Reelpol

IT'S A BATTLE IN THE VALLEY FOR BERMAN AND SHERMAN

Published on Wednesday, May 9, 2012 in the Ventura County Star

With the Democratic Party refusing to endorse a candidate and polls suggesting that no Democrat will come in second in the 26th Congressional District primary in Ventura County, I thought I might pay attention to the fireworks detonating in the 30th congressional district these days.

Representatives Brad Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks, and Howard Berman, D-Valley Village, — two veteran congressmen dumped into the same district by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission — are locked into a super-spending shootout for the San Fernando Valley seat.

When Brad Sherman, who sports an Adlai Stevenson hairline, used to campaign, he gave away plastic combs imprinted with the words, "You need this more than I do." Like Stevenson, who once quipped, "Eggheads of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your yolks," Sherman is witty, eloquent and a liberal thinker. But unlike Stevenson, Sherman always wins elections.

Three significant connections still exist between Brad Sherman and Ventura County.

First, he represented the eastern portion of the county during the six years (1996-2002) he served as our representative from the 24th Congressional District. Although Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley, would assume his seat in January 2003, Sherman would turn east, take on and trounce Republican Robert M. Levy (62 to 38 percent) for the 27th District seat he holds today.

Second, back in 1996, Sherman would win his initial congressional office (24th District) by defeating Republican Rich Sybert. If the name Sybert sounds familiar, he is the guy Tony Strickland accused of tearing down his yard signs during the 1998 state Assembly primary. In fact, Strickland captured the red-faced Sybert red-handed — on videotape, no less.

Third, last February, when Ventura County Supervisor Steve Bennett was the frontrunner in the race for the 26th District — having already raised more than $241,000 for his campaign — Bennett shocked and awed delegates at the California Democratic Party Convention by announcing his decision to drop out. Immediately, local pundits and national political know-it-alls predicted that Brad Sherman would throw his duds into a carpetbag and his chapeau into the ring — after acquiring an appropriate Ventura County address.

Not only could Sherman have benefited by avoiding a costly, contentious faceoff against Berman, but also Board of Equalization member Betty Yee had already succeeded, with the assistance of other Berman backers, in keeping Sherman from garnering the Democratic Party's endorsement.

"It would be insane, self-destructive and wrong — horribly wrong" for the party to endorse Sherman, Yee argued in a letter distributed at the meeting — even before Bennett's seemingly unexpected revelation. She suggested that Sherman switch to the neighboring 26th District, which had become, post-redistricting, more Democrat-friendly than it had been during the decade Republican Rep. Elton Gallegly held sway. According to Yee, Sherman "knows Ventura County and Ventura County knows him."

But Sherman wasn't about to trade Sherman Oaks for Thousand Oaks. He was, in fact, eager to face off against his fellow congressman, despite the fact that the 90-year-old Hollywood sensation Betty White agreed to star in a Berman campaign ad with fellow cast-member from "Hot in Cleveland" Wendie Malick. The spot capitalizes on White's lifelong advocacy for critters, great and small, by touting Berman as "the Valley leader who fights for the humane treatment of all animals." And, as Ms. White coyly adds, "He has very nice blue eyes."

While both Democratic congressman tend to agree on most issues, Sherman made super PACs a litmus test early on by challenging Berman to renounce at least two such organizations that have arisen to financially back the 15-term congressman.

Sherman expects to be considerably outspent by Berman, yet a recent internal poll for Sherman finds the 8-term congressman ahead by 27 points in a potential general election matchup. That significant lead, however, is expected to diminish as November nears.

While Sherman's staff harbors no doubt that their candidate remains better known and more popular than Berman, they are even more heartened by demographics. The number of voters in the portion of the district currently represented by Sherman is almost double the number in Berman's.

A recent two-hour forum at the Valley Performing Arts Center, however, gave both Sherman and Berman the chance to prove that "a joke," at least according to Winston Churchill, "is a very serious thing." During the debate, Sherman kept needling Berman to finally cough up his income tax returns. When Berman promised "Friday," Sherman wondered — out loud — as to the reason Berman's Xerox machine seemed to function so slowly.

But Berman got the last laugh when radio host and moderator Bill Handel claimed Berman's response to his question about how to handle the federal deficit just didn't make any sense. "I guess I'm not Handel's messiah," quipped Berman. Adlai Stevenson would have been so proud.

TELLING THE STORIES OF A THINNING NUMBERS OF VETS

Published on April 25, 2012 in the Ventura County Star

PARIS — We can see the Arc de Triomphe from our hotel room at Le Bristol. The massive monument — 164 feet in height — stands at the heart of a plaza presently known as Place Charles de Gaulle and serves as the center point of 12 outwardly radiating streets. Formerly known as Place Etoile, it was renamed in 1970 to honor the deceased general and president of France.

In 1990, the 100th anniversary of de Gaulle's birth, President Francois Mitterrand, de Gaulle's most formidable rival, checked the latest opinion polls, held his nose, and lied: "Gen. de Gaulle has entered the pantheon of great national heroes, where he ranks ahead of Napoleon and behind only Charlemagne."

