Brief Wit

(White) House of Lies?

Brief Wit — Sun, 27 May 2012 18:19:08 +0000

What in tarnation is going on? Since when did people in finance get defended in any real significant way?

Private equity, investment banking, and hedge funds were universally loathed in 2009 for collectively throwing us off a cliff economically in 2008, and (begrudgingly) the government had to, and was somehow able to, grab a hold of the ledge with one hand and start pulling us back up, with TARP and then the Stimulus. And now we’re going to elect someone from their ranks?

Republicans were furious at the financial services industry. That anger is part of the roots of the Tea Party. Democrats were similarly upset. Soon, Goldman Sachs executives were brought in front of Congress, as Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase is about to be for his firm’s recent blunder.

And now, Mitt Romney, one of the stars of that holy trinity of financial subsectors (or is it holey because of the ethical gaps in their practices?) has a 50-50 shot at being president. I just can’t see voters enthusiastically embracing Romney’s particular business background as well-suited for the post. The current occupant agrees: ” ‘There may be value in that kind of experience, but it’s not in the White House,’ Mr. Obama told supporters at the Iowa State Fairgrounds on Thursday night.”

I will concede that private equity work is different from that of I-bankers and hedge fund types. Some of that is in good ways. The latter two mostly toss around money on equities, slice it up in derivatives like they are playing Fruit Ninja, or mess with real estate in creative ways that lack the aesthetic appeal of a handsome renovation. They can make tons of money for their firms, or lose tons of other peoples. At its best, private equity can make firms tons of money, turn around companies, and create jobs. At its worst, it can makes firms tons of money, bankrupt companies, and lay off thousands.

We all stand up for the free market (or should). That does not mean that a successful run in a specific part of that market deems one worthy for the presidency.

And, by the way, making money is fine. It’s how you make it. Actors make it hand over fist over fake boob and we don’t hate them. Robert Downey Jr. is in the process of making $50 million from the Avengers; I’m just jealous.

Romney made his hundreds of millions by checking the pulse of companies and defibrillating them in order to get the profits flowing as fast as he could.

Romney was a management consultant for the better part of a decade, after which he offshot from the consulting firm Bain & Co. to start the private equity company Bain Capital. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the short version of the difference is that in the former you log loads of billable hours while making recommendations to companies, whereas in the latter you directly invest your money in the companies and implement your recommendations; you then reap the profits.

It’s not that he is innately a mean-spirited bean counter, but his thirty years in management consulting and private equity have trained Romney to examine balance sheets and organizational charts too unemotionally. The culture of self-interest is hard to shake off.

It’s also not that the firms are anti-job creation, it’s more that jobs are an occasional by-product of this work. You’re squeezing a lime to get the most juice for your margarita. If you think you can make a better juicer without spending too much more, maybe you’ll do it. (This is admittedly not an apt metaphor for a sober Mormon.)

It seems that creating jobs is a different muscle. Indeed, Nick Hanauer, a billionaire entrepreneur and early investor in Amazon, offers a compelling alternative in his controversial TED talk.

Bain Capital’s goal is unlike that of Facebook, expressed in its IPO filing with the SEC: ”we don’t build services to make money; we make money to build better services.” Now, I don’t love everything about Facebook, but that is an admirable sentiment. Bain and other leading private equity firms are pretty much the opposite: “We don’t make money to assist troubled companies; we invest in troubled companies to make more money.”

Did his work even create that many jobs? The 10,000 he used to say somehow became 100,000. Who knows? One thing that is not disputed: as governor, his state was 47th in the nation in job creation. Doesn’t that serve as proof that his brand of business experience doesn’t translate well into creating jobs as a government executive?

Romney’s foray in private equity is not a partisan issue. He’s heard it on both sides. Republican candidates attacked him for this work in the primary and it left a mark. Newark mayor Cory Booker set off the debate again on Meet the Press last week, though the topic was already roaring back.

Any time a surrogate says something inartful and appears to puncture a hole in his/her side’s argument or philosophy (see Rosen, Hilary), it’s news, because it knocks the wind out of their candidate’s sails, and gives their opponent a chance to sew doubt, to say the surrogate, and by extension the candidate, was caught in a lie.

Romney’s time at Bain is undoubtedly fair game. And Booker regrets how this went down. He chose a poor example to make a different argument. What he was really getting at is that he does not like negative ads and wedge issues. As Slate’s John Dickerson rationalizes it:

“But Booker picked the wrong target. Mitt Romney has argued repeatedly that his career at Bain—more so than almost anything else—gives him special insight into how to turn around the U.S. economy. It’s well within bounds to put that career under a microscope to assess the truth of his claims.”

He continues:

“It stands to reason that anyone who has been in a senior executive post should have some skill making decisions, and that is the central attribute required of a president. But in business you don’t have to deal with politicians as much as you do in the presidency, and you don’t have to coddle interest groups nearly as much, either. The more relevant portion of Romney’s career should perhaps be his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, where he tried to apply those business practices to government. His jobs record there is more lackluster than the success he had in private business.”

President Obama was asked about the dust-up soon afterwards, at his NATO press conference. Off-the-cuff, he articulated almost perfectly why the Bain issue is appropriate to discuss. The president was probably expecting some question on the topic, so had some idea what he might say. Nonetheless, his 5-minute reply seems to dismantle Romney’s entire argument that he would make a good president. You should absolutely watch it, either below or at this crisper video link:

If you notice, Romney never really articulates what specifically this business background contains that makes him a good pick for the job. He simply says he has great experience, names concepts he says Obama cannot possibly understand (but clearly POTUS does), and goes on to criticize the president.

Case-in-point: Time’s Mark Halperin’s 36-minute interview this past week during which he politely attempted four times to get the Rominee to speak about Bain:

Halperin: So when the President says he wants to focus a lot of the election and debate on your career at Bain Capital, do you welcome that?

Romney: Well of course, I’d like to also focus on his record. What is it that he’s done as the President of the United States over the last four years? And the American people are interested in, not so much in the history of where I was at Bain Capital, or that I have understanding of the private sector.

