What Would Congress Do ...

if confessed child murderer John Evander Couey had a massive stroke, lapsed into a vegetative state, and his family wanted to pull out his feeding tube?

Congress has already decided that it is comfortable making life-and-death choices for individuals and families. It's already concluded it doesn't require knowledge of such situations beyond what it sees on the news. And the Terry Schiavo memo from the GOP leadership outlined the potential political gain in such tragedies.

What would congress do? Probably pass a bill to keep Couey alive in the hope he'd recover enough to be executed.

Want to be a News Reporter?

Newly minted journalists face the most brutal competition in the history of the business.

There are fewer jobs, even at the smaller publications and broadcast stations where new journalists are expected to learn their craft. Even when they fight their way into a full-time job, rookies often find themselves on a self-education program because the pace is faster and there are fewer editors to teach and mentor.

Eventually, Judgment Day arrives and they are graded and evaluated. And some of the best don't make the cut. They may have demonstrated rapid growth and glow with potential. But they are sent away simply because they are terrible employees.

They show up late more often than on time. They dress inappropriately. They try to fake their way through a mid-week party hangover. They don't read the work schedule. They complain about having to work nights and weekends. They ask to take vacation they haven't earned. They leave editors idling next to their desk while they finish their personal phone calls. These are the same people whose mantras include, "I forgot," "I'm sorry, and "nobody told me to do that."

This kind of behavior is a regular topic among editors and senior reporters, many of whom are of the Baby Boom generation, supposedly the most indulged in history. An endless string of theories are offered, all true in part. Some believe that adolescence is lasting longer. Others argue that many young people possess an outsize sense of entitlement and believe their wants and needs are always supreme. A few suggest that journalism teachers don't offer enough tough love to prepare students for the real world.

Far too many young journalists treat the professional newsroom as an extension of their college experience. No editor should have to tell anyone that a T-shirt, shorts and flip-flops are unacceptable attire when covering a funeral. (It happened.) No editor should have to answer the question "Why?" after telling a reporter it's important to arrive for work on time. (It happens all the time.) And the more a reporter needs such parental guidance, the less likely it is the reporter will have the opportunity to grow in their profession.

Consider the recent college grad whose first question during the job interview was "How's the surfing around here?" (It happened.) Consider two "A" reporters, one who consistently shows she's serious about her job and one who can't give up her image as a rebel in all ways. Guess who didn't get a job in the first place, and guess who would lose hers if layoffs were announced.

The best newsrooms embrace fun - even some silliness - and operate in a generally collegial way. But that can only work when people trust each other to be reliable and professional. New college grads and even those with a few years of experience face dozens of obstacles in their path to a career in journalism. They should avoid erecting their own.

Farewell, Koko

To: Koko The Talking Gorilla
From: Bill
Subj: Breaking Up

For some time now, I've felt you drifting away. I hoped it was just a phase and that you would once again embrace me. I kept my increasing turmoil to myself because I loved you and wanted to give you your own space. My dream was that you would work through your issues, return to my side, and sign "cute kitten" as you gazed into my eyes.

But the exposure of your fetish for female nipples has ruined everything. We're through.

I was confused when you asked me to hire a dozen strippers to entertain you on your birthday. But I did it anyway because I loved you and would have done anything to make you happy. I spent all my money on warehouse-sized sacks of Hershey's Kisses, just to see the look of ecstasy on your face. When you watched wet T-shirt contest videos and clapped your hands I believed you were mocking the behavior of us silly humans.

I was so naive.

Perhaps I should have shared my misgivings long ago. Maybe deep inside I knew I could never hold the affection of a sophisticated gorilla of the world like you. That doesn't matter now. All that is real to me is my pain.

But more intense than the agony caused by your betrayal is the humiliation. Why did I have to read about this in the newspapers? Why didn't you tell me you had finally come to understand your true nature? Even with a broken heart I would have been willing to share and remain your friend.

