Damage done by Irene coverage

Media hype was at a fever pitch last week. It would be easy to blame an uncooperative Hurricane Irene or the forecasters who misread the storm, but once again the fault lies within the newsrooms and corporate offices of America, particularly on the East Coast -- the center of the universe for big media.

While the storm certainly created some nasty weather and flooding, it didn't warrant the closing down of New York City more than 24 hours ahead of the first drop of rain. Imagine the damage that did to the local economy.

By the time the storm reached Washington, it was barely a Category 1. Damage where I live, about 20 miles west of D.C. and over 100 miles away from the Atlantic Ocean, was practically non-existent. Didn't even need to reset a single blinking clock in my house. I know others are suffering without power, but with the way the media was warning us, you would have thought the entire electrical grid was going to collapse.

While I can forgive forecasters for erring on the side of caution, I am not so understanding of media outlets that produced around-the-clock coverage of a storm that was clearly, even to a layman's eyes, no Katrina in strength or in the angle of approach. It lost steam as it traveled up the coast, partially over land that zapped its energy long before it hit NYC.

Politicians were falling all over each other to appear like they were the most-concerned public officials, offering tough-love warnings into any TV camera they could find. But in this case, was all that tough love genuine, or were they using the storm to gain much-needed points in this increasingly combative political environment?

I was particularly bothered by the panic in New York. When I was growing up in and around the Big Apple, New Yorkers prided themselves on being tough and not reacting to every storm like it was the end of the world. Yes, unlike people in Washington, we went to school or work when it snowed. We knew how to drive in the rain and didn't freak out whenever storm clouds gathered. We didn't cancel Woodstock because it rained for three days. We laughed at the rest of the country that seemed soft.

But this is a different time, even for New Yorkers. This is an era of media hype that is driven by news organizations' struggle to survive. This is an era where politicians are desperate for more favorable poll numbers and where lawyers are lined up to sue any state or municipality that appears negligent in preparing citizens for an attack by Mother Nature.

I have written about media hype several times in this blog. I believe the lack of seasoned journalists in newsrooms is contributing to the loss of perspective in how the news of the day is played. Ultimately, this will hurt readership or viewership, but the empty suits don't see it that way right now. They pretend to be long-range thinkers, but their vision is often clouded by falling profits. The corporate types that run big media are not making news decisions based on anything other than money. Many of them have never worked in a newsroom in their lives. They often come from the business side or advertising ranks of TV or print journalism. That was all fine and well when newspapers and evening news broadcasts had big profit margins and the suits didn't interfere in editorial operations.

Then came the recession.

When I was a young reporter and editor, I always had to make a strong case to get a story on the front page. Inevitably, there was a veteran news and/or managing editor who acted as gatekeepers. Truly big stories with proper attribution, facts and significance to the general public went out front, lesser stories went inside. It was the editor's call, not mine, not the circulation director's or even the publisher's. Period. Regardless of my whining, it was their choice where my story was played, and I respected that and learned a great deal about news judgment from their decision-making process. We didn't ignore less important stories. We just didn't waste a lot of time or prominent newsprint on them.

We didn't panic the public just to sell newspapers, and we certainly didn't buy into what politicians or so-called "experts" were telling us if it couldn't be backed up with relevant facts that checked out. But the gatekeepers are mostly gone now -- retired, laid off or dead -- and the rules of the game have changed. Now it's all about quantity versus quality. More news delivered faster trumps a objectivity and accuracy in the minds of the business leaders running news organizations.

The age of tabloid journalism and 24-hour news channels changed the profession even before the recession hit. Everything became "breaking news" even if it wasn't fresh or particularly significant. Now, with the web, it's all about speed and flash, which is why typos are so abundant online.

A Category 1 hurricane isn't anything to take lightly, particularly if you are in the path of it, but it isn't worthy of the coverage Irene received. Ditto on the East Coast earthquake last week. If the media continues to hype these kinds of stories, one has to wonder what news coverage will look like if we experience a real catastrophe.

