Is it the message, stupid?

I'm less pessimistic than you are on the messaging front, Dave. The New Deal and containment were two relatively complex programs that were able to be explained so they gained the support of the American people. The changes that Sarkozy is proposing to make in France are pretty complex, but he seems to have been able to get at least tentative support for them.

The Dems need to figure out what they stand for, then decide on a strategic context (maybe it's the story, stupid) for promoting it, then come up with some compelling messaging that appeals to the heart as well as the head. I don't see any issue in which we can't do this. I think that there are 3 key reasons why this hasn't happened so far: the permanent campaign mode, the weakness of the party and the relative strength of the GOP on messaging. Given how close Dems are to each other on most key issues, the primaries are really about character and personality, so there is no incentive to put out comprehensive policy proposals and messages, especially when they just provide ammunition for the other side. And there is no real center within the party building up a message for longer than the next election cycle. The DLC did this for a while, but its day has passed.

I think that something like "tough but smart" could be a core of good Hillary messaging on terrorism. Getting into an argument on whether we agree there is a "War on Terror" or not is fighting on the GOP's terrain. Except on Iraq (which plays differently in the UK), Hillary could learn a lot from Gordon Brown message on terror.

10 more years of All Star Game wins?

It's interesting to see at the trade deadline this year that most of the significant talent is going from the AL to the NL. The young players coming back (and perhaps some of the traded players coming back when they hit free agency) should help do their part to maintain the AL's position as the stronger league.

It's odd that, while if you made a list of the top young players in MLB, most would be in the NL (Howard, Braun, Reyes, Wright, Utley), the AL's recent dominance seems to be holding. I wonder if there are any structural reasons for that. (Or, in a related question, if there are any structural reasons for the parity in the NL.) I'm inclined to believe that it is a quirk of history, plus the fact that more of the best managed franchises in baseball are in the AL (say A's, Red Sox, Yanks, Indians, Tigers vs. only Braves and Mets in the NL) while more of the worst are in the NL (Cubs, Rockies, Giants, Nats, Pirates vs. D'Rays and Orioles and maybe Rangers.)

Any predictions on Red Sox or Yankees deals before the deadline?

Messaging the Enemy

I'm actually not so sure that it is possible to generate crisp statements of principle on something as complex and, frankly, poorly defined as terrorism. I'm writing this post before diving into Powers's article, so perhaps I'm speaking out of turn, but I think the first order of business is to educate the public that "war on terrorism" is a foolish, counterproductive approach. It paints a black and white world, when there are oh-so-many shades of gray. But how do leaders explain complexity using simple terms, I just don't know. When it comes to fear, shades of gray just do not compute. Life vs. death is a binary choice, so most expect our policy should be as clear-cut and this is why the Republican approach of us vs. them, kill or be killed holds sway. How do we move from that clearly understandable, even if wrongheaded, position to one that is smarter, but a lot more difficult to distill into pithy statements and one-way-or-the-other decisions?

In the Cold War days, policy nuance was actually possible because the Communist enemy was at least operating with the same strategy -- territorial control to gain political control. "Winning the hearts and minds" was a "simple" matter of getting more people in more countries on your side. Now with a diffuse enemy that is essentially nihilistic, such a calculus no longer applies. How do you fight back against an enemy that has no interest in self-preservation?

As you can see, I have no answers, which is what makes blogging so relaxing. I can spout off at the mouth (i.e., keyboard) and am accountable to no one. Unfortunately, way too many columnists who are paid to do what they do, have adopted the same attitude.

2008 Issue - Terrorism

This review is a thoughtful overview of the much of the current state of the "War on Terror". I like Power a lot. She's smart, balanced, and appears to let facts rather than ideology primarily inform her observations and prescriptions. (Or maybe I'm just saying that because I agree with her.) :)

She is right on in pointing out that the Democrats have not put forward any clear and compelling message on how they would address the al Qaeda threat. "Work more with our allies" doesn't cut it. I don't think that having an intelligent and nuanced strategy means that you can't find a crisp, attractive way to communicate it.

Pop (Culture) Quiz, Hotshot

I'm very, very excited about seeing The Simpsons movie tonight. There was an interesting discussion on the AV Club site about how influential The Simpsons has been, and whether a TV show can truly be influential.

My question to you is, what would you consider the most 5 influential (in terms of broadly influencing society) pieces of pop culture in our conscious lifetimes.

It's just a fantasy...