"A hero is someone we can admire without apology," writes Kitty Kelley, the unauthorized biographer of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Elizabeth Taylor, Frank Sinatra, Nancy Reagan and Oprah Winfrey. Slate's Michael Crowley, however, called her "the consummate gossip monger, a vehicle for all the rumor and innuendo surrounding her illustrious subjects."

Is Kelley confusing heroism with celebrity?

She's not alone. When administrators of the Gloria Barron Prize polled American teenagers about their heroes, Superman and Spider-Man were nominated twice as often as Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln.

Astoundingly, one in 10 claimed various winners on "American Idol" as their heroes.

"Hero" in Greek translates as "protector" or "defender," and referred to individuals who, in the face of danger or adversity, displayed significant courage or self-sacrifice. As Joseph Campbell, the master of myths wrote, "A hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself."

Heroes have stature, if not size. While "a hero is no braver than an ordinary man — but he is brave five minutes longer," according to Ralph Waldo Emerson, we also concur with respect to heroic traits.

A Cornell University business school study of 526 World War II combat veterans found that the 83 individuals decorated for battlefield valor described themselves as "loyal, self-disciplined, selfless and adventurous."

When boomers, who first arrived on the scene in 1946, got around to asking their fathers, "What did you do in the war, Daddy?" the members of the Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" typically changed the subject. They held that their battlefield experiences were not an appropriate dinner table topic.

In fact, for many boomers, the initial 27 minutes of Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan," taught them that, indeed, those sexually uptight, politically conservative, Lawrence Welk-loving parents of theirs — qualified as bona fide heroes.

According to the 2009 American Community Survey, approximately 21.9 million military veterans live in the United States. California counts 2 million among its residents.

The largest chunk, 35 percent (7.6 million) served during Vietnam (1964-1975). Next up, 20.7 percent (4.5 million) fought during the Gulf War (Aug. 2, 1990 to present). Most important, however, is the total number of veterans from World War II (1941-1945) and the Korean War (1950-1953). It's fewer than 5 million and dwindling every day.

As the lyrics from "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda" poignantly points out, "But as year follows year, more old men disappear."

Their stories, however, are being read. In fact, first-person accounts of all wars, but particularly World War II and Korea, are flying off the shelves of bookstores. Publishers, who claim their readers yearn for a heroic-heavy peek behind the fog of war, say the military memoir genre has never been more popular.

Right here in Ventura County, Jannette Jauregui chronicles the lives of local veterans for The Star. In 2011, she compiled a number of them in her first book titled "Ventura County Veterans: World War II to Vietnam."

"We need heroes because they define the limits of our aspirations," writes Santa Clara University ethics scholar, Scott LaBarge. "We largely define our ideals by the heroes we choose, and those ideals — largely define us."

Yet, the greatest obstacle to the appreciation and adoption of heroes in this society seems to be a post-Watergate cynicism that is both corrosive and widespread.

The best antidote, responds LaBarge, "is realism about the limits of human nature. We are cynical because so often our ideals have been betrayed. Washington and Jefferson held slaves and Martin Luther King is accused of philandering and plagiarizing. We need to separate out the things that make our heroes noteworthy, and forgive the shortcomings that blemish their heroic perfection."

In a letter to Anthony Eden just before D-Day, Winston Churchill said of de Gaulle, "There is not a scrap of generosity about this man, who only wishes to pose as the saviour of France in this operation … he is a wrongheaded, ambitious and detestable Anglophobe."

Nevertheless, after VJ day and upon reflection, Churchill admitted, "I knew he was no friend of England, but I understood and admired, even while I resented his arrogant demeanor."

Arrogant demeanor? He's French.

BIDEN'S GAFFE-PRONE REPUTATION REMAINS INTACT

Published in the Wednesday, March 28, 2012 edition of the Ventura County Star

Nobody ever accused Joe Biden of understatement. On March 23, 2010, as President Barack Obama affixed his signature to his hard-won health care law, the vice president gushed, "This is a big (expletive deleted) deal!"

Nobody ever accused Joe Biden of taking care to get it right, either, for that matter. The vice president's political gaffes and red-faced moments are legend.

Consider Jan. 20, 2009, when Biden took a stroll down short-term memory lane at the Obama Staff Ball. He was waxing philosophical about the swearing-in ceremony earlier that day. "Jill and I had the great honor," he informed the crowd, "of standing on that stage, looking across at one of the great justices, Justice Stewart."

Nobody at the dance recognized the name Justice Stewart, but this Obama administration-friendly crowd was not given to correcting — ala an unforgiving schoolmarm — a spanking-new vice president. Perhaps Mrs. Biden quietly whispered the correct name in her hubby's ear — leaving her rap on the knuckles for later.

Presumably, however, Justice John Paul Stevens qualifies as just as "great" as Justice Potter Stewart who met his maker in 1985.

Consider Biden's interview with Katie Couric on Sept. 22, 2008, as Biden pontificated, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.' "

Not only was Herbert Hoover, not FDR, president in 1929, but television was still in the experimental stage.

Just last week, at a thousand-dollar-a-head fundraiser in New Jersey, with only 140 in attendance, Biden did it again. In hailing Obama's order to send Navy SEALS into Osama bin Laden's lair to take out the architect of 9/11, Biden reportedly said, "You can go back 500 years. You cannot find a more audacious plan."

The most audacious plan in half a millennium? Most folks would beg to differ.

