Category Archives: Media

The Dog Days of Summer

Media, Politics, Uncategorized

 

In baseball, the “dog days of summer” refers to the period from mid-July to the end of August when temperatures and humidity reach their peak.  It is also the time when a team’s outcome is pretty much determined.  You are either a contender or already declaring “wait ’til next year.”

For politicians running for election or re-election, baseball’s “dog days” represent an appropriate metaphor.  Playoff contenders traditionally use August as the time to assess the remaining schedule and look for proven talent (most often pitchers), fill gaps in the line-up and make sure the team is healthy and mentally prepared.  General managers, field managers and owners know you do not win the pennant in August, but what you do during that period may determine if you’re still in the race in October.

In contrast, the also-rans promote minor league players to determine their value in the future.  They also focus on window-dressing (e.g. special events and bringing in aging superstars) to fill seats once any hope of a championship season has vanished into the ether.

I thought about the “dog days of summer” when I saw the following headline in this morning’s New York Times, “Where Has Hillary Clinton Been? Ask the Ultrarich.”  The article included the following.

If Mr. Trump appears to be waging his campaign in rallies and network interviews, Mrs. Clinton’s second presidential bid seems to amount to a series of high-dollar fund-raisers with public appearances added to the schedule when they can be fit in. Last week, for example, she diverged just once from her packed fund-raising schedule to deliver a speech.

Conventional wisdom tells us voters don’t start looking at the election in earnest until Labor Day.  That being the case, one has to ask, “What is the best use of a candidate’s time and energy preparing for the political equivalent of a pennant race?”  Do exactly what a contending baseball organization would do!  Assess the schedule and begin the final push with a Labor Day event in New Hampshire, the state Nate Silver’s 538 forecast suggests may be the tipping point in the election.  Fill the gaps by reinserting Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren into the line-up.  Make sure you have the resources so money is not an issue.  Yes, Clinton mingled with the ultra-rich and raised a record $143 million in the month of August.  (NOTE: The Trump campaign has yet to release it’s August numbers.)  Be mentally prepared for the stretch run by prepping for the three presidential debates.

As your political playoff hopes dwindle, the question becomes, “How do I stay relevant?”  Bring in aging superstars such as Rudy Giuliani and Roger Ailes.  Promote minor leaguers like Steve Bannon, Mark Burns and Marco Gutierrez. Stage special events like a surprise trip to Mexico or a scripted interview at an African-American church in Detroit.

Politics is a business in which profits are measured in votes instead of dollars.  Therefore, candidates should heed the advice of business advisers like Ken DiPrima at Corporate Business Solutions.

The finish line is in sight. Whether a business is short of meeting their profit and sales goals or are exceeding them, how they emerge from the dog days of summer will determine whether they meet their target at the end of the year.

Also good advice for Amy Chozick and Jonathan Martin, the authors of the Times  article. The headline could have just as easily read, “Which Campaign Is Best Prepared for the Home Stretch?”  The reporters wouldn’t have to change a single word.  All they need is a better understanding of the ebb and flow of election cycles.  Perhaps re-reading Aesop’s “The Hare and the Tortoise,” might help.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

The Windbags of War

Media, Politics

 

Let me introduce you to Evelyn Farkas.  In September 2015, Dr. Farkas resigned as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia after five years in the Obama administration.  Previously she served as executive director of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction and staff member to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Politico.com reported Dr. Farkas’ departure was in part due to divisions within the Defense Department over the U.S. response to Russian incursions into Ukraine.  The reporter covering this story provided the following synopsis of the two perspectives.

On one side are those who are open to providing lethal aid to Ukraine, including Obama’s own secretary of Defense, Ash Carter. On the other side are doves including Obama himself, who want to support Ukraine with non-lethal equipment but who fear that arming Ukraine against Russia might prompt an escalation that could bring the long-simmering crisis to a boil.

So far, the president has constrained the U.S. response, opting to provide vehicles, counter-mortar radars, body armor and other such equipment — but not the anti-tank missiles or other weapons Ukraine really wants.