As the media chases the low-hanging fruit and eye candy (I can't look at another TV reporter standing in the rain with a microphone or a toppled gas station canopy), more significant stories and investigative pieces are being overlooked. Budget cutbacks and layoffs have gutted newsrooms and practically done away with watchdog journalism. The checks and balances that existed in most newsrooms are pretty much gone. The game is now to bombard viewers and readers with trivial information, air the same video footage over and over, and dial up a fancy Flash graphic or two in order to drive web traffic.

This is what for-profit journalism has become during bad economic times. This is, in part, the reason we got the non-stop garbage coverage of a relatively weak hurricane. It wasn't just that the media hyped the coverage, it also gave us nonsensical tips about how to pass the time if the power goes out in our homes or what to do if a tree falls on our cars. It was just ridiculous fluff. But it probably kept people tuned in.

As reporters stand outside in the middle of a storm preaching to us how dangerous it would be not to listen to their warnings (does something seem odd about that that you?) they are not digging through documents in city hall or chasing down tips about corruption in government. While they show close-ups of some fallen bricks after a minor earthquake, they neglect to do the type of journalism that can improve society.

I came out of the post-Watergate era, when people went into journalism in order to make a positive difference, expose injustice and inform the public in a manner that wasn't influenced by dollars. Heck, just talking to someone from our own advertising department was taboo back in the day. The newsroom was separate from all revenue departments for a reason.

I wasn't interested in sensationalizing rain. I was more driven to expose the truth about corruption on the board of education. I wanted to shine a light on problems like homelessness and animal abuse. I sought out the underdogs in society and tried to bring their stories to the front page. I tried to entertain people with columns, features and sports stories. For me, it wasn't about what the executive offices wanted. It was about what I thought our readership wanted or needed to know. If I and everyone else in the newsroom did our jobs, circulation would increase. But that wasn't our primary goal or only focus.

So what I am seeing now in the mainstream media sickens me because I know that without the mass media fighting the good fight, it will be much easier for crooks to hide and for an already apathetic public to stick its head into the sand even deeper. The media resources spent on the quake and Irene last week did not serve journalism or the public very well. Perhaps TV ratings and news website traffic spiked, but what was really accomplished other than creating hysteria at the grocery stores and panic from ailing seniors in New York being transferred from hospitals in preparation for storm surge that never came. In fact, as the media continues to cry wolf in order to boost profits, I wonder if the public will become dangerously skeptical about future storms with much more merit than Irene.

My first real earthquake

I was sitting on the ground floor of my office building in Reston, Va., today when the earthquake hit. Even though I had never experienced a significant earthquake, I figured within seconds that what was shaking the building had to be a quake. Nothing else I could think of would move a large building in that manner. Fearing the above floors might pancake down, I left my office quickly and stood outside on the edge of the parking lot with coworkers. By then, it was over.

Despite it being a weird and somewhat frightful experience, it wasn't nearly as bad as the media and those being interviewed are portraying. And I was just an hour's drive from the epicenter, so the intensity was about as strong as anywhere. The D.C.-metro area tends to overreact to everything from minor snow storms to quarterback controversies.

Today's quake was more interesting than scary, not that I'd want to experience that on a regular basis. I found it strangely reassuring that the earth still reminds us every once in a while that we aren't the masters of the universe.

• Click here for a humorous look at the "devastation."

Mediocre QBs can still win in the NFL

Professional football fans like to point to Trent Dilfer as the one exception of a mediocre quarterback who led his team, the Baltimore Ravens, to a Super Bowl.

Of course, there have been other average-at-best quarterbacks who have taken their teams to the big game, which gives teams like the Washington Redskins some hope this season.

The 'Skins have two quarterbacks, John Beck and Rex Grossman, competing for the starting job this year. Neither is highly regarded by fans or forecasters. But that could change if Beck or Grossman get Washington to the playoffs.

