The Morning Delivery

Seattle's oldest newspaper remembers their Irish Wake

 
Usually St Patrick’s Day is a day of celebration: whether it’s wearing different shades of green, nibbling on soda bread, taking in a parade, tipping back a few cold ones, reciting Irish proverbs or belting out popular Irish songs with the sounds of bagpipes and drums filling the air.

But for employees of the Seattle-Post Intelligencer, St Patrick’s Day, 2009 was a day for doing only one thing; crying in their beer and wondering what the future holds as Seattle’s oldest newspaper rolled off the presses for the final time.

We are rapidly approaching the one-year anniversary when 150 newsroom employees were told the Seattle Post Intelligencer would cease publishing as a print edition, bringing to a screeching halt its 146-year tradition and leaving Seattle, like so many other major cities, a one newspaper town.

The Hearst newspaper which had accumulated $14 million in red ink the previous year, decided to slice their staff down to 20 newsroom employees (another 20 to sell advertising) and remain an Internet edition only.

Last year, other print editions met a similar fate: the Rocky Mountain News, the Baltimore Examiner, the Washington Blade, the Detroit Daily Press, the Tucson Citizen all folded; and similar to the Post-Intelligencer, the Christian Science Monitor shed its print edition on March 27th of last year, leaving only an online edition with updates posted throughout the day.

When journalists see their profession crumbling before them, left without jobs and stripped of what they love to do (some without much of a warning)--it can only be disheartening and deflating with a feeling of helplessness.

Kristen Millares Young, a business and metro reporter at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, devastated as she was to learn she was without a job on March 16, 2009, refused to give up on her passion for reporting and exposing corruption and government fraud. So Young teamed with other Seattle staffers to form Investigate West, a non-profit organization dedicated to investigative journalism covering the Pacific Northwest and the West.

In addition to Young, I.W. has four other former Post-Intelligencer staffers on board: Rita Hibbard serves as executive director and editor. Hibbard was assistant managing editor for news and led the investigative team at the Post-Intelligencer; Daniel Lathrop, a former member of the P.I.’s investigative projects team is I.W.’s chief digital strategist and investigative reporter;  Robert McClure, a Pulitzer-Prize finalist, who exposed a glaring loophole in the Endangered Species Act, is I.W’s chief environmental correspondent; and Carol Smith, who covered science and medicine for the P-I, now reports on health and social justice for I.W. Two news photographers, Paul Joseph Brown and Mike Kane are additionally part of I.W’s news team.

Investigate West operates on the same non-profit model as National Public Radio, which receives funding from pledge drives and donations from other journalism organizations. I.W, for example, was recently the beneficiary of a $100,000 grant from the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation.

On her way to an assignment, Young, who previously worked for TIME Magazine, the Buenos Aires Herald and The Miami Herald before landing at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, called me on my cell to chat about I.W., her commitment to aggressive journalism and the sorry state of the newspaper industry.

Young encourages any reporter, editor, or photographer, who has been laid-off, not to lose heart; as long as the passion is still there, and you love what you were reporting on, whether it was food, politics, jazz music—and you’re willing to get along with little pay (at least for a while)—there’s no reason why your love for journalism should wither away. But Young stresses that unless you’re passionate about your subject—burn-out will likely set in--because flying solo or collaborating with others requires a committement to make it work; meaning, long hours with most independent sites taking as long as a year or even two years before getting noticed or building an established audience.

I.W, incorporated as a nonprofit 501(c) (3) produces journalism for the public trust, by conducting investigative projects and then selling content to other news outlets, such as MSNBC, the Spokesman Review, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and KUOW, a founding member of NPR; and an affiliate of Public Radio International (PRI).

Whether this new non-profit investigative journalism model will catch on is still an open question, but it has certainly earned the respect of seasoned professionals, such as Walt Bogdanich, assistant editor for the New York Times Investigations Desk, and adjunct professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. `` I'm a big supporter of the nonprofit model.  It's too early to tell how successful that approach will be over time, but right now it shows great promise’’ the three-time Pulitzer Prize winner wrote in an email. The encouraging news for investigative journalism sites like I.W. according to Bogdanich is that ``as these groups develop track records, the established media will be more inclined to consider their offerings.’’

Paul Steiger, editor-in-chief, president and chief executive of ProPublica. an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest, and whose work has been featured in The New York Times, USA Today, the Denver Post, among other news publications, while encouraged by the investigative journalism undertaken by non-profits, observes that it’s a little more difficult for someone age 45-50 whose been laid-off to match what they were doing as far as compensation goes and the reporting tools they were accustomed to using at their former newspapers.

``Younger journalists’’, Steiger points out, ``don’t need as much income, they don’t have kids, they don’t have mortgages to worry about, so they can experiment and work for modest wages at startups.’’

Despite the limited field, Steiger, a former managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, is mightily impressed with a number non-profit investigative ventures, namely:  The Center for Public Integrity, the Center for Investigative Reporting, California Watch, and the Huffington Post Investigative Fund   based in Washington D.C.

Doug Clifton, former executive editor of The Miami Herald and most recently, editor of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland before retiring in 2007, is also encouraged by the non-profit journalism model, but cautions it only fills part of a need. `` Those sources’’ Clifton wrote in an email, ``don't seem able to replace the dollars that for-profit enterprises used to apply to investigative journalism. The non-profit groups may be able to partially fill a void on a temporary basis but the long-run answer is a new model for the traditional media. ‘’

Clifton is now involved with The Vermont Journalism Trust, whose goal is to produce the kind of hard-hitting journalism that for profit news organizations are finding too costly to produce amid staff reductions and shrinking budgets.

With newspapers folding, other newsroom employees falling like dominoes as more and more newspapers downsize through buyouts and layoffs, what worries Young the most is ``that their won’t be enough people [reporters] left in regional markets to connect the dots’’ when a major investigative project or aggressive reporting is sorely needed.

Even if investigative reporting isn’t your area of expertise, Young shared with me examples of former P-I colleagues of hers who are now doing exactly what they love to do in their respective fields, such as Gene Stout, the former Post-Intelligencer music critic who has started his own site , as have Rebecca Denn, former writer and restaurant critic for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer with ``Eat All About It’’ ,  and for breaking news, The Seattle Post Globe was launched by former P-I. reporters, photographers, and copy editors, including Sally Deneen who contributes environment stories, Kathy George, a public interest lawyer and former government and politics editor at the Intelligencer, Grant Haller, a photographer who worked at the Intelligencer for 35 years, and John Hickey who spent the better part of two decades covering West Coast baseball.

For those laid-off, downsized and left for dead--let’s just hope that those reporters, writers, bloggers, photographers, page designers-whatever their medium may be-will one day be properly compensated for staying the course and pursuing their passion.

-Bill Lucey
WPLucey@gmail.com

Oscar Coverage on the Web

 
The clock is now ticking.

On Sunday, March 7, 2010, ABC will televise the 82nd annual Academy Awards from the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center, beginning at 5 p.m. PT/ 8 p.m. ET with hosts Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin.

If you find yourself away from your television set and still want to catch the live experience of Hollywood’s big night, don’t stress, there’s plenty of available options to you online. This is the age of the Internet, after all; when all things are possible as long as you have access to a computer or a smart phone.

At Oscar.com , for instance, the official site for the 82nd Academy Awards, users will be provided with an interactive Red Carpet experience through ``Facebook Connect’’, beginning Sunday from 3:00 to 5:00 pm PT, an online event which will be hosted by Lisa Guerrero and Brett Chukerman, along with “Modern Family” star Rico Rodriguez (‘Manny’), who will be reporting live from the Red Carpet Bleachers waiting anxiously for the arrivals and the crowds’ reactions.

