monkeyinmymind.com

Image by: jaylopez

As upset and disappointed as I am about no longer being able to watch MSNBC on my standard cable lineup, I’ve encountered one very noticeable, perhaps positive, side-effect of the transition: I’m sure as hell watching a lot less television.

I remember about four years ago, my wife and I decided to shut off the television and it was one of the most refreshing and positive things we ever did for ourselves, our marriage, and our sense of overall well-being. Slowly, over the course of about 9-12 months or so, we slowly brought back television into our lives, although our viewing habits have never quite been the same. Prior to shutting off the tube back in 2003-2004, we watched mindless reality programs, MTV, and a few network dramas. More recently, this consumption was cut way back and limited mainly to political talkshows, the NFL, the NBA Playoffs, and the occassional episode of South Park, the Daily Show Now, and/or the Colbert Report.

Now that Chris and Keith on MSNBC are once again no longer fixtures of my evenings and Joe Scarborough and crew no longer join me as I get ready for my day each morning, there is suddenly a gaping chasm in my connection to the daily “goings on” of the 2008 Presidential Campaign. In many ways, this development isn’t too bad, as I have been experiencing some level of campaign fatigue lately anyway.

And there is another new “benefit” to the disappearance of MSNBC on my cable lineup. And that’s the addition of my new penpal and frequent blog commenter, Jim Hughes of Comcast. Since I posted my first comment on Comcast’s decision to pull MSNBC from its Standard lineup in the Boston area, Jim has been commenting on my blogs and emailing me back and forth with “answers” to some of my questions.

I am not sure what Jim’s position is at Comcast, but he seems to work in the PR shop, perhaps under former Romney Press Secretary Shawn Feddeman, who I had first cited as the possible GOP connection behind the decision to jettison the progressive-leaning MSNBC to digital while leaving wingnut FoxNews and spineless CNN available on standard cable. Jim’s comments and emails have been cordial beyond belief, and a quick web search tells me that he has been reaching out to a handful of other bloggers who have also discussed this topic in the last few months.

When he first responded, I was excited to reach someone at Comcast and finally get some straight answers about the decision to pull from MSNBC from standard cable, particularly the answer to the following question:

3) If Comcast’s motivation was not political, but instead to “ensur[e] that [y]our network is able to deliver the maximum benefit to the maximum number of customers,” why do CNN, FoxNews, and CNBC remain available in analog format?

With the ratings numbers I showed you, MSNBC outperforms CNBC hands down, all the time, outperforms FoxNews and CNN in certain demographics, and only trails CNN in the main demo by a few percentage points.

In other words, what I’m getting at is the fact that in your attempt to deliver the “maximum” benefit, you are shutting out a huge audience and your not doing the same to the analog viewers of FoxNews, CNN, or CNBC. Please explain.

If you’d like to see some of those ratings figures, click here.

A few days later I got a response from Jim, but it was hardly as substantial as I expected, given the specificity of my query:

Paul, sorry for the delay, I’ve been traveling. I had this question in mind as I explained how these kinds of decisions are driven by a combination of customer input and contractual obligations with programmers. Sorry for any confusion if I didn’t make that clear enough.

Now I’m not sure if I’m going to get any more explanation behind this direct question, but the response from Jim above, while polite, doesn’t seem to directly address why exactly FoxNews and CNN are still available to analog customers. Jim, if you’re still out there and would like to take on this question directly, we are all ears!

Until then, we can’t help but assume that there is another motive behind the move, otherwise the answers would be more direct. The facts that the person who runs the PR shop at Comcast in the Northeast is a frequent GOP campaign contributer, that during an election season a purely political network that provides a foil to the distortions and propaganda of FoxNews and toothlessness of CNN has been effectively silenced to a large population of the politically savvy-electorate, and that the cable provider, Comcast, can’t adequately explain why this move was made without invoking platitudes and circumlocutions, tells me that something still remains to be revealed about the true motivations behind this decision.

The Other Side to the Story: MSNBC Complicity?

For a moment, I’d like to dispel conspiracy theories and examine other possible motivations behind this move…

1) Despite my accusations and questions about political motivations for effectively cancelling MSNBC from standard cable, I also understand that generally speaking, most decisions that large corporate entities make are business decisions, not political decisions. Take the liberal radio network Air America for example. Although I’m not privy to 100% of the reasons why they have struggled with bankruptcy and other financial problems since their inception, even with airplay in supposedly liberal radio markets, an elementary analysis of their troubles would have one assume that if being liberal and progressive were more profitable, they wouldn’t have as many problems that they do. Certainly mismanagement has been part of the touble as well: the place has been revolving door of owners and executives since day one. Perhaps there really is a smaller market for liberal-leaning television and radio. There’s gotta be some reason why Rush Limbaugh is a multi-multi millionaire, while Air America radio hosts have been jumping the network like rats on a sinking ship.

