileges for which he never would have been eligible if he had been found guilty of attempting to assassinate the president — and, consequently, may one day be set free.

I remember people complaining about that very thing when the verdict was announced — it was quite controversial at the time — and the knowledge that such a thing still is possible — however improbable it may be — continues to bother some people.

One of those people is Reagan's daughter, Patti Davis, who writes movingly in TIME of the damage that is still present in the lives of those who were shot — and the people around them.

"Time is a matter of perspective," Davis writes. "Sometimes 30 years isn't so long. There are times when the American legal system works brilliantly. There are times when it fails."

The presiding judge and Hinckley's defense lawyer, she suggests, have made this case one of the latter.

Davis, like Ron Reagan Jr., has a record of supporting progressive causes, but on this issue she sounds more like their father.

I'm not saying she is wrong. She is entitled to her pain and suffering, just like the other victims and their families.

But Reagan lived for nearly a quarter of a century after being shot and did not appear to suffer any lingering effects from the experience — unlike the others who were shot that day.

Or most of the nameless, faceless Americans who are shot every day in America. Many are killed, but some survive and must adapt in whatever way is made necessary by the injuries that have been sustained.

They continue to pay the price, but Davis' father turned an enormous profit.

Not quite 10 weeks into his term, suggests Jonny Dymond for BBC, Reagan was handed a priceless opportunity to connect with the voters — and he seized it. With his gentle, good humor when faced with personal peril, Reagan's presidency was "lifted ... out of the mere normal." He went on to become the first president since Eisenhower to serve two complete terms.

"Just a few weeks ago, what would have been Reagan's 100th birthday was commemorated with a slew of rosy retrospectives," writes Dymond. "But the legend that was celebrated was arguably born 30 years ago today."

There Must Be a Better Way

To this point, I have avoided jumping in to the Shirley Sherrod business.

But an issue has been raised that I simply must address.

Let me start by saying that, for 30 years, ever since its debut when I was a journalism student at the University of Arkansas, I have admired what Ted Turner wanted to do and sought to do when he created Cable News Network.

It isn't an easy task, providing people with up–to–the–second information about news as it develops, but CNN has done an admirable job of trying to tell people about the events that have shaped their world and altered their lives in the last three decades.

I realize that CNN has many competitors today — not just on cable but on the internet as well — and the pressure to be the first to report something is intense. CNN, it seems to me, has made a valiant effort to maintain high journalistic standards, and that isn't always an easy thing to do.

Sometimes CNN has had to sacrifice speed for accuracy, which is a difficult but often necessary choice to make.

A year ago, in fact, in the media frenzy surrounding Michael Jackson's death, nearly every cable and online media outlet — except for CNN — reported by mid–afternoon that Jackson had died. Why didn't CNN go ahead and report what we know now to be true? Because CNN, unlike all the other outlets, was waiting for someone in authority at the hospital to confirm the news.

All the other outlets were going with the opinions of people who may have been in a position to observe Jackson or to report an absence of vital signs — like, for example, the emergency response folks who responded to the 9–1–1 call and took Jackson to the hospital — but they did not have the legal authority to pronounce someone dead.

Once CNN had that confirmation, it joined the chorus.

As the Shirley Sherrod saga has unfolded in recent days, though, it seems that CNN — which recently announced that it was scrapping the Associated Press as a content provider, in part as a money–saving strategy and in part because of CNN's desire to establish its own brand in the newsgathering business — has yielded to the pressure, and the standards I always admired in CNN seem to have taken a back seat to expediency and scapegoating.

Yesterday, as Alana Goodman of the Business & Media Institute writes, CNN's Kyra Phillips and John Roberts ranted about those who "blog anonymously" and use that anonymity to write things that, to put it mildly, probably would be considered libelous in what used to be called the "Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual."

The implication was that anonymity on the internet makes it possible for people to be smeared and their lives and careers to be destroyed — even though it was clear to everyone long before Phillips and Roberts engaged in their witch hunt (which glossed over the fact that the credible and responsible journalists, including those at CNN, took the blogger's word at face value, as did the administration) that the blogger in this case was not anonymous at all.

There are many legitimate issues that have been raised by this unpleasant chapter, but internet anonymity is not one of them.

I do believe that internet anonymity is an issue that needs to be addressed — and probably will be addressed as communications law evolves, through legislation and court rulings, to include technology that didn't exist when the original laws were written — but not in the context of this particular issue.

Managing editors in newsrooms all over the country need to talk to their reporters and editors about journalistic standards, double–checking the facts, things like that. Barack Obama — or someone authorized to speak for him — needs to talk to his administrators about how to handle allegations against subordinates, especially in this highly charged, polarized atmosphere.

And we all need to talk about scapegoating, to revisit constitutional guarantees that a person is entitled to know the charge(s) against him/her and to face his/her accuser(s). A person who is charged with a crime that might cost him/her liberty and possibly life is entitled to a lot of things that Sherrod apparently was denied, by both the media and her employer.

In the context of this matter, internet anonymity raises entirely separate issues — primarily freedom of speech, which, for a legitimate journalist, means freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press, I was told in journalism school, was guaranteed to those who owned a printing press. In the 21st century, I suppose that could be amended to freedom of the computer, which really has been around since the late 20th century. And, like the belief that access to just about everything on the internet should be free — once one has paid the monthly admission price, in the form of an internet account — freedom of the computer is considered a given.

