By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET  The downside of eavesdropping.
Was just having dinner with my wife and daughter at a local restaurant. My daughter and I were talking and I noticed she was trying to listen to a loud conversation at the table next to us.
I paused and asked, “Do you like to eavesdrop?” She nodded yes. “Me too” I said.
We talked about the nuances of eavesdropping, how to do it effectively without being noticed, and how to spot tables that are interesting and eavesdrop-worthy.
We continued to dissect the art of eavesdropping before I noted, “You know, the good part about eavesdropping is that you learn other people —who often intimidate us bc they speak so confidently and loudly–aren’t that interesting after all.
At that moment, we each looked at the other with mild panic and realized the downside of eavesdropping.
No one…No table…not even the waiters or busboy were trying to listen to our conversation.
I said, “Oh my goodness. Do you think we are the least interesting people here?!!” My daughter, laughing, said, “Afraid so.”
After that we stopped eavesdropping and tried to talk louder and something someone else may want to eavesdrop on.
By Artur Davis, on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET  I didn’t shed many tears for Pat Buchanan in the wake of his firing from MSNBC. The sales for his book—a pedestrian work that merely recycles 20 years worth of his diatribes—are about to surge, and he is mildly more familiar and relevant to Americans today than he was 72 hours ago. If he desires it, it’s a certainty that he is headed to Fox News Channel, and probably with a prominent platform.
The lack of sympathy shouldn’t be confused with an affinity for censorship. It should have been no wonder to MSNBC’s hierarchy that Buchanan’s demographic theories are overheated, and that he sounds alarm bells that are alarms primarily if you have a certain crabbed view of the country or a trace of zenophobia. To penalize those views now, when they have been the Buchanan brand for over two decades, has an arbitrary, unfair quality.
 The problem with each side of this saga is that I always suspected that MSNBC was using Buchanan in a distasteful kind of way, and that he played along to the detriment of the conservatives whom he supposedly embraces. Buchanan’s on-air role had the feel of a caricature; it was the elevation of a conservatism that is exactly what many liberals imagine conservatives to be—smugly intolerant of the left, cantankerous, narrow-minded. Every time Buchanan chided modern conservatives for waywardness, it was exactly the kind of claim that the left expects the hard right to make—one that seemed unacquainted with the new hues in our culture, and one that yearned to reconstitute America along pre-sixties lines.
Read the rest of…
Artur Davis: No Tears for Buchanan and MSNBC
By John Y. Brown III, on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET  When I was about 6 or 7 years old I had an interaction with Colonel Sanders and he shared with me some pretty profound business wisdom.
We were at the Colonel’s Lady (Claudia Sanders) restaurant in Shelbyville, and the waitress had just brought rolls to the table.
The Colonel patiently showed me, a fidgety little boy, how to take the butter pats and mash and mix them with just the right amount of honey and then to smear the gold and yellow concoction on to a piece of the roll.
I loved it and wanted to keep eating the honey buttered rolls, but he stopped me because, he explained, his restaurant philosophy was to always leave the customer “wanting a little more” when they left— so they would come back.
That’s the opposite of the he-man meals restaurants feed us now….but I think the Colonel right.
In fact, that philosophy is good advice for many areas in our personal lives as well as in a variety of service industries.
But the advice I cherish the most from the Colonel –and have put the most frequent use in my life—was how to mix butter and honey for rolls.
By Krystal Ball, on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET  State mandated-transvaginal probes!
Well Virginia, you certainly know how to get a gal’s attention. This weekend I went home to Virginia, partly to give my parents their granddaughter fix but partly to survey the political landscape. My home state has suddenly become the focus of national attention due to extreme anti-woman legislation that looks ready to be passed by the Republican legislature and could yet be signed into law by Republican Governor and vice presidential hopeful Bob McDonnell. The truth is that Virginia’s lady problems go way beyond what I like to call PAP (Probes and Personhood).
For years, a slim Democratic margin in the Virginia Senate and a hold on the governorship kept extreme legislation from becoming law. But since Republicans took over both chambers and the governor’s mansion, each bill has been more hard-edged than the last. With PAP, the Virginia GOP seem to finally have crossed a line — and it may well doom McDonnell’s national ambitions.
 In 2009, the Democratic nominee for governor, Creigh Deeds, was swept away by a rising tide of anti-Obama Tea Party fervor and Bob McDonnell became governor, pledging to focus like a laser on jobs. In fact, his campaign slogan was “Bob’s for Jobs.” Poor Creigh didn’t stand a chance against someone whose name actually rhymed with jobs! Democrats, however, held onto the State Senate by a slim two-seat margin. The divided government was good for McDonnell, who clearly harbors national ambitions for 2012 and beyond. The Democratic Senate acted as a levee holding back the steady flow of extreme legislation coming out of the Republican House of Delegates. In addition to keeping the worst laws off the books, the Democratic Senate unknowingly did a favor for Bob McDonnell by saving him from becoming the critical deciding factor between Republican red-meat radicalism and mainstream sentiment in an increasingly purple state.