For Ed Beakley of Project White Horse, a more audacious plan was Gen. George Washington's decision to attack Trenton on the morning after Christmas 1776 via "a night march of impossible proportions."

The crossing, memorably captured on canvas by Emanuel Leutze, "couples," according to Beakley, "not only audaciousness but also the greatest risk. For me, it is the single most compelling and important moment — without even a close second — in American history, and possibly for the idea of freedom as the world now knows it."

The 10 picks for more audacious plans nominated by Tim Mak of Politico.com included D-Day, Napoleon's invasion of Russia, the raid on Entebbe, the Spanish Armada plan to overthrow Queen Elizabeth, MacArthur's landing at Inchon, Operation Eagle Claw's rescue of 50 U.S. Hostages in Tehran, the capture of Adolf Eichman in Buenos Aires, the Civil War's Pickett's Charge, the landing at Gallipoli and the raid at Cabanatuan to liberate 500 Allied prisoners of war.

Mary Ripley, editor of the Naval Institute blog  and daughter of John Ripley (the bridge at Don Ha) considerably upped the ante by inviting nominations for the top 500 more audacious plans.

Among the hundreds already submitted were the charge of the Light brigade, the attack on Pearl Harbor, every single mission of the U.S. space program and (sad to say, but it qualifies) the Twin Towers attack on 9/11.

Biden, unaware that he'd already said enough, added, "Do any one of you have a doubt that if that raid failed, that this guy would be a one-term president? This guy is willing to do the right thing and risk losing."

In a futile stab at damage control, White House spokesman Jay Carney characterized Biden's remarks as merely highlighting the difficult and courageous decision made by the commander in chief.

Not so fast, gentlemen. First, the raid was risk-free for Obama. If it had failed, the press would have remained out of the loop — in the interests of national security. Second, the courage to issue a green light in the White House situation room is nowhere near the courage exhibited by the SEAL team in Pakistan. Third, touting bin Laden's demise during a presidential campaign, not to put too fine a point on it, smacks of crassness.

An unsigned Washington Times editorial, "Obama's Stolen Valor," points out, "the more the White House brags about the bin Laden raid, the more it is diminished."

On Sept. 10, 2008, Biden told a town hall meeting in Nashua, N.H., "Hillary Rodham Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, (she) might have been a better pick than me."

Not only was Biden absolutely correct in his aforementioned observation, but he even managed to sneak in a little understatement as well. Now, that's what I call "audacious."

SEARCH GOES ON FOR A PALATABLE GOP CANDIDATE

Published in the March 14, 2012 edition of the Ventura County Star

Republicans seem to be in a funk these days. At a time when the GOP should be energized at the prospect of ousting a president who hasn't lived up to the hype, they are popping anti-depressants and moaning about cutting losses.

No less a conservative authority than George Will has been instructing them to turn from the goal of beating President Obama to "making sure Republicans wield all the gavels in Congress in 2013."

He assumes that "if Republicans do, their committee majorities will serve as fine-mesh filters, removing President Obama's initiatives from the stream of legislation. Then Republicans can concentrate on what should be the essential conservative project of restoring something like constitutional equipoise between the legislative and executive branches."

While the lengthy primary process has proved a dispiriting factor to us all, the focus of the mainstream media on the horse race aspect — who is ahead in the polls and who has the war chest still flush with cash or has tied himself to the most moneyed Super PAC — certainly hasn't helped, either.

Even amateur pundits now seem determined to get into the act. The latest Rasmussen national telephone survey found that a plurality, namely 43 percent of all voters, believe it would be better for the GOP if a brand-new candidate threw his or her chapeau into the ring.

So what do Republicans believe? A recent Gallup poll reports that a whopping 64 percent of likely GOP voters would rather be casting a ballot for somebody other than Mitt Romney. Furthermore, Rick Santorum (24 percent), Newt Gingrich (14 percent) and "other" (3 percent), have all evidenced growth spurts of late.

So what does this all mean? First, Republicans haven't found their "man on the white horse" — the ideal candidate who can lead them to victory come November. It's as if the Republican voter is some sort of Goldilocks complaining, "Santorum is too conservative, Romney is not conservative enough, and Gingrich is — even without his lack-of-ethics baggage — too Gingrich."

Second, Republicans seem determined to operate out of fear. If you don't believe me, just check out some of the scorched earth propaganda that passes for political mailers, television ads and robo-calls in states cursed with early primaries.

On the other hand, it was the promise of hope and change that got President Obama elected. In the midst of a financial crisis, it worked like a charm. The $1 billion question is "Will it work again?"

The latest Rasmussen polls state, in a hypothetical 2012 match up, Romney leads Obama by five points. That's big news since it coincides with the possibility that Obama's job approval ratings are slipping into a downward death spiral.

Perceptions of Obama's leadership have definitely declined since his State of the Union address in January. In fact, for a president seeking re-election during the last two decades, his approval ratings qualify as a historic low.

So who might qualify as the ideal candidate?

It would have to be somebody who exudes charisma. While not every voter can define the word, he or she sure knows when it's not there. Most Republicans fail to perceive credibility, transparency or trustworthiness in any of the frontrunners.