Romney’s work at the two Bains makes me think of House of Lies, Showtime’s decidedly so-so freshman skein (gotta throw in some of that Variety language when you can) about top-tier management consultant Marty Kaan played by Don Cheadle, shilling bullshit for a living as he plants IEDs (E for economic here) in companies to amplify his already-1% lifestyle.

All Marty’s team (aka “The Pod”) does in the show is look for angles to work for a pitch to make money for themselves. They joke incessantly amongst themselves about not caring about the organizations; they just want to be in a position to earn more and more from them for their services.

(While the now-infamous money shot would fit in at Kaan’s Galweather & Stearn, there is one glaring difference: Mitt had way less sex when he was working.)

Romney may be as smart as Marty Kaan, but he’s not nearly as smooth. While his practices are on par with Kaan’s, what came to me in writing about all of these issues (and an opportune airing on Comedy Central), is that Romney hews more to a different character in the recent corporo-filmic pantheon: Bill Lumbergh from Office Space. Romney is LUMBERGH!

Think about it: he’s apathetic, out-of-touch, expressionless, emotionally vapid and unaware, and passive aggressive in his approach to confrontation. Dang, they even look alike. I don’t understand why anyone with that perfect combination of traits would ever leave a profession he is perfectly suited for! But they are not ones we value in presidents.

Evolver.

Brief Wit — Sun, 13 May 2012 13:59:33 +0000

I was out and about on Wednesday when an alert on my iPhone popped above the background picture to tell me that President Obama had publicly endorsed same-sex marriage. (Technological things like this still amaze to me.)

I’m embarrassed to say, my instant reaction was fear.

Considering I’ve written about this issue in some form three times, that surprised me.

I couldn’t recall a time when I was in such moral agreement with a politician’s decision and yet so politically worried about a stance he had taken.

“How will he win the election now?” I thought.

In the hours after and few days since, my feelings have tempered, but something still lingers.

Obama’s choice to support marriage equality has been pretty well received. The inadvertent bind Joe Biden put him in was handled about as adeptly as can be asked for, and the reaction from dozens of pundits, from Rachel Maddow to Shepard Smith, is heartening. In the numerous articles on the topic that I have read since Wednesday, most are neutral or favorable and are not sounding this as a death knell for a second term.

This is also not a strictly partisan issue. Many well-known and/or well-placed Republicans beat Obama to this spot. Still, people are closely watching the four Republicans in New York State who backed same-sex marriage last summer, and were profiled by Bill Keller in The New York Times Magazine last month. One of those four just decided not to run for re-election, partially because of his same-sex marriage stance.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy that Obama finished “evolving.” Any way you slice it, it’s a big deal. There’s no doubt that the president and supporters of marriage equality are on the right side of history, and not just from an ethical standpoint. Polls increasingly show Americans are on board with same-sex marriage.

Plus, the costs of being a same-sex couple who cannot marry are quantifiably much higher than those of a married man and woman. It seems pretty unfair to penalize someone financially by default for who they love.

But this is going to be a close election.

Every vote will make a difference in the nine battleground states that are expected to decide the winner.

It’s not about whether Obama will get more votes than (all-but-official GOP nominee) Mitt Romney among core demographics like women, African Americans, Latinos, young people, and college-educated whites; it’s by how much. The voting choices of a small percentage of people (several thousand?) in these states could decide the ballgame.

My fears have been subdued by some of the information that I’ve absorbed. The point most commonly made has been that the citizenry’s feelings on economic issues are far more likely to affect votes than social issues, notably among independents. Also, those who care enough about this issue and thought Obama secretly supported same-sex marriage anyway probably already jumped ship. (However, the GOP base may re-rile up because of this latest development.)

Plus, the reaction from the Democratic base has been huge: they are excited and donations are coming in. Will that translate into action and votes? (My chief concern in this election is complacency.) If so, in the end, it might turn the tide.

In addition, as I learned this week, “gays and lesbians themselves, and their families, are an important constituent group for Democrats. (They are more numerous, for instance, than Jewish voters.)” They will probably make a special point of voting now.

I can’t imagine that there will be instances where it does not matter, but the Obamans (David Plouffe, David Axelrod, et al.) are probably right there will be many more instances where it does not.

Hopefully, conventionally more skeptical older voters will at least hue to the line painted at the end of this piece, where “in a half-dozen interviews with Republicans who came to see Mr. Romney in Omaha on Thursday, not a single person voiced an objection at his decision not to dwell on the issue of same-sex marriage. ‘It’s none of my business. We don’t need to talk about it,’ said Mo Birkel, 70, a retired custodian from nearby Papillion, Neb., when asked about gay marriage. ‘I can’t say if I’m for it or against it, because I don’t know what my grandkids will be.’ “

Why must I put this in political terms? Well, they matter beyond this issue. If this stance contributes to an Obama loss, it will probably go down as an unwise time to stand on an honorable principle, because it could lead to a backslide on numerous other issues nationally (climate change, health care, income inequality, immigration, the deficit, Social Security, etc.). If Romney wins, a possibly righter-than right (we should come up with a word for that) Congress will have in it a guy who, whatever he believes, wants to placate them.

Romney is against marriage equality. Plus, it’s conceivable that he is a dick. (Seriously, how do you forget about the time you cornered a suspected gay kid and cut his hair?)

Gallup now has results from its first poll measuring likelihood of voting for Obama given his support for same-sex marriage. It makes no difference to sixty percent of voters. However, among the remaining forty percent, twice as many are less likely to vote for him as are likely to vote for him. I wonder where those numbers will stand in early November.

Hopefully in six months’ time, we will be able to look back and say Obama’s was a courageous move that reminded voters why they sent him to the White House in the first place.

We’ll see. Until then, color me morally thrilled and politically ambivalent.

A Better Question.

Brief Wit — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:47:33 +0000

With his wins last night, Mitt Romney is building on a big delegate lead in the GOP primaries. Remaining contests linger, but anyone paying attention would bet their tax refund that Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. Still, it’s going to be great theater when Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich marshal their delegates and egos in slapsticky attempts to force a contested party convention this summer. Don’t forget, Ron Paul will also deliver a balls-to-the-wall speech if we’re lucky. Did I say theater? I meant sitcom.

