Them Amusing Repubs

I see where the latest "rebranding" effort by the Republican leadership involves not their own party, but the other one. They want to convince the electorate, independents, whoever that the Democratic Party ought to be called and thought of as the "Socialist Democratic Party".
har, har, har That's a good one.
Sure hope the Democrats don't respond by labeling their anemic opponent the "Republican Nazi Party". Ah, but they won't do this. If they were going to they would have back at the height of the blitzkrieg. And besides, they don't need to pile on. The Republican tagteam seems intent on bodyslamming each other.
Let the games continue !!

Another Media Lament

It happens with cable talking heads and news bunnies. It happens with local affiliate news personalities. It may happen with the "major broadcast network" people as well, though I don't see it there as much.
I'm talking about the strained efforts by those mentioned to demonstrate to their public and to whoever they are interviewing that they have done their homework.
"You say in your book that . . . blah, blah, blah . . . Why did you say that ?? "
Don't get me wrong. I do want them to actually do their homework. I just don't want them to be so obvious that they are trying to prove to everyone that that's what they are about.
And in this vein, I would offer a recommendation to the culprits who are not as smooth and professional as they shouold be. They should spend several hours observing, listening to Diane Rehm on NPR (I think it's called "the DR Show") midmornings on your favorite NPR station. Diane is the absolute best radio interviewer in the business today.

Republican Dilemma

Much of what has filled up time on the 24-hour cable news channels since November has been a discussion of what the Republican Party needs to change in order to become competitive once again. Many of the debates attempt to study strategy, looking out how the party can frame its appeal and ideology in ways that will be more attractive to more voters. These efforts assume there is nothing wrong or unappealing about that ideology. Advocates of winning through better strategy believe that the average citizen is slightly or somewhat "right of center" in their political ideology. Thus, they conclude, the message is not the problem. Must be the messenger.
There are, however, important power centers in the party that reject the notion that inept messaging was the problem. They see efforts to repackage Republicanism in more attractive terms as being insidious attempts to alter the ideology. Trying to show how their worldview can appeal to people who have not been voting with them is viewed by these party purists as caving in on ideology. They believe that the true road to success lies in going the opposite direction. They want even more ideological purity. And this includes both economic conservatism and social conservatism. One who wants small, efficient government but is open-minded about abortion is simply not welcome on the Republican reservation. "Log Cabin" Republicans simply cannot be accepted, no matter how pro-business they might be. Purity (of ideology) is essential to finding their way out of the wilderness and back to the Promised Land.
What is sort of left unsaid, but to me would be essential, is how these Republican power-brokers intend to succeed given this apparent dichotomy. In order to win as a "pure" ideological party they will need to devise some kind of evangelical message to win over those moderates they have been purging and shunning. If the specific issues they wish to live or die on are that important to them, then they must figure out how to convince people who don't share those views on those issues, and are in fact seemingly moving the other direction.

Local Public Radio

It's that time of year. The area NPR radio stations are in their semi-annual fund drive. A week enduring the predictable drivel from the local disc jockeys.
To be clear, I understand that these are non-commercial stations and that they must substitute donor money for the funds they otherwise they'd get from selling advertising time.
But I do not enjoy these days. I am and have been an occasional contributor. I do really like a number of the programs on public radio. But it annoys me that the fund drive organizers every year resort to the same trite pleas.
The most annoying of the all the gimicks is the "matching funds" scam. Some benefactor, sometimes named, othertimes remaining anonymous, agrees to match donations pledged by new or renewing contributors. They talk as if and try to get listeners to believe that those funds will not be given by the benefactor if those being solicited don't respond in sufficient amounts and quickly enough. What?? Will these benevolent companies and foundations just keep their money if it can't be matched? One grows skeptical. If the given deadline for some match challenge is not met, don't they just turn around and make the same offer a day or two later?
It might make some people feel good about themselves to think they are magically multiplying their personal contribution. But it sure appears to me a ruse. Instead of droning on and on about the "match" why don't they spend some time informing their audience of how they are striving to be good stewards of what they do receive, how they seek to be efficient. They could also describe some of the unusual, unexpected costs that they occasionally encounter. This would, in my humble opinion, be a better use of their air time.

Sports Musings

1. From a "worm's eye" view, one wonders about salaries of the highest paid professional athletes. How can it be justified that such people are paid many, many times the wages of governors, our president, teachers & those of us who sustain the American way of life?? I know. "It is what it is." Whatever the market will bear.

But why does the market bear it? Why are ticket prices to games so outrageously high? (Obviously to pay the entertainers, the athletes people want to see.) But why?? If supply and demand was such a perfect rubrick then we shouldn't need local taxpayer subsidies of the need by professional sports cities to build larger, gaudier temples. But many cities believe they have no choice. If they don't cave in and subsidize, the team will leave and take with it all the peripheral profits.

2. Why won't the BCS bite the bullet and create a workable playoff system for college football?? Can't they figure out how to include the historic bowl games into the tournament structure leading up to the "championship game"? I know. Those bowl cities plus the "big 6" or whatever it is conferences don't want to face the prospect that they might lose something, anything. But the general preference (and yes, I'm guessing that this is true; haven't researched any polls or anything) by the public for a playoff system is trivial in the eyes of those preventing a solution? Apparently.

3. Why doesn't the NFL deal with overtime games the same way college ball does, with a FAIR opportunity by both teams to win? Why the "coin flip" advantage to whoever gets the ball first? I frankly haven't even heard a rational excuse from NFL as to why they've drug their feet this long.

4. What is it we Americans don't "get" with regard to European "football" (what we call SOCCER)? As a TV spectator sport, soccer is boring. Is it that much better live? (I know that that's true of hockey). And I know that soccer for kids is very popular here. The reason for this is obvious to me. Soccer is much more democratic than other "skill" sports. A kid who is relatively slow and uncoordinated can get out on the soccer field, run around, kick the ball (or try to) occasionally, and that kid and his/her spectator relatives can enjoy the experience. The good athlete will still feel challenged going against the good athletes on the other team. None of this is nearly so true with basketball or baseball.

But this affection for kids soccer doesn't translate into any interest in watching adults kick the ball long ways in scoreless ties in professional games. The phenomenal bicycle kick that MAY occur once a game isn't worth the wait.

5. Perhaps more later.

Republican Monday morning quarterbacks

Republicans are self-destructing for the amusement of the general public?? Appears that way.
Republicans nearest to the center of power within the Republican establishment have decided that Americans are not rejecting their worldview. They think both that we just don't properly understand and appreciate what they "know" is right - (even though they had 8+ years to implement their programs). There's also a portion of them that think the only problems that linger from their days in power stem from the fact that they never implemented conservative enough solutions. They never trusted the Bushes. W. talked a good game, but was obviously a light-weight (in their view).

Media & Moderates

It may not be their intention, but the culpable media tend to eliminate all moderates. I guess it's easier to frame the points of a debate for their audience if the options are a stark contrast. And for purposes of sales and ratings, they think they don't need the moderates. They can get all the sales and all the ratings they want from the ideologues they appeal to, the extremes.