In addition to watching stars parade down the Red Carpet, users will be able to read what other viewers are saying about the event through Facebook’s Connect application, while sharing their comments with other Facebook members.

And during the Sunday night ceremony, those logging on to Oscars.com will be able to view exclusive footage of backstage coverage of the night’s events from the ``Backstage Cam’’, capturing behind-the-scenes action,; a ``Thank You Cam’’ which allows Oscar winners an opportunity to thank their supporters immediately after they’ve left the stage; along with the ``Press Room Cam’’, featuring winners in the press area after they leave the stage.

As usual, The New York Times have rolled out a banquet of online coverage for viewers to feast on.

For beginners, The Carperbagger, Melena Ryzik is out in LA, and will be blogging throughout the weekend; as will A.O. Scott and others; and just on Friday, The Times launched an impressive interactive graphic that shows users all the major winners stretching back to 1975.

For those who like to compete, The Times has posted an interactive ``Oscar Ballot’’ , that let’s viewers see how they’re doing with their picks compared with other Times' users.

The Times also will be featuring their robust Twitter module in which staffers like David Carr, Dave Itzkoff, Ryzik, Scott and others will providing up to the minute updates, comments, and observations.

Meanwhile, The L.A. Times, has raised the curtain on a new celebrity blog,``Ministry of Gossip’’ in which a group of bloggers provide users with the latest from the Red Carpet, inside tips during the ceremony; and slices of gossip from the Oscar parties.

The Times additionally unveiled a new film blog ``24 Frames’’, which features the latest Hollywood news, videos from staffers, Oscar predictions and a ton of other useful tidbits.

The Times has assembled a striking blog `Gold Derby’’ in gathering links to some of the best Oscar reporting from not only the Times but from other national publications as well. Viewers will also want to pop in on Pete Hammond’s ``Daily Dose of Awards’’  for the latest Oscar buzz.

The Washington Post will be feeding readers with Red Carpet updates and chime in about things as they happen on their Celebritolgy blog

And for those who only watch the Oscars to see which designers the celebrities chose, both The Washington Post and L.A. Times will be featuring fashion galleries on Sunday night.

While Hulu.com won’t be providing live streaming, they do have a collection on of ``Oscar Picks’’ on their homepage; and on Monday they will feature Barbara Walters Oscar special, including Red Carpet footage provided by E! and TV Guide as it comes in. A small collection of short clips will be streamed live on Hulu as early as Sunday night; with the longer versions available on Monday.

E! Online have a fun new gallery,  Real Men Take (Red Carpet) Risks; and a Prediction Quiz, which allows user to find out  they’re a Box Office Brainiac, Red Carpet Rebel or Total Indie Nut . And beginning Sunday, E! Online will begin posting their TwitPics.

Finally, the popular entertainment blog, Gawker will be blogging away beginning on Friday night.

If you’re miffed I missed pointing out any other major Oscar night blogs, write your Congressman or Congresswoman; I did my best.

Enjoy the show!

-Bill Lucey
WPLucey@gmail.com

***

Oscar Footnotes:

• Douglas Fairbanks Sr. served as host when the first annual Academy Awards was held at the Blossom Room of the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel on May 16, 1929.
The winners had been announced three months prior to this black-tie awards ceremony, where approximately 300 guests were in attendance.

• In the 3rd year of the Academy Awards (November 5, 1930), a new selection criterion for selecting nominees had been established: winners would now be chosen by the full members of the Academy, numbering over 400, instead of a handful of judges. This policy would continue until 1936

• Song and Film Editing were introduced as new categories beginning with the 7th annual Academy Awards (February 27, 1935).

• Cinematographer Hal Mohr became the only write-in Academy Award winner during the 8th year of the awards (March 5, 1936). Write-ins on the ballot were discontinued the following year.

• Best supporting actors were recognized for the first time during the 9th annual Academy Awards (March 4, 1937) --but the awards came in the form of plagues, not full-sized statues. The first winners were Walter Brennan in Come and Get It and Gale Sondergaard in Anthony Adverse. Full-sized statutes for supporting roles would not be handed out until 1943.

• Beginning with the 13th annual Academy Awards (February 27, 1941), the winners were not made known to anyone in advance, except a select few from the certified public accounting firm of Price Waterhouse & Co, until the envelopes were unsealed on the night of the awards. Thus, the Oscar tradition: ``The envelope please!'' came into being.

• During the 13th annual Academy Awards presentation (February 27, 1941), FDR addressed the Academy through a piped in radio address that lasted 6 minutes, making him the first U.S. president to address the academy.
NOTE: In order to give the Republicans equal time, Wendell L. Wilkie, the Republican nominee during the 1940 presidential election, was the principal speaker at the Academy Awards the following year.

• On March 13, 1947, for the first time in the Academy's history, the general public was allowed to buy tickets and attend the awards ceremony, which was held at the Shrine Civic Auditorium in Los Angeles.

• During the Academy's 25th Anniversary show (March 19, 1953), the awards were broadcast on television for the first time.

• Sophia Loren earned an industry milestone during the 34th annual Academy Awards (April 9, 1962), when she became the first Hollywood actress to win an Oscar in the best actress category for a non-English speaking film, for her role in the Italian film (Two Women).

• Make-up artists were recognized in a new category beginning with the 54th annual Academy Awards (March 29, 1982). The first film honored in that category was An American Werewolf in London.

Showstoppers

• April 9, 1962: During the 34th annual Academy Award ceremony, Stan Berman, a notorious gatecrasher, managed to slip past 125 police guards and presented MC Bob Hope with a hand-made Oscar.

• March 27, 1973: During the 45th annual Academy Awards, a shocked worldwide television watched as an Indian woman: Sachen Little-Feather (later identified as actress Maria Cruz) stepped to the podium and informed the audience that Marlon Brando, whose name had just been announced as best actor for his role playing Don Vito Corleone in the Godfather, was turning down the award due to the film industry's distorted depiction of American Indians.

• April 2, 1974: During the 46th annual Academy Awards, Ropert Opal, 33, came on stage directly behind presenter David Niven and dashed naked across the stage in front of an astonished auditorium and live television audience. As if on cue, Niven shot back in what is considered to be one of the best ad libs in Academy history, when he replied: ``Isn't it fascinating, to think that probably the only laugh that man will ever get in his life is by stripping off his clothes and showing his shortcomings.''
NOTE: Opal was found murdered five years later in a paraphernalia sex shop in San Francisco.

Crimes and Misdemeanors

• When Zbigniew Rybczynski won an Oscar during the 55th annual Academy Awards (April 11, 1983) for an animated Short Film (Tango), he became the first Oscar winner to spend time in jail the night of the Oscars. Rybczynski got into a fight with security guards after he tried to re-enter the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion after stepping out for a cigarette break. He was arrested and sent to jail. It was a brief stay. Once he was identified, charges were dropped.

• The 60th annual Academy Awards (April 11, 1988), made history for having a nominee on the ballot, who was actively being sought by police for grand theft involving an extensive collection of library books. Gustav Hasford, who was nominated but didn't win in the screenplay division for Full Metal Jacket, was either a no-show or he didn't make his presence known.

• On March 20, 2000, two employees of the Roadway Express Co., in Bell Ca., Anthony Keith Hart and Edward Ledent, both 38, were arrested for stealing 55 Oscar statutes. Willie Fulgear, a junk salvager, eventually found 52 of those statutes as he sifted through a garbage bin in L.A.'s Koreatown.

Other Oscar Records:

• Wings is the only silent film to win an Academy Award (1927-1928).

