Mike's blog

« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »

June 30, 2006

Muddled thinking, Kos, et al.

The Daily Kos, a hot political blog, is coming down hard on the New Hampshire primary. Check it out.

Here's what I think about Kos's case:

It wasn’t an unfair system that gave the Dems their nominee in 2004. It was a poor field. New Hampshire wasn’t a rubber stamp; New Hampshire voters just saw the same thing Iowa voters did. To be crisp but cruel about it, Dean crumbled in the spotlight, Lieberman had no pop, Clark was an amateur, etc., etc. Kerry was the best of the lot – and the best prepared to be president. He would have been president, too, if he hadn’t pulled a Dukakis when the Swifties came after him.

All this foolishness about trying to strip Iowa and New Hampshire of their traditional roles in the nominating process is just the Democrats stressing about something that doesn’t matter while they waffle about what does. What’s the Dems’ answer to “cut & run,” “the white flag of surrender” and “he was for the war before he was against it?” If they can’t agree on an alternative message that resonates for 2006, the Rove political ethic will continue to reign.

The problem for Dems in 2008 is not what state gets an early caucus or primary. It is this: Who is going to lead them in figuring out what they stand for?

Posted by Mike Pride at 05:59 PM | Comments (1)

Flashback

I was on a panel yesterday before a journalism student group at Franklin Pierce College’s Manchester branch. The subject was press coverage of the New Hampshire presidential primary, and along with practical advice, we panelists peddled our campaign tales.

My favorite came from Kevin Landrigan, veteran political reporter for the Telegraph in Nashua. Here’s how it went:

As a young reporter for the Eagle Times in Claremont in 1980, Landrigan had a chance to ride on Ronald Reagan’s bus one morning. Reagan was trying to rescue his candidacy after George Bush I’s victory over him in the Iowa caucuses. The scuttlebutt Landrigan had heard from the national press corps suggested that Reagan was slow on the trigger and too old to be president. Landrigan prepared his questions diligently, but he worried that if what he had heard was true, Reagan would be particularly unresponsive at 7:30 a.m., the time of the interview.

Landrigan got on the bus and asked his questions. Reagan’s answers were crisp and on point. The interview went by faster than Landrigan had imagined. Before he knew it, Reagan was asking him questions: Where had he grown up? How long had he been a political reporter, and why had he chosen that career?

Kevin Landrigan’s story had many facets. It was about the education of a young reporter: See for yourself, don’t swallow the conventional wisdom. It was about Ronald Reagan: He made the adjectives used to minimize him – too old, too slow-witted – seem plain silly. And it was about the New Hampshire primary: This is where would-be presidents must connect with regular people – even 20-something reporters.

Postscript (another point of view)

Like my last blog entry, today’s Wall Street Journal editorial concerns the decision of the Journal, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times to publish the story of the government secretly accessing financial records.

Posted by Mike Pride at 03:32 PM | Comments (0)

June 28, 2006

Question No. 9

In response to my blog entry last week on The War Tapes, a reader asks:

“I’m curious if you have any opinion on the recent controversy over the newspaper reports detailing a secret but legal government program which scans bank records. Were the various newspapers right to report on this program? Did you agree with Bill Keller’s letter to his readers? Or is it only newsworthy if a secret program is illegal?”

This is foreign ground to me as the editor of the Monitor. In my career I’ve had to deal with government officials who didn’t want things published but never on national security grounds. So my opinion is based only on many years of following such issues.

Jack M. Balkin, a blogger whose column appears on today’s Concord Monitor Forum page, makes clear that the Bush administration is as good as or better than its predecessors in playing the leaking game. This consists mainly of leaking information it thinks will be to its political advantage and crying “national security” when something is leaked that it doesn’t want out.

This administration does have an advantage its predecessors did not. This consists of two elements. The first is a Greek chorus, masquerading as journalists, that is quick to take up its tune, often thoughtlessly but with much tumult and shouting. The second is a communication system – the internet and 24-hour news networks – that amplifies the howl from a reliable administration perspective.

Three newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, found out about and published stories about the government scanning of bank records.

This raises two questions for me: First, if three newspapers found out about it, how secret was it? And second, how come most of the press’s critics left the Wall Street Journal out of their plaint?

I believe in a vigorous press and have a great deal of faith in the editors of big newspapers to make the right decisions in these cases. I am never surprised to hear an administration – this one or any other – wage a “national security” defense. And ultimately, although my faith is often sorely tested, I believe the public has the ability to look beyond the political hubbub and figure out who is right and, more important, what is right.

