Abortion is a proven "wedge" issue, in the finest tradition of Karl Rove's masterful divisive politics, and it's arguably being used that way again right now in the health-care insurance reform debate. The mainstream media is commercial, so they're far from immune from the effects of the money being spent to spin, shape, frame, and control this debate.
Most of us, frankly, have "good enough" insurance, and we all get to make the choice to keep our current system. In fact, of the 5 out of 6 covered Americans, fully 3 out of 4 of them say they're mostly satisfied. So let's be clear: this isn't about the majority, this is about the 1 in 6 Americans who aren't covered. 1 in 6 - that's not quite 50 million Americans.
Now, nobody's proposed socialized medicine - if they had the doctors wouldn't be mostly in favor of reform. But it's a tested sound bite that shaves off a few votes. Did you know they need more billing clerks at Duke Medical Center than they have nurses? Does that get through to the opponents of reform at all? No, apparently they're happier with it spun by lobbyists and CEOs than sticking with reality.
They dragged in euthanasia (which then echoed through the media) because "socialized medicine" didn't make as big a dent as they had hoped. So, too, with abortion. It's being dragged into the debate for the express purpose of derailing the whole package - undermining an honest debate about our values, and shaving off a few votes here and there. It's classic Rove/GOP/special interest "divide and conquer" in the face of Obama's attempts to make real improvements.
They hope we'll ignore that the leading cause of personal bankruptcy filings is medical expenses. Never mind that the number of uninsured Americans grows by over 10,000 people each and every day. No, no, don't fret about your neighbors who aren't as well off as you, that's not your problem - just keeping listening to the $pecial interests as they spend millions of dollars per day, raised by bureaucrats at companies who decide your premiums and what they'll cover or not cover, all to influence congress and public opinion. The bureaucrats who control our access to health care right now live rich, lavish lifestyles with no incentive to change the system, let alone to cover those who need it most.
More than half of personal bankruptcy filings are triggered by medical costs. Really.
Do you think this is about somebody else? Do you think everybody you know is really covered? Do you mind that most of the raises in the last three decades for low and middle-income earners have gone right into the pockets of health insurance profiteers, because premiums have been rising at triple the rate of inflation?
Lots of special interest money is being thrown at this debate, and it's up to us to keep the truth out there, because when people hear things like abortion, socialized medicine, or allegedeuthanasia for senior citizens, many have a visceral reaction and stop thinking, let alone listening. Obviously, profits are at stake or the insurance companies wouldn't be spending all that money that might otherwise be going to control costs.
Well, TechCrunch didn't include Craigslist's visitor statistics in its blog report, I did, but the point is at 44 million unique visitors, Twitter is just shy of Craigslist's 50 million as of May 2009. If there was any question how large Twitter has become, or how important, that stat should answer it.
But with all of this traffic, where's the revenue model? Is it just burning venture capital cash or is there a plan? (Spark Capital's Todd Dagres says there's a money-making plan and his firm has pumped $35 million into Twitter with the confidence the approach will work.) As of this writing, Twitter is free of charge and is devoid of ads. While different approaches have been discussed, here's one I've not seen before.
In the model I envision, Twitter would allow its users to embed videos by YouTube Partners directly on their profiles. In turn, YouTube would pay Twitter a percentage revenue fee from the traffic generated by Twitter-based YouTube videos. It's a way of allowing Twitter users to "jazz up" their profiles with videos, much as they do with photos, which in some cases are corporate logos anyway.
My point is, Twitter's already becoming commercialized because businesses are establishing pages on it. Having a provision to add video isn't really pushing Twitter in a direction it should not go. I think this provision would be a massive hit, especially in cases where the YouTuber has breaking news on video that then goes viral on Twitter. Moreover popular YouTubers are also in demand on Twitter, like iJustine, one of LA's Top Twitterers, so Twitter become a way to expand the YouTube Partner reach.
I don't know what the overall revenue impact would be on the Twitter, but its certainly a win-win: Twitter doesn't have to worry about additional traffic weight to its servers, and YouTube makes more money from the additional traffic from Twitter that it then shares with Twitter.
So, if you notice Twitter pages having YouTube videos embeded, you know where the idea came from.