• Cimarron (1930-1) was the only western ever to win best picture.

• It Happened One Night became the first comedy to win best picture; and additionally became the first motion picture to sweep all 5 major awards.

• Gone with the Wind (1939) was the first motion picture in color to win an Oscar.

• Haitti McDaniel became the first African American to win an Oscar (Gone With The Wind, 1939); and Rita Moreno, the first Latina to win an Oscar (West Side Story. 1961).

• The only person to actually go home with an Oscar for playing a character who lost at the Academy Awards was Maggie Smith for California Suite (1978.)

• Ben Hur (1959) became the only remake to win Best Picture.

• The Apartment (1960) was the last black and white film to win an Oscar.
Note: Schindler's List (1993), another Oscar recipient, was partially shot in black and white

Oscar Primer

Who makes the Oscar?

R.S. Owens Co. of Chicago

Dodge Tropy Co., in Carson Calif., about 20 miles from Hollywood, originally began manufacturing the statutes in 1931 until it closed its operations in 1984.

How big is the statute?

13 and one half inches tall; it weighs 8 pounds and one half pounds

What is it made of?

The exterior is gold plated.: 92.5 percent tin and 7.5 percent copper

What happened to the statutes George C. Scott and Marlon Brando refused?

In reality, their names were never engraved. They were immediately returned and put back in stock.

Are the statues copyrighted?

Yes. As of September 2, 1941, when the statute officially became copyrighted, Oscar winners were prohibited from selling their statute without first offering it back to the Academy for $10.00.

Also, since 1949, the statutes were issued a number, which started with the number 501.

-Bill Lucey

Source: 70 Years of the Oscar: The Official History of the Academy Awards'' By Robert Osborne

Looking For the Best Baseball Blogs on the Web?

Now that the Winter Olympics are behind us, baseball fans (and especially fantasy baseball fans) will soon begin checking in on their favorite Major League Baseball teams and players to see how they’re coming along in Florida and Arizona.

With the Internet, and in particular, blogosphere monopolizing practically ever phase of our daily reading habits, I decided to venture deep into the recesses of the Web, hoping to come up with some of the best baseball blogs available from coast-to-coast.

Here is what I was able to find.

One of the most popular baseball blogs is mlbtraderumors.com, a site not affiliated with Major League Baseball, but rather maintained by Tim Dierkes, a die-hard Cubs’ fan and resident of Roselle, Illinois.

Trade Rumors (more or less aggregated news) links to noteworthy and timely baseball news from a variety of leading U.S. newspapers, archives trade rumors by individual teams, informs readers of contract negotiations and even lets fans know what beat writers, like Joel Sherman of the N.Y. Post are tweeting about.

Another must read baseball blog is Joe Posnanski, a Cleveland native and senior writer at Sports Illustrated, who regularly posts interesting notes (not all baseball related), typically dealing with some obscure footnotes that he didn’t have room to fit into his regular SI column. Posnanski, for instance, shares with readers meeting legendary NFL broadcaster Al Michaels for the first time, who reveals to Posnanski his favorite all-time baseball game, along with his life long love affair with baseball, beginning at an early age, growing up in Brooklyn in a neighborhood just around the corner from Ebbett’s Field.

Major League Baseball maintains blogs by all their beat writers, which is regularly updated with spring training news and which players are fighting for positions, such as word that Mike Lowell is spending a lot of time at first base, presumably to increase his market value.

MLB also features MSNBC Keith Olbermann’s reflections on baseball; that is, when the liberal talking head isn’t exchanging blows with the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

If you took a random survey with baseball fans on a``must read blog’’; ESPN’s Buster Onley’s  would more than likely top the list. Onley, a senior writer for ESPN Magazine, who has been covering baseball since 1989, regularly maintains up-to-date baseball news; he seems particularly plugged into trade rumors and gives readers insight on what ‘s taking place at spring training with direct quotes from managers and players.

NOTE: Unfortunately, Onley’s blog is so popular; users will have to pass through a toll booth on ESPN’s Website, which costs $3.33 a month, and includes a one-year subscription to ESPN, the magazine.

ESPN additionally maintains  a wide collection of spring training blogs by staff writers, who file daily updates on individual teams from Florida and Arizona.

Also at ESPN is the ``SweetSpot Blog Network’’ which made its debut during the 2009 baseball playoffs with posts from Rob Neyer, a senior writer at ESPN.com , along with a team of other writers who report the latest MLB news. Right now, ``SweetSpot’’ is limited to six teams (accessible through a drop-down menu): the Red Sox, Dodgers, Twins, Yankees, Phillies, and Cardinals; but an ESPN spokesperson tells me there are plans to expand their coverage.

Yahoo takes great pride with its ``Big League Stew, which is ranked the 5th best blog by Ballhype.com, In addition to timely player and team news from spring training, ``Big League Stew’’ regularly posts interesting items about the business of baseball, such as a post on Friday, which reported MLB grossed a record $6.6 billion in 2009, a rare success story during the Great Recession.

 NBC Sports and Rotoworld have joined forces with ``Hardball Talk'', a wildly popular blog that used to be known as ``Circling the Bases’’ before being renamed. The blog is maintained by Craig Calcaterra, a lawyer and former District Attorney from Columbus, Ohio, who said goodbye to the dusty legal briefs to write full-time for NBC from the comfort of his home. Nice work if you can get it.

 Fox Sports, meanwhile, showcases its ``Baseball Buzz’’ blog,  which a Fox spokesperson said became an instant hit when it launched during the free agency period.

 And in a new feature, Fox Sports rolls out ``GM Corner” with Jim Bowden  who will conduct interviews with some of  baseball’s top brass on issues they confront every day, like the first installment, which deals with arbitration cases.

 Popular FS writers Ken Rosenthal and John Paul Morosi are back providing expert analysis and updates from both the Junior and Senior circuits.

 Another popular baseball blog making noise on the Web, is CBS Sports’ Scott Miller’s ``Bull Pennings’’   His signature ``Likes and Dislikes’’ at the end of each post is a nice touch, as is his``Rock 'N' Roll Lyric of the Day’’

 And for those statistical junkies and fantasy baseball participants, you might be interested to know that CBS Sports has teamed with Tableau Software (a leading provider of fast analytics and data visualization software) where fantasy baseball players on CBSSports.com will have access to a variety of interactive data visualizations, reports and analytics around fantasy baseball, making it possible to scrutinize numbers closer than ever before.

 If you’re preparing for fantasy baseball, you won’t want to miss John Sucich’s column, who provides spring training roundups, players to watch, and division by division analysis and notes.

Finally, curtain calls for the most innovative name for a blog, belongs to Peter Schmuck's ``The Schmuck Stops Here'' from The Baltimore Sun, who provides readers with short bite size, but always informative, slices of information on professional sports in Baltimore, including the Orioles.

 After spending the last couple days searching for the best baseball blogs on the Web and getting recommendations from other experts, I can now see why the newspaper industry is struggling the way that it is. 

How can print newspapers possibly compete with this high-speed analysis, team updates at the blink of an eye, along with all these other online stastical bells and whistles found on so many Websites?

It didn’t seem all that long ago when I used to have to call a 1-800 number for baseball updates, stay glued to the bottom of my television screen for ticker updates on ESPN, or wait for the morning newspaper, hoping it got the West Coast and extra-inning games in on time.\

However much the Internet has changed our daily newspaper habits, I still have too much respect for so many seasoned baseball writers to give up on them, even with the glut of information available on the Web.