Whether it’s Romney, or in the off-off-off-Broadway chance that Newton or Santo pull off the 16-to-1 political upset, we’re almost assured to see a familiar question dusted off once the general election campaign is underway. It was superbly asked by Ronald Reagan in his race for the White House in 1980. Reagan and Jimmy Carter had one debate, and Reagan twisted a knife in the incumbent with his closing remarks: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

(This is doubly impressive because as you can see below, Reagan must have stabbed Carter from like 20 feet away.)

That question was so simple and disarming that is turned a tight horserace into one where the winner knew he was a few lengths ahead as votes were cast.

The Republican candidate (okay, let’s just call him Romney already), Romney, is going to point to some dismal statistics, some of which will be apt, and some of which will be distortions, things a president has no control over, or things this one inherited, and use them to paint Obama as a failure and ask, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” In fact, this line of attack has already been opened by some Conservative pundits.

That line worked in 1980. This year, it’s a canard. It’s a simpleton’s argument.

Here’s the thing. Some voters are going to think, “Hmm… am I better off? I don’t feel it.” In a bunch of cases, the answer is going to be no.

Sure, not everyone’s back to full strength, but, if people truly think back to the absolutely grim, raw reality of late 2008, they will probably realize their lot has improved since then. Still, many of them will rewind back to a time in 2006 or so, before the market tanked, before sub-prime burst, before they got laid off, and think they are not back to those days yet, and maybe it’s Obama’s fault.

First of all, that’s bull, and it’s not even my main point, but since November 2008, your pre-existing conditions are covered by health insurance, you have clearer and fewer credit card fees, you came home from Iraq, and your 401K has run up its returns quite a bit. Plus, even Romney agrees, the economy is recovering.

But, why is the question really a canard? Because it cheaply avoids and obfuscates the actual question of this election.

And President Obama should explicitly say so when it’s lobbed at him in a few months, with something like this:

“The real question to be asking yourself is, will you be better off in four years than you are now? What will make you better off? If you elect Governor Romney, will you be better off with his party’s policies than mine? Will your family’s taxes be higher than a millionaire’s? Will your son’s or daughter’s chicken pox vaccine still cost you an arm and a leg out of pocket? Will the highways and trains you take to work be safe and improved? Will you be able to rely on a robust Medicare and Social Security when you retire? Will anyone address the severe environmental problems the world faces that are related to extreme weather and climate change?

“It will take more work to follow through. That’s what second terms are for. Do I hope you are better off now than when my Administration inherited the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression? Of course. But, I know not everyone is. I’m here to make sure we’re all even better off, I’m here to make sure we’re thriving in another four years.”

To his credit, Obama (and his team) grasp the vast difference in vision he and the current crop of righter-than-usual Republicans have for the country, with the budget as focus. And he can articulate it.

Yesterday, in clear, palpable terms at the Associated Press Luncheon, he offered perhaps the best breakdown yet of the two parties’ plans, and a common sense, reasoned argument with real facts and numbers behind it to depict how logical and congenial his Administration’s approach is, and how unfair, absurd, and irresponsible the GOP plan is. It’s worth watching if you have some time. Don’t forget it this fall when Romney’s campaign is telling you how bad your lot in life is today and what they purport to do about it over the next four years.

Copy Blight.

Brief Wit — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:49:35 +0000

I’m glad Mad Men is finally returning to the air later this month after a much longer than planned hiatus. It’s arguably my favorite show on television, though Homeland is up there ever since it came out of nowhere in the fall.

Mad Men’s fourth season concluded a year and a half ago, and the run-up to its fifth season premiere on March 25th is well under way now: Banana Republic is trying to convince you to dress like a Don Draper look-alike, and there have been various ads all over town for the show. The latter present a jump-off point for a discussion of advertising, culture, and values.

Most of the ads were deliberately oblique: they didn’t explicitly mention the title of the show, in order to stoke anticipation for those who know what they were for and curiosity for those who didn’t.

The line that jumped out from the other two paired with it was “Adultery Is Back.” It struck a chord, and in so doing, re-opened a debate.

It called to mind a toast from a wedding I was at a few years ago. One of the groomsmen was giving his speech praising the couple, but he also threw in some tangential commentary that immediately caught my attention. He said, “In our culture, which values obscenity and infidelity, it’s great to see [the bride and groom] whose love is so pure and so right.”

My table, composed of good friends, was a bit thrown off. “That was weird,” I commented. “Does our culture value infidelity?”

No, I submitted. It holds up promiscuity at times, but not unfaithfulness to a spouse.

And I had felt that way until I saw this Mad Men campaign.

Am I way off? Is it obvious that we value adultery? Am I stupid or naïve for even questioning it?

Are fans seeing these ads and saying to themselves, “Sweet, I can’t wait to see Roger Sterling cheat on his wife again!”

The Mad Men copy is not the only one pressing this issue. I recently saw a commercial for a series that compounded the debate: Mistresses, on BBC America. Its tagline is just as provocative: ”Adultery is so much classier with a British accent.”

Adultery is a plot point in many shows, an almost inevitable one. One of the easiest ways to create drama is having two characters shack up. If there’s an attractive married woman in a show, it seems writers often feel the only way they can show her off to full potential is to have her engage in a non-marital dalliance, because viewing marital sex has become anathema to audiences.

Besides, of the Ten Commandments to break, infidelity is one of three that are most serious, can be most easily witnessed, and that virtually all of society would agree is wrong, whether members are religious or not. It’s also one of those same three commandments that is more common or realistic to be broken in the average person’s life: I would bet more people have cheated on a significant other than killed someone or stolen something of consequence.

But do we watch these shows because of it? I don’t think I do. (I shouted at my TV when Claire Danes started making out with Damian Lewis on Homeland.)

I’ll concede that cheating is often glamorized in programming, but I’m not sure it is valued. Or is there no difference?

Perhaps the depictions serve a purpose: viewers may like seeing characters commit adultery, but I would venture most do not engage themselves. The appeal then, is vicarious (like shooting someone in Halo but knowing better in real life), voyeuristic, or to affirm a sense of superiority in looking down on flawed characters with the realization that you would not do something that is ultimately a stupid and unsatisfying act.