After years of ducking complaints about his occasionally offensive coverage, Lou Dobbs, host of CNN's Lou Dobbs show, may finally see either the end of his days of pretty much getting away with whatever "fact" he puts out, or the end of his show altogether. As one who went on a video attack regarding his economic views a while back - see below - I'm glad to see it. But Lou's idiotic views on the economy pale in comparison to his use of story angles from white supremacists groups, even to the point of using websites representing such views as sources. Indeed, one Newsvine blogger SkeeterVT links the current "birther" movement and Dobbs coverage of it to white supremacists groups, but it's not Dobbs first time helping such wingnuts. More after my "Lou Dobbs in an idiot on the economy" video:
Dobbs is friend to white supremacists
Google "Lou Dobbs white supremacist" and one sees over 23,000 results, the vast majority related to his series of stories on illegal aliens. In fact, it was an every day constant drum beat from Lou well through 2008. But Bill Scher of the Huff Post reports that as far back as 2006, Dobbs story source was the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group that was pointed to as having a "white supremacy" ideology according to the Anti-Defamation League. What was Dobbs talking about? The supposed "Mexican campaign to recapture the Southwest", an idea that was slammed by many as completely, well, idiotic.
And the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), another anti-racism watchdog group, has pointed specifically to Dobbs for hosting white supremacists as far back as 2004. One of them, Glen Spencer, has spoken at least twice to the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, which has described blacks (like me I guess) as "a retrograde species of humanity." And the SPLC explains that Dobbs never mentioned the affiliation of Spencer or for that matter Joe McCutchen who was famous for writing anti-Semitic "letters to the editor" to various publications.
Virginia Abernathy was another Dobbs guest with ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens, in her case as an editorial adviser according to Commondreams.org and other sources.
CNN offered an explanation for the Dobbs connection to the Council of Conservative Citizens in an email to onepeoplesproject.com as presented by LaLuchaSigue:
A freelance field producer in Los Angeles searched the web for Aztlan maps and grabbed the Council of Conservative Citizens map without knowing the nature of the organization. The graphic was a late inclusion in the script and, regrettably, was missed in the vetting process.
Oh c'mon! Blaming this on one field producer doesn't even touch the question of who booked this cast of characters to be on Dobbs show!
Dobbs, white supremacists and the birther movement
And just when I though Lou had returned to more credible reporting, he sits with white supremacists once again in giving a platform to the birthers. As I explained above, Newsvine's SkeeterVT's blog post today connects Andy Martin, a well-known white supremacist and friend of and guest of Fox News Sean Hannity, is now associated with Dobbs as one who's actions are given credibility by Dobbs' coverage. Forget Alan Keyes, who's a fake conservative searching for votes, attention, and money, people like Martin should be feared and not given a platform, even indirectly, by people like Dobbs.
CNN should be ashamed
CNN is a better organization than the way they're allowing Dobbs to present them. There's a wealth of evidence that Lou Dobbs is providing a home for white supremacist views and opinions. Dobbs even went so far as to go out and by "Obama Waffles" and CNN did nothing. Why? And why has CNN not made an issue of this until now?
Ratings.
When Lou was hammering Mexicans and hosting white supremacists, the ratings were terrific - as much as 816,000 daily viewers in 2006 and a 33 percent increase over 2005 - and CNN came to his defense. But now, Dobbs ratings are down 15 percent as of this writing and during his coverage of the birther movement; its the ratings fall that makes Dobbs suddenly expendable to CNN. While CNN's defended Dobbs recently, there are behind the scenes rumblings that his show may have met its end.
Thank God!
Making money off race hate may have worked in the pre-Obama America, but in an America with its first African American President Obama and first Latino treasurer in Rosie Rios, to offer but two examples of our ever diversifying USA, the racist media party is over.
I just returned from my monthly visit to Georgia, where my Mom's living. I always enjoy the relaxed atmosphere of the semi-rural town she lives in outside Atlanta, but I can't help noticing one thing: all of the fat people, especially the women. Suburban Georgia seems to have missed the "strong woman" movement, which is what the "Iron Girl" competition is all about. Ironically, Iron Girl's held today in Atlanta! (Now, when I refer to strong woman I'm not limiting the term to women who engage in powerliting or feats of strength. That's on the extreme end but the same lifting techniques and equipment used by extremely strong women are employed on a normal basis by many women today. I'm exploring the growth of that practice and women in athletics, like the members of the U.S. Olympic Women's Synchronized Swim Team who talked about the torch issue in my video .)