In particular, I read with great regularity, Paul Hoynes and Terry Pluto from The Plain Dealer in Cleveland; Dan Shaughnessy and Bob Ryan from the Boston Globe; Yankees and Mets coverage from The New York Times , The N.Y. Daily News;  from the N.Y. Post,  Joel Sherman’s ``Hardball’’  and Mike Vaccaro’s ``Vac’s Whacks’’

 For those living in the Northeast and enduring this miserably cold snow-filled winter, remember Opening Day is only 35 days away;  maybe just the thought of it might warm your heart and lift your spirits.

-Bill Lucey
WPLucey@gmail.com
 

How Do Laid-Off Journalists Reinvent Their Careers?

 
It’s not exactly breaking news to report how the newspaper industry has suffered immeasurable damage during the rapid migration to the Internet, made all the worse by the Great Recession, with lost advertising revenue translating into the shedding of jobs at an alarming rate.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, newsrooms have lost 9,700 jobs from 2001 through 2009, representing a 17 percent decline from 56,400 to 46,700.

With stacks of newsroom employees having been laid-off or forced to accept buyouts from their companies; a large restless battalion of reporters, copy editors, layout editors, and news researchers find themselves out of work, looking for new careers or ways to reinvent themselves in a new competitive technology-based environment without knowing which way to turn.

It can be a frightening, to be sure, not knowing what the future holds in a labor market with unemployment stuck at a grim 9.7 percent, with limited jobs available, especially within the media industry.

Typically, the sage words given to newsroom employees on their way out the door is to find a way to reinvent yourself.

Splendid advice. But unless you’re Houdini or David Copperfield, it can be quite the challenge for someone in their late 40’s 50’s, or even 60’s for example, to find ways to reinvent themselves.

But before raising the white flag and crying uncle, there are plenty of resources available online, offering video tutorials, webinars, and career tips to those out of work newspaper employees’ trying to acquire new skills and become more marketable.

The Poynter Institute, a school and resource depository for journalists, located in St. Petersburg Fla, offers a variety of journalism courses through their News University website from journalism basics to photo journalism, producing news with your mobile phone, and variety of other ways to develop new skill sets.

Many of these offerings, moreover, are free. And during the coming year, Poynter will begin offering entrepreneurial courses for journalists and citizens interested in creating their own startups.

An often overlooked organization that offers a treasure of training tools is the Special Libraries Association (SLA), a professional organization for librarian information specialists working in media, government, law and non-profit organizations.

Membership is $185 for those making between $34,000-75,000 a year. However, if you are unemployed or underemployed, and make less than $18,000, an SLA membership is only $40.000. Membership then gives you access to SLA’s online programs, which offers a number of online tutorials, including social networking training, how to create podcasts, setting up your own Wikipedia, converting your articles and text into Adobe, and searching public records.

One major hurdle many former newspaper employees are finding by going it alone on their own websites and personal blogs is they are without many of the handy tools they had in the newsroom, such as Nexis and Factiva. Searching through Google News and the New York Times historical archives, can only carry you so far.

If you are under a tight budget, buying a subscription to Nexis is practically out of the question.

Thankfully, however, there are some options worth pursuing.

LexisNexis and MediaBistro have partnered to offer access to Nexis’ archives, a perfect tool for independent journalists. Once establishing a membership with AvantGuild, Nexis archives, which includes thousands of national and international sources, are available to members for $59.00 a month.

Even if this package is still too rich for your blood, a spokesperson from Nexis said the company ``will work with independent journalists directly to try and put together a package that makes sense for their unique needs.’’

Aside from offering Nexis archives, MediaBistro also features a variety of online courses taught through their ``On Demand Video’’ section, which offers hundreds of tutorials on using social media platforms or building a media business through user content and engagement.

Yet another alternative available to independent journalists and news researchers looking for news articles is through NewsLibrary,  where millions of full-text articles nationwide are available for $19.95 a month or $2.95 per article.

And for those hard to find news articles, Newsbank Inc. additionally offers News in History, featuring news articles from all 50 U.S. states published from 1800 through 2000 and searchable through a single database. The subscription is $9.95 a month or $69.95 for an annual membership.

But even with all these new online searching tools, photo gadgets, and social media platforms saturating journalism, and being embraced by newspapers, seasoned professionals caution that news professionals shouldn’t neglect the basics of being a good reporter or a sound news researcher.

Contacted on her cell phone, Dana Canedy, a senior editor at The New York Times, whose job responsibilities also include recruiting, tells me ``despite the painful time the industry is going through, we shouldn’t forget that whatever the medium and whatever kind of delivery system, whether it be through the Internet or print publications, the same principles apply, the same skills sets still apply.’’

While all the bells and whistles of the new journalism (twittering, social networking, capturing images with your cell phone are certainly an added bonus to any newsroom); Canedy thinks they are only part of the package of what most newspapers are looking for from their newsroom staff.

It was reporters fluent in French, Canedy points out, that became indispensable to editors with the Haiti earthquake; and strong vivid concise reporting skills that led to staffers being dispatched to Iran that became important, more important than podcasts and social networking.

Colleen Eddy, Director of the Career Center at Poynter, tells me the most common attributes editors’ tell her they are looking for are those individuals who are ``adaptable to change, able to learn on the fly, have technical savvy, and know the value of teamwork and collaboration.’’

And for those out of work journalists, who think they are being pushed aside by a younger breed of tech journalists, Eddy says, forget about age. Instead, focus on your value by getting a career coach who will help you list your most transferable skills and market yourself. ``Network, network, network! and stay young at heart’’ Eddy stresses.

Who can argue with staying young at heart?

-Bill Lucey
WPLucey@gmail.com

Should the Senate Go Nuclear?

 

 Ask any congressional historian and they will probably tell you that Congress has known gridlock before; with the isolationist filibusters prior to WW I, during the Harry Truman administration and the ``Do Nothing Congress’’, during the contentious Civil Rights era of the 1950’s and 1960’s; during the post-Watergate era, and during Bill Clinton’s years when the White House battled with Newt Gingrich and his ``Contract with America''.

But the gridlock that has crippled the current 111th Congress has not been seen in some time. ``I think it is fair to say that there has not been a time in over 100 years where Congress has faced as systematic a problem with minority obstruction, Eric Schickler, Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley and co-author of ``Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate’’, writes through an email.

Schickler believes Congress hasn’t been this divided since the Civil War era, when the nation was coming apart at the seams and the House of Representatives was deadlocked in electing a Speaker of the House.

Political analysts have been weighing in with accelerated fervor on how the frequent use of the filibuster, once a practical tool for the minority party, has been abused by both parties in the last four to five years to the point that Congress has become dysfunctional.

The 111th Congress is on pace be the second highest in cloture votes right behind the previous Congress (2007-2008), which recorded a staggering 112 cloture votes.  The only way the Senate can overcome a filibuster is by a cloture vote, which if passed, cuts off debate, allowing the chamber to proceed with a motion.

The Senate first adopted a cloture vote in 1917 on legislation only; and in 1948 it extended the rule to allow cloture votes on executive nominations.  Another change to the cloture rule was enacted in 1975, when the number required to invoke cloture was changed from two-thirds of the membership to three-fifths or 60 votes.

Even with this privilege, a cloture vote didn’t take place until 1968, when the Senate rejected a cloture vote on Lyndon Johnson’s nomination of Associate Justice Abe Fortas to the U.S. Supreme Court. Soon after the vote, Johnson withdrew Fortas’ name.

And before the real trouble began prior to the 103rd Congress (1993-1994), cloture was only invoked three times. Since that time, however, cloture votes have gone through the roof.

According to the Congressional Research Service, cloture was sought on 12 nominations in the 103rd Congress; (1993-1994), five in the 107th (2001-2002), 14 in the 108th (2003-2004) and 18 in the 109th Congress (2005-2006).