If you have a computer, so the thinking goes, you are free to post what you want. There are consequences, it is believed, that await those who carelessly post revealing pictures or objectionable comments. Nothing, after all, is truly anonymous on the internet — not with all the ways there are to track a person's electronic fingerprints.

In spite of their obvious applications in more practical fields, like business and banking, computers have long been billed as the best all–purpose tool for self–expression, whether one is a writer, an artist, a photographer, a filmmaker, a musician, whatever.

And a lot of people use blogs to share what they write or sing or sculpt or paint or photograph with others.

It truly has been freeing for the creatively inclined — but, having said that, I feel compelled to note that, with some of the things that are being posted, I have been sure for quite awhile that it was only a matter of time before something would have to be done to demand accountability and prevent bloggers from posting irresponsible rumors and gossip.

Such restrictions have existed in print journalism for a long time, and they have evolved as the term "media" expanded to include radio and television — and will have to expand further to include the same issues as they apply to the internet.

The sense of anonymity that many bloggers use as a shield behind which they can say what they please — as well as the mistaken belief that the concept of "fair comment" will defend them against all lawsuits (it won't) — must be addressed at some point. I believe these and other issues will — and should — be addressed.

But the Sherrod case does not provide the appropriate stage for that discussion. For Phillips and Roberts to speak of internet anonymity in connection with this matter whitewashes their own culpability, as well as that of CNN, the other all–news networks and the administration.

The Day 24-Hour TV News Was Born

---

---

In my lifetime, I have literally witnessed the transformation of the world, a transformation that has been so profound, so all–encompassing, and, yet, at the same time, so subtle that it often seems that changes that took years to emerge happened overnight.

Sometimes major shifts in the human experience can be traced back to a single event on a single day — for example, July 4 is remembered more than two centuries later as the day this experiment in self–governance called America began — even if the seeds had been planted long before.

Thirty years ago today, Ted Turner launched the Cable News Network — and everything changed.

Not right away, of course. The change was gradual, but the seeds were planted on this day in 1980.

It's not hard to see the fruits today. There are many networks that provide news coverage 24 hours a day now, but in 1980, it was a new concept when David Walker and Lois Hart (a husband–and–wife team) anchored CNN's first broadcast.

---

---

Cable was not anywhere near as pervasive in 1980 as it is today, and local cable providers charged extra for many things (not just movie channels) that weren't offered as part of the basic package.

When CNN made its debut, I guess cable providers weren't sure what to do with it. In the town where I was living at the time, the local provider allowed viewers to watch CNN at no extra charge for the first few days, then it was relegated to the "extended" package, which included ESPN (which was still new itself at the time) and for which viewers had to pay extra.

CNN's initial programming was primitive, to say the least. It had no real model to follow, just a vague concept of providing viewers with the latest news whenever they switched on their TVs.

That could be quite dramatic — when there was breaking news. And 1980 had already had plenty of big events by June 1 — not to mention the ongoing drama of the American hostages in Iran.

But Turner and his crew of journalists seemed to be bewildered by how to fill the hours that seemed to drag on what had long been known in the news business as "slow news days."

That's not really surprising. CNN was a pioneer and much of what it did broke new ground. It evolved from a network that, essentially, began a brand–new broadcast every hour or half–hour (a precursor, I suppose, to the Headline News channel that came along in 1982) to a network that produced its own programming on all sorts of topics that were in the news.

And, in the last three decades, CNN became the go–to network whenever something big was happening.

---

---

On Jan. 28, 1986, CNN was doing something the other networks once did but had stopped doing — televising shuttle liftoffs.

Space travel, the traditional networks had concluded, had become routine, and televising a shuttle liftoff was not considered newsworthy enough to risk the wrath of daytime TV viewers who didn't want to see their game shows or soap operas interrupted.

So only CNN was on hand for the launch of Challenger on that cold day. But every network's news division had reporters on the scene before the sun went down — after it exploded minutes after liftoff.

---

---

Everyone was in the Gulf five years later when war broke out, but CNN's ability to be on the spot whenever something happened catapulted the network past the traditional networks in the public's estimation.

The Gulf War may have been the real turning point for CNN, giving it credibility with viewers and making household names out of some dedicated correspondents, like Wolf Blitzer and Christiane Amanpour.

---

---

And, of course, CNN was one of many networks with its cameras focused on New York's World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

By that time, there were many cable networks trying to do what CNN had been doing for more than two decades. They learned from CNN's mistakes and provided news shows that were as polished, if not always as accurate, as CNN's.

Both CNN and its competitors have been bringing viewers important breaking stories in recent years — Hurricane Katrina, the 2008 presidential campaign, etc. CNN has lost some of its audience, and it wouldn't surprise me if many of its staffers often feel like the pioneers like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather who made CBS News the dominant name in news coverage for earlier generations — only to see their grip on the top spot give way to newcomers like CNN.

---

---

It was always part of CNN's mission to be experimental. It has launched specialty channels that failed and specialty programs that never caught on.

But it has changed the world and how journalists report on the events that occur in it.

And only those who work — or have worked — for the network are truly free to say, as James Earl Jones has said for many, many years ...

"This is CNN."

While Pondering Life's Mysteries ...

I was looking at the CNN website today, and I saw an opinion piece by a woman named Anousheh Ansari.

Ansari is an Iranian–American businesswoman who was the first Muslim woman in space.

I'm glad to see articles like that because they show us things that cultures have in common, and sometimes they shatter myths that serve as barriers between cultures.

Ansari recites a litany of the labels she has been given and protests the "labels we put on ourselves and let others put on us." I appreciate her resistance to labels.