Most people believe that to win in the NFL these days you have to have an above-average quarterback. Recent history would support that theory to a degree. Yet, I can't help think about some of the teams of the past and how they were pretty darn good, even without star quarterbacks.

David Woodley (picture above) took the Miami Dolphins to the Super Bowl in the 1982 season. The Dolphins lost the game but nonetheless got there with a quarterback who I bet most of you under 40 years old never heard of before. Woodley was the Miami quarterback prior to Dan Marino. Marino, who many regard as one of the best QBs of all time, also went to a Super Bowl once, and lost just like Woodley. It was Marino's only trip to the title game, mostly because his Dolphin teams had no defense or running game. Marino was a star without a supporting cast.

I liked Woodley as a person more than Marino. I interviewed him many times in Miami. He was a quiet and modest guy, unlike many other NFL quarterbacks. His life came to a tragic end after his brief football career, but Woodley was certainly a winner while on the field -- mobile like Beck and a gamer like Grossman. Didn't have the arm of Marino but made the most of what he did possess.

So cheer up Redskin fans. Your quarterback situation might not be as bad as you think. As with that 1982 Dolphin team, it's the rest of the players who will need to contribute to a winning effort in D.C. this fall. So far, after a 2-0 start in the preseason, the supporting cast on offense and defense (both ranked No. 1) looks much improved.

Dreaming of mini bikes, freedom

Until I stumbled upon this website, I assumed mini bikes were a thing of the past.

They're not.

They are now called "old school" mini bikes, but they look essentially the same as the one you see me sitting on here in the late 1960s. Mine consisted of a lawnmower engine mounted to a crudely welded steel frame (that often cracked and had to be re-welded). No shock absorbers. No lights, horns or turning signals. Small wheels. Questionable brakes. And a very hot muffler.

In terms of safety, a mini bike was an amazingly dangerous vehicle. But these tiny motorcycles also provided the first taste of freedom for many kids my age in that era. You could go farther and faster on a mini bike than on a bicycle. In a pre-Internet, pre-virtual reality time, this was a way to see the world -- or at least the world beyond my school and backyard. There was a bit of an anti-establishment vibe to riding a mini bike, too, which was appealing to anyone over 10 and under 30 years old in the rebellious 60s.

Like other kids, I went everywhere on my mini bike, whether it was legal or not. Cops would chase us. Parents would freak out if they learned about our cruising down Sunrise Highway or along residential streets where adults would wave their arms at us in anger. But we had a blast and weren't confined to the new cookie-cutter neighborhoods that sterilized life on Long Island. For less than 50 cents worth of gas, any day could be turned into the ultimate adventure and escape from whatever we needed to escape from. Regardless of age or circumstances, we all need an escape at times.

The only other material object that I can recall being as cool as a mini bike was an electric guitar. And, in a different way, the electric guitar also represented freedom.

To this day, nothing remains more symbolically cool in my mind than a motorcycle or guitar. A motorcycle can physically transport you in a way that a car, plane or train can't. Its engine rumbling as the wind blows against your face creates quite a feeling -- one that can't be simulated on a computer. Strumming a guitar can also transport me to a good place, particularly if shared with the right people or audience.

Playing music and riding motorcycles can be solitary or group activities, though I suspect doing either is better with people you enjoy being around.

Even though I no longer ride motorcycles of any kind, I am always looking at them -- gazing like I am staring into the past or longing for more freedom in the present -- examining color and chrome. Wanting to reconnect to something that even my guitar doesn't totally allow me to recapture these days.

While the digital age has provided an array of new toys and opportunities, I would gladly turn in my laptop for a Harley and a chance to play music in a dive bar or two a couple times a week with friends. I'd blissfully turn off CNN for a chance to strap a six-string to the back of a motorcycle. I would never give the debt ceiling or politics another thought.