Senator Tom Harkin, the junior Senator from Iowa, told the Washington Post, cloture votes have increased to about 75 percent in the last 15 years. Already, the 111th Congress has held more than 40 cloture votes and the night is still young.

So with Congress immobilized and bipartisanship apparently a foreign enemy, is there a way out of this stalemate and climate of inertia?

Yes; but it’s not easy, it never is in Congress.

Senate historian Don Ritchie tells me the Senate makes its own rules. But while it may only take 60 votes to invoke cloture, it takes 67 votes to make any rule changes in the Senate. ``That means, Ritchie said, that changes in the formal rules require broad bipartisan consensus. ‘’

And the rule change being advanced is the so-called ``nuclear option’’, which means an option that would bypass the traditional Senate rules by allowing the chamber to vote on a nominee or a piece of legislation by a majority vote (51) instead of the super-majority vote (60).

 The ``nuclear option’’ is nothing new either. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Republican from Tennessee, during the 108th Congress, annoyed that President George W. Bush’s nominations were being stalled, introduced a resolution (S.Res. 138) that proposed that executive and judicial nominees would receive a floor vote and end filibusters. After the ``Gang of 14’’ (seven Republicans, seven Democrats) came up with a compromise, however, the nuclear option was dropped.

Besides the procedural jujitsu, there are other problems with the filibuster rule.

Professor Schickler is of the opinion that the filibuster rule is a system most senators are a little too comfortable with, since it gives them more prominence and a feeling of power, knowing they can block a nominee or an important piece of legislation or get a pet project passed for his or her home state. ``The problem, Schickler maintains, is that what works for the 100 individual senators ends up dysfunctional for the country as a whole.’’

 Yet another bottleneck often cited with the current system is the requirement for unanimous vote before it gets to the floor; meaning, only a few senators can hold up a floor vote from occurring.

 Michael J. Gerhardt, Professor in Constitutional Law at the University of North Carolina Law School, thinks there should be more accountability and transparency, which would be easily realized if only Democrats forced more floor votes and Republicans stopped allowing their colleagues to obstruct floor votes.

Gerhardt, for example, would like to see all the names of lawmakers who are obstructing final judgment on many of these issues. ``These folks need to explain to the American people -- and the people of their States -- why obstruction is their preferred policy on health care and other important matters.’’

I continue to be amazed why it took the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts before the Obama administration started pressing for jobs, jobs, and more jobs.

Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised, then, that we will more than likely have to wait for voters to boot these obstructionist incumbents out of office this November, before Congress finally gets around to passing some bills. 
 
-Bill Lucey
WPLucey@gmail.com

Examining the ``Recess of the Senate''

 

 It’s only fitting that as we celebrate President’s Day on Monday; President Obama will make use of or at least is threatening to make use of a little known executive power stipulated in Article II Section II of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the president the authority to appoint vacancies when the Senate is in recess.

Upset that many of his high-level nominees have been stalled, the president made it clear recently he will be use his recess appointment powers unless the Senate moves quickly to confirm his nominees.

Since his warning, Republicans have freed up 29 nominees to receive votes in the Senate; but it still leaves dozens of high-level appointments still on hold.

President Obama in a rare press conference on Thursday, said ``I would exercise my authority to fill critically-needed positions in the federal government temporarily through the use of recess appointments.  This is a rare but not unprecedented step that many other presidents have taken.’’

President Obama is right, the recess appointment power is not unprecedented, but it’s hardly rare.

In fact, Presidents as far back as Washington have used their recess powers; most have gone unchallenged, while others have sparked controversy.  Presidents Jackson, Taylor and Lincoln, Senate records show, made hundreds of recess appointments during their time in office.

According to the Congressional Research Service, Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments (99 of those were full-time positions); while William J. Clinton made 139 appointments (95 were full-time).

Until the last 40 years, presidents took great liberty with recess appointments. The first five U.S. presidents appointed 31 members to the judiciary, including five to the Supreme Court.

The appointments of justice Earl Warren, William J. Brennan, Jr., and Potter Stewart to the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower all came by the way of recess appointments.

But it was this abuse of executive power that triggered some revisions. In 1960, Democratic Senator Phillip Hart from Michigan introduced S. Res. 334 , which discouraged recess appointments for Supreme Court members on the grounds that it wasn’t in the best interest of the court , the nominees involved or the people of the United States; and accordingly should be avoided except under ``unusual and urgent circumstances.’’

 Since this resolution was enacted, no Supreme Court justice has been nominated through a recess appointment.

George H. W. Bush set off an inferno when he appointed Thomas Ashley to the U.S. Postal Service Board on January 9, 1993. The appointment came at a time when Bush was a lame-duck president and was bumping heads with the Board of Governors’ vote by a 6-5 margin to pursue a lawsuit over postal rates.

Mr. Bush initially threatened to dismiss the governors, who voted to pursue the suit, but the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted an injunction, prohibiting such action.

 President Bush then replaced Crocker Nevin, a board member with Thomas Ludlow, a personal friend of the president, when the Senate was in recess. Not until July 25th of 1993, after Mr. Nevin filed a lawsuit, did the Federal Court reverse the decision, ruling it was an improper appointment, which cleared the way for President Clinton to nominate his own member to the U.S. Postal Service.

Another storm gathered over the 105th Congress when President Clinton appointed James Hormel, a gay rights activist, and a large contributor to the Democratic Party, ambassador to Luxembourg without Senate confirmation.

A conservative lawmaker, Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, accused Mr. Clinton of a ‘‘flagrant abuse of the recess appointment power'' and threatened to uphold other appointments unless the president agreed to curb such powers.

Inhofe and Clinton locked horns again just before the president left office in 2000, when Clinton named Roger Gregory to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, Va.

Inhofe charged that it was ''outrageously inappropriate for any president to fill a federal judgeship through a recess appointment in a deliberate effort to bypass the Senate. Clinton defended his appointment in naming Gregory, the first black to the appeals court, on the grounds that the Republican controlled Senate continuously frustrated his plans to name an African America to the court.

In 2007, just before the Thanksgiving recess, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) held abbreviated sessions (pro forma sessions) during the recess, just to prevent President Bush from making contentious executive branch appointments as he has done in past, such as when naming John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, and Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium. Fox, to the anger of Democrats, was a contributor to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that questioned John Kerry’s military service during the Vietnam War.

The Bush White House had made it known to Senator Reid and others that it was unwilling to confirm nominations made by Democrats to the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The first president to have his recess appointment challenged was when Theodore Roosevelt on December 7, 1903 made over 160 appointments, mostly members of the military during an intercession recess of less than one day. Over a year later, The 1905 Senate Judiciary Committee Report was issued which strongly rejected TR’s action.

Although recess appointments has resulted in controversy, more often than not, recess appointments without the advice and consent of the Senate are more systematic than ideological.

According to Ryan J. Owens, Assistant Professor of Government at Harvard University and one of the authors of an article published in the Political Research Quarterly (Volume 60 Number 4, December 2007) ``Adding Recess Appointments to the President’s ``Tool Chest of Unilateral Power’’ suggests presidents ``are more likely to make recess appointments to major independent agencies (so as to influence policy emanating from these entities), when their nominees have experienced confirmation delay, and when the President knows that the other party is soon to occupy the White House.’’

A recess appointment expires at the end of the Senate’s next session or when the recess appointee or someone else is nominated, confirmed, or permanently appointed; meaning, a recess appointment can last as long as two years.  If Mr. Obama made any recess appointments, in other words, they would remain valid until the 111th Congress ends in January, 2011.