Iron Girl: for women only
According to its website, Iron Girl started with just two events in 2004 and now has 10 around America: Clearwater, FL, Las Vegas, Denver, Atlanta, Del Mar, Syracuse, Tempe, Bloomington, Seattle, Columbia MD, and Del Mar. Considering how the strong woman movement - as I call it - arguably started in California, it's shocking that there's only one event in the state, and none in Northern California. (Oakland would be the perfect place for an Iron Girl event.
But why are events like Iron Girl growing? And why is it suddenly it seems normal for women to be strong and look strong?
Why it's now normal for women to show muscle
I can remember a time when a woman flexing was considered not "ladylike" but not anymore. Frankly, I think a woman with muscle is just plain sexy, and have for most of my life, but now the industrialized world has caught up to me. The reason for this can be directly attributed to the success of Title IX, the national legislation which tackled school sex discrimination in athletics. The preamble to the law reads: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any programs or activity receiving federal financial assistance." That covers every public and most private school athletic programs in America. Before Title IX, called the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, the most commonly accepted ways for a woman to participate in athletics were cheerleading and square dancing. A woman playing, for example, Tennis, was fine that racket sport was looked upon as something mainly for men' for women it wasn't ok to be a jock.
Then came Bill Jean King.
I remember the circus around her then-anticipated match against blowhard Bobby Riggs. Everyone I knew as a small boy wanted to see King, who was made fun of by a number of people on television before the event, kick his arrogant butt, especially my Mom. O Sept. 20, 1973 in Houston, King beat Riggs in three straight sets; the match was seen by 50 million people. One of those people was Pasty Mink, the force behind Title IX.
Even before King's hammering of Riggs, Mink had successfully wrote and caused the passage of Title IX in 1972. She was spurred to do so after being denied admission to medical school because she was a woman. While Mink's intent was to open access to education for women, it had a dramatic impact on the growth of women's athletics because of King and coaches like Billy Lynn, who's Sui Ross State University (Texas) women's volleyball team was the first to win a national championship. But it took cable television, the Internet, and the constant increase in media outlets to produce the hunger for sports-related content that accelerated the growth of women's athletics. By 1990, television featured all kinds of women's sports, from tennis and track to something new: bodybuilding. After years of women being told to cover up their muscles, they were showing them and getting paid to do it.
At that point, the idea that a woman could be strong and sexy was introduced to American Culture. Since 1990, media's expansion has led to the constant propagation of the image of the strong woman. Add to that the heath and fitness craze, the wellness movement, and the "sexualization" of women with muscle (where now its considered sexy for a woman to have muscle) and we have America's evolution to a point where the first lady, Michelle Obama, is praised for her toned arms as much as she is for her charm.
The future of the strong woman?
As we move toward the end of the first decade of the 21st Century, look for more women to participate in such activities as "fitness bootcamps" where a trainer puts her "subjects" through a battery of activities involving intense weight lifting and running. Women-only athletic events like Iron Girl are common. And in fashion, clothes like the sleveless blouse are popular in the US and the UK because of Mrs. Obama's style, and guys like me say "More, more!" There's nothing to suggest that the propagation of the image of the strong woman is under attack anywhere in America...except suburban Atlanta.
We will Broadcast two Games Live on UStream.tv at 5pm (Westchester Nighthawks vs Bergen Bears) and 7pm (Orange Sprit vs Rockland Rattlers) all times eastern. The Games will also be shown on Verizion Fios ch. 32 in most east coast states. On Tuesday night don't forget to catc the CDFL Review and coaches show at www.Blogtalkradio.com/Football-Reporters at 7:30 pm Eastern
The CDFL Broadcast team is Tammy Prince & John Kelly on Play by Play and Dr. Bill Chachkes on color commentary.