I hope that someday I learn to forgive you and focus on all the wonderful times we had together. But I know I will never, ever, again be able to talk to Penny, the woman who launched you down a path that led away from my love. I have attached a photo of me signing a short message to her. Could you share it with her?

Yes, Koko, I'm bitter and angry. Eventually I will move on, but, for now you should know that Koko is bad girl gorilla and hurts man Bill.

Goodbye.

The End of Affordable Housing

It’s 2006.

A high tech mogul purchases and donates to the City of Palo Alto a four-acre plot of commercial land, specifying that it can only be used for affordable housing. The mogul’s husband, a big-time developer, offers to engineer, design and build this housing at cost.

City council members and planning commissioners are ecstatic because this will fulfill a longstanding community need. They unanimously approve needed zoning changes. State Sen. Joe Simitian rushes to the proposed site with a folding chair and holds office hours. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo seeks a federal law to amend. Assemblyman Ira Ruskin creates a blue-ribbon task force to study the feasibility of reviewing needed alterations of state regulations and laws.

The North of East of Wherever Neighborhood Association expands its boundaries over the proposed development and argues the city must preserve the character of the area, which is dominated by tilt-up concrete office buildings.

Three retired HP employees from Barron Park issue a 120-page analysis of who should be allowed to live in the development. It excludes city employees, who, based on news reports, all earn more than $100,000 annually. Fire fighters are banned because all of them have second jobs or side businesses. Police officers are scored on pending lawsuits and criminal charges, but most make it into the pool. Because of tenure and marital status (read that household income) few public school teachers make the cut.

Environmentalists check off because the land isn’t soaked with PCBs and such, but insist parking lots be striped to exclude SUVs.

The school board, stung by serial parcel tax defeats, demands that only people with no children or committed to a childless life, be eligible for residency. Otherwise, it contends, elementary schools will become overcrowded and will have to drop advanced placement genome analysis classes.

Then things cool off. Simitian gets cranky about poor turnout during his office hours. Eshoo gets bored and re-focuses on finding Homeland Security money for the Atherton Police Department. Ruskin holds meetings.

Beaten to a pulp by conflicting demands, the city manager, planning commissioners and city council members escape to an Easalen nude encounter session. Newly bonded, they return to set public hearings at which anyone can talk, but not more than once. They pay a consultant $200,000 to enforce the rule.

It’s 2012.

The developer bails out, angry that his commitment to the project prevented him from bidding on the fabulously profitable new hotel at Sand Hill Road and Interstate 280.

Eshoo retires to a fortified compound in Atherton. Simitian replaces her in Congress and vows to never again waste time sitting on a folding chair on a vacant lot. Ruskin is a state senator and remains willing to champion a coalition to build affordable housing - but only after a new study.

The school district finally gets its parcel tax, then declares that accounting errors caused it to underestimate actual revenue. It uses the windfall to extend advanced placement classes to kindergarten students.

The city council is entirely populated by former presidents of homeowner associations, all of whom ran on a pledge to maintain the character of their own neighborhoods. It deadlocks on building affordable housing because the proposed site lies within the boundaries of an association run by someone who is rude.

The tech mogul has used up all the tax benefits that came from the land donation. She buys the site from the city for pennies on the dollar and builds lavish new corporate headquarters. Her husband’s company gets the construction contract.

Which was the plan all along.

Gay Marriage Redux

A year ago San Francisco extended to homosexuals a right basic to the preservation and enrichment of our society – the ability to create a family through marriage.

Since then, the 3,000 same-sex weddings in that city have been nullified. Citizens of 14 states have amended their constitutions to specifically deny this right to anyone who wants to marry someone of the same gender. Lawsuits have been launched on a long trip toward the U.S. Supreme Court, which will make the final decision on whether people can be denied the bonds of marriage based solely on who they are.

