Mike Keefe / Cagle Cartoons (click to view more cartoons by Keefe)

Increasingly I find that strangers who address me by my first name are the very people from whom I’d prefer an ounce of respect in the form of the honorific “Mr.” On the other hand, the folks who graciously call me Mr. Funt are usually the ones to whom I immediately say, “Oh, please, call me Peter.”

I’ll get to the game in a moment but, honestly, how did we manage to become so careless and casual in greeting one another?  I taught a journalism class for high school students last winter and about fell over when two students addressed me repeatedly as Peter.  I wish I’d had the presence of mind to give them the Prof. Kingsfield treatment: “Mister Hart!”  Then again,  ”The Paper Chase” film came out in 1973 and today Kingsfield’s students would probably reply, “Well, Charles…”

I became so annoyed at emails from United Airlines that began, “Hello, Peter,” that I wrote back asking for an explanation.  The reply, presumably automated, began, “Thanks, Peter, we’re looking into your request.”  I heard nothing further.

I imagine athletes and entertainers expect first-name treatment, even in private life.  You wouldn’t call Dave “Mr. Letterman,” or Willie “Mr. Mays,” regardless of whether you were asking for an autograph or fixing their plumbing.  But we who are less secure about our position in life tend to covet a bit of formality with strangers.

When I was editor of the magazine “On Cable” I used to receive mail that began, “Dear On.”

Apparently there’s quite a brew-ha-ha among Starbucks’ customers over whether to give their real first names when ordering a drink. Many turn to Bart Simpson’s playbook and try to come up with rude fake names.  Others, like Yankee star Derek Jeter, just try to remain anonymous.  Jeter orders at Starbucks with the name “Philip.”

Hand in hand, so to speak, with first-name greetings is the increasing eagerness of service personnel to shake hands.  Clerks at Enterprise seem to think a handshake somehow makes renting a poorly cleaned car less galling.  Comcast’s cable techs favor a handshake, which I believe is off-putting even for less germ-phobic customers than myself.

I think the digital age promotes informality.  ”Hi, Peter” turns up in emails all the time, while the postman still brings letters that begin, “Dear Mr. Funt.”  The other day I received (yet another) email from President Obama that began (honestly), “Hey Peter.”  The leader of the free world signed it “Barack.”

So, here’s the game.  Name the five people for whom receiving one of those first-name emails from, say, United Airlines, would be most inappropriate.  President Obama has clearly disqualified himself, and Vice President Biden is a plain old Joe if ever there was one.

Here’s my list:

Hi Jorge (as in Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Francis), you can check-in online 24-hours prior to departure.

Hi Antonin (Supreme Court Justice Scalia), want more legroom on your upcoming flight?

Hi Warren (82-year-old billionaire Buffett), earn double miles this month.

Hi Christine (Lagarde, the IMF chief), your flight is cancelled due to late arrival of equipment caused by bad weather that is beyond our control.

Hi Ban (Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General), thanks.  We’re looking into your request.

Peter Funt’s new book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com.

Daryl Cagle / Cagle Cartoons (click to view more cartoons by Cagle)

Following disclosure of government scrutiny of the Associated Press in connection with leaks of sensitive material, President Obama urged passage of a new shield law to cover journalists. Versions of the bill were quickly introduced in the House and Senate, each requiring the federal government to convince a judge about the significance of information possessed by journalists before their documents could be seized and their sources exposed.

One of the authors of the Senate measure, Democrat Charles Schumer of New York, said the bill “would balance national security needs against the public’s right to the free flow of information.”

But Schumer’s colleague Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) raised the question, “What is a journalist today?”

Durbin went on to ask, “Does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who’s tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection?”

The House and Senate bills differ on this key point. The Senate version defines persons to be covered as those whose “primary intent” is to disseminate public news or information. The description is lengthy and so broad that it could very well apply to anyone with access to the Internet or social media — which is to say, everyone.

The House measure, introduced by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), is more focused. It defines a journalist as someone gathers and reports news “for financial gain or livelihood.”

Poe’s legislation has broad support. Yet, in the digital age, can a law protecting news flow be so narrowly tailored that it covers only those who earn their living as journalists?

Forty states plus the District of Columbia have some form of shield law, but none exists on the federal level. State protections differ widely, and in many cases utilize antiquated language to describe the function of journalists, by limiting their work to newspapers, magazines and conventional broadcasting. Courts in New Jersey and California, have ruled that bloggers are also entitled to protection under state shield laws.

This goes beyond semantics. One can easily imagine a situation similar, say, to the Boston Marathon bombing, in which classmates of a possible suspect distribute information via the Internet. Should their sources be protected?

Schumer first introduced a version of his shield law in 2009, but it ran into trouble after the online group WikiLeaks began publishing a trove of classified government documents, causing lawmakers to stall on the very question of who deserves protection.

Marshall McLuhan’s prescient discussion of the medium and the message still haunts us. To some, format has little or no relevance in defining journalism; what matters is content. To others, the media must be defined, and as such limited, lest shield laws apply to everyone with a mobile device. To authors of the House bill, journalists are only those who earn a living from their craft, meaning they might be expected to bring a measure of professional responsibility to handling of sensitive material.

I’ve written previously that the term “citizen journalist” is an oxymoron, because journalism is a profession for which training is requisite. However, when it comes to protection under law, I do not believe such rights can be restricted as they are in the House bill. If we are to have a federal shield law, then the Senate measure provides the more reasonable approach, even though its definition of journalism is more sweeping.

To answer Sen. Durbin’s questions: Are all tweeters journalists? No. Are those who seek to distribute information entitled to some level of protection from unreasonable government scrutiny? Yes.

Peter Funt’s new book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available through Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com.

©2013 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com.

Osmani Simanca, Brazil (click to view more cartoons by Simanca)

The Monterey law, like many anti-bag ordinances popping up around the nation and the globe, seems to have been authored with good intentions, but where some see overdue environmental awareness, others see government overreach.

California leads the nation in combating bag pollution, with more than 70 local governments having banned single-use plastic bags. This month, the state’s Supreme Court upheld the ordinance in Los Angeles County, which forbids plastic bags and imposes a 10-cent charge for paper bags.

Ironically, the suit challenging LA’s law was brought by an award-winning recycling company, Hilex Poly, which operates one of the world’s largest facilities for turning old plastic bags into new ones. Last year, the firm’s Indiana plant handled over 20 million pounds of used bags, collected from over 30,000 in-store recycling bins.

The U.S. goes through about 100 billion plastic shopping bags each year. Because plastics disintegrate very slowly in landfills and in the ocean, they pose a significant environmental threat.

Something must be done—and most municipalities have at least looked at the problem, with many having taken action. But while the problem is clear-cut, solutions are not.

As Hilex Poly has demonstrated, plastic bags can be recycled efficiently. The problem is that both consumers and retailers have been lax. Bags must be kept separate from other recyclables, which is best done by returning used bags to in-store receptacles—and too few shoppers bother with it.

Outright bans on plastic bags appeal to environmentalists, but cause unintended consequences such as compelling consumers to purchase more plastic trash bags for use at home. When a fee for paper bags accompanies the ban, as with the 25-cent charge in Monterey, the consumer is really stuck.

Cloth and reusable plastic bags are impractical for many shoppers and are notoriously unsanitary. Research by the British government indicates that a cotton bag must be used between 131 and 173 times before it dips below the global warming potential of the plastic bags it would replace.

A levelheaded solution was introduced in the House last month by Rep. James Moran (D-Va.), whose legislation would impose a national 5-cent fee on all single-use store bags, paper and plastic. Rather than giving the money to retailers, as many local programs do, Moran’s bill allocates most of it to land and water conservation programs, as well as to reducing the national debt.

While Moran’s bill keeps the fee low, it compels consumers to at least think twice before simply accepting a bag at the checkout counter. Clerks should be trained to ask two things of every customer: “Do you need a bag today?” And, “Will you please bring back used bags for recycling?”

“Our environment is literally choking on plastic bags,” Moran said in an Earth Day message. “The time has come to implement a national program that encourages the use of reusable bags instead of plastic.”

Such thinking will encounter resistance from those who prefer to have states and local governments handle virtually all of society’s problems. But it makes little sense to have a 25-cent charge for a paper bag in one town, and unrestricted distribution of both paper and plastic bags across the street.

It is also impractical and unnecessary to turn back the clock and completely eliminate the convenience and occasional necessity of a plastic bag. As with many good causes, too many of us are recklessly indifferent, while others insist on being blind to practical considerations—as if they had a bag over their head.

Peter Funt’s new book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com.

©2013 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com.

Dario Castillejos / Cagle Cartoons (click to view more cartoons by Castillejos)

Pelley is a worthy recipient of the Fred Friendly First Amendment Award that provided the occasion for his remarks. But in assembling the facts he was unfair to his profession, while overlooking the real issues igniting fires that threaten journalism today.

Referring to the Newtown school shooting and Boston Marathon bombing, Pelley said, “We’re getting big stories wrong, over and over again.” Putting social media aside, that’s a gross exaggeration.

Errors are regrettable but nothing new when journalists operate under pressure, nor are they directly linked to social media, which Pelley went on to lambaste. “We were attacked by terrorists,” he said, “and amateur journalists became amateur vigilantes.

Amateur journalists is an oxymoron. Those gossiping via Twitter and Facebook are not journalists. If news professionals were to put stock in such chatter without verification they would be wrong, but there is little evidence of that really happening. The wild frontier of social media shouldn’t be conflated with the established world of journalism.

Pelley’s other main point was that journalists place too much importance on being first with a story, rather than having the patience to make certain it’s right. That, too, is valid — but getting a scoop has driven journalists since the profession began. And, to some extent, it actually does matter. Viewers changing channels during high-drama events do get a sense of which network is ahead on a story and which is lagging behind, which is why ABC benefited greatly by fast reporting from its Boston affiliate during the days following the bombing.

Coverage of the 1963 Kennedy assassination, and particularly Walter Cronkite’s reporting on CBS, is often cited as the gold standard for handling breaking news in the pre-Internet era. Cronkite’s work, brilliant as it was, along with that of affiliate KRLD, contained many errors in the early going, among them: that a suspect was under arrest, when in fact none was; that a secret service agent was killed; that a witness saw a “colored man” fire the shots.

In his memoir year’s later, Cronkite boasted, “We beat NBC onto the air by almost a minute.”

Here are three areas I wish Scott Pelley had touched upon. First, the biggest threats to established media are cutbacks. As I write this, new layoffs are reported at two New York papers, and NBC has canceled the news magazine “Rock Center.” Accurate reporting requires layers of editors and fact-checkers, and it’s those layers that are going up in flames.

Second, media shouldn’t really be judged on emergencies that captivate the nation’s attention as much as they should on digging up the truth about topics like government and the economy, to name just two. Does anyone fear the impact of Twitter and Facebook in these areas? Need we worry about journalists trying to be “first” with this type of news?

Finally, conventional news outlets are being influenced too much by creeping tabloidism and, in the case of electronic media, by an overdose of politically-weighted opining. These matters are governed largely by the business office, by the people also responsible for sweeping cutbacks.

In the digital age there undoubtedly is more bad information than ever before. That’s not the fault of the choir Scott Pelley was addressing at a luncheon of journalists. Their house, as he referred to it, isn’t on fire, but it is being fired upon.

Peter Funt’s new book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com.

Paul Zanetti / Australia (click to view more cartoons by Zanetti)

I don’t recall buying anything from the 165-year-old New York store in over two decades, yet its richly entertaining catalogs have followed me across the country and continue to arrive regularly in my mailbox. Recently, I was intrigued by the Dog Gazebo — a cage for conveniently confining your pooch, while doubling as a moderately attractive garden structure. It gives dogs “a 360-degree view of their surroundings,” and is priced at just $299.95.

Does anyone actually buy this stuff? Even if you’re in the market for a canine gazebo, would you buy it from a catalog? And, would your decision be influenced by the marketing ploy that sets the price five cents under 300 bucks?

Here’s a bargain: for just $89.95 you can get a fake golf club that dispenses drinks through a hidden spout and “won’t draw a second look from even the most astute course officials.” Or, how about The iPad Commode Caddy, a combination toilet paper and iPad stand for $99.95, “ideal for browsing one’s digital reading materials while indisposed.”

I suppose it’s possible that many people are attracted to the catalog for its descriptions more so than the products themselves. Remember in “Seinfeld,” when Elaine allowed Eddie Sherman to write for the J. Peterman catalog? His best effort: “It’s a hot night. Your mind races. You think about your knife: the only friend who hasn’t betrayed you, the only friend who won’t be dead by sunup. Sleep tight mates, in your quilted chambray night shirts.”

Hammacher Schlemmer doesn’t carry that exact night shirt, but it does offer a Genuine Irish Flannel Grandfather Shirt, “an homage to a hardworking ancestral Irish agrarian spirit,” that “enables freedom of movement while lounging, sleeping, or traveling.”

If you still have vinyl records in your attic, they’re certain to sound best when played on The World’s Only Counterbalanced Turntable, weighing 90 pounds and priced at $28,000. Note, you must provide your own tone arm. A less costly audio alternative is The Mobile Blastmaster, a boom box-type device mounted on what appears to be a kids’ wagon that is good on any terrain, as well as on ice and snow — and goes for just $4,000.

For $499.95 you can obtain a Jeweler’s Gold Authenticator, which avoids the need for “messy gels, staining chemicals, or dangerous acids,” that most of us use to test our gold.

This is cool. Remember the 1988 movie “Big,” in which Tom Hanks is granted his wish to grow bigger by an arcade machine known as Zoltar? Hammacher Schlemmer sells it! It’s $9,000 and comes with “23 different printed fortunes.” You’ll be pleased to know, “The manufacturer has confirmed that this item meets U.S. Federal toy safety standards for lead.” There is no guarantee, however, that Zoltar will grant your wish to have sex with Elizabeth Perkins.

Just in time for Father’s Day, you can order a Killer Whale Submarine. Dad will be able to hydroplane at up to 50 mph above the water or cruise below the surface at 25 mph, while strapped into this sub disguised as an orca whale. Best of all, “An LCD displays live video from the dorsal fin’s built-in camera.”

The sub costs $100,000 and includes free Personalized Service from a Product Specialist.

As I see it, anyone who suggests that American ingenuity is flagging, or that consumers don’t know good deals when they see them or, for that matter, that the Postal Service no longer provides a valuable service, obviously hasn’t perused the Hammacher Schlemmer catalog. It continues to offer fond memories of the way we never really were.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt’s new book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com.

Angel Boligan / Cagle Cartoons (click to view more cartoons by Boligan)

Yet, when it comes to cable TV—and, for that matter, most modern electronic media—many people insist they’re being charged unfairly for content they don’t want. In most cases they’re misinterpreting the pricing. Moreover, they’re being shortsighted in evaluating their media options.

This is not a defense of cable-TV rates per se, which are rising rapidly and are often obfuscated by cable companies. But price aside, the cornucopia of channels remains a great benefit of cable and satellite TV.

It’s been roughly three decades since penetration reached 30 percent of U.S. homes, making it a viable advertising medium. Along with improved satellite transmission, this triggered the explosive development of specialized channels such as ESPN, MTV and CNN, eventually leading to more than a hundred others.

Right from the start it was clear that the best way to organize so many channels was in tiers, with package pricing. True, more viewers cared about major outlets, like USA Network, than lesser-known channels of the era, such as MSN (Modern Satellite Network). Cable operators paid fees to carry the popular channels, while usually getting the smaller ones for free.

A lot has changed over the years, but the formula remains pretty much the same. Today, for example, cable operators pay to carry CNN, and they get its sister channel, HLN, as part of the deal—which is essentially how it’s marketed to the public. A subscriber who feels cheated because he never watches HLN is as mistaken as someone who believes he should pay less for a newspaper because he never reads the comics.

Increasingly we hear about consumers like Vikas Bajaj, who wrote in the New York Times that he’s thinking of “cutting the cord” with cable. He mentioned a few shows he’ll miss, such as the AMC drama “Mad Men,” which he now plans to purchase for $22.95 per 12-episode season from iTunes. To my thinking, that’s a bad deal. My local cable company charges $34.95 a month for AMC, plus 59 other channels.

But there’s a bigger societal issue here. Part of the benefit—indeed, the pleasure—of flipping channels, surfing the Web or turning pages of a newspaper, is that it helps expose us to more than what we already know we’re interested in. For instance, I had never watched a show on Oprah Winfrey’s channel, OWN, until recently when I happened to see Ms. Winfrey doing a fascinating tribute to her close friend Roger Ebert, the film critic who had just died.

So, I’d ask Mr. Bajaj, how did you come to realize you enjoyed “Mad Men” until you had a chance to watch it? How will you know when the next series with similar appeal comes along if your cord is cut?

The great irony of the digital age is that the wider our options, the more narrow our focus.

I’ve got no particular fondness for the cable-TV industry, so I don’t care if the day comes when it is vanquished by superior Internet- or satellite-delivered technology. But I continue to covet my access to a wide variety of entertainment and information options, despite knowing I may never get to sample it all. That’s not a bad deal; it’s the essence of what our digital experience should be about.

When specialized cable channels emerged three decades ago, the industry labeled the new process “narrowcasting.” No one ever imagined that this horizon-expanding opportunity would someday lead viewers to become so narrow-minded.

—–

Peter Funt’s new book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

Larry Wright / Cagle Cartoons (click to view more cartoons by Wright)

When we moved in 18 years ago, I wondered why neighbors were so protective of their trash that they secured garbage cans with bungee cords and even padlocks.

Word apparently spread through the raccoon community that my trashcans were left unlocked at the curb. After dark the biggest raccoons would push the cans over, the juniors would pull off the lids, and the little ones would gobble my wife’s leftovers, while resolutely scattering everything else across the road.

Eventually, I drilled holes in the cans and installed industrial strength locks, leaving us mercifully raccoon-free until a few months ago when I discovered that our lawn had been attacked. If you haven’t seen what a team of raccoons can do to a lawn, imagine a bunch of huge sardine cans, each about three feet long, with the lids peeled back. Or, a dozen bald heads, each about three feet wide, with toupees pulled off and tossed to the side. Or, some gigantic prehistoric golfer making three-foot long divots.

These images haunted me at night, and confronted me in the morning. Eventually I had to hire a lawn guy.

“You’ve got raccoons,” he announced, with the same smugness I recall my dentist using when he told me I had impacted wisdom teeth. He sold me high-priced replacement sod without mentioning that new turf doesn’t discourage raccoons, it actually attracts them.

This led me to the hardware store, where Ernie explained my options. You can shoot ‘em (out of the question); poison ‘em (equally unacceptable), or trap ‘em.

The trap I bought is rather plush—in fact I once sat next to a woman on a four-hour plane ride who had her cat in a far less comfortable looking container. The trick, of course, is to persuade a raccoon to go inside. “They’ll eat anything,” Ernie assured me. Anything, it turns out, except garbage. I baited my trap with the very same type of garbage that raccoons had knocked over trashcans to get, and they wouldn’t touch it. So I began experimenting with raccoon cuisine, resulting in a tempting assortment of peanut butter sandwiches and honey-covered apples. A nightly refrain in our kitchen was, “Don’t touch that! It’s for the raccoons.”

One morning I discovered we had one chubby raccoon in our trap. Seems that once the sun comes up, and after digesting several peanut butter sandwiches, raccoons are fairly subdued. I drove this guy, in his comfy airline-quality carrier, to a wooded area about three miles away.

The next night I caught his friend. Then his friend’s friend. And this continued until a total of five raccoons of various sizes had been relocated.

For the next few weeks my lawn flourished, and the divots healed. Then, at about 3 a.m. one morning, our dog Dottie bounded off the bed and began barking furiously. The lights on the deck revealed three raccoons, leaning against a wooden chair, grinning.

Now I’m back to making peanut butter sandwiches and carpooling raccoons across town. I’m sleep-deprived, worrying about craters in the lawn.

Recently, while releasing my catch, a guy drove up and asked what I was doing. I explained that I lived a few miles away and was trying to move this critter to a safe area.

“We have raccoon problems of our own,” he said. “I wish you wouldn’t bring yours here.” He said he knew of a perfect spot—a place where he’s been releasing his raccoons for several months.

As he spoke, it became clear that the area he was describing was about a block-and-a-half from my house.

During all this, the raccoon I had released a few minutes earlier was clinging to the side of a nearby pine tree. I’m absolutely certain he was laughing.

Peter Funt’s new book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” is available at Amazon.com and CandidCamera.com.

©2013 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

Nate Beeler / Columbus Dispatch (click to view more cartoons by Beeler)

What the Boston Marathon story confirmed was that new media and old serve us best when they complement each other.

Modern digital technology was certainly on full display. From the stunningly clear images of the bombing suspects that authorities were able to extract from commercial surveillance and personal devices, to the Google views from street and satellite that depicted the boat in the driveway where the ordeal ended, viewers had to marvel. Aided by millions worldwide using Twitter and other social media, information was widely circulated, helping authorities and informing the public.

For five straight days, however, it was what is often derisively called “mainstream media” that kept us best informed, as viewership of the major broadcast TV networks and national cable news channels soared. This conventional reporting would have been weaker without input from social media; yet, without mainstream media, meaningful coverage would have been impossible.

A great deal of what circulated on “feeds” via social media was simply a summary of events being reported by conventional media. When a well-known journalist tweeted at the height of the drama, “Best coverage on ABC,” he was underscoring the importance of network reporting.

Networks, in turn, were aided by local affiliates in the Boston and Providence markets, as well as by regional cable outlets such as New England Cable News. Such coverage is expensive, and it’s the “mass” part of mass media that pays the bill. Without a huge audience and resulting revenue, the process would collapse.

This television superstructure, recently threatened by development of digital services that bypass broadcast and cable delivery, is essential for news. As conventional distribution becomes outdated for entertainment programming, our information flow is increasingly at risk.

The same is true of major metro newspapers, which, despite cutbacks, are still able to summon vast resources — including boots on the ground, as we enjoy saying nowadays — to cover a complex breaking story. The most detailed reporting came from legacy newspapers: The Boston Globe and New York Times.

Those who argue that this structure can be replaced by bloggers, aggregators and millions of device-equipped citizen journalists are seriously mistaken.

Equally important is the editing and checking process. While a few electronic journalists, notably CNN’s John King, and established print outlets including The New York Post, made serious mistakes in the rush to indentify the bombing suspects, the worst such errors were those hatched by social media. Chad Hurley, the co-founder of YouTube, went so far as to post a link to someone whom social media had concluded was a bombing suspect, but who was not.

Mistakes happen during high-pressure coverage. Some blame this on the 24/7 nature of modern media but it’s really not a new phenomenon in news, nor is it a valid excuse. What matters is that news organizations have the necessary layers of editorial and other staff to check facts and put information in proper context. Again, it’s often a matter of money.

In enthusing over the triumph of personal and social media in Boston, there is temptation to argue that this might supplant conventional news coverage.

Police proved that the combination of mainstream methodology and new technology yielded the best possible outcome. So, too, was it demonstrated that the public remains best served by reporters with boots on the ground, even when supplemented by new cameras in the sky.

Peter Funt can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. His new book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” will be published in May 2013.

©2013 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

As a first responder, he’s a genuine hero. But his prediction, while understandable, is vague and even misguided. We are increasingly a nation focused on winning at a time when the world around us doesn’t often allow it.

Adam Zyglis / Buffalo News (click to view more cartoons by Zyglis)

Perhaps by the time you read this, authorities will have pieced together enough information to explain the actions of the brothers from the Russian republic of Chechnya who were apparently behind the Marathon horror. But how will this help us win anything?

Maybe the Boston bombers were deranged like the Newtown killer Adam Lanza, except armed with bombs instead of guns. Maybe the culprits were similar to Timothy McVeigh, the Army vet who bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people. McVeigh’s “politics” were essentially domestic; he resented police power and what he perceived as intrusion on Second Amendment rights.

In the post-9/11 world we look with suspicion at those around us and worry about the next act of violence. As proud Americans, our instinct is to “win.” Give us a foe, we plead, and we will surely prevail.

But we don’t always have specific enemies; we have “terrorists.” Anyone who sets off bombs in public, or shoots up a school room, is a terrorist. But since 9/11 the term has properly been reserved for organized international enemies. Any use of the word triggers a specific and profound string of emotions and sets off political rhetoric around the world.

Events immediately following the Marathon underscore how confused we are, and how our desire to win is clouded by the vagaries of our times. President Obama, in his initial statement to the nation, wisely declined to use the term “terrorism.” Yet, within hours the White House was compelled, in part by media and political pressure, to apply the label. Later, at the memorial in Boston, the term was never uttered.

As it happened, the Boston bombing was followed by a strange case in which letters were sent to several lawmakers, including President Obama, containing a chemical that may have been the poison ricin. Rudy Giuliani, the New York mayor at the time of 9/11, was one of several who quickly stated publicly that the letters and the Boston bombing were most certainly linked. Even as Giuliani, on Fox News, spewed his theory of widespread terrorism, authorities were confirming they had a suspect, a long-time writer of hate mail to elected officials.

And when reporters, including CNN’s John King, rushed on the air at mid-week with an erroneous story that a “dark skinned” suspect had been picked up in the Boston case, it seemed to confirm for many that, indeed, we were attacked again by Middle Eastern jihadists.

By the time a fertilizer plant exploded in Texas Wednesday night, the nation’s electronic media were heard to state repeatedly, “We don’t know if this is connected in any way to the Boston bombing.”

These are the understandable signs of a stressed nation that has yet to fully recover from 9/11. We wait for the next incident to ignite both our fears and our desire to win.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick selected the right words Thursday when he said the bombing left him “shocked, confused and angry.” As a nation, we are all those things.

Time will, to some degree, remove the shock. Investigators are likely to produce details that will address much confusion. But what about our anger?

Whether the enemy is a foreign force or domestic malcontents, we must address our own anger. We can’t give in to our fears, nor can we be too quick to label them out of convenience.

That’s the only way to win.

Peter Funt can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. His new book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” will be published in May 2013.

©2013 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

Angel Boligan / PoliticalCartoons.com (click to view more cartoons by Angel Boligan)

According to Hoffman’s inverted reasoning, it was immoral “to not steal from the institutions that are the pillars of the Pig Empire.” His manual included advice on stealing many things–including movies.

Ah, the times and the media are a changin’. But what about the morals?

The title of a column this month in The New York Times Sunday business section read: “No TV? No Subscription? No Problem.” It wasn’t merely a summary of widespread theft that plagues the entertainment industry in the digital age–a topic covered in many places, including in The Times–it was a pro-stealing treatise by a Times staffer, Jenna Wortham, that Abbie Hoffman probably couldn’t have articulated better himself.

Wortham began by recounting how she and her friends planned to watch the season premiere of HBO’s hit drama “Game of Thrones.” Only one member of the group would use a valid subscription; the others would each rely on what Wortham described as “a crafty workaround.” In her case, that meant stealing the program by using the password of “a guy in New Jersey that I had once met in a Mexican restaurant.”

Reporter Wortham even wrote that she “hesitated” before seeking a comment from HBO, fearing that it might prompt “a crackdown” and “I’d become the most-hated person on the Internet.”

With 30 million paying subscribers, HBO isn’t exactly hurting. In fact, Wortham’s “research” led her to conclude that HBO and other video providers “seemed to have little to no interest in curbing our sharing behavior–in part because they can’t.”

That last bit of phrasing packs quite a wallop. It’s beyond Hoffmanesque to describe the theft of proprietary material as “sharing.” It’s also conveniently misleading to conclude that the entertainment industry is indifferent to being robbed simply because, for the time being at least, there isn’t a practical way to stop it.

Content owners in all media, from music to newspapers, have struggled to overcome the perception that the Internet, and everything that flows through it, is inherently “free.” Of course it’s not–and the two media cited have paid dearly for allowing such a faulty premise to take hold for more than a decade, before finally taking steps to correct it.

At least Abbie Hoffman focused on a political objective. He wasn’t concerned with getting something for free as much as he was with changing the balance of power in society. And Hoffman’s title was ironic since over a quarter of a million people willingly paid for his book, making it a best seller.

HBO, in particular, has frustrated some consumers by declining to offer its mobile app, known as HBO Go, as a standalone product. The only way to get the app is to be a paying subscriber to the regular cable or satellite service. That business decision angers some viewers who feel it is not in the spirit of the digital age.

Wortham believes many media companies fail “to grasp the future of television as a shared social experience online.” The buzzwords “shared” and “social experience” seem to overlook the needs of businesses to function as profit-making enterprises, protected from those who would steal their products.

And finally, Wortham has the juice to complain that when she tried to log on illegally to HBO Go, “the site was buckling under the load of many others who, just like me, were tuning in at 10 p.m.”

Modern media, especially those with shallower pockets than HBO, have the unenviable task of marketing their content while also convincing potential customers that stealing it is uncool.

“We all mellow with age,” Abbie Hoffman told me, 13 years after writing his unlikely best seller. For him, thievery was a means to an end, not part of a shared social experience.

Peter Funt can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. His new book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” will be published next month.

©2013 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

As one who devoted much of his life to the family business of pranking people, I’m often asked if folks are more difficult to trick today than six decades ago when my dad, Allen Funt, invented “Candid Camera.” After all, we’re now so dialed in and media savvy, certainly we’re less susceptible to jokes—practical or otherwise.

Daryl Cagle / PoliticalCartoons.com (click to view more cartoons by Cagle)

Fact is, people are more easily tricked than ever.

Multi-tasking has a lot to do with it; hardly any moments remain when we focus our complete attention on just one thing. We’re easily distracted, and any magician will tell you that distraction is the key to fooling people. Also, technology has made such incredible leaps that almost anything seems possible, and thus believable.

But the perfect storm for chicanery is in media. Ease of access via the Internet, coupled with speedy distribution that leaves fact-checkers in the dust, is creating a robust market for fake news—if you like that sort of thing. How difficult can it be to fool Americans at a time when an alarming percentage of them tell pollsters they use Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” as a primary source for news?