Finally, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times, did a superb job explaining why the Times went with the story. I’ve pasted the crux of his argument below, but you can read the whole thing at the New York Times website, nytimes.com.

"The Administration case for holding the story had two parts, roughly speaking: first that the program is good – that it is legal, that there are safeguards against abuse of privacy, and that it has been valuable in deterring and prosecuting terrorists. And, second, that exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk.

“It’s not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case. While some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and while some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence, we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far. A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it. That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don’t know about it.

“We weighed most heavily the Administration’s concern that describing this program would endanger it. The central argument we heard from officials at senior levels was that international bankers would stop cooperating, would resist, if this program saw the light of day. We don’t know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling. First, the bankers provide this information under the authority of a subpoena, which imposes a legal obligation. Second, if, as the Administration says, the program is legal, highly effective, and well protected against invasion of privacy, the bankers should have little trouble defending it. The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere. And while it is too early to tell, the initial signs are that our article is not generating a banker backlash against the program.

“By the way, we heard similar arguments against publishing last year’s reporting on the NSA eavesdropping program. We were told then that our article would mean the death of that program. We were told that telecommunications companies would – if the public knew what they were doing – withdraw their cooperation. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened. While our coverage has led to much public debate and new congressional oversight, to the best of our knowledge the eavesdropping program continues to operate much as it did before. Members of Congress have proposed to amend the law to put the eavesdropping program on a firm legal footing. And the man who presided over it and defended it was handily confirmed for promotion as the head of the CIA.

“A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was that publication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument was made in a half-hearted way. It has been widely reported – indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department – that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash.”

Posted by Mike Pride at 08:07 AM | Comments (2)

June 27, 2006

Singing with the Chicks

My Fathers Day present from my daughter-in-law Melissa was the new Dixie Chicks album, Taking the Long Way. She’s a big fan. I’ll bet she and Grace, my 5-year-old granddaughter, can already sing along with the new songs.

I first heard the Chicks a few years ago while riding shotgun in their family SUV. I’m long past the age when I pay much attention to popular music, but I liked what I heard. For one thing, I’m a sucker for Vietnam War songs (Billy Joel’s “Goodnight Saigon,” for example) and the Dixie Chicks’ sentimental ballad “Travelin’ Soldier” stuck in my mind.

That Christmas, Melissa gave my wife and me Home, an earlier Chicks album. It mixed well with other folk-country music we sometimes play: the Subdudes, Loretta Lynn, Roy Orbison, the Traveling Wilburys, Greg Brown. The Chicks struck me as Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers in skirts.

But of course, since those days, the Dixie Chicks have transcended the pop music world. In March 2003, just before the invasion of Iraq, the Chicks’ lead singer, Natalie Maines, a Texan, said at a London concert: “Just so you know, we’re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.”

This created a firestorm. People smashed their Chicks’ CDs. Red-state country stations banned their music. People wrote them threatening letters. On the Comedy channel one night, I saw a redneck comic do a truly nasty routine trashing Maines and the Chicks. It was red meat to the crowd.

From a marketing standpoint, going political was a dumb move for Natalie (may I call her Natalie?). And she wasn’t exactly a profile in courage when she realized the consequences of her words. A few days after the blowback began, she said: “I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful, and whoever holds that office should be treated with respect.”

The anti-Chick crusade rolled right over this non-apology apology.

Three years later, the controversy is background buzz to the new album. It was the story line in the reviews, and it landed the Chicks a gig on Terry Gross’s Fresh Air. There they got to talk about how the reaction to Natalie’s remarks turned their world upside down. This was great marketing. Fresh Air is an NPR show whose audience is likely to be sympathetic to Natalie’s original statement, supportive or her First Amendment rights and susceptible to buying the Chicks’ new album just to spite the evil Red Staters.

But for me, it’s all about the music. Truth be told, in the slivers I had heard, the music sounded over-produced and over-orchestrated – not raw enough for my tastes. After my Fathers Day present arrived in the mail, I slipped Taking the Long Way into my car stereo with some trepidation.

I’ll tell you what: I’m liking several cuts, none more than “Not Ready to Make Nice,” in which Natalie and the Chicks answer their critics. It’s rare that a pop song rises above sentiment to convey emotion, but this one seethes with defiance and resolve. Already I find myself singing along to its slow opening and listening closely to make sure I’m catching all the lyrics when they get fast and angry. It’s a song that forces you to listen actively, and it isn’t the only one on the album I’d say that about.

I haven’t sent my daughter-in-law a thank you card for the Fathers Day gift yet. I guess I’m hoping this blog entry will do the trick.