Leaders of major labor unions are encouraging President Obama to use his recess power to appoint Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board as a way to strengthen their legislative agenda before the midterm elections on critical issues dealing with wage abuses and health and safety concerns.

The Senate previously blocked the appointment of Becker, an Illinois labor attorney, falling eight votes short of the required 60 to proceed on his nomination.

-Bill Lucey
WPLucey@gmail.com

Mourning the Loss of Memorable Super Bowl Commercials

 

 Maybe it’s because I’m getting older, but it seems the Super Bowl commercials that used to be hyped as cultural and entertaining events, have been getting more forgettable and blander every year.

Judging from the pathetic batch of commercials that aired on Sunday, you would never know that some of the most powerful marketing firms spend in excess of $100 million on Super Bowl ads; while major companies start working on next year’s Super Bowl commercial the day after the Super Bowl.

If someone held a gun to my head today, and asked me to name my favorite Super Bowl commercial from this year, I would quite honestly have to tell the person to go ahead and pull the trigger.

I thought the whole point of a Super Bowl commercial (with over 100 million worldwide viewers tuned in) was to generate water cooler talk the next day; and make the brand so ingrained in people’s minds—it would be hard to forget.

If you’re old enough, the very mention of Brother Dominic and Xerox, automatically calls to mind memories of the corpulent monk in the hollow dank monastery, carrying a bundle of manuscripts to a print copier salesperson with the mournful plea: ``Can you do a big job for me.’’?

Soon after that Xerox Super Bowl commercial ran in 1977, Brother Dominic became a household name. I can’t imagine many viewers who saw that ad struggling to name which product the diminitutive Franciscan was endorsing.

Another unforgettable commercial that remains tucked away in my memory was the famous Coca-Cola commercial that ran on January 16, 1972 during Super Bowl VI, when a sea of inhabitants representing various countries and cultures from all walks of life, gathered at a hillside near Rome and formed a pyramid, while signing ``I’d like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company… I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony’’

Those memorable lyrics, with a clear message of ``peace and harmony’’, was written by Bill Backer, creative director for the McCann-Erickson advertising agency, while stranded at an airport in Ireland. The tempers of annoyed passengers stranded at an airport were only cooled when they gathered at the airport café to share their miserable experiences with others while sipping on a beverage, a Coca-Cola. Backer jotted the lyrics down on a napkin, and the rest is history. The 60 second spot, by the way, was produced for $225,000.

Of course, the Super Bowl commercial which had the greatest impact and is still talked about the most was an ad that only ran once. It came during the third quarter of  Super Bowl XVIII in 1984, when Apple Computer hired a well known English director and producer, Ridley Scott, director of Alien (1979), Blade Runner (1982), Thelma & Louise (1991), and Gladiator (2000), among others, with a $900,00 budget to produce a 60 second commercial on the introduction of the company’s Macintosh computer.

The commercial was modeled on George Orwell’s classic novel, ``1984’’ in which a ``Big Brother’’ authoritative image was commanding clone-like members walking into the chamber in goose step fashion to conform to conventional standards. A female athlete then lurches toward the Big Brother image, shattering it with a sledgehammer. The commercial ended with the words: ``On January 24, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you’ll see why 1984 won’t be like 1984.’’

In addition to its mesmerizing influence, the Apple commercial aroused a powerful liberating response with viewers and struck a deep emotional cord; one of the many reasons the commercial is still talked about to this day.

Not all commercials, of course, had to channel such profound themes in order for them to be effective or memorable. Humor works pretty well, a concept largely ignored this year.

Remember Miss Piggy in 1997, dressed in a low-cut black evening dress who became mesmerized by a handsome young man; that is until he made the mistake of trying to eat Miss Piggy’s Baked Lay’s potato chips.

Another amusing Super Bowl commercial came during a Federal Express commercial in 1999, when the entire Detroit Red Wings hockey team were anxiously waiting for the Stanley Cup to arrive. When the box did arrive, shock sets in when they discovered burro food had been sent to them by mistake, while their prized trophy was headed to the South American country of Bolivia. The commercial ended with the sage advice: ``When you need to get something delivered, go with Federal Express.’’

Capitalizing on tragedy or an individual’s handicap, albeit with a touch of class, worked pretty well for Diet Pepsi in 1990, when singer Ray Charles took part in the ``Ultimate Blind Taste Test.’’   10 years later, the E*Trade Group sparked some definite water cooler chatter with the brilliant ``Wazoo commercial’’ in which a patient is rushed through a busy emergency room. The doctor, after having examined the patient’s derriere, says he has money coming out of his Wazoo. The patient is immediately whisked away to a private room.

So after being greeted to a heavy barrage of mindless, unimaginative and forgettable Super Bowl commercials; from a Sumu wrestler, a man taunting a dog with Doritos; office workers without pants, to Denny’s overworked chickens, I long for the days when Super Bowl commercials presented creativity, humor, and came with a clear message that remained etched in your mind.

-Bill Lucey
WPLucey@gmail.com

A Brief History of Super Bowl Sunday at the White House

If there is one universal criticism of President Obama’s cool controlled management style, it’s that he appears too detached, acting more like a law professor inspiring his students, never giving vent to his anger or leaping for joy when such emotions might warrant it.

You might be curious, then, if the presidents’ cool indifference is in play on Super Bowl Sunday?

On the surface, it seems like it is. When questioned by ABC’s Diane Sawyer, Mr. Obama said both the Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints were terrific teams, but was pulling for the Saints ``partly because’’ Obama told Sawyer, ``when I think about what’s happened to New Orleans over the last several years and how much that team means to them…I’m pretty sympathetic.’’

A typical calm cool as cucumber Obama response

But during last year’s Super Bowl, Obama displayed no such tranquility According to the Washington Post, the president openly rooted for the Pittsburgh Steelers to defeat the Arizona Cardinals and leapt to his feet when Steelers’ linebacker James Harrison sprinted the length of the field for a touchdown just before halftime, telling Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania) sitting next to him, ``what do you think about that!’’

Now, perhaps, that’s the kind of unbridled emotion the American people are looking for from their president.

U.S. Presidents and Super Bowls lack a rich tradition equal to the World Series. In fact, no sitting president has ever attended a Super Bowl. The closest came in 1985 during Super Bowl XIX, when President Reagan tossed the coin via satellite from the Oval Office. Vice President George H.W. Bush did attend Super Bowl XVI in Detroit on January 24, 1982, when the San Francisco 49ers narrowly defeated the Cincinnati Bengals; while former presidents Bill Clinton and Bush (the elder), participated in FOX Sports Pregame Super Bowl show in 2005 in Jacksonville Fla.
Former President Jimmy Carter, according to Greg Aiello, NFL spokesperson has also attended a Super Bowl after leaving office.

President Nixon, a part-time Florida resident, openly rooted for the Miami Dolphins during Super Bowl VI, he even phoned in a play to Don Shula (a-down-and in); but changed allegiance the following year, when the Dolphins returned to the Super Bowl to face the Washington Redskins.  ``I always root for the home team’’ Mr. Nixon told The New York Times. ``And my home now is in Washington.’’

During Super Bowl XIII in 1979, President Jimmy Carter put his money where his mouth is by placing a $5 bet with Miss Lillian, his mother, that the Cowboys would beat the Pittsburgh Steelers. Carter lost that bet.

In 1993, President Clinton scheduled his first official dinner on Super Bowl Sunday, bringing together the nation’s governors, including Texas Gov Ann Richards and New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, both of whom had more than a passing interest in Super Bowl XXVII, with the Dallas Cowboys squaring off against the Buffalo Bills.