Stuart Elliott declined to mention the adultery copy in his Times article on the latest ad in the campaign, which continues with some abstract, kinky mannequin symbolism (and does display the title).

What’s more confounding is that the “Adultery Is Back” ad is most certainly an ad that Don Draper would not approve. It begs a takedown with his own words, the ones Don uses to scold and shame Peggy when she attempts to justify one of her choices for a campaign:

Peggy Olson: Sex sells.

Don Draper: Says who? Just so you know, the people who talk that way think that monkeys can do this. They take all this monkey crap and just stick it in a briefcase completely unaware that their success depends on something more than their shoeshine. YOU are the product. You – FEELING something. That’s what sells. Not them. Not sex. They can’t do what we do, and they hate us for it.

That kind of talk cheapens us, sells us short, he’s saying. For a show that is ostensibly about advertising, its ads have a higher bar.

The adultery ad also contradicts what Linda Schupack, executive vice president for marketing at AMC, said in the afore-mentioned Times piece: “Just like the show, we never want to be literal. And we want to be provocative.” They went one for two with “Adultery Is Back.” It’s overtly literal: Here is exactly what you will see on this show.

The ad misjudges what it is that the audience likes about the show. It’s not the nuptial nihilism of the characters. Rather, people love the style, the visual beauty of the actors and sets, weighing the nostalgia pangs and (now-obvious) inequalities of the era, and the tension between perceived idyllic lives lived in New York City and suburbia.

By contrast, the minimalism of the initial teaser ad for the coming season was sublime. The tagged subway posters also made for some clever graffiti.

The ad that best evokes the mise-en-scène of the world in which Mad Men occurs is the poster touting the second season. Don, serious and deliberate, fedora atop his head, standing out only to us in the hustle and bustle of Grand Central Station. The crowded stairs and blurry bodies perfectly capture the time and feeling of a busy, booming era. Every one of those anonymous faces could have a story to tell, but we are hearing his.

“Where The Truth Lies” was the original tagline for Mad Men. Its elegant double entendre describes the show’s “project of digging deeper into the world of advertising. Not only does the show reveal the lies behind the truth posited in advertisements, it also pulls back a curtain to reveal the truth of a decade” and a society.

Any show can have secrets, jealousy, and yes, adultery, if they deem it worthwhile. Mad Men is more than that. Its ads should reflect that. And maybe, today’s cultural values do, too.

Nuanced Newt?

Brief Wit — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:34:11 +0000

Are we six weeks into 2012 already? I’ve just been so strapped for time, what with January being National Braille Literacy Month and all. And of course now that it’s Febru-ANY, you can imagine why my schedule is packed.

Rest assured, I’ve kept tabs on the medio-political developments in this young Year of the Dragon. And the contest for the Republican presidential nomination remains front and center.

With his vigorous rejuvenations in the polls and support-sapping slides, Newt Gingrich is the Ra’s al Ghul of the GOP field. He has been around forever. On a respirator after the pointy barrage of negative ads hurled at him, he’s used the debates like a Lazarus Pit.

After an important win over frontrunner Mitt Romney in South Carolina, followed by a rough defeat in Florida, and a foregone loss in Nevada, he’s pressing on, marital baggage and all.

(By the way, I don’t believe Newt’s wife is a robot the way Romney is. Rather, I’m convinced Callista is actually controlled by a tiny alien inside her head, à la Men in Black.)

Gingrich has an uncanny ability to say the best possible thing in the moment to make himself look as favorable as is possible. Whether those comments also end up being absurd, insensitive, ignorant, or plain abhorrent, I leave up to you.

However, just before the Nevada caucus, I heard Gingrich say something surprising, articulate, and that I am pretty sure I agree with, and a wide swath of Americans might also. He gets going in this clip and reaches a crescendo just after the two-minute mark:

Gingrich is riffing off of Romney’s latest gulp-worthy gaffe, on poverty:

“If every American is endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness, then the proper public policy to is ask how we can help the poorest of Americans achieve their full Creator-endowed right to pursue happiness.”

“My good friend, the governor from Massachusetts, said it was okay to not worry about the poor because after all they have a safety net.”

Eventually, he makes his way to this remarkable analogy:

“It’s not a safety net, it’s a spider web. It traps them in poverty. It keeps them at the bottom. It deprives them of independence. One of the reasons I’m running is I want to replace the spider web with a trampoline that launches them into the middle class and gives them a future.”

Isn’t that something? Those terms are so vivid, they feel Frank Luntz-tested.

Welfare is a perennial political topic. Liberals want to make sure the worse-off have support and conservatives want to make sure lazy people are not mooching off it.

Are services like Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and food stamps useful (The Safety Net)? Are they too enticing to some people who become overly reliant and stick to them (The Spider Web)? Perhaps. But they also provide vital support for people to gain their footing and try for a big bounce into productivity and prosperity (The Trampoline).

Whether we wish the net were wider and sturdier, or thinner and flimsier, we all agree that the goal should be to rise above it, with what we have now (worker training programs and the like) or something else. Nobody aspires to live off of food stamps.

Sure, Gingrich uses anodyne lines (“I believe we are 100% Americans”) and creatively extrapolates and exaggerates (“I don’t believe we are a 99% and 1% country; I believe that is a European socialist model”) along the way, but that’s neither here nor there.

Rather, what this incident reminds me is that it’s important and fascinating to recognize that while you may differ with someone greatly (and even feel they would be a horrendous president), you may agree and give them credit for a point well-made.

Promote ‘N Vote.

Brief Wit — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:28:55 +0000

This Republican primary season has had over a dozen debates. You might be thinking, “That’s quite enough.” After all, voting starts in less than two weeks, in Iowa. Well, guess what, caballeros, depending on the list you look at, we just barely passed the halfway point of these rhetorical slugfests. ¡Que sorpresa!

Despite the onslaught of translucent podiums and ever-inventive, nearly exhausted ways in which production designers have toiled to erect a new interpretation of the star and stripes on stage, we’re just. Not. Done.