I, too, try to avoid labeling people, but I can't help wondering something about a Muslim in space. Ansari doesn't address it in her column, and I would appreciate it if someone would tell me if anyone has ever talked about this.

Muslims are supposed to perform ritual prayers called salah five times each day, and they are supposed to face Mecca while doing so.

As I understand it, these prayers are mandatory, but, depending on the circumstances, there is a certain amount of wiggle room on the specifics, so what does a Muslim in space do about facing Mecca? Does he/she even bother with that part of it and just go ahead with the prayers?

Or does he/she simply face in the direction of the earth, whichever direction that may be?

I'm Shocked! Shocked!

---

---

I'm having a Claude Rains moment today.

Did you ever see "Casablanca?" That's the famous Humphrey Bogart–Ingrid Bergman wartime flick — "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine ..."

There are some really classic lines in that movie, but I think my favorite is where Claude Rains shuts down Bogart's nightspot. When Bogart asks why he's being shut down, Rains (who is being allowed to win at roulette in a deal that was mentioned earlier) says, "I'm shocked! Shocked! To find that gambling is going on here!"

A second later, one of Bogart's casino workers comes up to Rains with a fistful of cash. "Your winnings, sir," he says.

Anyway, I was shocked — shocked, I tell you! — to see that a New York Times/CBS News poll has some revelations about the demographic tendencies of the Tea Partiers.

• "Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45."


• "They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally."


• "They are also more likely to describe themselves as 'very conservative' and President Obama as 'very liberal.' "


• "And while most Republicans say they are 'dissatisfied' with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as 'angry.' "

They're also wealthier and better educated than most Americans.

Stop the presses.

Now, in general, I don't agree with the Tea Partiers' complaints — and I can't say that I am surprised to learn that they tend to be affluent, white, married, Republican and over 45. Their disdain for Obama is pretty well known, don't you think?

As a student of history, I definitely think their knowledge of that subject is somewhat lacking. I mean, really. Socialist? Come on. And there are times when they really push the limits of even my advocacy of freedom of speech.

But there are some issues on which we can find some common ground.

For example, Kate Zernike and Megan Thee–Brenan report in the New York Times that most Tea Partiers "think the most pressing problems facing the country today are the economy and jobs." On that point, I agree.

You want to know what really shocks me? CNN thinks that a poll showing that 19% of Americans (roughly the same percentage that describe themselves as Tea Partiers) are optimistic about the economy is somehow significant. Granted, it is higher than the 12% who felt that way in January. But it's still less than one–fifth of the respondents.

Is this surge in optimism somehow connected with the latest jobs report — you know, the one that reported that 162,000 jobs were added to payrolls last month? Is that what is making 19% of the poll respondents feel optimistic about the economy?

Well, these days, I guess, you take your good news where you can get it, but I continue to recommend that we wait and see what happens for several months before we reach a conclusion about whether unemployment is getting better or worse.

And we got a reminder to cool our jets this week, when it was reported that initial unemployment claims went up for the second straight week.

It remains to be seen whether anyone will heed the warning.

The Thrill Is Gone

CNN/Opinion Research Corp. released the results of a survey today.

Its findings? More than nine in 10 black Americans approve of the job President Barack Obama is doing. By comparison, 42% of whites approve of the job he is doing.

But, apparently, the bloom is off the rose with blacks.

"[W]hen asked how they personally feel about Obama's presidency, only 42 percent of black respondents say they're thrilled, with nearly half of those questioned saying they are happy but not thrilled," reports CNN. "The 42 percent who are thrilled is down from 61 percent in January, when Obama was inaugurated."

What's the reason for the decline?

Well, my take on it is this: No president, no matter who he is, no matter how popular he may be, can meet high expectations on a constant basis. And expectations for Obama — whether because of his race or the wreckage of the economy that he was elected to repair — were artificially high.

No specific career path can prepare someone to be president, and America has had presidents who came from all walks of life. The best any president can do is hope he learns how to be a successful president in time to achieve something. Some people will argue that Obama has achieved something with the passage of health care reform, but it remains to be seen how much more will be sacrificed as the House and Senate seek to approve identical legislation.

And, in spite of the emphasis Obama has placed on it, health care reform was never the primary issue for all his supporters. Those who expected sweeping societal changes overlooked the incremental nature of Obama's record in public service. Or they believed — falsely — that he could, by sheer force of will, accomplish transformational feats. Maybe they didn't think he would continue trying to appease people who repeatedly demonstrated they could not be appeased.

Well, declines in popularity happen to every president sooner or later. It's one of the drawbacks of living in a democracy.

It's newsworthy now because this president is black, and CNN is focusing on the results from black respondents. But it's as old as the presidency itself.

And Obama's success or failure as a president will be decided, in large part, by how he responds to his reversal of fortune.

Jumping the Gun

The Daily Kos just can't resist the bait.

Of course, CNN helped.

Apparently, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman hasn't decided whether he will be a Democrat, a Republican or an independent when he seeks re–election in 2012.

Based on Dana Bash's report for CNN, Lieberman says it is "unlikely" that he will run as a Republican.

"I like being an independent, so that's definitely a possibility," he said. "But I'd say all options are open."

Hmmm. Sounds to me like Lieberman hasn't made up his mind.

But Jed Lewison at the Daily Kos is eager to leap into panic mode, calling it a "kick in the groin" for Democrats who have counted on Lieberman to give them their filibuster–proof majority.

That doesn't really hold up when someone from the majority threatens to support a filibuster, though, does it?