Posted by Mike Pride at 07:32 PM | Comments (0)

June 23, 2006

Grunts

Early in the Iraq war, the country struggled with a crucial question: Could a citizen oppose the war and support the troops? Last night at the Capitol Center for the Arts in Concord, I saw the answer right before my eyes.

The occasion was the New Hampshire premiere of The War Tapes, the movie shot by soldiers from a New Hampshire unit and directed via the internet. Afterward, I moderated a panel discussion with Director Deborah Scranton, Executive Producer Chuck Lacy, Maj. Greg Heilshorn and the three stars of the movie, Mike Moriarty, Steve Pink and Zack Bazzi.

I say stars, but the three men were also grunts – infantrymen. From Humvee escorts to profane needling to s--- detail, the movie the three men helped to shoot had no role for glory. Cynicism, humor, resignation, danger, brutality – yes – but no glory. Their unit, Charlie Company, 3rd of the 172nd Mountain Infantry Division, had a job to do, and the men did it and survived and came home changed.

When the lights came up after the movie last night, I sat on the stage surveying the crowd. I knew many people there. If someone had polled the crowd, I’ll bet at least 60 percent would have said they either opposed the Iraq war from the beginning or had serious reservations about it. But only one thing flowed from the crowd to the soldiers onstage: appreciation. And it flowed from the soldiers back to the crowd as well. They appreciated being appreciated.

The first question from the audience came from a woman who wanted to know how to help her 20-year-old son through the aftermath of his tour in Iraq. Give him time and space, the soldiers counseled. The next questioner was a Vietnam veteran haunted by the parallels between their war and his. These young Iraq war veterans said they could not understand how a country’s citizenry could blame the soldiers of the Vietnam generation for the unpopular war in which they fought.

This exchange struck a chord with me. There is a point in the film when the men touch down at Maguire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They have made it home. Soon they are on buses passing the blue sign welcoming them to New Hampshire (a cheer from the Cap Center audience). A throng of relatives and friends has gathered to greet them. Thirty-five years ago, I returned to McGuire from two years overseas. Once I had been bused to the Philadelphia airport, my fellow Americans greeted me with cold stares and disgusted looks. I couldn’t wait to get out of my uniform.

What I saw last night was that the public can separate the policy from the men who volunteer to carry it out. Yes, the audience had just seen a compelling documentary in which Moriarty, Pink and Bazzi bared their souls. But the warmth the audience projected was meant not only for them personally but also for all the men and women who put on the uniform.

One moment I’ll not forget from this event came at the very end. In fact, it came after the end – after I had closed the questioning and the audience and the soldiers had applauded each other. A beefy man with close-cropped hair came to one of the microphones, and the crowd hushed. I thought: Uh-oh. The man identified himself as a Marine and explained that Marines don’t necessarily follow the same rules as everyone else. Then the man said he had only one message for the soldiers on stage, and he popped to attention and drew his right hand to his brow in a salute.

Posted by Mike Pride at 09:19 AM | Comments (2)

June 21, 2006

Fields of dreams II

No story this week has drawn more response from Monitor readers than Eric Moskowitz’s piece Tuesday on the forfeiture of a youth baseball playoff game. Several letters will appear in tomorrow’s paper.

I must put in my two cents.

I know of the incident only what I’ve read in the paper. I coached in the 10-12-year-old playoffs more than 10 years ago. It was intense, and I loved it – even though my team lost in the league finals and I had to console a bunch of teary-eyed boys. (There is crying in baseball.)

Here’s what I think:

It is hard to believe a veteran coach did not know his own daughter was ineligible to pitch. But what is more disturbing is that some adults are arguing in letters to the editor that the rulebook doesn’t matter. What kind of lesson does that teach kids? I understand from the coach’s letter that the rulebook also says forfeits should be rare in the league, but the power to interpret the rules is not his.

Here’s what the coach should have said to the team (and maybe he did say it – I don’t know – I wasn’t there): I made a mistake, and I’m sorry. The umpires and the league president have the authority to enforce the rules, and we have to accept their decision and move on. This is nobody’s fault but mine.

Baseball is supposed to be fun, and there's no doubt this rhubarb took the fun out of this particular game. But it also created a teaching moment. The worst thing that could come of it is not the loss of a ball game; it is a child losing respect for the rulebook and the system put in place to enforce it.

Posted by Mike Pride at 07:00 PM | Comments (0)

June 19, 2006

More on that photo

At the risk of offending with too much defending, I’d like to respond to a couple of comments readers made about “The war hits home.” This was my entry last week about our use of a photograph of the girlfriend of Russell Durgin crying as she watched a television news report of his death in battle in Afghanistan.