In acknowledgement of the strong viewership they have attracted, the widening array of issues being discussed, and the rife cross-promotional synergies, may I present the remaining calendar:

VH1′s Divas Live! Debate

January 7, 2012

Hollis, NH

In this penultimate debate before the New Hampshire primary, the GOP candidates reiterate that strong, confident, independent women do not have a right to choose. Michele Bachmann deftly parlays one of her answers into an on-key verse from “I’m Every Woman.” To compensate, the men spout off about their wives, while claiming they clearly came out ahead of everyone else in the Iowa caucuses, even though they all basically ended up coming in a tie there.

5-Hour Energy® Alternatives Debate

January 8, 2012

Manchester, NH

After a late night in the post-debate spin room the night before, followed by a full day of campaigning, all candidates (except Bachmann, because she’s a human dynamo) guzzle the sponsor’s product during tonight’s 90-minute debate. The first half-hour is hyper, but the last hour is rough, with all candidates nursing migraines, holding their heads in repose. The highlight emerges near the end, when Rick Perry, in an effort to outdo Rick Santorum on his commitment to natural gas, pulls out a jug of the stuff, and force-feeds it down Jon Huntsman’s throat, like those Iraqi guys do to Mark Wahlberg in Three Kings.

Ikea® DEHBAIT

January 16, 2012

Orlando, FL

On-site at the Swedish megastore two weeks before the state’s primary, an uncommon program is scheduled, where the presidential hopefuls must build a GUSTAV desk while eviscerating the successes of Scandinavia’s socialist-capitalism melding. Newt Gingrich is missing his Ikea wrench, but manages to exceed expectations with sound criticism of the instructions. Björn Borg moderates.

Project Runway & Top Chef “Top Chief” Debate

January 19, 2012

Columbia, SC

The remaining GOP field is given 45 minutes before airtime to make dinner for themselves. The results are brought on TV and judged by Padma Lakshmi, who needs to go offscreen twice to vomit, because none of these folks has cooked a meal for themselves in over 23 years. Tim Gunn takes over in the second half with dilemmas for the pols: “The Supercommittee’s defense cuts have reduced the number of stealth bombers available for your hasty invasion of Iran. What do you do? Make it work.”

IBM® “Watson & The White House” Debate

January 23, 2012

Yorktown Heights, NY

Alex Trebek takes the hosting duties once again, as Watson joins the candidates onstage and upstages all of them with accurate facts and measured reason.

Inside the Actor’s Studio Debate

January 26, 2012

New York, NY

The candidates are invited to James Lipton’s lecture hall for a discussion of what makes them tick. The audience is filled with future hopefuls, most notably Chris Christie and Andrew Cuomo. Will one of the unknowns in the seats be the Bradley Cooper of 2016? Mitt Romney replies that his favorite curse word is “tarnation.” Rick Perry reveals that his is “dingleberry.”

Tostitos® Fiesta Debate on Immigration

February 22, 2012

Mesa, AZ

Wherein the candidates rationalize their hardline stance on immigration. Newt makes an analogy: “Imagine tasting a salsa whose spiciness you weren’t sure of. You need to dip the tip of your chip in and check before letting a whole chunk in your mouth, right? Now, imagine your mouth is America and the chip is the border police.”

Groupon® “Group PAC” Debate

Kalamazoo, MI

March 1, 2012

The winner gets half off their general election Super PAC start-up fees! ‘Nuff said.

Double Dare® “Down To The Wire” Debate

March 5, 2012

Philadelphia, PA

Only a few candidates are left standing by now, and Ron Paul absolutely tears it up in this late-round contest where Marc Summers does the questioning. Third party, schmird party: that guy is spry! Once again, Romney underestimates Paul, as the libertarian pursues victory in a slimy physical challenge.

Wine Spectator “Speculative Whining” Debate

March 19, 2012

Simi Valley, CA

The candidates are given tastings of California varietals and must define the characteristics of the wine with adjectives that they simultaneously can use to make a jab at President Obama. Gingrich on his pinot noir from Stag’s Leap: “Fruity and delicate, like Obama’s posture to China.” Romney on his Honig sauvignon blanc: “Thin and acidic, like Obama’s experience and penchant for dividing the nation.”

All Guts, No Glory.

Brief Wit — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:36:36 +0000

This is ostensibly a blog about media and politics, but it gets pulled in the political direction a bit more often. I think that’s because the daily developments of that world feel more consequential (even if that is illusory) and spark a more pointed and immediate reaction.

However, as a voracious follower of television, and occasionally gracious sharer of the remote control, I have plenty to say on the topic. So, when I read that NBC was bringing back Fear Factor, I cringed. And upon seeing an ad for it in which it appears men and women are bobbing for apples in a pool of blood, I also reacquainted with my gag reflex. Indeed, LA Times, indeed: “Horse rectum for everyone!”

We know you’re struggling, NBC, but this smacks of desperation. What happened to the NBC execs of a few years ago who were lamenting their network being reduced to showing frat guys eating bugs in primetime in the mid-aughts? I don’t know if it’s a result of their new Comcast overlords, but this is a step backwards over a lesson it seemed was already learned.

When a viewer files a lawsuit (eventually dismissed) saying your show made him vomit prolific piles of protein, what makes you sit down with your team and say, “I think we had something here. Let’s bring it back.”

Variety reports (subscription required) that Fear Factor re-opened well. In the ratings on Monday night it was seventh overall, with 8.5 million viewers, and fourth in the 18-49 demographic. (To put that another way, 8.5 million people watched five scorpions get eaten alive by some girl. Despair.)

I wasn’t on a press list to get an advance screener of this return premiere, and it’s probably just as well, because I don’t think I would have watched it. If I really wanted to purge, I would knock back a few extras at the Brief Wit holiday party instead of seeing some guy’s dad eat a baker’s dozen Killa bees live. Still, to speak with some credibility, I did fast-forward through the two back-to-back re-premiere episodes on my DVR in about eight minutes.