These are the dreams of that kid sitting on that mini bike in the picture above. Dreams of freedom and simple pleasures, not of bills, deteriorating news and colonoscopies. Dreams and desires that settle the soul and ignite the spirt, and that become strangely more vivid as time passes all too quickly.

Bachmann won't back down

You can look at Michelle Bachmann's countless mistakes as petty. Or, if you're like me, you can view these flubs as indicators that she isn't up for the challenge of the campaign trail, let alone the presidency. She can't even admit to a mistake, which is usually a sign of low character and the inability to improve.

Less-than-sharp people tend to surround themselves with even dumber people. And Bachmann's fact-checking crew must rank right at the bottom of the intellectual scale. I sure wouldn't want her choosing a cabinet. You and I can afford the occasional flub or bad advisers. Presidents can't.

The latest error was in getting the anniversary of Elvis Presley's death confused with his birthday. She did it in grand, over-the-top Bachmann style at a rally on Tuesday.

I also noted that Bachmann has stopped using a Tom Petty song at her campaign events. You see, like most (non-country) musicians, Petty doesn't agree with Bachmann or anyone on the far right and has asked her to stop playing his music to promote herself.

Creative types, such as Petty, Bruce Springsteen and others, don't want to be associated with the lunatics on the GOP fringe. Yet, these right-wingers keep using the music of our best creative songwriters to pump up their political rallies. The problem is, creative people tend to loathe everything Republicans stand for these days, leaving candidates only the music of country stars or dead musicians to use as theme music.

I find it interesting that creative folks -- musicians, actors, poets, painters, etc. -- tend to shy away from the political right. With the exception of Ted Nugent, I can't think of a popular rock 'n' roll act that would support a Bachmann, Rick Perry or Sarah Palin. Although I do wonder where ZZ Top stands on Perry? You know, the whole Texas thing.

Our most thought-provoking, substantive songwriters have almost always favored Democratic principles, and so have many college professors, journalists and other thinking, introspective people. I'm not claiming that you can't be a smart, feeling person and be Republican. I am just saying that it's getting harder because of the character decay and extreme political shift in the party.

I am not sure where Elvis would stand on Bachmann politically, but I am guessing "the king" is looking down with a bit of what many of us feel about politics these days -- total disbelief and disgust.

Keep this cowboy away from D.C.

Gov. Rick Perry scares me.

Why?

Well, besides being another Republican governor from Texas (the last one in the White House didn't work out too well), he's the only candidate who could actually beat President Obama in 2012. And that would be a disaster for America.

You see, Perry has one very big gun in his arsenal. He can point to data that supports his claim for having created jobs in Texas -- lots of jobs -- during rough times. That one surface fact, without further examination, could lead Americans to believe that Perry is the solution to our biggest problem, which remains high unemployment.

Perry could become a bumper-sticker candidate for bumper-sticker voters, a champion of the unemployed. His supporters won't bother to look at what kind of jobs have been created in Texas. The fact is, many new jobs in Texas have been at or near the minimum wage level. Some have been public jobs, which I thought was against all that is Republican, and have helped artificially inflate the total figure. But Republicans don't like to be bothered with analysis these days, particularly when they smell Democratic blood in the water.

While I made reference to our previous president, Perry is no George W. Bush. He's worse. Far worse. He fits the new GOP mold better than any Bush ever did. He can appeal to Tea Party fanatics and mainstream Republicans. His pathetic macho swagger often crosses the line and hints of violence. Not real presidential stuff. His flaunting of his time in the military is about as classless as it comes, especially when you consider all the politicians (past and present) who have paid a much more costly price through their military service.

My hope is that Perry self destructs from stupid comments on the campaign trail. However, even if he controls his tongue, there is enough in the Perry record that could give Republican voters some doubts.

Under Perry, Texas ranks as one of the worst states in terms of funding education. At least Bush pretended to care about providing a quality education. For the record, Perry has already criticized Bush for funding educational programs. That's truly remarkable, even for this shallow Texan.