You know how there is "fan fic", where people take off from say the "real" Harry Potter universe and write new stories involving the same characters. Well, I think you might have a future doing that with the Democrats. It takes about $150 million to run for President, and Nobel prize or not, I don't know who is going to give the Goreacle that kind of money. If he does win the prize (and they might do it just to stick it to W), it will be a 3 day story in the news, some fodder for columnists, and then it will be back to our regularly scheduled programming. I think Dem voters see Gore, like Kerry, as a loser whose time is passed, and nothing can change that. But it is interesting to think about. :)

Actually, if we want to think about a combination that would really be great for America in terms of moving us forward and getting things done, how about Bloomberg/Obama. Bloomberg could take the rational/results-oriented approach to hard problems that he has in NYC and Obama could give us all a collective hug and help provide a more inspiring meaning for the administration. And I do have the same fear that you (and our friend Neil) do, that Bush(4)-Clinton(8)-Bush(8)-Clinton? is an entirely disspirting sequence for most Americans to contemplate. More of the same, coming up.

In terms of the media's role, I really don't think I can say much about that with any confidence. I never watch the news on TV, get most of my news from the NYT, NPR and Jim Lehrer News Hour and most of my commentary from those sources plus The Economist, The New Yorker, Washington Post and a few blogs. Needless to say, a somewhat biased slice of the media universe. :) And since I don't have cable, I can't even learn about the MSM from their skewing on Colbert and The Daily Show.

With that as prologue, overall, I think the broadcast media (3 networks and CNN) tend to play it pretty safe, and probably have since the beginning of TV. They are a forum for the views of the 2 parties (so we can't blame them for not getting the Dems' message out when we don't have one), and try not to offend anyone so they can garner the largest audience possible. Before the Iraq War, both parties were for it along with 70% of the American people (IIRC), so the MSM's coverage was framed by that. The reason why we remember Murrow coming out against McCarthy and Cronkite against Vietnam is that those instances are so rare. (And even those two were hardly ahead of the curve.) But I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. And we could have a robust future discussion on what a healthier media in a democracy would look like. There certainly are many other models around the world.

BTW, I see the immigration debacle differently that you. This was W's baby, and the Dems were happy to push it as it's good policy and very popular with one of our constituencies. But it's a hot button issue for a lot of noisy, core GOP voters, and GOP reps didn't see the benefit in carrying water for an unpopular lame duck President on an issue that their loudest constituents opposed. Amnesty for lawbreakers is bad. It's bad. Let's just hope than no one reminds us that Reagan dd exactly that. And, yes, that AG montage was depressing beyond words. He should just come out as gay so Bush would fire him already.

Reality and Fantasy

I guess you are right about the Dems also playing politics to advance their political -- rather than a policy -- agenda. And you have it right on the way they have taken on Bush, re: Iraq. Still, I think that the GOP version of politics is just meaner and less concerned with results other than who is in power than the Dems' version. And your point about hitting singles and doubles confirms my perception, I think. The several instances where the Dems have actually tried to get good legislation -- relatively speaking -- passed, the GOP has simply blocked it for no other reason than that they could.

Immigration is the prime example, of course. Here was legislation that most thought was a reasonable compromise. It would have made some progress on the issue, even if it left some particular problems unsolved. A vast majority of Dems voted for it and a vast majority of GOP against it. The only gain the opponents could have been seeking was blocking good (again, relatively speaking) policy to stick it to the Dems. There is no way that there is going to be better legislation -- better, in their view -- passed in the forseeable future. The only gain they were seeking was the loss of the Dems; they didn't care about the issue itself. Then the GOP and its noise machine turn around and blame Dems for the inaction.

And, BTW, the press is largely complicit in this game, often reporting failed legislation as the fault of Dems, rather than the GOP minority which has a filibuster-proof majority, which it uses relentlessly. (There was a graphic I saw the other day which showed that if the current pace keeps up there will be about triple the number of filibusters -- or threatened filibusters -- as any time in modern history.) Unless the public starts to understand exactly why Congress has been so ineffectual, the Dems will continue to lose in the court of public opinion. The press, IMO, has a responsibility to make this point crystal clear, but they fail to, time and time again.

As to the debates, I honestly haven't watched them much. I agree with you that Clinton has come across as capable, smart and moderate -- all the qualities that I think are in high demand in this election cycle. Overall, though, I must say that I think, for me, it is Obama who consistently hits the right notes. I am concerned he lacks experience and that his ideas and personality are built more for campaigning than governing -- much as we are experiencing here in Mass. with Patrick -- but I do think that he has the right balance of candor (or at least what seems like candor), depth and, frankly, attractiveness to win over a lot of votes. I'm not convinced I'll be voting for him, but I do remain intrigued. That said, I remain highly skeptical that a black man can win the presidency and, espcially, a man whose middle name is "Hussein" and whose last name is one letter different from Enemy #1. The 5% of the public that actually makes the decision in presidential elections -- the least informed, most swayable portion of voters -- just will not be able to look past that totally irrelevant fact.