The anniversary of San Francisco’s version of the Boston Tea Party serves as a cue to a society that has largely ignored the issue in the face of war and elections. Surely all the arguments and sub-arguments will resurface and fill news pages and the airwaves. Surely the millions of people who are willing to discuss it will once again get lost in claims and counter-claims.

But the heart of the issue is relatively straightforward.

The Constitution of the United States, as well as those of all 50 states, guarantees equal treatment under the law. That is what the Supreme Court said in 1967 when it struck down statutes barring people of different races from enjoying the rights and responsibilities of marriage. That Joe is Caucasian and Barbara is African-American is meaningless under the Constitution. That Mary and Susan are of the same gender should be deemed equally irrelevant.

The case against same-sex marriage is muddled.

Opponents contend that allowing same-sex couples to wed denigrates marriage and its benefit to society. But the basic concept of marriage -- two people forming an emotional, social, and legal bond -- supports a healthy society. As for harm to the institution, people should reflect on the 50 percent divorce rate among heterosexuals and ask, “could gays do worse?”

Those who insert religion and millennia of morality into the debate should turn to their bibles, specifically the books of Kings and Genesis. There they will learn Kings David and Solomon were polygamous and the prophet Abraham’s first child was born out of wedlock to a slave. Of course that was at a different time and in a different place. And so our time and place is different than when the bible was written.

Some also contend that marriage was created to legitimize procreation and provide a stable and loving environment in which to rear children. That makes sense. It also makes sense to the thousands of gay individuals and couples who are doing their best to rear healthy, happy children.

Civil rights flow from the Constitution, not from personal opinion or societal preference. Denying gays the right to marry is discriminatory. As the Supreme Court wrote in a 2003 case involving homosexuality , “… the Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code.”

Five Rules for Politicians

I really shouldn't do this, but I'm going to give our county's public officials some public relations advice.

I offer these tips because I like our elected and appointed governors and it hurts me to see them stumble and fumble when they deal with media hounds. Besides, snacking on tassel loafers and sling-back pumps is unhealthy and not recommended by Dr. Atkins.

First, my credentials. Over the years, I've worked in both journalism and PR. I've counseled CEOs of Fortune 500 companies on these very matters. I even tried (well, sort of) to flog walnuts to food editors. I was fired from that job and rightfully so.

Rule No. 1: Don't lie.
You may get away with it this time, but you will get caught. Guaranteed. For instance, one elected city official recently told a reporter she knew very little about a particular issue. A week later said official conceded that she had, indeed, been talking about it with her colleagues. Can you say credibility gap?

Rule No. 2: Unless you can prove it, don't claim you were misquoted.
Of course jounralists make mistakes, but they are taking notes and photos while you try to remember your next sound bite. No one's going to believe you anyway; even your mom understands that "I was misquoted" is usually nothing more than code for "I said it but wish I hadn't."

Rule No. 3: Newspapers are supposed to tell you how to do your job. You, however, are not supposed to tell newspapers what to do.
Editors have been really, really touchy about this one ever since that silly First Amendment thing was added to the Constitution a couple of centuries ago. Some people still don't get it, though. A high-ranking municipal employee recently called to complain about the transfer of a reporter he didn't want transferred. After a nanosecond's consideration, it was decided the city official wouldn't gaze upon that reporter's bright and shining face anytime before the next millenium.

Rule No. 4: Unless your name is Richard M. Nixon, editors and reporters are not out to "get" you.
Sure, your inability to give up your loafer-munching will be reported in full. But so will your brilliant solution to a long-standing community problem. And even if your name is Richard M. Nixon, we will feel obliged to note your achievements as well as your less-than-savory activities when you board your helicopter and fly off into history. Could we be more fair? I don't think so.

Rule No. 5: Don't believe your own PR. (This is the one almost everyone forgets.)
Keep in mind that sometimes your face appears in the newspaper for absolutely no other reason that it's a slow news day. Never forget that the dent in the seat of your nice leather chair was made by someone else. And, given term limits and a fickle electorate, remember that someone else will be propping their spit-shined snacks on your desk sooner rather than later.

