The dove shows his hand ...

America Needs to Pass on Middle East Involvement

By: Terry Donnelly

March 2015

Here’s the problem. 1,383 years ago the Sunnis, the largest branch of Islam, the ones who do not necessarily believe in Sharia law and can be quite liberal, split with the Shias, the second largest group with a ton of individual sects within their ranks, over interpretation of the Quran. They have been fighting ever since.

Separate from those actual religious groups, but also with Muslim members is Boko Haran a strictly terrorist movement from Nigeria, Chad, Niger, and Cameroon–not all of each of those countries, but some of each.

Next there is al-Qaeda, the militant Islamists originally formed by the likes of Osama bin Laden. They are multinational, or stateless–they don’t hail from anywhere, but seem to be everywhere. They don’t like many other Muslims, but it’s hard to tell exactly whom they dislike from day to day other than Americans.

Hamas is a Palestinian Islamic organization that is basically military.  It is banned in Jordan, itself an Islamic state, and considered terrorist by Australia, Canada, Israel, the UK and the US.

The Kurds have Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey as home bases. Kurds seem to be pro America these days, but arming them could result in problems down the road if they become radicalized or switch allegiances. A “Fast and Furious” scenario could easily reoccur if we give them a ton of arms. The same is true for Syrians who want to fight ISL/ISIS/IS. Any of these groups flipping alliances and turning on the US is not that far fetched of an idea.

Most terrorist groups do not belong to or represent any state. They live within the boundaries of political states, but are not welcome in any city or village. To get out of caves and reside within a city, they have to first forcefully capture it.

National boarders in this area are almost incidental. There is more difference between northern Iraq and southern Iraq than there is between parts of Iraq and their neighbor, Syria.

When we do try to simplify this situation and focus on a recognized country, the issue does not become much clearer. Saudi Arabia has been considered an American ally since 1933 and our alliance has only strengthened under the last two presidents. The Saudi’s helped get Iraq out of Kuwait. They also support efforts against Communism. But, the Saudis are at odds with the US over Israel and many oil related issues.

Saudi Arabia along with Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates are the lone three countries to recognize the political legitimacy of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. The Taliban is an actual political movement, albeit a fearful one readily accepting of terrorist groups. Saudis sided with the Taliban even though they had a lot to do with the terrorist attack on America on September 11, 2001.

To further illustrate just how much of an ally Saudi Arabia is to the United States, a recent poll showed Saudi support for America at 38%. The rejection rate of America was also at 38%.  Apparently, 24% have mixed feelings about us.

Israel has been at war off and on, mainly on, with Palestine for 70 years. This disagreement is a microcosm of a larger Israeli/Arab hatred. Israel has come to an uneasy agreement with Egypt and Jordan, but Palestinians, another stateless Muslim group seeking a home, still fight Israelis who do not want them to have their desired state.

One of the reasons Israel is absent from much of the discussion today concerning ISIL/ISIS/IS, or whatever the name-du-jour may be, is that if Israel chimed in other Arab support against ISIL would surely wane. No Arab wants to fight on the same side with Israel.

If there is a rule of thumb in the Middle East, it is that “any enemy of my enemy is my friend.” This is not the case with Israel and a host of Kurds.

I hope you have this all straight in your mind because we are not done yet. Remember those “ton of individual sects” that were mentioned in the first paragraph? Many of them are nameless, but they all fight too. They have been fighting mini civil wars for all of those 1,383 years whether the foe is an established group/sect/clan, or some new group that challenges their thinking, usually due to an unacceptable interpretation of the Quran. When so moved, they do a 180-degree turn and start fighting against one of the groups with whom they were fighting side-by-side just last month. This move then causes other shifting allegiances depending upon who is considered the most or least offensive.

The entire Middle East and Northern Africa have been steeped in a culture of war for over a millennium. On one level war is all they know and on another, they seem to be proud it. This warring culture is one reason recruitments into terrorist groups are so successful. To be a warrior is a badge of honor.

All of these people, save the Israelis, have Islam as an historic common denominator.

Therefore, to refer to the groups that are perpetrating archaic atrocities as Muslim/Islamic terrorists or Muslim/Islamic extremists is not technically wrong. To do so though is akin to referring to the Ku Klux Klan as Christian terrorists or Christian extremists. Nearly every Klan member claims Christianity as his religion, but what they practice is nowhere near Christian ethos. To use the term Christian is playing into the Klan’s hands. They’d love to be validated as a recognized Christian organization–a significant status bump. The same–the exact same–reasoning is true with Muslim or Islamic characteristics being applied to the groups beheading/burning/slaughtering innocent captives today. They all would like to be thought of as religious sects when they are not. President Obama is right in simply calling them common, everyday terrorists–not one word more.