2) Another possibility might be that Comcast recognized MSNBC’s growing popularity among consumers, driven by the cult following of Keith Olbermann’s Coundown program, and decided to pull the network from standard cable in order to charge higher fees to its customers in the digital format because they reasoned that the rabid followers might protest, but would ultimately give in to the increased fees due to their loyalty and appreciation for one of the few progressive voices on the air. Perhaps they formulated an algorithm that modeled the financial gains of charging increased fees against the PR backlash and potential losses from people like myself who are so disgusted by the whole thing that we’re willing to give up our beloved MSNBC out of principle. All television will be digital by February 2009, anyway, Comcast may have reasoned, and people will have little choice beyond that point anyway. And the fact that they will have gotten to shut down a progressive voice is just gravy, instead of the driving force behind the move.

3) A final argument in support of Comcast’s decision points not to the profitability of MSNBC, but instead to perhaps some of the financial demands the network had made of its local distributor, in this case Comcast. To provide some context on this issue, the NFL Network is currently engaged in a PR struggle over cable operators’ decisions to remove it from standard cable as well. Apparently cable operators contend that the NFL charges fees that make leaving it on standard cable cost-prohibitive. Perhaps MSNBC was attempting to leverage the increased popularity of Keith Olbermann and (Air America alum) Rachel Maddow in order to charge higher fees to Comcast, and Comcast pushed back by pulling it and covering their costs with increased “digital tier” fees from customers.

The only evidence I have on the issue of possible “MSNBC complicity” in this affair is the fact that I have sent numerous emails to MSNBC to inquire about the issue and haven’t heard back from anyone at the network at all. Specifically, I wrote emails to the following entities at MSNBC

viewerservices@msnbc.com: General customer service

letters@msnbc.com: general inquiries, etc.

countdown@msnbc.com: Keith Olbermann’s show

KOlbermann@msnbc.com: Keith Olbermann’s work email (this got kicked back as “undeliverable”)

dabrams@msnbc.com: Dan Abram’s work email (this got kicked back as “undeliverable”)

hardball@msnbc.com: Chris Matthew’s Hardball show

verdict@msnbc.com: Dan Abram’s show

joe@msnbc.com: Joe Scarborough’s show

The fact that I didn’t receive a response from six different entities at MSNBC tells me that either they have horrible customer service, or that they too have something to hide. If one searches the web, one can find plenty of Comcast-lambasting, but I haven’t seen evidence of many people attempting to connect to MSNBC directly about this issue. I would for one, would like to hear what MSNBC feels about losing a segment of their loyal audience and what their view is on the motivations behind this move.

Sphere: Related Content

Several weeks ago I ran a post about the dangers of cell phones, especially in terms of the use of them by children. Ironically, about ten days later, the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute released a study essentially confirming some of the international science I had referenced in my post.

Six days later, Larry King featured the issue on his show, interviewing a panel of experts about some of the findings and recommendations revealed in the University of Pittsburgh study. It seems like finally this issue is reaching the mainstream and that can only be a good thing.

In this post, I’d like to go over the University of Pittsburgh study in detail. You can download the study for yourself by clicking here.

The Case for Precaution in the Use of Cell Phones

The study begins by confirming that the main concern with regards to cell phone use is the presence of Electromagnetic fields:

Electromagnetic fields from cell phones are estimated to penetrate the brain especially in children…[and] [l]iving tissue is vulnerable to electromagnetic fields within the frequency bands used by cell phones…The most recent studies, which include subjects with a history of cell phone usage for a duration of at least 10 years, show a possible association between certain benign tumors (acoustic neuromas) and some brain cancers on the side the device is used.

To me, this statement alone, by an accredited US cancer research center, is enough for me to realize that there are potential dangers involved with cell phone use. Of course the very next paragraph in the study is a disclaimer, lest the science create “undue” panic and/or a financial dent in the multi-billion dollar telecommunications industry [emphasis mine]:

However, human epidemiological studies on cell phones conducted to date cannot be conclusive. Due to their recently increased use, we are not yet able to evaluate their long term impact on health. Even where an association between exposure and cancer is well established and the risk very high — as with tobacco and lung cancer — under similar study conditions (in other words with people who smoked for less than 10 years) it would be difficult, if not impossible, to identify an increased risk of cancer, as the risk appears mostly 15 to 35 years later.

It seems ironic that the researchers are in one breath establishing a connection between cell phone use and brain cancer, but in the next breath dismissing that connection as inconclusive, while using a comparison to the established link between tobacco and lung cancer as the argument to dismiss that connection.

This is where collective common sense should enter the discussion. It wasn’t until 1964 that the US Surgeon General definitively linked cigarette smoking to cancer, although numerous scientific studies, much like the University of Pittsburgh study on cell phones, had been pointing to a connection since the early 20th Century. In 1930, researchers in Germany began establishing links between smoking and cancer. In 1938 a study from John Hopkins University established that smokers do not live as long as non-smokers. In 1944, the American Cancer Society began to issue warnings. A 1952 Reader’s Digest article on the smoking/cancer link urged tobacco companies to start manufacturing low-tar and light cigarettes, and 12 years later the Surgeon General made history when he confirmed the science that had been emerging throughout the century. Just think of how many lives could have been saved if more credence was given to the earliest studies on tobacco, if our government and consumers didn’t wait for “conclusive proof” that cigarette smoking had negative effects on human health? Why aren’t we learning from the past when it comes to the establishing the dangers of cell phones? Why must consumers wait for definitive proof of the dangers of cell phones, yet all the while continue to use these devices without definitive proof of their safety?

