Nobody’s right, if everybody’s wrong

Posted on July 6, 2016 by bvanrysdam

Dear Facebook friends…

I get it. You’re pissed off. You show your disgust toward Hillary Clinton and her lack of trust concerning emails, and other matters of judgement. You are outraged by what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth and his lack of civility.

Here’s what chaps my ass; the people who only choose to point out many and varied character faults in the candidate they don’t favor. I don’t expect you to be “fair and balanced”, but by only posting the negative points of the candidate you don’t like, you are missing what I believe most American’s are feeling right now.

How did we get to this point and more importantly, how do we get out of it?

Truth be told, both parties have given us very flawed candidates to choose from. The expression “shooting fish in a barrel” comes to mind when coming up with reasons not to vote for either Clinton or Trump. There are enough of debauched illustrations of both candidates to give late night talk show hosts material for years to come.

Don’t like Clinton? I get it, but does that mean you would vote for Trump? By the way, what happened to Governor John Kasich? I see recent polls showing him beating Clinton by a healthy margin. Would you rather lose the White House based on the principles of insulting everyone who scares you and promising to build a wall paid for by Mexico rather than elect a person who may be viewed as moderate (insert gasp here)?

And what about the Democrats? Clinton is such a weak candidate, she was defeated by a black man with a Muslim name eight years ago and barely beat out a Jewish socialist in this year’s primary. And let’s not forget the great judgment she showed using a private email while secretary of state, or wearing a $12,495 Armani jacket during a speech about inequality. I am sure that instills a lot trust in her judgement.

Clinton and Trump are probably the most unlikable candidates to run for president since David Duke in 1992 (and even that may be a push). Was this the best the we could do?

I think it’s time we all did a little soul searching on how both parties brought us to this point. If there is one thing we can all agree on, it looks like no one will be a winner this November.

Blurred lines

Posted on May 6, 2016 by bvanrysdam

They have gone too far.

I admit, I’m a fan of Modern Family. I think it’s cleverly written and I find myself actually laughing out loud, but all that has changed after this past episode.

Part of the storyline involved Phil Dunphy, a loveable goofball, using his knowledge of real estate to foil an evil character’s attempts at taking advantage of a family member. I found myself cheering him on as he landed blow after blow on the unsuspecting person.

Turns out she was not the only unsuspecting person. That scene was part of a new advertising strategy by the National Association of Realtors. Yes, they actual paid for a scene that made real estate agents look valuable.

I totally get that today’s TV’s viewing habits are radically different than even five years ago and advertisers are having a hard time reaching consumers. Recording programs and zooming past the ads are becoming more and more the normal rather than the exception, but has it really come to this? I can understand paying a show to have an actor drink a coke (product placement), but to actually help write a script?

It looks like the sales department has moved smack dab into the writer’s office.

Do you believe in miracles?

Posted on May 2, 2016 by bvanrysdam

There is an implausible sports story taking place involving the sport of soccer. Now before you go off on your “soccer is boring” rant, you need pay attention, because you just missed out on what could be considered he greatest sports story of all time.

Across the pond is a soccer organization called the Premier League which is host to England’s greatest clubs. Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester City are but a few of the elite squads looking to be crowned champions. These clubs spend big bucks on top name players and fans demand nothing the title every year.

And then there is Leicester City. Nobody gave them a chance. The Brits, who love to bet on anything and everything, had them as 5,000 to 1 long-shots to win it all. It is even more unbelievable when you consider that a year ago, Leicester City barely escaped relegation and entered bankruptcy protection seven years ago.

According to published reports, Leicester City had a payroll of £48.2 million ranking them 17 out of 20 clubs. Chelsea (last year’s champions) spent £215.6 million. That alone should help this into perspective for you.

So Leicester City winning it all is huge. How huge? The infamous Miracle on Ice game had the U.S. men’s hockey team as 1,000 to 1 underdogs. The N.Y. Mets winning the 1969 World Series, 100 to 1. Broadway Joe guaranteeing the N.Y. Jets would beat the Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III was considered outrageous, but the odds makers only had them as 10 to 1 underdogs.