Among the latest gems: a report that Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel winner in economics, had filed for bankruptcy. The item was written by a satirical website called The Daily Currant and then transmitted as real news by the financial blog Prudent Investor via Boston.com (owned by The Times) and picked up by the conservative site Breitbart.com.

The Currant struck a few weeks earlier with a bogus story that Sarah Palin was joining the Middle Eastern news service Al Jazeera. The Washington Post’s Suzi Parker reported it as fact, prompting Palin to tweet, “Hey @washingtonpost, I’m having coffee with Elvis this week.”

This might be fun, except for what it says about our politics and our news. We increasingly rely on the Internet to reinforce our beliefs, so we naturally grab at things that appear to do that. We’re so enamored of click-and-share gossip that we pass things along without much question. Even the largest media outlets seem eager to link to the juiciest items that are “trending.”

Media were so hungry for tidbits about Pope Francis that not one but several phony Twitter accounts were cited at various times as being the new pope’s true messages, until the Vatican cleared things up.

The public may be as gullible as ever, but it’s also media professionals who are falling for the phony news stories. That’s nothing new—it’s just that hoaxsters now have better tools.

Back in the early 80s I wrote an annual April Fools column in which I sought to fool media with fake news about media. One year, shortly after singer Michael Jackson accidentally burned some of his hair during a pyrotechnic stunt, I wrote that Paramount was making a movie about it called “Tingle,” and that MTV had paid millions for the video, while USA Network was preparing a “Tingle” workout show and Parker Bros. was selling a “Tingle” board game. I even said Allstate was handling fire insurance for the entire “Tingle” enterprise.

Richard Hack, a writer for the trade publication Hollywood Reporter, went on national TV to break the “news.” To his discredit, he didn’t even name his source for the story, claiming the reporting to be his own.

I finally gave up writing April Fools columns after concluding that media types were so easily gulled it just wasn’t fun to mess with them.

Now websites like The Daily Currant and The Onion do this sort of thing as a business. The public is occasionally tricked, but it’s media that increasingly play the fools.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. His new book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” will be published in May.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker reachable at www.CandidCamera.com. His new book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” will be published in May.

©2013 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

Mike Keefe / PoliticalCartoons.com (click to view more cartoons by Keefe)

One such high-profile case ended this week with the sentencing of Thomas Lane, now 18, for cafeteria murders of three students at Chardon High School in Ohio last year. Lane’s trial was moved from juvenile to adult court, where Judge David Fuhry gave him three consecutive life sentences without any chance of parole.

In Maryland last month, 15-year-old Robert Gladden was convicted of firing a shotgun in the cafeteria at Perry Hall High School and wounding one of his classmates. Tried as an adult, Gladden was sentenced to 35 years in prison.

Gladden’s attorney attempted to have the case moved to juvenile court—due to an odd twist in Maryland’s law whereby youngsters charged with violent crimes must convince a judge they should not to be held to adult standards—but the defense never had a chance. Although Gladden’s and Lane’s crimes were committed months before the horrific shootings in Newtown, Conn., each was sentenced after the Sandy Hook rampage and its resulting torrent of emotion and media attention.

The more publicity a youth case receives, the more eager prosecutors seem to be to try it in adult court. Washington, DC: five kids await trial as adults in the murder of an 18-year-old in the subway. Raleigh, N.C.: four boys, all age 15, charged as adults in the death of a homeless man. San Jose, Calif.: four teens to be tried as adults in a beating death at a basketball court. The list is long and troubling.

The issue isn’t whether violent children should be coddled, nor is it about releasing dangerous individuals, regardless of age, back into society. The fact is we wisely have different judicial standards for children—and those standards should be maintained in all cases, regardless of the severity of a crime or the media attention it receives.

In recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down several decisions that begin to address this, at least at the most extreme levels. In 2005 it barred states from executing anyone for a crime committed as a minor. In 2010 it ruled that no juvenile may be sentenced to life without parole for any crime other than murder. And in 2012 it ruled that children may not be given life sentences unless a judge reviews the specifics of the case and the child’s situation.

“Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan in the majority opinion, “among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences.” She added, “It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him—and from which he cannot usually extricate himself — no matter how brutal or dysfunctional.”

In the 2010 opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said there are “fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds.” Indeed, significant research indicates that human psychosocial development doesn’t fully mature until at least age 22.

The facts are these: roughly 200,000 kids are tried as adults in the U.S. each year. There are currently an estimated 2,000 people serving life sentences, without the chance for parole, for crimes committed before they were 18. The U.S. has the most such prisoners of any developed nation.

While it would be reasonable to incarcerate a convicted juvenile until age 21 and then review carefully his psychological status before considering the ultimate sentence, to prosecute a child and throw away the key is barbaric.

Thomas Lane, the Ohio shooter sentenced this week, is not likely to receive sympathy from many Americans—particularly those who have seen the online video of his grotesque courtroom behavior. But justice is supposed to be blind to such things.

We either acknowledge that children must be treated differently or we don’t.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker reachable at www.CandidCamera.com. His new book, “Cautiously Optimistic,” will be published in May.

©2013 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

This column has been edited by the author. Representations of fact and opinions are solely those of the author.

Dave Granlund / PoliticalCartoons.com (click to view more cartoons by Granlund)

5:45 a.m. — Our dog Dorothy, who also works at home, insists we begin our day. I feed and walk her. Make coffee.

6:15 — Retrieve the six daily newspapers from our driveway and place them on a pile in the kitchen that at times reaches three feet.

7:00 — Monitor the “Today” show, flipping to “CBS This Morning” during commercials. As I’ve explained to my wife Amy numerous times, amateurs “watch” TV; media professionals “monitor” content.

7:10 — Begin the tedious process of deleting emails that arrived overnight. These include various insurance offers, at least seven different summaries from Politico, plus dozens of other alerts and blogs I have signed up for over the years and can’t seem to stop.

7:30 — Wake Amy and warn that I’ve got a busy day and can’t be interrupted.

7:45 — Eat breakfast while using my iPad to check replays of what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert offered the night before.

8:30 — Compose detailed emails to friends on the East Coast about pressing matters of the day, such as the NCAA basketball rankings, media layoffs, weather patterns across the West and various other things over which I have no control and won’t likely recall at this time tomorrow.

9:10 — Send out links to the best Stewart and Colbert bits.

9:30 — Phone my mother to assure her that I’m fine, but too busy to talk.

9:32 — Create lists of things I must do today, plus ideas for columns.

10:05 — Check refrigerator for morning snack. Shower, shave, get dressed.

11:19 — Drop everything. MSNBC has Breaking News about a private jet with eight people aboard that is approaching St. Louis with landing gear trouble.

11:37 — After 18 minutes of uninterrupted coverage, MSNBC’s Tamron Hall says the plane has landed safely. An “aviation expert” named Jim tells her it was a “non-story.”

11:38 — Check mailbox. Place bills on a pile in the kitchen that currently reaches five inches in height.

11:55 — Check six Internet sites. Break for lunch.

1:35 — Running behind because I apparently dozed off after lunch.

2:00 — Text son Danny with news that Xavier Nady had two hits in Royals’ spring training game. Text daughter Stephanie that her law school tuition payment was delayed because I couldn’t remember newest password for online bank account.

2:15 — Begin writing column about how modern camera shots on TV news and talk programs make viewers dizzy because the camera keeps swinging in, out and around, sometimes making a full 360-degree turn. Seems like a solid start, but I’m stumped on what to do for the next 450 words.

2:45 — Email fellow writers for thoughts about how to finish column.

2:50 — Take afternoon break for jog at local high school track.

3:20 — Check refrigerator.

3:30 — Step out to fill car with gas, and pick up Blistex at pharmacy.

3:50 — Remove Blistex from to-do list and shift other items to tomorrow’s list.

4:00 — Monitor “Hardball,” followed by “Seinfeld” reruns.

5:01 — Email editor that column about TV camera shots is “coming along well.”

5:05 — Knock off for the day. However, thanks to the flexibility of working at home, I’ll be able to remain on duty until bedtime.

—–

©2013 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

Diehard smokers would correctly label the gesture a blatant PR ploy. And millions in the campaign to combat smoking would be mortified at the sight of the world’s most powerful man sending the wrong message.

So, you know where we’re headed. Last week the White House released a photo that the New York Post described with the headline, “Skeet for Brains.” The paper’s caption: “Bam panders to gun lovers with idiotic pic.”

The photo was taken at Camp David last August on the president’s 51st birthday. The White House press office dredged it up in a misguided attempt to prove the president was being truthful when he claimed to regularly engage in skeet shooting at his Maryland retreat.

Adding insult to bad judgment, Obama advisor David Plouffe tweeted, “Attn Skeet Birthers. Make Our Day — Let the Photoshop conspiracies begin.”

And, indeed, they did. Skeet skeptics claimed the president’s gun wasn’t pointed correctly, that his glasses looked wrong, and that the puffs of smoke in the photo were unrealistic. Who cares?

In the unlikely event the photo is fake, it’s an unforgivable deception. Assuming it’s accurate, the White House has made a grievous miscalculation in its campaign to educate the nation about gun violence and to begin the arduous work of reshaping views about the Second Amendment.

Despite the horror of Newtown and the moving appearance by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords on Capitol Hill, the president’s effort to pass meaningful gun legislation faces long odds.

At the recent senate hearing, one member after another — from the chairman, Patrick Leahy, to the ranking member, Chuck Grassley — felt compelled to assert that they are gun owners. One imagines that if they had their own skeet-shooting photos handy, they would have distributed them to the media.

Whether or not they shoot clay pigeons should have no bearing on the debate, nor should it matter if their kids happen to watch violent video games, or if armed guards protect the president’s children when they go to school.

The problem in releasing the Camp David photo is that the NRA and its members understandably find it disingenuous. To many parents in Newtown and across the nation, it is undoubtedly offensive.

President Obama has taken a bold, long overdue stand against the nation’s epidemic gun violence. Considering the stranglehold that the NRA has on Congress, Mr. Obama has little choice but to carry the campaign to the public, which is what brought him to a police facility in Minneapolis Monday.

“We don’t have to agree on everything,” he said, “to agree that it’s time to do something.”

He made a plea for universal background checks. He urged passage of a bill that would stop the sale of guns by so-called “straw men” — those who buy guns legally and then sell them to criminals. He called for a ban on military-style weapons and large ammunition clips. He suggested that schools provide more help for youngsters with mental illness.

And that’s the important picture: the president speaking passionately about the pressing need to curb gun violence.

Mr. Obama might enjoy blasting away at clay pigeons, but by releasing the Camp David photo, aides were shooting their boss in the foot.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker reachable at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2013 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

Bill Day / PoliticalCartoons.com (click to view more cartoons by Day)

What they got at Wednesday’s high-profile hearing was a well-articulated exchange, but make no mistake: little will change. Participants at the gun session were firing blanks.

Who could fail to be moved by Gabby Giffords’ passionate plea to Congress to take action? “We are not here as victims,” added her husband David Kelly, “we are here as Americans.” It wasn’t enough.

America’s gun lobby is so powerful that even a hearing on curbing gun violence contained barely a word about actually removing firearms from the public’s hands.

Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont, a noted Senate liberal, was compelled in his opening statement to explain that he owns guns. The ranking member, Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, went out of his way to assure gun owners that their rights will not be restricted. Not a chance. The hearing was like watching a circular firing squad.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, a noted gun opponent, tip-toed through the event, limiting his focus to background checks rather than actual gun restrictions.

Gayle Trotter, a women’s rights advocate, testified that the AR-15 assault weapon is the ideal gun for a mother to use when defending her home and children against violent intruders. Imagine that! Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said he owns an AR-15 and insisted that in some cases the weapon “makes perfect sense.”

As a result of such thinking, this nation will not soon solve — nor meaningfully address — its rampant gun problem.

Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, got NRA chief Wayne LaPierre to concede that one reason he favors gun ownership is for citizens to protect themselves from their own government. James Johnson, the police chief in Baltimore County, said LaPierre’s view was “creepy.” But it’s part of a spreading view among misguided Americans that government, not guns, is what places them at risk. That’s how deep the division goes.

While it’s perfectly reasonable to seek ways to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota expressed legitimate concern that proposed legislation might result in “stigmatizing” the mentally ill. Even his GOP colleague, Utah’s Orrin Hatch, noted that the rights of the mentally ill must be protected.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, perhaps the Senate’s staunchest believer in actual anti-gun legislation, was forced to concede, “This is such a difficult debate because people on both sides have such fixed positions.”

Indeed. And nothing — not Newtown and not seeing former Congresswoman Giffords’ struggle just to utter a sentence as a result of her gun-induced wounds — will change that. Half the nation believes that the solution to gun violence is limiting guns; the other half believes the answer is to rush out and buy more guns.

Congress hasn’t been particularly successful lately in accomplishing things, but it remains skilled at holding hearings that give the superficial impression that change is at hand. When it comes to guns, the nation is at a standoff, and will remain there for some time.

Wayne LaPierre, of all people, said he has testified on Capitol Hill numerous times and “nothing changes.” He neglected to point out that he and the NRA are largely responsible for keeping it that way.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker reachable at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2013 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

Only 43 men have posed for an official presidential portrait or photo. What ran through their minds? I must have a stern expression to convey authority? If I smile do I risk appearing smug? I don’t want folks to see my crooked teeth?

In his just-released second-term photo, President Obama flashes a wide smile. There hasn’t been anything like it since 1977 when Jimmy Carter established a record for the toothiest presidential grin.

Looking at the gallery of White House images, we see that no president, not one, dared to crack even a slight smile until Gerald Ford revealed a few front teeth in his 1974 photo. It looked more like a smirk than a smile, and considering how Ford’s presidency came about, maybe it was. Regardless, it established a trend in which all presidents smiled for the camera — until 2009.

Barack Obama, despite his mighty incisors, broke the chain of smiles in his first term photo, choosing to go with a rather somber expression. Then, for his second term: Pow! The president is smiling broadly.

Although vice presidential smiles don’t count for much, the Obama-Biden pairing has more dental sparkle than any administration in history. Of course, President Obama seems to flash his ultra-engaging smile at just the right moments, while Mr. Biden sometimes seems unable to rein his in, as was proved in last fall’s vice presidential debate.

Like most things presidential, the question of how a Commander-in-Chief should look in his official portrait began with George Washington. It’s often said that Washington had false teeth made of wood, making smiling difficult. That’s only half true; he did have false teeth, but they were made of ivory and other expensive materials. Yet he did find smiling problematic because, according to numerous historians, his false teeth were spring-loaded, and he feared that if he cracked a smile his mouth might fly open.

You’ll never see a picture of John Adams smiling, because he lost all his teeth and refused to wear false ones. Abe Lincoln was also beset by dental woes, having had his jaw broken as a dentist pulled one of his teeth. Jimmy Carter’s mother, Lillian, once told a reporter that her son had “perfect teeth.” She added that he was, occasionally, “overzealous about flossing.”

In modern times, presidents pose for an official White House photo while in office, and then after leaving office authorize an official oil painting, for which they have an opportunity to reconsider their pose and facial expression. Jimmy Carter’s portrait shows none of the teeth that flash in his official photo. Richard Nixon seems a bit more cheerful in his portrait than he ever did in office. George W. Bush is smiling in both images, but in his portrait removes his jacket, making him the only U.S. president whose official portrait shows him in shirtsleeves.

Barack Obama is the first president to have his official photo taken with a digital camera. According to experts it shows some evidence of being Photoshopped to improve the lighting.

As Mr. Obama begins his second term, he seems to have planted clues in his two official photos to keep historians guessing. Was his somber expression in 2009 an indication of uncertainty in the job? Did he feel overwhelmed by the weight of history as he became the first black president?

Why the big smile in 2013? Is the president still giddy over his surprisingly wide re-election margin? Is he sending a message to opponents in Congress that, like the banks, he’s now too big to fail?

And four years hence, which way will the Obama oil painting go: serious expression, or 1,000-watt smile?

It’s too bad the administration didn’t follow up on the suggestion to mint one of those trillion-dollar coins and put Mr. Obama’s picture on it. Would he frown at the size of the national debt? Or, with great confidence, would he smile all the way to the bank?

—–

©2013 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

Chris Weyant / The Hill (click to view more cartoons by Weyant)

A clutch of pundits and editorial writers fears that the latest selections — Chuck Hagel, John Kerry and Jack Lew — reflect a male bias in the Obama Administration. “President Obama ran promoting women’s issues,” notes Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, and so she now asks, “How about promoting some women?”

The criticism is not only baseless in terms of the president’s record; it suggests a ridiculous quid pro quo, as if women cast votes in exchange for political appointments. Women supported the president for myriad social and economic reasons, as reflected in polls, but nowhere in the data is there evidence that female voters were motivated by hopes of gaining more spots in the Cabinet.

Only Bill Clinton placed as many women in Cabinet-level positions as President Obama has, nine, and in Clinton’s case the mark was set during his second term. In the nation’s history, only 43 women have held such posts, and Obama appointed 21 percent of them during his first term.

But as compelling as the numbers are, this isn’t about numbers, nor should it be. At the very time that President Clinton was appointing a record number of women to high-level posts, he, too, was criticized. Clinton’s reply was short and direct: “I don’t believe in quotas.”

Clinton might have added, parenthetically, “…in the nation’s highest and most vital positions.” There is a good case to be made for affirmative-action style hiring in the lower ranks. Only by placing women and minorities in these positions will there ever be enough qualified candidates for the bigger jobs. That’s why, within the entire Obama Administration, the male-female split is about 50-50.

But when it comes to top Cabinet positions and the Supreme Court — where Obama’s two appointments were women — there is no acceptable standard except finding the best person for the job.

Hillary Clinton is vacating one of the most powerful posts in government, Secretary of State, and Obama’s first choice to replace her was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. Rice became tangled, unfairly, in the Benghazi affair and Obama shifted to Sen. John Kerry. But other than Rice, few critics have suggested the names of any appropriately qualified women for State — or for that matter, Defense or Treasury.

Kerry and Hagel, both Vietnam vets with Senate experience, are superbly suited for State and Defense. Lew, who has headed the Office of Management and Budget, is on the shortest of lists of Americans qualified to be Treasury Secretary. It is a list that, at the moment, simply has no women.

The New York Times fueled the diversity controversy by running a White House photo on its front page, showing Obama in an Oval Office meeting attended by 10 males and a lone female, key adviser Valerie Jarrett, who was largely hidden from view. But hours later the White House released a photo of another meeting in which most of the staffers were women.

So the focus shifts to what critics like to call “optics.” It doesn’t look good, they argue, to see a photo of the president surrounded by white males; it sends a bad message.

But facts carry more weight than optics. “The person who probably had the most influence on my foreign policy was a woman,” the president reminded reporters, in summing up his first term. “The people who were in charge of moving forward my most important domestic initiative, health care, were women. The person in charge of our Homeland Security was a woman. My two appointments to the Supreme Court were women. And 50 percent of my White House staff were women.”

Women have equal opportunity in the Obama Administration. It’s counterproductive to fuss over optics.

—–

©2013 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

This type of famine or feast approach to media is not new for me, but it’s probably not what the producers have in mind. I do find that more and more people are either fully into things these days, or completely out of them. We have so many entertainment options, yet few of us enjoy sampling; we latch on to something we like at the media buffet and then gorge.

At least “Homeland” references now make sense, most notably the “Saturday Night Live” sketch I went back and watched online. Turns out Bill Hader’s “Saul” and Anne Hathaway’s “Carrie” were among the funniest send-ups SNL has ever done.

What’s that? You’ve never watched “Homeland”? The way I figure it that places you among roughly 300 million Americans.

“Homeland” is a thriller about the CIA’s post-9/11 efforts to wipe out Al Qaeda, featuring almost as many plot twists as, well, the real CIA. It’s one of television’s biggest hits, but unlike, say, “American Idol,” which has been sampled at one time or another by virtually everyone who owns a TV, “Homeland” has been seen by a tiny fraction of the U.S. audience.

Roughly 2 million people watched the second season’s finale a few weeks ago. By comparison, over 30 million tuned in the Cowboys-Redskins game on NBC two weeks later. Still, when it comes to the zeitgeist, “Homeland” is right up there with the NFL.

President Obama told People Magazine that “Homeland” is one of his favorite shows, and the Clintons are also said to be big fans. Last March, the program’s male lead, Damian Lewis, was invited to the White House for a chat with Mr. Obama about where the plot might lead.

I missed the “Homeland” debut in 2011, and found myself trapped. I was afraid to join the series in mid-story, so I managed to avoid it altogether. But this Christmas I received the first season on DVD, and my son Danny and I — who together once watched all 154 episodes of NBC’s “The West Wing,” three times from start to finish, after the series was no longer on the air — polished off the first 12 “Homeland” shows in less than 48 hours.

Locating the second season was tougher. I pre-ordered the DVDs on Amazon.com and then realized I had no idea when they’d be released. I signed up for a one-month trial of Netflix, only to find out it doesn’t offer “Homeland.” Fortunately, there’s an app called Showtime Anytime, which I downloaded to my iPad, and then rushed to the Apple store for a cable that would let me watch iPad video on a full-size TV.

Ah, but it seems Showtime won’t allow that. While the show played perfectly on the iPad, a printed notice on the TV screen said I was out of luck. Still, we watched episodes 13 through 24 on the small device in a day-and-a-half.

That done, I began Googling the Israeli series, “Hatufim,” (Abductees) and learned that it exists on DVD with English subtitles — but to watch it I’d have to buy a machine that accommodates the TV format called PAL, used widely outside the U.S. Instead, I spent $24.99 on Amazon, plus rush shipping, for a movie called “Homeland,” which I discovered has absolutely nothing to do with the TV series. It’s about an Israeli soldier named Kobi who comes to New York, where he meets Leila, and…oh, who cares. I guess I was thrown by reading that the film had won an award, which I later discovered was bestowed by the Delray Beach Film Festival.

Anyway, I rushed into the New Year fully prepped to discuss “Homeland,” only to find that those who have seen it are already talked-out, and the other 300 million couldn’t care less. It seems the buzz has shifted. I hear that two seasons of “Downton Abbey” are available on DVD.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2013 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

Rick McKee / Augusta Chronicle (click to view more cartoons by McKee)

But realizing that these essential steps will take time, Hornik is taking immediate action to protect the 8,000 children in his community by stationing a uniformed police officer in each school until further notice.

The gun issue is one of the most divisive in America. The mere mention of new gun laws incites harsh commentary on both sides, and on Capitol Hill the topic is more radioactive than taxes, the deficit or even war.

However, the issue of school safety goes beyond guns. When it comes to kids, what matters is protecting them while their elders struggle to find better societal solutions for maintaining their safety.

Following the Newtown tragedy, the notion of placing cops in schools was immediately politicized because it was among things advocated by the NRA’s arch leader, Wayne LaPierre. Anything the NRA suggests is immediately challenged by gun opponents — much as any proposal to limit gun ownership is contested by Second Amendment fundamentalists. LaPierre is a lousy spokesman, even for his own cause, and his choice of words — “good guys with guns” — only serves to confuse matters when it comes to stationing police at schools.

Officials like Mayor Hornik are not proposing arming civilians, as the notorious sheriff Joe Arpaio seeks to do in Arizona. They’re talking about stationing uniformed town police officers at schools, just as they are sent to patrol ballparks, malls, airports, etc. Hornik’s rationale is spot on when he says that the cops “will give our students comfort, our town and community comfort, and will have anybody think twice about coming into Marlboro schools.”

Yet those who disagree with this simple logic deliberately distort the issue in their choice of words. For instance, they persist in using the term “armed guards,” even though town police would never be referred to that way in routine performance of their duties. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie says having a cop on duty would make schools “armed camps.” How ridiculous. More than 20 percent of the nation’s public schools already have a city or town cop present, and the facilities are no more armed camps than Yankee Stadium is when New York cops patrol during games.

Some say uniformed police would send the wrong message to kids. Why? Youngsters should be taught that cops are their friends — people they must rush to if they ever encounter trouble in public.

Opponents make much of the fact that in 1999 a deputy stationed at Columbine High in Colorado failed to thwart gunmen who killed 12 students. But no form of police protection is perfect. Gunmen got to John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, but that’s certainly no reason to stop providing protection for presidents.

It is often mentioned that hiring cops is expensive, especially for small communities. That’s a matter of local priorities, although I would advocate a federal program to assist municipalities in paying for officers in schools.

“My first choice would be to never have a gun in our schools,” explains Mayor Hornik, “but while the President and the NRA and the Congress debate policy and law, the fact is there are guns out there. How many times do we have to see these kinds of mass shootings before we decide to protect our kids?”

Hornik’s position is not a concession to the NRA, nor should it detract from the critical issue of gun control.

If a public building were to be used to store several hundred gold bars, stationing a cop at the door wouldn’t spark so much as a syllable of debate. Why do we think less of a school containing several hundred precious children?

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2013 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

Larry Wright / PoliticalCartoons.com (click to view more cartoons by Wright)

JAN. 1: At a New Year’s breakfast with Congressional leaders, President Obama outlines goals for his second term: creating jobs, reducing the deficit and ending war. House Speaker John Boehner tells reporters, “It sounds like the president is still campaigning.”

JAN. 31: Congressional Republicans introduce legislation to make Jackie Robinson’s birthday a federal holiday.

FEB. 3: Super Bowl XLVII is held in New Orleans and immediately establishes an NFL record for a Roman numeral that fewest fans are able to decipher.

FEB. 8: Hurricane Baby Girl threatens the Florida coast. Meteorologists explain that due to climate change, storms are arriving too prematurely to have proper names.

FEB. 15: Political guru Dick Morris tells Fox News that his analysis of the presidential election is “virtually complete,” and shows that low turnout among Mitt Romney’s family members hurt him in swing states.

MAR. 1: In an effort to help Canada cope with the theft from its maple syrup stockpile, Mexico offers a donation of 6 million pounds from its national guacamole reserves.

MAR. 19: Chris Christie makes a surprise appearance at the annual Cow Bell Concert in Sioux City, Iowa, declaring, “We must put politics aside.” Christie also denies a TMZ report that his fleece jackets contain wool from Chinese yaks.

APR. 4: On the heels of her break up with Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez announces she is engaged to Ryan Reynolds, freshly divorced from Blake Lively.

APR. 11: Making good on his election night pledge to work with Mitt Romney, President Obama names Romney U.S. ambassador to the Cayman Islands.

MAY 5: Congressional Republicans introduce legislation to make Cinco de Mayo an official U.S. holiday.

MAY 18: HBO begins production on its adaptation of the book “All In.” The film stars Kristen Wiig as Paula Broadwell, Ben Affleck as Gen. David Petraeous, Lindsay Lohan as Jill Kelley, and Jim Carrey as the Internet Guy.

JUNE 4: Eager buyers line up at 4 a.m. to purchase the new iPad Maxi. The device measures 2.5 x 4.8 ft., and has fold-down wheels for easy transport.

JULY 9: The Postal Service issues a $15 billion stamp. According to a USPS release, “Projections show that if we sell just one of these stamps per year, we’re home free.”

JULY 20: The Cedar Rapids Gazette reports that Bill and Hillary Clinton have signed a four-year lease on a farmhouse with pool and tennis court. Mrs. Clinton is quoted as saying, “Iowa is a delightful place to kick back and enjoy retirement.”

AUG. 1: Noting that the month is sorely lacking in federal holidays, Congressional Republicans propose making the second Monday in August National LGBT Recognition Day.

AUG. 15: Christian Louboutin for Target launches a super-sale, with shoe bargains starting at $650.

SEPT. 10: Continuing its precipitous decline, NBC’s “Today” show is surpassed in morning ratings by PBS’s “Dinosaur Train.”

SEPT. 14: Congressional Republicans vote to establish federal funding for Univision.

OCT. 8: Data from the College Board show a record number of students have applied for the Semester Abroad Program in Gangnam, South Korea.

Oct. 14: Walmart “honors” Thanksgiving Day in Canada by opening U.S. stores at midnight and keeping them open until Nov. 29.

NOV. 2: Dick Morris concedes that his prediction of total runs scored in the World Series was off by 23. Morris tells the N.Y. Post, “I had no idea there were so many Latino players.”

NOV. 28: The nation celebrates Thanksgiving unusually late in the month, causing the National Retailers Association to propose that Christmas be delayed by one week.

DEC. 3: Americans line up for the first Plumbing Repair Tuesday, with great “Drain-Buster Deals.”

DEC. 4: Americans flock to Win-it-Back Wednesday, featuring a 25 percent bonus at the nation’s casinos for those tapped out after Black Friday, Small Business Saturday, Cyber Monday and Plumbing Repair Tuesday.

DEC. 31: At a New Year’s Eve tea with Republican leaders, President Obama toasts “good health and prosperity in 2014.” John Boehner says he is willing to poll his members, but can’t, “in good conscience,” make any promises.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

Madison Square Garden’s gentle breezes made Sir Paul look like he and his hair were at a photo shoot for “Vogue.” As a BBF (balding Beatles fan), I was torn between adoration and raging jealousy.

Petar Pismestrovic / Austria (click to view more cartoons by Pismestrovic)

Most of us who attended the 1965 Shea Stadium concert are now gray and lucky to have any hair at all. Paul’s mop, on the other hand, doesn’t appear to have changed a bit.

And what about Mick Jagger? He bounded across the stage with his shoulder length hair looking thick and lustrous (a terrific hair word, but only for those who have plenty of it). Of course, Jagger’s just 69.

I’ve seen famous folks with bad hairpieces, obvious dye jobs, and telltale transplants. But if Paul and Mick have had work done, it’s mighty hard to tell. This is where the jealousy comes in. Many of us would take a second mortgage on our homes if we thought there was a foolproof way to add back realistic-looking hair.

