Twenty Five: Today's Youth

OK, so I'm officially "old" now that I'm complaining about young people. Specifically, my employees, who stroll in at 9 or later in the morning, take an hour for lunch, are late whenever they feel like it, and seem to expect that their paychecks and jobs will be around as long they want them. Pretty soon there is going to be a rude awakening.

When I got my first job in the private sector after my Peace Corps tour, I arrived at whatever time was necessary in order to make me the first one at work. I frequently came in on Saturdays, at least for the morning. That kind effort was not unobserved by my superiors. I acquired a reputation for diligence and dependability. I just don't see that kind of commitment today. Asking someone to come in on the weekends is like asking them to donate an organ. Same thing with asking for an early arrival. They look at me and say, "I can't." And of course in their own minds, they really believe that whatever is going on in their lives is so dreadfully important that they really can't get to work before 9 o'clock. This is pitiful.

There is definitely a sense of entitlement with the younger generation today. Even their parents never really had to do without. Most of them were unaffected by Viet Nam. There only sense of patriotism is watching some spoiled athlete parade around the Olympic games desecrating the American flag.

This is probably a natural progression as this country gets farther from its roots. Those roots developed and took hold from the days of the founding fathers through probably WWII. Since then, the U.S. has had pretty much the run of the globe. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were a speed bump. We consume, we vacation, we procreate, we are entertained by a myriad of sensory advertisements all designed to get us to consume, vacation and procreate some more.

Where is the value in all of this?

Twenty Four: O(ye of little faith)bama

Leahy, Richardson, Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, the list of Obama endorsements from mainline Dems goes on and on. Why? Well, of course there's the fact that most Deomcratic regulars are sick and tired of the incredibly self-absorbed Clintons. But more than that, is a sense that a generational page has turned, and if you want to be with the winner, then you'd best throw in with Obama. Problem is, predictably, Hillary refuses to be a good Democrat, and instead is willing to take the party down in a desparate and narcisisstic claim to the Dem nomination.

Presumably the McCain is preparing for either opponent, and his strategy should be pretty the same relgardless of whether it's Her or Him. Neither one of them has any significant experience, no matter how much Hillary bleats about hers.

If Hillary does destroy Obama and gets the Democtratic nod, I only hope that McCain has the gumption to go toe to toe with her. I mean really take the gloves off and beat her into a bloody pulp. She will cry, and her feminist supporters will rally round her, citing her suffering at the hands of John, Bill, and every other man on the planet. Forget the fact that she did the same thing to Obama. It's OK for a woman to mug a man. But woe to the man who dares to point out the legitimate shortcomings of Hillary.

If John in fact does what he needs to do, perhaps we'll finally have what this country has needed for a long time - a battle of the sexes which confirms that men and women are different, and have different strengths and weaknesses.

Twenty Three: Clinton Media Bias

Call me crazy, but as a keen observer of politics, I cannot understand how anyone who is even remotely interest in, or has casually followed the Clinton/Obama race, can deny that there is a palpable bias among the media in favor of the Clintons. I mean just look at the number of pictures in various mainstream media of Clinhton versus Obama. Even though Obama has been the delegate leader for several months now, Hillary is treated as the front runner. Her incessant bleating about her "experience," even when said experience turns out to be manufactured, is treated with kid gloves. Even her real experience, which is scant and really no greater than Obama's, recieves no scrutiny.

Perhaps the media, like so many other intellectually flaccid Americans, yearn for the good old Clinton days (I did not have sex with that woman; The cleaning people must have taken the billing records; The pardons had nothing to do with the campaign contributions; The health care task force needs to be secret because only Hillary, and the people she chooses, are fit to make decisions about America's health care; It depends on what your definition of "is" is; I would have bombed Libya anyway, even if I were not under the threat of impeachment; the list goes on ad nauseum). I guess I have answered my own question here. The media, like lawyers, needs conflict and uncertainty and controversy. The media (probably rightly) thinks Hillary will give us all three.

Twenty Two: Open Letter to Callaway

Dear Mr. Fellows:

Having read the feature piece on you and ELY in the April issue of The Economist, I must express my sincere hope and desire that you fail miserably in your plans. I am devoted amateur golfer. At the age of 56 and after a lifetime of playing, watching, and learning the game of golf, I have gotten my index to 11.4. I enjoy everything about the game: Being outside with nature; camaraderie with friends and others I have never met; knowing that once I step onto the course, I will be isolated from the outside world for four hours; submitting myself to the rigorous rules; and perhaps most importantly, committing myself over a prolonged period to becoming a better golfer and person.

As I understand your philosophy, you want to change the game of golf to better support your company's balance sheet. Your backwards approach is precisely why you will fail. Instead of ELY serving "the game," you believe the game should serve ELY. It is one thing to manufacture equipment and clothing which golfers need and want. It is quite another to infect the game with non-golfers to line your own pockets.

Golf is not a "mass consumer" business in the traditional sense. It is more of a niche market, closer to the religion industry than to the deodorant and tampon business. It was probably a mistake for ELY to go public. Had the company stayed private, it would likely have provided a comfortable livelihood for its owners and employees, not to mention supplying good equipment for golfers. Now, you are beholden to hedge funds and quarterly profits, rather than the rules of the game.

Twenty One: Steinway For Sale

Since I have never had a single response to any of the prior posts here, I thought I'd try something different. No politics, golf, business, or parental whining. This is a personal ad.

Steinway, Model B, concert grand, ebony, vintage circa 1987 (what was known as the "CBS" period), for sale. Piano has never been moved since delivery to the Chicago area, and was maintained up to pitch until about 2001. Since then it has not been played, and thus will require some work. The instrument was a bonus from Steinway to me for my work at CBS Musical Instruments (Steinway, Fender, Lyon & Healy, Gemeinhardt, Leslie, Rodgers).

Interested parties can send a comment to this blog, or email me directly at todonnell@od-law.com.

Twenty: CBS (Probably) Dumps Couric

The obvious question is: What took so long? I suppose the first thing to understand about network "news" is that these productions have extremely minimal "news" value, as they are primarily entertainment and editorial in nature. The days of the media as a "reporter" of facts and events are long gone. As is commonly understood, the primary purpose of the "news anchor," whether on a national or local show, is to attract a certain demographic of viewer, thereby allowing the media company to charge proportionately more for its advertising. A secondary purpose, depending on the media outlet, is to present the "news" in such a way as to invisibly sway public opinion, while appearing to be neutral.

When CBS hired Ms. Couric, it was also widely understood that she was being hired because she was: a) female, b) a household name by virtue of her role as a host of the Today Show on NBC, and c)inoffensive (and hopefully attractive) to the desired advertising audience. Unfortunately for the inept and incompetent network managers at CBS (and of course CBS shareholders), the majority of the audience of the CBS Evening News and the other network news shows, has yet to comprehend that the producers of these "news" shows don't give a rat's behind about the news, and instead are simply trying to shove pretend "news" down viewers throats, while drug companies try to convince the same viewers that they need a lot of drugs to be happier, healthier, richer, and better looking. So the objectives of the network execs and the advertisers are both totally frustrated, because the audience still thinks they seeing and listening to an objective presentation of the news. And what the audience does fully comprehend, is that Katie Couric has as much connection to serious news as the the average Joe has to brain surgery.

So the CBS bald-faced attempt to skip the charade of pretending to present "news" has failed because the audience they think is too stupid to listen to real news and form their own judgments and opinions, has done exactly that.