Isn't all this talk about Lieberman's plans for 2012 a bit premature? Democrats appear likely now to lose ground in Congress in 2010. They may lose seats in the House or the Senate or both. If they lose even one seat in the Senate — and I discussed several seats that were in jeopardy a few days ago — they will lose their filibuster–proof majority, anyway.

That's when they will need to decide whether they want Lieberman to remain in their caucus — or if they would prefer to recruit top–notch Democrats to run for Republican–held or open Senate seats in 2012.

Until then, they may not like having him in their caucus, but he agrees with them on most issues and will make many things easier to achieve because he is on their side.

For the long haul, though, Lieberman may be too much of a loose cannon for Democrats' tastes (which is saying a lot) — but, really, is Arlen Specter less of one? And Specter will face the voters next year.

Lewison, without the slightest shred of evidence that Lieberman's defection to the Republican Party is in any way likely, concludes that "[e]very day that Joe Lieberman remains a member in good standing of the Democratic caucus is yet another day that Joe Lieberman makes Democrats look stupid."

Actually, Democrats don't need Lieberman's help to look stupid these days. For that matter, neither does Lewison.

Well, I guess they need something to moan about, now that the New York Times has published survey results that show the unemployed do not blame Barack Obama for the bad economy — but the results are decidedly mixed when they're asked how he is handling job creation.

Until there is improvement in that category, Democrats can rant all they want about Lieberman. The perception will continue to be that they have abdicated their responsibility to the jobless.

And perception, like it or not, is reality.

Leaving Afghanistan

There's something kind of refreshing about a president who throws caution to the wind the way Barack Obama does — in spite of indications that he's digging a deep hole for his party in next year's midterm elections.

Is "refreshing" the right word? Or should it be "foolhardy?"

The latest such indication is his apparent intention to discuss, in a televised address tonight, why he believes the best course in Afghanistan is to deploy more troops in the next six months — with the ultimate goal of ending involvement in three years.

I have never been enamored of war. But, in the interest of full disclosure, I was in favor of a war in Afghanistan back in 2001 — because that is where the September 11 attacks were hatched.

Public opinion and I were on the same page in those days. And we seem to be on the same page today. In 2009, that page favors ending our involvement in Afghanistan.

And lots of Americans think the troops should be withdrawn immediately. Even with the terrible economy that was the primary backdrop to last year's election, there were many voters for whom the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and running a smart, cost–efficient foreign policy were the #1 issues.

Afghanistan's been an afterthought for years. In the public's mind, it was moved to the back burner after the Taliban were routed and Iraq was invaded. The troops have staggered gamely along, with no mission, no objective and no exit strategy. It is high time we stopped pouring lives and resources into that black hole.

Even so, I understand something that many Americans, impatient to save money and lives, do not appear to understand. Our long–term interests require that a war must be ended gradually. It cannot be concluded abruptly, especially in a place like Afghanistan, which needs far less instability than would be created by complete and immediate withdrawal for an environment that would welcome the return of the Taliban to thrive.

Three more years, though, is quite a bit more gradual than I favored. And I wonder how Americans will feel about increasing the nation's human and financial commitments to an unproductive conflict that is more than 8 years old.

Ed Hornick of CNN writes that "comparisons to the war in Vietnam are often invoked," although he is quick to add that "experts say while there are similarities between the two conflicts, there are more differences."

That's true, but it also reminds me of Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats during the Vietnam era and their pious proclamations that they were spending more money and risking more lives so the money that had already been spent and the men who had already died would not have been sacrificed in vain.

And that is at the heart of the comparison.

I'm sure office–holding Democrats who must seek re–election next year appreciate the distinction. "Vietnam" has become a euphemism for "military misadventure" the same way that any scandal is now referred to as "[choose a clever and appropriate substitute word]–gate" and a mass killing has become a "Columbine" (it used to be called "going postal").

In fact, recently, I heard someone use "9/11" as a euphemism for a sneak attack.

Under the previous administration, Afghanistan quickly got the short end of the stick when attention shifted to invading Iraq. Whatever opportunity may have existed initially to capture Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and bring him to justice evaporated, but American troops have remained to this day.

To a great extent, it has become the forgotten war, but not completely — the latest Gallup Poll says 55% of Americans disapprove of Obama's handling of Afghanistan. That's quite a reversal. In July, Gallup was reporting that nearly the same number approved.

"The decline in Obama's approval rating on Afghanistan is evident among all party groups," writes Gallup's Jeffrey Jones, "with double–digit decreases since September among Republicans (17 points), independents (16 points), and Democrats (10 points)."

Will Obama's approach in Afghanistan benefit the members of his party next year? It's hard to see how. Gallup has been reporting that Republicans are leading Democrats on a generic 2010 ballot among registered voters. They have been making incremental gains all year.

How can they be hurt on this issue? Obama may be motivated by a desire to end the war, but isn't increasing the troop strength likely to be perceived as almost an endorsement of the previous administration's policy, even if it is short term? It might even be interpreted as political pandering.

It seems to me that a complete withdrawal, however messy it might leave things in Afghanistan, would be a more powerful repudiation of the previous administration in the eyes of the voting public.

It is worth remembering that politicians don't get to decide what voters use to evaluate candidates and parties. Historically, Americans are more influenced by pocketbook concerns than foreign affairs, even wars, unless the war in question is extremely popular or unpopular. And polls, while neither infallible nor written in stone, are suggesting that the domestic issue that has the voters' attention is unemployment. On that issue, the administration's "record" is largely an unverifiable number of jobs that have been "saved," not jobs that have been created.