Until today, I had no idea who Dr. Farkas was until she appeared on Morning Joe.  It became clear which side she was on as she suggested the United States could be doing more to counter Russian and Chinese attempts to take control of disputed territory.  To make her point, she referenced President Theodore Roosevelt’s famous quote, saying (and I’m not making this up), “Speak strongly and carry a big stick!”  For the record, no one corrected her although I assume someone at the table knew TR had actually said , “Speak SOFTLY and carry a big stick!”

Perhaps this was just a simple misstatement as I assume she too knows the correct citation.  But what if it was a Freudian slip?  Why is this important?  Because when you follow TR verbatim, you get a nuclear agreement with Iran and Syria to dispose of it’s chemical weapons without firing a shot.  But if you approach foreign relations and national security from a perspective in which bluster and overwhelming military power go hand in hand, you get the Iraq war.

I do not want to minimize Dr. Farkas’ service.  The Politico.com article included the following praise from one of her colleagues.

She has advised three secretaries of defense on Russia policy, providing steady counsel on how the U.S. should respond to Russia’s aggressive actions and has been deeply involved in securing $244 million in support for Ukraine.

I chose this example because it forced me to rethink a false assumption.  When Dr. Farkas was introduced on Morning Joe, they gave her former title but did not tell us in which administration she served.  From her comments, I assumed she was a George W. Bush appointee.  I Googled her name to confirm that assumption.  I now know a one’s approach to national security does not necessarily correlate with political affiliation.  I now understand there are both hawks and doves advising President Obama.  And that is a good thing.  But it also reminds us when a president is faced with two opposing views, he or she really is the “decider.”  If everyone in the situation room holds the same perspective, there is no decision other than how quickly to say “yes.”

MSNBC did us a service by introducing us to Dr. Farkas.  Perhaps we would be further served if the cable networks gave us an opportunity to get to know those who will be advising the next commander-in-chief.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

How to Build A Conspiracy Theory

Media, Politics

ted-cruz-dad-lee-harvey-oswald-scandal-photos-rafael-jfk-killer-campaign-event-011Disclaimer:  One modus operandi of the Donald Trump campaign has been the creation and distribution of conspiracy theories about his rivals.  Perhaps the most infamous  was linking Ted Cruz’s father to Lee Harvey Oswald.  Recently the campaign has pieced together unrelated information and video clips to suggest Hillary Clinton was physically ill and incapable of fulfilling the responsibilities of president, if elected.  The following is an example of how to build a conspiracy theory with no direct knowledge or solid evidence.  My goal is to show how easy it is.  Except for the final conclusion, all of the material in this fake tabloid story exists.

HEADLINE: DONALD TRUMP–SEX TRAFFICKER

Is Donald Trump part of a prostitution ring which traffics in underage girls? Here is what we know so far.

The August 30, 2016 edition of Mother Jones included an expose about Trump Model Management and how it allegedly violated immigration laws by encouraging young foreign woman to come to the United States on tourist visas (which prohibit working) until they proved their value as models.  The article, which also included first-hand accounts of how the agency overcharged models for rent and other miscellaneous fees, stated, “Trump Model Management recruited models as young as 14.” (Source:  Mother Jones, August 30, 2016)

This morning Rachel Blais (real name), one of the models who came forward, appeared on CNN and verified this information.  She also said that of the several young women with whom she shared a basement apartment, only two were retained by the agency and eventually applied for and received HB-1 visas to legally work in the U.S.  She also confirmed, while she was 18 years old at the time, some were as young as 14.

In what was thought to be an unrelated story, former Bear Stearns financier Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from girls as young as 14. (Source: New York Post, June 30, 2008)  In July, 2015, a federal judge ordered the documents associated with the plea deal be released.  The documents identify Jean Luc Brunel, co-founder of MC2 modeling agency as one of the individuals who supplied Epstein with underage females.

Brunel has been a model scout for various modeling agencies for many years and apparently was able to get U.S.passports for young girls to “work” as models. He would bring young girls (ranging to ages as young as twelve) to the United States for sexual purposes and farm them out to his friends,especially Epstein.