Much like the cigarette companies of the 1950’s and 1960’s, today’s telecommunications companies would like nothing more than for consumers to ignore these warnings and instead sit and wait for conclusive evidence of their dangers. These studies are obviously bad for business and its reasonable to assume that the telecom companies’ primary concern is the expansion of their business, not the health and safety of their consumers.

Due to the requirements of my employment, I am on the cell phone much more than I would like to be. Perhaps it is psychosomatic, but I can’t ignore the extreme heat that emanates from my phone and the associated discomfort I experience when I use my phone for extended periods of time. For me and my family, the studies I have read so far are proof enough for me to begin to limit my own use of cell phones and completely restrict my two-year old from using, touching, or playing with our cell phones. Like a moth to the flame, my daughter loves cell phones for some reason, perhaps because she so often sees Mommy and Daddy giving these cool, colorful little devices a whole lot of attention. Plus, the cell phone is so often the connection to people she loves like her grandmothers, or myself when I am travelling on business. But my “innate parenting wisdom” tells me something is not quite right about positioning an electromagnetic-emitting device right next to my little daughter’s developing brain.

Despite the conclusion that seems to want to have it both ways, the University of Pittsburgh research team still published several recommendations to reduce any possible risk, which I will cite below:

1. Do not allow children to use a cell phone except for emergencies. The developing organs of a fetus or child are the most likely to be sensitive to any possible effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.

2. Try to keep the cell phone away from the body as much as possible. The amplitude of the electromagnetic field is 1/4 the strength at a distance of two inches and 50 times lower at three feet. Whenever possible, use the speaker-phone mode or a wireless Bluetooth headset, which has less than 1/100 th of the electromagnetic emission of a normal cell phone.

3. Avoid using your cell phone in places, like a bus, where you can passively expose others to your phone’s electromagnetic fields.

4. Avoid carrying your cell phone on your body at all times. Do not keep it near your body at night such as under the pillow or on a bedside table, particularly if pregnant.

5. If you must carry your cell phone on you, make sure that the keypad is positioned toward your body and the back is positioned toward the outside so that the transmitted electromagnetic fields move away from your rather than through you.

6. Only use your cell phone to establish contact or for conversations lasting a few minutes as the biological effects are directly related to the duration of exposure. For longer conversations, use a land line with a corded phone, not a cordless phone, which uses electromagnetic emitting technology similar to that of cell phones.

7. Switch sides regularly while communicating on your cell phone to spread out your exposure. Before putting your cell phone to the ear, wait until your correspondent has picked up. This limits the power of the electromagnetic field emitted near your ear and the duration of your exposure.

8. Avoid using your cell phone when the signal is weak or when moving at high speed, such as in a car or train, as this automatically increases power to a maximum as the phone repeatedly attempts to connect to a new relay antenna.

9. When possible, communicate via text messaging rather than making a call, limiting the duration of exposure and the proximity to the body.

10. Choose a device with the lowest SAR possible (SAR = Specific Absorption Rate, which is a measure of the strength of the magnetic field absorbed by the body). SAR ratings of contemporary phones by different manufacturers are available by searching for “sar ratings cell phones” on the internet. [Using this search phrase, I learned that my cell phone, the Motorola Razr, has the lowest SAR of all commercially available phones in the US. Whew!]

In the end, this is a decision that every individual needs to make for themselves and that parents need to make for their children. Although there are many positive benefits allowing our children to use cell phones, especially in terms of providing a lifeline in case of emergencies, it’s important to understand that there was a time that every adult on this planet got by without them.

Sphere: Related Content

The Monkey and I contend that The Football Gods will smite the 2008 Green Bay Packers for their hubris, inflexibility, and short-sightedness. The idea that the Packers will be able to orchestrate a playoff push without a single quarterback on their roster with an NFL start gracing their resume is ludicrous. The Packers are the youngest team in the NFL and that youth and inexperience will prove to be a detriment as this upcoming season unfolds.

Head Coach Mike McCarthy is mostly unproven, compiling an 8-8 record in his rookie season with a future Hall of Fame quarterback at the helm. It is no coincidence that the Packers’ phenomenal run last year coincided with former QB Brett Favre’s third-best statistical season ever. The Packers’ success last year was tied directly to Favre’s success. In other words, without Brett under center, the Packers will likely perform at level somewhat below their 2006 campaign, as it is a football fact that a football team cannot succeed without a solid quarterback leading the way (the Trent Dilfer-led Baltimore Ravens being the notable exception). With a completely unproven fourth-year “rookie” running the show, Coach McCarthy will have to start all over.

I couldn’t help but chuckle the other night watching a few minutes of the Thursday ESPN telecast of the Cardinals-Saints preseason game. Loudmouth know-it-all former QB and self-professed gamefilm guru Ron Jaworski and Tony Kornheiser engaged in a little verbal sparring over how the Packers will fare without Brett Favre, and listening to Jaworski’s arguments in favor of Aaron Rodgers revealed the borderline insanity that no doubt fueled the Packers organization’s decision-making process (and other who supported their move) over the last few weeks. Jaworski had to add such a litany of qualifiers in order to extol the virtues of his little man-crush Rodgers and Kornheiser took him to task on it.