As soon as the concert ended I Googled. Sure enough, the ever-vigilant British tabloids had more versions of the story than Alan Brady had toupees on the “Dick Van Dyke Show.”

A headline last year in the Daily Mail asked, “Had a little Help! Sir Paul?” The report said McCartney had been “sporting a much thicker hairdo of late, reminiscent of his luscious lock worn while in The Beatles.” A spokesman for Paul told the paper that speculation about hair weaves was “total rubbish” (a fine British term for things that are false or, on the other hand, might be true).

The Daily Mirror dug deep into the follicles of British scalp trends under the headline, “The bald truth behind celebrity hair transplants.” Seems quite a few Brits invest in dramatic and expensive hair jobs. But the Mirror had no dirt on the state of McCartney’s or Jagger’s heads.

There was, however, a detailed analysis of Jagger’s health habits in the Daily Mail, disclosing that Sir Mick is particularly fond of La Prairie’s caviar skin cream from Switzerland, and the miraculous Creme de la Mer, which sells for $1,900 per pot (a proper British term for a 16.5-ounce jar).

Jagger’s regime is also said to involve “lashings of hair dye” by an in-home technician, the result of Mick’s “having exhaustively researched hair colouring and its application.”

Well, now we’re getting somewhere. At least there’s evidence — if that’s what you call the work of a British tabloid — that Jagger’s getting some help up top. Both he and Paul seem to have auburn highlights that really must come from a bottle or pot.

Paul’s voice is thinning with age, while his hair remains frozen in time. Wouldn’t it be nice if science could flip that around?

By the end of the Sandy concert I decided I was more of a Billy Joel fan than I had realized. Joel, a mere 63, has gained a few pounds and lost most of his hair — and what remains on his dome is appropriately gray. He also refrains from bouncing around the stage (leaving us to wonder if he even can). He’s a real New Yorker, a survivor in the manner of Billy Crystal and Matt Lauer, who also make do with pretty much whatever hair they have at the moment.

Oh, who am I kidding? These three guys probably look at Paul and double over in envy. (I’m sure they’d prefer to comb over in envy, if they had enough hair to do it.)

——

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

Arcadio Esquivel / PoliticalCartoons.com

I’m wishin’ that in ’13 broadcasters will stop droppin’ their g’s. Linda Cohn of ESPN, I’m talkin’ to you! No more goin’ to the hoop and scorin’.

Politicians should resolve to never again say, “The American people want…” Are they claiming that every single American contacted them personally with a detailed explanation of his vote? Really? (And, Seth Meyers of SNL, thanks, but we’re done with really.)

MSNBC folks, it’s OK for the president, but the rest of us should quit sayin’ “folks.” More pressing: stop adding “sort of” to each sentence. That affect is spreading among progressives — especially on your show, Melissa Harris-Perry! — sort of every 30 seconds.

Mr. Blitzer, you and the others at CNN have to stop crying wolf — or, as you refer to it, “Breaking News!”

Now, Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel, you’ve fallen into a habit of starting sentences with “Now…” Check the tape.

Bob Shieffer of CBS, let me ask you this question. Why do you begin questions on “Face the Nation” by saying, “Let me ask you this question”?

Radio traffic reporters: Why the right-hand lane and the left-hand lane? There’s no “hand” involved. Also, ask your perky colleague who does the weather to stop saying, “There’s rain for your Thursday, but it should dry out on your Friday.” Saying “your” doesn’t make weather more personal.

Attention hosts on QVC and HSN, we get it: you have your own way of saying just about everything. But must you always refer to prices as “price points”? Why is a color a “coloration” and fabric a “fabrication”? Also, is it really necessary to hype sales by warning, “When they’re gone they’re gone”?

In the real fashion world, phrases change as fast as styles, so in ’13 terms like manthropology and Gangnam style will be, you know, so Kelvin.

Diane Sawyer of ABC, nice try, but “As we come on the air tonight” just isn’t up there with “And that’s the way it is.”

TV reporters, as you write your makeshift scripts in the New Year, please refrain from using the term makeshift.

Jon Stewart, your “Daily Show” is the funniest thing on TV. Time to drop the faux bleeps and the overworked f-bombs.

Basketball announcers, how did “score” become “score the basketball”? Baseball announcers, why is it that all of a sudden every pitcher is concerned about “arm slot”? Football announcers, just because Jon Gruden says “down and distance” when he means just one or the other, don’t rush to copy him, and just because Chris Berman favors “come on, man” doesn’t mean you have to obsess over it.

Ambassador Susan Rice: Sorry, but you now own the term “talking points.” Throw the phrase off the linguistic cliff.

Right after Election Day we began cleansing words like Romnesia, Obamalarky, and Romney Hood from the lexicon. However, Mister President, in your second term please gin up a new expression to replace “gin up.”

Some annoying catch phrases take years to trickle down. So, at the end of the day in 2012, only guests on Sunday talk shows are left saying “at the end of the day.” They should throw the phrase under the bus. Or, kick that can down the road.

Bottom line (although we’re probably finished calling it that): say what’s on your mind in 2013, but please, don’t tell us there’s no there there.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com (800) 696-7561.

Bill Day / PoliticalCartoons.com (click to view more cartoons by Day)

Two recent incidents underscore the problem. The first involved the Kansas City football player Jovan Belcher, who shot and killed his girlfriend before taking his own life. The second concerned Jacintha Saldanha, the nurse who committed suicide just days after she was victimized by a prank in which radio D.J.’s pretended to be Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles in a call to a London hospital where Saldanha worked.

Belcher’s murder-suicide led to outcry for tighter gun controls; Saldanha’s death prompted rage over vicious pranking by radio and TV programs. Both issues are serious — the former far more than the latter — and in need of attention. However, these particular stories are false examples of true problems, and attempts to make them into something they are not only distracts from the larger issues.

The Kansas City incident prompted immediate discussion about guns and how they should be controlled, as almost always happens in high-profile cases where a firearm is involved. This time, the debate grew fierce after NBC’s Bob Costas delivered a commentary during a national football telecast in which he condemned the “gun culture” in America. He quoted at length from a commentary by Jason Whitlock of Fox Sports, including the assertion that, “If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and (girlfriend) Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

Costas has a point about the gun culture, especially among NFL players. But he and Whitlock are off base in maintaining that the two deaths would not necessarily have occurred if Belcher didn’t own a gun. The following day, Costas called for better screening of gun buyers, and limitations on sale of automatic weapons — both entirely reasonable — but, again, not relevant in this case. Belcher used a handgun, and no amount of background checking would have stopped him from buying it.

The unintended consequence of gun commentaries by Costas and others was that they actually provided ammunition, if you will, for the gun lobby. By seeming to challenge the Second Amendment, although he never mentioned it, Costas made it easy for gun advocates to, if you will again, fire back.

The nurse’s death in London prompted an even greater storm of protest, aimed at two radio hosts in Australia who conducted the telephone prank. Their action was described in Tweets and blogs in vile terms along with demands that they be fired. “There’s blood on your hands,” declared one anonymous Tweet that ABC News decided was worth repeating worldwide.

Telephone pranks, whether by middle-level radio D.J.’s or giggle-happy teens, are passé. The radio station in Sydney where the gag originated even took the prudent step of reviewing the audio file with attorneys before it was broadcast.

What distraught observers of this sad event should really be focused on are the truly vulgar, sometimes dangerous, pranks conducted around the world and transmitted virally on YouTube. A recent clip from Brazil, for example, in which passengers in an elevator are scared out of their wits by the appearance of a ghostly figure who enters through a secret passage, is the type of irresponsible “gag” that is truly deserving of public outcry.

But to use the London tragedy as the basis for protesting media pranks is to miss the point and deflects attention from the real problem of shock-video.

In his NBC commentary, Bob Costas actually had it right when he said we seem to need tragedies to gain perspective. He might have added that we must also keep tragedies in perspective, and not misappropriate them for the convenience of trying to make unrelated arguments.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

David Fitzsimmons / Arizona Daily Star (click to view more cartoons by Fitzsimmons)

Other key findings in the average of all polls not conducted: 92 percent of college-educated adults hate polls, but spent an average of 43 minutes per day during the presidential campaign reading poll results and sharing them via social networks. The figure is almost two points higher among unemployed, gay, female Latinos in swing states.

Roughly two-thirds of all Americans say they no longer rely on individual polls, preferring instead the analysis by aggregators like Nate Silver of The New York Times and Dick Morris of the planet Zebulan. Of that group, half say they don’t read the aggregators work directly, but rely on aggregated summaries of the aggregators’ findings on websites such as The Huffington Post, or LiberalsareScum.com.

In a yet-to-be posted blog, Mr. Silver projects that if the 2016 election were held today, polling companies would lose 98 percent of total revenue that they expect to collect from news organizations and political parties during the next four years.

How desperate are we for polling data? In an actual poll taken just before the election — and I apologize for mixing fact with fiction, although it seems routine among many pollsters — the Des Moines Register asked Iowans, “Why do you go to Dunkin’ Donuts?” A solid 22 percent said they go for the doughnuts, but a staggering 45 percent said they don’t go to Dunkin’ Donuts at all.

My analysis of this data reveals an unmistakable shift in America — from that of a predominantly white, middle class population, to a nation of stat-starved poll lovers.

Immediately following the election, pollsters scurried to fill the polling void by conducting surveys on the most obscure questions. Gallup issued this actual news release: “Americans spend less time doing what they do best on Sundays compared with other days of the week — averaging 6.7 hours compared to 7 hours on most days.” In a startling revelation, Gallup’s crack analysts determined that “Americans use their strengths the most on Thursdays.”

Full disclosures: Gallup says the margin of error in its poll of the days on which Americans “do best” is 1.2 percent, although no one seems to know what that means. Also, Nate Silver found that Gallup’s projections in the recent election were the worst among two-dozen polling organizations he evaluated.

In another actual piece of landmark pulse taking, Bill O’Reilly polled his viewers on Fox News Channel on the question of whether his program had been “fair” in covering the election. A stunning 80 percent of O’Reilly’s own audience said the coverage was, indeed, fair. The remaining 20 percent should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking that O’Reilly’s program contains some sort of political bias.

My own poll, conducted by e-mail between Nov. 6 and 8 among 14 self-described independents, with a sampling error of plus or minus 14, shows that 91 percent of Americans are suffering during their withdrawal from political polls, while another 91 percent say they couldn’t care less that polling has subsided following the election.

Asked to explain this apparent contradiction, Dick Morris would undoubtedly say, “We experts refer to this as being ‘six of one and half a dozen of another.’ It’s why Americans don’t care if polls are right are wrong — they just love getting the data. Trust me.”

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

Q: What is the fiscal cliff?

Adam Zyglis / Buffalo News (click to view more cartoons by Zyglis)

A: The actual cliff is about 45 miles north of Phoenix, Ariz. It got its name during the 2008 campaign when Sen. John McCain held a photo-op at the site, threatening to throw one Democrat off the cliff each day until there was a satisfactory resolution of the fiscal crisis.

Q: What is the fiscal crisis?

A: In human terms, it’s when someone doesn’t have enough money in his checking account to pay his Visa bill. In political terms, it’s when one party doesn’t have enough votes in Congress to pay its debt to wealthy supporters.

Q: What, exactly, did the American people say on Nov. 6?

A: That depends on whom you ask. According to House Speaker John Boehner, the American people said they want Republicans to block all efforts to raise taxes on the rich. On the other hand, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the American people said Democrats should block all efforts by Republicans to block all efforts by Democrats to have the rich pay more.

Q: Isn’t that pretty much where we were on Nov. 5?

A: Yes.

Q: Who is Paula Broadwell?

A: Ms. Broadwell is the well-known author of “All In,” detailing the life of Gen. David Petraeus, as well as the forthcoming book “Stars, Stripes and Shagging Forever.”

Q: Who is Jill Kelley?

A: Ms. Kelley is a Florida socialite best known for setting the Guinness World Record for most e-mailing in a 24-hour period. She is also described in classified military documents as the chief architect of plans to establish a permanent residual force of Americans at the Playboy Club in Kabul.

Q: Then, who is Susan Rice?

A: Ambassador Rice is the nation’s U.N. representative, and also the Guinness Record holder for most talk show appearances in a single day. She is widely assumed to be the frontrunner to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, but is said by sources to oppose State’s strict pants-suit policy.

Q: How did Latinos manage to play such a pivotal role in the election?

A: Primarily by having the savvy to organize a huge absentee vote among those who had self-deported.

Q: Why were Republican pollsters so far off in predicting the results?

A: Noted GOP gurus Karl Rove and Dick Morris relied on math textbooks discarded by the No Child Left Behind program during the Bush Administration.

Q: When will presidential candidates emerge for 2016?

A: That depends on their time zone. For example, Hillary Clinton was in Washington on Nov. 7, so she emerged at 12:15 a.m. Eastern Time. However, because Mike Huckabee was in Arkansas he was able to emerge at 11:18 Central Time, giving him almost a full hour jump on Mrs. Clinton, which could prove to be significant as the campaign unfolds.

Q: I’m still confused about the fiscal cliff.

A: You’re not alone. Many people now believe that the fiscal cliff is an invention of Fox News to destroy any chance Democrats had to savor their victory on Election Day. However, Fox News claims that Democrats are exaggerating the fiscal cliff’s danger to divert attention from more pressing matters, such as: what did President Obama know about Susan Rice, Gen. Petraeus, Ms. Broadwell, Gen. Allen, Ms. Kelley, Hurricane Sandy, and Jennifer Anniston’s wedding plans — and when did he know it?

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

Daryl Cagle / Cagle Cartoons (click to view more cartoons by Cagle)

Late on election night Chris Matthews of MSNBC blurted out that he was “glad we had that storm last week,” implying that Hurricane Sandy was partly responsible for Pres. Obama’s win. He apologized profusely the next day. Meanwhile, his network and its competitors are spending much of their post-election time focusing on the science of campaigning, as if Tuesday’s vote occurred in some exotic computer lab.

Liberal pundits are gushing over the “Chicago team” that crunched numbers, targeted voters in the right places, and engineered a carefully calculated win. On Fox, Bill O’Reilly stated flatly that if Obama’s guru David Axelrod had been running Romney’s campaign, the Republican would have won.

Both sides make the election sound like a game in which the American people are chess pieces — mostly pawns.

The science of campaigning is growing exponentially, there’s no doubt about that. Howard Dean is often cited as the first major candidate to harness the Internet for his 2004 presidential bid, building what came to be known as a Netroots campaign and using the Internet to spread messages, raise money, and track voters. Obama’s 2008 campaign took it further and, for the 2012 race — with more time, money and tools — the president’s staff ran the most sophisticated campaign in history.

Of course, it was also the most expensive, with over $2 billion spent by the two parties and their backers. In Iowa, for example, it’s estimated that the final price of each Electoral vote was $12.3 million.

But money couldn’t buy this election any more than computer science was able to engineer it. Karl Rove’s super PAC spent over $100 million on television ads, and came away with what the Sunlight Foundation computes was about a 1 percent return on investment.

Despite the spending and demographic targeting, this election may have been one of the most democratic ever. It was, from the start, about issues. It was about the clear philosophical differences regarding how government should work, and a majority of voters indicated they share the president’s views.

But even in conceding that much, some conservatives point out how this philosophy divides demographically, and all of a sudden we’re back on the chessboard. The suggestion is that demographic groups — blacks, Latinos, young women — who voted heavily for the president, simply weren’t “targeted” properly. That if they had somehow gotten the message, things would have turned out differently.

They got the message. And no amount of advertising, spinning or even intimidating could change it.

There’s an even more sinister angle at work here, grabbing space on conservative blogs and being whispered about on cable-TV. It seems to hint that the coalition of minorities that backed Obama is somehow less American, less deserving of an equal say. “The moochers re-elected Obama,” is how one blogger put it.

Rush Limbaugh, bombastic mouthpiece for the far right, acknowledged the situation. “If we’re not getting the female vote,” he asked his radio listeners, “do we become pro-choice? Do we start passing out birth control pills? Is that what we have to do?”

The best thing that can be said about Limbaugh and his followers is that they are not willing to compromise their beliefs. Voters recognized that in rejecting not only the top of the GOP ticket but also many extremists down below.

Thus, with due respect to Karl Rove’s checkbook and David Axelrod’s computer, it seems Americans can be manipulated only so far. If the puppeteers on either side hope that voters will pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, they overlook the fact that the real force behind the voting booth curtain is you.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561 

The real news of the ’12 election is that the nation is more sharply divided than ever.

Chris Weyant / The Hill (click to view more cartoons by Weyant)

“At a time like this,” Romney told his Boston audience, “we can’t risk partisan bickering and political posturing.” He said things in America are at a “critical point,” and he appealed to citizens as well as politicians to “rise to the occasion.”

For once, it didn’t sound like political-speak. It was the conclusion of a man who loves his country and had just lost an election despite winning the male vote, the white vote, the married vote, and the vote of people over age 45.

In Chicago, President Obama told an enthusiastic crowd, “What makes America exceptional are the bonds that hold together the most diverse nation on earth.” Obama won a remarkable 93 percent of the black vote, plus over 70 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote. He won among females, unmarried people, and those earning less than $50,000 a year.

In truth, Obama and Romney were each victorious — among the distinctly different segments of our population for which each party’s platform was designed. Voters, for the most part, were over-informed. Rich folks knew that Obama wanted to raise their taxes; poor people knew that Romney hoped to cut their government assistance. And so forth and so on, through a long and contentious list of issues from reproductive rights, to gay rights; from energy to environment.

Perhaps the clearest sign of how sharply divided the nation is on economic and social issues is that war — usually a flashpoint in presidential elections, especially when we’re in the middle of one — seemed to matter very little. Indeed, the candidates were hard pressed in their final debate on foreign affairs to find points on which they disagreed.

“The recognition that we have common hopes and dreams won’t end all the gridlock,” the president said, “or solve all our problems or substitute for the painstaking work of building consensus and making the difficult compromises needed to move this country forward.”

Hours later there was a slight hint at progress, as House Speaker John Boehner said Republicans are now willing to “accept new revenue” as a means to avoid the “fiscal cliff.”

Sen. Olympia Snowe, the moderate Republican from Maine who is stepping down, cautions, “Our leaders must understand that there is not only strength in compromise, courage in conciliation and honor in consensus-building — but also a political reward for following these tenets.” Alas, Snowe believes things won’t change in the foreseeable future.

The nation entered the 2012 election with only a handful of “battleground” states not clearly defined as red or blue. Based on Tuesday’s results there will be even fewer such battlegrounds in the years ahead.

The encouraging news for Democrats is that the population continues to expand in their direction. The frustration for Republicans is that no amount of campaign spending or sophisticated marketing will change people’s minds about certain core beliefs. Thus, the GOP can’t broaden its base without fundamentally altering some of its positions.

When all was said and done, the nation decided to pretty much leave things exactly where they’ve been.

To borrow an old cliche from the legal profession, President Obama seems to have won the equivalent of a pie-eating contest, in which the prize is more pie.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561 

But if you’re a voter who struggled and waited until now to make up your mind, here’s what you learned in just the final days of the 2012 campaign.

Chris Weyant / The Hill (click to view more cartoons by Weyant)

You learned that the nation added 171,000 jobs last month, many of them in areas such as construction that are significant to overall improvement in the economy. It’s the 25th straight month of job gains under President Obama, and a sure sign that recovery is slowly but steadily underway.

You were reminded that when a disaster like Hurricane Sandy strikes, millions of Americans depend on a swift response from the federal government. In a debate over a year ago — yes, the campaign has dragged on that long — Mitt Romney said that FEMA’s disaster relief responsibilities should be turned over to the states and, “even better,” the private sector. It didn’t seem too important when Romney said it in 2011, but it became profound when Sandy hit. In the last week you saw again that candidate Romney is willing to change positions to fit the moment, now saying “FEMA plays a key role.”

You heard New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg declare that he is voting for President Obama — an endorsement that the Romney campaign had hoped to secure. Bloomberg said Sandy was the tipping point for him, because elected officials must acknowledge the scientific reality of climate change. But he also cited women’s rights and same-sex marriage rights as keys to his vote for Obama.

You saw New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a staunch Romney supporter, praise the president for his efforts during the storm. Moreover, Christie and Obama provided a clear example of how elected officials can dismiss partisan politics when conditions demand that they find ways to work together.

You listened as one of the nation’s most respected Republicans, Gen. Colin Powell, carefully outlined why he is voting for President Obama. Powell said he has seen “the president get us out of one war, start to get us out of a second war and did not get us into any new wars.” He added, “I think the actions he’s taken with respect to protecting us from terrorism have been very solid. And so I think we ought to keep on the track that we are on.”

Significantly, Powell said he still considers himself a Republican, but believes that moderate Republicans are becoming a “dying breed, I’m sorry to say.”

If you live in Ohio, perhaps the hottest of the battleground states where Tuesday’s election will be decided, two key editorials caught your attention. The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote: “Ohio in particular has benefited from (Obama’s) bold decision to revive the domestic auto industry. Because of his determination to fulfill a decades-old dream of Democrats, 30 million more Americans will soon have health insurance.”

And you read in the Akron Beacon Journal: “What is telling about a presidency is its tilt, its direction, spirit and priorities. Thus, to those who argue the president lacks a plan for a second term: Look at the foundation that has been set. He has used the levers of government to bolster the economy, investing in education, innovation and health care, understanding the essential role of the public sector in competitiveness.”

By next Wednesday it’s likely that some pundits and politicians will begin talking about candidates for 2016, and the 24/7 process of picking a president will start all over again. But if you spend only a week or so every four years studying the matter, the last few days provided all you need to make a responsible decision.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561 

Jeff Parker / Florida Today (click to view more cartoons by Parker)

The N.Y. Post headline, “Mitt, Bam go blow to blow,” was indistinguishable from how the tabloid would cover a boxing match. On Fox News Channel, the conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer said it was enjoyable because the candidates looked like gladiators in a ring, swinging away at each other. In The Washington Post, liberal columnist Eugene Robinson said Obama “punched hard.”

And those “real people” asking the questions? They were chosen, choreographed and rehearsed with the same degree of faux reality that you get on a show like “Survivor.”

The pool of 82 citizens selected by the Gallup Organization was not really typical of anything other than what organizers believed would make the best television show. These weren’t average folks, after all, they were self-defined “undecideds,” who actually comprise a tiny percentage of voters. Eleven of them made it on air, having been hand picked by the moderator, Candy Crowley, in a delicate balancing act of male and female, young and old — with care taken to include one African American and one Latino.

Crowley, by the way, did an excellent job. But those asking the questions were merely theatrical props. Not only were they coached by Crowley before the event, their microphones were cut immediately after they asked their questions, to guarantee they could neither comment further nor attempt to follow up.

The thing about today’s reality TV is that the stakes are too high to let it be completely real. Stage-crafted the way it was Tuesday, it was great television, and over 65 million people tuned in. Viewers have repeatedly said in surveys that they favor the town hall format, even though most journalists have criticized it over the years.

This time around, even news people softened a bit and praised the show. But what were they really praising? The realness? Or the fact that Crowley and the Commission on Presidential Debates did all they could to suck most of the reality out of it?

With tens of thousands of questions submitted online, and more than a hundred turned in by the folks on stage, Crowley was able to guide the event exactly as she felt was journalistically appropriate and could plug in pretty much any question she wanted. There weren’t going to be slips like in 2004 when the first question of the night, unfiltered, challenged Sen. John Kerry to explain why he seemed “wishy-washy.” Reality works best on television when it’s not too real.

Sticking with sports jargon, many are calling Monday night’s final debate a “tie-breaker.” Romney won round one, Obama won round two, and in Boca Raton, Fla., they’ll compete for the title.

Monday’s finale will focus on foreign affairs, with CBS veteran Bob Schieffer, 75, as moderator. How will Schieffer play it? Will he be like the slick-fielding Crowley? Will he use an aggressive game plan like eager rookie Martha Raddatz employed in the vice presidential debate? Or, will Schieffer play it safe the way Jim Lehrer did in round one — making Lehrer seem more like a replacement ref?

And what about those town hall questioners? Will any of them write a book or turn up on “Today” or “Good Morning, America”?

The only thing certain in American sports, reality TV and politics is that the losers often insist that the game was rigged.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561 

Lehrer, 78, said he decided to take the helm once more after the Commission on Presidential Debates accepted a format he lobbied for: a format with few formal questions, in which the candidates challenge each other.  It doesn’t work.  The candidates don’t care to do it, and the moderator didn’t help.

Nate Beeler / Columbus Dispatch (click to view more cartoons by Beeler)

Making matters worse, neither candidate spoke directly to camera.  The audience at the University of Denver may have enjoyed it, but for tens of millions watching on TV, it was awkward and unsettling.  Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney addressed most of their comments to the moderator rather than the home audience, meaning they were often looking off to the side.  Only in his closing remarks did Romney wisely speak directly to viewers at home.

Lehrer supported the idea of cutting the number of questions from nine to six.  Even at that, he was so unable to control the process that there was barely time for the final question.

Worse, Lehrer chose a style of questioning that is both unfair and usually a roadblock for the candidates.  “What are the major differences between the two of you on jobs?” was his first question of the night.  Almost all of the questions that followed asked about the “differences” – on education, on social security, etc.  Candidates should never be asked to define their opponent’s positions, only their own.  It’s up to the moderator to identify the differences, and Lehrer was unable or unwilling to do it.

“Do you have a question for President Obama?” Lehrer asked Romney early on.  It was exactly what Lehrer asked John McCain in ’08.  McCain said, “No.”  Romney didn’t even bother with that; he simply delivered several minutes of talking points.

Lehrer said on a recent PBS broadcast that he favors a free-wheeling format in which the candidates question each other.  They don’t like that, which is why, for example, Romney was never asked about his “47 percent” remark in which he said people who don’t pay federal income tax consider themselves victims, and Obama was never asked about his remark that if he didn’t turn the economy around he’d be a one term president.

The event was such bad television that many Americans, including the prized “undecided voters,” probably gave up and changed the channel.  For those who stuck with it, Romney was the apparent winner – but more on style points than hard facts, most of which were never challenged by the president or the moderator.

The co-chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates, Frank Fahrenkopf Jr., told me two weeks ago that his group relied on Lehrer and Bob Schiefffer, 75, as moderators because they were impartial journalists who could be counted upon to interrupt when necessary and make the candidates stick to the facts.  The CPD will now have to rethink the process of selecting moderators.

As to the content, much was written before the debate that Romney practiced far more than the president.  It showed, particularly in the closing arguments, as Romney painted a clear picture of how his administration would differ from Obama’s, while the president seemed to be winging it.  That ad-lib style hurt Clint Eastwood at the GOP convention and it hurt Obama in Denver.

Thanks to the hype, many Americans probably tuned in expecting a raft of “zingers” from Mitt Romney.  There were few if any.  Voters might have hoped to see the candidates go after each other.  They really didn’t.  Pundits prepared long lists of possible questions.  None was asked.

There are still two more presidential debates, one on foreign affairs, the other using the so-called “town hall” format in which the questions come from undecided voters, selected by the Gallup Organization.  Frank Fahrenkopf told me, “The public loves town halls, but the media hates them.”

After watching Jim Lehrer in Denver, even media know-it-alls might find themselves looking forward to giving the public a shot.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

Beginning with the Oct. 3 debate on domestic issues, viewers will find something old — PBS veteran Jim Lehrer, 78, moderating his 12th such event since 1988; plus, something new — a format that Lehrer helped design, resembling a television talk program. The Commission on Presidential Debates believes that the interview-like approach, which will also be used when foreign affairs are discussed Oct. 22 — along with a revised “town hall” approach Oct. 16 — will provide increased insight into the candidates and their positions. That seems, at best, debatable.

Dave Granlund / PoliticalCartoons.com (click to view more cartoons by Granlund)

Back in 2008, Mr. Lehrer said the Obama-McCain debate would be his last. But just like politicians who are reluctant to abandon pet projects, he agreed to return this year to pursue his dream of an event in which the candidates ask each other questions and wrangle, like guests on Sunday TV talk shows. When the approach was introduced in a limited way four years ago, both candidates were reluctant to engage. Frustrated, Mr. Lehrer announced, “I’m just determined to get you to talk to each other. At least, I’m going to try.”

This year, he helped persuade the Commission to reduce the number of questions from nine to six, allowing for 15 minutes of discussion on each. The Commission prefers a stage set-up in which the candidates and moderator are seated at a table, talk show style, but as happened in 2008, a last minute request from the Obama campaign may again result in one debate at traditional podiums.

CBS’s Bob Schieffer, 75, is also returning. In ’08, he got off to a strained start with the discussion format when he asked Sen. McCain, “Would you like to ask (Sen. Obama) a question?” McCain said, “No,” and went on to deliver one of his talking points.

So, with much riding on this year’s debates, are the new formats really the best way to go? Are there no qualified moderators other than the two who keep postponing retirement to serve? And isn’t the so-called town hall approach inherently weak because it relinquishes the questioning to undecided voters who may be least qualified for the task?

Most of the CPD’s decisions are rooted in voter research conducted 20 years ago, when it was determined that the public prefers a single moderator and more room for follow-up. Voters also like the town hall approach, which was first tried in 1992 and gradually modified in hopes of avoiding occurrences like in 2004 when the first question of the night from an undecided voter, directed to Sen. John Kerry, was: why do my friends think you’re “wishy-washy?”

Founded in 1987 after the League of Women Voters gave up trying to get the major parties to agree on debate details, the CPD must now deal with shifts in journalism and social media. In selecting the two main moderators, it appears the commission sought television vets who were least likely to care about modern, interpretive journalism — effectively eliminating anyone employed by Fox News Channel or MSNBC, as well as anyone working in print or online.

I asked the commission’s co-chair, Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr., a former head of the Republican National Committee, about criteria used to select moderators. “With the new format, we really need two pros,” he said. “We need people with great experience in politics but who don’t have an ego problem and feel they have to make points for themselves.”