In my multi-part blog entry on Erin Andrews (which included the video above) I ran across an little gem by now-Valleywag Editor Ryan Tate regarding the website activities of one Fox News correspondent Courtney Friel, who was one of the guests of Fox News star blowhard Bill O'Reilly on the matter of the nude video of ESPN's Erin Andrews. I got after Tate for using this title:
Secret Bikini Shots Of Fox News "Bonehead"
Because I was under the impression that Tate was using someone else's quote to about her to channel (a popular term now) his perception of Friel. I was under the impression Tate himself believed Friel to be a "bonehead" because in the blog post he didn't write the text to separate himself from what he wrote. Well, the ever-observant Tate saw my blog post and sparked a great and friendly email exchange (Ryan's cool) where he wrote:
I quoted the term, twice. Why do you quote things you don't
necessarily agree with? Usually because they're interesting. That
doesn't mean you think they're true. In this case, we have an anchor
who has stirred up a lot of critics. I can't say I agree with them,
because I haven't watched her show and never professed to. What do I
have to go on? What I do know is how she's handled the critics, and
what she's said, which is what I wrote about/ Hard to do that without
quoting the critics.
and...
That's because I didn't rail against the term. I'm not saying I knew
it to be wrong; I knew not whether it was correct or incorrect, and
did not pass judgement on it either way. The post you quoted wasn't
about whether she was a bonehead, it was about her removing racy
pictures from her own website, and more broadly how she presented
herself (the "horse dick" video). Her critics are relevant in this
context because it's a possible explanation for her pulling the
images.
This was a far cry from the exchange I had with Kara Swisher of the Wall Street Journal, who employed the same device regarding Twitter in stating that it was "simple", which I disagree with. Where Ryan was cool, Kara was nasty and overbearing, basically ordering me to make a change without explaining why she used someone else's quote about Twitter.
Kudos to Ryan!
As one who's paid to give an opinion, I'm used to those who write or say "I think this" or that, rather than hide behind a quote. But at least Ryan gave me his point of view separate from what he wrote and without the insults and orders Swisher threw at me.
Sgt. Leon Lashley, the African-American cop on scene when James Crowley arrested Professor Henry Louis Gates, writes a letter saying that he is not an "Uncle Tom" and regrets being known as a "black sergeant." He asks Prof. Gates what he can do to make things better, and let him know if he did anything wrong.
Thursday, President Barack Obama held a "Beer Summit", as some have called it, with Harvard Professor Henry Lewis Gates, Jr., Cambridge Police Sergeant Officer James Crowley, and Vice President Joe Biden, bring an end to an unfortunate but necessary event in American Cultural history, and starting a new chapter in American race relations.
It was the first time in American and world history a sitting president met publicly with a white police officer and the person the officer arrested, a black man. And to add to the moment, the president is African American. I think the teachable moment President Obama referred to was that two gentlemen of seemingly different stripes but of one culture can not only meet, but (as they agreed to do) meet again and again.
Sgt. Crowley assists Prof. Gates as President Obama leads the way
President Obama issued this statement:
"Even before we sat down for the beer, I learned that the two gentlemen spent some time together listening to one another, which is a testament to them," the president's statement said. "I have always believed that what brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart. I am confident that has happened here tonight, and I am hopeful that all of us are able to draw this positive lesson from this episode."
And I think everyone did, even if Sapporo, my personal favorite beer, wasn't on the menu, (Obama had a Bud Light, Crowley chose Blue Moon, and Gates had Samuel Adams) it was still gratifying to see the four men sit together and talk. It provides a great example for a country that seems ready to split over differences of opinion. We have to get to the point of communicating openly and often and without fear. While it's hard to know exactly what was said between the men, we can read between the lined in Crowley's press conference - in the video - when he said "We agreed to disagree." It's not hard to determine what they disagreed about.
In the arrest of Gates, basically because Crowley judged him to be disobedient after what turned out to be a case of a mistaken 911 call in since Gates was entering his own home, Crowley said he was "going by the book" or word to that effect. But the whole point of critics of racial profiling is that the "book" argument is used all the time. The "book" is tossed out when an officer uses his or her own personal emphathy, and please don't tell me this isn't done. Water Goldstein over at the Huff Post has a great blog on why white guys like him come away from such encounters gaining the help of an officer, and not handcuffs.
Sergeant Crowley and I, through an accident of time and place, have been cast together, inextricably, as characters – as metaphors, really – in a thousand narratives about race over which he and I have absolutely no control. Narratives about race are as old as the founding of this great Republic itself, but these new ones have unfolded precisely when Americans signaled to the world our country’s great progress by overcoming centuries of habit and fear, and electing an African American as President. It is incumbent upon Sergeant Crowley and me to utilize the great opportunity that fate has given us to foster greater sympathy among the American public for the daily perils of policing on the one hand, and for the genuine fears of racial profiling on the other hand.