Furthermore, the ideal candidate must be able to offer pragmatic solutions to America's problems — not some nebulous "pie in the sky" way out that seems to shape-shift into whatever polls predict a particular target audience wants to hear — but a handful of sensible, no-nonsense plans that can be plainly understood by the average American.

For example, does the American voter really want the government to stick it to the wealthy — according to Rasmussen, 52 percent favor candidates who would raise taxes on the rich — or are they actually demanding a tax system that is simple, comprehensive and fair?

"It's the economy, stupid" as an overarching concern is still a safe bet. According to Rasmussen, 82 percent of likely U. S. voters rank the economy as the leading issue in terms of how they will cast a ballot. Nothing else even comes close.

Furthermore, according to Gallup, 60 percent believe that the American economy, especially given recently spiking gasoline prices, isn't turning the corner to recovery, any time soon.

Most importantly, fewer that one-third of voters believes that America, as a nation, is currently headed in the right direction.

Perhaps the only hope for Republicans would be a Ronald Reagan clone.

Nah, that's not a good solution — not only would it be impossible to find one that can meet the 35-year-old age requirement, but isn't cloning illegal? No matter how noble the cause?

Alas, it appears that Republicans — at least during this election cycle — will have to learn to stop worrying and love the Mitt.

No wonder they're in such a funk.

GENDER EQUALITY ELUDES BOTH OVAL OFFICE AND CORNER OFFICE

Published February 29, 2012 in the Ventura County Star

Last week, despite the enormous strides being made by the rest of the world, the United States celebrated but another Presidents Day without a female president.

At present, 19 members of the fairer sex rule as head of state, and that's not counting the six who serve as queen or vice regal. While admittedly the membership roster for this unique "women's club" can only be characterized as modest, each name, which will invariably be followed by the designation "first" in history books, serves up a soupon of hope for subsequent generations of women as well.

The honor of being named the first female government leader goes to Khertek Amyrbitovna Anchimaa-Toka, who chaired the parliament of the Tuvan People's Republic from 1940 to 1944. A decade later, Suhbaataryn Yanjmaa served as acting president of Mongolia.

The 1960s introduced the world to a trio of female prime ministers: Sirimavo Bandarannaike (Sri Lanka), Indira Gandhi (India) and Golda Meir (Israel).

In college, I hung a poster of Ms. Meir in my bedroom that asked a rather impertinent question, "But can she type?"

During the 1970s, of the five women ruling their countries, the media spotlight shimmered largely on Argentina's Isabel Martinez de Perón and the United Kingdom's Margaret Thatcher.

During the 1980s, of 10 female national leaders, the only recognizable name seems to be Corazon Aquino of the Philippines, who ousted Ferdinand Marcos and outed wife Imelda's closetful of shoes.

The 1990s produced a bumper crop of women in charge, including 13 heads of state and 15 prime ministers. Citizens on every continent were becoming more comfortable with the management style characterized by experts as uniquely female.

So what's up with America? Polls keep demonstrating that voters reject the idea of a woman as president — not because they can't handle a woman as leader of the free world but because they can't handle a woman as commander in chief.

Hollywood hatched the idea for the eponymous television series starring Geena Davis to deliberately challenge sexist perceptions. The show's cancellation demonstrated that neither the viewing public nor the voting public had changed their minds about accepting a female commander in chief.

Here in Ventura County, gender equity is on hold as well. According to the Ventura County Women's Political Council, females make up a mere 32 percent of all city councils while holding 40 percent of the seats on education boards as well as the Board of Supervisors. So what's really problematic about so few women in politics?

Equity simply doesn't percolate up. Until Chief Kathleen Sheehan was tapped for the job of top cop in Port Hueneme (September 2010) and Chief Jeri Williams took over the Oxnard Police Department (January 2011), female chiefs of police were even scarcer than snowflakes in Ventura County.

Same song, second verse re: the Port of Hueneme. Until Jan. 3, 2011, when Commissioner Mary Anne Rooney took her seat, not a single female had served on the Oxnard Harbor District board. We are talking about 75 years despite a number of women tossing their bonnets into the ring.

Just last week, however, I had the pleasure of meeting Kristen Decas, the Port of Hueneme's first female executive director. First Rooney, then Decas — coincidence? Another impertinent question.

In a May 2009 article, Time magazine took a good hard look at female management style. The conclusion? Having women in charge is not only extremely lucrative but also essential to our brave new world.

The workplace-research group Catalyst studied 353 Fortune 500 companies and reported that those with the most women in senior management had the highest return on equity — by more than a third.

Scholars from Cambridge University and the University of Pittsburgh examined the so-called (by critics) "indecisiveness" that supposedly plagues female management style. It seems, according to the studies, that women do employ more caution than men — because they focus on the long term. Males, on the other hand, get off on risk — especially when surrounded by other men.

Then Time asked the most impertinent question: "Wouldn't the economic crisis have unfolded a bit differently if Lehman Brothers had had a few more women on board?"

With respect to current voters, while some perceive consensus building, conciliating and collaborating — the signature skills of female management style — as strengths that make women uniquely suited to lead, others perceive them as weaknesses. Still, our young people may very soon break this tie.