Read the rest of…
Krystal Ball: How the Virginia GOP Could Tank Bob McDonnell’s Political Fortunes
By John Y. Brown III, on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET Great moments in Biblical interpretation.
When my daughter was young–around age 5–I read to her a children’s Bible.
It was great. The stories were condensed and easy to understand and discuss after reading.
Our first reading (and discussion) was a memorable one.
Adam and Eve. Maggie was intrigued by the story and got the “big picture” lesson….but she got hung up on something that really bothered her.
The nakedness part.
“Dad, do you mean they wore no clothes? As in no clothes at all? Weren’t they embarrassed?”
I explained that wasn’t quite the case. There were fig leaves, albeit not terribly fashionable by themselves, but they did do the trick of covering up important parts.
I said, “Well, remember, this is right at the beginning of things so maybe clothes hadn’t been invented yet.” I was trying to get Maggie to think for herself and asked, “What to you think may explain it?”
A light bulb went off with Maggie and she offered up her own explanation for why it was OK to run around naked back in the day.
“Maybe, Dad, they just hadn’t invented looking down yet.”
We decided to go with that explanation. It was simple, clear and made perfect sense to both of us.
So, if you–like Maggie and me–have ever wondered about this question, now you have a possible explanation.
And as a rule, I prefer the clear perception of a 5 year old on issues like these.
By Artur Davis, on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET  JFK revisionism is always jarring, but no longer surprises. The disdain toward John Kennedy in conservative intellectual circles seems borne out of contempt that he was what the right suspects about Barack Obama – unaccomplished, stylistic rather than substantive, a media darling who rose on the wings of a star-struck press.
In my college years, it was the left-wing that was just as fierce – to them, Kennedy was a cold warrior who dug our grave in Vietnam and almost postured and bluffed into a nuclear war. To younger African American intellectuals, he was too passive on civil rights, too much of a follower to deserve the spot on the wall next to Dr. King in the grandparent’s living room.
 There is something that is meaner, though, in this week’s round of coverage of Mimi Alford’s tell-all regarding an affair between herself and Kennedy during her stint as a White House intern. Timothy Noah, at the New Republic, tops it off with a headline, “JFK: Monster”. But he only goes where others have gone this week: a condemnation of Kennedy as a psychological torturer, a crude user of a 19-year-old, and a voyeur.
Read the rest of…
Artur Davis: Covering the JFK Affair
By John Y. Brown III, on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET Arrived at airport this morning shortly after 5am and about everything that could have gone wrong with parking, ticketing, security, etc, did go wrong.
As I arrived at my gate to board my plane I was told the doors had been locked “one minute ago” and it would be “impossible” to re-open the door.
The thought ran through my mind, “What would Alec Baldwin do in a situation like this?”
I remembered Alec likes playing “Words with Friends” on his cell phone when faced with airline issues but I didn’t have the app on my phone and wasn’t sure that would be helpful anyway.
I then asked myself, “What would Kayne West do?” I looked around but didn’t see Taylor Swift anywhere.
Stumped….and exasperated I resignedly asked myself “What Would Delta Have Me Do?” They were nice enough to get me on the next flight and now I have time to download the app for Words with Friends as well as Taylor Swif’ts latest single.
I think it kinda all worked out.
Thanks Alec. Thanks Kayne. And thanks Delta. Especially Delta.
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET It may be time to consolidate national holidays–at least for February.
We Americans like our holidays–and like ’em big.
We talk a lot about humility and gratitude, but when it comes down to it…we really want to have a good time. In a big way.
We need holidays worthy of our time and effort.
February is national holiday rich but festivities poor.
Valentine’s Day is nice and sweet– but limited. There are no great Valentine’s Day books or movies or songs. No theme parks named Valentine’s Land. Not even a theme park ride. No special poem to say the night before Valentine’s Day. No event to dress up for….and no special meal around Valentine’s Day. And if more proof were needed, there’s no work day (and school day) off for Valentine’s Day.
As national holidays go, Valentine’s Day is an “under performer” In marketing terms, Valentine’s Day is neither a “cash cow” nor “rising star.” It’s not quite yet a “dog.” It’s just there. Every Feb 14th. With a card and box of candy. And disappointment for not offering more.
Of the two other February national holidays, President’s Day is the only one that offers a work day (and school day) off. That typically says “Something big is about to happen.”