In his press conference held after the "summit", Crowley said that both he and Gates would talk again as soon as next week.
That the two plan to meet and seize the moment to create a lesson for America is really exciting. I really believe God made this happen. It's too good to be true that a professor of Black Studies and a police officer who's also an expert in racial profiling are working together and have this exchange to build from. That's a miracle.
Toward American Culture
I hope people realize from this that we really are one people and there's much that binds us together below the surface. I don't know if it's from reduced education spending, longer work hours, or what, but we seem to be less patient with the idea of study and more willing to just go with our prejudices, but that's countered by the ever-more-well-mixed society we live in. We have extremes like the thoughtless Glen Beck (who said the President was racist in a horrible misuse of the term) and the thoughtful Gates and Crowley right before us. With a little communication we'll have more people like Gates and Crowley and far fewer people like Glen Beck.
The Michael Vick issue has drawn a variety of views and opinions like mine above, but only one person has the ability to determine his football future and that's NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. A press conference was held Monday in New York where Commissioner Goodell presented his decision regarding the former Atlanta Falcons quarterback, but we've only seen bits-and-pieces of text. Here's the full press conference transcript, courtesy of NFLMedia.com
NFL COMMISSIONER ROGER GOODELL
Press Conference – Michael Vick Conditional Reinstatement
July 27, 2009
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell: Good afternoon. As all of you are aware, I’ve made my decision regarding Michael Vick and I would be happy totake your questions. But before we do, I would just like to make a couple of points which I hope will be helpful inputting it into context.
First, and most importantly, we all want to recognize that the conduct that Michael engaged in was not only horrific, but it was cruel. And we all certainly recognize that and I believe after meeting with Michael that he recognizes that also. We engaged in a very thorough process. It was very carefully done and very thoroughly done. Multiple members of our staff were engaged as well as me. We went through his court records. We went through evaluations. We went through decisions. We know all the terms of his parole. We went through every detail, including about a four-and-a-half hour meeting with Michael last Wednesday here in the New York area. So we take this as a very serious matter. We’re dealing with a young man’s life. Our process was similarly reflective of the seriousness of that.
As you know, he can sign now with an NFL team. He can practice without delay with an NFL team. He may play in the final two preseason games of this preseason. And once the regular season starts, he can practice if the team so chooses. And I will decide within the first six weeks of the regular season when and whether he will be reinstated to play from there.
He has been very open and fully cooperative as well as his advisers and his counselors. I will say that one of the most important things that we talked about is that nobody gets through life alone. That you always have to have a mentor. That you always have to have somebody who will give you guidance and support at critical moments. Michael needs that right now and I have asked Tony Dungy to play a more formal role on my behalf but also on Michael’s behalf to serve as a mentor to Michael to help him and guide him through some very difficult decisions he’s going to have to make going forward. I do not expect he will be his only mentor,but Tony will be a big part in determining who else will serve as advisers to him. But I know Tony and Michael, who I spoke to earlier today on a conference call, both take it very seriously and are committed to making sure that they work closely together to make better decisions going forward.
I do believe that this transitional approach that we have outlined for Michael is the best thing for him, that it has the best opportunities to lead to success for a young man who has his life ahead of him. Whether he makes it on the field in the NFL is something that will be determined on the field. But he has some big decisions off the field to make in the way he conducts himself. I think he is at a point right now where he is prepared to make those decisions and hopefully conduct himself in a more positive way. I have said repeatedly,and many times before, that playing in the NFL is a privilege, we are held to a higher standard and it is not a right to be an NFL player. I think Michael clearly understands that is his responsibility and I think it is his opportunity now to earn that privilege back again. And that is up to Michael.
But one final point before I take your questions. As I’ve said many times before, I am very proud of NFL players. They do incredible things and exceed the standards that we set for them. And they do that both on and off the field. And I am proud of the things they do off the field. Obviously when you are dealing with 2,000 young men, you are going to have mistakes, bad judgments, and people are going to do things that you are not proud of. Obviously this is one case. But I hope something positive can come out of something that has been a very tragic circumstance and hopefully people will understand that the individual here has the right to earn that opportunity back again. He will be held accountable for that. He will be held accountable for his life management plan that he submitted to me, the things he says he is going to do, and I will make sure that he does that in responsible fashion, as will Tony.