Mr. Fahrenkopf said his group “looked hard to find an Hispanic,” without success, and was surprised that there “were not a lot of (qualified) women.” Candy Crowley of CNN was picked to moderate the town hall event.

The town hall approach may appeal to voters conceptually, but placing responsibility in the hands of those who have so far failed to make up their minds is a bit like asking struggling students to write the class curriculum. This year the commission is taking an even riskier approach by cutting the number of question-asking undecideds, picked by the Gallup Organization, to just 20 people, who will sit in what Mr. Fahrenkopf describes as “easy chairs.”

As to the discussion format in the two main debates, he says “podiums feel like walls; the tenor changes when people sit at tables.”  Others might argue that while tables work on Sunday TV, such a set-up is not necessarily what Presidential debates are about.  Late Thursday, the Obama campaign successfully lobbied for podiums in the first debate.

Just before the telecast of the first Obama-McCain debate in ’08, Jim Lehrer told those in the hall, “I’m going to take a deep breath and hold it for 90 minutes.”

This year, until the new formats are proved worthy, the best advice for any voter expecting an epiphany might be, don’t hold your breath.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

Hello, Toledo! Thank you! It’s…it’s great to be back in the state that my mom’s uncle once proudly called home!

Osama Hajjaj / Jordan (click to view more iPhone 5 cartoons)

I share your concerns, and that’s why I have a 12-point plan.

We need good, decent jobs for good, decent Americans — the hard-working good, decent folks who seek their small slice of the American Dream. It’s the dream my grandfather had when he arrived at Ellis Island, with only the clothes on his back and the passion in his heart.

My grandpa had big hands. He was a produce unpacker: a guy who opened heavy boxes of produce at the grocery store, tossed the rotten pieces on the damp, sticky floor, and carried the boxes to aisles where skilled union workers arranged the fruit and vegetables in tall, artful displays. Grandpa hated unions. He also hated produce and developed rashes on both hands, but you know what? He never once whined about not having health insurance.

He didn’t give up. He didn’t give up because he had a dream that someday his grandson would stand before you with a dream for a brighter America.

My dad ran off when I was just 3. I won’t apologize for him, and I won’t ever apologize for the United States of America!

Mom and I lived with a small troupe of circus performers in a musty trailer. I did my schoolwork at a table fashioned from an old wagon wheel. You could see right through the spokes to the floor of the trailer. And you could see right through holes in the floor to the muddy ground below…and right through a hole in the ground to an area where elephant droppings collected.

Friends, my story is part of the rich history we all share as Americans. It’s what makes us exceptional.

God gave us our exceptionalism, and politicians can’t take it away. But the media…those who’d like to do your thinking for you…they’ll never tell you that.

When I was 24, mom won $3.6 million in the lottery. She was a winner! And America doesn’t need a government that picks winners and losers.

We gave mom’s money to a firm that manages investments for circus employees, and a few weeks later they made me an executive vice president. I learned about business in the real world.

As mom always said, “If you have no particular skill or education, you can still live lavishly in America by controlling other people’s money.”

My fellow Americans, mom never had a safety net. Others, like those who performed on the high wire did, of course, but my mom…toiling in the circus costume shop, where she made bootstraps for the performers who wore boots…she never had a net.

Has America lost her way? Manufacturing jobs are going to China, and good, decent circus positions are being grabbed by immigrants, who may very well be here illegally. I have a plan to change that.

My opponent believes we can tax our way to a better tomorrow…and spend our way to a better day-after tomorrow…and then, the next day, raise taxes and, two days later, spend even more. My plan will put us back on track!

In the words of Ronald Reagan as he quoted Abraham Lincoln many years ago, “The shining light of America’s great promise burns brightest for those who shine brightly from within.”

The time is now! This is our moment! Dare to dream, and never fail to dream a dare!

God bless you! God bless the United States of America! God bless you all! And God bless my lovely wife, Siri.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

Central to both questions is the word “we.”

Bob Englehart / Hartford Courant (click to view more cartoons by Englehart)

While individuals who have lost jobs or suffered serious personal setbacks are certainly worse off, a reasonable assessment of a president’s record must be based on how we, as a nation, are doing collectively. This is more than semantics; it’s at the heart of what separates today’s Republicans and Democrats.

Mitt Romney favors a “you” approach in which government and its annoying safety net move out of your way. Barack Obama believes in what Bill Clinton referred to Wednesday night as a “we’re-all-in-this-together society.”

So, as a nation, are we better off? Absolutely. On virtually every metric — from jobs to national security; from health to education — things have improved in President Obama’s first term.

Where are we headed? “I won’t pretend the path I’m offering is quick or easy,” the president explained on Thursday. But the benchmarks are clear: a steady, if sometimes slow, economic recovery; a measured departure from Afghanistan; a gradual phasing-in of the new healthcare policies; reasonable treatment of 11 million undocumented immigrants; continued careful corrections to the education system, and, yes, higher taxes for [ital] all [end ital] Americans on anything they earn above $250,000 a year, no matter who they are.

It takes us, the president stated correctly, to “a better place.”

Even more important, perhaps, is what a second term for President Obama will not allow: risky changes to Medicare; more tax breaks for the super rich; scaling back of reasonable regulations to protect our air and water; new and regressive restrictions on women’s reproductive rights, and warmongering in the world’s hot spots.

In Tuesday night’s closing benediction, heard by few outside the hall, Jenna Lee Nardella of Nashville prayed that America could “knit as one country, even as we wrestle over the complexity of how we ought to live and govern.”

Two nights later, Mr. Obama turned to a single word that summed it up: “citizenship.”

Citizenship, he said, is “at the very heart of our founding, at the very essence of our democracy; the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another, and to future generations.”

We’ve had two weeks of over-produced and over-analyzed conventions, designed primarily to woo so-called “undecideds,” who seem intent on evaluating shades of personality differences between two men. These voters struggle mightily to make up their minds, failing to consider that it’s not really about the candidates; it’s about the profoundly different directions in which they would lead the nation.

That’s why Mr. Obama put a new spin on the word “you.” It wasn’t the “you” who cares little for his neighbor and deludes himself into thinking that in these complex times no one needs the services and protections provided by government. It wasn’t the “you” who are asked repeatedly by the president’s critics if they are better off than they were four years ago.

You, the nation, said the president, are the change. You, the people, are the hope.

Over the next two months, others will continue to mock “hope and change.” Americans should take that personally, because it is “we” who are being mocked.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

Compressed into three nights, the GOP event was the most carefully staged and artfully executed political gathering in U.S. history. Every touch — from the dynamic lighting that made each speaker look younger and healthier, to the emergence of future conservative stars like New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, to the glorious singing of BeBe Winans — made for compelling viewing. Free of distractions, such as arguing over nominees or writing a platform, the event was a brilliant execution of the type of marathon marketing presentation that political conventions have become.

John Cole / Scranton Times-Tribune (click to view more cartoons by Cole)

It’s too bad that more viewers didn’t choose to watch on C-SPAN, where the coverage was uninterrupted and unfiltered. The over-spun and commercial-laden versions on Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN were insufferable.

Seen in its nearly 18-hour entirety, the convention used engaging themes — “We built it,” “We can change it” and “We believe in America” — to anchor each evening. Most of the speakers stayed on point, citing apparent failures of the Obama Administration, reminiscing about the bootstrap-tugging days in their past, and seeking above all to paint a fuller picture of Mitt Romney’s life-long dedication to faith, family and business.

There was plenty of sizzle and very little steak. That’s neither surprising nor unacceptable in light of what conventions have become. But the event was also a test of just how far political operatives can go in the era of modern communications when it comes to falsifying facts and distorting arguments.

For example, both Romney and running mate Paul Ryan were determined to push the notion that the Obama Administration siphoned $716 billion from Medicare to “pay for” Obamacare. That’s seriously misleading; moreover, it fails to mention that it is almost identical to the approach advocated by Ryan himself.

Then, too, Ryan blasted the president for failing to adopt the economic recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles commission without mentioning that Ryan was a member of the panel, and voted against its findings.

Romney maintained that he had rooted for Obama to succeed in his first term. Yet he never disavowed the strategy by his colleagues, such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, to do whatever they could from day one to thwart the president’s efforts. Ryan zinged Obama for a downgrade of the nation’s credit rating, without so much as acknowledging the role Republican brinksmanship played during the lengthy debt-ceiling debate. And so it went.

But as theater, the GOP convention was a boffo hit. That’s why it was particularly disappointing that the event’s renowned showbiz representative, Clint Eastwood, struck such a sour note. Clint and his family are acquaintances of mine, and I have deep respect for much of what he has achieved in films, business, and his many charitable endeavors.

Clint and I differ in our political views, but so what? He’s entitled to his opinion and he could have been a commanding presence at the GOP convention. Instead, he tried a risky adlib gimmick of “interviewing” an empty chair and the result was uneven, unsettling and, at one point, unacceptably crude.

Overall, however, the Romney campaign is certain to get a boost from this well staged event. Democrats will face a stiff challenge in mounting an equally entertaining convention in Charlotte.

But if the Obama forces skip the Roman columns, resist the temptation to rely heavily on their own roster of Hollywood heavyweights, and remain fair with the facts, they have a solid opportunity to gain the upper hand. While most Americans enjoy a good show, they also know that the urgency of the moment requires more than smoke and mirrors — or, for that matter, empty promises and an empty chair.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

Copyright 2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

Q: Mr. Smith, what does the “J” stand for?

A: Joan. My parents weren’t sure if they wanted a boy or girl.

Q: Even after you were born?

A: To this day, actually.

Rick McKee / Augusta Chronicle (click to view more cartoons by McKee)

Q: OK. It’s said that you and the other undecideds will ultimately select the next president. What are you doing to prepare?

A: I try to avoid mainstream media because it’s all biased, and I don’t pay attention to the know-it-alls on social networks. I read People magazine each week, and I’m a frequent caller to talk radio programs.

Q: So, what have you learned about Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney?

A: I think they’re both decent, sincere, family men.

Q: What about the important issues on which the candidates disagree?

A: That’s the problem. I don’t feel either man has explained what he’d do if elected. I’m waiting to hear their plans.

Q: Really? They’ve both outlined their plans in speeches and on their websites; there’s very little mystery.

A: They both talk about more jobs, fair taxes, strong defense. It all sounds the same to me.

Q: What about their qualifications?

A: One has a business background, the other has governing experience. It’s a toss-up.

Q: What about 2008? Did you prefer Obama or McCain?

A: I felt they were both decent, sincere, family men. However, neither ever said much about his plans.

Q: So, who did you vote for?

A: Oh, I didn’t vote. That would have jeopardized my status as an undecided voter. Listen, I’ve appeared twice with Frank Luntz on Fox News Channel, and he’s meticulous about being sure that his panel of undecideds doesn’t know anything about the race.

Q: Then what do you hope to achieve this year?

A: My goal is to make it to the Town Hall Debate on Oct. 16, when CNN’s Candy Crowley will take questions from undecided voters selected by Gallup. For us, that’s the World Series and Super Bowl wrapped in one.

Q: Any idea what you might ask?

A: I’m kind of, what’s the word…

Q: Undecided?

A: Right. I know it’s important to pick a president you’d like to have a beer with, so I suppose I could ask if they prefer light beer or regular; draft or bottled; imported or domestic — you know, personal stuff.

Q: I believe Mr. Romney’s religion doesn’t allow him to drink.

A: Geez, how are voters supposed make up their minds?

Q: Will you be voting this year?

A: That’s a tough one, because both candidates are decent and sincere, but I don’t want the Gallup people to think I’ve waffled about being undecided.

Q: And your prediction?

A: If I’m lucky I’ll get my picture taken with Candy Crowley.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

Baseball’s nagging problem is BUSTS (bad umpiring and scoring tarnishes stats).

Randy Bish / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (click to view more cartoons by Bish)

Players and fans alike are losing patience with inconsistencies among Major League umpires and official scorers. What good is a pitcher’s K/BB (strikeout-to-walk ratio) if umps can’t agree on the strike zone? How important is a fielder’s FPCT (fielding percentage) if scorers differ widely in determining what is a hit and what is an error?

The biggest beef with umps is that the strike zone, although clearly defined in the rules, is called differently by almost every official. It’s so bad that Mike Krukow, the former pitcher and veteran color commentator in San Francisco, begins each telecast by explaining the whims of that day’s home plate ump. Analyzing umpire Alan Porter, for example, Mr. Krukow said: “He can have a weird zone, it’s a little inconsistent.” In the same telecast, he added, “On getaway day, umpires are more likely to call a strike on a checked swing.”

Many fans, myself included, appreciate the human element in baseball – even among umpires – and oppose suggestions that fancy electronic tools and more instant replays should be added to the game. But there is no reason why Major League Baseball can’t insist upon a standard interpretation of the strike zone. If an ump blows a call, so be it, but no ump should be allowed to invent his own rules. Chipper Jones, the Braves superstar, raised eyebrows last season when he candidly labeled umpiring “substandard.”

Official scoring is even worse – so much so that MLB is finally moving to deal with the gross inconstancies. Joe Torre, former Yankee and Dodger manager and now an MLB executive, has taken on the chore of reviewing controversial scoring decisions and, on occasion, ordering that an error be changed to a hit or vice versa.

Following a recent Yankees-A’s game, Mr. Torre decided the scorer was wrong to charge Oakland’s Coco Crisp with an error on an outfield fly. The decision had a domino effect in the record books, with changes to the stats of the fielder, hitter and pitcher.

In most cases, scoring seems to protect fielders while boosting offensive stats. Too windy? Hit. Bad bounce? Hit. Ball falls while two fielders stare at each other? Hit. Sun in fielder’s eyes (even if he had sunglasses resting on his hat but declined to wear them)? Hit.

During the All-Star game, outfielder Bryce Harper stood with a confused expression as Mike Napoli’s routine fly dropped to the ground. Ruling: a hit. Come on.

How about the routine grounder that is bobbled by a fielder and results in a single out when a double play was possible? It’s not an error because, as the infamous scoring axiom has it, “you can’t assume a double play.” Why the heck not?

The trend to favor fielders is unmistakable. The 11 highest fielding percentages of all time have come in the last 11 seasons, and overall errors are down by about 25 percent since 1970.

Scorers will sometimes check with a player after the game to get his opinion about a ruling. Sounds charitable, but that’s not how officiating is supposed to work.

MLB insists its goal is to remove as much subjectivity as possible from both scoring and umpiring. But Mr. Torre shouldn’t have to be changing scoring decisions after watching replays on his office TV, and players shouldn’t require a pregame tutorial on how the home plate umpire will interpret balls and strikes.

As the season heats up, most of us watching from the bleachers or the couch are rooting for fewer ifs, ands…and BUSTS.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

Copyright 2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

I moved the dead bird off the pavement hoping the little guy would follow. But Frankie, about three or four weeks old and unable to fly, held his ground. So I took him home, and soon found myself rethinking my view about charities – specifically those dedicated to helping animals rather than humans.

Pat Bagley / Salt Lake Tribune (click to view more cartoons by Bagley)

Here’s the backstory: A few months ago I wrote a column in USA Today about people who donate to good causes – the school volleyball team, the animal shelter, etc. – while so many Americans are hungry. We give roughly $300 billion to charities each year, but only 10 percent goes directly to social and human services.

I wasn’t criticizing the well-intentioned efforts of any particular charity, but suggested that donors should apply a triage system at this time of profound human need.

I put Frankie in a large box, and Googled “caring for young crows and ravens.”

Seems these birds make good pets, provided they are introduced to people before being “imprinted” in the wild. I also learned that they’re quite messy, often moody, and will eat just about anything. One site said for youngsters you must “place a glob of food on your finger and push it down the crow’s throat.” I wish I had video of my failed attempts at doing this for Frankie.

My wife Amy suggested I phone the ASPCA, sending me into immediate panic. What if someone there had read my column and labeled me a non-believer? What if Frankie wound up being euthanized in a dingy back room, where I envisioned all the “lesser” critters went eventually?

Jessica, in the Wildlife Department, was surprisingly sympathetic. She said one of her colleagues was only a few miles from my house and could be over in a few minutes. She’d come to me? In a few minutes? Good luck getting such service from a plumber.

Jen arrived in a very official-looking truck and put on surgical gloves. She gave Frankie a thorough exam and pronounced him fit, but too underfed to be returned to the wild.

So Jen took Frankie to the ASPCA, where he’ll be eating a mixture of cat food and raw vegetables. When stronger, he’ll be brought back to the woods near my house.

I was feeling embarrassed about my earlier column, and mumbled something to Jen about sending a donation, which she politely said wasn’t necessary.

In the column I asked, “If you encountered a starving child holding a starving puppy, would your first step be to offer food to the dog? Obviously not.” I still agree with that – as would Jen and Jessica, I imagine.

But maybe it’s not so simple. All living things deserve our sympathetic attention, especially those who, by chance, are placed in our paths.

Years ago I was driving up Madison Avenue in New York when a scrawny kitten ran under my car. I stopped and got out, blocking the busy intersection at rush hour. The crowd quickly divided into two camps: those who yelled, “Get moving!” and those who screamed, “It’s right under your car!”

That cat – named Dasher because during the hourlong drive that followed managed to crawl behind the dashboard, requiring the services of an auto mechanic to free him – racked up $1,300 in vet bills. A ridiculous expenditure, I suppose. But that’s something else about “lesser” creatures in our lives: once you reach out to them, their problems become yours.

The ASPCA, founded in 1866, operates under the belief that “animals are entitled to kind and respectful treatment at the hands of humans.” While I wait for Jen and Frankie to return, I’m sending a modest donation.

The columnist in me wants to say I was forced to eat crow, but the creature-lover in me would rather not.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

Copyright 2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

On the Senate floor, Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, was delivering a passionate speech about interest rates on student loans. “I just pray and beg my colleagues,” he said, “please pass this. Keep student loan rates manageable.”

When he finished the chamber fell silent. Why? Because none of Brown’s colleagues was present. He was addressing 99 empty chairs.

Chris Weyant / The Hill (click to view more cartoons by Weyant)

Sparse attendance in Congress is an historical fact, but this scene was depressing nonetheless. The situation has gradually worsened as television and the Internet make it easier for members to stay in touch without actually setting foot in the chambers.

On the House side, Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, R-Wis., was engaged in his favorite pursuit: slashing. “We’re eliminating government slush funds to stop bailouts,” he said of the GOP plan, “we’re controlling runaway, unchecked spending.”

It was hard to tell if the few dozen House members in attendance were listening to Ryan because most were busy with their own favorite pursuits: tapping away on iPads and smartphones.

One of the first things Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, did after becoming Speaker was revise House policy to permit mobile devices on the floor. The new rule allows electronics unless their use “impairs decorum,” but policymakers stopped short of adding a requirement for House members to actually pay attention.

The day I was there a glitch in the system blocked Apple products — iPhones and iPads — connected to the official House network from receiving emails. This caused quite a fuss, with the newspaper Roll Call quoting a Democratic spokesman as saying, “Members of Congress have become more and more reliant on mobile technology for floor proceedings.”

Is that a good thing? Congress has an approval rating of about 10 percent, so you’d think avoiding distractions and showing up more often would be good first steps in improving public perception if not the actual legislative box score.

But the public doesn’t get a clear picture of this on television. C-SPAN, the non-profit cable service providing coverage from the Hill, uses video feeds supplied by House and Senate TV departments — and they avoid showing vast expanses of empty seats or members distracted by handheld gadgets.

House rules require head-on coverage of members at the podium and forbid reaction shots in the chamber. As a result, according to C-SPAN’s chief Brian Lamb, the public gets “a less-than-complete view.” In a letter to Speaker Boehner, Lamb called for a better “journalistic product” by allowing additional robotic cameras that would be controlled by C-SPAN’s staff. Boehner, like Democrat Nancy Pelosi before him, said no.

One exception comes during the annual State of the Union speech, when television networks are allowed to determine the coverage. That yielded an infamous screenshot a few years back of Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., fiddling with his Blackberry during the president’s speech. Cantor said he was taking notes.

I came away from my visit feeling like I had just been in a college lecture hall where the twin plagues are poor attendance by some, and relentless use of mobile devices by others.

I contacted a C-SPAN executive for an update on efforts to improve coverage, and was told that the service has recently added High Definition. So? “If you look closely,” the gentleman said, “you can see which members are using cell phones.”

As more voters get HD, approval ratings for Congress might disappear entirely.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com 

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

You saw or heard about the covers that caused the fuss: Time with a 26-year-old mother breast feeding her unusually mature 3-year-old son; Newsweek with a rainbow halo over Barack Obama’s head and the line, “America’s first gay president.” Selling magazines and tabloid newspapers with shock and schlock isn’t new, but the fact that the techniques have gone viral — to use new media’s favorite term — is troubling.

Daryl Cagle / msnbc.com (click to view more cartoons by Cagle)

One day’s front-page headlines on AOL: “Grandma Goes to Walmart, Vanishes” and “I Ate to Scare Classmates Away.” That same day CNN.com’s top items were flesh-eating bugs and “Horse bolts into ocean, swims 2 miles.” On the conservative Drudge Report: “Rocks Found at Beach Ignite in Woman’s Pocket.”

This is now the standard stuff of top Internet sites as well as cable-TV, broadcast TV morning shows and, of course, local TV newscasts. Even many of the most reputable news organizations, such as the Los Angeles Times, play it straight on their printed front pages but turn frisky on the Web. The flesh-eating bugs and burning rocks — plus several celebrity items — were front-page news on the Times’ site.

One major reason for this condition involves the difference between serving a stable, subscription-based audience versus non-paid, transient customers. News organizations that charge for content, especially via ongoing subscriptions, face less pressure to woo readers with the most eye-opening developments of the moment. Free media, and publications largely reliant on single-copy sales, are in a constant struggle for attention.

Time and Newsweek are goosing up covers in a desperate effort to stimulate newsstand sales and media buzz. The most popular Websites, almost all offering content for free, play the grabber game minute-to-minute, knowing that readers are just a click away from disappearing. As long as the “free model” persists in new media, the trend toward sensationalism will continue.

Another factor is the 24/7 pace of modern communication. “Breaking News” is the mantra of cable coverage — even if much of it is hardly newsworthy and is barely breaking. A truck in flames on a Midwest Interstate might qualify as breaking news on national cable — especially if there’s video — but would never appear in a summary of the day’s most important developments.

Then, too, there is the popularity of “reality” and celebrity-driven programming across the TV spectrum. These shows came along at just the right time to synergize with other media. Contestants perform at night and show up the next morning on competing networks to talk about it. Not since Charles Van Doren captivated the nation on the NBC quiz program “Twenty One” has media paid so much attention to TV-created competition — and it should be remembered that Van Doren’s appeal was his intellect and not, to cite a current NBC show, how much weight he could lose from one week to the next. The fact that “Twenty One” was rigged only made for better tabloid headlines.

Finally, and sadly, increased competition among media often brings out the worst in news judgment. Consumers are blessed to have so many digital options from which to choose, and cursed that so many of them vie for attention by seeking the lowest content denominator.

While industry observers tend to view the market as divided between “paid” and “free,” the distinction is also increasingly between “serious” and “superficial.” There are notable exceptions, but that’s the trend.

Much of what we get as news these days isn’t worth the pixels it’s displayed with.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561. 

Pundits and pollsters call them “independents,” “undecideds,” or “swing voters.” To the rest of us they are, to put it gently, seriously naive.

The vast majority of Americans know very well whom they’re voting for in November. They don’t need $2 billion worth of campaign ads to decide, because they’re aware that when it comes to the presidency we’re electing a political philosophy, not a person.

Daryl Cagle / msnbc.com (click to view more cartoons by Cagle)

In primaries it’s fine to focus on shades of policy differences and even minutia like whether jeans trump sweater vests. But that’s over.

If you’re still unsure how you feel about health care, taxes and the debt — to name just three of myriad issues on which the two parties differ sharply — then nothing in a stump speech is going to help. Undecideds are the Justice Anthony Kennedys of presidential politics, and like him they seem to revel in their role.

Ask members of the GOP base why they vote as they do and you hear things like, “smaller government and lower taxes; people need to fend for themselves.” Ask Democrats and it’s, “compassionate government and fair taxes; we must help those who cannot help themselves.” Ask an undecided, as the networks manage to do almost every evening, and it’s, “I need to know more about where the candidates stand; I’m not hearing any details, what are their plans?”

Really? Both parties have outlined their plans in such voluminous detail that few people are able to wade through it. In fact, as members of both bases know, it’s not that the positions are mysterious, it’s that they’re so painfully clear.

Take gay marriage: Obama’s for it; Romney’s opposed. The issue may rouse passion but it’s insignificant when it comes to picking a president. Yet, Mr. Obama’s recent disclosure about his position produced headlines like this one in the San Francisco Chronicle: “President gives voters reason to choose sides.”

No! It doesn’t give any knowledgeable voter a reason to choose sides. The marriage thing is, and will continue to be, handled by the states. The president’s views are symbolically important, but anyone whose vote would swing on gay rights is bastardizing the electoral process — at least under our current system.

Undecideds represent somewhere between 6 and 8 percent of the total electorate; however, they can only affect the results in fewer than a dozen “battleground” states. So, when you boil it down, there are about 3 million voters in the U.S. who actually pick the president. The campaigns will combine to spend about $650 on each of these votes by people who should know better.

According to the Gallup organization’s records from 2008, most undecideds dawdled until deep into September. Then, as summarized by Susan Page of USA Today, “By Election Day, the number of uncommitted voters nearly disappeared.”

Nearly disappeared? Does that mean some undecideds will still be on the fence come Nov. 6? What will finally sway them? Michelle Obama’s outfit when she casts her vote that morning?

If Newt Gingrich is sticking to his assertion that Mitt Romney is a liar, yet now supports him, that should provide a clue that this is about party not personality.

One of the nation’s most articulate liberals, former Sen. Bill Bradley, when asked on CBS what would help swing voters make up their minds, said: “How people feel about the two candidates once they get to know them better.”

Please. Barack Obama has been in office for three years; Mitt Romney has been running for president for much of his adult life. Getting to know them better — and paying less attention to critical policy differences — won’t help anything.

Unless the day comes when we have more than two viable parties, or if Republicans and Democrats decide to stop treating governing as an all-or-nothing proposition, then we’re stuck with red or blue. The purple people are driving the rest of us crazy.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561. 

The notion has been kicked around in the media for more than a year, and pooh-poohed by both the secretary of state herself and the Obama campaign, but as the 2012 race heats up the possibility of an Obama-Clinton ticket is likely to be given renewed consideration.

R.J. Matson / St. Louis Post-Dispatch (click to view more cartoons by Matson)

Mrs. Clinton looks refreshed these days, with a new hairstyle and bounce in her step – so perhaps she’s studying the polls that show the president in a neck-and-neck race with Mitt Romney. She’s also aware of her standing as the most admired woman in America. According to Gallup, no other woman has been so named for as many years (16), and her approval rating of 66 percent makes her among the nation’s most popular politicians.

For the record, Clinton has said she intends to leave government after this year. She has also stated repeatedly that she has no further plans to seek elective office, telling CNN, “I think Joe Biden, who’s a dear friend of ours, has served our country and served the president very well. And so I’m out of politics, but I’m very supportive of the team that we have in the White House going forward.”

Spoken like a good soldier. But doth she protest too much?

The last wave of Obama-Clinton speculation came in January, spurred by Bill Keller’s column in The New York Times arguing that placing Sec. Clinton on the ticket “does more to guarantee Obama’s re-election than anything else the Democrats can do.” That was back when the GOP field was crowded with pretenders, and Romney seemed incapable of sounding presidential.

It was also before Biden ruffled feathers by upstaging the boss on the matter of gay marriage.

The Obama campaign has a tough row to hoe and all that really matters is which running mate offers the best chance for victory, Biden or Clinton? Other considerations – dropping Biden would look panicky; the Clintons don’t really like Obama, etc. – are irrelevant.

An online poll by U.S. News and World Report shows respondents favoring Clinton over Biden by about 4 to 1.

Replacing Biden, who has served the administration well, would have to be carefully choreographed. But six previous presidents replaced their running mates while seeking a second term, the last being Gerald Ford in 1976 when he dumped Nelson Rockefeller in favor of Bob Dole.

Although Biden’s name is on the ticket, a recent day’s home page of the Obama campaign’s Website showed dozens of photos and stories, but not a word about Joe Biden. If President Obama asked Biden to step aside and asked Clinton to step in – each for the good of the nation and the party – would either say no? Not likely.

The reason Obama-Clinton has not percolated beyond the punditry stage is that it didn’t seem necessary. The Republicans were in disarray and the anyone-but-Romney bandwagon appeared to be rolling. Amazing how quickly things change. Romney looks stronger, and if he makes an aggressive choice for vice president, such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, then the importance of the second slot will grow dramatically.

In 2008 hope, change and electing the nation’s first black president were magic. In 2012, the prospect of a female vice president might rekindle Democrats’ excitement.

It’s a long shot. But if we’ve learned anything about politics in recent years, it’s that life is often much stranger than HBO.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

Copyright 2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

In a recent 24-hour period, Facebook paid $1 billion for the photo-sharing service Instagram — a firm with 12 employees that most people had never heard of, and that a week earlier was valued at $500,000; Microsoft gave AOL more than $1 billion for some patents, and Sony said its annual loss was $6.4 billion.

Chris Weyant / The Hill (click to view more cartoons by Weyant)

Do these numbers mean anything anymore?

Not long ago people used the term “billion” so infrequently that, for clarity, they spelled the first letter: “That’s billion, with a B.” Today, according to Forbes, there are 1,226 billionaires.

Congress spends billions here, billions there and, as the late Sen. Everett Dirksen famously concluded, “pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”

During the height of Mega Millions fever, NBC News asked ticket buyers what they’d do with $650 million if they won. One woman said, with apparent sincerity, that she would purchase a lifetime supply of Oreo cookies.