Brunel has denied the charges and has filed a defamation suit against Epstein. (Source, The Daily Beast, March 26, 2015)  Does this mean there really is no honor among thieves?

On April 26, 2016, Katie Johnson (real name) filed a civil suit against Trump and Epstein in federal court alleging she had been forcibly raped by Trump and Epstein in 1984 when she was 13 years old.  The filing includes the following:

 8. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was enticed by promises of money and a modeling career to attend a series of underage sex parties held at the New York City residence of Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein and attended by Defendant Donald J. Trump.

We have no evidence that Brunel also scouted young women for Trump Model Management or TMM supplied underage girls for Epstein’s prostitution ring.  But as Trump himself would remind us, “You know, a lot of people are saying that, and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there. We’re going to look at that and plenty of other things.” (Source: Donald Trump, New Hampshire, September 2015)

UPDATE: February 19, 2022

Model agent accused of sharing 'sex slave' with Prince Andrew charged with rape of minors - World News - Mirror OnlineThe original post was intended as satire.  However, now I am not so sure.  This morning Jean-Luc Brunel was found hanged in his French prison cell.  Brunel had been detained at Charles de Gaulle Airport in 2020 at the request of U.S. authorities due to his association with Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in a NYC jail in 2019 while awaiting trial.

To paraphrase Arlo Guthrie, “If one person, just one person, kills himself after being charged with sex trafficking, they may think he’s really sick and they’ll let it pass.  And if two people, two people do it, they may think it’s a conspiracy and pay a little more attention.  And three people do it, three, can you imagine three people killing themselves after being associated with sex trafficking, they may think it’s a movement.  And that’s what it is, the Epstein/Brunel Sex Trafficking Movement and all you have to do to join is take yourself out of the gene pool the next time it comes around on the guitar.”

If the former guy, in retrospect, thought his go-to phrase “a lot of people are saying” was creepy, what previously recorded words of wisdom will come back to haunt him now.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Turning Lemons Into Lemonettes

Media, Sports

 

In his award winning video Everyday Creativity, National Geographic photographer Dewitt Jones suggests one key to living a creative life is by “reframing problems into opportunities.”  Some people suggest Jones is merely restating the old adage, “Necessity is the mother of invention,” a time-tested principle which can be found in English translations of Plato’s Republic.  

It has also proved to be a successful formula for many entrepreneurs.  For example, Stephen Spinelli and his partners started JiffyLube when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made it more difficult for car owners to change the oil in their vehicles by mandating  waste products be taken to designated disposal stations.

My thoughts turned to Jones, Plato and Spinelli this past Sunday morning as I was watching “The Sports Reporters” on ESPN.  The cable network had a problem.  John Saunders, the much admired and respected host of the show had unexpectedly passed away at the age of 61.  On the first show following his death, ESPN gathered four panelists who often shared the stage with Saunders.  As expected, Mike Lupica, Bob Ryan, Mitch Albom and Bill Rhoden provided a moving send-off for their friend and colleague.

But ESPN still had a problem.  Saunders took over as moderator of “The Sports Reporters” in 2001 replacing the original host Dick Schaap when the much-honored sports journalist took ill and subsequently died.  (For you trivia buffs, Schaap’s last show was September 16, 2001, the Sunday following the 9/11 attack .) Many wondered if the show would survive Schaap’s absence.  Under Saunders’ leadership, the show not only survived, it flourished. After August 10, 2016, once again, ESPN faced the question, “What now?”  Many speculated Lupica, “dean” of the “Sports Reporters” panelists would assume the host’s chair.

sports reportersI must admit I was greatly surprised when the August 28 edition of the show opened with initial observations by four female sportswriters and broadcasters: Kate Fagan, Sarah Spain, Jane McManus and guest host Jemele Hill. My first thoughts were of my late father who never got used to the idea of women and television sports. I will never forget his reaction when Gayle Sierens Waldman became the first woman play by play announcer for an NFL game in 1987.  But we are in a different era. And ESPN saw an opportunity.

