FRIDAY FROTH...

Sarah Palin released her book, Going Rogue, this week to hoards of fans salivating for some "Sarah Speak". Ms. Palin's popularity it seems, has not waned since the 2008 presidential election. Why is Sarah so popular? Simply because she appeals to the "you can grow up and be president someday" in all of us. We were told as children, or told our children, that anything was possible with hard work--but not until the hockey mom from Alaska got picked to be a vice-presidential nominee did we really believe. The question for all of us is not can we be president, but should we be president? Are grit and common sense enough to qualify one to lead? Alaska, maybe. The free world? I think not.

A couple of thoughts on Ms. Palin: (a) She tries to explain away not being able to list newspapers or magazines that informed her world view, as asked by Katie Couric, by saying that she was ticked off at Ms. Couric and therefore was "flippant", but it was "her bad" and she should have answered. This is akin to Bill Clinton telling the American public that he smoked pot but didn't inhale. Sorry Sarah, I don't buy it. (b) Newsweek magazine's cover of Ms. Palin in her running shorts makes Ms. Palin look very good (in fact, great--she's had five kids!) but makes Newsweek look HORRIBLE. Shame on you Newsweek!

*************

What do three blonds in New York do for fun? (a) They walk in Central park and talk about how men in New York are sophisticated and well dressed, and men in San Francisco are more casual and conservative. We concluded that there is a very European influence in New York while San Francisco's influence is, well, not European. (b) They go see Jude Law in Hamlet. He was fabulous. Not just incredibly handsome and charming fabulous, but oozing Hamlet-like conflict fabulous. Mr. Law delivered his lines with a humor that had an underlying pathos that we (the three blonds) believe will earn him a Tony nomination. (c) They shop for SHOES! One of the blonds introduced the other two blonds to Roger Vivier shoes. These shoes are classic and feminine: some with a curved heel or a big buckle that give them a certain edge--very Catherine Deneuve. (d) They drink champagne, and because November is two of the blonds birth month, there were pink party favors that I can't tell you about!

*************

People magazine's sexiest man alive for this year is Johnny Depp--handsome and a little naughty--enough said!

*************

Most countries are known for something--France has its wine and Italy has its pasta. So, if you drink your way through France and eat your way through Italy, then surely you Kama Sutra your way through India! This exotic country has beautiful hotels (any of the Oberoi group will do nicely, thank-you), spicy and delicious food, and the kama sutra for sale in every hotel gift shop. Don't take the kids.

*************

I read in New Delhi's newspaper, Mail Today, that Indian actress, Mallika Sherawat, will be starring in Doug McHenry's romantic comedy-- Love, Barack. The paper said that the film "tracks the romance between a Democrat campaign volunteer and her Republican counterpart in the run-up to last year's Presidential election." Ms. Sherawat's character is based on San Francisco's attorney general, Kamala Harris.

*************

I like to keep Fridays light (frothy), but, I am going to close by saying that while David Brooks (genuflect) of the New York Times wrote a column today entitled "What Geithner Got Right", and clearly I am fond of David Brooks (g), if I were Mr. Geithner, I would stay away from buses--people have been known to get thrown under them.

INDIA--Delhi

I left San Francisco late morning Thursday and 24 hours later, on Friday night local time, arrived in Delhi. About an hour before landing, I struck up a conversation with a pilot deadheading to India. He told me that it was tricky landing in Delhi on Friday because Delhi's "fog" problem was complicated by smoke from the crematorium. He informed me they cremated their dead on Thursdays and the crematorium was near the airport. This was the first of many contradictory stories that I heard as I traveled around the beautiful and chaotic India.

While I'm not sure of the cause of the smog, I do know that it was overwhelming--my eyes burned and it was hard to breath. The air was soupy with the pollution that the ever-diplomatic guides wanted to call "fog". I live in San Francisco, I know fog, this was not fog.

I immediately and reflexively started looking for similarities in our cultures; I found few.

Delhi's streets are a jumble of cars, tuk-tuks, motorbikes, bikes, cows, and dogs. Horns blare to move someone, or something, out of their path but there doesn't seem to be any road rage--it's just the way it's done. Our streets are ordered and relatively quiet, but heaven help the cow that would get in the way of the ambitious American on their way to the office!

In India ninety percent of marriages are still arranged and divorce is very rare. Americans marry for love, yet well over half of American marriages end in divorce. I couldn't help but wonder if passion has been sucked out of their existence by tradition and replaced with calm.