OK. So here's my fantasy -- a fantasy that will never happen, but, in the very, very, very, very unlikely chance it (or something akin to it) does, then I can at least say that I predicted it would. (Of course, I could also make the same argument about predicting the Blue Jays to win the World Series.) In October, Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize. He decides then to put his hat into the ring, but first he makes a phone call. He calls Obama and offers him the vice presidency and promises to serve only one term. I don't know if a pres. and VP candidate can legally run together in the primary, but they do figure out some way for Obama to pledge all his $ and supporters to Gore in the primary. Obama cannot win on his own in the general, but Gore cannot win in a head-to-head-to-head against Clinton and Obama in the primary. It seems a win-win for both.

There are so many reasons why this will not happen, but the reason why I have devoted time to the fantasy is because these two politicians strike me as the best hope the country has for overcoming the very phenomenon you note: the public's disgust with placing politics ahead of sound policy and governing. Perhaps that very notion that leaders can have that much power to change culture is a fantasy in itself (not to mention the fact that these two men are the right ones to do it), but, certainly the way that our current "leader" has so poisoned politics, I'd like to think it can work in the opposite direction, as well.

And that, my friend, is how the mind of an idealist who has lost all hope operates.

BTW, if you have a chance, check out Josh Marshall's video of Gonzales's testimony yesterday (at www.talkingpointsmemo.com). If anyone has any doubt about the poisoning of our politics that this president has wrought, the literal -- not legal -- contempt of Congress the AG shows is one more piece of evidence.

More winning moves

An addendum to my last post. I think that one of the smartest things that the Democrats did during the Clinton years was to neutralize 3 traditions strengths by putting forward, sensible, moderate proposals to solve real problems -- welfare reform, balanced budget and crime. There are lots of areas now we could do the same -- tort reform, abortion reduction, marriage promotion, AMT. It means putting something out there which could be criticized, including by some of our allies, but until we get a Democratic leader who can put forward a compelling vision of what our party stands for, at least we can address some of our perceived weaknesses and hopefully make some real progress.

Just Win, Baby

Interesting. I've got a few thoughts on that. On your first question, I think that the Democrats do play that game, but just not as often and not as well as the Republicans. (For example, they are totally trying to have it both ways now with the war. They could have cut off funding for the right after the 2006 midterms, but they would rather complain about Bush rather than take the heat for the consequences of ending the war now.) There is that book which was just written saying that the GOP wins because they understand that people make political decisions for emotional reasons, not rational ones, and I think there is a lot of truth to that. The Democrats too often think that just having the "best idea" and explaining it again and again is enough to win. The GOP is much more willing to play in the field of images, values and emotions.

BTW, I like Drum a lot and agree with his general point, but those examples are pretty weak. I haven't heard the GOP saying that Katrina shows that we don't need the federal gov't to be involved with our lives, and, as much as I don't like privatization, neither party can be particularly proud of its role in letting the Social Security (and Medicare) problems balloon over the past 25 years. At least the GOP put a solution on the table. The Dems seem to still be much more comfortable playing defense than putting anything out there that could be criticized or would alienate one of their core constituencies.

On your 2nd point, I think that the American people are tired of this "you're lying, no you're lying" era. I think the 2006 election was a referendum first on the war, and second on getting something accomplished in Washington. Bush is willing to play chicken on the war funding, so the Dems aren't willing to end the war at any cost. I think that the winning move for the Dems is to pass a series of popular "singles" and publicize them, minimum wage, student loans, limiting earmarks, and send some doubles and triples that will be hard for the GOP Senators to vote against, even if they get vetoed, like children's health coverage. Then they have a positive record to run on in 2008 -- some things they have actually accomplished and more that would have gotten done with a Dem in the White House. Right now only something like 20%-30% of the US thinks that Congress is doing a good job. You can't argue with 80% of the population, but you can try to get some things done. People think of this Congress for immigration and not ending the war. The Dems in Congress need to spend their time on something positive to change those perspectives.