John Crudele observes, in the New York Post, that "the employment situation just doesn't improve that much from one month to the next" — which means that, unless something truly dramatic happens, there simply isn't enough time for the kind of clear economic turnaround on which Democrats need to be able to capitalize.

Well, things may look different as we get closer to the midterm elections. Maybe the jobs summit will be wildly successful.

A lot of things could happen.

Will the president find the words to persuade a dubious public that further extending an already overextended military is the right strategy?

In Honor of D-Day

---

---

Barack Obama was in France today, honoring the memory of D–Day as other American presidents did before him.

Obama views himself as a student of history, so his handling of the 65th anniversary of one of the most crucial events of the 20th century was important. D–Day was much like Gettysburg, in my opinion. It did not end the conflict, but it decided which side would benefit from the tide of events for the rest of the war.

It was the turning point, the legendary "fork in the road."

Even though it has been 65 years since D–Day, many who lived through it are living still, and they remember it and return to Normandy (some of them on several such occasions now) seeking, like Private Ryan in the attached film clip, some confirmation that they have been worthy of the sacrifices that made it possible for them to live full lives.

As even his critics have acknowledged, Obama is a talented speaker. So there were great expectations for his words today.

He did not disappoint.

"We live in a world of competing beliefs and claims about what is true. It is a world of varied religions and cultures and forms of government," he said. "In such a world, it is rare for a struggle to emerge that speaks to something universal about humanity. The Second World War did that."

But, even on a somber occasion, things can go wrong.

CNN's Steve Brusk writes that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown mistakenly called Omaha Beach "Obama Beach."

Would you call that a slip of the tongue? Or a Freudian slip?

Scare Tactics Revisited

CNN.com posted an interesting article yesterday. Frankly, I find it baffling.

The article, written by Jeanne Meserve and Mike M. Ahlers, reports that "[t]he average potency of marijuana, which has risen steadily for three decades, has exceeded 10 percent for the first time."

Sounds scary. But what exactly does that mean? Meserve and Ahlers quote "officials" as telling them that "[t]he stronger marijuana is of particular concern because high concentrations of THC have the opposite effect of low concentrations."

These "officials" tell Meserve and Ahlers that "[i]ncreasing potency is leading to higher admissions to emergency rooms and drug treatment programs." To bolster the fear factor, words like "risk" are tossed around, almost casually. But risk of what?

The dots aren't connected for the reader, but a paragraph implies that the "opposite effect" means that users may suffer from "dysphoria, paranoia, irritability and other negative effects."

Let's examine these, one at a time, shall we?

• "Dysphoria" — Raise your hand if you were familiar with this term before. I wasn't. I had to look it up.
  
  I gather that it is supposed to sound sinister, a condition that no one wants because it will make you do all sorts of antisocial things.
  
  But my dictionary — the Random House Dictionary — defines dysphoria as "a state of dissatisfaction, anxiety, restlessness, or fidgeting." Basically, it is the opposite of euphoria, which is the state of mind that is said to be appealing to marijuana users.
  
  Hmmm. It seems to me that, based on that definition, smoking cessation can cause dysphoria. So can giving up coffee. I have friends who have done both, and they were cranky, fidgety, irritable, restless. They didn't feel satisfied. They certainly weren't euphoric. That didn't mean they were going to commit horrific crimes. And it didn't mean they were schizophrenic.
  
  As for anxiety, well, people are anxious for a lot of reasons. People are anxious before surgery. Speaking of which, I have a close friend who lives about 600 miles away from me. He will have triple bypass surgery on Monday. I expect to be anxious until I hear from someone that everything went well. That's the only thing that will relieve my anxiety on that day.
  
  Dysphoria also has been linked with hypoglycemia, which occurs when a person's blood sugar level is below where it should be. Do you suppose that's why someone who smokes pot gets the "munchies" and may be prone to eat cookies and cupcakes? Is it a subconscious attempt to get his/her blood sugar level back in balance?
  
  Is that similar to the "Twinkie defense" that was used to persuade a jury to convict former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White of manslaughter instead of murder for killing George Moscone and Harvey Milk? I don't recall White's lawyer claiming his client had been smoking pot prior to killing those two men, prompting him to consume sugary junk food — but that was in San Francisco, after all.
• "Paranoia" — the Random House Dictionary defines paranoia as
  1. Psychiatry. a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self–defense or as a mission.
  2. baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.
  In other words, "madness." Ooooh, another scary term. Sort of reminds you of "Reefer Madness," the campy 1936 film that presented a fictional tale about high school students who tried marijuana and immediately went on to commit murder, rape, suicide, etc. I guess "Reefer Paranoia" wasn't a marketable name. I went to high school in the 1970s, when marijuana use was commonplace. It was understood that paranoia was, at times, a side effect of marijuana use, but not in all instances. And marijuana certainly isn't the only cause of paranoia. In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon was often described as paranoid, even by some of his supporters and staffers. No one ever suggested that he'd been smoking dope. As far as I could tell, he was paranoid on his own.
• "Irritability" certainly isn't pleasant — but neither is it a life–threatening condition or necessarily the cause of criminal behavior.
  
  People can be irritable when they are tired. They can be irritable when they are hungry or constipated. They can be irritable when they are under stress — and, these days, that means that millions of unemployed people are at risk for irritability. I've known women who became irritable when they were having their monthly periods.
  
  People can be irritable for all sorts of reasons. I've known people who were irritable when they wore clothes made from certain fibers. I've known people who became irritable because of atmospheric conditions or because they ate foods that didn't agree with them.
  