Here are excerpts from the comments:

“The photographer must have returned with a variety of other shots that would have added visual impact to the story without displaying for the world a family’s moment of grief. The current trend in mass media to seek out and display the most private, painful or tragic aspects of human emotion . . . diminishes our respect for each other and our society.”

And:

“The true test of journalists should be, can they paint a picture in the mind’s eye without the use of a visual aid? . . . A picture of his girlfriend on the front page being depicted as devastated is shameful, invited or not.”

The true test of journalists is to use all the talent and judgment they have to convey to the public the reality of what happens. A photojournalist’s job is to capture THE moment that encapsulates an event. Yes, to some extent it is the reporter’s job to “paint a picture in the mind’s eye,” but the words and pictures should work together to tell the story.

As for the current media trend being to convey “the most private, painful or tragic aspects of human emotion,” there is nothing new or recent about it. It has been part of what the media do for as long as there have been media. I would only add that this tradition also includes the responsibility to capture the other end of the emotional spectrum – the joy, love and surprise of human events. There was no joy in the photograph in question, but there was love, and there was caring.

And far from diminishing respect for each other, publishing that picture should only enhance readers’ respect for Michele Dougherty, the Durgin family and the sacrifice of Russell Durgin. The photograph was the farthest thing from a gratuitous appeal to base emotion.

As far as I am aware, there was no internal dissent at the Monitor over publishing this picture. But there are news photos over which we argue. Dan Habib, the photo editor, usually knows when a photo might be too graphic or raise other issues of taste. In such cases, we always discuss the pros and cons openly and make the best decision we can. And while we know many of our readers see – and even seek out – graphic images on television and the internet, the standards we employ are far higher than the standards of those media.

That said, as a rule, I would rather that when we err, we err on the side of publication. We would not be doing our job if we withheld vital information, including images that wrench the heart, for fear of offending some readers.

Posted by Mike Pride at 08:45 AM | Comments (0)

June 16, 2006

Fathers

I am a lucky father. I still have my father, who is 89 and takes a short walk every day. And I have three sons, two of whom are loving fathers and all of whom seem determined to be self-sufficient and useful. We are a scattered family, but this is the American way.

I see in my family the seasons of fatherhood. From afar, my father enjoys news about his grandchildren and the arrival of his great-grandchildren. My sons, meanwhile, discover both the joys and challenges of fatherhood. And I am in the middle, trying to bridge the generations and worrying about both my father and my sons.

I don’t think my father did much to prepare me for fatherhood. In fact, our relationship was burdened by that very real 1960s phenomenon known as the Generation Gap. We fought about nearly everything when I was in my teens. Fortunately, when the reconciliation came later, it was at least as profound as our differences had been.

I vowed I would be a different kind of father, but I’m not sure I was. I am sure I was blessed with a different kind of sons. We actually had relationships when they were in their teens. These were not always easy, but I knew it was important even during the rough patches that we keep talking, and we always managed to so.

That said, I’m not sure I did any more to prepare my sons for fatherhood than my father did to prepare me. And now I have reached a point in life where I have a hard time keeping up with the boys. They are extremely helpful to us when they visit, and we have nice, easy times when we see each other. But they don’t e-mail or call me often enough for me to keep track of what they’re thinking or what really matters to them. They are men. Men go it alone.

I’m not complaining about this; I have nothing to complain about. I couldn’t be prouder of my sons. One is a computer engineer who will soon move to Bermuda, where his wife has been posted with the Foreign Service. One began his life as a doctor this week at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital in Boston. And one just finished his first year of law school.

When I brag to friends about our three sons, I often say I regret that my wife and I didn’t have a fourth child. I mean, it’s great at our age to have free computer help and medical and legal advice, but where’s the dentist?

The most astonishing thing about the seasons of fatherhood is how quickly they pass. I hope you make the most of yours.

Happy Fathers Day.

Posted by Mike Pride at 06:38 PM | Comments (2)

June 15, 2006

The war hits home

In a letter that will appear in tomorrow’s paper, a reader criticizes the lead photograph on today’s front page. This is the picture of Michele Dougherty crying as she watches a television news report about the death of her boyfriend, Russell Durgin, who was killed in Afghanistan. Here are excerpts from the reader’s complaint:

“Is it actually news to anyone on the planet that people are in anguish when a loved one dies, especially so young and unexpectedly? Does a newspaper really need to report the fact that his girlfriend is devastated? I wonder how the person who took that photograph, and the editor who decided to use it, would feel if they were the ones on the newspaper’s front page at the moment of their most personal and deepest pain. To me this isn’t journalism, it’s exploitation, and I’m disappointed in the Monitor. Leave the sensationalism to the tabloids. This brave young man deserved better, and so do your readers.”