Kornheiser maintained, as I do, that the focus should be to win now, not in the future, and Favre gave the Packers the best chance for that possibility. Jaworski ridiculously dismissed the “win now” argument, gushing in favor of the completely insane notion that the Packers were instead in the midst of “building a dynasty” on the shoulder pads of Mr. Aaron Rodgers. “Dynasty?” Kornheiser guffawed, to which Jaws went on to add caveat after caveat, like if this kid turns out to be good, and if he doesn’t get injured, and if the rest of the team performs, and if McCarthy’s gameplans turn out to be effective, blah, blah, blah.

Breaking Down The Packers’ 2008 Schedule

Thanks to “Jet” Favre, the Packers owned one of the best records in football in 2007, earning them a tougher schedule in 2008.

Fortunately they get to play the Lions and Bears twice every year, and I think they will probably split those four games. The Minnesota Vikings were extremely tough last year, depsite lackluster play at the QB position. I think the Vikes will likely sweep their games with the Packers this season.

The Cowboys, Colts, and Seahawks (playing at home) will all definitely beat the Packers this season, and the Bucs maybe, depending on what happens at the QB position. Down the stretch they also face tough games against the Panthers and at the Titans, Saints, and Jaguars. The Texans, whom the Pack contends with in Week 14, made some huge improvements last season and are no longer guaranteed W’s on anybody’s schedule.

Bottom line, this is no schedule for a young blood to be learning the ropes of the NFL. Aaron Rodgers will be tested frequently and early. If he thought it were a bad thing to have to play second fiddle one more year to Brett Favre now he will be under the microscope more than any other QB in the league, except perhaps the guy wearing number “4″ down in New Jersey.

Sphere: Related Content

The Monkey and I were away on business for the past 24 hours, cut off from television, internet, and any kind of media, so I was a bit shocked late last night to learn that the Jets had come up with a victory against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the Brett Favre Sweepstakes.

Being a Redskins fan and a transplated New Yorker (now living in New England), I was unable to root for the New York Giants during my eleven years living in New York, so I sort of adopted the New York Jets. I don’t know what’s more frustrating - being a Redskins fan or a Jets fan, but despite that conundrum, I still have some affection for Gang Green, although they’ve been a pretty ugly franchise over the last few years.

I can’t imagine that the Gunslinger isn’t thinking the same thing right now. Just think: Favre had an opportunity to play for Buccaneers, who compete in the weaker NFC, have Green Bay on their schedule, and were a playoff team last year, but now has to come over to the Big Apple’s Red-Headed Step Child Franchise in the midst of a directionless rebuilding process and attempt to piece together an enduring conclusion to his legacy.

Favre seemed worn out and underwhelmed at his press conference, and rightly so. It’s been a tough couple of weeks and he showed his weariness all over his face. While the Jets’ schedule appears to be rather easy coming off a 4-12 season last year, I can’t help but think he was closer to true competitiveness with Jon Gruden and the Buccaneers.

I am still holding out hope that Minnesota or Tampa Bay moves to trade for Favre in the 11th hour. Wouldn’t that be a slap across the incredibly huge face of Mike McCarthy? The fact that Pennington was released by the Jets essentially erases that possibility, but its still fun to think of the prospect of Favre getting the last laugh here. There is no doubt that Favre would have derived a lot of energy and direction from the prospect of competing against his former team. Now, in the unfamilar AFC East, Favre has to contend with the likes of Tom Brady and the San Diego Chargers and the tougher AFC playoff contenders. The Monkey and I will wish him the best of luck and will hopefully get to see his preseason debut against my Washington Redskins on August 16th, as it is likely that that game will be picked up for a national broadcast with the media frenzy that will surely accompany it.

Jets Regular Season Schedule and Prediction

Here’s a preview of the Jets 2008 schedule and a prediction for how they’ll turn out this year with the addition of Favre and other key free agents like Alan Faneca and the 2008 draft class:

Dolphins: Jets win. 1-0.
Patriots: Jets lose. 1-1.
Chargers: Jets lose. 1-2.
Cardinals: Jets win. 2-2.
Bengals: Jets win. 3-2.
Raiders: Jets win. 4-2.
Chiefs: Jets win. 5-2.
Bills: Jets win. 6-2.
Rams: Jets win. 7-2.
Patriots: Jets lose. 7-3.
Titans: Jets lose. 7-4.
Broncos: Jets win. 8-4.
49ers: Jets win. 9-4.
Bills: Jets win 10-4.
Seahawks: Jets lose 10-5.
Dolphins: Jets win 11-5.

That’s probably a best-case scenario, but with the Jets’ horrible outing in 2007, their 2008 schedule couldn’t be much easier.

Sphere: Related Content

Yesterday I posted a discovery I had made about one of the Comcast executives behind the yanking of MSNBC from Standard Cable to the “digital only” tier in the Boston television market.

Specifically, the Comcast’s Vice President of Public Relations here in the northeast is a woman by the name of Shawn Feddeman, who prior to running PR for Comcast, was the Press Secretary for former GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney while he was Governor of Massachusetts. She was also a campaign contributor to to Romney’s failed presidential bid while serving as head of PR for Comcast in New England. I felt that this revelation was further evidence that Comcast’s decision to pull the network from its analog package was politically motivated.