Copyright 2004, ANG Newspapers. Reprinted with permission.

Tips for Women Over 40

Many single women over 40 who seek contacts with men online are accomplished, educated and independent. However, from a guy perspective, too many write awful ads. Here, from a man over 40, are some suggestions on how to make the online mate search more effective – and less brutal for male readers.

Unless you’re a lesbian seeking a lesbian don’t listen to your female friends’ comments about your ad. They are not your audience. For example, men seldom use the word “cute” without the word “kid” immediately following. And you are definitely not a kid.

Give up the “spiritual but not religious” thing. Just say you’re a Unitarian and move on.

Never post a photo of you embracing your beautiful and sexy teen-age daughters. It will increase the number of responses, but not necessarily from men you want to meet.

Dump the phrase “passionate about life.” It’s a baseline requirement given the alternatives.

If you say, “I would like to meet a man who is part of my world, someone educated, traveled, and with broad cultural interests” then don’t say that his income isn’t important to you.

Be descriptive, as in: “I own two little black dresses, a ball gown and six pairs of jeans.” This avoids the “. . . as comfortable in jeans as I am in a ball gown” cliché men are assaulted by all the time. They will be grateful.

Fitness and health are important. However, declaring you work out at the gym six days a week, take yoga classes at lunch, and run marathons on the weekend is going to make a man wonder if you’ll have any time for him. And if you find someone equally fascinated by fitness you should consider the downside of two obsessive-compulsives living under one roof.

Please be clear. “I enjoy a wide range of activities but what I like best is . . .” works fine. But saying you equally love dining out/cooking at home, the symphony/the blues, gardening/mountain climbing and so on, gives a man no help. He might get the idea a half-pound burger with steak fries and a game on TV will make you just as happy as a tennis weekend in Napa and dinner at the French Laundry.

Above all, don’t treat men as if they are stupid. If you are divorced, and live in a community where the median home price is $3 million-plus you are not self employed. Any man will know that you are likely an attractive, intelligent woman who did very well when your CEO husband left you for his secretary.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Lies, Lies and More Lies

The Palo Alto, California Police Department would like to think that the city’s $75, 000 payment to Jorge Hernandez ended the sad incident in which its investigators’ lies caused him to confess to a terrible crime and allowed the real perpetrator to escape.

Not really. They never admitted to hurting Hernandez, never apologized, and the investigator that bullied him into the confession says the settlement means nothing to her and how she conducts her interrogations.

In a city with more Phds. per square inch than almost anywhere, we’re guarded by people who won’t learn.

Hernandez, 18, was suspected of raping and beating a 94-year-old woman at an assisted care facility near his brother’s home. Police had discovered his brother’s ring at the crime scene, but the brother had lost the ring a year before and had an alibi. The cops figured younger brother Jorge once had access to the ring and believed he failed to show the proper outrage about the allegations when first interviewed. Under the glare of a national news spotlight and confronted with community outrage, they decided that was enough to get serious about Jorge Hernandez.

During an hours-long videotaped interrogation detectives told Hernandez fingerprints, bloody shoes and a videotape directly linked him to the rape. Hernandez, who had no criminal record, repeatedly insisted he would never hurt a woman. However, he conceded his memory of the night of he incident could be faulty because he had been drinking heavily. Spurred on by his admission, the cops kept at him. Finally, Hernandez broke down, apologized to the victim and was booked.

But there was no videotape. There were no fingerprints. There were no bloody shoes. The victim had failed to pick Hernandez’ voice from an audio lineup. Everything the cops said were legal lies aimed at dragging out a confession that would confirm their instincts and enable them hold him until they gathered real physical evidence.