I disagree with the writer, and I want to explain why and to share the circumstances of our coverage of Durgin’s death, including the photo in question.

To me, the photograph and the story brought the war on terror home in a way that nothing else to date has. I mean in no way to diminish the deaths of other soldiers, but Durgin was known not only to his loved ones and to the townspeople of Henniker and Weare but also to Monitor readers – and to some Monitor staffers.

He was one of seven lacrosse players at John Stark High School whom Monitor reporter Meg Heckman profiled three years ago, just after the war in Iraq began. All had joined the military after high school. Heckman is an alumna of John Stark. Her brother Jim was the co-captain of the lacrosse team and stayed in touch with Durgin after graduation.

Heckman spoke with Durgin again for a story on the one-year anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war, and then told her editor she felt too close to the former John Stark lacrosse players to cover them any longer.

We are working on a project on the experience of New Hampshire soldiers in the war on terror. As part of this project, reporter Chelsea Conaboy was assigned to do an update on the seven Stark men.

At the beginning of May, Conaboy spent 2½ hours interviewing Jean Durgin, Russell’s mother. Michele Dougherty, Russell's girlfriend, was present, too. This past Tuesday, Conaboy interviewed Sean Durgin, Russell’s twin brother, who is in the Air Force and expects to be deployed soon.

The next morning, Heckman called Conaboy to inform her that Russell Durgin had been killed in Afghanistan. Conaboy’s first reaction was disbelief. Then she went to work.

Not wanting to call Jean Durgin for fear that she might not yet know that her son was dead, Conaboy called the National Guard and John Stark High School seeking more information. Then her phone rang. It was Michele Dougherty, making sure the Monitor knew about Russell’s death and inviting Conaboy and a photographer to Jean Durgin’s house to cover the story.

Russell’s family was open and accommodating to Conaboy and Brian Lehmann, our photographer, and so was Dougherty. Conaboy spoke with them all, including Lester Durgin, Russell’s father. They all thought it was important that we get the story right.

Back at the Monitor, Lehmann and his editors chose the photograph of Dougherty to lead today’s paper. Because it was such a strong and personal image, Lehmann decided to call Dougherty and describe it to her before we ran it in the paper. She did not object.

This morning, Dougherty told Conaboy she appreciated the Monitor’s coverage.

I’m proud of the way our staff handled this story. Our job as journalists, even in the most horrific circumstances, is to hold up a mirror and show what really happens. The anguish that a distant war death causes on the home front is important news. To cover it is neither exploitation nor sensationalism, especially when reporters and photographers act with sensitivity and courtesy, as ours did yesterday.

I am grateful to the Durgins and to Michele Dougherty for their openness during a time of unthinkable loss. I believe they have done a public service by sharing their grief and their thoughts, including the family’s conflicting views about the war itself.

I am deeply saddened by Russell Durgin’s death – more so because the family has helped me to know him.

Posted by Mike Pride at 07:12 PM | Comments (5)

June 13, 2006

Mmm-mmm . . . DO-nuts!

I got carded last weekend.

Well, not exactly.

I got asked. I went to Dunkin’ Donuts, and the fellow behind the corner, a cheerful young man who looked like he had taken full advantage of the fringe benefits of his position, asked me if I qualified for the discount.

I was perplexed by the question, thinking there must be some kind of discount card for regular Dunkin’ Donuts customers. I’m not that regular a customer, although the coffee rolls (microwaved 45 seconds with a pat of margarine on top) rank near the top of my wife’s and my guilty pleasure list. I was there mainly to get a chocolate frosted donut with sprinkles for Grace, our perfect 5-year-old granddaughter, and glazed donuts for Jackson, our he-man 2-year-old grandson, neither of whom we spoil in any way when they stay with us. Naturally, as long as I was at DD, I also ordered coffee rolls for Monique and me.

When I acted confused about whether I qualified for the discount, wagging my head somewhere between a nod and a shake – I mean, who wants to volunteer too readily that he doesn’t qualify for the discount? – the counterman rephrased his question.

“Are you over 55?” he said.

I grinned and said, yes, I was.

On the way home, several things occurred to me, none of them worth the 76 cents I’d saved on my purchase.