  And, yes, substances can cause irritability — especially when one is going through the withdrawal associated with the cessation of substance intake. People who are giving up smoking can be irritable. So can alcoholics who are trying to go on the wagon.
  
  Irritability is not the exclusive domain of marijuana.

But it seems to me that, if the "officials" are really concerned about the potency of marijuana, they should legalize it and regulate it, labeling the potency for consumers. That's what they did with alcohol when they ended Prohibition. When organized crime was the source for alcohol, consumers didn't know what the potency level was. After Prohibition was repealed, alcohol potency was clearly labeled. Of course, once alcohol was legalized, crusaders needed something else — not unlike the right–wingers who needed someone to fear when the Soviet Union collapsed. As if on cue, along came "Reefer Madness," and the anti–marijuana hysteria began. Now, studies are showing that marijuana can be beneficial for people suffering from cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, all sorts of conditions. And I've written about a study that shows that marijuana can kill cancer cells. Combine that with polls showing that more Americans support legalization, and the zealots apparently feel the need for new ammunition in their war on drugs. The egg–in–the–frying–pan "this is your brain on drugs" tactic doesn't cut it anymore. The Reality–Based Community reports "the drug war is over." One can only hope.

The Blame Game, Winners' Edition

---

---

Shortly after the election last November, I wrote about the "blame game" that was being played in Republican circles — specifically, the finger pointing that was going on following John McCain's loss to Barack Obama.

At the time, I wrote that it was unfair to blame Sarah Palin for McCain's loss. I said — and I still believe this — that most Americans don't decide which presidential ticket to support because of the running mate. A few voters in the running mate's home state may be influenced by the selection, but that's about it. And Alaska was never in jeopardy.

Today, I've been reading an article by CNN political analyst Bill Schneider in which Schneider asks if Americans are going to start blaming Obama for bad economic news.

At this point, Schneider says, Americans have not begun blaming Obama. In fact, there's an interesting dynamic at work here. Public opinion surveys, Schneider writes, show that "[i]t's a race between optimism and despair. Right now, optimism is gaining."

Now, I think it's good that people are seeing the silver lining. But Schneider concedes that this optimism bubble is the product of "[p]robably politics as much as anything."

Nearly 30 years ago, I learned how important a president's personal popularity was when the country was trying to free itself from the grip of a severe recession.

Of course, the Reagan and Obama presidencies had different experiences in their first three months. But one key element of the American personality is its fondness for the quick–fix scenario, a fondness that was fostered by the Reagan administration. Thus far, as Schneider points out, the incessant drumbeat of bad economic news hasn't had a negative influence on the Obama presidency. But "[c]ould the process reverse and the bad economic news start to undermine Obama's political standing?" Schneider asks. "Yes, if we keep getting news, month after month, like Friday's jobless figures."

Voters crave a quick fix. They may talk about shared sacrifices and tightening belts, but it's like weight loss and smoking cessation programs. If someone tells them they can lose 20 pounds without starving themselves or doing 100 situps a day, they will go for the easy (although seemingly impossible) method. And if someone tells them they can kick the habit without having to deal with nicotine withdrawal, that person is blowing smoke but most people will still take that option.

And they want a coherent plan that appears to be logical and doesn't require very many steps. That way, they can see results — and assess the progress that is being made.

Schneider observes that, at some point, bad economic news will "take a toll" on the president's approval ratings. "And when that number goes down, the president loses political clout."

So far, he points out, that hasn't happened to Obama — yet. And he speculates that "may be why President Obama is trying to do so much so quickly."

That may prove to be the undoing of Obama's presidency.

In my lifetime, it seems that most first–term presidents struggled (and, because of the unique circumstances surrounding their tenures, I do not include Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford in this group) out of the gate. The ones who succeeded in regaining their footing and ultimately were rewarded with second terms were the ones who promoted limited agendas.

Obama likes to eschew traditional political maneuvering. He likes to project an image of being "one of the guys." That outsider stuff always seems to sell well with the voters, but once you win an election, you have to play the game with the career politicians in Washington.

And let's be honest about this — Republicans have always been better at playing that particular game than Democrats.

The most recent signs of dissension in the ranks came when the House and Senate approved the 2010 budget. As it was with the stimulus package, the votes were basically along party lines, but the Democrats lost some of their own people in this vote.

From the beginning of his administration, I have believed that Obama needed to narrow his scope and link everything to the stimulation of job creation and/or the preservation of home ownership. If it couldn't be linked to one of those two things, it should not have been included in the final version of the stimulus package.

Then, the budget needed to be presented in the same way. Each item needed to be clearly designated as long–term support for the programs that are intended to get the fundamentals of the economy on their feet.

Those are two things — jobs and homes — that Americans understand. Relatively few understand the complexities of economic theory, but, when the unemployment rate goes down, they understand that. And when foreclosures go down, they understand that, too.

If some things had to be put on the back burner temporarily, so be it.

Oh, and one more point about blame. It's fine for Obama and his staffers to remind people that they inherited the economy from the Bush administration, but history suggests that the voters will sour on that after awhile.

And it suggests they will start to turn sour before the first year of the administration is done.

What Americans Are Worried About

In today's economy, there are many things to be worried about. But one thing was clearly the priority in a recent CNN survey — jobs.

More than one-third of all respondents said unemployment was the most serious issue facing America today. As Paul Steinhauser observes for CNN, that is "almost three times higher than the 13% who felt the same way last April." The second-greatest concern, according to a comparatively sedate 20% of respondents, is inflation.