Have any teams expressed an interest in signing him yet?
That’s not something that I would get involved with. I work for all 32 teams. As far as what team signs him, that’s an individual club decision and they’ll have to make that individually with him and negotiate.
On Michael lying:
He was not candid with me. In fact, prior to starting the hearing we spent a few minutes together and it was the first thing he raised with me. That he was disappointed in himself. That he was direct in the fact that he lied about his involvement in dog fighting. And I accept his apology. I understand. I don’t like being lied to like anybody else. But this is something that we have to move forward from. Michael understands that I am judging him on his activities going forward, on the words that he said to me, and on the conduct that hopefully will support the words he expressed to me personally.
What needs to happen in the next 12weeks for him to be reinstated?
A number of things. First he would have to sign a contract with a team. He will have to begin the process of getting re-acclimated into that community and that team. He’ll obviously want to relocate his family. He’s been very clear about that. He will have to get a support system around him. He will continue to go through the programs of his parole and also the programs that the NFL has designed for him. He will work very closely with Tony and me if necessary to make sure that we are providing the support necessary and the guidance. But he has a very difficult transition ahead and we want to support him in that and give him that opportunity. But he recognizes he has to earn that and his actions will have to support that.
Should Vick not sign with any team during the preseason, will the parameters of this reinstatement change? Have you looked into or discussed that possibility, if he doesn’t have the opportunity with a team during preseason?
Well that’s not something I can control. Of course individual clubs and Michael and his team will have to make that decision who he signs with ultimately. I don’t expect I would modify the terms of what I call the transition plan in any marginal way, but I’ll leave that option open if necessary – but I don’t see that as being something that I would engage in.
PETA has said that they had wanted you to have him undergo a psychiatric evaluation to show that he is truly remorseful and that if not they would consider protesting any team that would sign him. Did you have him undergo any evaluations?
Yes, in fact we worked with animal rights activist groups and we are clear: we worked with their medical professionals about the aspects of our evaluations. Michael fully cooperated with all of those tests. Those tests did not indicate there was any reason he couldn’t make a transition forward, but they also recognized that counseling and other aspects of support will be important for him going forward.
You mentioned there’d be an NFL component to his program as well, things he would have to adhere to. Could you elaborate on what that means beyond obviously the probationary things you have asked him to do legally?
Well the primary one is the role of (former Indianapolis Colts Head Coach) Tony Dungy. I believe that Tony is a very successful individual, he is somebody that I respect his judgment, I think he is wise and will give good counsel. I think he is committed to helping Michael asa young man – not as a football player. He’ll try to do what he can to help him reestablish his life and help him move forward. That’s the first thing that has to happen here. All of the conditions which we have outlined in the letter – which we will be happy to provide you with – we will hold Michael accountable for. He will be responsible for fulfilling those,and they will be part of my judgment about how long the period of time is before I’ll allow him to play in regular season games.
Did you feel a sense of urgency to make the decision quickly? Obviously it’s only been a week since he completed his federal term. How much of a relief – I don’t know if relief is the right word – but how much of a relief will it be for you tohave made this decision quickly?
Relief is not a word I would use here. I believe that it was my responsibility to make a thoughtful, clear decision, and to do it on a very timely basis. I am not here to punish anybody; we’re here to extend player’s careers rather than limit player’s careers. That is important for us to do as long as they recognize the standards by which we are going to hold them accountable and everybody in the NFL. I believe Michael understands that. I believe he deserves the opportunity to earn his way back onto the field – but he will have to earn it. It is up to him now, and we will support him the way we have outlined in my decision. I believe that I had the responsibility to make a decision as quickly as possible, one that was fair, and I hope this one is seen as fair – although I fully recognize that some people won’t agree with it.
About how many people played a role? Obviously this is your decision and your name is attached to it, but I know NFL security, probably owners and coaches, players past and present probably played some role in you formulating your final policy.