On a related topic, what are your thoughts on the results of the debates? I had a crazy idea pass through my mind, which I guess the Clinton campaign is hoping will prevail. If you had never heard of or saw Hillary before, you'd think, "Boy, she seems smart, decisive, reasonable, very well informed. I think she'd make a pretty good President." If you can see past the baggage, she's a good candidate. Hmm, maybe if enough people try to just look at her instead of being blinded by everything they already have heard about her, maybe she could get 51% of the vote.
Am I crazy? I had been in the camp of "you can't win if 40%+ of the country already doesn't like you". Is my optimism and sheer psychological need to believe we'll end this 8 years of mismanagement outweighing my rationality?

The GOP MO

Here is a quote from one of my favorite bloggers, Kevin Drum of WashingtonMonthly, in reaction to news that the GOP will use the August recess to make the argument that Reid has failed to move forward on any major legislation this session: "You have to give Republicans points for consistency. They bring the Senate to a halt and then blame Democrats for not getting anything done. They destroy FEMA's ability to respond to natural disasters and then hold it up as an example of why you can't trust government to do anything right. They lose a war via unparalleled military incompetence and then claim that liberals are defeatists for pointing it out. They spend 20 years claiming that Social Security is going bankrupt and then use the resulting public insecurity about Social Security as an explanation for why the whole system needs to be privatized."

Two questions. First, do the Democrats engage in such blatant chicanery, but I am just too partisan to see it or are they really just fundamentally more honest about policy? Second, assuming that the American public actually is persuaded by the GOP's specious position(s), how do the Democrats convince the public that the GOP is, to put it bluntly, deliberately and maliciously lying?

Talking baseball

I didn't follow the Sox results that closely over the weekend, but this is clearly a very talented team. I have a hard time seeing the Yanks catching them or the Sox not making the playoffs. I know they've been close to .500 the past 6 weeks or so, but this is a team that, barring additional injuries, should play better down the stretch, as the get Schilling (and hopefully Ortiz) back, add Lester and potentially Buchholtz (sp?), probably improve via trade, and keep getting the benefits from guys shaking off the first half rust (Manny, Crisp, Lugo). Solid SP, very strong pen, excellent offensive talent, a pretty big lead and no more curse. I'd say there's at least a 80%-90% chance the Sox make the playoffs. I'd put Yanks at no better than 40%, which is assuming an upcoming move bigger than adding the lesser Molina.

In terms of trades, I think that the Yanks will make a 1B/Util-type upgrade, like Wigginton, and probably a middle reliever too. Duncan's hot start makes them less likely to go after a big name 1B. Cashman's MO seems to be to not add any long-term contract commitments and to not give up any of their top 10 prospects. That plus Helton's seeming decline and the Coors Field effect I think makes a deal for him unlikely. And I hear that Texas is looking for a whole lot for Texiera after feeling that Daniels got burned big time in his last 2 big trades. (Soriano and Chris Young.) It seems harder to get a big trade done than in a past. I'm not sure if this is because past experience and the new CBA and leading to so many teams are following the same strategy (keep your young studs and buy out their pre-arb years and don't rent a star for only 2 months if he will become a FA at the end of the year) or if there is some other reason.

I don't know about the record for runs in a series or in 3 games, but I'd have to believe it was set in Colorado or in the run-happy early '30's. (Actually, 2 mins of quick 'net research turned up a 47 run series by the Dodgers in the '50's (where they only went 2-1!) and a 48 run series by KC (Athletics?) in the early '60's. Weird. I wonder if there was some strange weather involved, lots of minor league players just called up, or if it's just like flipping a coin a million times and seeing 20 heads at one point.)

On that topic, I believe I've noted over the years that I'm a bigger believer in "luck" in sports that you, my fellow co-blogger. While I acknowledge that the games are decided on the field by real live human beings, as susceptible to stress and bad days as the rest of us, and not by rolls of the dice ala Strat-o-matic, I do think that explanations such as "knowing how to win", "wanting it more than the other guys", and "great team chemistry" are much more often appealing labels placed on post facto results rather than truly explanatory (and predictive) elements. One baseball piece of evidence is that records in one-run games tend to be relatively random, within seasons or from year-to-year, with the exception of varying based on bullpen quality.

Short post

Amen.

Three Games Each

Could this weekend have been any better for our respective teams? I hadn't heard definitively, but did the Yankees break a record for runs scored across a span of three games? If not, I'd have to think it was pretty close to the record. C'mon, 45 runs in 3 games? That is freakin' ridiculous!

As for the Sox, Friday night's game, to my mind, was a pivotal moment. Robbed of two runs in the first inning because of a botched call, the team still came through and, especially, the three players who had been struggling most -- Crisp, Lugo and Drew -- carried the team on their backs. We hadn't seen that kind of balanced win since May and it felt good. It reminded us of what this team is capable of. And, actually, reminded me of the game in 2004 against the Yankees when Mueller hit the homerun to win the game. The mood in Boston then, as it was on Thurs., was one of desperation. "Please let us know that you have some life in you... that you actually care about winning," seemed to be the consensus. And then they showed that actually winning was possible and important. The next two games were icing on the cake.