Small wonder. Nationally, unemployment — which stood at 8.1% when the latest figures were announced earlier this month (and which some experts predict will climb into double digits by the end of the year) — is higher than it has been in more than a quarter of a century.

In California, where the unemployment rate is already in double digits, approximately 10,000 people came to a recent job fair at Dodger Stadium.

With so many people looking for work, those who still have their jobs are, understandably, reluctant to spend their money as freely as they would in a stronger economy. Since consumer spending is the oil that lubricates the economic machine, this creates a perpetual downward spiral in which employers are more likely to cut jobs than add them, and many people wonder how we will ever reverse the trend.

All of which makes people angry when they see companies like AIG insisting on paying $165 million in bonuses and compensation after receiving more than $170 billion in bailout funds.

I can understand National Economic Council chairman Lawrence Summers' observation that AIG made these commitments before the economic meltdown. "We are a country of laws. There are contracts. The government cannot just abrogate contracts. Every legal step possible to limit those bonuses is being taken by Secretary Geithner and by the Federal Reserve system."

But I also understand what Fed chairman Ben Bernanke was talking about when he said, "It's absolutely unfair that taxpayer dollars are going to prop up a company that made these terrible bets, that was operating out of the sight of regulators, but which we have no choice but to stabilize, or else risk enormous impact, not just in the financial system, but on the whole U.S. economy."

In many ways, it strikes me as being similar to Citigroup's purchase of a new corporate jet after coming to Washington seeking bailout funds. In all fairness, I have no doubt that Citigroup placed the order for the jet before the recession began. But, as I pointed out a few months ago, the prudent thing to do in the current environment would be to cancel the contract and swallow any losses. Even so, Citigroup insisted on going through with it — and has been paying the price in terms of poor public relations.

AIG, it seems to me, has made a similar decision, choosing to go ahead and reward people as promised in spite of the economic conditions.

I understand the argument against regulation. In some industries, I can see regulation being too burdensome and too costly.

But doesn't today's economy prove that regulation is necessary in other areas — in both good times and bad?

Mission Accomplished?

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told CNN's John King today that the Bush administration achieved "nearly everything we set out to do" in Iraq.

I'm tempted to let the statement speak for itself.

But I have to wonder a few things — well, actually, more than a few things, but I'll try to contain myself:

• Does "nearly everything" mean a war that continues, almost six years after it began, and has cost American taxpayers more than $600 billion?


• "We have succeeded in creating in the heart of the Middle East a democratically governed Iraq," Cheney said, "and it is in fact what we set out to do."
  
  I think Seth Meyers should devote one of his "Really!?!" segments on "Saturday Night Live" to that statement.
  
  Whatever happened to the "weapons of mass destruction," which, as you may recall, was the original — indeed, the only — justification given for invading Iraq?


• Did the Bush administration really plan to lose nearly 5,000 American lives, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqi lives?
  
  And that doesn't include the thousands of lives that were permanently changed when bodies were maimed by roadside bombs.

If Dick Cheney made any sacrifice for the war effort, I am unaware of it.

Let's poll the families of the Americans who have died in Iraq — or the Americans who came back to this country without a limb or two — and see if they feel the mission was accomplished.

And then let's ask the Americans who continue to foot the bill for the war if they feel the investment was worth it.

Or could we have found better uses for more than $600 billion here at home?

Economists: More Pain, Then Gain

Anyone who has ever embarked on a weight-loss regimen that includes vigorous exercise is familiar with the old adage — "No pain, no gain."

Apparently, the same pearl of wisdom can be applied to the current economy.

Chris Isidore of CNNMoney.com reports that a survey of economists reveals that they are "forecasting a far deeper and more painful recession ahead in the first half of the year, but a modest pickup in the second half of 2009, followed by a solid recovery in 2010."

Well, the first quarter — in which a 5% decline in economic activity is expected — is nearly two-thirds behind us now. A decline of 1.7% is expected in the second quarter. Then, according to the economists, a 1.6% increase looks likely in the third quarter.

The bad news for the unemployed is that the jobless rate is predicted to rise to 9% by the fourth quarter of the year. That isn't the double-digit figure that many people have mentioned, but it is higher than the 7.5% rate that economists predicted previously.

Remember, this isn't written in stone. It is subject to change — whether the conditions that will lead to such a change will be positive or negative remains to be seen.

Whenever I hear about a survey of economists, I am reminded of a line that has been attributed to Harry Truman: "If you lined up all the economists end to end, they'd point in different directions."

I suppose skeptics would argue that, if economists were blessed with some special insight or possessed a crystal ball that would tell them what the future held, there would have been ample warning that could have empowered the rest of us to avoid this mess.

Then again, I guess the flip side would be that many economists did, in fact, warn people what might be coming — and few, if any, listened to them.

So, it seems to me, the best that can be said is that there is light at the end of the tunnel — but it seems to resemble those optical illusions that one encountered in those old houses of mirrors that used to be found at carnivals (I don't know if you can still find those houses of mirrors on carnival midways anymore — it's been a long time since I've been to a carnival).

The optical illusion, in this case, is that the "tunnel" appears to be longer than anyone, including most economists, initially thought it was.

And the light should (logically) grow brighter as confidence returns.

But that, it seems, will take awhile — and, unfortunately for the unemployed, the light beckoning them to the tunnel's end won't get stronger until employers have regained enough confidence to hire more people.