Well I believe very much in getting a variety of opinions to get a broad perspective. I reached out to a variety of leaders of our country, our society. I’ve talked to a number of current and former players, I’ve talked to a number of current and former coaches, I’ve talked to former and current executives – but I am very cautious about competitive issues here. I would not involve someone that would be involved potentially in Michael’s interest as a football player. I was interested in Michael as an individual and what we could do to help reestablish his life and get him involved in a positive way regardless of if he played football. I do believe very much in getting perspectives, and I believe that has served me very well in making decisions. As you pointed out, ultimately, at the end of the day, I had to go into a room and make a decision. I reached out to a number of people, including DeMaurice Smith (head of the NFL Players Union), former players, and coaches and I believe I had all the perspectives I needed to make this decision.
Did you talk with any of the sponsors of the NFL, any companies and what their reaction would be? Was there anything you would bounce off of them?
I didn’t – I can’t specifically recall contacting people in that context. From time to time I may have spoken to a CEO about how to make decisions like this and what are the important factors even though the circumstances, I presume, would be wildly different. But I never thought about it in the context of the commercial success of the NFL. That’s never been a factor for me from day one. The intent here was to do the right thing with a young man’s life and for the game of football and the NFL, and that’s what I tried to do.
Yesterday I posted a blog entry which contained set of videos from the YouTube channel of "EASTOAKLAND106", and contained scenes that were shocking. One showed two young black men basically exacting an ugly form of "street" justice on a white man in East Oakland. The other videos were created during "The Sideshow", an activity featuring muscle cars revved to full-throttle by their drivers, spinning donuts in the middle of the intersection of 106th and Mac Arthur Blvd. The YouTube channel contained other videos that together gave the viewer a real picture of what was going on (or "going down") in that part of Oakland.
I made the decision to create the blog to get the attention of the normally placid blog reader, tossed a steady diet of texts about celebrities, sports, and Erin Andrews. These videos showing the real life in East Oakland are there, but bloggers generally ignore them. I thought it was time to change that state of affairs, so I did.
The reaction on my blog Oakland Focus was basically normal, one email of concern about what's happening in that part of our city. But on SFGate.com, the website of the San Francisco Chronicle, it was different. At first, some were hostile, angry that I placed such videos up for public view (forgetting that the videos were already up and out in the open on YouTube), others accused me of trying to "glorify" what they saw as "black culture". Still, others said that by installing that blog post I was simply advancing how whites saw blacks. All of these views I take issue with to a degree.
Yes, I know the old saw that "if it bleeds, it leads" but my intent was to poke and prod at a system of local bloggers that has ignored East Oakland. While there's a blog called "Oakland North", which focuses on a part of our town that, considering the Rockridge scene, can be as sexy as it is charming, there's no blog called "Oakland East" or "East Oakland" for that matter, and some of the blogs that certain Oakland Councilmembers read give only one view of Oakland. And SFGate.com and the w Oakland Tribune website only report crimes that happen in East Oakland, but don't give one an idea of what it's like to be there. So, with the help of the SFGate staff, that all changed.
I thank the SFGate's Vlae Kershner for taking the daring leap of giving my post the visibility "above the fold" of the front page and in the face of the visitor. The result - in part because of this and because of Google News and the way I designed the post to trigger it - was 149 comments, and it was gratifying to see the outpouring of emotion, the dissension, and eventually the melding of views and ideas. People who started out far apart were able to find common ground: we agree that some set of policies must be enacted to change East Oakland beyond just "more cops" and even though some don't think anything we try will work, they agree something must be done.
I still favor a return to a manufacturing-based economy in East Oakland. I'm tired of seeing whole states like Alabama work to bring auto plants and steel plants to those areas, while people here who have low-skills struggle to find work while the government tells them to get "retrained" for jobs that others move here to get, and land them. California as a whole has forgotten how to compete for industry, and has become lazy: more willing to build prisons and lock people up than assure the maintenance of a well-funded education system and a great jobs-building economy. The objective should be "a job for everyone" and not "I will arrest you."
All that and we're surprised at what we saw in East Oakland, or for that matter, the riots after the shooting of Oscar Grant? That is us, not the black "us" or the white "us, or the Asian or Latino "us", but us as Americans, or as Oscar Goldman said to "The Six Million Dollar Man", Steve Autin, "This is your arm, Steve." We have to deal with the reality we face and change it.
Some lament the passing of "old media," and I certainly mourn the loss of giants like Walter Cronkite, but new media - open, in your face, connective of everyone, and rapid in motion - is the social mirror we've never had before. We can see who we are, talk about what needs to change, then go out and do it.