So I don't know how many more Presidents Days will pass without a female president, but Barbara Bush got my vote when she told Wellesley grads in 1990, "Somewhere out in this audience may even be someone who will one day follow in my footsteps, and preside over the White House as the President's spouse. I wish him well!"

 

 

 

NATIONAL PRIDE TAKES THE COURT IN LITHUANIA

Published in the February 15, 2012 edition of the Ventura County Star

If you really want to learn the truth about world politics, sometimes your best bet is the sports pages. At least that was the case in 1988, when the USSR basketball team trounced the Americans in the semifinals at Seoul on their way to Olympic gold.

Sports writers were able to cut through the fog of communist propaganda by focusing on a fact the Soviets couldn't spin — four of the five starting players for the USSR team (Arvydas Sabonis, Sarunas Marciulionis, Rimas Kurtinaitis and Valdemaras Chomicius) were actually Lithuanians being forced to compete for the Soviets.

They also noted that while Lithuania — a tiny Baltic country about the size of West Virginia with a paltry population of 3 million — had been annexed, oppressed and brutalized under Stalin since 1944, it sure could produce basketball players.

Lithuania, you see, is a country that considers hoops its national pastime, if not religion. In fact, 90 percent of the population follows the sport.

Back in the late 1930s, when Lithuania was still sovereign, its teams captured two European basketball championships. Even the estimated 10 percent of all Lithuanian adults banished to Siberia managed to keep their spirits high by shooting hoops in the labor camps.

In the interests of full disclosure, both my maternal grandparents were born in Lithuania. Attending the Santa Barbara Film Festival with my Lithuanian hubby to see "The Other Dream Team" was a no-brainer. Neither was tucking Kleenex into my bag.

Before the film rolled, the 35-year-old director and co-writer, clad in faded jeans and nondescript shirt, hopped up on the stage of the Lobero Theater. For this self-described "100 percent Lithuanian," his documentary proved to be a three-year labor of love.

Still basking in the rosy glow of a Sundance success, Markevicius not only acknowledged the number of rabid-to-the-max basketball fans in the audience but also those who remembered to sport tie-dyed shirts in the colors of the Lithuanian flag (more later).

In 1991, Lithuania became the first republic to break away from an imploding Soviet Union after 52 agonizing years of occupation.

The split was hardly amicable and the documentary not only reminds the audience that it was Nobel Peace Laureate Mikhail Gorbachev who dispatched tanks to mow down unarmed Vilnius citizens but also illustrates the raw moral courage of Lithuanian independence leader Vytautas Landsbergis as well.

To demonstrate the difference between capitalism and communism, Ronald Reagan would recount the tale of the thrifty Soviet citizen who had squirreled away the asking price of an automobile. Due to production shortages, however, he was told his order would not be filled for 10 years.

"Do you wish morning or evening delivery?" the man was asked. "Afternoon," he quickly responded, "The plumber is coming in the morning."

In the same vein, the audience also chuckled as Chomicius confessed to smuggling Western contraband gleaned on road trips. The budding entrepreneur was merely attempting to subsidize the meager $100-a-month salary he earned as a star athlete.

Yet, the worst aspect of Soviet dominance was not the scarcity of cabbages or cars, but being forbidden to express one's culture, language and identity as a Lithuanian.

Most folks remember 1992 as the year America's "Dream Team" — including such professional icons as Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Charles Barkley — claimed top honors after defeating eight opponents by an average of 44 points.

However, another dream team also made its debut on the basketball court in Barcelona that year. The team was from Lithuania, and the dream belonged to the core four that defeated the Americans four years earlier under the Soviet banner.

Although the now-independent Lithuania had the talent, it lacked the capital to cover travel costs and operating expenses.

The athletes, however, were quick to embrace a "better dead than red" modus operandi, when, according to Alexander Wolff of Sports Illustrated: "The Grateful Dead donated $5,000 and, more symbolically, prevailed upon one of its licensees (artist Greg Speirs) to provide the Lithuanian players with the red, yellow and green tie-dyed T-shirts that have since become   as much a symbol of the end of the Cold War as those souvenir chunks of the Berlin Wall."

Speirs, in fact, acquired "major sponsor" status when he donated the $400,000 in profits realized from his trademarked "Slam Dunking Skeleton" basketball jersey to the team as well as Lithuanian children's charities.

It was on the Olympic podium, however, that the Lithuanians, who grabbed the attention, approval and affection of most spectators with their fast-break style, underdog status and uber-hip tie-dyed uniforms, found bronze to be more precious than gold.

And that's the truth Markevicius — rather than some sports writer — was ultimately able to uncover. The stoic Lithuanians trusted him enough to allow their tears to say it all.

 

IT'S FIVE MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT; DOES ANYONE CARE?

Published in the Wednesday, February 1, 2012 edition of the Ventura County Star

Last month's announcement by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that the symbolic Doomsday Clock had jumped to 11:55 p.m. came and went with scant notice by the press.

Back in 1947, when founding editor Hyman Goldsmith asked Maryl Langsdorf — artist and wife of a Manhattan Project physicist — to design the cover for the June issue of the Bulletin, she came up with a startling image.

She used the minute hand of a watch-face closing in on midnight to symbolize both impending apocalypse as well as a military-type countdown. In 1947, her timepiece, instantly dubbed the Doomsday Clock, showed 11:53 p.m.