It occurs to me that both our teams were facing the dregs of the MLB in our victories, but earlier in the year (and more recently in the Sox case) those dregs were beating us up, so these are the games those expecting to win a playoff spot absolutely have to win. And we did.

Should be an interesting run down the stretch. I still think the Yankees will close the gap a bit from the current 7 games, but won't catch the Sox. Yankees pitching overall -- especially the bullpen -- is just not as strong as the Sox.

Sox, meanwhile, I think are poising for a significant trade. Not much out there, I know, and not much buzz so far, but Gabbard is at his peak trade value right now and with Lester back in the rotation, Tavarez, who has value for some teams, is expendable (or so the Sox would like to beleive). I somehow think Theo will strike while the iron is hot. Perhaps some bullpen help, like that guy Marte from Pittsburgh. Personally, I'd like to see the Sox take a shot at Oswalt (HUGE long shot and don't think the Sox are quite willing to part with what it would take to get him) or Saltalamacchia (still a long shot because so many other teams are hungry for catchers). We'll see. IMO, Yanks are going to get Texiera or Helton. What do you think?

The best news for Boston fans is that even if the Sox fall down flat, we still have the Patriots. (And, yes, that was a dig at Jets' fans.)

Clean up, clean up...

I confess to a mild exaggeration. I haven't seen the movie of The Lion King, but I did see the play. (And I have some passing familiarity with the source material too.) :)

Re: Bonds and the smell test, if he would be embarrassed to see it reported in the press, I'd say he knows that it's wrong. There is a reason beyond the illegality that no active players have admitted steroid use. In terms of competition, I think there's a baseline in sports of playing hard and trying to win, which include keeping in shape and doing what a "reasonable person" who wanted to win would do. Going above and beyond (like crashing into walls, running full steam on pop-outs, ala Pete Rose) isn't required, and I would put using illegal, harmful substances into that category.

Re: the business argument you suggested, that's why companies strongly prefer the "umpire" to set and enforce firm rules to establish a level playing ground. (Like environmental rules re: NAFTA, national health care re: UAW or Wal-Mart, anti-bribery regulations re: MNC's, and steroids rules re: MLB.) So, while the failure of the "umpires" to act should be a mitigating factor, I still contend that the "smell test" is an awfully good common sense indicator of when wrong is being done. I appreciate your thoughtful response in not jumping on an anti-steroids bandwagon, and there are shades of gray, but let me ask you a black and white question. If your kids were in Bonds' situation, would you have wanted them to do steroids?

Yeah, McCain is a huge head scratcher. I'm still shocked that he isn't the front runner. And you're right, it is ironic that McCain, who was W's biggest GOP enemy for so long, will take the biggest political hit for W's failings. But I actually lay the blame for this mostly on McCain and not the American people. Once you set yourself up as being "not a regular politician", you have to be purer than Caesar's wife. I think "the kiss" killed McCain's maverick image (and credibility) just as surely as "the tank" killed Dukakis. An indelible image that fixed a negative character trait in people's minds. If McCain hadn't run towards Bush before running away from him, he'd be having a much easier time now.

What I do fault the American people for is their reluctance to see shades of gray and their attraction to the flavor of the month. There should be space for politicians to fail and to run again. But it seems that a loser's mantle has become an unforgivable sin. I don't think that the Democratic field would be better with Gore or Kerry, but both were far more than their caricatures. We run from cognitive dissonance so quickly (how could Kerry have been a brave soldier and also against the Vietnam War?) that we degrade ourselves and the people who feel that they need to present a simplified image of themselves to pass through the media gauntlet and get elected. I think the "old news" and the hypocrite factors are hurting McCain more than his hawkish stance on the war now. (After all, are his positions really significantly to the right of Thompson, Romney or Guiliani?)

Tidying Up and Moving On

Wait a second. Do you mean to tell me that you've never seen "The Lion King"? It's like I don't even know you anymore.