The first was that once upon a time people said I looked younger than my age. Maybe they were just being kind, but it’s certainly not true anymore. If I didn’t look over 55, the counterman wouldn’t have asked. I mean, it wouldn’t do Dunkin’ Donuts much good to have its employees asking 51-year-olds if they were over 55.

My second thought was that this particular discount had a cruel twist – a cruller twist, you might say. So what Dunkin’ Donuts is offering here is a discount intended to entice me to eat more donuts. And the more donuts I eat, the sooner I . . . expire, to use a euphemism that always gives me a chuckle.

But the third and final thought was even worse than that. I turn 60 next month, so unless Dunkin’ Donuts just started offering this deal, I’ve missed nearly five years of discount coffee rolls.

Some days it only seems like you win.

Posted by Mike Pride at 06:06 PM | Comments (2)

June 12, 2006

And in this corner . . .

To cut to the chase, here is the last quotation from a Christian Science Monitor story on the paper’s editorial board meeting with the noted pollster John Zogby:

“This could be Nixon redux – 1968 – for Al Gore. This could be his moment.”

Nixon, ’68: That’s when Richard Nixon, after losing the 1960 presidential race and the 1962 California gubernatorial race and telling reporters they wouldn’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, won the White House.

The comparison is intriguing in some ways. Gore’s narrow presidential defeat will be 8 years old in 2008, just as Nixon’s was in 1968. Nixon was a two-term former vice president and the out-party candidate during an unpopular war, and he ran on a serious domestic issue: law and order. Gore is a two-term former vice president from the out party, and he is championing a serious issue: global warming.

Of course, there are differences, too. Nixon was a political animal in ways that Gore is not. Nixon was also obsessive and brooding; Gore simply seems uncomfortable in his skin – unable to be himself in public. (I’ve got nothing against beards – I’ve had one nearly all my adult life, but when Gore grew one after the 2000 election, all I could think of was Floyd Patterson wearing that silly fake beard after the 1962 loss to Sonny Liston.)

So what about Gore in ’08? We ran a George Will column today encouraging him to run, but anything Will says on this subject is suspicious. Most people – even Democrats – respond to the idea of a Gore candidacy with groans. I mean, in 2000, he ran as a near-incumbent on an eight-year record of peace and prosperity, and he lost.

My own view? First, please recognize that as a New Hampshire editor, at this stage in the quadrennial cycle, I am an official greeter. My philosophy about the first primary has always been the more, the merrier.

That said, Gore ought to run for president. New Hampshire is a place to test ideas, and Gore has a big one. New Hampshire also tests people. Gore isn’t the same person he was in 2000. As Zogby suggested, we had many new Nixons – why not a new Gore? If he’s learned, if he’s grown, if he’s come to know himself, this is the place where all that will show – and where the voting public will recognize it.

If not, what’s lost?

Posted by Mike Pride at 06:55 PM | Comments (0)

June 08, 2006

The right of rights

As a warm-up for the Fourth of July, by which date I fully expect the rains to have ended
around here, I’m going to turn the blog today over to another Concord editor. His name is Nathaniel P. Rogers, and he died 162 years ago. In the 1830s and 1840s, he ran a paper called The Herald of Freedom in Concord.

The Herald was an abolitionist sheet, and the excerpt below, from an essay called “Free Speech,” was written to exhort abolitionists to speak freely and openly in spite of the unpopularity of their position.

Even though that issue was settled long ago, I hope you’ll bear with Editor Rogers. His point is as important in America today as it was when he wrote it:

“The right of speech – it is the right of rights – the paramount and paragon attribute of our kind. It is glorious among brutes, when it is free. The roar of the lion – it is majestic and sublime in his native desert. Not so, when he grunts under the stir of the poker, in the menagerie. The scream of the eagle, in the sky – or on the crag, where he lives and has his home – how unlike his most base croak, when they withhold his allowance in the cage that you may hear him make a noise. The one is free speech, in ‘free meeting.’ The other, speech-making, under chairs, boards and business committees. How different the wild note of the fife-bird, in the top of the high pine, when the setting sun awakens her throat after the shower, – how different from the chitter of the poor caged canary, in the pent-up street of the city. But illustration fails. The glory and beauty of freedom cannot be illustrated. It must be witnessed – experienced and felt.

“Speech is the only terror of tyrants. It is the thing they cannot control or encounter. Brute force has no tendency to match it. ‘Four hostile presses,’ said Bonaparte – the most formidable brute the modern world has seen – ‘are more to be dreaded than a hundred thousand bayonets.’ So, he might have said, is one hostile press, if it is free. And if it is free, it will be hostile to tyranny. . . .