During the past 65 years, peril was illustrated by the big hand moving closer or farther away from the witching hour, in line with the "Bulletin's" analysis of world events.

On Jan. 31, 1950, after intense debate and recommendations by his secretary of state, secretary of defense, and chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, President Harry S. Truman rendered one of the most sweeping decisions of his or any presidency.

As the world would learn that day, the United States would proceed with work on all forms of atomic weapons, including the so-called "super bomb." In their report on nuclear weapons, the American Catholic bishops — who were guilty of only venial hyperbole — warned, "We are the first generation since Genesis with the capability of destroying God's creation."

In 1953, in the closest approach to midnight since its inception, the Doomsday Clock clicked on 11:58 p.m. — as the United States and the Soviet Union tested thermonuclear devices within nine months of each other.

As beeping Sputniks I and II circled the planet in 1957, even more striking than the loss of face was the chilling realization that the intercontinental missiles launching the satellites could just as easily boost a nuclear warhead and aim it toward American soil.

In 1964, as the first baby boomers trotted off to college and shivered as they snickered at "Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb," the Doomsday Clock swung back to 11:53 p.m., once again. The Bulletin pointed to China's acquisition of nuclear weapons as well as conflicts brewing in the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and Vietnam as its risk assessment reasons.

Cold War paranoia seemed to evaporate, however, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and by 1991, the big hand of the Doomsday Clock had reached all the way back to 17 minutes before the witching hour — the clock's earliest setting since its inception — reflecting the signing of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the announcement of further unilateral cuts in tactical and strategic nuclear weapons by the superpowers.

After climate change and biohazard were added, however, the minute hand would eventually creep back up to 11:53 p.m., but nobody seemed to care.

Ask a present-day millennial what he or she knows about the Doomsday Clock and you will be told that the Doomsday Clock is the opening track of a 2007 Smashing Pumpkins album. The song, which is introduced by a rat-tat-tatting drum solo, also appeared twice in the 2007 "Transformers" movie.

Despite the planet being confronted, according to Arizona State University Earth and Space Exploration professor Lawrence Krauss, "with clear and present dangers of nuclear proliferation and climate change, and the need to find sustainable and safe sources of energy, world leaders are failing to change business as usual."

The International Energy Agency projects that, unless societies begin building alternatives to carbon-emitting energy technologies over the next five years, the world is doomed to a warmer climate, harsher weather, droughts, famine, water scarcity, rising sea levels, loss of island nations and increasing ocean acidification.

Jayantha Dhanapala, former United Nations under-secretary-general for disarmament affairs, points out that "failure to act on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by leaders in the United States, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel and North Korea to cut off production of nuclear weapons material continues to leave the world at risk."

So why was the movement of the Doomsday Clock to a mere five minutes before midnight met with such an underwhelming response?

The agenda-setters in the news business think that we think a Doomsday Clock is boring.

While the mainstream media did manage to turn away from covering celebrities (who are famous for merely being famous) to highlight the Arab Spring, Occupy movements and/or political protests in Russia, they did so only after social networking sites had already created a buzz.

So, Smashing Pumpkins' fans — you already know in facing the challenges of nuclear power, climate change and/or nuclear conflict, people power is essential.

In 1946, as boomers, who are now starting to collect Social Security, appeared on the scene, Albert Einstein noted, "everything has changed, save the way we think."

Think differently, please?

COUNTY BRACES FOR DIRTY WORK BY SUPER PACS

Published in Wednesday, January 18, 2012 edition of Ventura County Star

Why does Stephen Colbert have a super PAC? According to the ersatz Republican with Mitt Romney-helmet hair and a Bill O'Reilly demeanor, "because I can and because it's funny."

In addition to his "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow" super PAC, Colbert instituted a 501(c)(4) which can legally accept money from corporations and transfer the funds to his super PAC without naming names. Colbert finds scant difference between his 501(c)(4) and money laundering.

Thursday, Colbert announced he was running for president of the United States of South Carolina.

"You cannot be a candidate and run a super PAC," attorney Trevor Potter told Colbert on the air. "That would be coordinating with yourself, but you could have it run by somebody else — even a friend or business partner."

Colbert turned control of his super PAC over to Jon Stewart, thus illustrating the Mack truck-sized loophole in the law.

Potter, counsel to John McCain during the 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns, told The New York Times that the beauty of Colbert's super PAC and 501(c)(4) is "bringing the audience inside the system. He can show them how it works and then leave them to conclude whether this is how it ought to work."

According to the Nielsen ratings, Colbert's viewers tend to be young, white, educated and male. So far this year, he's drawn 67 percent of his nightly audience from the highly coveted 18-49-year-old demographic.

So Colbert, the 11th of 11 children allegedly more funny than he is, connects with young people — so what? The "so what" is that, according to said young people, fake news shows like the "Colbert Report" have become their primary source of political information.

In fact, a Pew Research Center study on public knowledge of current affairs reported that audiences for the "Colbert Report" and its lead-in, "The Daily Show," score as well or better than audiences who get their news from conventional radio, television and Internet sources.

Colbert's viewers know that super PACs are becoming a big problem for the GOP. Already struggling to bring tea party members in under the big tent, the Republican Party is losing the monetary and strategic control once held over candidates.