Well, apparently my post made the rounds and not long thereafter I received a response from another executive at Comcast. While I appreciate the attempt to provide some clarity on the issue, the executive’s response only sparked further questions on my part.

Below I will provide that executive’s response, as well as my follow-up questions to him. Hopefully we will soon receive some answers that make some sense.

Hi Paul. Jim Hughes from Comcast’s Boston office here. As a fan of Hardball and Countdown myself, I can tell you for sure that this was not about politics — it was about ensuring that our network is able to deliver the maximum benefit to the maximum number of customers. And as you may have seen in the press, we’ve already started delivering the benefits — we announced the launch of seven new HD channels here in Mass. — Disney HD, ABC Family HD, TLC HD, AMC HD, Science Channel HD, TMC (The Movie Channel) HD and Showtime 2 HD — last week, and more are on the way. A single analog channel takes up as much space on our network as 10 digital channels, or 3 HD channels, and this change is allowing us to strike an appropriate balance between our analog and digital offerings. As for the price issue you bring up, you’re right — digital cable service requires a box-rental fee. This is the fee that we waived for a year for affected customers. And while other TV providers here and elsewhere in the country are seeing the growing consumer preference for digital TV and dropping analog service altogether, we are committed to delivering a low-cost analog option for our remaining customers who want it.

And below, you will find my response to Jim Hughes:

Hi Jim,

Thanks for reading and writing in to Monkeyinmymind.com.

While I appreciate you laying out Comcast’s plans to deliver more HD programming, and also explaining how analog channels occupy more “space” than their digital counterparts, your response still doesn’t quite answer exactly why MSNBC was chosen out of all the cable news channels to be ejected from analog into digital-only format.

To provide some context to this issue, I am aware that if one receives a digital programming package, one still generally receives access to analog versions of those digital programs (now excepting MSNBC, of course). For example, I was over at another Comcast subscriber’s home this weekend and noticed that while they had access to ESPN HD, HBO HD, and CNN HD, this person still had access to the analog versions of those channels. Why doesn’t this hold true for MSNBC?

I love the picture and quality of HD programming as much as anyone else, but I wasn’t aware that this was a “choose or lose” proposition when it comes to mainstays on the cable programming spectrum like MSNBC. As of today (and until February 17, 2009), the default television format is not yet digital so consumers like myself and many thousands of others shouldn’t be forced into converting to digital prematurely.

To that end, I was hoping you could provide additional clarity on the following questions:

1) What other channels besides MSNBC were removed from analog format in order to be digital only (I haven’t noticed anything else missing from the lineup)?

2) What type of Nielsen ratings did these other channels earn?

3) If Comcast’s motivation was not political, but instead to “ensur[e] that [y]our network is able to deliver the maximum benefit to the maximum number of customers,” why do CNN, FoxNews, and CNBC remain available in analog format?

This move smacks as a double standard, especially when one compares the ratings that each of these channels earn. Please note the following ratings numbers over this last weekend, comparing all of the cable news networks:

You will notice that while MSNBC trails FoxNews and CNN (only slightly) in one demographic, it outperforms Fox and CNN in the 25-54 demographic, and outperforms CNBC in all demographics.

Live + Same Day Weekend Ratings
Cable News Ratings August 2, 2008
P2+ Total Day
FNC – 699,000 viewers
CNN – 467,000 viewers
MSNBC – 420,000 viewers
CNBC – 132,000 viewers
HLN – 263,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 1,033,000 viewers
CNN – 657,000 viewers
MSNBC – 548,000 viewers
CNBC – 262,000 viewers
HLN – 270,000 viewers

25-54 Total Day
FNC – 169,000 viewers
CNN – 145,000 viewers
MSNBC – 213,000 viewers
CNBC – 68,000 viewers
HLN – 103,000 viewers

25-54 Prime Time
FNC – 178,000 viewers
CNN – 167,000 viewers
MSNBC – 288,000 viewers
CNBC – 134,000 viewers
HLN – 101,000 viewers

Again, thanks for your forthright answers.

In order for many of us to believe that this decision was NOT politically motivated, answers to questions like mine would be sincerely appreciated.

Sphere: Related Content

As a left-leaning political junkie, MSNBC constitutes my sustenance, my entertainment, and my candy, especially during election cycles. As the only network with progressive commentary (i.e. Keith Olbermann on Countdown), along with other entertaining, informative, and engaging programming, to include Joe Scarborough’s Cup of Joe, Dan Abram’s Verdict, and Chris Matthews’ Hardball, MSNBC is literally the only channel that my wife and I watch together on TV (I also watch football during season and occassionally some Comedy Central stuff before going to bed).

As parents of a two-year old, watching Chris and Keith during the primaries was not only our source of information and news, but it was also our entertainment - our little guilty pleasure that we shared together. We felt like we knew Chris Matthews (my wife did meet and interview him during the making of our documentary film, Swing State Ohio, during the Presidential Election in 2004), and watching his show, along with the others was familiar, comforting, and relaxing. We even liked MSNBC featured conservatives Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, and even Pat Buchanon, because they are all charming, wildly intelligent, and provided their views in a fair and reasoned manner.

So given our affection for this network, this lonely island in a sea of mindless wing-nuttery and mediocrity, we were shocked, dismayed, and disgusted when found out that our beloved MSNBC was being moved from standard cable to the “Digital Tier” on Comcast in the Boston area.