Maybe you don’t love or even like soccer, but who doesn’t love Cinderella.

Rendezvous Houston

Posted on April 6, 2016 by bvanrysdam

It was 30 years (and one day) ago when I was witness to one the most amazing spectacles ever. The city of Houston has hosted some pretty big events in its day including Super Bowls, Final Fours, World Series games, as well as numerous festivals and concerts, but none compare to what took place at the foot of downtown.

The city was literally shut down by a concert featuring Jean-michel Jarre. For a period of time, it held a place in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest outdoor “rock concert” in history, with figures varying from 1 to 1.5 million in attendance.

Freeways were jammed by cars whose passengers simply stopped where they were and got out to watch the show, some even climbing highway exit signs to get a better view. The low hanging clouds provided a ceiling for the light show and fireworks that added even more drama.

It is hard to fathom the technology available to Jarre to pull off such an extravaganza in 1986. Computers were in their infancy and nobody had heard about the worldwide web, but after a blistering rain storm the day before which tore down equipment, threatening to have the concert canceled, Jarre enthralled an entire city with lights, fireworks, video displays and of course, music.

In the public interest?

Posted on April 5, 2016 by bvanrysdam

Scrooge would be proud

Something interesting is taking place in the world of journalism. The world is buzzing about the release of the Panama Papers which reveled prominent world leaders hiding millions of dollars in offshore accounts and avoiding paying taxes.

(It was also hard to believe there was gambling going on at Rick’s Place in Casablanca).

The fallout has already begun with Iceland’s Prime Minister resigning after the leaked documents showed his wife owned an offshore company with big claims on collapsed Icelandic banks. More resignations are expected as the U.S.-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) reveal more names from the more than 11.5 million documents leaked from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.

This poses an interesting question for ICIJ and other journalists. Is it ethical to use stolen materials to publish a story, even if it is in the public’s interest to do so?

Back in 1971, Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers which showed how the Johnson administration systematically lied, not only to the public, but to congress as well about the Vietnam War.

Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property, but the charges were later dropped after prosecutors investigating the Watergate Scandal learned that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg.

Much like the Panama Papers, Ellsberg took the papers and released them to the N.Y. Times. At the time, Ellsberg said:

I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision.

The Times v. United States is generally thought of as a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint. Its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents.

There is big difference between classified documents and documents from a business, but the point ends up being the same; should the press use material that was stolen and not authorized?

The press faced a similar question when former CIA employee Eric Snowden leaked classified information from the National Security Agency to journalists with stories appearing in The Guardian and The Washington Post. Snowden has been called a hero, whistleblower, patriot and traitor.

I am all for outing the bad guys, but do two wrongs make it right? I guess that, once again is determined by what side of the fence you are sitting on.

Sucking the oxygen out of the room

Posted on April 5, 2016 by bvanrysdam

Like many Americans, I am watching the primary season with great fascination. After months of campaigning, candidates taking swings at each other (and in some instances, their wives) and generally looking very tired (I still have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to be president) the road to the White House continues.

It seems that the one constant is reporters asking the candidates, ‘what do you think of what Donald Trump said/did’? I understand why they ask the question. Talking about The Donald pumps up the ratings. Viewers/readers/listeners are drawn to anything related the TV reality star like the proverbial moth to a flame. I get that.

What I don’t get is why the other candidates (especially Cruz and Kasich) answer the questions. If I was offering advice, I would have them respond with something like, ‘thank you for your question, here is my plan to fix/improve (insert topic here).

The conversation is being dominated by what Trump says, what Trump does and what Trump wants, which is great for Trump, but not so great for the others. They need to tell us why their ideas are right for America.

Reporters and editors might not like this, and you do run the risk of getting less airtime and coverage, but how much value do you think they are currently getting talking about an opponent. It makes sense when your opponent attacks you and mentions you by name, but I would otherwise steer clear.

I am reminded of Mitt Romney during a debate at the last presidential election. The reporter chided Romney for not answering his question. Romney’s reply? ‘You can ask the question any way you like and I can answer it any way I like’.