But the biggest difference? America is a much more culturally secular nation. India is around 80% Hindu, American is around 78% Christian; both have secular governments but religion permeates every aspect of Indian life. We Americans compartmentalize our religion, taking it out when we need it and tucking it away when we don't.

Some people travel with a critical eye: they want to compare host country to home country with home country being the gold standard. Others prefer to self-flagellate as they canvass new territory, constantly criticizing America and "other" Americans ( this may be uniquely American!). I like to travel with a live and let live attitude. Different doesn't have to have better or worse attached to it--except for the "fog" in Delhi, I say viva la difference!

THE WHITE HOUSE VS FOX NEWS--CENSURE OR CENSOR

As research for my musing, I'm a regular watcher of news programs: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. A few Sundays ago I caught David Axelrod, Senior White House Advisor, telling George Stephanopoulos of ABC's This Week, that Fox News is not really a news organization because they have a "perspective". Mr. Axelrod said that the White House doesn't recognize Fox as a legitimate news organization, and he didn't think that reputable organizations should recognize Fox either.

What?

I agree that Fox, for the most part, has a conservative bent, and I would go as far as to say that a couple of their stars are more interested in bashing Obama than preserving conservatism. However, they also have news anchor, Shepard Smith and congressional correspondent, Major Garret, both of whom appear to be professional and unbiased.

Is it news agencies having a perspective that the White House has a problem with? Or, is it only a problem when the perspective is different than President Obama's?

Chris Wallace, Fox News' Sunday morning anchor, appears to be right of center, but certainly no more so than MSNBC's Chris Matthews is left of center. Why then, would the White House refuse to give Mr. Wallace a place in the line-up of a round-robin set of interviews that Mr. Obama did for Sunday morning news shows while Mr. Matthews was included.

Fox News is certainly not the only news agency to have an opinion. I would contend that Fox and MSNBC are running neck-in-neck in their efforts to please their niche audiences.

Sean Hannity of Fox News goes after Mr. Obama to the point of ludicrous--MSNBC's Keith Olbermann goes after Fox News to the point of ridiculous. Mr. Hannity's questions to his guest are generally rhetorical, and Mr. Olbermann's commentary is often delivered in a mocking voice that is derisive of his subject (and the subject is more often than not, a Fox News personality). Both shows are meant to appeal to an emotional audience--not an audience looking for real, unbiased information.

Glen Beck at Fox is hugely entertaining, albeit a bit hysterical in his efforts. He is criticized for playing loosely with his facts: stating recently that Major Garret had not been called on at a White House press conference when in fact, he had. Mr. Beck's critics, however, are even more miffed when he's right. Acorn, the nation's largest community organizer of low- and moderate-income families was recently denied funding by the Senate after Mr. Beck exposed Acorn workers in several cities giving advice on how to set-up brothels to avoid taxes. No other news agencies seemed interested in the story and the New York Times later admitted that they had been negligent in not covering the story. Mr. Beck also broke the Van Jones story. Mr. Jones, President Obama's Green Czar, is an admitted communist, and after 9/11 suggested that high-level Bush officials might have deliberately allowed the September 11 attacks to occur. Mr. Jones resigned his post amid the controversy.

Bill O'Reilly of Fox News touts his program as fair and balanced and I believe that he makes an effort to be just that. Nevertheless, his conservative social views seep through. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does put him at odds with White House views occasionally.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is a bright and astute interviewer. I was surprised when one of her lead stories last week was an interview with a woman who had organized a motivational seminar with George W. Bush as key speaker, along with Colin Powell, Rudy Giullani, Zig Ziglar and others. It wasn't quite clear what she was going after: Deriding Bush for speaking at a motivational seminar? Proving that the seminars were right-wing Christian events? With two wars, unemployment nearing 10%, housing foreclosures reaching record highs and the health-care debate, all-important topics, I found myself wondering why MSNBC was interested in George Bush speaking at a motivational seminar?

I prefer to listen to good debate, replete with facts and figures and delivered with passion, not calumny. However, while belligerent debate choked on sarcasm is not pleasant, I'll take it over censorship any day.

Has the White House maligned and marginalized Fox News?

Recently, the New York Times, reported: "Fox's television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews".

Competitive news organizations don't mind the White House censuring Fox News, but when it comes to censoring news--well, that's another story.

Who wins and who loses in the battle between the White House and Fox News?

Free Speech won when the other news organizations refused to be complicit in the censorship of Fox. The White House lost for trying to "control" the news. And, the grand-champion in the battle: Fox News--their ratings are through the roof.