“It is the uttered word that awakens the dead and that moves mankind. Words are the storm that “awakens its deep.” Words revolutionize society and nations, and change human condition. Monarchy builds its bastiles to imprison them. It erects them amid the silence of the people, and it is only Speech that can throw them down.”

Posted by Mike Pride at 06:25 PM | Comments (0)

June 07, 2006

Win some, lose some

As state politics heads for its summer snooze, there are both good tidings and bad about what we’ll wake up to come fall.

The bad news first: It’s disheartening that Doug Scamman is stepping down as speaker of the New Hampshire House. Scamman wasn’t having as much fun in the job as he used to. That’s because he’s a throwback to a more bipartisan and compromising way of creating state law. Scamman didn’t say so, but a large bloc of Republican reps is rigid in its thinking, unyielding in its stances and unpleasant for a moderate Republican speaker to work with.

Scamman's departure does not bode well. His leadership helped make the House a progressive foil to the more conservative state Senate.

But events concerning the Senate’s possible future softened the blow of Scamman’s announcement.

The coverage of last weekend’s state Democratic Party convention focused mainly on the presidential candidates who spoke there. I found this worrisome. The downside to the primary is that national candidate star power can blot out more vital matters.

Specifically, I worried that when filing for the fall elections opened today, the Democrats would still be without strong candidates in many districts.

False worry. As you can read on tomorrow's Monitor front page, several good ones have signed up already, meaning that voters will have choices for a change. And perhaps the 2007-08 Senate will moderate as a result, with Democrats cutting into the lopsided GOP majority.

Posted by Mike Pride at 07:00 PM | Comments (1)

June 06, 2006

The reviews are in

The War Tapes, the film about a New Hampshire-based infantry unit's year in Iraq, has drawn mainly positive reviews. It was shot by the soldiers themselves.

"Powerfully distressing," one critic calls it. Another says the film takes the concept of embedded reporting "pretty much right inisde the soldiers' brains."

The exception is the Village Voice reviewer who chastises the soldiers for their “mercenary self-regard” and calls the film itself the “cinematic equivalent to a ribbon magnet.”

The reviews are collected at the Rotten Tomatoes site.

The film has its New Hampshire debut at Concord's Capitol Center for the Arts on June 22.

Posted by Mike Pride at 03:29 PM | Comments (1)

Fields of dreams

I just have to weigh in on Concord’s tee-ball debate. I have some experience in this realm, ancient though it may be.

For those who didn't read Eric Moskowitz’s original story and follow-up in the Monitor, the question is whether to call outs when 4 and 5-year-olds play baseball. After a rebellion among some parents, the league has ruled that for the few days remaining in the season, there will be outs.

When I coached tee-ball, I think the youngest kids in our league were 6 or 7. We had outs and kept score. But two memories of those days illustrate the two sides of the current debate.

One was that my team had players at shortstop, second and first who were adept at turning double plays, a great rarity in our league. We were supposed to move players around each inning, but I resisted. I told myself that these abler kids belonged in a higher league, and the least I could do was give them a chance to hone their fielding skills. Besides, some of the less able kids might have gotten hurt playing infield.

The second rationale had some legitimacy, and my favorite moment in eight years as a coach supported it.

During a game at the White Park field, there was an annoying buzz in the distance toward left-center, but I didn’t know what it was. At some point I decided my outfielders needed to play deeper. When I turned to holler to them, all three were standing stone-still with their backs to the infield. They were mesmerized by a remote-control boat speeding across the surface of the White Park pond.

I was wrong about leaving my double-play combo in place most of the time. My ulterior motive was competitive; I wanted the team to win. By trying to push my team to the best result on the field, I’m sure I deprived some kids of opportunities to learn and enjoy the game. I knew all along that it was the adults, not the kids, who caused most of the problems in youth sports. I just didn’t realize until later that in some ways I was one of those adults.

I have loved baseball my whole life, and it is important that it be played right. But most adult coaches are much too serious about both lessons and outcomes. The most important thing an adult can give a tee-baller – or any really young player – is the chance to have fun. At that level, and even some higher levels, whatever rules maximize the pleasure of baseball are the rules to employ.

I know – easy to say from an armchair far from the fields of dreams. But I’m pretty sure about this.

Posted by Mike Pride at 12:36 PM | Comments (3)

June 02, 2006

In time of war

The surprise hot topic of the week was Memorial Day.

Monitor readers were full of opinions: Concord’s parade was too short. Too many people ignore the purpose of the holiday and turn the weekend into a three-day barbecue. Antiwar veterans should have stayed home from the parade. Antiwar veterans had every right to march. Political expression dishonors the dead. Politicians have ulterior motives for marching in parades. The state’s official observance on the traditional May 30 is the real Memorial Day. Or is it?

