OMG moment at GOP debate

Texas. Gov. Rick Perry criticized a border fence as being unrealistic during Monday night's GOP debate. Instead of a fence or wall, he suggested more boots on the ground and high-tech solutions to reduce illegal immigration.

And here's a shocker. I basically agree with him.

"The idea that you're going to build a wall from Brownsville to El Paso and go left for another 800 miles to Tijuana is just not reality," said Perry.

He's right. A border fence is nothing more than an emotional response to illegal immigration. It's red meat for Tea Party people and other far right-wing fanatics. It's not a real solution.

Fences make some people feel better but rarely do they work. A ladder or tunnel would easily defeat the purpose of a costly and unguarded fence. In addition, a massive fence along the entire border with Mexico is an environmental nightmare for animals needing to migrate.

Even more border police and aerial patrols aren't enough to address the illegal immigration problem, but they are a start. Preventing undocumented people from entering the U.S., regardless of whether they are coming from the south or flying into JFK, requires smarter immigration policies and some societal changes. That's another blog item for another day.

Perry also talked about how providing in-state tuition for illegal aliens who want to better themselves by going to college was something he supported in Texas. He said the alternatives, which may include illegal immigrants not contributing to society, was far worse.

Again, I concur, although this too is a complex issue with no single solution.

Of course, through all of this, Michelle Bachmann's head nearly exploded, which in my view elevated Perry. Bachmann, the Tea Party favorite, was giving the audience what they wanted. And what they wanted was what they always want -- mean-spirited, shallow remarks that show zero vision and would set us back 200 years if implemented. Remember, these are the same people who applauded the number of executions in Texas at the last debate.

For one night, and probably one night only, Perry had moments of sounding rational. I guess that's not hard to do when Bachmann is sharing the stage.

Still, this group of Republicans is awful. Patti Davis, the daughter of Ronald Reagan, is going around to different media outlets blasting these GOP candidates for aligning themselves with her father. She points to what she saw as compassion in her father and says there is no evidence that modern-day Republicans possess an ounce of empathy for anyone. That perception is once again looking like reality as the GOP is lined up to shoot down President Obama's jobs bill, mostly because the bill raises money by eliminating certain deductions for the extremely wealthy -- the people they insist are job creators, even though there is no data to support that.

The lack of compassion and patriotism in these Republicans should disqualify them from ever aligning themselves with any past Republican president because the GOP has simply decayed into something that is so unsavory that even Reagan would condemn them. If Perry was trying to distance himself from that perception on Monday night, well, he has a long way to go, but I am not holding my breath.

A voice of reason on the right

“I’d love to get everybody to take a pledge to take no more pledges.”

- Jon Huntsman, GOP candidate for president.

That was the best line of the GOP debate this week. Unfortunately, it way too reasonable for Tea Party reactionaries and other fringe right wingers, many who reside in the current Congress.

If more Republicans felt like Huntsman, we would have avoided the entire debt ceiling debacle. We'd also have more intelligent and productive debates on other pressing issues that require compromise and adult conversations.

No-tax pledges taken by most Republicans, which is what Huntsman was referring to, are simply idiotic. And any politician who handcuffs themselves by taking similar pledges isn't doing his or her job. We pay these politicians to analyze and vote on each issue independently. To use their own minds and to listen to our needs. We don't pay them to limit their abilities to negotiate by taking parochial pledges, the kind of pledge one takes in order to gain membership into a tree house club at 8 years old or to get into fanatical, narrow-minded cults as adults.

Extraordinarily difficult times demand that we move away from pledges made to people and organizations who no one elected. That's right, I am not even going to mention G.N. or his group by name because I don't one one single hit on my blog to come from anyone searching those names. He already gets way too much media attention. I don't want to be part of the problem.

Another anniversary, another threat

Whenever I see a headline similar to this one (left), all kinds of questions and an increasing amount of cynicism come to mind.

Ever since the 9/11 attacks, potential threats of terrorism have been a part of our lives, particularly on key days -- Christmas, anniversary dates, big event days, etc. Yet, these stories about possible attacks are almost always vague, which makes me wonder why the information is released by the government in the first place.

What are we in the public supposed to do to remain on guard against a "specific" threat that we know nothing about? At least this time two cities, Washington and New York, are named as the apparent targets, but that still doesn't give me much to go on.

Let's face it, most Americans are oblivious to what is going on in their own neighborhoods these days. Expecting people to look for vague clues of possible attacks just isn't realistic, particularly when the government and the media have cried wolf every other month over the last decade.

Frankly, if we want to remain relatively safe and healthy, most of us would be better served to pay more attention to our driving and what we eat than to worry about another 9/11-style attack on U.S. soil. There are people in government charged with keeping us safe. They need to do their jobs and we all need to control what we can to make ourselves and our communities safer -- not from global terrorism -- but from distracted drivers, random crime and environmental dangers. We need to pay more attention to our kids and less attention to reports about things we as private citizens can't do much about. We need to be more observant about the stuff we have some power to influence by electing competent, intelligent people who will work for us, not against us.

As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, I hope that our government officials are doing their jobs to prevent any attacks this weekend or in the future. While I refuse to hide inside my house because of vague warnings, I do recognize that the job of keeping America safe from lunatics isn't an easy one.