I just imagine Joe Rogan, the host, who I like from his days on News Radio, getting the call from the producer saying, “We’re back!” and then springing up from his couch, fist to the air, kind of like Elaine’s one-time beau on Seinfeld when he found out he was the Wiz again… because nobody beats him. (By the way, News Radio is an underrated ’90s sitcom, but how obsolete does a show about radio sound today?)

Fear Factor’s maker, Endemol, has adopted enhanced nauseation techniques this year. The scale of the stunts is larger, and more importantly, the eating of unnatural animals and wading in disgusting substances has been lowered to new levels of yuck. It seems like the emphasis of the show is always on that second of three challenges: the gross-out spectacle.

With this iteration of Fear Factor, it feels like we’re just a step short of the old capital punishment bit from George Carlin. “I’d have naked upside down crucifixions on TV once a week at halftime of the Monday night football game!” That might be easier to watch.

One falsehood of the show is that it isn’t really about fear. Rarely, if ever, does a contestant simply opt not to do something. And when they do, it’s out of repulsion to the sheep’s eye they’ve been told to eat. The contestant doesn’t have a fear of sheep’s eyes, she’s just disgusted by them.

The same is true of the stunts. Contestants are always helmeted, goggled, and carabiner-ed up. The staff is always close. You know you’re not getting hurt in this highly monitored environment.

In its debut 10 years ago, Fear Factor drew 12 million viewers, and exceeded expectations to become, what Bill Carter of the Times called, the hit of the summer of 2001. NBC felt strongly enough about it to try a disruptive Playmates version during halftime of the Super Bowl the next year, when the game was on Fox. Fear Factor ran through 2006, and even spawned a Universal Studios ride.

Of course, the Times’ original review in 2001 was not something you put on the marketing collateral at upfront time, unless your advertisers like chilling out in a pit full of rats.

Carter also mused then, “It has certainly pushed some boundaries of taste. Fear Factor followed up its challenge last week — when contestants had to eat from a bowl of sheep’s eyes while a herd of sheep wearing eye patches looked on — with a segment on Monday night that had contestants eating from a platter of buffalo testicles. (At least that was not accompanied by a chorus of buffalo singing ‘Home on the Range’ in soprano.)”

Personally, if I’m watching a reality TV competition, I’d rather opt for something with a hint of cultural enrichment, like The Amazing Race. I can’t imagine why that show has won the Emmy for Outstanding Reality-Competition Program eight of the last nine years.

Or, if you’re into stunts, how about Mythbusters? Mythbusters is a monumentally better reality program than Fear Factor, with tons more inventive, dangerous stunts that keep you watching. It wins you over with humor and innocuously learns you somethin’ about science along the way. And don’t expect the president on Fear Factor any time soon for that reason.

The show was lampooned in thinly veiled parodies on 30 Rock in 2008, when Fear Factor was off-air. Jeff Zucker, who presided over NBC during the show’s initial run, used to joke that his network was “the home of quality TV — and Fear Factor.”

But it’s not just bad taste, it’s bad business. Even if in a less tangible sense.

If you want to know why your network is hurting, it’s shows like this, diluting your brand, befouling a reputation for quality. You used to cultivate that, in order to attract top production outfits and affluent, educated viewers. Fewer people are opting for the Peacock logo on their channel guides now. These gross-out ratings may prop you up temporarily, but they are simultaneously holding back your broader aspirations.

The only redeeming part of Fear Factor‘s return is that the producers can create a stunt where contestants literally jump a live shark to jump the shark.

Keep Your Eye On The Wall.

Brief Wit — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:42:17 +0000

We all know now that the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators living in Zuccotti Park for almost two months were methodically uprooted by the NYPD Tuesday.

So what?

As I said before, I support the spirit of the Occupy Wall Street movement, but I’m not sold on all the tactics. Chief among these is the persistent inclination of a couple hundred people to live all day and night in, what is by most accounts, not just a pretty shitty excuse for a park, but also a pretty arbitrary spot.

It’s been noted by lots of onlookers: Zuccotti Park is not even on Wall Street. The park itself has no meaning to banker types, and most New Yorkers hadn’t even heard of it before September 17. It was selected as the rallying point for OWS because it’s an open space in the Financial District.

And yet, all day Tuesday and into Wednesday, peeved protesters plotted to take it back, rising and then falling with judicial rulings on whether they could re-colonize it with their gear.

As the Times reported, “one protester, Nate Barchus, 23, said the eviction from Zuccotti Park was likely to galvanize supporters… ‘This,’ he said, referring to the early morning sweep, ‘reminds everyone who was occupying exactly why they were occupying.’ “

That’s exactly wrong!

Were you protesting your right to live in public squares for indefinite periods of time? Or to confront police brutality?

I think not. Rather, remember what compelled you to to show up in the first place. It was to garner attention and affect real social change in the financial-political complex.

Let it go, OWS. If you had been down there night in and night out, I’m sure it gained some sentimental resonance. But the point of the movement is not to get hypothermia from passing out on a slab of icy cold stone.

Furthermore, Mayor Bloomberg and the cops are being reasonable going forward. They aren’t denying you access to the park. They’re letting you back in! You can hang out there all day, you just can’t move in.

Public property is intended for wide use by the population. Being a member of that population does not entitle you to permanently move in to a place that you would otherwise have lunch with your friends at. If that were the case, I would have colonized the Great Lawn a long time ago.

Pick your battles. What does camping out and sleeping in a park really accomplish at this point?

Instead, be nimble. Evolve to be effective. Exerting all this effort on public space has hamstrung you. Focus your energy on confronting outsized income inequality and standing up to the unfair influence wealthy people and corporations have on your lives through power they exert on government.

There are now others joining me in adding to a consensus that living in public space is no longer a boon to the cause. In fact, Adbusters, the Canadian magazine that conceived of the OWS movement, concedes this, and proposes using this moment as a time to transition: ”We clean up, scale back and most of us go indoors while the die-hards hold the camps. We use the winter to brainstorm, network, build momentum so that we may emerge rejuvenated with fresh tactics, philosophies, and a myriad projects ready to rumble next Spring.”