As to responding to your Bonds post. Let me start with the bottom line: I'm not convinced. I sort of buy your argument about passing the "smell test", but let me counter that with the facts. At the time Bonds was taking steroids, a huge portion of his teammates and, more importantly, his opponents were taking them -- at least according to some reports. Even if by normal human standards, steroids seems unethical, the frequency of their use certainly took away some of the stench. Building on that point, let me pose a question straight out of the bar course sponsored by the Devil's law school: what kind of competitor would Bonds have been if he refused to take steroids? I mean, if you were a director sitting on a board of a technology company that refused to use some software pirated from a Chinese company just because it didn't seem ethical, but all your competitors were using it, wouldn't you have an obligation to push them to use the software. I mean, how responsible would it be to shareholders if you knew that not using the pirated softward meant that your company would suffer, in a relative sense?

Believe me, it brings me no pleasure to defend Bonds, but I still think that his actions are not absolutely wrong and there is way too much gray in his case -- and in the case of so many other athletes -- that it is difficult to take an absolute stand against his actions. It is a knee-jerk reaction, it seems to me, to take a stand against steroid use. I am merely trying to resist that reaction.

By the way, as to your point about holding athletes to a higher standard, do you think we should send your thoughts to Michael Vick? Now, there is an absolute wrong that I can get behind.

On to a topic that has been bothering me. What the hell happened to John McCain? Here is a guy who is as principled as they come and he totally took the fall for being principled. As Gail Collins noted in her OpEd yesterday, it is a myth that Americans appreciate principled politicians. They only like principled politicians who agree with them. Still, I feel like this guy has suffered more than he should have and that perhaps of all the political victims George Bush has left in his wake, McCain is worst off. Don't get me wrong, I could never support a McCain presidency, but at least he has the gumption (most of the time) to live true to his political stands. His fall, IMO, speaks volumes about how broken our system is.

P-Day

I enjoyed your rundown of your kids' actual and potential relationship with Harry Potter. I'll be curious how kids who haven't read the books yet will interact with them in the future? Is there a classic (and still very popular) piece of children's literature that kids encounter first as a movie? Or is there something about discovering that private world on the page which resists that public projection on screen? I can't remember if I read Willy Wonka (aka Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) before I saw the movie, but it was one of my favorites as a kid. On a serious note, I wonder if these fantasies of the ordinary, anonymous kid being thrust into a major role in a magical world (Oz, Wonka, Middle Earth, Hogwarts, Star Wars, etc.) are also the archetype of popular children's literature in non-Western cultures which are less focused on the individual. Any places you can think for us to look for evidence?

BTW, I remember that you were telling Emily an original, extended goodnight story at bedtime when she was younger. When did you start that? There's only so much more of "Pajama Time" I think I can take. :)

Re: the value of reading for its own sake, that is a very interesting question. We'll have to save the "deep dish" topic of the quality of art for another day (though I'm inclined to agree with you that today's popular fancy may be tomorrow's art). On the one hand, I agree with the received wisdom that reading is a good thing, encouraging imagination, reflection and a depth of experience that watching TV (for example) doesn't foster, and that those "skills" are both useful and just plain enriching for an adult life. But, I do think we should be on guard against the prejudice against the new. Perhaps in the future, the skills fostered by the Nintendo Wii (or Facebook) will be viewed as most essential for participants in a thriving democracy. :) Have you read any Montaigne? I did back at Brandeis, and have been thinking more about him recently. Perhaps that could be a future project for us, to pick an essay or two and see what that sparks.

Thanks for your G-rated movie reflections. (And thanks for giving away the ending to The Lion King! To return the favor, Rosebud was a sled. :) ) Any additional Bonds/roids thoughts? Two HR's away. I read one BB-blogger who reflected on the mixed emotions surrounding Maris' and Aaron's feats and thought that 30 years from now, people would look back on this chase fondly as well. I think not. Moving past nostalgia is one thing. But "condoning cheating" in achieving "the most famous record in sports" is something else.

Potter's Popularity -- So What?

As I write, I can see the blocks falling before my eyes -- and they all fit so perfectly in place. Unfortunately, I'm not sure my thoughts will convey the same symmetry and sense of satisfaction.

To answer the easiest question first, my girls have not read and have no plans to read Harry Potter. Emily claims that she doesn't like "fantasy" books. Given what I have heard about the elegance and gripping-ness of Rowling's writing, I am disappointed that she has not given them a try. (In general, she is not much of a reader, which gnaws at my bibliophilic identity, but, as you will learn, you do have to let your kids be true to themselves and not your vision of what you want them to be.) Shira looks to be a bit more of a reader, but has not read the Potter books. Perhaps she will someday. Jonathan, to sound boastful, could probably read the Potter books now, though only in a technical sense. He wouldn't understand the words. We'll give him a couple of years.

By the way, as the last paragraph suggests, I have not dug into them yet either. I generally resist popular trends -- especailly with books, where I am incredibly priggish in my tastes -- but I will probably take them up someday. Perhaps I'll read them together with Jonathan.