Environmentally speaking, Texas has become the new New Jersey. Perry's hands-off-big-business approach to governing has turned sections of the state into toxic pits inhabited by corporate polluters, who in return create crappy jobs for under-educated Texans. This is the cycle of Texas life for many people.

And this is a feather in Perry's cap?

If I believed in the Biblical prophecy relating to the existence of an "anti-Christ," the words "President Perry" would send chills down my spine. In the race for who is the biggest evangelical candidate since Pat Robertson, Perry wins by a Texas mile. Or does he? (Insert spooky music here).

Republican candidates to this point have been laughable. This GOP field is probably the weakest I've seen in my lifetime. By weakest, I mean clownish, crazy-eyed and just idiotic. I bet even "W" is going to have a hard time endorsing any of these people.

Enter Rick Perry with his big Texas smile and forceful hand gestures, shooting from the hip at every opportunity he gets. His emotions are his strength, and they are also his major weakness. I like to think Americans want a president who is passionate but under control. However, I am not sure enough voters will take the time to distinguish between passion and just plain craziness, especially if we're still sitting at over 9 percent unemployment next year.

While Obama left the door wide open for a GOP win in 2012 by not addressing unemployment from day one in the White House, I can't stomach another president who is going to lean on God, Satan or Dick Cheney types to solve our serious problems. Yes, compared with the rest of the field, Perry and his firm handshakes, jobs talk and longevity in an executive office probably looks pretty good to some people. However, that says a lot more about the other candidates than it tells me about the Texas governor who presides over a state that tends to favor boots and twang over substance and progress. Perry knows how to play to that crowd, but will that cowboy "charm" work on the coasts where Bush fatigue still lingers and basic requirements for living differ vastly from Texas?

• Read more about the importance of creating good jobs
• An ugly start to Rick Perry's campaign

Smirk is worth a thousand words

Today's jobs numbers are disappointing and yesterday's passing of the debt-ceiling/deficit bill will, by all accounts, make things worse. Reports of mass layoffs and businesses closing are beginning to trickle in again, as they did in 2008, and Wall Street seems unimpressed by the legislative actions in Washington this week. The news is quite dire and confidence in government is about as low as it can get.

Yet, there was Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, smirking on television on Tuesday, expressing how happy he was that he and the GOP got "98 percent" of what they wanted in the debt-ceiling deal. Within hours of Boehner's bragging, objective economists were lined up warning us that the pulling of billions of dollars out of the economy at this fragile point could send us into a second recession. As the GOP-owned bill was examined, it became clearer that the economy was about to take another hit.

Many experts believe that whatever improvements we saw in the economy in the last year were undone by bickering politicians in recent weeks. The debate, of course, was caused by Republicans bent on ruining a presidency that was beginning to be bolstered by improving economic numbers, not to mention the killing of the architect of the 9/11 attacks and the plans for a drawdown in two wars.

Things were looking up, but Republicans couldn't allow that modest trend to continue. They knew that the one way to beat President Obama in 2012 was for the economy to tank. The way to do that, without bringing America totally to its knees, was to prolong a debate about the debt ceiling that never should have taken more than a few minutes of anyone's time, and to pass a bill that removes just enough money and jobs from the economy to spark more voter fear but avoids a catastrophic depression. It was a brilliant ploy by a Republican Party that has completely lost its soul.

When the recession returns and job numbers continue to fall, who will voters blame? Will they look at the facts and remember how Boehner and his right-wing posse forced a positive momentum-killing bill upon us (and smirked about it on national TV), or will they just continue to believe the mindless, self-centered talking points that Republicans have taken to new lows in this current, Tea Party-driven Congress? Will voters remember how the Republicans said jobs were priority No. 1 after the 2010 election, then proceeded to talk about everything except jobs once elected?