To piggyback off that, as I argued previously, the movement should change its name to emphasize what it is about. There is now evidence indicating that “Occupy Wall Street” does not test well, and that “The 99%” is the meme the public is sympathetic to and identifies with. You’re no longer occupying anyway. This is an ideal opportunity to regroup, rethink and rebrand.

The Occupy Wall Street Tasting Menu.

Brief Wit — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:15:09 +0000

As a reader pointed out, my stuff’s been a bit esoteric of late. So, it’s time to weigh in on some broader happenings. Thus, I give you my take on Occupy Wall Street: that rambunctious rebellion, that righteous resistance, that random ruckus, that risible revolt (depending on your mood, or if you are part of the NYPD crew that has to work an extra shift).

I hadn’t been down to Zuccotti Park since it began, except for the movement’s first Monday, when I passed by while visiting the 9/11 Memorial. After a coup at lunch this week (aka a tasty turkey burger in the Financial District), I was nearby and checked it out.

I walked around the perimeter, scoping out the scene, and eventually walked through the tarp city that has sprouted up, bearing a passing resemblance to Krzyzewskiville.

There are a variety of reactions I have to Occupy Wall Street (#OWS). I’ve been reluctant to embrace it outright. (Apparently, I’m a Democrat in Congress.) Some of my pre-conceived notions were altered by being there and speaking with people.

As a result, my thoughts take on something of a dégustation menu: each portion is easily digestible, but at the end you’ll be pretty full. I’ll start with lighter fare and move into some larger dishes. Also, enjoy the pictures I took down there, as an intermezzo between courses:

On-site, OWS is pretty well organized. As you can see from the map and the Good Neighbor Policy pictures, the participants are doing their best to be congenial and have a sense of order, even if parts of it are humorous. The welcome desks and media area are practical. The library is a mishmash of random books, from filling-time novels to the tongue-in-cheek (I hope) Anarchist Cookbook. Suffice it to say, the kitchen is not stainless steel.

OWS also doesn’t want the community to take a hard line against it, especially after some earlier brush-ups with local businesses, as Samantha Bee exhibited. Hence, there are multiple signs like these around the edge of the park:

Living in a park for a month does not mean much. If you were down there and lived through every day and night since OWS began on September 17th, I’m sure it feels like a big deal, but to the city and the country surrounding you, and the corporations whose influence you hope to dilute, it’s a pittance. In the grand scheme of things, this is not an accomplishment. This is why OWS needs to adopt a core set of actionable talking points or requests. Don’t get me wrong, they are driving the national conversation on a worthwhile detour, and that is something to be proud of. However, business and government are not going to change simply because these people are out on the streets. In fact, I don’t think it necessarily matters, in contrast to CNN’s David Gergen at the last Republican presidential debate, whether the protesters stay in Zuccotti Park after the first frost. If the right ideas are out there, and the participants stay active in other ways, the message can prosper. If they come back bigger in the spring, that will speak more, as Ari Fleischer countered to the Gerg.

I’ll say one thing: the Tea Party ain’t global. Purportedly, the counterpoint to OWS is the Tea Party. This would make a great compare-and-contrast essay, but I’m not going all out on that. What I will say is that the Tea Party phenomenon is limited to America. The grievances of OWS have a socioeconomic core which traverses national borders. That explains why there are “Occupy” movement gatherings in 1,798 cities around the world. (Alright, maybe some of those are towns.)

They do not need a leader. Who’s the leader of the Tea Party? Rush Limbaugh? John Boehner? Hank Williams, Jr?! None of ‘em. As the Tea Party rose up, different entities took root, all associating themselves with it. There is no head, but there are guiding groups and people: Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express, Tea Party Nation. (Personally, I’m quite partial to the Defenders of Darjeeling.) It worked out well for them, at least in the 2010 elections. There’s no reason OWS can’t remain a “leaderless” movement, as long as people who contribute to it promote ideas that others can get behind.

The people are polite and respectful. Everyone I interacted with down there was civil and inviting. I didn’t observe heated arguments or ill will to passersby, since they want the public’s support. Most people were either engaged in active conversation, holding a sign up, or taking some down time. The participants are a wide range of ages and ethnicities.

One man gave an impassioned plea for why we need to restore the Glass–Steagall Act, but he was not mean to anyone: he is just pissed off at the results of corporate dictation of law.

It’s not all poor people and twenty-somethings. I tried to listen in on a two-dozen person working group meeting that was going on, but the moderator was speaking too softly for me to hear. Instead, I was sucked into a stimulating discussion with two guys.

They are both informed and not delusional in the slightest. Neither is living down there, and neither comes close to being a millennial hippie. They are both in their 40s or so. These are men who have had careers and done well, but are still upset. One is an environmentally-focused architect and professor. The other sold his stake in a successful ad agency he founded to make his interest in politics his chief pursuit. He’s quite well connected politically, to the degree that he makes and takes calls from senators, congressmen, chiefs of staff, and campaign managers on a regular basis.

He has seen firsthand how, despite themselves, elected officials are bought and sold through donations and the threat of withholding donations, and how their careers are handcuffed and beholden to these interests.

I won’t mention his name because I did not ask for his permission, but he is the kind of person you could see being helpful in influencing the strategy of OWS. As someone with that grounding and pedigree, I asked him if what was happening was what the protesters should be doing to get a reaction. He said this is exactly what they should be doing.

When your occupation is occupation, you better be good at it: the public at large really does not know what Occupy Wall Street stands for. And yet, 46% ”think the views of people involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement generally reflect the views of most Americans,” as the latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows. The question I want to see asked next is, “what are those views?” I think we would see dozens of different answers.

I support the spirit of the movement, but I’m ambivalent about the reality on the ground.

There are some ridiculous forms of costumed protest and hilarious signs in Zuccotti Park. I guess those are supposed to get a rise out of of us, and then get some snippet of the message to stick, but I can’t see it being effective with so many messages.

Listen, protests on the left always end up drawing all manner of demonstrators and dumb practices. A few crazy people will come to everything. I’m not trying to rain on your parade, OWS (the rain yesterday already did that), but stop doing stupid shit. Don’t be about everything.