President Clinton invited the Rev. Jesse Jackson to the White House in 1998, soon after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke to watch the Super Bowl at the White House Family Theater and seek his spiritual guidance, along with his advice on his upcoming State of the Union address. Jackson strongly advised the president not to mention the scandal in his speech. ``Hold on to the sides of the boat until the morning cometh’’ Jackson told the president ``because the storms will pass over.’’

No one can accuse former President George W. Bush of hiding his emotions during a football game In January, 2002, while watching a playoff game between the Dolphins and Baltimore Ravens, the president stood up and cheered, only to choke on a pretzel, falling face-first to the ground. Bush fainted after a decrease of blood pressure, but quickly recovered and reportedly peeked in on the rest of the game.

That presidential swoon may have been a harbinger of the yet unknown future.

The following year, two months before invading Iraq (2003), Mr. Bush invited Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi exile, and a staunch critic of the Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship to the White House to watch Super Bowl XXVII

-Bill Lucey
WPLucey@gmail.com

 Super Bowl Footnotes:

• The winning team of this year’s Super Bowl will each receive $83,000; $42,000 will be awarded to members of the losing team. The winning share for Super Bowl I, by comparison, was $15,000 for the winner and $7,500 for members of the losing team.

• The Vince Lombardi Trophy, a regulation-size silver football mounted in a kicking position on a pyramid stand of three conclave sides, stands 20.75 inches tall, weighs 107.3 ounces and is valued in excess of $25,000.

• The Indianapolis Colts representing the AFC are considered the home team during this year’s Super Bowl and will occupy the South sideline, giving them the option of wearing their traditional blue jersey’s if the so desire..

• Ticket Prices: for Super Bowl XLIV sold for: $1,000, $900,$800, $500
In Super Bowl I, tickets were:  $12, $10, and $6

• A Roman numeral to designate a Super Bowl wasn’t officially adopted until Super Bowl V.

• Next year’s Super Bowl will take place in North Texas at the Dallas Cowboys’ new stadium.

• Super Bowl XLIII, on February 1, 2009 between the Pittsburgh Steelers and Arizona Cardinals was watched by an estimated 151,600,000 viewers.

• A 30-second adversiment during this year’s Super Bowl was selling for between $2.6 to $3 million dollars

• 21.5 million people will throw Super Bowl parties; 9.9 million will watch the game in bars and restaurants

• According to National Restaurant Association, 15 percent of Americans order takeout on Super Bowl Sunday, 58 percent of those order pizza, 50 percent chicken wings and 20 percent subs and sandwiches.

• More than 4500 media credentials have been issued for this year’s Super Bowl

• 230 countries and territories will televise this year’s Super Bowl

• The New York Giants, winner of Super Bowl XXI (1987) finished last the following season in the NFC Eastern Division with a 6-9 record. The Denver Broncos met a similar fate, after winning Super Bowl XXXIII (1999), finishing last the following year in the AFC Western Division with a 6-10 record.

• The coldest Super Bowl in Miami was a chilly 57 degrees during Super Bowl X on January 18, 1976. The coldest recorded Super Bowl was in New Orleans on January 16, 1972, registering a frosty 39 degrees.

• The first well known musical star to perform at halftime didn’t come until Super Bowl III (1969) when Carol Channing performed. The tradition of booking a mega musical star, however, didn’t really kickoff until Super Bowl XXVII, when the former king of pop, Michael Jackson, performed at halftime with 3,500 local children, the same year O.J. Simpson participated in the pregame coin toss ceremony.

Source: NFL Media Relations

Gridlock in Congress: Who Will Blink First?

The back-and-forth intransigence between Republicans’ in Congress and President Obama over such polarized issues like health care and deficit reduction must seem to many like watching Kennedy and Khrushchev square off eyeball-to-eyeball during the Cuban missile crisis; which side will blink first?

With Scott Brown soon to become the 41st Republican in the U.S. Senate, and as a result, ending the Democrats’ supermajority, more gridlock is expected to set in, unless someone works some magic awfully soon—leading many to wonder whether any bipartisanship is possible with the 111th Congress?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word ``gridlock’’ was first used in Paul Theroux’s 1981 novel ``Mosquito Coast’’ (``I tell you Charlie, it’s an imperfect world, America’s in gridlock’’). The Financial Times caught onto the word two years later when on May 2, 1983 they wrote: ``The political `gridlock’ in Congress might mean that no budget resolution could be passed for fiscal year of 1984.’’

Since then, ``gridlock’’ has become a common term to describe Congress locked into a stalemate over passing any legislation.

 Though Democrats and Republicans in the present 111th Congress have reached agreement during the financial crisis on areas affecting the tumbling economy, such as with the stimulus bill and banking reform, other areas, more ideological, like health care and deficit reduction have run into choppy waters, with both sides refusing to give an inch.

 Voices from the right say jittery voters are at odds with Democrats and health care reform, along with their recklessness in running up the deficits to alarming heights, while voices from the left say Republicans just want to run out the clock on the Obama administration, and deny him a historic legislative victory with midterm elections scheduled for the end of the year.

 Was this what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, making it virtually impossible for drastic reform to take place with a bicameral legislature?

 It sure looks that way.

 According to Sarah A. Binder’s book ``Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock’’,   ``James Madison bequeathed to us a political system designed not to work, a government of sharply limited powers.’’ Binder goes on to write the Framers had a profound appreciation for gridlock, designing a system that would in fact guarantee gridlock.

 Other legal scholars point out the gridlock component of the Constitution is there to hold legislators accountable to the changing mood of voters over public policy.

 With the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress and a popular president in the same party, why hasn’t the 111th Congress been able to seal the deal on health care reform?

 On reason for this may be attributed to the fact that most Democrats are on one extreme, Republicans on other far end, without any coalition from both parties occupying the center.

 Congressional scholars, for example, point to the 83th Congress (1953-55) during the Eisenhower administration, when Republicans’ held a single-vote majority in the Senate and less than a dozen in the House. Those on the right were able to come together with a large bloc in the middle, leaving those on the far left with little leverage. This centrist Congress successfully passed a Social Security Expansion Act, the Housing Act of 1954, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Agriculture Act of 1954, and the Communist Control Act of 1954, which banned the Communist party, a move spearheaded by the Democratic Party.

As Charles M. Cameron writes in ``Veto Bargaining'' ``Southern Democrats, moderate Democrats, and liberal-progressive Republicans could find a working majority to support the creation of national infrastructure, the development of national resources, and anticommunism abroad and at home.''

Despite being saddled with a Republican Congress, Harry Truman during the 80th Congress was able to build a bipartisan foreign policy coalition in containing communism and rebuilding Europe through the Marshall Plan.

And the most recent example of a bipartisanship at its best came when the Republicans, running under the banner of ``Contract with America’’ won control of Congress during in 1994, in one of the largest midterm gains since 1946, which added 52 GOP seats to the House, while capturing eight seats in the Senate.

In 1996, the Clinton White House and a Republican controlled House of Representatives found it in their best interest to agree on important legislation rather then lock horns in an ideological stalemate.   It was in 1996, remember, when Welfare Reform was passed, the line-item veto was passed, as was the Anti-Terrorist Act, the Health Insurance Portability Act, Immigration Reform, as well as Telecommunications Reform.

David Mahew, professor of Political Science at Yale University, points out the Republicans don’t exactly hold a monopoly on acting like obstructionists or being labeled the party of no.

``Party polarization, Mayhew writes in an email, has been the norm for at least twenty years, especially in the House’’.  ``I don't see the Republicans as being especially responsible for this.  Both parties have a large paw print on it’’

 Mayhew in his 1993 book:  ``Divided We Govern’’ argues it matters little whether one party controls the White House and Congress. Historic legislative innovation has been accomplished in both unified and divided control. What usually leads to successful legislation being passed, according to Mayhew, is the shift of political moods guiding policy, along with the rise of issues that cut across ideological differences.