Thanks to the “magic of the internet” I did some looking around and found that this was happening all over the country. I found the timing to be odd, considering this network is 99% dedicated to political programming (besides their disturbing late-night prison documentary series “Lock Up”), and we are fewer than 100 days away from a kinda important political event. I also found it odd that among the cable news channels, only MSNBC, the “left-leaning” channel, was tapped to move to the digital tier, forcing its customers to cough up extra cash for the extra service.

Some further digging ensued and the Monkey and I found a comment on a blog that seemed to provide some explanation from Comcast (bold added by me):

Sphere: Related Content

For about a week I had marked Sunday night on my calendar as the unofficial kick-off of the 2008 football season. With two of my childhood heroes inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, Redskins receiver Art Monk and defensive back Darrell Green, the Washington Redskins were slated to play the Indianapolis Colts in the Hall of Fame game the following day and I was pumped to get a glimpse of my Skins. (Now that I live in New England, my opportunities to watch my ‘Skins on TV are few and far between).

My only problem was that although I had marked yesterday, August 3rd, in my calendar as “Football Night in the Monkey Household,” and even “warned” my wife that I would be watching football Sunday night, I forgot one little thing: August 3rd is also my wedding anniversary. Oops. Oddly enough, my wife also forgot it was our anniversary, until we were both reminded about 15 minutes before kickoff with a phone call from my mom to congratulate us. Verdict: no watchee HOF Game for the Monkey and me.

But thanks to the magic of the internet I was able to wake up this morning and check out some highlights. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the Redskins were able to pour on some offense and that rookie Head Coach Jim Zorn got great performances out of two of his quarterbacks.

I know it’s just preseason, but when you’re an NFL “enthusiast” (read: addict) like myself, and you get the opportunity to check out your favorite team, even in preseason mode, it’s an exciting thing. I actually kind of dig preseason because you get the opportunity to evaluate other players besides the starters. In this case, I was eager to have a look at Redskins rookie Colt Brennan, the highly prolific University of Hawaii standout and 6th round 2008 pick of the ‘Skins.

Always a fan of underdogs, I was casually interested in the University of Hawaii’s run last year, when they went undefeated in the regular season (only to be trounced by Georgia in the Sugar Bowl). Brennan’s draft status plummeted as a result of his horrible performance in that game, which made him available to the Skins in the 6th round at bargain basement prices.

So far it looks like Jim Zorn and the Redskins made a great pick. And it is already clear that hiring Zorn, the former Seahawks QB and QB Coach responsible for the development of Pro Bowler Matt Hasselbeck, has already made a profound improvement on the overall quarterbacking of the Redskins. Brennan was nearly perfect in preseason action last night, going 9 for 10 and 123 yards, with a 157 passer rating.

Oh yeah, Jason Campell played well (i.e. perfect) with the starters. He had a touchdown toss to Antwaan Randle-El within the first two minutes of the game.

Todd Collins was 5 for 6.

I don’t think there will be any quarterback controversy, but it’s nice to know the Redskins seem pretty solid at the QB position with Campbell developing nicely, Todd Collins proving last year that he can come in and deliver solid performances (3-1 as starter to finish last season), and now Brennan bringing another dimension to the offense, vying against Collins for the backup role. Could it be that for the first time in years the Redskins will field a potent offense? Only time will tell but so far so good.

Jason Campbell’s HOF Game highlights are right here.

Sphere: Related Content

The Football Gods are none too happy with Packers management for contracting a political charlatan like former Bush talking head Ari Fleischer to come to Packers Camp and give a few pointers to the club on the intricacies of media relations in sports. While it is no surprise that people that work in professional football seem to have a conservative political bent, the fact that they would invite such a credentialed double-speaker and truth-dodger, who was the mouthpiece for the Bush Administration during the deception-filled run-up to the Iraq War, informs us as to their intentions concerning the Brett Favre saga.

I have talked about the insulting nature of the $20 million “marketing role” offer to Brett Favre to basically shut up, re-retire, and go away in a previous post here. And if Brett takes the offer, I will certainly have a few things to say about his personal integrity, but as of now the Monkey and I can only construe the offer as further evidence of an “integrity vacuum” that permeates many strata of our culture, from the military to corporate America, to professional sports.

• If the Packers are so confident of the skills and quarterbacking-acumen of Mr. Aaron Rodgers, they should have no problem with allowing him to demonstrate his supremacy over Mr. Brett Lorenzo Favre in open competition.
• If the Packers truly care about winning now, not in the future and in the hands of an unproven backup, they should welcome home Mr. Favre.
• If the Packers really want to increase their advantage against a Division rival over the next several years, they should trade Favre to the Vikings in exchange for a couple valuable draft picks, negatively impacting the Vikings ability to draft quality players in the future.
• If the Packers truly respect the man that literally built the modern-day Packers franchise through his grit, determination, and maverick spirit, they should release him. But one other famous Libra perhaps articulated this concept more eloquently than me and the Monkey ever could: “If you love someone, set them free.”