Just the facts, please

I watched the Republican debate last night. As painful as it is to listen to folks who I fundamentally disagree with, I always find it valuable to examine what the other side is saying just to make sure my perceptions aren't being tainted by the commentators who I tend to be more aligned with. This is why I occasionally tune into Fox News.

I had to laugh at how many times the candidates said they would do this or that on their "first day" in the White House. Those are just blatant lies that anyone with a middle school education would know aren't true or even possible. Newly elected presidents get sworn in and go dancing on their first day. That's it. They don't sign off on legislation. With the way our government works, they don't even have the power to do what they say they would do on day one or day 300.

Here are some other statements that the Republican candidates made last night that are distortions of the truth or totally fabricated lies.

A Labor Day message

Being optimistic about job growth nowadays is just about impossible. Almost 17 million jobs would be needed to bring the unemployment rate down to 5 percent. That's not likely to happen anytime soon, which is a sobering prospect to ponder.

However, if you are a person who is looking for work, remember, you don't need 17 million jobs to be created. You just need one employer willing to provide you with one opportunity. Talent, strong work ethics and the ability to adapt quickly are still valued by smart, worthy employers.

If you are lucky enough to get a job interview, realize that employers do not have to settle for just one or two of the aforementioned traits. The competition is fierce and a sharp portfolio or well-tailored suit alone won't do the trick. Bring your integrity, your experience and confidence to the table. Ask intelligent, thoughtful questions that show you can think outside of the box but still be respectful of certain workplace traditions. Don't be afraid to show some personality, but don't raise any red flags with it either. If you're older, target employers or industries known to value experienced workers. Seasoned professionals shouldn't waste their time on companies only looking to cut corners by hiring unqualified, inexperienced and cheap labor. It will frustrate you to no end.

On this Labor Day, I extend my best wishes to all of those former workers looking, hoping and praying to get back in the game. I hope part-timers can go full-time soon. I hope college graduates will be given a chance to use what they invested a lot of time and money to learn. I hope mid-career professionals who are bagging groceries to get by can find work that is more suitable to their talents. And I hope the elderly who are still able and in need of work will be permitted to do so with some sense of dignity and job security.

We're all in this together. Millions of us. Some have lost jobs already. Some are under constant fear of being laid off.

There are many flag-waving, gun-toting politicians who say they are focused on jobs and country, but their records and agendas tell a very different story. It's a story worth following.

On this Labor Day, we in the middle class should commit ourselves to getting rid of the false patriots and self-serving nuts who are driving us off a cliff. We may never get 17 million jobs back, but we can turn off the Rush Limbaugh show and think for ourselves. We can elect officials who are in our corner and finally put to rest this myth that if we keep catering to the wealthy that somehow that will create jobs.

Political feud sinks to a new low

Politicians in Washington are now arguing about when the President of the United States can address Congress.

Unbelievable.

Not only does the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, continue to disrespect Barack Obama the man, he is now disrespecting the office, and one could even argue he's trashing the country with his latest obstructionist behavior.

Democrats hated George W. Bush, but they didn't try to tear down the entire executive branch. For the good of the country, certain traditions were respected despite major political differences, even while Bush was attacking countries that didn't attack us and neglecting an economy that was in a free fall. For some reason, Republicans haven't been able to show that same respect for this president. Wonder why?

Despite the garbage spun by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Tea Party lunatics, Obama isn't a particularly radical president as far as presidents go. He's actually fairly moderate -- much more so than liberals wanted. In some ways, he's more Republican than Ronald Reagan was. So why the hate from the right? Hate that has made Republicans so insanely petty that one has to wonder what's in the filtered water at their country clubs.

The president wanted to give an address about jobs on Sept. 7 -- something we've been waiting three years to hear. However, Republicans didn't want their candidates' debate (scheduled for the same night) to be overshadowed by something as "trivial" as a major jobs address from the leader of the free world. The debate is one of many and will be filled with nothing but idiotic rhetoric from a field of candidates so weak that they make most fair-minded, thinking human beings cringe just to hear the nonsense that flows from their mouths.

Sure, Obama's jobs speech is way overdue and could turn into a campaign moment, but that's the privilege we give to sitting presidents. We give them the benefit of the doubt in hopes that what they are proposing is a real solution to what ails us. Or at least that was the perk given to every president prior to this one.

Well, Obama relented and moved his speech to Sept. 8. Again, this is just stunning that a president has to back down from a handful of fringe nuts in Congress over something as routine as scheduling a talk to the nation about our No. 1 problem.

Given a choice between listening to Michelle Bachmann drone on about subjects she knows nothing about or listening to whatever glimmer of hope the president might offer to the unemployed, I will tune into the latter, probably like most Americans. The Republicans knew that and successfully blocked it in an unprecedented and disrespectful manner, similar to the debt ceiling fiasco that they created and that led to our credit rating being downgraded for the first time in our history.

Despite pleas from the public for politicians to work together, it seems the GOP refuses to listen and is picking fights over the silliest issues that are leading us into total paralysis and worse. These are fights that were never fights before. Fights that only bring me to one conclusion about these renegade, unpatriotic Republicans. Destroying a black president is more important than saving a country. That's not playing the race card, it's just calling a duck a duck.

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.