The leadership is learning, first hand, that raising money the old-fashioned way may not be enough to counteract anti-Romney propaganda put out by the "Winning Our Future" super PAC backing Newt Gingrich or "The Red, White and Blue Fund" backing Rick Santorum.

Colbert's viewers know that super PACs are becoming a big problem for Mitt Romney, who is constantly forced to fight off a gaggle of foes, that but for the grace of the super PACs, would and should have dropped out by now.

Colbert's viewers know that super PACs are becoming a big problem for voters — especially those residing in states with early primaries.

Not only do super PACs enable a handful of wealthy individuals to finance all manner of campaign propaganda without disclosing their identities, but they can also inundate the airwaves in mudslinging spots, glut mailboxes with unrecyclable glossy mailers and tie-up telephones with annoying robocalls.

Super PACs will be coming to Ventura County very soon. Rep. Elton Gallegly's decision to retire at the end of this year makes the race for the new 26th Congressional District, which includes nearly all of Ventura County, highly competitive.

Based on voter registration and results of past elections, experts see no advantage for either political party, yet the outcome here may well determine partisan control of the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C.

Under the rules of California's new primary system, the top two vote-getters on June 5, regardless of party affiliation, will meet in November. The field currently boasts seven declared candidates — with even more rumored to emerge from the woodwork.

Democrats include county Supervisor Steve Bennett of Ventura, Oxnard Harbor District Commissioner Jess Herrera of Oxnard, Moorpark Councilman David Pollock, retired longshoreman Zeke Ruelas of Oxnard and Westlake Village businessman David Cruz Thayne.

Tuesday, Republican county Supervisor Linda Parks was joined by state Sen. Tony Strickland, who narrowly won an $11 million campaign against former Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson in 2008. Strickland, who has been campaigning in New Hampshire with Mitt Romney, returned home to toss his chapeau in the ring.

Simi Valley City Councilman Glen Becerra, considered by Gallegly as his heir apparent, told The Star, "This seat looks like it was designed for a Hispanic Republican."

It's going to get quite dicey between now and June.

As to Stephen Colbert, if you really want to incur his ire, just mention the Supreme Court ruling that money is speech. According to Colbert, the court's ruling in the Citizens United case was that "transparency would be the disinfectant but 501(c)(4)'s are warm, wet, moist incubators. There is no disinfectant."

Consider yourself warned.

 

MAKING AND BREAKING NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS

 

Published in the January 4, 2012 edition of the Ventura County Star

As author Maria Robinson once wrote, “Nobody can go back and start a new beginning but anyone can start today and make a new ending.”  
 
For those of you who made New Year’s resolutions, today is the day that marks your success or failure. After the third day, 90 percent resume their old eating habits, surrender to the lure of demon nicotine or start employing the holiday-gifted exercise machine as a clothes rack.
 
So why do we continue to make resolutions that we will inevitably break?  
 
Experts tell us that the beginning of every year seems to bring new hope that life can and will improve. On the other hand, we are inclined to develop amnesia when it comes to toting up our past failures. It’s far easier, instead, to yield to our deeply-felt yearnings for a fresh new start.
 
In the words of Oprah Winfrey, the New Year’s resolution becomes “another chance to get it right.”
 
So how can you ensure that you will get it right in 2012?

The first step is to set priorities---that means figuring out what is really important to you. Many of us rate spending time with family as No. 1, yet after honestly consulting our day planners, we find that we are not as devoted as we would like to believe. In fact, studies conclude that our kids spend less time with us than in school (900 hours per year) or in front of the boob tube  (1,500 hours per year).

Second, make your goal realistic. Each and every year, the most popular New Year’s resolution is to “lose weight” or “stay fit.” Not surprisingly, these vows evaporate within whiffing distance of the nearest fast food joint. With dieting--- or, indeed, with any other resolution---if you focus on the end result rather than carefully planning the steps needed to get there, you will have already failed.  
 
According to a Journal of Health article by Judith Matz and Ellen Frankel, “Despite a $50 billion diet industry promoting countless weight loss methods, approximately 95 to 98 percent of all diets fail.” Those who do succeed, do so by making lifestyle changes, one baby step at a time---from religiously keeping food diaries to scheduling more workouts per week to incrementally decreasing portion size.  
 
Third, as the Johnny Mercer song directs: “You've got to accentuate the positive . . . eliminate the negative.” Many resolutions fail because our brains, which more naturally receive positive goals, tend to sabotage or rationalize away objectives that scream “thou shall not.”
 
For example, if you decide it is time to stop barraging your Facebook friends with an unending stream of FarmVille requests, just remember that professionals predict you will inevitably succumb to the rationalization “but I need this [virtual cow].” You won’t be able to help yourself.  At least, that’s the gospel according to Donald E. Wetmore in “Positive Goal Setting.”
 
So rather than vowing to cease and desist behaving in an undesirable manner (such as responding to each and every text you receive with either “K” or “LOL”), perhaps you could resolve to learn a new vocabulary word each day and text it in a sentence to your friends. You will probably be positively rewarded in this educational endeavor---unless Autocorrect transforms your message into something either scatological or salacious.