This bill, job growth and the economy from here until the 2012 election is on the Republicans. Period.

Tea Party to blame for bad deal

"The budget deficit is not the biggest obstacle to our prosperity. Lack of jobs and growth is. And the largest threat to our democracy is the emergence of a radical right capable of getting most of the ransom it demands."

– Robert Reich (Click here to read his entire blog posting)

I can't say it any better than Robert Reich stated in his blog today. We went from one crisis – the debt ceiling debate – to another much more disturbing and potentially prolonged reality. Without smart investments, a fair tax code and visionaries instead of obstructionists in Washington, I don't see how America will move forward culturally, economically or educationally. The Tea Party, and those who back it, are blinded by a single issue in which they see no gray areas or alternative solutions. And, for now, they have won.

The Tea Party pridefully doesn't listen to experts like Mr. Reich. They cling to the idea of there being simple answers to complex problems. In fact, any kind of facts, scientific proof or sense of economic reality totally escapes these extremists on the right, who truly seem averse to educating themselves about subjects that require an open mind and a little bit of studying. (See Sarah Palin's dumbest quotes.) They took a nugget of truth – Washington needs to manage its money better – and turned it into a movement that honors some of the least-capable politicians to have ever been elected to state or national offices. These people, with the help of ratings-hungry conservative talk-show hosts, fueled this current, self-inflicted crisis and drove somewhat responsible politicians to a "solution" that does little or nothing to inspire true growth and confidence in America. The only positive thing this deal does is to avoid a sure overnight catastrophe.

Whether the debt ceiling/deficit reducing deal passes the House and Senate is almost moot now. Jobs aren't going to come back as a result of this pending deal, which is exactly what Republicans wanted in order to insure that Obama does not get re-elected in 2012. Remember, the main goal stated by these current Republicans isn't jobs or the economy. It is making Obama a one-term president. No one who goes into a voting booth should ever lose sight of the fact that when the country was down, and people were out of work, the Republicans chose to prolong the agony of many Americans in favor of playing politics. That is a fact – stated on the record in 2010 by top-ranking Republicans – not my opinion.

There is no compromise or country-first angle in this debt ceiling deal. This is a Tea Party-driven pact with budget cuts that will surely hurt the most vulnerable Americans. When it fails, and jobs don't return, voters need to remember whose deal this really was and put the blame where it has belonged for the last 10 years -- on the far right, the right that continues to protect the wealthiest individuals and corporations on the planet while asking the rest of us to sacrifice everything from our paychecks to clean water.

Breaking my limited ties to Twitter

I rarely log into my Twitter account. I never liked tweeting. But this morning, before work, I decided to sign on. Much to my surprised, I was hacked, if that is even the right term.

Yup, someone was tweeting rants in my name. And before you start accusing me of going all Anthony Weiner on you, while the rants were not the kind of things I want said in my name, there were no inappropriate pictures or other personal material. Someone just apparently wanted to make a point about a topic that is not worth even mentioning here. And they made it over and over and over again by linking to related topics on the net. Needless to say, I did not share these views.

After deleting several of the rogue tweets, I just decided to leave the Twitter universe -- deleted my account. It's a useless venue for me. I wasn't following many people, nor did I have any interest in what they said 90 percent of time. Just seems like a lot of gloating and trivial content.

I doubt I will miss Twitter. This hacking episode reaffirms my position that while social media does some good, it's mostly a useless hazard that brings down everyone from politicians to regular folks just innocently trying to stay connected. Twitter in particular, even more than Facebook, seems particularly high on risk and low on value.

A voice that does not need silencing

Whether it's because of my Brooklyn bias, sense of historical perspective or political views, I have to say that the calls for Rep. Anthony Weiner's resignation seem premature.