So how severe is the recession? According to John Blake of CNN, comparisons to the Great Depression of the 1930s are erroneous. He thinks the more appropriate comparison is the Panic of 1873, when "[t]he stock market crashed. Wall Street panicked. People stashed silver and gold under mattresses while businesses shut doors across America."

There are some significant differences between 1873 and 2009. Some are not comparable, particularly the technology that is available today that wasn't even dreamed of in the 19th century. But some are — such as the quality of presidential leadership. In 1873, Republican Ulysses S. Grant had just been sworn in for his second term. He never made any decisive efforts to alleviate the economic crisis, and, in the next year's midterm elections, Democrats wound up taking control of the House for the first time in nearly 20 years (senators would not be elected by direct vote until the next century).

In 2009, Democrat Barack Obama has just taken office, and he has made decisive action on the economy his top priority.

Of course, everyone wants to know when things are going to get better. It reminds me of a movie I saw more than 15 years ago, "Leap of Faith," which was about a faith healer and a farming community that was slowly dying from a severe drought. All the residents of the town who came to the faith healer's shows wanted to know when rain would return and save their crops.

If the film is to be seen as an analogy of the American economy in 2009, the "town" is the nation and the faith healer is Obama. But can he tell us when it will rain again?

And that leads me to another survey from CNN.

Paul Steinhauser reports that a new national poll finds that nearly three-fourths of Americans are fearful about the way things are going in the country.

The same survey also suggests that more than three-fourths of respondents felt that things were going well for them personally, but CNN's polling director had an explanation for that. "Americans always believe things are better in their own lives than in the rest of the country," he said. "But they are realists as well — they recognize that bad times somewhere else in the U.S. may eventually come to affect them."

If confidence is the name of the game, Americans still show confidence in their new president, slightly more than a month since he took office. CNN reports that two out of three Americans approve of the job he is doing.

And that is a crucial piece of the overall puzzle. If the president inspires confidence, that can make a big difference — even if it is psychological.

What Obama says in his speech to Congress tomorrow night — and how well it is received by the lawmakers — can have an enormous psychological impact on those who listen to what he has to say.

The Last (?) Word on C-SPAN's Rankings

I don't know if, as my headline suggests, this is the last word on the presidential rankings published by C–SPAN during the weekend.

But I read something today that did provide an answer — sort of — to a question I asked, in a roundabout way, the other day.

A CNN.com article has summarized the survey's findings — and suggests that it was appropriate that Abraham Lincoln finished first on the occasion of the bicentennial of his birth.

The article acknowledges, however, that Lincoln also finished first in the survey that was conducted in 2000 — so the fact that he finished first in the latest survey does not appear to be, in any way, connected to the 200th anniversary of his birth.

Lincoln's occupation of the top spot may be the most obvious coincidence, but there are a couple of other ironic anniversaries that haven't — as I recall — been mentioned in any of the articles I've read about the survey, whether those articles appeared in blogs or sites run by professional news organizations.

For example, this year is the 100th anniversary of the conclusion of Theodore Roosevelt's presidency. Roosevelt was ranked fourth in both the 2000 and 2009 surveys.

And, in 1809, the year that Lincoln was born, Thomas Jefferson's presidency came to an end. Jefferson was ranked seventh on C–SPAN's list.

Anyway, the "question" to which I referred had to do with why Ulysses S. Grant jumped from 33rd in the 2000 survey to 23rd in the current one.

Grant's traditionally low marks may be due, as CNN wrote, to the corruption of others in his administration and the record of the Reconstruction effort over which he presided.

But a Howard University historian observed that Grant may be "getting a bounce" from the additional attention that has been paid to Lincoln in his bicentennial year.

"Grant won the war for Lincoln," the historian said. "A new look at the totality of his career may be improving his presidential stature."

I still think, as I mentioned the other day, that Grant may be getting more credit for his support for civil rights and his opposition to the kind of violence practiced by domestic terrorists like the Ku Klux Klan. But Grant's role in winning the Civil War was something I overlooked, largely because it is not something I consider part of his presidential record.

I also mentioned the other day that Bill Clinton is viewed more favorably in the current survey than he was in the one that was conducted in his last year in office. At the same time, I observed that recent presidents should be excluded from such rankings until history has had an opportunity to adequately assess them.

Which brings me to a point made by another historian: "Bill Clinton and Ulysses S. Grant aren't often mentioned in the same sentence — until now. Participants in the latest [survey] have boosted each man significantly higher than in the original survey conducted in 2000. All of which goes to show two things: the fluidity with which presidential reputations are judged, and the difficulty of assessing any president who has only just recently left office."

Incidentally, there was another major shift in the presidential rankings that I didn't mention in my post on Sunday.

Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who was Grant's successor, fell from the 26th spot in 2000 to the 33rd spot in the current survey. The reasons for that shift are unclear — although Hayes was sort of the George W. Bush of the 19th century. He lost the popular vote, as Bush did in 2000, but won the electoral vote by a single vote after a congressional commission worked out a deal instead of putting the decision in the hands of the House, as required by the Constitution.

To this day, Hayes is the only president whose election was decided in this fashion.

Democrats referred to Hayes as "Rutherfraud," much like many Democrats referred to Florida as "Fraudia" after the disputed 2000 election.

I don't know if this had any bearing on Hayes' fall in the rankings, but liquor was banned at White House functions during his presidency, largely because Hayes' wife, Lucy, was opposed to it. She was nicknamed "Lemonade Lucy," ostensibly because lemonade — or something equally bland — was served at formal dinners, giving rise to the statement that "water flowed like wine" at the Hayes White House.