After much discussion, polling, and commenting, Michael Vick's back in the NFL. As I mention in my video created two day ago, he has to wait six games (which I called a suspension but as it turns out, it's not). Rather than blast another post about Vick's return, I took a look at the results of my poll (still a small majority favored Vick's return to the NFL this season, including me), and waited for more information. During that time, several NFL teams openly expressed their lack of desire to have the double-threat quarterback join them, but it took my friend Mike Florio of ProFootballtalk.com (the "TMZ.com" of the NFL) to make an "anti-Vick" team list. He updates the list periodically; here's what it looks like as of this writing, and Mike has notes explaining if the teams made their views known before or after Vick was invited back to the NFL by Commissioner Roger Goodell:
Atlanta Falcons Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Pre-reinstatement) Detroit Lions (Pre-reinstatement) New York Jets (Pre-reinstatement and last week) New York Giants (Recently) San Francisco 49ers (Pre-reinstatement and post-reinstatement) St. Louis Rams (Pre-reinstatement, and possibly post-reinstatement) Dallas Cowboys (Pre-reinstatement and recently) Washington Redskins (Pre-reinstatement and recently) Houston Texans (Pre-reinstatement) Indianapolis Colts (Pre-reinstatement) Seattle Seahawks (Pre-reinstatement) Buffalo Bills (Post-reinstatement) Cincinnati Bengals (Post-reinstatement) Miami Dolphins (Post-reinstatement) Kansas City Chiefs (Pre-reinstatement and post-reinstatement) Philadelphia Eagles (Post-reinstatement)
Here are the teams that to my knowledge have not made a statement (if you have new information, please let me know:
Oakland Raiders Cleveland Browns Houston Texans Chicago Bears Minnesota Vikings (Didn't say "no," but did not say "yes either) St. Louis Rams
No statement from the Raiders
Now before you scream "The Raiders have said they will pass on Vick", no they didn't say that, a San Francisco Examiner columnist speculated they would do that, and it showed up in Google News. Offically, the Silver and Black have said nothing. Moreover, it's in the Raiders history to give a player like Vick a chance and if he's still able to run as he did two years ago, could give a defense fits in a kind of "Wildcat" formation with running backs Michael Bush and Darren McFadden.
Coach Tony Dungy is Vick's NFL-appointed mentor
Tony Dungy, the legendary Super Bowl-winning former coach of the Indianapolis Colts, is Vick's NFL-appointed mentor. Commissioner Goodell himself asked Dungy to help in this role and he could not have made a better choice. Dungy has taken his time to counsel men in prison and many players and former players look to him for advice. Based on what Dungy wrote, Vick may not be in a hurry to play football In his blog, Dungy explained:
I believe it (allowing Vick to return to the NFL) was the right call and I am glad that Michael is going to get a chance to re-start his football career. But, more than that, I’m happy with the position Michael has taken. I’ve met with him twice and spoken with him on the phone a few other times and I believe he is really focused on putting his life back together. Sure, he would love to play football in the NFL again, but I think he has other priorities. He has missed his family and looks to get those relationships going again, especially with his three children. I think he realizes not only how important they are to him, but also how important he is to their development. He has missed 18 months of that development and he wants his whole family together again.
With that, look for Vick to keep a low public profile and catch up with his family. Football's there but what we all forget is he's been away from society for two long years. He's got a lot of catching up to do. Heck, he's not even on Twitter!
Abortion is a proven "wedge" issue, in the finest tradition of Karl Rove's masterful divisive politics, and it's arguably being used that way again right now in the health-care insurance reform debate. The mainstream media is commercial, so they're far from immune from the effects of the money being spent to spin, shape, frame, and control this debate.
They hope we'll ignore that the leading cause of personal bankruptcy filings is medical expenses. Never mind that the number of uninsured Americans grows by over 10,000 people each and every day. No, no, don't fret about your neighbors who aren't as well off as you, that's not your problem - just keeping listening to the $pecial interests as they spend millions of dollars per day, raised by bureaucrats at companies who decide your premiums and what they'll cover or not cover, all to influence congress and public opinion. The bureaucrats who control our access to health care right now live rich, lavish lifestyles with no incentive to change the system, let alone to cover those who need it most.