Fourth, it’s almost impossible to rid oneself of a self-destructive habit without embracing a less self-destructive habit as a replacement. For example, if you are sick and tired of friends and family threatening to submit your name to The Learning Channel’s “Hoarding: Buried Alive,” first figure out the bad habit you wish to replace.  Hint: you might discover that all the clutter in your house is being generated in the name of procrastination, as in “I’ll clean up this mess later.” “A place for everything and everything in its place,” however, is the expert-endorsed mantra for pathological pack rats. Perhaps your new habit will involve frequent yet costly visits to your friendly neighborhood Container Store.
 
Fifth, make your resolution public---keeping a promise private, seriously minimizes accountability. A billboard might prove a bit too much but a blog or a social media post on your progress might yield the encouragement you need to succeed.  
 
Sixth, misery doesn’t just love company---it craves it. If your goal is to drink or eat less, avoid associating with boozers or attending social events that abound in culinary delights---like dinner at your mother’s house.
 
Finally, as Nike advises,  “Just do it.”  No excuses.
 
Major League pitcher Dave Beard, who wrote, “Many years ago I resolved never to bother with New Year’s resolutions and I’ve stuck with it ever since” gets the nod for actually achieving his goal.  
 
The rest of us will have to just keep trying.

STUDENT-RUN RADIO STATIONS FIND A HOME ON THE NET

Published on December 7, 2011

Question: What was America’s first college radio station?
 
Stumped? I’ve taught the history of media for more than three decades and I had absolutely no idea---until I looked it up.  
 
Initially known by the call letters 2ADD, WRUC (Wireless Radio of Union College) became the first student-operated radio facility in the United States when the station signed on at 8:00 PM on October 1, 1920.
 
A couple of engineering students from the Schenectady, New York campus hooked together five U tubes and produced a total of 27 minutes of music---with the ditty “Tell Me Little Gypsy”  as the initial song.
 
The original station, according to alum Doni Johnson, was located in a shack behind the administration building with the wire antenna strung between two nearby trees.
 
Today, WRUC, which bills itself as “the first station in the nation,” will broadcast with 100-watts at 89.7 FM and stream when Union College is again in session (January 2, 2012).

At a time when university administrators are selling off their radio licenses in order to balance the books, California Lutheran University students are busying themselves preparing for the launch of iCLUradio.com.   
 
Through the generosity of the Marvin E. and Martha K. Smith Foundation, an education suite consisting of a “smart” classroom with an adjoining production studio as well as a smaller studio dedicated to streaming student-produced internet radio programming has been completed.
 
Last month, more than 350 college radio stations took to the airwaves to protest the burgeoning list of institutions of higher education nationwide that have been liquidating or transferring their FM licenses to non-student operations---usually in response to budgets inundated in red ink and/or the uncertain future of terrestrial radio.
 
Mark Maben, general manager of Seton Hall University’s student-run station told USA Today, “In most cases, either an NPR affiliate or religious broadcasters are buying up the stations.”
 
“College radio is a dying institution,” reports ABC News. “Schools have a hard time keeping up with Top 40 networks because they just don’t have the money to do it.”
 
In addition, it’s becoming more and more difficult to justify the cost of running a broadcast radio station, especially in support of a media production curriculum.
 
Finally, with a fiscal downturn that threatens to linger even longer, no student-run station will be able to rely solely on student fees or donations.
 
So when push came to shove at Texas Tech, Augustana College (South Dakota) Chattanooga State Technical Community College, Vanderbilt University and the University of San Francisco, their respective administrations decided to cash in---employing the justification that a greater number of students would benefit from the proceeds of the radio license sale.  
 
The University of Houston bought Rice University’s broadcast tower, FM frequency and license for a staggering $9.5 million. Linda Thrane, vice president for public affairs at Rice, claims a student-led committee will be making recommendations on spending the nearly ten million dollar windfall.
 
Those on-air stations being threatened by budget cuts or sale of their licenses argue that campus radio stations provide an alternative to commercial broadcasting, serve as that all important first break to local musicians and make a platform available for idiosyncratic viewpoints.  

Ever since the 1960s, when the FCC began issuing class D licenses to 10-watt stations in order to further the development of FM, campus radio ushered in emerging musical trends---including punk, New Wave, indie rock and hip hop---long before those genres became mainstream.

Often employing a freeform format and encouraged to take risks and exercise creativity, a number of student-run radio stations found themselves basking in the national spotlight, garnering critical acclaim, and accorded status as an essential local media outlet.

Yet “student voices” don’t have to be “silenced,” as last month’s protestors tried to claim. Online radio is taking off, and once this techno-savvy generation gets on board with phone apps and who-knows-what media tool coming next, college radio will reinvent itself into something bigger and better than ever.
 
The student government at California Lutheran University was so convinced of this prospect that, even with their money already spread pretty thin, voted to fund the entire operating budget for iCLUradio.com next semester.  
 
California Lutheran University’s iCLU may not be the first student-run radio station in the nation, but its official launch online could not be any more historic for CLU---or Ventura County.
 
In its April 25, 1921 edition, the New York Times noted that a broadcast by the Union College radio club (an early incarnation of WRUC) could be heard 1,000 miles away. Next semester, the internet stream on iCLUradio.com should be accessible by any person on the planet with a computer. Hope you will give us a listen.