There are several reasons the debate was sharp.

To deal with the most basic one first, it is a shame there is not a single Memorial Day. I prefer May 30, but we have lost that fight. New Hampshire should adopt the federal holiday even though it leads to a three-day weekend. Having two holidays dilutes the meaning of Memorial Day even more than observing it on Monday.

The real problem is participation. Memorial Day should not be observed mainly by brothers and sisters in arms. Every American should make time to honor those who have sacrificed their lives for our country.

This year’s debate went well beyond the perennial issue of when Memorial Day should be.

In part, that is because the deaths of soldiers are so fresh in mind. Memorial Day 2006 was about deaths long ago, but it was also about mourning – and questioning – deaths that are occurring now.

Things in Iraq and Afghanistan are going badly. America’s active participation in World War II lasted from Dec. 7, 1941, until Aug. 15, 1945 – three years, six months and eight days. If we date the current war to 9/11, an event often compared to Pearl Harbor Day, the war on terror has now lasted four years, eight months and 21 days. And in Iraq at least, its end point is as uncertain as its cause is murky.

I thought invading Iraq was a mistake from the start, but I still try to put the best face on it. The other day, I found myself telling someone that for all the blood and treasure our country is expending there, maybe 20 years from now Iraq will be a better place. Then I thought: How pathetic! Is that the best I can do?

My darker side tells me our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is creating more, not fewer, enemies and making our future worse, not better.

I’m sure many people have things over there figured out much better than I do. My point is that the Memorial Day debate reflects our differences about the war. Those who want to keep the day pure – to limit its focus to honoring the nation’s war dead – believe that introducing arguments about the current war taints that purity. Veterans who paraded against the war believed their protest honored soldiers both dead and living.

I see both sides of this debate, although I come down strongly on one side.

The feeling for Americans killed serving their country is strong. They deserve their day.

But I also know that some men I buried as a soldier on funeral detail during the Vietnam War opposed the war. It is a misperception to think that all who make the supreme sacrifice believe in – or even understand – the cause for which they die. The stones in a military cemetery may line up in neat rows, but in life the people who lie beneath them possessed all the variety of thought and opinion of the human condition.

As a journalist, of course, I cherish freedom of expression. I applaud the Veterans for Peace for marching and making their point. I don’t see how a protest against the war in Iraq interferes with the ability to have solemn feelings for the war dead. I wonder if those offended by the protesters have thought enough about our mission in Iraq.

We’d all be better off if Memorial Day were observed on a single day and if more of the public showed up to observe it. And while we’re honoring our dead, we’d all be better off if, instead of quietly acquiescing to our national leaders, we used the occasion to engage in more debate about a policy that continues to send our men and women to their death.

Posted by Mike Pride at 05:31 PM | Comments (2)

June 01, 2006

THE issue

“The machine in Washington is broken, and Charlie Bass is a cog in that machine.” Bass “is a nice enough guy who has been ground up and spit out” by Washington.

“Charlie Bass has a record as a strong independent voice for New Hampshire.” He is “an agent of change.”

These were the opening words in the most important political campaign this year in New Hampshire. They were also a sign that the silly season has begun – the time when challengers stick labels on incumbents – “a cog in (the) Washington machine” – and incumbents resist them – “a strong independent voice for New Hampshire.”

The speaker in the first case was Paul Hodes of Concord, the Democrat who lost to Bass in 2004 and announced yesterday that he was going to try, try again. The speaker in the second case was Bass’s spokesman, Scott Tranchemontagne.

What today’s Monitor story about this race did not mention was the war in Iraq. On that issue the race will be decided.

Bass has been a rubber stamp for the president on the war. From Bass’s “independent voice,” his constituents have not heard a peep of doubt or disapproval.

It remains to be seen how Hodes will position himself on the war. It won’t be enough to tie Bass to Bush. Voters will want to hear a clear alternative.

And since one congressman can do only so much, the real question is what the Democrats intend to do about the war. So far, they haven’t offered much of an alternative – or they’ve offered so many alternatives, from staying the course to pulling out now – that they’ve given voters nothing to fasten on. This is not an easy issue.

Bass has been so safe in this district for so long that many observers say he’s safe again in 2006. I don’t think so. Fair or not, his fate is tied to Iraq – and to whether Hodes and his party can make a plausible case for what the country should do there.

Posted by Mike Pride at 10:03 AM | Comments (3)