That’s classic innumeracy. If the woman lives 60 more years, and is willing to eat 150 Oreos every week, her tab would be roughly $70,000. It’s a lot of money, but as a percentage of $650 million it’s so small — about one-hundredth of one percent — that, for all intents and purposes she could have her Oreos and $650 million.

Try getting a grip numbers like these: Google’s revenue is $20 billion a year! Matt Cain of the San Francisco Giants makes $3,000 per pitch! The U.S. government spends $1.5 million per minute!

Big numbers, right? Well, the real figures are actually double: Google is taking in $40 billion; Cain earns $6,000 every time he throws the ball, and the government’s outflow is $3 million per minute. So what?

The mathematician and scholar Douglas Hofstadter coined the term innumeracy some 30 years ago, back when the National Debt was under $2 trillion. It’s currently $15.6 trillion, but the numbers are so large that a 680% increase has basically no meaning for average Americans, except that we know it’s a lot of money.

According to one estimate, just counting to a trillion takes over 190,000 years. If we paid off the debt at the rate of a dollar per second, we would get the job done in roughly half a million years — without interest.

Many of our elected leaders seem to suffer from what might be called poli-innumeracy — the inability to control the numbers that control us. That’s how we get bridges to nowhere and the military’s infamous thousand-dollar toilet seats.

It’s only a matter of time before U.S. politicians start talking about a sextillion of this (21 zeros) or a vigintillion of that (63 zeros).

Travelers used to find it amusing to deal with foreign currencies that required, say, 10,000 whatevers for a cup of coffee. I remember visiting Brazil in the ’80s when taxi drivers needed a daily printout to determine how many thousand Cruzeiros to collect per mile.

These were “new” Cruzeiros which differed from the “old” Cruzeiros in that the Brazilian government chopped off a few zeros so that one of the new was worth 1,000 of the old. A few years later they did it again, declaring that 1,000 new Cruzeiros would be worth one Cruzado. Soon they had to drop away three more zeros and Brazilians were given the “new” Cruzados. In 1990, these Cruzados Novos were retired, and the Cruzeiros were back; in 1993, the Cruzeiros lost another three zeros and were turned into “real” Cruzeiros. The numbers ceased to have meaning, although the value of the service or product remained clear.

What divides Americans nowadays is not just that a few people have a lot of money while many have much less, it’s that some people understand the really big numbers — or so we assume — but most of us do not. Yet, as our innumeracy worsens, we don’t trust bureaucrats who claim to understand huge sums if at the same time they appear clueless about the price of an Oreo.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

That such a theory is viable underscores the complexity of the case — thanks, in part, to Florida’s ill-conceived Stand Your Ground law. Justifiable homicides in Florida have nearly tripled since the law was enacted in 2005.

Rick McKee / Augusta Chronicle (click to view more cartoons by Rick McKee)

According to the Associated Press, both the law’s original legislative sponsor and former Gov. Jeb Bush, who signed it into law, have said the measure was not intended to apply in cases such as the Martin shooting.

Yet, Zimmerman plans to ask a judge to grant him immunity from prosecution — now, and forever — based on his assertion that he felt threatened by Martin, who was unarmed on the night of the confrontation.

What role, if any, did race play? Martin was black; Zimmerman is half white and half Hispanic. Much of the outcry following the Feb. 26 shooting suggested that Zimmerman was racially motivated, as were local police in Sanford, who quickly accepted Zimmerman’s version of what happened and set him free.

Angela Corey, the special prosecutor, seems to believe that race played a part in Zimmerman’s action. Her outline of charges states that Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, “profiled” Martin that night.

But here’s where things become painfully complex. If Zimmerman and his lawyer can convince a judge that Zimmerman has an unusual fear of black people then, as repugnant as that might be, his stand-your-ground defense is strengthened. The law in Florida requires only that a person have actual fear, not necessarily unbiased fear.

The facts, however, suggest that Zimmerman is not a racist. He was a mentor to two black teenagers. In numerous calls to police in his neighborhood watch role, including the one on Feb. 26, he did not mention the race of those he believed to be suspicious until specifically asked for the information.

Zimmerman’s “bias” was more likely against criminals in general, like those who plagued his neighborhood. “We must send a message that we will not tolerate this in our community,” he wrote after a series of break-ins. His mindset probably led him to “profile” the hooded, six-foot stranger as a troublemaker, and his classic take-the-law-in-your-own hands approach prompted him to follow Martin even after a 911 operator told him to remain in his vehicle.

Although Florida’s Stand Your Ground law has allowed many violent individuals to avoid trials, it is not likely to help in Zimmerman’s defense. He’s not a racist; he’s a vigilante. He wanted to be a cop, but couldn’t make it. He carried a gun on his watch, despite instructions never to do so. He disobeyed orders to stay in his car. He followed Martin, and killed him.

Although Trayvon Martin was black, race is probably being misapplied in this case. In Sanford, where the police chief is black, the grievous error was giving Zimmerman, a friend of the department, benefit of doubt without an investigation.

It would be too easy to dismiss this as simply a hate crime and a case of bigotry by police. It’s more than that.

Laws like Stand Your Ground are making it increasingly difficult for police and the justice system to operate. Such statutes empower vigilantes.

Gun laws, like those in Florida that allowed George Zimmerman to legally carry a pistol, despite a history of violent behavior, are dangerously out of control.

Real justice in the Trayvon Martin will inspire change in laws like these that pose serious threats, no matter what the race, or bias, of anyone involved.

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

Dad’s car was easy to live with because it didn’t have a human name, and it never talked back.

Nate Beeler / Washington Examiner (click to view more cartoons by Beeler)

Now, many of my friends can’t go more than a few miles without checking with Siri, the fawning female who resides in iPhones. Even if you don’t own the device you’ve undoubtedly seen TV commercials in which Siri flirts with a young musician and coos, “I will call you Rock Star.”

These voices have been creeping up on us for some time. I used to look forward to hearing the “You’ve got mail” guy at AOL – who peaked around the time he starred in a movie with Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks – but lately he seems out of touch.

Several companies now use the phone voice I first heard at United Airlines: the guy who cheerfully repeats the same questions over and over, apparently hoping you’ll hang up in frustration before reaching an actual person, probably in the Philippines. You feel like you’ve won some sort of contest when he finally says, “OK. I’ll get an agent for ya!”

What strikes me as a cruel twist is that the presumably live offshore operators seem to be trained to speak English just like robots.

I’m fascinated by the sheer endurance of the airport woman who spends the day repeating eight gloomy words: “The moving sidewalk is coming to an end.”

I feel kind of sorry for my old answering machine who’s so senile it takes her forever just to spit out, “End…of…messages.”

I was surprised recently to discover that my Mac computer can read whatever is on my screen in 100 different voices, each of which Apple has thoughtfully given a human name. The default guy is Alex, but right now I’m listening to Serena – who I imagine is 5-foot-10 with long dark hair – reading this column with her sultry British accent.

The first machine to really give me the heebie-jeebies was Watson, the I.B.M. smarty-pants who beat people named Brad and Ken on Jeopardy last year. Watson sat there smugly, using his ultra-speedy buzzer capability and lightening recall to win more than three times his nearest human competitor.

What’s next? Melvin, the talking toothbrush (“Don’t forget to scrub your tongue”). Hank, the grouchy lawnmower (“Gotta do something about those gophers”). Sally, the nagging refrigerator (“Save some of that blueberry pie for tomorrow, Tubby”).

A company called Zazu is now marketing a mobile alarm clock that wakes you with a female voice delivering not only the time but also news and weather – even details of what your friends are saying on social networks. The Zazu lady also reads a commercial, something I suspect was a human’s bright idea.

Audi vehicles now come with a “multimedia interface” on the dashboard that fields spoken questions from drivers. Audi says it is now working on a system that recognizes and adapts to the motorist’s state of mind to determine if the driver is stressed by a traffic situation.

Personally, I’m stressed when a gadget talks to me, no matter how bad the traffic happens to be. I continue to believe that machines should be seen but not heard.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561. 

I’m finished being a sucker. Like many liberated fans, I no longer care about teams as much as individual players.

Larry Wright / Cagle Cartoons (click to view more cartoons by Wright)

This is part of a gradual, but unmistakable shift that began decades ago when free agency set players loose and sports franchises started moving from one city to another. Until recently, however, fans were stuck with the local team and its roster.

Now, if you’re a Pujols fan in St. Louis, where he hit 445 homers and batted .328 over the last 11 years, you can root for him just as easily with his L.A. team. You can see every game he plays on satellite TV or computer and read details of his performance on Internet blogs. You can still have him on your fantasy baseball team. And you can frequent his website, like him on Facebook, or follow his tweets.

Many fans are still inclined to think of the local team as being “us,” in a civic-minded sort of way, overlooking the fact that pro athletes and their employers are in the entertainment business. Nothing wrong with that. But the notion that fans should slavishly root for a particular team no matter who it hires or where it opts to play is passe.

The best recent example involves Jeremy Lin, the 23-year-old Harvard grad who leaped from obscurity to become the NBA’s hottest player. Like many fans, I immediately started watching his games on satellite, and the fact that Lin happens to play for the New York Knicks is irrelevant; if Lin ever leaves the Knicks, I’m going with him.

By placing most games on satellite and computer, teams have encouraged fans to find freedom. And media support it with highlights that increasingly emphasize individual achievements — from “Web Gems” to the “Dunks of the Day.”

It’s quite different, of course, at the amateur level, where Little League and scholastic sports appropriately inspire community allegiance, while teaching kids about teamwork and loyalty. With pro sports, however, there are few teams I’d care to root for any more than I root for, say, FedEx or Starbucks — to name businesses I admire but whose logos I’d never wear on a shirt or hat unless they paid me to do it.

To be sure, some sports franchises are more worthy of respect than others. The Green Bay Packers, for example, are owned by roughly 112,000 of their fans. The Angels and their owner Arte Moreno, who lured Pujols, operate possibly the most fan-friendly organization in pro sports. But generally, there is no real fun in rooting for corporations unless you’re a shareholder.

Sports have always provided the great American metaphors, so you have to wonder if our attitude toward athletes reflects a wider societal trend. After all, manufacturers, just like sports franchises, don’t give a hoot about leaving town if they can find a better deal. We hire a million or so soldiers to handle our wars, and then fail to cheer them on like we once did. Our politicians behave increasingly like free agent athletes, looking out for themselves and seeking the biggest endorsement deals when they retire.

Fortunately, sports offers simpler choices. I still root for one team over another during specific games, and I continue to give an extra measure of emotional support to the teams from the region where I live. But that’s it. I refuse to be part of, say, the Red Sox Nation as if it deserved the same allegiance as an actual country, and if the score disappoints me, I won’t bleed Dodger Blue.

Here at spring training I’m rooting for a dozen players on a half-dozen different teams. I find that free agency works as well in the stands as it does on the field.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

When gas hit $4 a gallon last April, the president acknowledged the political impact by noting, “My poll numbers go up and down depending on the latest crisis, and right now gas prices are weighing heavily on people.” An analysis at the time by Real Clear Politics showed that gas prices affect a president’s standing even more than the unemployment rate. Now, unemployment is down, but gas prices are up: about 18 cents in the last two weeks.

Rick McKee / Augusta Chronicle (click to view more Rising Gas Prices cartoons)

Voters don’t need the Bureau of Labor Statistics to tell them what they’re paying at the pump. And they don’t need an economist to explain that fuel prices affect virtually all consumer goods and services — from food to the family vacation.

For politicians, few issues translate so smoothly into campaign rhetoric and tie-in so well to other issues. Republicans already are linking pain at the pump to the Obama administration’s opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring oil from Canada, and its backing of Solyndra, the failed solar energy company.

Rick Santorum recently blasted what he called a “radical agenda” by Democrats to deny Americans “affordable energy.” Newt Gingrich launched a petition drive on his Website demanding a return to $2.50 a gallon gas. All four Republican candidates advocate expanded offshore drilling and an immediate permit for the Keystone project.

In 2008, the price of gas was such a potent concern that candidates John McCain and Hillary Clinton proposed a federal “gas tax holiday.” Republicans chanted “drill baby, drill!”

In 2012 it’s a perfect storm. Fears over Iran’s nuclear program and a possible attack by Israel are driving up world oil prices. Meanwhile, several refineries in the U.S. have recently closed down. And while Americans drive more in summer, the pollution-controlling formulations for summertime gasoline are more expensive than those used in winter.

Last summer, the Obama administration took the fairly rare step of releasing 30 million barrels from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to combat rising prices and address the Middle East oil disruptions, which at the time were linked to strife in Libya. It was a limited and somewhat symbolic gesture, and not without political risk. A similar gambit this summer would surely provide fodder for the GOP nominee.

Unlike employment, which was in free fall when the president took office, gasoline prices were actually at rock bottom: under $1.90 a gallon. Ironically, the drop was caused primarily by lower demand due to the financial crisis. As things improved, oil prices rebounded. Yet, if the stump standard, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” is applied to gas prices, few voters will answer in the affirmative.

According to the latest Pew survey, the president’s approval rating among independent voters has rebounded to 45 percent, after dipping to 37 percent just last month. This underscores the fact that the campaign remains as volatile as the economy.

Gasoline prices could be a meaningful election metric. Under $3.75 a gallon on Labor Day and President Obama’s chances look solid. Over $4.00 and the president may be in trouble.

A chicken in every pot won’t cut it unless there’s gas in every tank.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

For most media, it’s a time of tabloidism.

The other day, NBC’s “Today” program began it’s 7:30 a.m. half-hour with a lengthy report about the so-called “Honeymoon Murder Mystery” trial, involving a man who allegedly drowned his bride in 2003. Next came a feature from London about how Kate Middleton celebrated Valentine’s Day. Then, a discussion of Whitney Houston’s drug addiction, followed by an in-studio appearance of Malachy, the Pekingese who won best in show at the Westminster Kennel Club.

Cam Cardow / Ottawa Citizen (click to view more cartoons by Cam)

ABC’s “Good Morning America” also focused on the honeymoon trial and Whitney Houston, while CBS’s new “This Morning,” promoted as a more serious alternative, began the half hour with a report on basketball phenom Jeremy Lin, followed by details of a murder trial concerning the death of a Virginia college student.

Network morning shows have long favored the softer side of the news, but tabloid topics are getting increased space these days, mirroring what’s happening across the Internet and on cable-TV. The same day’s Huffington Post featured on its front page: “Sore Muscle Remedies that Really Work,” and “Lawrence O’Donnell Calls Out Ann Coulter.” Over on the Drudge Report, page one included: “Electronic cigarette blows up in man’s face,” Knife-wielding woman attacks boyfriend over Valentine’s gift snub,” and “Cops: Man killed in dog poop dispute.”

The confounding part of this is that we’re in the midst of an information explosion – a virtual supermarket of news options – and Americans are stuffing themselves with sweets. Part of the explanation is that consumers have so many choices just a click away that programmers don’t dare bore them with seriosity. The scene at the checkout aisle, where tabloids scream for attention, is now spread across the media landscape.

Even major newspapers that still take a serious approach to news coverage in print, increasingly succumb to sensationalism on their websites. A popular tool in the nation’s newsrooms is an electronic tote board that provides minute-to-minute details of what’s hot online. Low click counts send editors scurrying for stories or photos that will grab readers’ attention.

With few exceptions, major media give consumers what they want. It’s a lucky publication or broadcast that is able to find an audience that actually wants meaningful news and information. Look what happened to the cable channel Bravo, launched in 1980 as a premium outlet for fine film, drama and other performing arts. Today, the channel is almost entirely devoted to reality shows about real housewives, top chefs and other frivolous fare.

More “real” than any of Bravo’s sappy shows is the fact that the programming represents what a vast audience now wants. What’s changed? Some would say that a stressed population gravitates to escapist material.

But it’s also our modern information systems that inspire low octane content. For example, there’s a bigger audience for video than for words, which is why local TV news has long favored helicopter shots of car chases and fires. So, as news organizations build websites they tend to overdose on video clips, no matter how sugary, like those on TMZ and YouTube.

Instant communication thrives on “breaking news,” so video of a vacant runway in New Jersey where “the plane carrying Whitney Houston’s body is expected shortly,” passes for news on cable TV because it’s happening now, not because it’s important.

Most media, from print to radio and TV, were originally launched with meaningful approaches to information and entertainment and then, as audiences grew and competition increased, drifted more toward tabloidism. The Internet is experiencing this, at the accelerated pace that marks the digital world.

Our older British cousins have long had a passion for gossipy news. If we worry about following their path socially and economically, we might as well add tabloid tendencies to the list.

I’d like to blame the media for this, but they only provide the candy. It’s we who have the sweet teeth.

—–

Syndicated columnist Peter Funt can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

Voters judging the presidential candidates must dig through a growing list of imprecise utterances these days to determine whether the remarks should be taken seriously. Even the smallest quips make it to the Internet and cable-TV, and many need deciphering.

Flub — a mistake, almost always innocent in nature. When Mitt Romney said, “I’ve been married to the same woman for 25 — excuse me, I’ll get in trouble — for 42 years,” it was a flub. If Anne Romney doesn’t hold it against him, voters aren’t likely to either.

John Cole / Scranton Times-Tribune (click to view more cartoons by Cole)

Gaffe — similar to a flub, but usually worse. In Waterloo, Iowa, where she was born, Michele Bachmann said, “John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa. That’s the kind of spirit that I have, too.” But the John Wayne from Waterloo was John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer; the actor was born in Winterset, Iowa. This gaffe may have signaled Iowans that Bachmann’s roots were shallower than she claimed.

Freeze — a mental shutdown, a “brain freeze.” Few campaigns have featured a more dramatic example than Rick Perry’s painful attempt during a nationally televised debate to name the third of three federal agencies he’d close if elected. A few days later he poked fun at himself in a campaign ad, and then declared, “If you want a slick debater, I’m not your guy.” However, it wasn’t the degree of slickness that troubled voters about Perry; the freeze helped solidify the notion that he was underprepared and ill equipped for the presidency.

Slip — an unplanned utterance, a “slip of the tongue.” If it’s benign it’s a flub, but if it inadvertently provides insight it’s a true slip. Romney’s spontaneous offer to bet Perry $10,000 (about what he said in his book regarding healthcare) was a slip because Romney could have made his point by saying, “I’ll bet you 10 bucks.” By placing the ante at 10 grand he heightened concern about whether such a wealthy politician can relate to ordinary citizens.

Fib — a premeditated statement that is false, similar to a lie, but crafted to qualify as truth on technical grounds. Newt Gingrich has been challenged repeatedly about the work he did for Freddie Mac that paid him roughly $1.6 million. Gingrich insists it wasn’t “lobbying,” according to the strict legal definition of the term. But it’s a fib in the opinion of many on Capitol Hill who know Gingrich exerted his influence, no matter what you call it.

Dodge — avoiding a question by giving an unrelated answer. In a CNN debate, Ron Paul was asked if Gingrich and Romney should “return” money they made from Freddie Mac (one for services, the other as a shareholder). Paul said: “That subject really doesn’t interest me a whole lot. The question is, what are we going to do about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It should have been auctioned off right after the crash came.” Moderator Wolf Blitzer never demanded an answer, allowing the dodge to succeed.

Flip-flop — Changing one’s position, usually in a way that signals political calculation rather than a true change of heart. Romney is branded as a flip-flopper for revising his positions on abortion, healthcare, guns and immigration, among others. But all the candidates have flipped and flopped at times. Gingrich, for example, was an outspoken advocate of the so-called individual mandate for health insurance — and now says he’s vehemently against it, presumably because that’s what his voter base demands.

Misstatement — if it’s corrected immediately it’s likely to be a slip, but if it’s corrected later it’s a misstatement. Romney said repeatedly that he would end “Obamacare” by executive order on his first day in office. After numerous challenges he finally conceded that only Congress could repeal the law. Did he misspeak, or was he misinformed?

The worst political snafus come about when a candidate slips, dodges and then claims to have misspoken — all on the same issue. Romney told CNN that he was not concerned about the “very poor” because they have an ample safety net. Asked to clarify, he repeated the slip, making it a gaffe. A few hours later he tried a dodge by saying his remarks had been “taken out of context.” The next day he claimed that he “misspoke.”

In the current campaign, the war of words is producing many casualties.

—–

Syndicated columnist Peter Funt can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

Saturday’s front pages went in many, telling, directions. The Boston Globe and Seattle Times were among those who said, “Obama bends.” But the Wall Street Journal and the Providence Journal declared, “Obama retreats.”

Which was it, a bend or a retreat?

Daryl Cagle / msnbc.com (click to view more cartoons by Cagle)

Several major papers, led by the New York Times and Miami Herald, took the most cautious approach by saying, “Obama adjusts.” A similarly neutral choice was “shifts,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Washington Post, and the San Jose Mercury News.

Perhaps the most benign selection, serving to cleanse the story of all meaning, came on page one of the Los Angeles Times, “Obama reacts.”

Other verbs of note: Sacramento Bee, “gives ground”; San Diego Union-Tribune, “revises”; Cleveland Plain Dealer, “eases”; Tampa Bay Times, “yields”; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, “finds compromise”; the Akron Beacon Journal, “reverses”; the Financial Times, “modifies.”

The Chicago Sun-Times and the Cincinnati Enquirer staked out much more aggressive positions with the words, “backed down.”

Rarely does a newspaper headline present such a challenge to editors, some of whom were clearly driven by objectivity, while others allowed their editorial stance to affect the front-page treatment. It underscores how divided the nation is on an issue that seems, to many on both sides, to be rather clear cut.

As for the New York Post and the New York Daily News, you’d never know from their front pages what Obama did Friday. Both papers put contraception aside, apparently, for full-page celebrations of Beyonce’s baby.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

The last time national politics provided such comedic lowlights was in 2008, when Tina Fey did her first Sarah Palin send-up on Saturday Night Live with a script that was remarkably close to Palin’s actual remarks, including, “I can see Russia from my house.” Who could make that up?

Chris Weyant / The Hill (click to view more cartoons by Weyant)

Here’s a Top Ten list of what’s strange but true in the campaign so far:

#10 — Newt Gingrich’s proposal to have school kids work as janitors, starting at age 9. He would fire the “unionized janitors” and replace them with low-paid students, working under a “master” janitor. It’s hard to imagine a plan that sweepingly offends more people — educators, students, parents and janitors, to name a few.

#9 — Rick Santorum’s assertion that states should have the right to ban contraception, despite the 1965 Supreme Court ruling to the contrary. Is Santorum aware that the overwhelming majority of Americans uses contraceptives, and few would be willing to move to another state to preserve that right?

#8 — Mitt Romney’s declaration that he’s not focusing on helping the “very poor.” At least he was being honest. If one of the wealthiest men ever to seek the presidency can’t get votes from poor people, it’s probably a waste of time to help them.

#7 — Ron Paul’s suggestion that the federal tax rate — for everyone — should be “zero.” That’s the type of nonsense that really fires up Paul’s determined followers, and it would probably make him a viable candidate if such fantasies were even remotely feasible.

#6 — Paul also advocates abolishing the minimum wage, claiming that such regulations make it more difficult for poor people to get jobs. If nothing else, Paul’s plan would make it easier for kids to earn a dollar an hour as janitors in a Gingrich administration.

#5 — Santorum’s vow to cut federal food stamp programs because people are too fat. He said this exact mouthful: “If hunger is a problem in America, then why do we have an obesity problem among the people who we say have a hunger program?”

#4 — Gingrich’s pledge not to debate President Obama if a professional “reporter” is allowed to be the moderator. He probably believes this fits with his bashing of all “elite media,” but no reporters? Such nonsense doesn’t even play well on Fox News.

#3 — Romney’s plan to address the immigration problem by having 12 million or more undocumented people “self-deport” back where they came from. You have to believe Romney wonders how that ever popped out of his mouth — and now he’s stuck defending it at every campaign stop.

#2 — Gingrich’s promise to build a colony on the moon by the end of his second term. Gingrich has fantasized for several decades about lunar development; he once authored a blueprint for making the moon the 51st state. That’s got to make voters in Puerto Rico feel good, not to mention the earth’s unemployed, hungry, and homeless. And what are budget-slashing, deficit-reducing conservatives to make of a multi-billion dollar moon mission?

#1 — Romney statement he “misspoke” about poor people. Actually, he said what he believed, and repeated it at least three times before claiming it was a slip of the tongue.

As we said, you just can’t make this stuff up.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

In the category of Falsely Characterizing Obama, Romney uses “European Socialist,” which is powerful and connects well with xenophobic voters. Gingrich relies on “Saul Alinsky Radical.” Alinsky, the Chicago populist who died in 1972, was best known for fighting on behalf of the poor and middle class — so drumming away at this obscure reference isn’t helping Gingrich. Edge: Romney.

Rick McKee / Augusta Chronicle (click to view more cartoons by McKee)

In the What’s My Fake Line? category, most registered Republicans are counting on the fact that anything beats “community organizer.” So, Gingrich calls himself an “historian,” while Romney professes to be a “businessman.” Neither candidate cares for “politician,” although that’s what they’ve each been for most of their adult lives. Edge: Romney.

In the all-important Wives category, Gingrich’s total of three is hard to top. Romney has only been married once, although his great grandfather did flee to Mexico with at least five wives to escape U.S. monogamy laws. Edge: Gingrich.

When it comes to Exaggerated Job Creation Claims, Gingrich boasts that he helped create an astounding 27 million jobs during the Reagan and Clinton administrations. The math and politics are fuzzy, but who wouldn’t vote for 27 million new jobs? Romney can only claim 120,000 jobs — most coming at places like Staples and Sports Authority long after his tenure. Unfortunately for Gingrich, GOP voters believe that government can’t create jobs, thus negating his 27 million. Edge: Romney.

Gingrich easily wins the Who I Want You to Think of When You Think of Me competition. Gingrich deftly cites Ronald Reagan in his answers to all questions. Romney, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to relate to anyone in his past — although he does, oddly, have a large photo of his father, George, on his campaign bus. He also used to mention his Irish Setter Seamus, until word got out that he once strapped Seamus to the roof of the family car for a 12-hour drive to Canada. Edge: Gingrich.

Fawning Over Hispanics is an important category in Florida, and Gingrich has hired former advisors to Sen. Marco Rubio along with several other local Hispanic leaders. But Romney trumps that by having his son Craig narrate campaign ads in Spanish. Edge: Romney.

There’s keen competition in the category of Personal Attacks, even though both men claim they’d rather not stoop to such things. Romney calls Gingrich a “failed leader”; Gingrich says Romney is “timid” and “confused”; Romney labels Gingrich “highly erratic”; Gingrich says Romney is full of “pious baloney.” Edge: even.

In the Wackiest Idea category, Gingrich appeared to have it wrapped up when he declared that students should be hired as school janitors. Then, in a stunning move, Romney bested him by announcing that he favors “self deportation” of illegal immigrants. Edge: Romney.

In the Whose Tax Returns are More Damning category, Gingrich has a lot of splainin’ to do about the $1.6 million he was paid by Freddie Mac to teach history. But Romney’s return not only revealed bank accounts in Switzerland, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, it put the lie to a fundamental GOP claim. If low tax rates for the wealthy — Romney paid about 15% — are supposed to spur job creation, then how many jobs did Romney create with over $40 million that he earned the last two years? None. Edge: Romney.

It’s a tight one. The best Romney and Gingrich backers can hope for is that it never comes down to the category all pageant hopefuls dread most: Congeniality.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

Fox News Channel carried the latest debate among GOP presidential candidates, during which Mitt Romney pledged never to support any laws whatsoever that limit gun sales in any way. Moving on to foreign policy, Romney said of our enemies, “We go anywhere and kill them.” Period.

In an incoherent rant, Rick Perry said Turkey should be kicked out of NATO, adding that its respected prime minister, Recep Erdognan, might be an Islamic terrorist.

David Fitzsimmons / Arizona Daily Star (click to view more by Fitzsimmons)

Newt Gingrich doubled down on his earlier piece of oddball thinking that 13-year-olds should work as janitors in schools. He added that as many as 30 such teen employees could be hired for the cost of a single professional janitor in New York City.

For a moment, Rick Santorum seemed like a flaming liberal when he said that felons, even those who had committed violent crimes, should be given the right to vote after they “have paid their debt to society.” Mitt Romney jumped in to make clear that he would never support such a thing.

Ron Paul, lovable gent that he is at these affairs, said the proper income tax rate for Americans is “zero.”

After two hours of this, plus an hour with Sean Hannity in the Spin Room — where the remarks were even more likely to cause dizziness — I turned on the radio. The host was Alex Jones, whose syndicated talk program is heard on over 60 stations, with commentary that Rolling Stone magazine said makes Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck “sound like tea-sipping NPR hosts on Zoloft.”

On this night Jones and his guest were discussing which countries would be the best places to flee to if politics and social programs made living in the U.S. intolerable. After detailed analysis of everything from tax rates to the behavior of dictators, they concluded that Canada and Australia were the best bets.

But the most disturbing element of Jones’s program turned out to be the commercials. During a single break, there were four 30-second spots, each thoroughly frightening.

The first was for food rations — the type you could store in your basement and survive on in the event of, well, just about any bad thing that would send you down to the basement for months at a time.

The next commercial was for a type of pill that combats the effects of nuclear fallout. An announcer cited the accident at a nuclear plant in Japan as good reason for Americans to buy one hundred of these pills but indicated they were also handy should we be thrust into, well, just about any sort of nuclear nightmare.

Then there was the ad for the holster — the one that made carrying a concealed gun more comfortable without any nasty pinching — since, well, we’ll all apparently be needing such weapons pretty soon.

Finally, there was a most unusual ad for rope. The announcer sang the praises of 500 feet of very strong rope, without actually indicating what you might use it for.

I told a conservative friend about the strange rope commercial. He said flatly, “If people become angry enough, there’s no telling what’s next, even lynchings.”