 Binder echoes this sentiment in her article ``Elections and Congress’s Governing Capacity’’ when she writes: `` our political system requires broad, and usually bipartisan, coalitions to adopt major policy change—coalitions that are easier to build when legislators occupy the political center.’’

Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute tells me last June, only 37 percent of independents disapproved of President Obama. In January of this year, by comparison, 48 percent of independent voters now disapprove of Mr. Obama’s performance.

This might suggest that it matters little if Democrats control both the White House and Congress; if they’re losing the center of the country, their majority is a fragile one unless some kind of bipartisanship begins filling the air.

The only question is: who will blink first?

 -Bill Lucey
 WPLucey@gmail.com

 Productive Congresses:

• The 80th Congress (1947-48) was the most productive Congress, when Democrat Harry Truman was in the White House and the Republicans controlled the Congress.  During this period, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley act, (an anti-union rollback of the Wagner Act); approved aid to Greece and Turkey, passed the National Security Act of 1947 (when military branches of government became unified under one Defense Secretary), passed the 22nd Amendment, (limiting the president to two-terms), passed the Marshall Plan (European Recovery Plan), passed an income tax cut (over Truman’s veto), and passed the Water Pollution Act of 1948.

• Another highly productive Congress was the 88th Congress (1963-64), with Democrat John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson in the White House and a Democratic controlled Congress. During this period, the followings bills passed: the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was ratified, aid to medical schools (student loans, buildings), Clean Air Act of 1963, Equal Pay Act of 1963 (outlawing gender discrimination), Civil Rights Act of 1964, (banning discrimination in public accommodations), Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (LBJ’s anti-poverty program), JFK’s tax cut (to spur economic growth), the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, and the Food Stamp Act of 1964.

• The last Congress to coalesce and pass major legislation came with the 89th Congress (1965-66) during Johnson’s ``Great Society’’. Bills passed during the period, included: Medical Care for the Aged, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD was established); regional medical centers for cancer, disease, stroke in the form of federal grants, Immigration Reform (ended quotas), the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities was established, Higher Education of 1965, (scholarships and insured loans for college students), Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1965,  Department of Transportation established, Air pollution control (aid to states and locales), and a minimum wage increase.

Source: ``Divided We Govern’’, by David R. Mahew

Under the Gun, Obama Mounts His Comeback

He’s ``erratic," "out of touch," "angry," "losing his bearings"

No, I’m not describing the meltdown of President Obama since Scott Brown was elected to the U.S. Senate; those were actually the words used by the Obama campaign to describe the grumpy, ill-tempered John McCain, the Republican nominee during the bruising 2008 presidential campaign.

Who would have thought that over a year since the three presidential debates took place, McCain would look like the sensible sage; while Obama appears the one out of touch to the needs of mainstream America and at a loss on how to solve a ballooning budget deficit?

I take you to the first presidential debate at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Mississippi on September 26, 2008, an event which took place on the heels of the financial crisis. Earlier that month (September 7, 2008), the federal government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which owned or guaranteed about half of the U.S.'s $12 trillion mortgage market

Moderator Jim Lehrer grilled both candidates to explain what they would do to solve the financial crisis.

Roll tape please!

Obama: ``We've got to make sure that none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or to promote golden parachutes.’’

McCain: ``Let me point out, I also warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and warned about corporate greed and excess, and CEO pay, and all that. A lot of us saw this train wreck coming.’’

McCain: ``Somehow we've lost that accountability. I've been heavily criticized because I called for the resignation of the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. We've got to start also holding people accountable, and we've got to reward people who succeed.’’

Later in the debate, Lehrer asks how this crisis will affect the country and what approach they will take if elected president.

Roll tape please!

MCCAIN: ``Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control in Washington. It's completely out of control. It's gone -- we have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society.’’

MCCAIN: ``How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs.’’

LEHRER: Spending freeze?

MCCAIN: I think we ought to seriously consider with the exceptions the caring of veteran’s national defense and several other vital issues.’’

OBAMA: ``The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are under funded. I went to increase early childhood education and the notion that we should freeze that when there may be, for example, this Medicare subsidy doesn't make sense.’’

So as the Congressional Budget Office reports in its budget outlook released Tuesday that it projects the budget deficit to rise to a troubling $ 6 trillion in the next decade, a level considered unsustainable by many, while unemployment isn’t expected to stabilize until 2014, maybe Mr. McCain’s tough love prudence during the campaign wasn’t as old-fashioned as many believed at the time.

It took a crushing defeat in Massachusetts, charges of pandering to Wall Street, a steep drop in public opinion polls, and a watered down health care bill, so watered down many have stopped caring—before the administration realized they needed to change course immediately and reconnect with middle America and win back a large chunk of independent voters, many of whom have grown disillusioned with the administration’s empty promises and bridge to nowhere rhetoric.

Before ripping a page out the McCain playbook, and announcing a three-year spending freeze on domestic discretionary spending (excluding defense and national security), President Obama proposed a new tax on some of the biggest banks, an announcement celebrated by many voters, who think Wall Street has been rewarded for reckless behavior under the present administration.

But when President Obama rolls out his new domestic policy during his State of the Union address on Wednesday in hopes of demonstrating fiscal responsibility to a skeptical public, the president will now have to contend with a new bloc of cynics: members of his own party, many of who have already think the president has abandoned them. “As much as I want to support the president, I have doubts'', Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee told ABC News, while Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI): said her ``first priority is creating jobs.  I don’t want a spending freeze on anything that is focused on jobs.”

 Even New York Times’ columnist Bob Herbert questions what has become of Obama, the progressive candidate, who promised so much to the urban poor, the downtrodden and abandoned under previous administrations.  The unofficial unemployment rate for blacks is 16.2 percent, Mr. Herbert points out, while citing a recent study which shows that college-educated black-men are twice as likely to be unemployed as their white (college-educated) counterparts.

 Herbert writes:``Black Americans are going backward economically, and right now no one is stepping up to stop the retreat.’’

 While most keen observers of the swelling federal deficit applaud the president’s spending freezes, many wonder if it could be extended to other programs, such as defense, homeland security and veterans, which, according to Tom Schatz, President of
Citizens against Government Waste are programs that can be reduced or terminated.

 Despite being encouraged by Obama’s spending freeze, Schatz still maintains the White House missed three golden opportunities to demonstrate fiscal discipline. ``First, Shatz says, he [Obama] has not vetoed a single spending bill.  ``Second, he [Obama] blamed the earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2009 that he signed last March on the prior administration.  ``Third, he [Obama] signed an omnibus appropriations bill in December that had an average 12 percent increase in spending for the six separate appropriations bills that were contained in the legislation, along with about 5,000 earmarks.  ‘’

The Committee For a Responsible Federal Budget, meanwhile, posted a statement on its website, which cautions that Congress will need to widen their net to other programs and save appreciably more money if they hope to slice the debt to a more manageable level.  ``But at least, CRFB writes, the President is moving in the right direction.’’

Unfortunately for the White House, it doesn’t matter much if ``The Committee of a Responsible Budget'' or ``Citizens against Government Waste'', think the president is moving in the right directions.

In November, when midterm elections are to be held, voters, the ultimate judge, will let the administration know whether their party is moving in the right direction.

From now until November, President Obama and the Democratic Party might want to brush up on notes from John McCain’s ``Straight Talk Express'' handbook.

-Bill Lucey
WPLucey@gmail.com