Bankers and private equity types in the neighborhood continue to walk by without a stutter in their wingtipped steps. That may never change, but I talk to well-educated friends and acquaintances and they say they still don’t know what OWS is about, or they don’t get it. When I was down there, the view was clearer, but still not consistent.

The guiding ideology I glean from Occupy Wall Street is a deep-seated unrest and desire to remedy the unjust and greedy means with which corporations impose their outsized, undue influence on government. This is particularly true of financial companies in the wake of the Great Recession.

They can tweak it, but I’m probably in the ballpark.

Rename the movement. This dovetails with the prior point. If people don’t know what the name Occupy Wall Street means, how can they hope to know what it is about? Most people can’t or won’t spend the time learning about civic, economic, and political doings. The simplest, shortest possible term that can get across what a group is and what it represents is the best chance to gain traction and support.

It’s somewhat clear what exactly Occupy Wall Street’s initial planners had in mind, but the name feels like it is more of an isolated event than the group or movement it has evolved into. At a certain point, it is too late to rebrand, because the media and the public have already adopted the initial label, despite its vague or inaccurate connotation.

“Global warming” came to define the environmental movement for much of a generation. As a result, the term has led to the substance behind it being belittled, lampooned, denied, and brushed aside too often. (How many times have you heard someone spout off half-seriously on a cold day, “Forget global warming, man! It’s freezing out!”) Only recently has “climate change” made significant inroads in replacing “global warming” and offering a terse, clear understanding of what the issue really is. “Global warming” has hurt the cause, unmeasurably but undoubtedly. The damage has been done in terms of time lost, conditions worsening, and minds becoming less persuadable.

It may be too late for OWS, but I think there is still an opening for an impactful name change as things focus. I could come up with a few ideas, but the most viable one is contained within a meme and a message the OWS protesters are already saying: “The 99%.” It’s short, and you either know what it means by now or it causes you to find out. Either way, you get it quickly, and there is a pretty good chance you are part of the 99% of Americans who are not part of the 1% of the population with the highest income. If so, perhaps you agree that you “will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%.”

And if you are in the 99%, you probably are not psyched to see news this week from the Congressional Budget Office showing that for the top 1%, “from 1979 to 2007, average inflation-adjusted after-tax income grew by 275 percent.”

The 99% did not come anywhere close to that. Something to keep in mind. Hope it doesn’t give you indigestion.

OutFront, Top-Down.

Brief Wit — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 04:44:15 +0000

I watched Erin Burnett’s debut on CNN tonight, in her new program OutFront, and have some thoughts on the first broadcast.

Unlike the world of scripted TV dramas and sitcoms, first shows don’t portend success or failure in news, or variety programs, for that matter. I remember watching the first Colbert Report and thinking it was never going to last, for instance.

OutFront conveyed a seriousness about the news of the day coupled with conversational frankness, though it’s unclear whether it (or anything) can stand out in a cable news landscape where the graphics all look so similar that it’s hard to know when one show ends and another begins. After all, to the average channel clicker, isn’t Erin Burnett just (recent CNN anchor) Campbell Brown 10 years younger?

No disrespect to Ms. Brown, but I’d argue no. Burnett has proven she has chops in interviews with CEOs and guts in travels to hotspots around the globe, including Cairo’s Tahrir Square earlier this year.

I’m a longtime fan of Erin’s from her work at CNBC, chiefly on Squawk on the Street (where I know her former producer) and Street Signs. She could also hold her own on Meet the Press.

I also like that she went to Williams College, because I respect the education my good friends received there, and hold a soft spot for the elusive purple cow.

However, a title like OutFront implies an on-scene immediacy. The promos for the show depict Erin in the field, camera at the ready. What I can’t tell yet is if the show’s name is just a well-tested, aggressive title, or if it will be taken quite literally. She was in a studio tonight, after all.

They’ve definitely done some jet-setting segments (there were pre-taped packages form China and Pakistan tonight) for the rollout of the show, but is that sustainable? Is the plan to have her travel to the forefront regularly?

Earlier today, she was in the thick of it at the Occupy Wall Street “leaderless resistance movement” at Liberty Square in downtown Manhattan. Unfortunately though, most stories aren’t a 15-minute cab ride away.

That report was insightful: it showed the energy, but also the frolicking disorganization of a potentially burgeoning force. It displayed people engaging in something that simultaneously looked like both a noble endeavor and a silly one.

The 20-something kid she spoke with there didn’t know that our government actually turned a profit on the TARP bailouts. I feel like he should have, but it was also debatable editorial judgment to show one person who didn’t know that. If they showed a whole slew of clueless demonstrators, that would have meant more.

I found Erin respectful, but assertive in her interview with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta (who comes across like your unexpectedly driven uncle). I’d be remiss if I didn’t point one thing was missing, though. On Friday, she tweeted, “Just talked to Defense Sec Leon Panetta. Says he had authority to kill Al-Alwaki, even tho he was us citizen. Full intv #OutFrontCNN Monday!” While terrorism was discussed, Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen who was part of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was not mentioned.

Later, in a segment called “Outcast,” Erin reported about the subpar conduct of a CIA operative in the field in Pakistan and then at home, where he got in a fight over a parking spot. It was the weakest part of the program, feeling like a sleeker version of Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World.”

Erin closed with a tribute and thank you to Mark Haines, her “lovably grouchy” co-anchor and mentor at Squawk on the Street. He passed away unexpectedly in May. I literally yelled “No!” at my screen when I heard. It’s a great loss; he really came through the screen and spoke to you.

That final segment is supposed to be a short essay going forward, but tonight was a fitting deference to the past that has contributed to Erin’s readiness for the future. I was glad she got through it, too. She barely welled up and her voice cut out ever so slightly at the end.

In the way that the ultimate test of a company’s mark on its sector and on the culture is whether it becomes a verb (i.e., Google it, FedEx it, Ziploc it), the team at OutFront set a pretty lofty goal (perhaps in jest) that they aspire to be so impactful as to have others in the media say, “They OutFronted us.” It’s bold. I hope they do, but then again nobody ever says they got Hardballed or 60 Minutes-ed.

In closing, the show was uneven, and honestly, that’s fine. Let’s see where it goes.