Go figure. I thought the ad meant: If watching the five current GOP candidates becomes intolerable, and if fleeing to Australia doesn’t seem viable, you might find 500 feet of rope handy to, well, hang yourself.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.candidcamera.com.

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

A dozen or more foragers trekked by this morning, remarkable when you consider that here in the Del Monte Forest I wouldn’t expect to see that many passersby in a month. Usually, cars are only parked on the sides of these roads during major golf tournaments, but since mushroom fever struck in November they’re wedged under trees and leaning into ditches, as their owners poke for porcinis.

Cam Cardow / Ottawa Citizen (click to view more cartoons by Cardow)

Perhaps it was the early fall rain and favorable temperatures that moved Mother Nature to make this the best porcini season in anyone’s memory. Maybe it was the sour economy that inspired so many folks to pay the fee to enter this renowned tourist venue, and then skip the scenic drive in favor of searching for pudgy mushrooms that retail for as much as $10 apiece.

An acquaintance for whom an hour of searching in past years sometimes led to a phone call with the news, “I found one!” reports she now has 186 porcinis in her freezer.

Two young men parked near my house last week and boasted they had a thousand dollars worth of orders from restaurants in San Francisco. Indeed, the back of their car was crammed with perfect Boletus edulis specimens, some with caps as wide as Frisbees.

Encouraged by my wife, who is a great cook but not a nature-lover, I took up the hunt. I managed to make every possible mistake — from using a plastic bag (it makes the porcinis “sweat”), to washing off the dirt rather than using a dry brush (they suck up the water and rot). I got poison oak on my face, cut my left hand in two places, and twisted an ankle tripping over a downed tree. Yet, it was exhilarating.

After a few weeks in the forest our dinner conversation began to sound like the scene from “Forrest Gump” in which Bubba obsesses about uses for shrimp. “You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, sauté it…” But regardless of your culinary creativity, there are only so many ways to cook porcinis.

So I placed an ad on Craig’s List offering “Grade AA” porcinis for $12 a pound. Soon I got a call from a woman who fit the necessary profile: she loves mushrooms but had been out of town since the harvest began, and wasn’t aware that this year porcinis are probably growing in her driveway. She paid me $20 for six smallish specimens.

Next I went to the fanciest restaurant in town, where the chef estimated I was the 25th porcini seller to come by. Nevertheless, he paid me $50 for a seven-pound bag.

The moral of this story — not the morel, because that’s an entirely different type of mushroom — probably has something to do with weather, economy, nature, human nature and capitalism. However, I can’t quite figure out which.

I recall my mother reminding me on dozens of occasions that “money doesn’t grow on trees.” She never talked about the times when it pokes out from under pine needles.

Anyway, mushroom season is ending. The woods look like a battlefield, with rutted earth and scattered carcasses of mushrooms that were ripped from the ground and then found to be either spoiled or the wrong variety. Foragers are hanging up their Boletus brushes, wondering if this bounty will occur again next fall.

Diehard scavengers will now turn from nature’s exquisite plan to duffers’ errant shots. The woods here provide hiding places for thousands of misplayed golf balls, some worth a buck or two at local golf shops. They can be found by anyone caring to do the Titleist Trot.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

©2012 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

Most politicians, going back several decades, have made writing a book part of their election game plan. But what’s happening in this political season — a season filled with all sorts of unusual twists — is that candidates are designing campaign appearances to sell books, and skirting federal election law to keep the profits.

John Darkow / Columbia Daily Tribune (click to view more cartoons by Darkow)

Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain before his campaign crashed, have taken book promotion to new heights. Gingrich regularly conducts book signings at campaign stops, where customers paying $25 might reasonably assume they are aiding the Gingrich election fund, while in fact the money is going straight to Newt and Callista Gingrich’s private company.

Mrs. Gingrich sells her children’s book at her husband’s campaign stops, and the Gingrich for President website enables visitors to purchase the full catalog of earlier Gingrich titles.

Bachmann’s recent campaign tour through South Carolina revolved around appearances at bookstores and, according to The Wall Street Journal, the trip was paid for by her publisher. Is she staying in the race despite shrinking poll numbers to sell more books?

Candidates are prohibited by law from profiting personally from campaign activities. But the Federal Election Commission was deadlocked this year in deciding whether candidates could host campaign events in places where publishers had paid them to travel. That opened the door to the current book-selling juggernaut.

John McCain and Barack Obama each had books out during the 2008 campaign, but neither hawked them at campaign appearances. Gingrich and Bachmann, on the other hand, routinely hold campaign events in bookstores.

While Cain was in the race, his campaign aides expressed frustration that travel plans were geared to book promotion rather than wooing votes in key states.

Even a wannabe like Donald Trump, who can’t seem to decide if he wants to run for president or just threaten to do so, has just published a book outlining his plans to rescue the nation.

Of the current candidates, only Mitt Romney has disclosed how much has been earned from book deals. Romney reportedly received more than $100,000 in royalties, and gave it to charity. Gingrich, Bachmann and the others won’t say.

Beyond money, writing a book — usually with help from a scholarly collaborator — provides a handy crutch in debates and on the stump. “It’s all in my book,” is the go-to answer when the questions get tough.

Sometimes, however, a book causes candidates to eat their words. Rick Perry’s case was a classic, when he talked about his highly controversial book on the “Today” show just a few months before announcing his candidacy.

“If there is a better signal of my plan for the future of not running for the presidency of the United States, it’s this book,” Perry said in November 2010. “Anyone running for the presidency is not going to take on these issues with the power that I do.”

Sometimes selling books is more difficult than attracting votes. According to The Journal, Bachmann’s publisher encouraged a bookstore in Iowa to buy 400 copies of the candidate’s book. The store opted for 200, and wound up selling 11.

The campaign that hasn’t even reached the voting stage continues to find new ways to make the political process into a media sideshow. There’s nothing wrong with authoring a book, but it’s discomfiting to watch the degree to which the current candidates are marketing their wares.

Ron Paul, who has written several books, has one on the market perfectly geared to the season. Not the campaign season, the holiday season. It’s the new edition of the “Ron Paul Family Cookbook.”

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

©2011 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

So, producers keep looking for ways to boost ratings, while concerned voters keep hoping for an approach that provides more insight into the candidates and their views. The objectives need not be mutually exclusive.

Joe Heller / Green Bay Press-Gazette (click to view more cartoons by Heller)

First, a few simple fixes. Stop pandering to social media devotees and toss out all references to Facebook, Twitter and the like. Viewers have plenty of time and digital space after each debate to post reactions and assess performances.

Also, do away with questions from the audience — both in the hall and submitted via YouTube. These heavily prescreened submissions add nothing and interrupt the logical flow that ought be developed among moderators and candidates.

Skip the sappy intros. In Tampa CNN introduced the players by nickname — “Michele Bachmann, The Firebrand,” “Rick Perry, The Newcomer,” “Rick Santorum, The Fighter.” For its Las Vegas debate, CNN had each candidate parade down a long ramp as if they were vying for the title of Miss America.

Stop wasting time. CNN’s John King established a low in New Hampshire, asking Santorum: “Leno or Conan?” And Bachmann: “Elvis or Johnny Cash?”

Avoid gotcha questions. John Harwood of CNBC scraped bottom when he asked Mitt Romney if, “as a CEO” he would “fire Herman Cain (for sexual harassment).”

Don’t limit answers to 30 seconds for questions that would, at minimum, require at least several minutes to address.

After this massive cleanup comes the more difficult task of improving content.

Allow the candidates to query each other. Give each participant an opportunity to pose questions to all opponents, and then rebut the answers.

Provide on-site fact checking. Rather than waiting hours for misstatements to be identified on the air and online, have a group of journalists ready to point out clear inaccuracies during the debate, and give candidates an opportunity to respond.

Take a cue from the old quiz show “Twenty-One” and have participants wear headphones during some question periods so they can’t hear their opponents’ answers. Alternatively, bring one candidate on stage at a time for intense questioning, while the others are sequestered.

Try a few debates without an audience. Recent debates have been marred by unsavory outbursts from audience members, and unlike in recent years moderators have made little effort to quiet them. While it is commonly thought that audience energy boosts the performances on stage, there might actually be greater drama and intensity if the candidates had to respond only to the cameras. Notably, the gripping debate that began the modern tradition, Kennedy v. Nixon, was conducted in a television studio with no audience.

With the audience removed, place the podiums in a circle so candidates must look one and other in the eyes.

Show video clips. Use the technique popularized by NBC’s “Meet the Press” and confront candidates with actual footage of statements they have made previously.

Trim the field. After the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3 it would be wise to have fewer participants, based upon results in Iowa and national polls.

Finally, don’t over do it. There have been 11 GOP debates since May, and at least two more are scheduled before actual voting begins. Holding too many debates — especially more than one in a given week — does nothing but squelch audience interest while compelling candidates to dwell more than ever on safe, memorized talking points.

Television producers reflexively use techniques that sometimes work in attracting a mass audience. But when it comes to the presidency, discerning viewers would probably vote for quality information over ratings-driven TV.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com. 

©2011 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

They touched us all, but for me each had a special connection.

Rick McKee / Augusta Chronicle (click to view more cartoons by McKee)

Tom Wicker was more than a great reporter, he was a progressive thinker who dared tread close to the line that separates impartial journalism from outright activism — at a time when it was far less common than it is today. During his three-decade career at The New York Times that ended in 1991, he was a powerful voice in civil rights and anti-war movements, speaking from a perch that gave him clout with presidents as well as millions of Americans.

In 1971, after writing about unacceptable prison conditions nationwide, Wicker found himself part of the story at Attica prison in upstate New York. He agreed to join a negotiating team during an uprising by inmates, and wound up watching in horror as 29 prisoners and 10 hostages died in an assault by state troopers and guards.

Wicker wrote “A Time to Die” about his experience, and many believe it was the best of his 20 books. Ten years later it was made into a movie by ABC. The Times assigned me to interview Wicker and the filmmakers to find out why the movie was relatively soft while the book was so hard-hitting.

Wicker explained that, in print, “I was able to (present) a number of things involving the problems of criminal justice in America, racism and violence in America.” Film, he told me, “doesn’t work very well that way.” Tom Wicker was a print guy all right, at a time when that was the most important thing a journalist could be.

Andy Rooney not only entertained us, he made us think — not about big, complicated matters but about little things that knit to form our lives. “Curmudgeon” was a word several writers used to describe him. Having been his neighbor in Connecticut I can confirm that he was as grouchy at the hardware store as he was on “60 Minutes.”

What intrigued me most about Rooney was his ability to notice things in life that many of us tend to overlook, and his relentless pursuit of society’s peccadilloes. Andy Rooney was the type of journalist who had the canny ability to make us think while also making us smile.

Hal Bruno was not a household name, but as chief of political coverage for ABC News, where I worked for five years, he helped develop the type of analysis and numbers-crunching that we now take for granted.

He moderated several notable debates, including the vice presidential confrontation between Al Gore and Dan Quayle. Unlike today’s televised debates in which moderators increasingly seek to egg on candidates with gotcha questions, Hal Bruno was a master of the low-key, studious approach aimed at eliciting great answers rather than just good TV.

Bil Keane’s work appeared in the comic section, but it managed to trigger our emotions as much as anything on the front page. “The Family Circus,” a simple panel with parents and kids who haven’t aged a bit since its debut in 1959, remains a staple in over 1,500 newspapers.

It’s schmaltzy yet real, as when little Jeffy asks his mother, “Can I wear my short-sleeve pants?” Or when Billy exclaims, “Mom’s cooking my favorite dinner. It’s called leftovers.”

I never met Bil Keane, but often felt he was part of my family. In the sixties he drew a comic panel called “Channel Chuckles,” for which his favorite subject seemed to be my father’s program, “Candid Camera.” As always, the humor was pointed, yet kind. Bil Keane’s real-life son, Jeff, has been helping with “Family Circus” for some time, so the institution will continue — a passing of the media torch with which I’m familiar.

Taken together, the work of these four men provides a good picture of what great journalism can be, regardless of the form it takes or the era in which it is practiced.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2011 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

The more significant reason, however, is that the format is an extension of what is happening in new digital media — a process that could be called thought dependence, or chatter box syndrome.

The model for this type of program is “The View,” ABC’s coffee klatch gathering of celebrity women, led by Barbara Walters, which has been around since 1997. Although successful, and replicated in other countries, “The View” did not spawn many U.S. imitators until recently. Then, with almost the viral speed known to the Internet, the format popped up on dozens of broadcast and cable outlets.

Rob Tornoe / PoliticalCartoons.com (click to view more cartoons by Tornoe)

CBS has an almost identical program called “The Talk.” Fox News Channel recently launched “The Five” and “Red Eye.” Just about every network, from ESPN to Bravo, has introduced shows devoted to lowbrow chitchat.

Existing programs have also implemented the format, including Sean Hannity’s “The Great American Panel” on Fox News, and “The Professionals” on NBC’s “Today” show.

Talk programming is nothing new on TV — in fact, it’s been a staple since the earliest days. What’s different is that the newer chat shows don’t often bother with guests or “experts”; rather, they rely on a permanent roster of B-list panelists, whom viewers get to know much as they do the casts of “Jersey Shore” or the “Real Housewives.”

It wasn’t long ago that most “talking heads” were anathema to television programmers, except in the wee hours and on Sunday mornings. So what changed?

For one thing, there’s the Fluff Factor. During these stressful economic and social times, many viewers are worn out by serious problems for which there seem to be no solutions. They use social media to dwell on smaller issues — and they enjoy watching groups of their TV “friends” chatting about the same innocuous things.

Julie Chen, host of “The Talk,” calls her program “a support group for women out there” — what one critic quickly termed, “virtual girlfriends for people who don’t have real ones.” Or, perhaps, folks whose friends are only on Facebook.

The tabloid topics that provide fodder for chat TV are the ones showcased minute-to-minute on the home pages of Yahoo and AOL as well as on TMZ, Twitter and Google. It’s the “hot topic” of the moment — be it the Michael Jackson verdict, Kim Kardashian’s wedding fiasco, the Penn State scandal, and so forth.

Even when the chatterazzi turn to meaningful areas like politics, they tend to overdose on the more sensational issues such as Herman Cain’s sexual harassment charges or Rick Perry’s “brain freeze.” And like the Internet, TV kibitzing rarely shapes opinions; it only tends to reinforce views through verbal mastication.

CBS has just announced the hiring of veteran talkers Charlie Rose and Gayle King, who will preside over a chat-based format as part of a total overhaul of “The Early Show.” While Rose will attempt a serious news-based approach in the first hour, the second hour with King will be patterned after “The View” and “The Talk.”

That such slender formats can gain popularity on TV underscores the basic loneliness in the digital age, along with the growing preference for softer, less threatening themes.

The trend in talk TV, where harshness is yielding to sappiness — as with Fox’s replacement of the bombastic Glenn Beck with “The Five” — is mirrored by “reality” programming, where innocuous song and dance competitions now attract more viewers than insect-eating contests.

The sad thing about chat TV, with its virtual friends from Hollywood’s and Washington’s B lists, is that it’s no more “real” than reality TV. As entertainment, it’s harmless; as a forum for public opinion, it’s rather frightening.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2011 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

Nate Beeler / Washington Examiner (More cartoons about Perry's brain freeze)

No network programmer could have invented a TV series with such pop.

There have already been 10 (!) of these nationally televised spectacles — entertainment gifts that just keep on giving. No wonder Republicans tell pollsters they like Herman Cain: they don’t want him voted off the show. Viewers want Cain and Bachmann and the others to hang in there, just as they kept voting for Nancy Grace on “Dancing with the Stars” even though she’s as awkward on the dance floor as Rick Perry is at the podium.

And there are at least 13 (!) more installments of this great show scheduled, with the next one this Saturday night (!) so we can get to know these people like the real housewives of Beverly Hills.

Don’t you just plotz when Newt Gingrich tells the moderators how stupid they are? In the latest episode, on CNBC, Gingrich told Maria Bartiromo, “I love humor disguised as a question.” Way back in Episode 3, Gingrich scolded Chris Wallace of Fox for asking “gotcha questions” that are “Mickey Mouse.”

The GOP should get a toy duck like on Groucho Marx’s old show that drops down whenever someone says the secret word. Will Bachmann say “Obamacare” before Cain manages to say “9-9-9″? Will Perry use the term “wrecking ball” before Gingrich mentions Ronald Reagan?

Just watching them is captivating. Ron Paul’s suit jacket always looks like it’s still got the hanger sticking out the back. Michelle Bachmann runs off stage during commercials to fix her makeup. Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum now get stuck at the far ends and keep making faces because they’re so rarely asked to speak.

Rick Perry has become the show’s Jethro Clampett. He said in the CNBC debate that he’d eliminate three federal agencies, and then could only name two. Ron Paul tried to help him; the moderator offered more time, but Perry just laughed awkwardly and said, “Oops.” OK, fine, Perry can’t dance, but he’s great for the show!

Herman Cain, never at a loss for words, wowed the audience in the CNBC debate by referring to House Democratic Leader Pelosi as “Princess Nancy.” This, from a guy who’s been accused by at least four women of sexual harassment.

What I love about the GOP gang is that no matter what the question, they know a good answer is: “I will never apologize for the United States of America!” That line is always followed by wild applause.

Speaking of applause, where in Hollywood do they find the audiences for these debates? They boo gay soldiers and cheers executions — just like on Jerry Springer’s program. On CNBC they even booed Bartiromo when she dared ask Cain about the harassment thing. After that, co-moderator John Harwood got even louder boos by asking Romney if, as a CEO, he’d fire Herman Cain — a foolish question that Romney wisely ducked.

My favorite debate so far was the one in Las Vegas when CNN’s Anderson Cooper had each performer walk down a long ramp at the Sands Hotel as if they were contestants in the Miss America pageant. Cooper even told the audience to stand for the national anthem by “Tony award-winner Anthony Crivello, starring as the Phantom in ‘Phantom Las Vegas,’ the Las Vegas spectacular!”

Naturally, after each of these shows there’s the post-debate coverage in which all the candidates get to hug their spouses — except Cain, whose wife never attends — and then repeat everything they said a few minutes earlier. They should really get Andy Cohen to host these segments the way he does on Bravo with the real housewives, but Cohen’s gay so the Republican audience would likely drown him out with boos.

If Gallup happens to phone your house, insist that you’re voting for all eight candidates. If Nielsen calls, say you watch every debate with several dozen friends between the ages of 18 and 49, with high disposable incomes.

Keep supporting this great series, and never apologize for America!

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2011 Peter Funt. Columns distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For more info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. Email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561

Taylor Jones / Cagle Cartoons (click to view more Herman Cain cartoons)

Herman Cain’s legacy, although lesser, will also be noteworthy because he has morphed into the nation’s first truly post-racial presidential candidate. Despite his meteoric rise in the polls, Republican voters will ultimately reject Cain without any nagging concerns that they are doing so because he’s black.

Obama proved he is smart enough, compassionate enough and – despite the destructive partisanship of the moment – politically savvy enough to lead the nation, regardless of his race. Cain, on the other hand, is so unqualified and so lacking in the expertise needed to lead the nation, that he can be easily dismissed without any hint of racial bias.

Herman Cain has no chance whatsoever of being the Republican nominee for president. His surprising poll numbers reflect the deep division within the party. By telling pollsters they favor Cain, few voters mean they want him as president – they mean they’re unhappy with a remarkably lackluster field.

In the early stages, every presidential campaign has its share of pretenders. Some, like Donald Trump, flirt with running to exercise their egos. Others, like Michelle Bachmann, are angling for face-time in the national spotlight and, perhaps, a shot at the vice presidency. In Cain’s case, the pizza executive launched his campaign to promote his book. He had no serious political organization, and his schedule was tailored more to selling books than winning primaries.

Numerous factors disqualify Cain from serious consideration as a presidential candidate, but there’s little need to look beyond his centerpiece tax plan known as 9-9-9. Cain would replace the current system with a 9 percent income tax, a 9 percent corporate tax, and a 9 percent national sales tax. There would be few exceptions in any of the three categories – although Cain’s handlers are already adding them, such as an exception for selling “used” things, including houses.

As widely noted on both sides of the aisle, Cain’s oversimplified plan would wreck the already troubled economy. It would, incredibly, serve to further reduce the tax obligations of the wealthy, while dramatically increasing the burden on the poor and middle class.

Cain’s tax plan, like his entire candidacy, is only relevant to the extent that it underscores the nation’s problems. The current tax system is unjust and sorely in need of simplification. Beyond that, however, the nation will never adopt a 9-9-9 formula, nor will it have a President Cain.

Even most conservatives will reject Cain after fully digesting the fact that he opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, plans to privatize Social Security, and has said that Muslims would have to take a loyalty oath to serve in his administration.

Referring to his unexpected jump in the polls, Cain wondered, “Will I be the flavor of the week?” Then, answering with a quip that sounded as half-baked as his campaign, he said: “No, because Haagen-Dazs black walnut tastes good all the time.” (The company has discontinued the flavor, saying it failed to meet expectations.)

In an interview with CNN, Cain said black voters have been “brainwashed” into voting for liberals and are not “open minded” when it comes to considering a conservative point of view. The remark is calculatingly designed to attract white support.

Cain is merely a token of the frustration Republican voters feel with the state of the nation and the state of their party.

If nothing else, it’s a sign of progress that Herman Cain can be referred to as a “token” without even a hint of racism.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

234: The number of executions in Texas since Rick Perry has been governor.

Bill Schorr / Cagle Cartoons (click to view our Cartoon Blog)

271: The number of convictions reversed, including many capital cases, by DNA evidence since the creation of the Innocence Project.

It was Perry’s record that received loud, seemingly spontaneous, and chilling applause during the Sept. 7 debate among Republicans. Meanwhile, the work of the non-profit Innocence Project goes on quietly nationwide and in Texas, where its efforts have been met with government resistance.

In the debate, NBC’s Brian Williams said to Perry: “Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times. Have you…” The audience at the Ronald Reagan library and museum interrupted with wild applause. Williams continued: “Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent?”

“No sir. I’ve never struggled with that at all,” replied Perry, who went on to talk about Texas justice in an oversimplified way that failed to address the question’s underlying truth: that innocent people have been jailed and executed in Texas and that Perry’s administration is taking steps to make such horrors even more likely in the future.

Williams followed up: “What do you make of that dynamic that just happened here, the mention of the execution of 234 people drew applause?”

Perry threw red meat to the crowd when he answered: “I think Americans understand justice.”

During Perry’s time in office, five death row inmates in his state have been exonerated, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

One person who wasn’t so fortunate, Cameron Todd Willingham, was executed under Perry’s watch, even as new evidence suggested he was innocent. Perry intervened to halt the exculpatory forensic process in the Willingham case, replacing three members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission. He refused to grant a stay of execution.

Barry Scheck, the noted attorney who heads the Innocence Project, is now fighting to have the Willingham investigation continue, for the benefit of others who might be falsely convicted. Scheck wrote in the Houston Chronicle that Texas officials “are protecting themselves and shielding Gov. Rick Perry from potential criticism and political backlash stemming from the fact that a man was allowed to be executed even though his conviction was based on flawed and outdated science.”

The former chairman of the Texas Forensic Science Commission has now told CNN that Perry and other Texas officials worked to “squash” the Willingham investigation.

Since reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, more than one third of all executions in the U.S. have taken place in Texas. That’s nothing to cheer about.

There are many reasons to oppose capital punishment. In my view, it is morally wrong and inappropriate regardless of other debatable considerations such as deterrence of crime, and monetary cost to society.

But even among those who support the death penalty — including Rick Perry and the audience at the debate — the possibility of wrongfully executing someone, as well as undermining the process by which such miscarriages could be avoided, should be viewed as nothing less than the horror that it is.

When the audience burst out with applause, Perry could have said, “Hold on. We’re all entitled to our views, and as governor I do what I believe is best for my state. But it’s wrong to cheer over anyone’s death, under any circumstances.”

Instead Perry smirked. And the audience cheered. And the nation was left to wonder whether this was simply another display of shamelessly extreme politics, or whether it reflects a deeper, more troubling divide in our society.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

What makes the 2012 campaign so intriguing – and frightening – is that it may be determined by two other elements: the far right and the far left.

John Cole / Scranton Times-Tribune (click to view more Rick Perry cartoons)

The role of extremists – arch conservatives and progressives – is nothing new. They’ve always sought to move the needle in their direction and then, when push came to voting, rallied around the candidate of their party. If they didn’t it was ruinous, as in 2000 when Ralph Nader mounted a third-party challenge from the left, causing the defeat of Democrat Al Gore.

So in 2012, which extreme group will rally and which will revolt?

The conservative right, increasingly bound to absolute positions and refusal to compromise, may be gaining enough strength to derail the Republican Party’s chances in ’12. Two of its front-runners, Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann, are pitching a brand of extremism that works in primaries but has far less chance of success in a general election.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board worries that Bachmann seems “less principled than opportunistic” and Perry has too much “muscular religiosity” among other negatives. It dismisses Mitt Romney as simply “weak,” and wishes that “someone still off the field will step in and run.” That someone would presumably be less beholden to the extreme right, perhaps New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who is said to be reconsidering entering the race.

Meanwhile, although President Obama has nothing to fear in the nominating process, he is being pecked by progressives. Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, the Senate’s most liberal member, said recently it would be a “good idea” if Obama faced primary challenges. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin called upon progressives to be more outspoken in criticizing the president.

Some liberal talkshow hosts and opinion writers are even less restrained in showing anger, claiming that Obama hasn’t done enough to retain the support of those who worked so diligently on his ’08 campaign. Compared to the far right, however, which has virtually captured the policy-making wing of the Republican party, the far left is fragmented and has limited influence.

The true objective in presidential politics is to elect a party rather than a person. Idealists on both edges wish that were not the case. They hate giving ground to candidates and causes that don’t fully measure up to their vision.

What should worry Republicans is that its extreme right has been emboldened by no-holds-barred, no-chance-of-compromise positions. Tim Pawlenty, once thought to be a serious GOP contender, said as he abruptly dropped out, “I brought a rational, established, credible strong record of results, but the audience was looking for something different.”

Pawlenty is conveniently ignoring his underwhelming performances in two debates, but his assessment of those currently crafting the Republican message is spot on.

What should worry Democrats is that the far left has been discouraged, if not paralyzed, by Obama’s failures – despite the fact that most were caused by Republican obstructionism. A half-hearted campaign effort by disillusioned liberals could be enough to tip the election the wrong way.

Progressives wish for a president who would speak more forcefully on controversial issues without worrying so much about appeasing the other party. Conservatives wish for a president who could be unyielding on issues that have stirred so much anger within their ranks.

As 2012 draws near, both extreme factions should be careful what they wish for.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and speaker and can be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Back in the summer of 2007, as the races “heated up,” Rudy Giuliani was the overwhelming favorite among Republicans, with a polling lead of 20 percentage points over his nearest opponent. In second place was a man who wound up spending $21 million to become the Jeopardy question: Who is Fred Thompson?

Bob Englehart / Hartford Courant (click to view our newest cartoons)

That summer John McCain changed places in the polls with Mitt Romney, but not the way you might imagine. McCain actually dropped from third to fourth.

On the Democratic side in July ’07, Hillary Clinton’s lead over Barack Obama was about 13 percentage points, and the John Edwards campaign had raised $25 million. If only volunteers and contributors had known how much more productive their summers would have been had they just read books and sipped cocktails at the beach.

Now, here we are four years later, doing the same dance, with GOP front-runners Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann.

The former Massachusetts governor has raised over $18 million in just the last three months, and probably has a greater chance of being the nominee than Giuliani did at this stage four years ago. Supporters say Romney “looks presidential”; detractors say he’s plastic, even phony.

More troubling for his candidacy is that Romney’s positions on key issues have changed as often as the summer winds.

Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman, has basked in positive press since the New Hampshire debate, and is now in a virtual tie with Romney in Iowa. A native of the state, she’ll do well in next month’s Iowa Straw Poll, further encouraging the hopes of those who take her candidacy seriously.

But Bachmann is merely a pretender. She has no chance whatsoever of winning the nomination. She’s playing for position — as the vice presidential candidate, or for a Palin-sized payoff on the lecture and book-plugging circuits.

Then there’s Tim Pawlenty, who has been campaigning in Iowa for nearly two years, yet faces possible elimination from the race if he stumbles badly in the Aug. 13 straw poll. Pawlenty was underwhelming in the New Hampshire debate, and his efforts since have been overshadowed by Bachmann’s pizzazz and Romney’s polish.

As Pawlenty put it on the stump in Ames: “One of the things that voters in Iowa and across the country want to know is ‘Do you just flap your jaw, or do you have results that you can back up these statements with?’”

Pawlenty scored just 6 percent in the Des Moines Register poll — nearly 16 points behind Romney and Bachmann. Pizza exec Herman Cain, who has never held public office, was third with 10 percent.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul had 7 percent each; former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, 4 percent; and former Utah Gov. and ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, 2 percent.

Four summers ago, Romney won the Iowa Straw Poll, but then Mike Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus, and John McCain became the GOP nominee.

Summer campaigns, it seems, are more valuable for weeding out the weaker candidates than for confirming the eventual standard-bearer. It’s part of the endurance test that has become essential to presidential politics.

Plus, the media love it, and the public tolerates it.

As the summer of ’07 ended, Rudy Giuliani’s numbers began to melt. A Romney aide clucked that Giuliani’s huge lead was as real as “Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.”

So, is there an actual nominee in this summer’s GOP crop? Or just a list of future Jeopardy questions?

—–

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker and may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

Mike Keefe / Denver Post (click to view our latest cartoons)

In striking down the 2005 law – that was never actually implemented due to legal challenges – the Court continued its campaign to safeguard the First Amendment. Last year, it ruled 8-to-1 against a federal law prohibiting depictions of animal cruelty such as those in videos about dog fighting.