Actually, the Potter books pose an interesting cultural question and one that pops up in the education world frequently: is reading instrinsically a positive activity or does the content matter? As kids storm book stores to get the latest Rowling offering, most would be inclined to answer that a positive attitude toward reading among youth is a good thing, no matter what, but what if, some cultural critics counter, they never progress from Potter to Shakeare and Dickens? And, more to the point, does it matter? Who is the cultural arbiter that says that Rowling's books aren't as intrinsically valuable as "David Copperfield"? (As another aside, I have taken up "Great Expectations" recently, as the last time I read it was in high school. Without disparaging Mr. Dickens too much, I can certainly see the point of those who argue that Victorian literature is not magically better than 21st century American literature.)

To your more philosophical question about exposing kids to pain and loss in literature, I'm not sure I have any deep or original answer. I tend to think you need to weigh each instance separately and make a judgment based on the details of the situation, the personality of your kid(s), and, frankly, what you want the outcome to be. I remember that when we first got "The Lion King" on video, we would, when Emily was watching it, religiously skip over the scene of Mufasa's death. Finally, when she was about 4 1/2, we let her watch the movie the whole way through, fearing the worst. Guess what? Not an eyelash was batted. Partly because kids don't really know what death is -- at least in our upper-middle class America -- they don't really have a sense that there should be an adverse reaction. Needless to say, Shira was a lot younger when exposed to that scene. Other than her irrational fear of wildebeasts, you can't even tell!

Seriously, I think the bottom line is that you shouldn't fret too much. Kids are remarkably resilient and so such exposure is not too taxing on their minds. Of course, I wouldn't go take Abby to "Friday the 13th" movies any time soon, but when exposure to pain and loss in art is limited and in ways that aren't psychologically jarring because of their graphic or intense nature, there is nothing to fear. Lesson of the day: G-rated movies are safe.

Issue of Tomorrow

Here's a question for you, Dave. What do you think about the Harry Potter phenomenon? Are your girls into them? Are you? And, more broadly, what is your attitude, experience and feelings towards your children meeting experiences of loss and pain through art? As still a relatively new parent, I'm looking to learn from those who have trod the path before me.

Bench-pressing Issue of the Day

That is a good, juicy issue to start off with, one which I have many thoughts about.

Let me start off with my overriding perspective of how I think about this. First, sports is a special realm in our society. We've talked about this before. It is completely illogical and irrational for anyone to care and/or think that it matters what a few grown men do throwing, hitting, kicking, catching or otherwise propelling little (or large) balls. Yet, in every "advanced" society that I know of, sports are a significant part of the culture, and of immense interest to much of the population. Why? My guess is that there are 2 main reasons.

First, sports provide much of the same function as myths. Humans crave meaning and life can often seem like a "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", to quote some British dude. Sports provides a clean through line, a simple field where success or failure is immediate and clear and determined by our own efforts, where opportunities for redemption are always arriving. Our own struggles and arenas are mirrored, smaller yet larger, in a way we can better understand, and even learn from.

Secondly, I think that sports provides a civilizing function. Instead of young men trying to kill each other or countries warring for blood and treasure, countries and cities and individual meet on the playing field and play out these conflicts in a less violent way. It's no accident that the fiercest sports rivalries are between locations with some real emnity between them.

So, all of this is to say that I think we should, and often rightly do, hold sports figures up to a higher standard. Sports for kids is a venue to learn how to play together, work together and compete together, how to win and how to lose, and how to learn right conduct, what used to be called "honor". Just "not breaking the law" isn't a sufficient standard for sports figures, particularly those who contend to be our biggest heroes.

The business world uses a bi-level ethical framework (all evidence to the contrary accepted). The first is the "legal" level. Does our conduct break the law. The 2nd level is the "Wall Street Journal" level, or the smell test. Does this seem wrong? Would I be embarrassed if this behavior was printed on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, even though it is legal. I guess I would call that societal mores.

To that I would add one more level --the "soft" categorical imperative level. "Would it be OK if everyone acted like this?" (The "hard" categorical imperative level -- "Would I actively wish everyone to act like this?" -- isn't needed in this realm.) I think all 3 of these levels should inform our moral judgments.

In baseball, as in life, there are "rules" and there are "rules". Take speeding 5 miles over the speed limit. It's against the law, but I think it passes society's "smell test", and it would be broadly OK (i.e., not harmful) if everyone did that. (As they do today.) Similarly, baseball has informally decided that some actions are OK, like stealing signs from the dugout, while others are not OK (like the batter peeking back to see where the catcher is set up), even if they are not prohibited in the rulebook.