But not with Presidents’ Day. It’s an honorable holiday and good patriotic pause….but talk about bait and switch. Sure, there’s the big day off but–think of it– Do you have a relative, friend who has a favorite story about something crazy that happened to them on Presidents’ Day?
I don’t.
I’ve experienced 47 Presidents’ Days and can’t say I’ve ever done anything interesting enough on Presidents’ Day to want to retell to others.
Whoever was in charge of marketing and planning for Presidents’ Day, let us down.
Presidents’ Day needs a new marketing gimmick or we may soon find ourselves at work and school that day.
Maybe we can come up with a Leprechaun, a Bunny, or fat old man in a red suit to help re-brand Presidents’ Day to make it relevant again.
And then there’s the third, and final, national holiday in February. Groundhog Day. No day off, no presents, no sweetheart candy. Just a morning spent waiting for Punxsutawney Phil to emerge from his burrowed hole to find out of he sees his shadow.
You read that right. I’m not even commenting on this one.
In business, where there are three lame business lines they can sometimes be consolidated into one strong business line. And that can apply to national holidays too.
I think.
There’s got to be a way to mix in a groundhog, cupid and romance, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and candy to create one off-the-hook holiday. It’s just a gut feeling I have.
But I see theme parks. Just need to work out the details.
By Artur Davis, on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET Over the past month, we’ve launched a new tradition at The Recovering Politician: a great virtual debate on the issues of the day among our recovering politicians; with provocations, rebuttals, responses, and defenses. Our first discussion focused on presidential leadership; our second on legalizing marijuana; our third, Tim Tebow; our fourth, expanded gambling, and our fifth, the GOP primary mudfest.
On this Presidents’ Day, Artur Davis leads off a discussion on presidential greatness. What makes a president stand out among others? Who are the greatest chief executives of our lifetime? Join in the fun:
Let’s assume that there are two presidents whose greatness is not is dispute: Lincoln and FDR, both won defining wars that might have gone the other way absent superior leadership; both defined their political times by in Lincoln’s case, creating a new party, and in FDR’s case, re-conceiving a stagnant, fading party into a modern progressive one. I would venture there are three others who weren’t tested quite as severely but who dramatically strengthened the country and the office of president: Washington (who affirmed that the country was governable as a republic) Thomas Jefferson (who affirmed that the country’s future was westward, and expansionist) and Teddy Roosevelt (who enshrined the ideal of restraining corporate power and size, and who did so in an era when both parties were dominated by economic conservatives).
Then for good measure, throw in Andrew Jackson and Harry Truman at the bottom of the top tier, for all their petty prejudices and their small-mindedness toward their enemies, both had their transcendent moments: Jackson democratizing a country that was veering toward becoming an oligarchy, and Truman shoring up vulnerable democracies from Greece to Israel, and as a result, denying the Soviet Union ownership of the second half of the 20th Century.
Is there a modern president who makes a claim for membership on that list? I’m spending a lot of my time now at an institution that venerates John Kennedy. The argument for Kennedy is that he revitalized the ideal of civic commitment at a time when McCarthyism and fifties materialism had gutted it; that his decision-making skills in the Cuban Missile Crisis averted a nuclear war; and that he gave the cause of civil rights a moral boost at a time when it desperately needed it. The case against Kennedy is that his thousand or so days was too brief, too devoid of serious legislative accomplishments; that he laid the foundation for a disaster in Vietnam,; and that he was too late to the cause of civil rights to deserve much credit for it.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Presidential Greatness: Artur Davis Provokes
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Feb 17, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET  Causation vs correlation.
Scientists and statisticians use this formulation to determine when the proximity between two events is sufficiently close to establish a causal relationship.
It’s an important concept.
Just because two events occur close to one another doesn’t necessarily mean they are related–i.e., the former “causing” the latter (“the cock crows and the sun rises”).
On the other hand, often they are linked and we need to make this important distinction (e.g., smoking leads to heart disease)–and adjust behavior accordingly.
Monday I was scanning my iPhone apps and noticed “Find my iPhone.”
I hadn’t thought about this app in nearly 3 months when I lost my iPhone and searched unsuccessfully for an hour before this app led me to my right pocket, where the iPhone was safely hidden.
Well, lo and behold, on Tuesday I lose my iPhone and have to use this app again to find it again. This time it only took about 8 minutes and it was located in my jacket pocket.
Which made me wonder, Did seeing the iPhone app the day before “cause” me to lose my phone the next day?
The human mind is a complicated mechanism. I think there was “causation.” And if some scientist tries to claim my analogy is more like the “cock crowing causing the sun to rise,” I’ll be the first to point out to the know-it-all that the sun rising is just an optical illusion.
I really did lose my iPhone.
|
|