But the 7-2 decision voiding the video game law leaves open serious questions. When should First Amendment privileges be suspended for the protection of children? Should a modern interpretation of “obscenity” include violence and not just sex? At what point will ultra-realistic video games be more akin to actual violence and less like the fiction of an earlier era?

These are troubling issues, about which the Supreme Court remains conflicted.

When it comes to protecting children, society takes a wide range of prudent steps – covering everything from voting, to driving, to drinking. Obscenity laws, too, are different for kids, as affirmed by the 1968 Supreme Court ruling that upheld limits on access to sexual materials by minors.

But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in the video game case, stressed that depiction of violent acts has never been restricted, even for kids. That may be legally correct, but it is morally flawed.

As Justice Stephen Breyer said in his dissenting opinion, “What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting the sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?”

The Court noted that research on the effects of video games is inconclusive. But many types of causes and effects are difficult to pin down scientifically, which is why the debate raged for decades about the dangers of tobacco, and rambles on today about climate change. Psychologists face a particularly difficult challenge in evaluating the impact of video gaming because the technology is evolving so rapidly.

Like the definitions of obscenity, which were so subjective at the time of the landmark 1968 ruling as to include the term “girlie magazines,” a reasonable evaluation of video violence may hinge more on intuitive reasoning and community standards than on laboratory results. The fact that the U.S. military uses video games for certain forms of combat training should provide a clue about their power.

Here’s the crux of the problem, in the very words of Justice Scalia: “Our cases have been clear that the obscenity exception to the First Amendment does not cover whatever a legislature finds shocking, but only depictions of ‘sexual conduct.’” That postulate, when children are involved, is shortsighted.

What does it say about society that extreme graphic violence is acceptable for young people, while sex is obscene?

Justice Samuel Alito voted against the California law despite his concern that the violence in modern video games “is astounding.” He said the statute was poorly written, giving too broad a definition of objectionable violent content. However, Alito seemed to suggest that California legislators could draft a new law spelling out more clearly the narrow range of video violence that should be off limits to kids. They should.

Alito wisely added, “developing technology may have important societal implications that will become apparent only with time.”

Safeguarding free speech and protecting our children need not be in conflict. However, waiting for scientific evidence of the “societal implications” about which Justice Alito warns, is a game that responsible adults cannot afford to play.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker and may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Pat Bagley / Salt Lake Tribune (click to view our latest cartoons)

Both men will be scrutinized because of their affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and, in Romney’s case, because he has made religion a cornerstone of his campaigns. When he sought the presidency four years ago, Romney famously said, “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”

But even without the focus on the two Mormon hopefuls, the need for national candidates to establish religious credentials is growing. With each election cycle, it is becoming increasingly important for politicians to pledge their faith in faith.

Basically, we’re entitled to know everything about candidates for high office, right down to whether Coca-Cola is their preferred soft drink, as Tim Pawlenty confirmed recently; whether they have a valid birth certificate, and whether they’ve circulated lewd photos of themselves on Twitter.

Religious views are worth examining, we’re told, insofar as they might influence a candidate’s decisions. But is that relevant? Let’s say candidate A favors a woman’s right to chose an abortion, while candidate B states that abortion violates his religious principles. Does it matter where the position originates?

A position is a position, regardless of how it’s formed. However, yielding to pressure from religious organizations is something different, and certainly cause for concern.

Evaluating Huntsman’s candidacy, Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute, a conservative think tank in Utah, wrote, I, like many Americans, care that our nation’s highest leader is a person of faith. It matters to me because it becomes a point of commonality and a measuring stick for me as to how I might better understand that person’s politics and policies.

That’s where the religious litmus test comes in. Many of the declared or potential candidates appeared in Washington earlier this month at a “strategy briefing” sponsored by the Faith & Freedom Coalition, an organization headed by Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition. They gathered to state their support of the group’s positions on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

Back in 2008, as the campaign heated up, candidates appeared in a televised religious examination conducted by Rev. Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life. Among Warren’s questions to Barack Obama and John McCain: What does it mean to you to be a follower of Jesus Christ?

Both men were guarded but answered dutifully. One wonders, however, if the reply, I’m not a follower, would have meant instant disqualification, especially among Republicans, where Christianity has the strongest grip.

In the last three presidential elections, voters who identified themselves as Protestant or other Christian, voted overwhelmingly for the Republican. Jews voted by large margins for the Democrat, as did those who said they were unaffiliated with any organized religion.

In a Quinnipiac poll, only 45 percent of Republicans surveyed said they had a favorable opinion of the Mormon Church. That would seem to present a major problem for both Huntsman and Romney.

Romney spoke of the matter at great length in his campaign four years ago. There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines, he said. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith.

Yet, Romney’s insistence that freedom requires religion, diffused his argument, particularly for those who have witnessed the religious-cloaked turmoil in many parts of the world, as well as among those with no religious beliefs.

Those worried about the increasing role of religion in politics should take note of the plan by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a possible Republican presidential candidate, to conduct a day of prayer on Aug. 6, with a strictly evangelical Christian theme. Perry says he’s seeking spiritual solutions to the nation’s problems.

Many politicians pay lip service to separation of church and state, while kowtowing to powerful religious groups and bending over to answer questions about religion that really should have no part in the election process.

It is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in , for that should be important only to me , but what kind of America I believe in. So said John F. Kennedy, as he sought to become the nation’s first Catholic president.

Clearly, JFK would not have imagined, nor favored, the intense role that religion plays in presidential politics some five decades later.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker and may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com.

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Easiest to lampoon was the so-called “This or That” line of questions from which we learned that Michele Bachmann has “Christmas with Elvis” on her iPod, that Herman Cain, the former pizza magnate, prefers deep dish, and that Rick Santorum cares for neither Jay Leno nor Conan O’Brien.

Bob Englehart / Hartford Courant (click to view our latest cartoons)

In fact, those tidbits were among the highlights – which doesn’t say much about the candidates or the format. With the debate process starting early, and likely to include more such events than ever, what can be learned from CNN’s approach?

Foremost is that while social media are a powerful force in our lives, they have yet to be tapped for any useful purpose in televised debates. The relentless urging by host John King for viewers to send questions and comments via Facebook and Twitter achieved nothing, except to underscore CNNâ?Ts desire to be socially connected.

Not a single online question was used in the two-hour event. Yet, at one point King alluded to questions that were coming in, such as: “Would you have released the bin Laden photos?” “Would you support Israel at any cost if they’re attacked by surrounding hostile countries?”

“Good questions from our viewers there,” said King, and he then proceeded to ignore them.

CNN’s offer of “exclusive” information for those with smart phones was another promotion without purpose. “One of the things we are very eager to do throughout the campaign is to involve you at home and to use technology and innovation,” King explained. There was no evidence that CNN has figured out how to do it.

Although King continually referred to the format as a “conversation,” it wasn’t. The process of cutting to various remote locations for questions from the public may give the appearance of being folksy, while keeping things moving in a reality-TV sense, but it is not the best way to frame questions or elicit information.

Few campaigns in recent memory have had such pointed issues about which to debate. The wars, economy, healthcare, employment, environment. Where does each candidate stand? Because of CNN’s scatter-shot format, after Monday night we still don’t know.

Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith, for instance, is certain to be an issue for some voters. Yet, when the debate turned to religion, the question about church and state was put to only three of the candidates, and Romney was never heard from.

King announced that the “honor system” would replace flashing lights to limit the candidates’ responses. What viewers got instead, by way of King’s open microphone, were his constant “ouhs” and “oums” that started almost immediately after each candidate began to speak.

A cardinal rule for debate moderators: If you want to limit answers to 30 seconds, don’t ask questions that require at least a few minutes for a cogent response.

It is difficult for any format to accommodate seven candidates on one stage (in the early going four years ago, there were 10 Republicans at one debate). But the greater the number of participants the more critical it is that the format be streamlined and the questions be sharp.

At the end, King asked each candidate, “What have you learned in the last two hours?”

Michele Bachmann replied, “Tve learned more about the goodness of the American people.”

For most CNN viewers – beyond the fact that Tim Pawlenty prefers Coke over Pepsi – the answer was, “Not much.”

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

On page one of the Monterey Herald was a report about the state’s overcrowded prisons, a situation so grim that it required action last month by the U.S. Supreme Court in which California was ordered to reduce its inmate population by 33,000.

Daryl Cagle / msnbc.com (click to view more cartoons by Cagle)

Accompanying the story was a photo of prisoners at the California State Prison in Los Angeles. It showed a gymnasium-size room, with three-tiered bunk beds crammed together so tightly that there was barely room for inmates to so much as shift position by a foot or two. There isn’t a zoo in America that treats its animals that way.

But the news on page two was even more depressing. It concerned a 15-year-old who will be “tried as an adult” for the 2009 murders of two women. If convicted, the boy would be the youngest in county history to face a possible sentence of life in prison without the chance for parole.

The decision by Judge Marla Anderson ignores recent scientific findings about child development with respect to criminal responsibility. It also contradicts the emerging wisdom, if not the letter, of a ruling last year by the U.S. Supreme Court. Moreover, it defies reasonable and compassionate thinking about the treatment of juvenile offenders.

In jurisprudence, the U.S. remains a backward nation, lagging behind much of the civilized world regarding capital punishment, torture of military prisoners and, most alarmingly, treatment of minors.

While the Supreme Court has yet to rule specifically about trying juveniles as adults, it did in 2005 bar states from executing anyone for a crime committed as a minor. In a separate case last year, it ruled that no juvenile may be sentenced to life without parole for any crime other than murder.

There are “fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the 2010 opinion. Indeed, just last month experts gathered in Phoenix to review the latest scientific findings, the most significant of which is that human psychosocial development doesn’t fully mature until at least age 22.

A staggering number of youngsters – roughly 250,000 – are tried as adults in the U.S. each year. However, according to the latest information from the Campaign for Youth Justice in Washington, 15 states have changed their policies about trying kids as adults, and reform efforts are underway in nine other states.

Juvenile justice advocates are watching a case in Pennsylvania in which a boy named Jordan Brown is charged with killing his father’s pregnant fiancée. Jordan was 11 at the time. A Lawrence County judge ordered him tried as an adult because he failed to show “remorse,” but the ruling was recently overturned by a Superior Court panel that ordered further review.

“Remorse” is part of the very psychological development pattern that makes youngsters distinctly different than adults – regardless of other circumstances, including the severity of their crimes.

While it would be reasonable to incarcerate a convicted juvenile until age 21 and then review carefully his psychological status before considering the ultimate sentence, to prosecute an 11 year-old and throw away the key is barbaric.

Children should not be categorized in the legal system based upon a courtroom appearance. The kid who commits a crime at age 14 might look and act very differently when standing before a judge two years later – in terms of height, weight, facial hair and general maturity – yet what matters is his developmental status at the moment the crime was committed.

That there are extenuating circumstances in many juvenile cases only serves to further cloud the question of essential fairness. In the California case, for example, the 15-year-old murder suspect has an IQ of 72, meaning he is mildly retarded. He is not accused of firing the murder weapon; rather, police say he pushed in the door and watched as someone else committed the crime.

Still, Judge Anderson declared that his “depravity of heart” make him unsuited for treatment in the juvenile system.

Murder is a horrible crime, regardless of the age of the perpetrator. Dangerous juvenile offenders should be neither coddled nor carelessly returned to society.

Yet, to suggest that children should be tried and sentenced as adults simply because the crimes of which they are accused cross a particular line of severity, shows that the real depravity resides in our society and in our souls.

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

The better you are at conjuring up images of yourself munching food, the less likely you are to actually overeat.

Who knew?

Petar Pismestrovic, Kleine Zeitung (click to view our latest cartoons)

“These findings suggest that trying to suppress one’s thoughts of desired foods in order to curb cravings for those foods is a fundamentally flawed strategy,” said Carey Morewedge, author of the report. “Our studies found that instead, people who repeatedly imagined the consumption of a morsel of food – such as an M&M or cube of cheese – subsequently consumed less of that food than did people who imagined consuming the food a few times or performed a different but similarly engaging task.”

Not since Professor Harold Hill discovered that students could master playing band instruments by using the Think System in “The Music Man,” has there been such hope for daydream believers.

“We think these findings will help develop future interventions to reduce cravings for things such as unhealthy food, drugs and cigarettes,” said Morewedge.

The key to the discovery involves a process known as “habituation,” by which imagining an experience becomes a substitute for really doing it. Thus, in order to reduce their actual intake, participants in the study had to imagine themselves consuming food rather than simply picturing the food itself. With M&M candies, researchers said imagining yourself eating 30 of them, one at a time, would likely result in you eating less when you turned to the real thing.

How far can this go? Can we imagine our way to a thicker head of hair? Is there benefit to envisioning more digits on our paychecks?

Skeptics will point out that for over 100 years baseball fans in Chicago have pictured the Cubs winning the World Series, but it hasn’t brought them a championship. Donald Trump imagines himself as being a smart guy, without much to show for it. Then there’s the fact that the world did not end last month despite the vivid imagination of California preacher Harold Camping.

On the other hand, we all know that Rep. John Boehner devoted many months to picturing himself as Speaker of the House and then, last fall, miraculously attained the position. Ann Curry spent 14 years at the “Today” show picturing herself in the anchor seat, and now look at her. And what does habituation tell us about the future for Sarah Palin, who seems to have conjured detailed mental images of herself in the White House – right down to what she’ll be wearing at cabinet meetings?

In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, “The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.”

Right now in my dreams I’m picturing myself on a beach, looking more fit than ever before, sipping a cocktail from a glass with one of those paper umbrellas in it, tapping out a Pulitzer Prize-winning column on a laptop given to me along with a personal tutorial by Steve Jobs, while Barrack Obama waits patiently to ask my advice about something as soon as Lady Gaga finishes just one more song.

Of course, I’m counting on the fact that Prof. Morewedge and his colleagues at Carnegie Mellon actually conducted their research, rather than just sitting around imagining it.

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

Maybe that’s it. Maybe in the minds of Barack Obama’s bigoted opponents it’s one thing to elect a black guy, to have him break the barrier and take a seat in the front of the bus – but it’s quite another thing if he carries on like he actually deserves it.

John Cole / Scranton Times-Tribune (click view more birther cartoons)

Perhaps this explains the behavior of people like Marilyn Davenport, the GOP official in Southern California who sent colleagues an e-mail with Obama’s face superimposed on the image of a chimpanzee. Telling was Davenport’s non-apologetic follow-up:

“We all know a double standard applies regarding this president,” she wrote. “I received plenty of e-mails about George Bush that I didn’t particularly like, yet there was no ‘cry’ in the media about them.”

Yes, of course. Bush isn’t black, but if he were he’d know his place. He wouldn’t go off acting uppity.

For all the epithets thrown at black Americans, “uppity” qualifies as one of the more offensive terms spewed during the 1950s and early 60s. It underscored the fact that even as blacks struggled to achieve equal rights, they continued to be denied their dignity.

As invoked back then, it was confirmation that law provided only technical guarantees; emotional discrimination persisted long after civil rights were granted. Blacks were expected to know their place.

Bill White, the acclaimed baseball player, broadcaster and executive, has chosen the word “Uppity” as the title of his new book about being a black athlete during an era when Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby had broken the barriers, but the walls of prejudice remained. White saw baseball and society from many perspectives – as a star first baseman with the Cardinals, Giants and Phillies; a broadcaster with the Yankees, and president of the National League.

In 1959, when White found himself languishing on the Giants’ depth chart behind future Hall of Famers Orlando Cepeda and Willie McCovey, he asked to be traded. Chub Feeney, a top executive on the club, said White was “uppity” for daring to make such a request.

Uppity? According to White, “It’s a person, especially someone of a different color, who says, ‘Hell no’ and stands his ground.”

This uppity factor is why the looming presidential campaign of 2012 is likely to be so vicious, regardless of whom the Republicans come up with as a candidate. Many Americans, for whom racism lies just beneath the emotional surface, believe denying the nation’s first black president a second term is more important than trying to defeat him in the first place. Term One honored the office; Term Two would honor the man.

It rankles some to see a black man stepping off of Air Force One, hobnobbing with the rich and powerful, and throwing out the first pitch. Maybe a less uppity black president would have the sense to stay out of sight, without seeming to enjoy the trappings of high office.

It has boiled over repeatedly during the Obama Presidency – from Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst of “You lie!” during the ’09 State of the Union speech, to Donald Trump’s outrageous challenge of Obama’s very citizenship. It’s probably why Fox commentator Sean Hannity incessantly refers to Obama as “The Anointed One.”

In his memorable speech on race during the 2008 campaign, Obama spoke of his white grandmother, “a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.” People who struggle, and sometimes fail, to overcome the fear that leads to racism are nonetheless, said Mr. Obama, “a part of America, this country that I love.”

Bill White recalls playing a minor-league game in North Carolina six years after Jackie Robinson had already broken the color line with the Dodgers. For nine solid innings as he stood at his position, White heard calls of “nigger” and “coon” from the stands. As he ran off the field, he waved his middle finger in the direction of the most vulgar spectators.

Outside the stadium, he was confronted by a middle-aged white woman who poked him in the shoulder. “Boy,” she said, “you got some nerve being disrespectful to all these people.”

Bill White’s uppity all right. And if President Obama has any of that in him, it only makes him more deserving of the extraordinarily difficult position he holds.

As for the rest of us, should we tolerate much more of this? Hell no.

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

Here’s a small piece of advice. But whatever you do, please don’t cite this letter in your next speech.

In fact, Mister President, please don’t mention any more letters. Ever. You’re a powerful, articulate orator. I love listening to your speeches. But the “I’ve received a letter from…” thing just isn’t working.

Patrick Chappatte / International Herald Tribune (view more cartoons)

In your recent speech about the budget mess, you said, “The other day I received a letter from a man in Florida. He started off by telling me he didn’t vote for me and he hasn’t always agreed with me.” And then this unnamed guy went on to say it’s a great country, and we’re “lost in a quagmire of petty bickering,” and blah, blah.

We know you receive hundreds if not thousands of letters each day. We know that you review a random sample of these each evening, which is good. And we assume that the letters reflect the sharp divisions in the country – which is to say you’ve probably got a letter handy to argue just about any point you’re interested in advancing.

On a recent Friday evening you spoke to the nation about the last-minute deal to avoid a government shutdown. You said, “A few days ago, I received a letter from a mother in Longmont, Colorado. Over the year, her son’s eighth grade class saved up money and worked on projects so that next week they could take a class trip to Washington, D.C.” This person urged you to get beyond “petty grievances and make things right.” Sounds like a really solid citizen.

The problem with these letters is that they carry no weight and have modest credibility, especially nowadays when everyone uses e-mail to vent, fuss and opine. Your critics might suspect a trick, and people like Donald Trump will start ranting that the letters are fakes.

You probably recall the story told by William Safire, the renowned columnist who served as a speechwriter for one of your trickiest predecessors, Richard Nixon. Before important speeches, Safire would pop into the Oval Office and say, “Mr. President, I suggest you take the easy way out.” Then, Nixon went on TV and read the speech Safire had written with the line, “Some in my administration have suggested I take the easy way out, but that would be wrong.”

I don’t think you’re quoting phony communications; you’re just using currency that has no value. Do we really care that a guy in Florida and a woman in Colorado advocate goodness?

In a recent radio speech you said, “A few months ago, I received a letter from a woman named Brenda Breece.” This woman, who lives in Missouri, wrote, “I watch the food budget . We combine trips into town [and] use coupons . and we trim each other’s hair when we need a haircut.”

You used the letter to underscore the fact that government needs to manage its money, just like Mrs. Breece and her family. Well, sure, we get it.

I recently received a letter that I sent to myself the other day that recalled how Gilda Radner made marvelous use of letters when playing Roseanne Roseannadanna on “Saturday Night Live.” For example: “A Mr. Richard Feder from Fort Lee, New Jersey writes in and says: ‘Dear Roseanne Roseannadanna, Last Thursday, I quit smokin’. Now, I’m depressed, I gained weight, my face broke out, I’m nauseous, I’m constipated, my feet swelled, my gums are bleedin’, my sinuses are clogged, I got heartburn, I’m cranky and I have gas. What should I do?’ … Mr. Feder, you sound like a real attractive guy! … You belong in New Jersey!”

If, Mister President, you do insist on quoting from my letter in your next speech, I’d like to close by saying, don’t abandon your beliefs in what America stands for, don’t give in to those who want only to help the rich get richer, stay the course, and, above all, don’t raise the price of a First Class stamp.

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

Nate Beeler / Washington Examiner (click for more cartoons)

Effective immediately, controllers working overnight shifts will no longer be allowed to watch any portion of CBS’s “The Late Late Show” with Craig Ferguson.

Hot tubs in control tower locker rooms may be used only after all planes have landed safely.

Controllers will no longer be permitted to bring to work their Snuggie blankets with sleeves, or any slippers in the shape of baby animals.

Controllers at Boston’s Logan Airport are prohibited from viewing replays or summaries of any baseball game involving the Red Sox.

Radios in control towers will be adjusted to block all stations playing music by Michael Buble.

The controllers’ lounges will stop serving warm milk and cookies after 6 p.m.

Beginning immediately, all automated warnings, instructions and alerts will be recorded for the FAA by Gilbert Gottfried, who replaces the current “Voice of the FAA,” Ben Stein.

Control tower thermostats will be gradually lowered to 75, as will the FAA retirement age.

The government will no longer pay for cable-TV in control towers if the package of service includes any of the following: Oprah Winfrey’s OWN channel, the Golf Channel – particularly replays of commentary by Jim Nantz, Home Shopping Network, and C-SPAN, C-SPAN II and C-SPAN III.

The government will replace all chairs at FAA consoles with models that do not fully recline.

The following material is being deleted from the Approved Reading List for on-duty controllers: “Miles to Go,” by Miley Cyrus; “The Best Real Estate Advice I Ever Received,” by Donald Trump; “Pinheads and Patriots,” by Bill O’Reilly; plus, anything ever written by Suze Orman, and transcripts of all speeches by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

Although controllers will still be permitted to watch certain DVD movies while on duty, the following are now banned: “Sleeper,” starring Woody Allen, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” with Michael Douglas, and the 1987 film “The Cure for Insomnia,” which runs 87 hours.

Effective immediately, all recreational games of Monopoly played in U.S. control towers must have a 10-minute limit on the length of any individual turn.

Controllers are no longer allowed to use FAA computers to visit the following websites: www.GrowBiggerTomatoes.com, www.VacationinBuffalo.com, www.KnitforProfit.com.

Until further notice, all Venetian blinds must remain in the open position.

The following CDs are prohibited at all airports: “My Plan for a Better America,” by Mitt Romney; “Learn Latin in Just 45 Lessons!”

On-duty controllers will now be limited to two mixed drinks, or three glasses of wine, per eight-hour shift.

Controllers will no longer be required to read the 980-page FAA Protocol Manual while on duty.

Officials stated that if these actions fail to improve the situation, the FAA may be forced to implement more drastic measures and request that air-traffic controllers get at least six hours of sleep before reporting to work.

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

Golly g. Is the president makin’ the trend, or just followin’ it? It’s hard to tell, but Americans really seem to be enjoyin’ droppin’ their g’s.

Area / Cagle Cartoons (click to view more cartoons)

George W. Bush was a famous g-dropper, always workin’ hard at bein’ a man of the people. Sarah Palin is a calculating leader of the no-g movement. She’s constantly sayin’ goin’ and tryin’ and wantin’. But when it comes to controversial political issues, Palin will convert to using the full g-force to tell us what’s worth fighting for or voting for – always with the g in place.

Levying taxes, a serious matter on both sides of the aisle, is never taxin’.

President Obama, too, seems able to shift from g-dropping to g-adding, depending on the nature of the audience or tone of his message. One clue: If the president uses the term “folks” in his speech, then it’s almost certain that many words will be g-free.

Regardless, the official White House transcripts – as with the energy speech cited above – always include the g’s, even in cases when they were never uttered by the president.

Women seem to have embraced g-dropping more than men. Meredith Vieira of NBC’s “Today” show chirps every morning about goin’ somewhere or talkin’ about something or sayin’ this or that. Linda Cohn, the ESPN sportscaster, may be the most aggressive g-dropper in all of television. Her voice-overs always have players goin’ to the hoop, tryin’ to make the tackle, and lookin’ for the shot.

Funny how things are changin’. In his new autobiography, Bill White, the acclaimed baseball player and broadcaster, explains that in the early 1970s he spent many hours with a voice coach trying to curb his habit of dropping g’s in sports reports. If he were still on the air today, White would presumably need coaching to get rid of those g’s he worked so hard to reinstate.

The absence of g’s can be rather pleasant in conversation – even in presidential policy speeches – to a point. Personally, though, I find I pass that point when the pattern becomes obvious; when it’s distracting. (Alas, having read this far, you are probably cursed to joinin’ me.)

Linguists and social scientists who have examined the matter point out that the rate of g-dropping tends to be more prevalent among lower classes – but it also goes up among higher classes when striving for greater informality and lightheartedness.

In his linguistics class at the University of Pennsylvania, instructor Mark Liberman noted, “nearly all English speakers drop g’s sometimes, but in a given speech community, the proportion varies systematically depending on formality, social class, sex, and other variables.” After studying speeches by President Obama, Liberman observed, “Obama’s dropped g’s tend to occur in verb forms whose subjects are ‘ordinary Americans,’ and whose meaning has something to do with the struggles of ordinary life.”

So, when politicians and network anchors drop their g’s, is it pandering? Meredith Vieira never misses a g when reading a news script, only when interviewing guests or chatting with her cohorts. President Obama didn’t drop many g’s in his State of the Union address, but was more comfortable doing so in his energy speech to college students.

The larger issue is verbal sloppiness. Casual communication is one thing, but the trend, possibly inspired by social networking, is to be quick and careless.

Here’s hopin’ the nation’s most admired communicators don’t overreach for the common touch – even when seekin’ to connect with us regular folk.

Elegant speech is worth preserving. Just sayin’.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker and may be reached at www.candidcamera.com.

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com, he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

One of baseball’s top pitchers, the Rockies Ubaldo Jimenez, was placed on the 15-day disabled list after suffering – are you ready for this? – an injured cuticle. No knock on Jimenez, an all-star last season, but can you imagine, say, a construction worker taking a two-week sick leave with an injured cuticle?

Rob Tornoe / Philadelphia Inquirer (click for more sports cartoons)

One week into the new season, Major League Baseball’s official injury list showed 119 players unable to participate. This, after five weeks of spring training.

The Angels, Padres and Blue Jays share the dubious honor of leading the Majors with six players from each squad already on the DL. Among the half-dozen disabled Padres, three are suffering from “soreness.” Around the Big Leagues in early April, 17 players were officially listed by MLB has having “strains.” What ever happened to No Pain, No Gain?

Fans of the world champion Giants were mystified last month when right fielder Cody Ross was seen on TV taking one step toward a fly ball and going straight to the disabled list with an injured calf. Hey, stuff happens. But with each new season more of these guys are breaking down.

This could be called the “Thoroughbred Theory” of modern athletes: the more carefully they are bred, fed and trained, the more fragile they become.

I’ve heard several veterans theorize that back in their days fewer players were categorized as injured simply because there were fewer categories. I imagine Ted Williams was never shelved with an ulnar collateral ligament strain, because no one had ever heard of such a thing.

Then, too, some of the injuries modern baseball players suffer are actually attempts by the front office to avoid a pain in the roster. When pitcher Brian Wilson was ready to leave the DL the other day, a spot on the Giants 25-man roster magically opened after pitcher Santiago Casilla discovered he had an “inflamed right elbow,” forcing him to take Wilson’s place on the 15-day DL.

Last year blogger Jeff Zimmerman analyzed data and determined that the number of disabled players increased steadily between 1989 and 2009. Over the last decade, the Kansas City Royals sent the most players to the DL, the Chicago White Sox the fewest.

Baseball’s disabled list will expand even further this season as a result of a wise move by MLB to institute a new 7-day DL for players suffering concussions. Yet, the number of routine pains and strains is also on the rise.

It’s worth noting that players in baseball and other team sports collect their salaries even when shelved by injuries. On the other hand, pro tennis players, golfers, racecar drivers, and others in individual competition, are faced with no-play, no-pay – and seem to suffer fewer disabling cuticle injuries.

Then we have sluggers Adam Dunn of the White Sox and Matt Holliday of the Cardinals, each of whom underwent appendectomies during the first week of the new season. Neither opted for the DL, vowing to return in less than two weeks – the same gutsy recovery achieved last season by Andres Torres during the Giants pennant race.

Clearly players like Dunn, Holliday and Torres believe that in the Big Leagues, as in the beer commercial, sometimes you’ve simply got to “Man up!”

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com, he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

Although the Obama administration pledged early on to exercise greater care when using the so-called “state secrets privilege” in court, it appears that there has been little meaningful change since the Bush years. Indeed, new research at Georgetown University suggests that the degree of government secrecy in legal cases by both administrations during the last decade may be greater than previously realized.

Nate Beeler / Washington Examiner (View more Beeler cartoons)

GU’s law center has created a State Secrets Archive, said to be the first such repository of its kind. Prof. Laura Donohue, who heads the project, concludes that we are aware of only “the tip of the iceberg” in legal application of government secrecy.

The very nature of international politics and military maneuvers in the post-9/11 environment, in which covert operations and high-tech methodology are essential, makes the need for secrecy greater than ever. Yet, when applied to legal cases in which the US and its agents are accused of malfeasance, the suspicion remains that many uses of the secrets privilege are more to save face than to save lives.

The doctrine was confirmed by the Supreme Court in a 1953 case involving civilian deaths in the crash of a military plane. The Court upheld the government’s right to withhold details about the plane’s spying equipment and mission – although when the file was finally released years later, it contained no meaningful military “secrets”; rather, it confirmed government negligence.

Since then, the privilege has been invoked hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times.