Sphere: Related Content

Here’s what me and the Monkey (sic) know about the current state of affairs between“The Gunslinger” and his not-quite-yet former team:

• Favre won a Superbowl in 1997, the Packers’ first Championship in 30 years.
• Favre played quarterback for the Packers for 16 seasons, and 253 consecutive starts, an NFL record for a QB.
• Favre holds the NFL record for career touchdown passes.
• Favre holds the NFL record for passes completed.
• Favre holds the NFL record for career passing yards.
• Favre holds the NFL record for most 3000+ passing yard seasons.
• In 2007, at the age of 38, Brett Favre logged the third-best statistical season of his career and best season since winning the Superbowl, leading his team to just one game away from the Championship with the youngest roster in the league.
• In 2008, the Green Bay Packers offer to pay their marquee unretired QB $20 million to “re-retire.”

So why on earth is it that the team that Brett Favre has essentially personified for nearly two decades does not want him to take the reigns for the 2008 season? And offering him a multi-million dollar contract to go back down to Mississippi and throw balls to some high school players? Is there something we’re missing here? If ever a “non-employment” offer of 20 million bucks could be insulting, this would be the time.

When you consider what Favre means to the organization and to the Green Bay community it’s inconceivable that they would not want him to lead the team for another season, “un-retired” or not. At his age, it’s easy to say that the game may have passed him by or that he’s lost a step, but that line of thinking goes out the window when you consider his statistical accomplishments from last season. Granted, he threw a couple ugly interceptions against the Superbowl Champion New York Giants, but hey, those same Giants defeated the only undefeated regular season team in NFL history, so it’s not like the Giants were a bunch of slouches stealing a game from the old-timer.

From this Monkey’s perspective, the only question that the Packers organization should be considering is just this: who is best poised to lead this team and win now? Not tomorrow. Not in the future. And not maybe. Now. I can’t see anybody fitting that bill for Packer Nation other than the real “Iron-Man,” Mr. Brett Lorenzo Favre.

Let’s call a spade a spade. Who are the best QB’s in the NFL right now? Peyton Manning and Tom Brady for sure, Drew Brees, Matt Hasselbeck, most likely, but isn’t it arguable that Brett Favre could be included in a group of the top five, top ten at least? And one thing’s for certain, we can all be sure of one QB who’s most assuredly not in that top five bunch…

Aaron Rodgers has been named Packers starting QB by Coach Mike McCarthy. He must be looking pretty damn stellar to beat out a first-ballot Hall of Famer coming off one of his best seasons ever without even a head-to-head competition in Packers Training Camp, considering he’s never started a game or played in much meaningful NFL action.

The idea that Rodgers is going to seamlessly replace a legend, pick up where the team left off, and lead the Packers to the playoffs is ludicrous. Sometimes, you never a replace a legend. Don’t believe me? Ask the Denver Broncos. Or the Miami Dolphins. A notable exception is the San Fransisco 49ers; but in their case Steve Young had already proven himself while Joe Montana recuperated from injuries.

So What Gives?

The only explanation I have for what we’re seeing is a terrible case of hubris on the part of all parties involved:

• On the part of Favre, for not thinking through his decision making process properly when he bid farewell to the NFL, for going public with Greta Van Sustern (of all people), and for not actively engaging team management about his intentions in a timely, private, and respectful manner. But hey - the guy’s a Libra (like me), so how can we expect him to be good at making tough decisions?
• And on the part of Packers management and coaches, for essentially disowning their most famous, important, and accomplished player in franchise history. They have repeatedly expressed their intention on moving forward as an organization and putting their plan for the future into place.

Granted, it’s important for a team to want to move foward and a team must think about the future, but winning in the future on the shoulders of a fourth-year untested rookie shouldn’t come at the expense of winning now.

What Brett’s Horoscope Has to Say

Here’s something interesting I pulled from Brett’s horoscope for the month of July:

The real fear you’re struggling with is that of isolation. It’s as though you feel removed from yourself as well as from the world…you are starting to feel angry about being isolated. The problem is that it’s not entirely true. There are key facets of your life where you are visible, participating in the world and the focus of true admiration…Please recognize that your work is not only having an impact, but you are reaching people on the emotional level as well. You are finally involved with something that expresses your true values, your commitment to caring for the world, and which meets the most important criteria of all, contacts people personally. Therefore, you can feel good about responding to the call for leadership. If you’re feeling isolated, let that stand as a reminder of the condition of 99 percent of the population, and is a key part of why you must do the work you are being called up on to do.

Many have urged Favre to go back to Mississippi. Those people don’t understand what it means to be a competitor. It is in their blood. They cannot control it. It urges them to do things that “regular” people don’t quite understand. Other players know this, but every retired player who says Favre should step away is simply jealous that he still has the physical skills to be on top of his game.

So What Will Happen?

Mark my words, Brett Favre will be a Minnesota Viking before this thing is done. As much as the “right thing to do” is to bring the Prodigal Son back into the fold, at this point Packers management have displayed their inability to do right by Favre, so they might as well go all the way. What was at first unthinkable — dealing him to a Division rival — has now become a genius strategem. Instead of granting Favre’s release so he could sign with a Division rival and get nothing, how about trade him to a Division rival, get something in return, and damage that team all at the same time? In exchange for a draft pick or two the Packers will get this monkey off their back, unload a very expensive contract, and modestly debilitate their rival’s future draft, thereby weakening them as a franchise for years to come. Machiavelli himself would be proud.