Hill referred to the program as the “Ghostbusters” edition, referencing the media frenzy around the remake of the 1984 classic comedy with an all female cast.  She understood the risk associated with this experiment, but just as Saunders and Lupica would have done, moved the dialogue through discussions of on and off the field sports issues of the day.  The panelists demonstrated knowledge and insight on topics ranging from the impact of Tony Romo’s pre-season injury to whether the NFL front office was handling instances of domestic violence equitably.  In fact, the biggest surprise was the differing views on New York placekicker Josh Brown’s one game suspension following a charge of attacking his ex-wife.

Kudos to ESPN.  They could have played it safe.  Instead, they saw an opportunity to acknowledge the growing emergence of skilled female sports reporters.  Before the show began, I was looking forward to seeing whether Lupica would still be in the host’s chair.  By the end, I was surprised how much I enjoyed watching the interaction among these four talented women.  I should have known better.  Shame on me.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Are We Really THAT Dissatisfied?

Culture, Media

 

Among the questions included in the Reuters/Ipsos “Core Political Data” tracking poll is the following.

Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?

The sample size is 1607 American citizens with a sampling error of plus or minus 2.8 percent.  Below are the results based on the latest responses on August 18, 2016.

Ipsos

These results are touted nightly on cable news to explain everything from the rise of outsiders like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump to citizens’ concerns about national security, the economy and education.

I’m quite sure the survey developers, by starting with the phrase “generally speaking,” feel respondents are looking at the big picture.  But what if they are wrong.  What if passionate feelings about one or two issues is driving the negative feedback.  Let’s take a look at how that might happen on both sides of the political spectrum, starting with the Republicans.

What are some of the reasons the 90 percent of Republicans might think the country is heading in the wrong direction?

  • “I can’t believe Americans elected a foreign-born Muslim president.”
  • “Obamacare is just one more example of how America is moving from capitalism to socialism.”
  • “I don’t know what I get in return for all the taxes I pay.”
  • “America seems to be more and more divided along racial lines.”
  • “For me, marriage is reserved for one man and one woman.”

Many of the above sentiments are directly linked to policies advocated or implemented by the Obama administration and judges, many of whom Republicans view as liberal activists.  So how do you explain the plurality (45 percent) of self-described Democrats being equally dissatisfied?  All you need to do is consider the adverse of the reasons Republicans might have chosen the “wrong track” option.

  • “I can’t believe we live in an country where so many people can’t accept the fact an African-American citizen was elected president.”
  • “Obamacare is a cash cow for private health insurers.  We need a public option.”
  • “The wealthiest Americans do not pay their fair share of taxes.”
  • “America seems to be more and more divided between the haves and have nots.”
  • “There are still too many laws which discriminate against members of the LGBT community.”

I understand what the pollsters are trying to measure, and I’m not sure I could come up with a perfectly worded question which would more accurately gauge public sentiment.  In 1980, Ronald Reagan presented the satisfaction question in a different way when he asked Americans, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”  Political and ideological preferences might still influence one’s response.  But this makes it personal (am I?), not generic (is the country?).

The clearest evidence this individual versus collective phrasing might make a huge difference is another frequently asked question on political surveys.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?

The Gallup organization’s last poll prior to the 2014 mid-term election (taken October 29-November 2) reported only 20 percent of respondents chose “approved” while 75 percent “disapproved,” a negative differential of 55 percent.  One might have expected a massive turnover.  However 96.4 percent of incumbents retained their seats.  In other words, even though we may collectively despise Congress, we like our individual representatives.

Which makes me wonder, “Even if the pollsters are asking the wrong questions, is there something we can learn from the responses?”  In the two examples above, I better realize why I think the country is on the wrong track.  For whatever reasons, opinions and voting preferences seem to be driven more by their impact on an individual than on the collective citizenry.  For me, America will be on the right track (i.e. the one the forefathers laid out in the Federalist Papers) when, for example, the one percent sincerely questions the impact of lower tax rates on everyone and Social Security recipients stop demonizing those who promote an honest debate about the future of entitlements.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP