By Bob Gaydos

Since writing in January about how much I miss Bill Safire writing the On Language column in The New York Times Magazine and what a waste I thought it was to spend an entire page in the magazine on the word “inchoate,” as was the case on that occasion, I haven’t had the energy to venture back into that space. Until last weekend.
 
Big mistake.

The column was written by Ammon Shea, who is described as “a consulting editor of American dictionaries for Oxford University Press.” A dictionary guy, which is really not the same thing as a language guy. Shea spends the whole column telling us that — despite what educators, research and experience tell us — the size of one’s vocabulary is not necessarily as important to a successful life as .. ta da! … how one uses all the words one knows.

Now he tells us.

But wait. Shea, the dictionary guy, then goes on to posit (a word he would probably like) that most of us underestimate the pure joy of learning arcane, obscure, unpronounceable words we will never, ever use. He particularly likes groak. He also tossed in catillate, vitulate and brochity. Don’t bother, you’ll never use them.

Anyway, as I once again rued the day the On Language column became a column about words people never use, which, in effect, makes it a waste of time, I remembered that I had asked our literate  Zest readers for their own pet language peeves. And so, with apologies and appreciation, I offer them now.

*  *  *

Lee Luce of Warwick was especially worked up: “We, too, read the NY Times Magazine and often rue the passing of Bill Safire. So you want pet peeves? I have the normal ones – “diametrically opposed,“ “Bill and me went …”, “my cohorts and I.”

“But my current grammatical pet peeve is the increasing use of the word it. My first English college professor hated when anybody used the word  and I suppose it stuck. Her thesis was that over-use of the word it asks the reader to work and decipher what it stands for in the sentence. Why not just write what you mean without asking the reader to decipher your code? She even went so far as to say that a writer was better off using more words in place of the word it than were necessary in order to make the meaning clear. Worse than using the word in a sentence was to start a sentence with the word It.

“Some quick examples from the January 11 issue of Time magazine:

• ‘The Interview Issue: How They See It” (What is it?)’
• Perhaps it was the economy, or maybe it was our mindlessly divided’ … political climate.’ (What is it?)’
• ‘It turned out to be a fortuitous coincidence…’ (What is it?)’
• ‘It may seem like this vast nation…’ (What is it?)’

“All examples are within the first seven pages of the magazine. I’m ready to cancel my subscription. Now I must confess my husband, an excellent writer, does not agree with my rantings on the use of the word it. And I’ve never seen anything written, except for the venerable team of Strunk & White, to support my visceral reaction to use of the word when not necessary. Maybe I’m just a lone grammatical voice crying in the wilderness.”

Bigsky offered this: “I realize that this column isn’t choate, so I look forward to the next one. Kindly address flammable and inflammable next time.” (Well, yes, they do mean the same thing, making one unnecessary.)

Fellow Zester Michael Kaufman wrote: I think the one that annoys me most is the way people write “loose” when they mean “lose,” as in, “I think I may loose my job.” One of the worst editors I ever had told me he didn’t appreciate my insouciance. After reading your post I checked: There is no such word as souciance.

LeeAgain wrote: “I joiced mightily at your choice of subject this week.”

From Carrie Jacobson, zest artist/writer: All those snoots who use “choate” probably went to Choate. My current peeve is “gentleman,” as in “the gentleman in handcuffs has been charged with murder.” A man is not necessarily a gentleman. In fact, I’d say, in this day and age, a man is almost never a gentleman! (Except for you.)

From jacquesdebauche: “My pet peeve is the use of “issue” when what is really meant is “problem.” In the relevant sense, an issue is a matter of dispute, while a problem is a source of perplexity. For example, if you come out of the house in the morning and discover that your car has a flat tire, that’s a problem. If you want to borrow your wife’s car to get to work, that could be an issue. I suspect this (mis)usage grew from the same M.B.A. thinking that, twenty years ago, replaced “problems” with “opportunities.”

Ernie Miller: “My particular peeve is the use of the word decimate to say something has been 100% percent annihilated. The Romans would decimate; they would take 1/10th of something. I suspect few people took Latin as I did, though for a year only. When one thinks about it, it is a pretty strong punishment to remove 10 percent of something be it a population, cattle, or wenches. (Oops, that sounds like a pirate.) Every time I hear decimate to represent total annihilation, I cringe. Thinking about it, with inchoate meaning incomplete, decimate is also an incomplete action/event. Both words are then used wrong or bastardized to mean complete? Complete what?”

And Fred Madeo of Ithaca: “Enjoyed your piece on William Safire and language and usage. I climb the wall whenever I hear the following: ‘Having said that, saying that, that having been said, that said,’ and ad infinitum. It is what I call a ‘language virus‘ that catches on like one catches a cold. That said, I shall sign off.”

Me too. Well said, all. And thanks until next time.

Bob can be reached at bob@zestoforange.com

By Bob Gaydos

I blame it all on the earthquake in Chile. Since it happened, everything seems to be out of whack. The temblor (I love that word) registered 8.8 on the Richter scale and caused tremendous damage and loss of life. I in no way mean to minimize the enormous pain it has caused. But the quake actually shortened the length of days on the planet and, never mind shaking the earth, it actually moved it. That’s got to have far-reaching ripple effects.

Scientists at NASA say the earthquake nudged the earth over 3 inches on its figure axis. That’s not the north-south one that spins us around and gives us our days and nights. It’s the one the planet’s mass is balanced around. Apparently it is off-balanced from the north-south axis by 33 feet, which I take to mean that one side is a bit denser than the other. Suddenly, Jim Bunning makes sense.

He had to equalize the earth’s density axis again by objecting over and over again in the U.S. Senate to a bill extending unemployment benefits to hundreds of thousands of Americans who are out of work, through no fault of their own. Such is the Senate these days that one person can tie up billions of dollars in legislation. When the Earth’s density equalized, Bunning relented, but not before giving America a first-hand look at what Congress would be like if the Tea Partiers took over. And make no mistake, the Republican moron from Kentucky has his supporters.

One blogger wrote: “Bunning will be remembered as a hero for this stand – he stood up to protect America from the uncontrolled spending of the socialists now running Washington, DC. As Europe collapses on itself with its socialist health plans and benefits, Obama and his cronies try to push America into the same failed model. The Mid-term elections can’t come quick enough.”

This supporter, like all others, ignored the fact that Bunning’s “stand” was a sham. While he repeatedly said, given the huge federal deficit, Congress should pay for any new spending, Bunning (and all other Republicans) had voted against a bill that would require just that. Instead, he chose to make his point on spending that would reduce the pain of ordinary Americans, which Congress contributed to with its unchecked spending and homage to corporate America.

In reality, it was just a crass political ploy to get back and Senate GOP leader, and fellow Kentuckian, Mitch McConnell, who led an effort to convince Bunning not to seek re-election, in part because he is prone to unpredictability. Last February, for example, he predicted Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be dead from pancreatic cancer within nine months. Smooth, Jim.

But I linger too long on the Bunning ripple. The Chile quake has also thrown the entire political scene in New York into turmoil. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., has stepped down as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee because he neglected some tax laws he may well have written. Gov. David Paterson has abandoned his campaign for governor on the heels of yet another abuse of power scandal that  has tarnished the state police. Some guy named Steve Levy, who is Suffolk County executive, says he’s thinking of running and a lot of Democrats are still trying to get Paterson to resign, which would make Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch (Did you know that?), the smartest man in Albany because he doesn’t want the job, our next accidental governor.

On the other hand, Harold Ford Jr., a former Democratic Tennessee congressman and current Merrill Lynch VP, says he’s not running for the Senate here against Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand because he doesn’t think they can conduct a civil contest. And Daily News publisher Mort Zuckerman, who supposedly got Ford to drop out of the Senate race, dropped out himself, because, apparently, he sees a brighter future in journalism than politics and what planet is he on?. All of this seems to leave only Orange County exec Eddie Diana as a possible opponent for Gillibrand. Now that’s some ripple effect.

And it goes beyond politics. Disney has taken off the kid-friendly gloves to get into a fight with ABC-TV over money, money, money. Greece, of all countries, almost killed the euro and plunged all of Europe into bankruptcy. The Oscar bigwigs got all uppity and banned a producer of “The Hurt Locker” from the awards ceremony because he dared to send e-mails to voters asking for their support (like everyone else does). A guy in England lost his driver’s license for walking his dog, from the driver’s seat of his car. Some poor-shooting rookie beat NBA legend Michael Jordan in a game of H-O-R-S-E.  Supermodel Naomi Campbell, who hadn’t assaulted anyone in weeks, felt the need to attack her driver. And Sarah Palin did a standup routine on The Tonight Show that got better reviews than her political speeches.

… Come to think of it, that last one is probably a sign that the earth has finally settled on its new axis. Whew.

Bob can be reached at bob@zestoforange.com.

By Bob Gaydos

 Let’s talk about war. We don’t do that much in this country. Not really, when you consider that we have been fighting two wars in Asia for nearly a decade and all we seem to be preoccupied with at home is a recession born of greed. We talk about mortgage foreclosures ( but not so much about the foolish loans that led to the foreclosures), about huge Wall Street bonuses at banks bailed out by taxpayers, about people needing jobs, the price of gasoline, politicians who lie through their teeth to get elected then sell their souls to lobbyists to get re-elected, about taxes (which are always too high), about public services (which are always inadequate), about the cost of health care, the newest best deal on a cell phone, about Ipods and steroids and the Super Bowl and tuition and 401Ks and chicken wings and “American Idol” and the Oscars, the Grammies, the Emmys and, for sure, about the weather.

 But we don’t talk about war. Not really. When’s the last time you had a real conversation with someone about either the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan, beyond the question of whether George W. Bush should have started either one? World War II defined the lives of a generation, brought home in weekly newsreels. Korea was not a backburner topic. Vietnam was a nightly visitor in our living rooms.

 Yet, while we have borrowed our way into economic near-Armageddon Iraq has dragged on forever. And now, with the end in sight — President Obama has pledged American troops will be leaving this summer — the messy question about whether or not Iraqis can put together a government that will last and resemble the democracy Bush said he wanted to create there doesn’t come up much around water coolers. Odd, since some would say that is the only way to determine the ultimate “success” of the U.S. invasion.

 But that’s not war talk. Not really. War talk is a headline reporting that a dozen  civilians were killed in a rocket attack on Marjah, a Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan. The civilian deaths were described in news stories as a blow to efforts by NATO and the Afghan government to gain support among local residents. Almost lost in the newspaper and TV reports on the U.S. Marine-led assault on Marjah was the fact that it was a major military success, cutting  off logistical support for the Taliban and the opium money that keeps them operating.

 It was the largest ground offensive of a war begun eight years ago to destroy the Al Qaida terrorist group that was hiding in Afghanistan with the blessing and protection of the then-ruling Taliban government. In other words, it was a serious moment in a war which has not been taken nearly as seriously as one would think by politicians and a populace who routinely proclaim their commitment to destroying the people responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001.

 The military term for the unintended deaths of civilians is “collateral damage.” Not particularly compassionate. But then, war has little room for sentiment. It is about territory and killing. Military people are the ones who are most aware of this when the war talk begins. It is U.S. Marines who are going door to door in Marjah today, seeking insurgents and looking out for booby traps and explosives with every step, their lives on the line. Their lives are more on the line because two rockets — described as “sophisticated” weapons — went off course and struck a home instead of their intended target. The U.S. general in charge immediately apologized to the Afghans and suspended use of the rockets. He said the best way to ensure that such accidents don’t happen is to use more “boots on the ground.”
 
 That certainly makes the war more personal. Which is the harder decision — putting a few thousands U.S. troops in harm’s way or firing off some “sophisticated” rockets to do the job? More than a few “smart missiles” missed their mark in Iraq as I recall, but there was so much devastation no one seemed to care much after awhile. Except maybe the Iraqis.
 
 The point is there will inevitably be unintended deaths in war. They are tragic and the warring parties should do all they can to avoid them. Unfortunately, in the kind of wars we are fighting today, the enemy doesn’t much care about rules of engagement or whom he kills. Innocent bystanders are terrorists’ primary weapon. That’s why the United States and its allies must remind Afghan civilians, a war-weary people if ever there was one, that we are different. We are not the Taliban. We are not Al Qaida.

 But we are, finally, fighting a war to defeat those two forces in Afghanistan, with more American boots on the ground, as per Obama’s order. It’s a war that seemed necessary and just to most Americans when Bush sent our troops to fight it. But at some point we stopped talking about it back home and became obsessed with Blackberries and McMansions and SUVs. Not those with loved ones serving in the military. They have those conversations every day. But most of the rest of us want to know why they can’t get the damn weather forecast right and how so many people can take Sarah Palin seriously.

 There’s something wrong with that. When war is an after thought, when there is no sense of shared risk or sacrifice, it is dehumanized. Life is devalued. “Smart” weapons seduce us into thinking there will be no “collateral damage.” In and out. Neat and clean. Boots on the ground remind us that war is about capturing a snowy hilltop or a city built of mud, one careful step at a time. It is about facing death as much as it is about obtaining justice or retribution or whatever word is used to justify it.          

 War is not neat and clean and it is certainly worth talking about.

Bob can be reached at bob@zestoforange.com.

By Bob Gaydos

(Editor’s note: In the interests of full disclosure, let it be known that the following was written by me for the TH-R in my capacity as fill-in editorial writer when the new guy is on vacation. It turns out they didn’t use it because he wrote on the same subject for the same day. So it shouldn’t be a total loss, I figured I’d share it with Zest readers.) 

“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he’s going to meet his maker, He will be brought to justice and he’s likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans. That you can be sure of.”
 — Robert Gibbs, President Barack Obama’s press secretary

That’s apparently all we can be sure of at this time. Where, when and how Mohammed will “meet justice” is apparently anybody’s guess as the Obama administration has hemmed, hawed, stumbled and bumbled its way through the process of getting the confessed 9/11 mastermind out of prison at Guantanamo Bay and into a United States courtroom.

With dazzling suddenness, the administration’s plan to try Mohammed and four accused co-conspirators at the federal courthouse in downtown Manhattan, not far from the scene of the infamous act, fell apart over the weekend. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who at first supported the plan, changed his mind, he said, when he saw the scope of security plans Police Chief Raymond Kelly drew up for the trials. They called for closing off  large portions of the financial district and Chinatown with roadblocks and checkpoints and putting snipers on rooftops. Bloomberg said this would cost the city more than $200 million a year for several years. “It will also impact traffic and commerce and people’s lifestyles downtown,” Bloomberg said.

He said the price was too high, even for a chance to bring the accused terrorists to justice face-to-face. When Bloomberg flipped, Sen. Charles Schumer followed, as did many others.

Simultaneously, the call went out to find other suitable trial sites within the federal Southern District jurisdiction, including a few in Orange County. West Point, the Air Force National Guard base at Stewart International Airport and the federal Correctional Institution at Otisville were named as possible alternatives. One at a time. West Point: Out of the question. It’s an educational institutional housing future officers. Highland Falls would be overwhelmed. Stewart: It’s still an airport and it has no courtroom or lockup facility. Otisville: The most secure and remote. Would need a courtroom. And Otisville would need all of that $200 million the president has pledged to pay for the cost of the trials.

A fourth, unsolicited, suggestion came from Newburgh Mayor Nicholas Valentine, who said his city could handle the trial in the new courthouse across the street from his tailor shop. Unlike, Bloomberg, Valentine says the trials would be an economic and public relations boon for his city. That’s probably true, but the goal is to provide fair trials within the U.S. justice system for five accused terrorists, not to rescue a city that has had difficulty handling its own problems, which include a recent rash of street violence.

The White House never conferred with New York City officials before deciding to try Mohammed there. Big mistake. Before making another one, the president needs to meet with Justice Department and national security advisors to decide on the best approach. Resistance from local communities should not drive his decision, but should at least be considered. Nor should expediency rule the day. If, as has been suggested, Obama is again considering military rather than civilian trials, these at a minimum need to be conducted under U.S. trial laws, which do not allow hearsay or coerced testimony, but do allow the accused to see the evidence against them.

Anything less would be a capitulation to fear and would represent a final victory for Mohammed and his ilk, regardless of the verdicts.

Bob@zestof orange.com

By Bob Gaydos

It’s God’s plan that I should write this column. It must be because I had no intention of writing about Sarah Palin’s religious beliefs until I read a shocking article in the Sunday Record explaining them, or rather, explaining how the news media misinterpreted them.

 Actually, the article itself, distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, wasn’t shocking; the fact that it appeared at all in a mainstream newspaper is what shocked and impressed me. The simple truth is most reporters and editors in the mainstream news media — which would include TV and, to a slightly lesser extent, news magazines — hate religion stories. They do not understand religion or respect the influence that faith — whether or not it is bound by the principles of any particular religion — has in the lives of millions of people. Indeed, many journalists seem to revel in a need to mock religion and people who express faith in a higher power. Easier to mock than to try to understand.

 I do not state this lightly. It’s what I feel after more than 40 years of daily newspapering. Religion scares a lot of journalists, who don’t bother to differentiate between those who exploit religion for their own purposes — and the airwaves are full of that type — and simple articles of faith that ordinary people use to get through life.

 The Palin “God” flap is an example of the latter. A new book written by yet another angry former presidential campaign aide to Sen. John McCain quotes the former Alaska governor as saying, upon being asked how she could remain so serene after just being asked to run for vice president and being on the verge of becoming one of the most famous people in the world, “It’s God’s plan.”

 That’s it. No further explanation. The Scripps Howard story reported that the Washington Post report on the book was headlined: “McCain aide: Palin believed candidacy “God’s plan.’” Other news accounts were in that similar mocking vein.

 But as the Scripps Howard story explained, this comment does not necessarily mean that Palin believed that God planned for her to be vice president because it would be good for the country. A grandiose view. Rather, it was more likely an example of common speak for evangelicals, and millions of other people, who believe that God shapes their lives through the people and events they encounter and the choices they make, for better or worse. A humble view.

 That does not necessarily mean Palin believes God has chosen her or that her decisions are the work of God. That’s what the jihadists preach. Since Palin’s comment was not expanded upon in the book, no one can know her meaning for sure, but based on her own book, “Going Rogue,” she clearly believes in a God who offers unexpected challenges in life, make of them what you will. Hardly scary, but not sexy enough for publishers and journalists.

 The Scripps Howard piece was written by Terry Mattingly, who directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. (Who knew?) Mattingly suggests it may be time to produce a primer for newsrooms on “How Evangelicals Talk.” Why limit it to evangelicals? If the purpose of good reporting is to understand and explain the human condition, that should include people’s  religious and spiritual beliefs as well. It doesn‘t mean you have to believe what the person believes, but that you should at least try to understand those beliefs and what role they play in a person’s life. Ask the woman what she means, for God’s sake.

 It’s easy enough to mock Sarah Palin. I have succumbed more than once and probably will again. But I had to write this column in her defense and it certainly wasn’t my plan.

Bob can be reached at zestoforange.com    

By Bob Gaydos

 Okay, I wasn’t going to write about this because I figured it was too obtuse and nobody else would care about it. An indulgence on my part. But then it was Thursday and it was still bothering me since Sunday and I figured, what the heck, what is a blog for if  not to indulge oneself, obtusely or otherwise?

 So, once upon a time (for 30 years, actually), the incomparable William Safire wrote a column on language in The New York Times Magazine. As is its wont, The Times called it On Language. Safire, who was also a Pulitzer Prize-winning political columnist and a persistent defender of individual liberties, died last year. So did his column as far as I can tell.

 Oh, On Language is still there Sundays, but I have grown out of the habit of reading it. Last Sunday, though, the headline on the column caught my eye: “Why does Justice Antonin Scalia hate this word?”

 Since I hate Antonin Scalia, I had to know what word could get under his Original Intent skin. Now I don’t hate Scalia as much. (There’s a lesson in that, kiddies.)

 The word Scalia hates is choate.

 Choate?  I said to myself. Is that even a word? Isn’t it inchoate? And how the heck do you even say the word? Plus, who would ever use such a pretentious word? What the hell does it mean? And who gives a flying fig newton anyway? Aren’t there things to write about language that normal people use? Who is this moron Ben Zimmer wasting an entire page in The Times Magazine on a word nobody knows or uses or ever will use? And whatever happened to editors showing some common sense?

 Anyway, you get the picture.

 For the record, the “word” choate has apparently wormed its way into law dictionaries (what else) because of persistent use by lawyers, who have a tendency to the pretentious that begins with their insistence on calling themselves attorneys. The thing is, choate (OK, I’ll tell you how to pronounce it: KOH-it, or KOH-ate) is a bastardization of inchoate. I willingly confess this is the first time in more than 45 years of writing that I have ever used the word in any form. Inchoate means begun but not completed, partially done. I usually say incomplete. Choate has been taken by some — mostly lawyers — to mean the opposite of inchoate — completed.

 Scalia, bless his heart of stone, isn’t buying it. He knows from his Latin that the in-prefix of inchoate is not a negative. He told a lawyer who used choate as the opposite of inchoate that it’s like thinking the opposite of disgruntled is gruntled. Apparently, Scalia had made this point several times to lawyers appearing before the court.

 Good for him. But I repeat, who gives a fig and why waste the once-valuable space of the On Language column for such fussy nonsense when there is so much to find fault with in the way real Americans speak and write every day? Zimmer actually mentions one of them in his column — the use of irregardless to mean regardless. There is no good reason for this. One is a word, the other is the result of people thinking they will sound too smart and snooty if they say regardless, and of other people (parents, teachers, bosses) letting them get away with it.

 But I have my own pet peeves. One is when people try to sound smart and snooty by saying between you and I. Ugh. I don’t know how or why this started, but these things are like chicken pox — once they start, there’s no stopping the spread. This misplaced nominative case is often uttered on TV and radio sports “analysis” shows by current, former and would-be jocks. I know I shouldn’t go there expecting perfect English, but this is particularly irritating to me because it’s a bunch of guys trying to sound well-educated by ignoring basic education. It’s even more annoying when it shows up on non-sports talk shows. Apparently nobody feels comfortable telling someone that it’s wrong, so the usage continues.

 My current main language peeve is the interchangeable use of composed of and comprised of. This is usually done in writing because comprise sounds too snooty when you say it aloud. When you write it, it’s kind of like showing off. But they don’t mean the same thing, which will come as a surprise to the entire sports staff at the Times Herald-Record.

Compose, according to my handy Encarta computer dictionary tool, means to be the parts of something: to make something by combining together. Example: fertilizer is composed of organic compounds.  Comprise, on the other hand, means to include something: to incorporate or contain something; to consist of something: to be made up of something. Fertilizer comprises several organic compounds.
 
 Put it this way guys: Comprise is concerned with a whole having a number of parts. The team comprises (includes) nine players, pitcher, catcher, shortstop, etc. Active voice. But compose is concerned with parts making up a whole: The team is composed of nine players. Passive voice. Nothing is comprised of anything.
  
 Now, I realize this is probably an exercise in futility on my part, but someone has to start insisting that people who are paid to speak and write proper English do so. If not them, who? If any of this personal peevishness spreads like chicken pox, I will be happy. And if The Times insists that the On Language column concern itself again with words people actually use, between you and me, I will be extremely gruntled.

*  *  *

 If you have any language peeves of your own, I’d like to hear them. Please be gentle or even resist pointing out any mistakes I may have made in my own writing. I don’t get paid for this.

*  *  *

 P.S.S.: Scalia’s disgruntled example on inchoate got me to thinking about other non-opposite-words that could be formed by erroneously dropping an in. For example: Carcerate is not the opposite of incarcerate; Ert is not the opposite of inert; Fuse is not the opposite of infuse; Gest is not the opposite of ingest; Hale is not the opposite of inhale; Jure is not the opposite of injure; Quest is not the opposite of inquest (They’re actually kind of the same); Corrigible is not the opposite of incorrigible; Tuitive is not the opposite of intuitive; Vade is not the opposite of invade; Vasive is not the opposite of invasive; Vent is not the opposite of invent; veigle is not the opposite of inveigle and Evitable is not the opposite of inevitable — although I can imagine a lawyer arguing that Exhibits A, B and C do not lead to D, making his client’s guilt evitable.
 
 I promise to get more sleep.

Bob can be reached at zestoforange.com.

By Bob Gaydos

 Some random thoughts at the end of yet another year …
 
 Use it or lose it: What is the point of being the most powerful political leader in the world — free or otherwise — if you don’t occasionally use that power? Especially against your political opponents. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for Barack Obama’s diplomatic efforts to repair America’s relationships with other countries. The Bush era of arrogance and ignorance did serious damage to this country’s global interests, never mind its image. Having a president who is perceived as capable and approachable, but not a pushover, cannot be bad for the U.S. and could encourage more cooperation from other nations in the war on terrorism as well the war in Afghanistan and a host of non-violent issues.
 
 But really, it is long past time that Obama told Joe Lieberman to take a hike and have lunch with his Republican buddies. Lieberman, a Democrat until he lost a primary in his home state of Connecticut, calls himself an independent senator who caucuses with the Senate Democrats. That gives Democrats the so-called super-majority of 60 votes needed to head off filibusters. It also makes Lieberman — who was almost John McCain’s running mate on the Republican presidential ticket last year —  more powerful than any single Democrat in the Senate.
 
 He used his leverage to carve up the health reform bill to his liking — no public option –before agreeing to vote with his former party. And, because of Obama’s reluctance to boot him despite his support for McCain, Lieberman remains chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. That could well put him in position to ride herd over the health reform bill, since his committee would oversee what has been offered as an alternative to the public option. Lieberman, of course, has been one of the health insurance industry’s biggest supporters on Capitol Hill. In other words, he’s a guy who understands power and how to use it to get what he wants.
 
 Yes, I know Obama campaigned on the arcane principle of non-partisan governing, but that approach requires at least one other person on the opposing side to cooperate. Republicans unanimously opposed everything the president has proposed this year. They have gone beyond that to the point of making up facts about the health bill and economic stimulus plans. They encouraged the health forum bullies. If Obama’s for it, they’re agin’ it, even if they have traditionally supported it. The idea is to somehow make him look bad in the hopes they can regain some political influence next year and thereafter. Some Republican governors even rejected aid for their unemployed residents to try to inflict “defeat” on the president.
 
 That’s stupid politics, in my opinion. It is also irresponsible governing. And it does not require the president to forever ignore it. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Call a lie a lie, Mr. President (and tell that jerk who called you a liar in front of the Congress to watch his back). Demand that Republicans who make up facts prove their case. Tell Joe Lieberman to find another party and strip him of his Senate chairmanship and seniority on other committees. Forget fighting with Fox News. They long ago sold their journalistic soul, but at least most thinking Americans know it. The opponents who matter are the ones who can actually make change happen — the ones who were elected. They are also the ones for whom you can make life miserable or pleasant, even if they are in the other party. Governing is tough, Mr. President, and you have made admirable efforts in many areas, but politics is tough, too. It’s time to step on some toes and twist some arms. You’ve got the power. Don’t be afraid to use it.

 Death take a holiday: Here’s a heartwarming story for the holidays. Americans are apparently falling out of love with the death penalty. A report released this month by the Death Penalty Information Center reveals that fewer death sentences were imposed this year than in any year since 1976 when the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment. In fact, Richard Dieter, director of the center and author of the report, says annual death sentences in the United States have dropped for seven straight years and are now 60 percent less than in the 1990s. Dieter also notes that 11 states considered abolishing the death penalty this year, with New Mexico becoming the 15th state to ban it.

 Could it be true? Have Americans really come to their senses and decided to behave like a truly civilized people? Maybe yes, maybe no. Consider the comments by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on abolishing the death penalty. He said a sentence of life in prison without parole was “a strong punishment,” but also noted that the high price of executing someone was “a valid reason (to ban it) in this era of austerity and tight budgets.”
 
 Indeed, the Death Penalty Information Center has another report to back up Richardson’s point. That report concludes that “states are wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on the death penalty, draining state budgets during the economic crisis and diverting funds from more effective anti-violence programs.” The report included a nationwide poll of police chiefs which found that they ranked the death penalty last among their priorities for crime-fighting, do not believe the death penalty deters murder, and rate it as the least efficient use of limited taxpayer dollars

 It’s still the economy, stupid.
 
 Which decade was that?: I know this is the proverbial dead horse I am about to beat, but since when did nine years make a decade. As we approach the 10th year of the 21st century, Sports Illustrated, Time, various radio and TV news outlets have been offering us their lists of the key events of the first decade of this century. This, of course, assumes that when we started counting years, the first one was zero, which makes no sense whatever. Year one was year one. The nonsense began with the millennium celebrations in 2000, which was actually the last year of the 20th century, not the first of the 21st. Most producers of these early end-of-decade lists justify them by saying that’s what most people think, so we do it. Well, once upon a time, people thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. But at least they could count from one to 10.

  P.S: Fire the Giants’ offensive and defensive coordinators.

Bob can be reached at bob@zestoforange.com

By Bob Gaydos

 Jeter took care of that over-rated rap this year. He won almost every baseball award out there except most valuable player, captured his fifth World Series ring, captained the United States team in the World Baseball Classic, became the Yankees’ all-time leader in hits, surpassing legends named Gehrig, Ruth and Mantle, and did it the way he has his entire career, quietly and methodically, with respect for the game and fans. He even won an award for his charity work off the field.

So his selection as Sports Illustrated’s Sportsman of the Year was not surprising. In fact, it was refreshing. I’m talking here as a dad now as well as a longtime sports fan and unapologetic Yankee fan. I don’t know how  you read the cover story on Jeter without thinking, “This guy is too good to be true. What wonderful parents he must have.”

 I coached my sons in Little League for 10 years. Great stuff. I miss it. One of the things coaches do is give young players major leaguers to mimic. Lots of kids mimic Jeter. Or try to. His patented jump throw fom the hole. His batter’s box routine withthe raised hand. Maybe a fist pump. But we always tried to get them to mimic the way Jeter ran out every ground ball with full effort, no matter the score or the import of the game.

The general manager of the Oakland A’s was so impressed with this, he made a video of Jeter running to first base in a game the Yankees were losing, to show to Oakland players in spring training. “You think you’re running hard until you see a champion and a Hall of Famer run,” he explained. Jeter’s response was typical: “My whole thing is you’re only playing three hours a day. The least you can do is play hard.” Manny, are you listening?

One other thing in that S.I. article was pure Jeter: “I never liked people who talked about themselves all the time, gloat. If you’re accomplished and have done things, people will talk about it for you. I don’t think you have to point it out.” This is a rule of life that apparently not too many pro football players have learned, what with all the chest-thumping after every tackle, batted-down pass or pass completion by people paid to do just that.

 Anyway, I insisted my sons read the Jeter article. (Notice, boys, it says he still talks to his parents every day.) That’s because I like to find positive role models in people they know, not that I think athletes automatically serve as positive role models. You’d have to be a fool to think that these days.

On cue, enter the greatest golfer ever and, apparently, one of the worst husbands of our era. Tiger Woods has been linked with Jeter in TV commercials and among sports icons because of his reticence and his unmatched skill and desire to win. But if you paid attention, Tiger was never Jeter. Or put it the other way. Jeter was never Tiger. He never bad-mouthed opponents, threw his bat in anger, acted like he was doing the world a favor by being who he was. Jeter never claimed to be perfect. Woods let us believe he was.

While Jeter graced the cover of Sports Illustrated last week, Woods was on the cover of every tabloid in the country. Maybe the world. At last count he was 10 over par in terms of women in his life. That is, one wife, 10 “mistresses,” as the news accounts describe his collection of waitresses and porn stars.

Woods has been named S.I.’s Sportsman of the Year twice, in 1996 and 2000. In 2000, he was honored for being perfect, even too perfect, on the golf course. The writer, Frank DeFord, admitted to wanting to see him lose once in  a while. “We are not mean-spirited, you understand. We love Tiger Woods, it’s only that we are human, and you need human stuff on the golf course.’’

Woods apparently was all too human all along. off the golf course.

There are lessons here. I don’t know what they all are. Probably something about being comfortable with who you are and not worrying about being perfect and living up to others’ expectations. Failure is OK, even necessary. Everybody fails. What’s important is to give your best and not act as if the rules of common decency don’t apply to you. Respect people and what you do for a living. And talk to your parents every day.
 
 Bob can be reached at bob@zestoforange.com

By Bob Gaydos

 When I started thinking about what to write for this week’s blog, I decided, what with it being Thanksgiving week, to try to avoid one of those smart ass columns that make me feel so clever and instead go for something a bit more personal. What was I thankful for? That always starts with my two sons, Max, 17, and Zack, 15. So far, so good.
 
 As I thought about them, I thought about myself as a teenager and eventually wound up back in another Thanksgiving, a sad, heart-wrenching one, 46 years ago. Thanksgiving, 1963, was a day of tears for many Americans. Six days earlier, President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated in Dallas. I was actually out of my teens and out of college by then and waiting to go to Fort Dix, N.J., for basic training. Kennedy’s death delayed that departure but the Army got its man.
 
 Like many young Americans at the time, Kennedy was an iconic figure to me. He was the first president to whom I paid any attention. More to the point, he was the first one who made me think consciously about what a president represents, or should represent. Forty-six years later I know a lot more about Kennedy than I did then and recognize the fact that he was, like all of us, a flawed human being. But in 1963 he was JFK, the young, cool, smart, funny, charming, tough guy with a beautiful wife and a gift for words. He made me feel proud to be an American. It wasn’t complicated. When Kennedy spoke, I was glad he was my president. My leader.

 I haven’t had anything approaching those feelings about an American president since then, until the election of Barack Obama, which, I realize now, is where the train of thought from my sons to JFK had led me. I am eternally thankful that my teenaged sons were fortunate to experience the campaign that led to the election of this country’s first black president and that, like JFK, Obama is a young, cool, smart, funny, charming guy with a beautiful wife and a gift for words.

 What we don’t know yet is how tough Obama can be and whether he can be a leader, but he has thus far stuck to his guns on saving our battered economy and on reforming the health care system. These are enormously important if complicated and mind-boggling challenges that, unfortunately, do not lend themselves to immediate success, much less feelings of pride. Way to go, Barack! A more dramatic reading of Obama will come next week when he reveals his plans for resolving the war in Afghanistan. But he will have critics on both sides, whatever he decides. That is the reality of governing. Plus, Obama has had to deal from Day One with a small, loud segment of our society that doesn’t like him simply because of who he is and what he represents. A lot of Americans also had trouble accepting JFK, the first Catholic president, in addition to being a young man with an Ivy League pedigree.

 One would think — well, I think — that competence, intelligence, a willingness to hear all sides of an issue, a belief that diplomacy is a necessary adjunct to military might in foreign policy — are necessary attributes in a president. Where Obama — who was two years old when JFK was shot — has succeeded beyond question is in elevating the level of respect for the United States around the world. When I see him in Japan or China or Germany or wherever he meets with world leaders, I confess I feel proud. I think that is a good thing. I really don’t get the argument that it’s not good to talk to other nations and to have people of other nations respect our leader. You go around with a chip on your shoulder, someone is bound to try to knock it off.

 Look, the guy can walk and talk and make sense on any subject at any time and look good doing it — and he can sink a three-point shot. So he might get something wrong along the way; name a president who didn’t. This is someone my kids can understand and relate to. Someone who, I know, has their best interests at heart. Someone who is a walking endorsement of acceptance of all the different kinds of people who call themselves Americans. Find fault with him, sure, but how can you hate this?

 So, as a father in 2009, I am grateful that my sons have the opportunity to witness and, if they choose, to follow the lead of Barack Obama. To feel pride in their country. To sense, maybe, that they, too, can make a difference. To know that it is not corny to think such things.

 Barack Obama, also like John Kennedy, is the father of two young children. Forty-six years ago, Caroline and John-John had a Thanksgiving without their father. An entire nation mourned with them. This year, I pray, for my sons’ sake, that the promise of this charismatic, young president will be realized.
 
 Bob can reached at bob@zestoforange.com. 

By Bob Gaydos

 Hallelujah! Zippadee doo da! Great day in the morning! Let the children out to play. Lou Dobbs has quit CNN. Or Lou Dobbs was asked to quit by CNN. Or Lou Dobbs was escorted to the door, given a check and told not to come back by CNN. Doesn’t matter why he’s gone; just that he’s gone. Oh happy day.

 Several weeks ago I wrote that if CNN had any intentions of continuing to present itself as a serious journalistic enterprise it should fire Dobbs’ sorry, bigoted ass. That’s the kind of stuff that makes you feel a little better when you write it, but you never expect to come true. Maybe that’s why I felt almost giddy last week when I read that Dobbs had announced he was leaving his cable TV show immediately. The Dour Hour was no more.

 Dobbs said he was leaving “to explore a lot of options.” CNN executives said the decision to leave was Dobbs’s alone. Everyone seemed to agree that the onetime financial news reporter no longer fit CNN’s image as a middle-of-the road provider of straight news. The straight-as-an-arrow John King, he of the magic fingers Election Night touch screen, will replace Dobbs in January. King, a former AP reporter, said he would offer unvarnished news and balanced discussions. Now there’s a concept.

 CNN may take a hit for a while in the ratings in the 7 p.m. slot because the increasingly loony Dobbs had built a following among the rightwing loonies who dominate talk radio and Fox News. Conspiracy theorists find comfort in their own kind. It‘s easier to talk about your socialist Kenyan president or about diseases being spread by illegal immigrants when there’s no one around to challenge you to offer maybe a fact or two to back up your opinion. Dobbs never did that. Instead, in the guise of discussing important topics, he merely became a primary spreader of rumor, fear and hate. He may have done more to harm the discussion of illegal immigration than any other “news” person on TV with his regular forays into fiction and send-them-back-where-they-came-from arguments.

 In the long run, though, I’d like to think that CNN will come out ahead by reasserting its position as a news-based network whose reporters do not engage in ideological rantings. With Fox News totally unbelievable and MSNBC trying to balance that far-right voice with a far-left voice of its own, there has to be a place in cable news where viewers can go to get the news unshaped by opinions from the hosts of the show. CNN has been that place, but Dobbs’ presence was at odds with the rest of the programming and must have become an embarrassment to his bosses. Indeed, Hispanic advocacy groups and media watchdogs had been hammering CNN to dump Dobbs, in large part over his comments on illegal immigration.  

  
 Dobbs still has a radio show, where he will continue to do what he does because talk radio doesn’t care a whit about what people say on the air. (Aside to my colleague Jeff Page who writes about just that this week: You really expected Kudlow to step in and stop yet another anti-Obama rant? Take ABC off your car radio buttons. You’ll live longer.) Dobbs said he wanted to continue to work in some public manner on the issues he feels are important, immigration and jobs being at the top of the list. He also said he would like to be involved in “constructive problem-solving.”

 Now that would be a switch. If he’s serious, he will soon learn that looking for solutions is much harder than harping on things that bother you and it doesn‘t draw nearly as much applause from your disaffected mob of followers. Here’s an alternative suggestion for Dobbs: Maybe he can sign on with Sarah Palin as an adviser, or even as a running mate. Now that would be a dream ticket for the right-wingers who can’t seem to find anything about this country that they like and aren‘t fussy about the facts. Come to think of it, President Obama probably wouldn’t mind it either, as long as he didn’t have to listen to them.
 
 Bob can be reached at bob@zestoforange.com.
 .