So, let's look at possible performance enhancers -- exercise/nutrition, caffeine, "greenies", steroids, HGH. All were "legal" in baseball until recently. Maybe all passed the baseball "smell test" until recently too. In terms of exercise/nutrition and caffeine, they pass the "soft" categorical imperative test -- there is no harm to everyone doing them. Greenies and steroids are illegal, so fail that aspect of the broader societal smell test. And steroids in particular have very harmful effects on the body, so it fails the "soft" categorical imperative test. It clearly would not be OK for everyone to be doing steroids, both in terms of their own health and their impact on younger athletes. HGH is in a funny category. It is illegal, but its harmful effects have not yet been proven. I would say that it fails the soft categorical imperative test too. Would it be OK for everyone to be taking any untested, illegal, potentially harmful substances? Seems like the potential risk and harm from that is too high. The line between nutritional supplements and potentially harmful "drugs" is a fuzzy one, but governing (and legislative) bodies should help to define it, and these two "extra-legal" ethical tests can assist in that.

To bring this back to Mr. Bonds and the other users of banned or illegal substances, they exploited a loophole in baseball's rules and broke the law knowing that they were doing something wrong. They deserve a certain amount of approbation for that. At the same time, the powers that be in baseball (owners, commissioners, union) were quite aware of this behavior, and share culpability for allowing it to continue for so long. I don't think that any steroid user from prior to the ban in baseball deserves to be punished by MLB for their previous use.

The HOF is a different story. That is a place to honor the games greatest on-the-field heroes. (BTW, the HOF is completely separate from MLB. After the Pete Rose ban, the HOF voted to permanently exclude anyone on MLB's lifetime ban list, but they could lift that at their discretion.) If someone was a racist, a jerk, an alcoholic, didn't pay their taxes, but what they did on the field did not compromise the integrity of the game, they should be eligible for election. (Just like if there was an artist's Hall of Fame, there would be a lot of misogynists, alcohols, bad parents and racists in there too.) Their sportsmanship and behavior should be taken into account with respect to what happened on the field of play only.

If I were a voter, I would not elect anyone whose record without use of dangerous, illegal substances most likely would not deserve enshrinement. I also would not elect non-players who share significant complicity in enabling the continuing use of these substances. (Like Selig and Fehr.) I would elect players like Bonds whose statistical record prior to presumptive PED use would have ensured induction. I could see a strong case for keeping players like that out, but I hate to see only players punished for the abuses of an era.

Pressing Issue of the Day

I know you said you were going to start this little project off, but I'm eager to get started, so I wanted to start on a distinctly non-political topic. I imagine that as we get rolling into this thing, politics will occupy much of our "ink" space, but I wanted to begin with the number one issue in baseball today:Bonds. (Full disclosure: I sent a modified form of this post to a baseball blogger. I haven't heard back from him yet, so I thought I'd expand the circle of my inquiry.)

I don't know where you fall on the pro-Bonds/anti-Bonds scale, but many people I respect (and many I don't, of course) believe that Barry Bonds has de-legitimized himself as a player because he took steroids, but my question is: why? There are really two issues that inform my question. First, what constitutes “cheating”? Why should steroids be considered cheating and not, say, weightlifting or caffeine? Are steroids worse than testosterone injections? What about human growth hormone – a substance natural enough that, as Selig mentioned, there is no test for it? In other words, where should the line be drawn? What enhancements to the body or body processes are acceptable and what are not?

The second issue arises from the first, but in a more legalistic context. As I understand it, at the time Bonds (and McGwire, Sosa and all the others) admitted to taking steroids, these substances had not been banned by MLB. If so, this means that the charge of “cheating” is purely an ethical one, because it is not possible to be a breaker of a rule, if there is no specific rule that is being broken. Am I correct? Is the “cheating” Bonds and others engaged “just” morally wrong or were they breaking the (baseball) law? If it is the former, then, by rights, he cannot be excluded from the HOF because he did not violate any rule of baseball in his play of the game – at least at the time he is accused of taking steroids.

It is difficult, I think, to separate out Bonds’s selfishness, disrespect for the game of baseball, inability to be contrite, and general misanthropism from the issue of whether or not he cheated at the game, but, in the interest of fairness, I do think that such a separation needs to made. When it comes to his eligibility for the HOF, I think this distinguishing between the person and his body of work is especially important.

I'm curious to get your opinion.

Come on in, Dave, the water's fine

Now I'm off to discover how to invite you to join me in this brave new e-world.