Yes, I know what he did. It was juvenile. Men, especially under the age of 50, do a lot of juvenile things. But put into context with Sen. Ted Kennedy driving off a bridge and causing the death of a woman, or President Clinton's real-life shenanigans in the Oval Office with an intern, Weiner's cyberspace exploits with a handful of strangers seems pretty tame to me. Unsavory, yes, but not the end of the world. Both Kennedy and Clinton went on to serve the country well. I don't see why Weiner can't do the same.

Yeah, Weiner lied. But since when is a politician lying such a crime or surprise? It's what some politicians do to make a living. Frankly, I rather Weiner lie about his personal Twitter romps than mislead the American people about tax cuts for the wealthy somehow creating jobs for you and me. I rather he lie about his inappropriate photos than lie to us about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That lie cost a lot of lives.

We are all flawed. Some of our flaws and quirks can ruin lives. But to say that Weiner's lies about tweeting women mean that he must not have any credibility related to trying to get help for 9-11 emergency workers, well, that is simply absurd.

Weiner, like Kennedy, is often on the correct side of fairness. He speaks for the underdogs, the working class. He was born in Brooklyn and had to earn his way in life. This New Yorker is not like Donald Trump. While the congressman appears to have a Big Apple ego, it doesn't seem to prevent him from showing empathy for those in need.

According to some polls, Weiner's constituents in New York still support him despite the Twitter scandal. That does not surprise me at all. If you're in a middle or lower class neighborhood in his district that lies in Brooklyn and Queens, you probably aren't too concerned about Weiner's personal life. He hasn't committed any crimes, unlike a few Republican politicians who have been in the headlines recently. What you are concerned about living in those places, however, is whether or not someone is fighting for you in Washington, trying to get you a fair shake in the workplace and bring a better health-care system to people on the fringe.

To me, the real immoral leaders in Washington aren't the ones who occasionally get tripped up by simply being human. The immoral politicians are the ones who don't care about the elderly, the environment or the jobless. They vote to end unemployment benefits and put the economy in further peril by playing political games with the debt ceiling. The politicians who should resign are the ones voting to end Medicare while cutting teaching jobs and lining the pockets of their most wealthy contributors. These are the real creeps. Even if all creepiness were equal, I would always prefer the creep who is doing more good than harm.

Weiner can text and tweet all he wants as far as I am concerned. I'm not married to him, nor do I seek his spiritual advice. As long as his votes are in line with creating a better, more humane society, and he does not break any laws, I don't really care what he does in his personal life. Unlike a lot of right-wing hypocrites who flaunt their own holier-than-thou claims of virtue, Weiner pretty much sticks to the issues of governing when conducting public business. He does it in a flamboyant style, which is in part why this has gotten so much attention. But sometimes it takes a loud voice to drown out the real bullies in Congress. Weiner, like very few others, has that ability and personality to standup to the powerful. He's forceful and articulate. Like many New Yorkers, he's quick on his feet. He's not an intellectual train wreck like Sarah Palin, at least not in public view. He's smart enough to know when he's made a major blunder. Palin, and her army of airhead followers, wear stupidity like a badge of honor. She's a money-making machine whose central focus is herself, not her country or fellow citizens. Everything about her is as phony as her eyelashes. But I digress...

Do I wish Weiner would not have done what he did? Of course. I also wish Mickey Mantle wasn't an alcoholic. But Weiner's tweeting, like Mantle's flaws off the baseball field, is not a deal-breaker in my mind. Mantle did not cheat in hitting all those home runs. And Weiner, at least as far as we know as of this writing, did not neglect his duty to protect and represent his constituents. Can others in Congress truly make the same claim?

Just because someone doesn't get caught behaving badly doesn't mean they aren't doing something personally offensive to someone. And even if they are as pure as the driven snow, that alone doesn't make them fit for representing me, you or anyone else. We have to start judging political leaders by their votes, legislation they introduce and intelligence. We have too many problems and too few visionaries willing to stand up for common decency and logic. Weeding out people because of some trivial and personal matter isn't good for the political process.

Read another opinion on the Weiner saga.