And the downside? Only losing to the hands of the Favre-led Vikings in the season opener on the grand stage of Monday Night Football, that’s all. Last year, the Vikings were a quarterback away from serious playoff contention. With Favre at the helm they could be dangerous. And they have Green Bay on the schedule twice. Get ready Aaron Rodgers.

Sphere: Related Content

The Monkey and I have always maintained that disfunction is like poop; it always rolls downhill. When there is a flaw in leadership, it emanates through an organization like a sickness, making the entire organization fundamentally sick.

This idea holds true in the case of Army 2nd Lieutenant Caleb Campbell, who as the best football player to emerge from the Academy since QB Ronnie McAda, was drafted by the Detroit Lions in this year’s NFL draft, due to a change in Army policy that allowed military members with significant talents to be released from active military service.

Campbell’s selection by the Lions was both the feel-good story of the 2008 Draft (spectators in New York City, the site of the draft, broke out into raucous applause, chanting, “USA, USA!” when his name was called), and a point of controversy among many who felt that Campbell was shirking his duties and the Army sending a mixed message.

As a West Point graduate, I applauded and supported this policy by the Army and pick by the Lions in a blog post here, arguing that the benefit of recruiting new talent and inspiring young people and football fans alike would outweigh the cost of losing one soldier on the battlefield, as Campbell’s primary duty when not in football training would be to work as an Army recruiter and public face for the West Point athletic program.

And in case you haven’t been keeping up with Army athletics lately, the West Point football program has strung together one of the lowest winning percentages in Division I college football over the last ten years, ever since the last time an Army player was drafted (Ronnie McAda), who led the team to a 10-2 record and bowl game appearance against Auburn in 1996.

But at its heart - this story isn’t about wininng percentages or boosting up ailing football programs or creating “feel-good” stories. It’s about living up to one’s word.

Duty, Honor, Country?

The Military Academy has a simple, three word motto: “Duty, Honor, Country,” which the greater Army has adopted at least unofficially. The problem is that the facts indicate that the expectation of living one’s life according to the principles of dedication to duty, adherence to honor, and love of country only go one way. The military expects its members to behave according to this immutable ethical code, yet has proven time and time again, especially within the context of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that this code doesn’t apply to the highest levels of the organization, doesn’t apply to the policy makers, spokespeople, and “deciders.”

Need proof? Campbell’s case is the most recent example. He fulfilled his duty, served and played with honor, and no one can doubt his love of country. By entering the NFL, he was simply adhering to a policy that in design would not only benefit himself personally, but the military, the NFL, and the nation as a whole. In a league often plagued by immaturity on the part of players, coaches, and management, imagine what kind of impact on the locker room and playing field a player with Campbell’s leadership training could have positively influenced.

If the Defense Department had a problem with the Army’s policy, they should have done something about it back in 2005, when the policy was first initiated. Changing the goal posts in the middle of the game is reneging a contract and a horrible display of integrity. And not only did the DoD breach a contract with an individual soldier, but they breached a contract with the Detroit Lions, who essentially squandered a valuable draft pick on a player who at the end of the day was deemed in eligible for play. There’s a real case for a lawsuit by the Lions against the military, although there’s no way in a million years their management would pursue such a tactic, as it would be a PR nightmare for them, while legally justified.

Need more proof? The Jessica Lynch story is an embarrassing example. In the early days of the war, the military sold to the American public a made-for-Hollywood story about Jessica’s brave stand against her captors and subsequent Rambo-esque rescue by Special Forces. Only problem was that her one-woman stand against Iraqi soldiers was a fabrication and her rescue was staged. But the military sold the lie nonetheless, to trump up public support for the war and to put up a “pretty face” on what was quickly becoming an ugly affair (little did we know at the time of Jessica’s capture and rescue how ugly it would become - Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, & Haditha anyone?)

But one of the most egregious examples of the “vacuum of honor” at the highest levels of the military (as well among several mid-level leaders), ironically also involves the NFL. And that is the sad story of Army Ranger Pat Tillman, former NFL star, who lost his life at the hands of his comrades in the hills of Afghanistan in 2005. Once again, the military brass sold an outright lie to the military, the American public, and most disgustingly, to the Tillman family. The facts of the case are frankly too heart-breaking to recount here, but again the military expects all from the rank and file but displays nothing but dishonesty when it really counts.

I began by saying that poop rolls downhill. It is my belief that the lack of integrity among military leadership (and LET ME BE CLEAR - I AM NOT ASSAILING IN ANY WAY THE INTEGRITY OF THE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVE ON THE FRONT LINES), flows through the organization from top to bottom. At the top of the poop pile is George W. Bush, Propagandist and Faker in Chief, who has surrounded himself with schemers and charlatans who have deprived this nation of its greatest treasures: its youth and its resources.

The military leadership has had so many opportunities to “make things right” over the course of these wars and its failures to live up to the core principles of DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY, in several notable examples undermines the progress and integrity of the men and women on the ground. The fact remains that achieving integrity will remain an energetic impossibility until integrity is restored to its highest offices.

RELATED POST: Army’s Caleb Campbell No Draft-Dodger

Sphere: Related Content