Two months later, DNA testing proved Hernandez was innocent. But even the most precise science available to the legal system wasn’t enough for investigators to admit they were wrong. “He has not yet been exonerated,” said Palo Alto Police Chief Pat Dwyer after Hernandez’ release. “Our investigation is continuing.”

Eddie Joe Lloyd can relate. While being treated in a Michigan mental hospital in 1985 he became interested in the widely reported rape and murder of a young Detroit honor student. Even though he knew nothing about the case, he offered to help investigators. They were more than happy to talk to him. Their plan was simple: The cops would feed Lloyd details about the crime and he would make a taped confession. Somehow the release of Lloyd’s statement would help flush out the real killer. Lloyd went along with the plan and right on to prison. He spent 17 years behind bars before DNA testing proved his innocence.

“I was thoroughly tricked. Inveigled, enticed, tricked,” Lloyd told the New York Times shortly before his release. “Sometimes the pressure on you to sign a statement is not them twisting your arm. It can be psychological and mental.” Why did Jorge Hernandez confess? “I was so confused, so tired,” he told the San Jose Mercury News. “And I trusted them.”

Jorge Hernandez will now go through life having to explain away newspaper headlines linking him to the rape of a 94-year-old woman. Eddie Joe Lloyd wasted almost a third of his life surrounded by real killers rather than getting the treatment he needed. That they were both released is justice of a sort.

But the crime victims could receive no justice at all. How likely is it that, 17 years later, the family of the Detroit murder victim will ever know the truth? And a 94-year-old rape victim and her loved ones must cope with the fact the man who scarred their lives is still on the loose and has a year's head start on the police.

And all because the cops used legal lies.

Why Newspapers are Dying

An editor recently said to me he didn't believe his newspaper's website was "supporting" his publication. I told him the website should be viewed as an entity unto itself rather than as a promotional device or a tease to print. I also argued that in the near future printed newspapers were likely to become the promotional vehicles for websites -- sort of TV Guides referring readers to audio- and video-rich stories on the website.

"Everyone knows print has advantages that the Web and broadcast can't deliver so we'll always be around," he declared.

He is so wrong.

Portability. Yes, you can stick a magazine or newspaper in your briefcase and read it at your convenience. But soon you'll be able to take three minutes to download a customized newsfeed into your iPod in less time than it taks you to go outside and pick up your copy of the Daily Blat. Unfortunately, for newspapers to be successful they must become less portable; more ads mean more bulk. The Sunday New York Times or Los Angeles Times can weigh 7 to 9 pounds.

Greater Depth. Newspapers take pride in offering longer, more thoughtful analysis than can be provided by media ruled by instant everything. But even when newspapers try to get serious about this, their articles are 24-48 hours old to readers already drowning in comments by pundits and experts on round-the-clock cable news channels.

Many Readers Simply Prefer Print. True, but fewer and fewer all the time. Most publishers forecast that newspapers will hang on for the forseeable future because Baby Boomers long ago developed the newspaper reading habit. They should remember, though, that Boomers (including Tim Berners Lee, co-creator of the Internet) were the first generation to exploit the potential of personal computers and the online world. Most of them are just beginning to retire but they will carry forward and refine their online habits.

The 18-35 age group is lost forever. Boomer children grew up with hundreds of cable channels and the Web. Boomer grandchildren started playing with computers before they went to school and probably feel left out if, by Grade 6, they don't own a WiFi-capable phone.

Publishers are catching on, but far too slowly. They are ignoring their own experience. Sports editors and writers figured out the need to evolve more than 30 years ago when live broadcasts of sports events became ubiquitous. Except for grumbles from a few retirees, newspapers felt little pain when they began dropping comprehensive daily stock tables. Measured progress doesn't work in today's world where growth in the pace of change is expoential.

Despite reality slapping them in the face, publishers continue to focus too much on resuscitating and developing their ink-on-paper products and far too little on exploiting the possibilities of the future. And that is bad for business.