What Donohue’s research at Georgetown highlights is that about 80 percent of appellate cases in which the privilege is used are never published – nor are many briefs, memoranda and court orders – creating a wide sphere of state-secret invocations that are not considered when evaluating the rule’s use.

The GU archive seeks to identify “the range of cases in which it is used, or how parties respond, such as cases where discovery is limited or suits are dropped because of the threatened or actual invocation of state secrets.”

In September 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder issued guidelines he said would ensure the doctrine is invoked “only when genuine and significant harm to national defense or foreign relations is at stake.” However, Donohue’s data show that the Obama administration has used the doctrine with roughly the same frequency as the Bush administration.

“The big surprise is that contractors are using it,” Donohue explained. “Contractors have become deeply engaged in our national security infrastructure, and are now privy to a lot of information.”

In many instances, military suppliers are relying on what is known as the “government contractor defense,” affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1988. One such case involved the crash of a US helicopter in Afghanistan and a subsequent suit by families of the dead and injured that claimed design and manufacturing defects in the craft. The companies prevailed in federal court after invoking the contractor defense – essentially saying, “the government made us do it.”

The Supreme Court is currently considering a case in which Boeing and General Dynamics are challenging the government’s attempt to use the state secrets privilege to avoid paying fees in a long-running contract dispute. In their brief, the two aerospace companies declared, “the privilege has gone from a relatively obscure doctrine to a centerpiece of the executive branch’s litigation strategy,” with “pernicious consequences for rule of law.”

It is possible, but by no means certain, that the Supreme Court will clarify and streamline the expansion of state-secrets claims. Congress, too, should revisit the proposed State Secret Protection Act of 2009, by which courts would be granted greater powers to evaluate government requests for secrecy before evidence and testimony are excluded.

John Kennedy believed, “The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society.”

Just as military power itself is an action of last resort, the state secrets doctrine should be a privilege of last resort.

—–

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com, he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

Odyssey Dawn sounds like a porn star. I recall in my youth being intrigued by ads for the work of a stripper named Modesty Blaze, who I imagine took her name from the comic strip Modesty Blaise – either of which would have been suitable monikers for the mission in Libya.

Mike Keefe / Denver Post (click to share)

Apparently the Pentagon was rushed on this one, and hastily skipped over Operation Mideast Pawn.

Sources indicate Hillary Clinton favored Operation Not Gonna Fawn, while Robert Gates preferred Operation Cut Gadhafi’s Lawn.

The General Accounting Office reportedly suggested Operation Fiscal Yawn.

At the end of the day, President Obama settled on Odyssey Dawn after assurances from the Joint Chiefs that no one would be able to attach any significance to it whatsoever, or accuse the US of using the name to rouse public, military or Congressional support.

Although you wouldn’t know it from its choices, the Defense Department actually has detailed guidelines for naming military operations. Nicknames must not “convey connotations offensive to good taste or derogatory to a particular group, sect, or creed” or “convey connotations offensive to allies or other Free World nations.”

Above all, the DOD doesn’t want “exotic words, trite expressions, or well-known commercial trademarks.” This presumably ruled out Operation This Bomb’s for You.

Since 1975, the US military has used a computer system for naming operations. Unfortunately, the system was not used to name the system itself, which is called the “Code Word, Nickname, and Exercise Term System.”

Between Operation Iraqi Freedom, coined in 2003, and Operation New Dawn, which replaced it in 2010, the military has authored over 500 names for operations in Iraq alone. These include (seriously) Operation Eagle Chickmauga, Operation Little Man Brief, and Operation Chicken Coup – followed a year later by the sequel, Chicken Coup II.

Winston Churchill was apparently a student of military nicknames and believed they should not have ”an air of despondency” nor should they be frivolous or ordinary.” No widow or mother, Churchill is reported to have cautioned, should have ”to say that her son was killed in an operation called Bunnyhug or Ballyhoo.”

The US learned this the hard way when the 1989 invasion of Panama was dubbed Operation Blue Spoon. It was renamed Operation Just Cause because the original nickname did not “inspire the forces and the people back home,” according to a report released by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The New York Times lampooned the process in an editorial headlined “Operation High Hokum.”

The Pentagon could save a lot of effort and expense if it bought one of these random security-word generators used by online services like Ticketmaster. Then the war in Iraq would be called Operation Wilshon Fisham; the war in Afghanistan Operation Mislaf Parsop, and the new war in Libya Operation Lotusile Minslo. Or, something to that effect.

The Random House definition of “dawn” is “the beginning of anything,” and “odyssey” is a “long, adventurous journey.”

The best we can hope for is that the military is serious when it insists these names don’t mean anything.

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com, he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

Although the bill passed, as did a proposal last month to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, neither measure will advance beyond the House chamber. And while most of the arguments from both sides tap-danced around the issues, a level-headed reassessment of federal spending for public TV and radio is overdue.

Daryl Cagle / msnbc.com (click to share)

Republicans rushed to judgment to take advantage of NPR’s recent spate of bad publicity ““ the latest incident involving nasty cracks about conservatives by NPR’s chief fundraiser, Ron Schiller, recorded in a hidden-camera sting. Schiller was appropriately asked to leave NPR, as was his boss.

But the secret video proves nothing about NPR as an organization, nor does Schiller’s behavior qualify as grounds to defund an operation that serves some 27 million listeners a week.

The real issues regarding NPR are straightforward. Republicans don’t like spending taxpayer money on what many perceive as a liberal-leaning network, when the “private sector” is doing such a smashing job of promoting conservative views on commercial radio. Democrats believe the money is well spent, considering the pounding they are taking from Fox News and conservative broadcasters like Rush Limbaugh. As Democrats see it, NPR need not be liberal; the absence of overt conservatism is sufficient.

Thursday’s floor show in the House was risible. Republican Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee said with a straight face that defunding NPR would encourage more hiring by forcing rural stations to create new local programming. She went so far as to list 17 different jobs needed to produce a single radio show ““ staffing levels that didn’t exist even in radio’s heyday decades ago.

Democrat Anthony Weiner of New York spent an embarrassing two minutes delivering a standup comedy routine about how Republicans hoped to solve the economic crisis by destroying the NPR series “Car Talk” ““ as if that was the point, which it clearly wasn’t.

Republican Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia inched closer to the truth, as he sees it, by charging NPR with “advocating one ideology” and “veering far from what people want to (hear).” That’s not true about NPR or the public ““ with 69 percent of Americans favoring federal funding of public radio.

Across the aisle, Steve Israel, head of the Democrats’ Congressional Campaign Committee, wrote, “If the Republicans had their way, we’d only be left with the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin to dominate the airwaves.” That’s horribly misguided, because it suggests that NPR’s mission is to defuse the message of conservative broadcasters, or to present the “other side” of political controversies, which it is not.

The real question, perhaps better left for a time when a semblance of bipartisanship returns to Capitol Hill, is whether the public is best served by federal involvement in broadcasting. When the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created by Congress in 1967, the media landscape was dramatically different. Back then, a better case could be made for providing quality government-supported radio and TV, especially in rural areas. In the digital age, that’s not really necessary.

It’s worth noting that C-SPAN, an arm of the cable-TV industry that receives no taxpayer funds, provides the most fair and well-produced coverage of government imaginable. The explosive growth of the Internet, along with cable and satellite systems, make the need for public TV and radio less clear cut.

Media operate best without government meddling and, in this day and age, without taxpayer money.

Although the latest attempt to defund NPR will not succeed, the House debate alone will apply unreasonable pressure to the workings of the network that, at most, gets only 10 percent of its revenue from taxpayers. Is it worth it? Even disgraced NPR fund raiser Ron Schiller conceded, “it is very clear that we would be better off in the long run without federal funding.”

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com, he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

For 26 years, Derrick Moore has been selling drinks at sports venues across the West, but quenching thirst is only part of his mission. Moore is arguably the nation’s top ballpark vendor of smiles.

Fans attending games in Arizona, Southern California and Nevada – over 250 events each year – often can’t remember the final score, but they never forget Moore’s deep, rousing call: “Lemonade, Lemonade, like grandma made!”

Cam Cardow / Ottawa Citizen (click to share)

As the most popular vendor in baseball’s Cactus League, Moore has his pick of venues, so this month he’s following the World Champion Giants. Wherever they play, that’s where Moore peddles his good cheer. “Yummy, yummy. You know you want it!”

Moore is so popular at Diamondbacks (baseball), Suns (basketball) and Cardinals (football) games that fans seek his autograph, pose with him in photos, and even plead with the smiling “Lemonade Guy” to record messages on their cell phones – “like grandma made!” In the fall he travels to San Diego for Chargers football and to Nevada for college games and monster truck races.

For 17 years, Moore was a beer vendor (“Get a cold brew, you know what to do!”). He made a good living to support his wife and four kids at their home north of Phoenix, but he grew frustrated by the often rowdy behavior of the beer-drinking crowd. It also didn’t square with his faith. Moore is a religious man who ministers to prison inmates and troubled youngsters in his spare time.

In 2002 Moore gave up beer and switched to lemonade. He says his grandma Beulah made some of the best lemonade in Phoenix and most folks who stopped by for a cool drink left with a smile. So Moore fashioned his sales approach around memories of his late grandma.

On a good day he sells 300 lemonades, roughly twice the number the average soft drink vendor can score. He works for three different lemonade companies, each with its own t-shirt, so he has to be sure to wear the correct uniform when he switches venues.

At some stadiums the price is $5, at others it’s $5.75, and rookie vendors prefer the higher price because customers usually let them keep the 25-cents change. But Moore takes a hit at $5.75, since his frequent tip for a $5 drink is a full dollar.

At a spring training game in Peoria this month, Moore strolled through the stands entertaining fans while a rogue beer vendor followed behind calling, “Miller Lite, like grandpa used to drink.” A few aisles away, a competing lemonade vendor shouted, “Lemonade, just like Derrick’s grandma made!” Moore didn’t object; he was flattered.

A Phoenix radio station and a local car dealer hired him to do commercials. He travels two hours to sell at concerts and festivals in Tucson (“Limonada, limonada, like nana used to make!”).

During spring training he will sometimes do both a day game and a night game, leaving his voice hoarse and his back is sore, yet his wide grin is unaffected. When Moore preaches in jails the theme is about curbing anger and bitterness; in ballparks there’s no need for a sermon, but the message is the same.

“It doesn’t matter what you do for a living,” he says, “as long as you love it. I go to work happy, and I leave work feeling even happier. I enjoy making people smile.” With a deep chuckle, he adds the trademark, “Yeah, baby!”

Life handed Derrick Moore a lemon, and grandma Beulah would be pleased to know he’s making lemonade mixed with good cheer.

—–

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com, he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

More than a million and a half fans will pay for tickets this month to share the Cactus League experience. The watchwords are “pay” and “experience” — because with each new season, true fans who love the pure simplicity of spring training are paying more while experiencing less.

David Fitzsimmons / Arizona Daily Star (click to share)

What used to be a laid back time during which players slowly got into shape, fans rubbed shoulders with their heroes, and team owners treated the process as a necessary expense, is now big business. The most dramatic example is the lavish Salt River Fields, with its state-of-the-art video board, which opened a few weeks ago at the Talking Stick Indian reservation in Scottsdale. Home of the Diamondbacks and Rockies, it is part of a complex that includes the Pima-Maricopa Indians’ hotel and casino.

The marketing spiel for Salt River Fields is that it “feels” like a Major League facility. Certainly the $25 box seats and the $7 ice cream qualify as Big League, but fans might wonder if that’s what spring training is supposed to be about.

In the past 20 years eight new stadiums have been built near here, at a cost of over $500 million. Just 14 years ago I attended opening day at the Cubs’ stadium in Mesa, with its 12,500 seats and what was arguably the most lavish spring training experience. Now, the Cubs and their partners are building a replacement in Mesa, complete with a shopping complex to be known as Wrigleyville West. Ironic, isn’t it, that Wrigley Field in Chicago has endured since 1914 and is a palace for baseball purists, while the Mesa facility didn’t last two decades.

As World Champs, the Giants are the big draw this spring at their stadium in central Scottsdale. Seating on the grass beyond the outfield fence is going for as much as $26, as the Giants try to squeeze whatever they can out of their fall accomplishment. The Dodgers and White Sox, who moved here from Florida last spring, charge $47 for the top ticket at the stadium they share at Camelback Ranch. Sales of the best spring tickets on StubHub are going for $100 and more.

It’s hard to fault the clubs for trying to maximize their business opportunities and to make fans pay whatever the traffic will bear. The communities clustered near Phoenix are also engaged in understandable pursuit of tourist dollars which during spring training now total more than $350 million.

Robert Johnson, a top executive in Cactus League promotions, recently told the Arizona Republic newspaper, “Perhaps we should start treating the Cactus League like the economic and entertainment force that it has become.” He cites promotion of football’s Super Bowl as a model, with its glitz and vast peripheral marketing.

Is that the future for baseball games that don’t even count in the standings?

More owners should follow the lead of the Angels’ Arte Moreno, who sees to it that fans are never taken for granted. At spring training Moreno doesn’t care for $26 seats on the grass; he charges $4 at the Angels park in Tempe.

Pre-season baseball is still a wonderful experience — both here in Arizona and in Florida. It’s a time of rebirth for the land, the players and even the fans, not proximity to casinos, giant video screens, or overpriced merchandise.

If owners and municipal leaders kept their eyes on the ball they’d recognize that.

—–

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com, he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

It also says here that if it’s not the former Massachusetts governor, then it will be a fairly dark horse – someone currently trotting way below the radar. Although a Romney candidacy comes with plenty of overweight political baggage, the rest of the GOP’s potential candidates would be even less likely to defeat President Obama in 2012.

Nate Beeler / Washington Examiner (click to share)

According to the punditocracy, as recently as last November – when Republicans stormed the House and took control of many state governments – Obama seemed vulnerable. It’s doubtful, however, that many Republican insiders shared that few; regardless, they certainly don’t see it that way right now.

Many believe that Romney’s biggest problem is the “RomneyCare” health program he established in Massachusetts while governor. The current governor, Obama’s pal Deval Patrick, recently damned Romney by praising him for creating the model conservatives derisively term “ObamaCare.”

Fortunately for Romney, the health issue may not be as potent in 2012 as it is today. Already it’s being overshadowed by unemployment, the Mideast, and union busting. Health care, like the deficit, raises passion but it won’t raise enough votes.

Besides Romney, who are the other viable Republicans, and what are they waiting for? At this time four years ago there were already more than a dozen announced contenders, including Obama, Hillary Clinton and, yes, Mitt Romney.

This time around, many presumed candidates are holding back – either because they know how difficult Obama will be to beat, or because they know that they don’t have the stuff to even make it close. Sarah Palin comes to mind. It’s remarkable, actually, that her name keeps appearing on lists of possible candidates, when her real chances of becoming president are very close to zero. The trove of private e-mails that surfaced recently, revealing her contempt for media, rival politicians, and even her own constituents in Alaska, really finished her off.

Newt Gingrich, who is reportedly scouting for a campaign headquarters in Atlanta so as to distance himself from the Washington merry-go-round, is about to declare. But if elected, Gingrich would pass age 70 in his first year in office, and many Republicans are uncomfortable betting on demographics similar to Obama v. McCain.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is on the short list, but his recent declarations that the Tea Party is “a driving force for change,” and “The government’s too damn big,” reflect the very type of politics that stirs interest on some stumps but dashes hopes on the national tote board.

Another former governor, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, might enter the primaries, but he has never been able to move the needle. Between his books, his Fox talk show and his time as governor, there’s enough flip-flopping in Huckabee’s past that he could manage to lose a debate against himself.

Then who? Texas Rep. Ron Paul? Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann? Billionaire Donald Trump? These are all conservative cartoon characters, and whether or not they run in any primaries none will ever be president.

Some of the GOP’s truly capable candidates, most notably New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, have already removed themselves from contention – realizing that 2016 may be a better time to run. Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Sen. John Thune of South Dakota are others leading the charge to the exit.

Only unemployment, more so than any Republican contender now on the list, could defeat Barack Obama in 2012. But it says here that won’t happen.

It also says here that most politically savvy Republicans already know that.

—–

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com, he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

I mention this because it underscores several truths about the U.S. Postal Service. The first, cited by critics and budget-cutters, is that the government provides levels of mail service that may be too expensive in today’s deficit-plagued environment. The second, on which I prefer to focus, is that the nation’s mail system works remarkably well and is something worth preserving – at least for now.

Nate Beeler / Washington Examiner (click to share)

The Postal Service lost $8.5 billion in its last fiscal year, a lot of money even in today’s upside down economy. It operates over 35,000 post offices and support facilities and employs over a half-million Americans, despite cutting a third of its work force in the last decade. Plus, almost taken for granted in the financial debate, last year it delivered 170 billion pieces of mail.

In the next few weeks the government will begin closing nearly 2,500 post offices. It will also give greater consideration to the possibility of halting Saturday deliveries.

Every use of tax money is under intense scrutiny these days – from health care, to education, to repairing highways and bridges. Technically the Postal Service doesn’t use tax dollars; however, it borrows from the Treasury, so it is very much a part of the nation’s financial headache.

One thing that separates the Postal Service from most other government services is that it actually works properly. With basically the lowest first-class postage rate of any nation on the globe, the U.S. Mail gets delivered on time – or, in many cases faster than promised – with incredible consistency.

But there are other considerations to be reviewed with care before closing any more post offices. The real value of a U.S. Post Office branch is often measured in inverse proportion to the facility’s balance sheet. Small offices in the most rural corners of America are frequently the only places where citizens can be in contact with their government.

Like the cop on the corner, whose job I’d also argue is worth preserving, the mail carrier is for many Americans an anchor in a stormy world.

Perhaps it’s logic of convenience to relate every domestic budget problem to the expense of conducting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but here are the facts: the entire annual deficit for the Postal Service is less than the cost of three weeks of war.

Early in my career, before there was such a thing as e-mail, I did a story for the New York News Sunday magazine about the smallest post offices in New England; even back then several were threatened with closure. What I found, at every stop, was that the smaller the office the more important it was to the residents’ sense of community.

One post office, no bigger than a medium-size closet, was run by a woman who explained that on some days she handled no mail whatsoever. “Isn’t that a valid reason for closing you down?” I asked. “People here count on me,” she replied, “whether there’s mail or not. Like the flag hanging outside, I represent our country. People like knowing that.”

That particular post office in northern Connecticut is long gone. But the point is still valid, maybe more than ever.

President Obama has spoken wisely about using a scalpel for delicate cuts in the nation’s spending. Small post offices and the services they provide are part of the fabric of America that should be trimmed with only the greatest care.

—–

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com, he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

Nate Beeler / Washington Examiner (click to share)

So it may seem contradictory for Speaker John Boehner to have recently rejected a request from C-SPAN, the cable channel dedicated to covering Congress, for permission to provide more intimate and subjective coverage.

C-SPAN’s chief Brian Lamb was quick to respond: “We’re disappointed to learn that despite 32 years of experience with televising its sessions and in an age of ubiquitous cameras in political life, the House of Representatives has chosen not to allow C-SPAN’s cameras into its chamber to cover its sessions.”

Lamb is quite right about his organization’s illustrious history as a nonprofit organization funded by the cable-TV industry. Providing gavel-to-gavel coverage of both the House and Senate, as well as access to the recently unveiled website of clips from the extensive C-SPAN archives, are valuable ways of preserving democracy.

However, Speaker Boehner was wise to turn down C-SPAN’s latest request.

In his appeal, Lamb is making a distinction between the long-running coverage furnished via a video feed controlled by Congress itself, and the new proposal under which C-SPAN would add its own robotic cameras to provide “a more complete picture of the legislative process.”

C-SPAN has made similar requests in the past ““ to both Democratic and Republican Speakers ““ and has continually been rebuffed. But in the latest exchange with Boehner, Lamb quotes the Speaker himself when he noted, “Since the first New England town meetings of the colonial era, open government has been a hallmark of American democracy.”

The issue, however, is not open government. The likely product of coverage that goes beyond a standard shot of the podium is members yawning or even dozing off; colleagues chatting when it would be polite to listen; the likelihood of seeing members tapping away at their Blackberries, and, of course, a sea of vacant seats. Also likely is the fiddling with these images on YouTube and programs like “The Daily Show,” not to mention in heavily-edited campaign ads.

Such a result would serve no real educational purpose, nor would it shed additional light on secret deal-making behind closed doors.

It can be argued, as Lamb presumably would, that the presence or absence of members and their degree of attentiveness is relevant. But such information, when provided only by pictures, can be misleading; commentators would be needed to explain why members might be absent ““ and before long C-SPAN would become just an extension of the commercial networks.

Lamb argues that under his plan, viewers would see a “journalistic product,” rather than a static feed. It’s an issue for legitimate debate ““ the very sort of thing the U.S. Supreme Court wrestles with during its periodic evaluation of possible TV coverage during its public sessions. The Justices, wisely, have thus far said no.

Along with the desire for “transparency” on Capitol Hill is the need for greater civility and decorum, particularly in the House. Allowing C-SPAN’s coverage to inch toward television’s omnipresent “reality” shows would not keep the more undisciplined members in check.

To its critics, C-SPAN’s bland coverage of Congress is at times like radio with pictures. We hear what is being argued from the podium without benefit of surveying the chamber for reaction.

But that is also one of C-SPAN’s greatest virtues. Despite its vital contributions, C-SPAN is not really a journalistic endeavor in which material is sorted and edited to create an objective summary. Rather, C-SPAN is the keeper of a vital, unedited public record.

During major events, when multiple networks provide coverage, many viewers gravitate to C-SPAN for the express purpose of avoiding the cutaway shots and split-screen distractions provided by commercial broadcasters.

The public is best served by preserving not only the decorum of Congress, but also the decorum of C-SPAN’s coverage.

—–

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker and may be reached at www.candidcamera.com.

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com, he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

Daryl Cagle / msnbc.com (click to share)

“They’ve refused to talk about American exceptionalism,” said House Speaker John Boehner on CNN, referring to President Obama specifically and Democrats in general.

Asked why, Boehner offered: “I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know if they’re afraid of it, whether they don’t believe it. I don’t know.”

The term American exceptionalism has evolved over nearly two centuries from what was once a way of defining the nation’s origins and founding principles, to what many fear is now just code for jingoism. When used in drawing international comparisons, exceptionalism may simply mean “different”; used in domestic political contexts it usually means “better.”

In his State of the Union message, President Obama alluded to the uniqueness of the U.S. “We are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea,” he declared, “the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny.” He called the U.S., “not just a place on a map, but the light to the world.”

However, the president’s failure to invoke the actual phrase “American exceptionalism” was enough to trigger Boehner’s ire. Sarah Palin, in her latest book, is even more emphatic, stating bluntly that the president “doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism at all.” She writes, “He seems to think it is just a kind of irrational prejudice in favor of our way of life. To me, that is appalling.”

As defined by the president’s conservative critics, the concept of exceptionalism promotes the view that America is uniquely qualified to serve as an arbiter in global conflicts. It suggests that Americans are inherently superior, and that the nation’s failures can be dismissed or rationalized merely by invoking a catch phrase.

Delivering the unofficial Tea Party response to the State of the Union, Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota emphasized her belief in “the exceptionalism of America.” She added, “I believe America is the indispensable nation.”

These conservative challenges date back to remarks the president made in London in 2009, in which he outlined America’s strengths and values, which, he concluded, “though imperfect, are exceptional.” The president said he saw “no contradiction” between believing that the U.S. has “an extraordinary role in leading the world” and recognizing that “we can’t solve these problems alone.”

In his book, “The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism,” Andrew Bacevich of Boston University argues it is an “ethic of self-gratification” that threatens the foundation of U.S. exceptionalism. He summarizes, “As the prerequisites of the American way of life have grown, they have outstripped the means available to satisfy them.”

These prerequisites, as Bacevich calls them, help create the modern condition in which American exceptionalism, in a material sense, fosters anti-Americanism in many parts of the world.

Kathleen Parker, the CNN host who questioned John Boehner about the word “exceptionalism,” predicts, “We’re going to be hearing it a lot in the coming months as Republicans try to out-exceptionalize each other for the presidential nomination.”

A modest affirmation of America’s exceptional qualities should not require a slogan, just as patriotism should not require a lapel pin, and religious conviction ought not be measured by the frequency of visits to church.

The nation is, as President Obama noted, both imperfect and exceptional. To dwell on phrases rather than principles only serves to underscore the imperfections.

—–

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com, he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

Taylor Jones / Cagle Cartoons (click to share)

The Minnesota Congresswoman has just completed her third campaign trip to Iowa where she told reporters she’s weighing her options about a run for the presidency. Such a candidacy would only add to the chill of a numbing Midwest winter.

Michele Bachmann is a virtual gaffe machine. She, for example, found it an “interesting coincidence” that the two significant outbreaks of swine flu came while Democrats Carter and Obama were in office. She once famously declared, “Not all cultures are equal.”

There are many intelligent, articulate women in the Republican Party. Why are they so frequently passed over in favor of those characterized by shallowness at best, and downright flakiness at worst?

John McCain opened the door when he plucked Sarah Palin to be his running mate in 2008. Too outspoken for the national stage, too inexperienced in world affairs, and too unpredictable to be a heartbeat away, Palin’s presence helped elect Barack Obama. More recently, Palin’s ill-advised remarks about the Tucson shootings served to further remove her as a serious option for the GOP nomination in ’12.

Yet Palin has created the modern model: brash, attractive and media-savvy.

On last November’s ballot there was Christine O’Donnell (“I am not a witch”), Sharron Angle (we need “Second Amendment remedies”), Linda McMahon (“It’s insulting to the millions of people who watch [wrestling] to suggest that it is less than quality entertainment”), and Carly Fiorina (“We are members of the Had Enough Party”) to name but a few who define “Republican female leader” in totally unelectable ways.

Now we have Michele Bachmann on the campaign trail in Iowa, doing the requisite meet and greet at the Smokey Row coffee shop in Des Moines, and delivering a speech in which she railed against America’s “self-anointed elite.”

This would be a good place to restate: There are many highly qualified Republican women, but Rep. Bachmann is not one of them. So what is it about this style of mama grizzly, gun-toting, love-it-or-leave-it politics that seems to be the trademark of so many of the GOP’s female candidates?

At least Democrat Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to be nominated for vice president by a major party, had the sense to wait several decades before talking crazy (“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position”). But Bachmann, like Palin, is in the spotlight right now and seems to believe that wild rhetoric can succeed in today’s presidential politics.

It was Bachmann, after all, who said on MSNBC, “I’m very concerned that [Barack Obama] may have anti-American views.”

This is not fighting the good fight, this is inciting members of both parties to yield to their worst instincts.

Bachmann has become a highly-visible champion of the Tea Party, yet was rejected as the unofficial leader of its members in Congress by the new Speaker John Boehner. The role was given to Kristi Noem of South Dakota – less well known on the national stage, but from the same mold: wife, mother, rancher and hunter, with a lengthy record of traffic tickets in her home state including 20 for speeding. Washington media were quick to label Noem, “The new Sarah Palin.”

Where are the down to earth and well-qualified Republican women, and why do they remain silent while the outspoken but virtually unelectable members of their party hog the spotlight? Why would Michele Bachmann even waste the airfare on three trips to Iowa?

Faye Palin offered insight in ’08 when asked why she might not be able to bring herself to vote for her daughter-in-law, Sarah. “I’m not sure what she brings to the ticket,” she said, “other than she’s a woman and a conservative.”

—–

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com, he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.

Tonight I want to offer my vision for America and a new American dream.

Nate Beeler / Washington Examiner (click to share)

(a) The new American dream should include a strong family, enduring values, excellence in education, dependable and affordable healthcare, secure employment and secure retirement, and a safe and prosperous homeland.

(b) My vision for America is people have jobs. The way you create jobs is to get businesses who provide the jobs to make it more likely that they are going to start a business, grow a business, buy equipment, build buildings, commercialize the results and grow jobs.

(c) Let’s start right now by recognizing this is not a time for celebration. This is a time to roll up our sleeves and go to work. We can celebrate when small businesses are creating jobs again.

(d) We are fighting a war in two countries and we’re in a global struggle with violent extremists who despise us, our values and modernity itself. If we are to succeed, we must rethink and rebuild the structure and mission of our military; the capabilities of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies; the purposes of our alliances; the reach and scope of our diplomacy; the capacity of all branches of government to defend us.

(e) The war on terrorism will not be won in a single battle. There’ll be no dramatic surrender. There’ll be no crumbling of a massive wall. But we’ll know it. We’ll know it as accountable governments continue to develop in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iraq. We’ll know it as terrorist attacks throughout the world decrease and then end and we save lives.

(f) Our environment can be protected while we increase energy production, encourage greater efficiency and conservation, and promote the development and use of alternative fuels, and innovative new technologies

(g) Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could awaken a national sense of priority for the arts, a national sense of appreciation and participation in all 50 states? I hope you will join me over the next two years in these efforts so that two years from now we will look back and say that we have not just changed the attitudes about curriculum, but we have changed the future of America by building bridges and opening doors.

(h) Let us now move forward humble in our demeanor, steady in our principles, and dedicated to proving worthy of the trust and confidence that has been placed in us. If we brace ourselves to do our duty, and to do what we say we are going to do, there is no telling what together we can accomplish for the good of this great and honorable nation. More than a country, America is an idea, and it is our job to pass on to our posterity the blessings bestowed to us.

Thank you.

Or, perhaps President Obama will have a better vision for the country than what we’ve already heard in these verbatim passages from: (a) Mitt Romney, 2007; (b) Tim Pawlenty, 2010; (c) John Boehner, 2010; (d) John McCain, 2007; (e) Rudy Giuliani, 2004; (f) Mike Pence, 2010; (g) Mike Huckabee, 2004; (h) John Boehner, 2011.

—–

©2011 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail Cari@cagle.com.

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker; he may be reached at www.CandidCamera.com, he’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.