America has a culture of world leadership and we are rightfully proud of that status. We would like nothing more than to broker a lasting peace in the Middle East and Northern Africa. The mass killing has to stop because it is barbaric and something civilized nations cannot tolerate.  Western cultures would like nothing more than to fumigate the region and let freedom ring for all citizens who would like to be law abiding and live a life of choices. But, we can’t. Every military action; whether it is with a drone, a soldier fighting on the ground, or a dollar spent is a total waste.

We’d help if we could, but as repugnant as it is, we gotta keep our noses out.

Historically, on the odd occasion we succeeded in getting rid of a corrupt government, more often than not, the succeeding leader was worse than the one before. Thoroughly corrupt rulers like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were awful, evil men, but they kept a lid on their charges. When deposed, both countries got worse than they had. The charming political phrase is that  “at least the despots kept the sh-- at shoe level.”

Unfortunately, the Middle Eastern war culture is too deep. Relationships and allegiances too shifting Talks of peace or compromise too temporary. And, any truths from today, too unstable for there to be any chance of winning a war or establishing peace.

When Russia, the largest, most structured, and best organized government in the                               area, shoots a political dissident dead in the streets, we need to take heed and realize that, as much as we’d like to, there is nothing we can do. We need to spend our time and treasured resources on defending our country from here and solving our social problems at home.

In Celebration and Remembrance: Selma, Alabama, March 7, 1965

Edmund Pettus Today, Tomorrow, Forever

By: Terry Donnelly

March 14, 2015

Sometimes being a writer is just too easy. Every now and then we get to grab some low hanging fruit that makes plying our trade seem like child’s play.

The recent March 7^th 50-year remembrance/celebration on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama provided just such eye-level apples.

By now we all know that the Edmund Pettus Bridge was the scene of Bloody Sunday, the day Selma Sheriff Jim Clark got his fifteen minutes of fame by having his sworn-in thugs (a.k.a. police officers) beat the daylights out of marchers who were trying to march to Montgomery in peaceful protest over the extreme voting discrimination practiced in the Old Confederacy. Jim Clark, like his governor, George Wallace, was an unabashed segregationist. Governor Wallace famously spoke the words “segregation today, segregation tomorrow (it sounded more like ‘tomarra’), segregation forever” from the steps of the administration building on the University of Alabama campus, and Clark was fond of sporting a jazzy pin on his uniform that read “Never”. The pin succinctly held the same message as the governor’s words.

The low fruit for writers–the far too easy irony that lingers in history is the bridge that represents the turning point in the successful quest for eliminating savage laws that effectively kept black voters out of polling places–an icon now revered as sacred ground to those repressed, is named after a Confederate General and Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.

To be sure there were a ton of Klan members on that bridge that day. They were not decked out in their spiffy white robes and hoods, but they were there, many toting both badges and clubs. None of them were marchers. The Klan members and Sheriff Clark may have celebrated that day, but their elation turned to defeat on August 6 that same summer when President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act into law. Coupled with the previous year’s Civil Rights Act, all legal barriers were torn down. Citizens were henceforth-banned form exercising public segregation in any form.

The drama of the day is well recorded. What is missing is the back-story.

During his time in office, President Johnson had many conversations with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Some were cordial, some edgy, but there was always respect on both sides and a mutual desire to undo Jim Crow laws.

In the months prior to the Selma to Montgomery march, Johnson told King that he really wanted to get the Voting Rights Bill passed and signed that summer. But, he needed some help by getting the public to back the bill and flood his office with requests to do so. LBJ charged MLK with coming up with that public outpouring of support.

King had long ago learned the power of media. Ever since Emmett Till’s mother put her son’s badly beaten body on display after he was killed by Klan members in 1955 for whistling at a white woman, any media display of horrific actions by segregationists (think 1961 Freedom Rides complete with bus burnings) was met with public outrage.

It is highly suspected that MLK planned the march, knowing full well that his group would meet resistance from Sheriff Clark and possibly get the media attention LBJ wanted to spur the public into vocal support; in turn getting Congress to act. I will not go so far as to suggest that MLK knew just how strongly Clark would react, but in its infancy the march that spurred Bloody Sunday was as much a political calculation as a nonviolent protest.

After his conversation with Johnson, King and his team got busy planning. On March 7th MLK led his organized protestors onto the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Clark overreacted much like was expected, and mega media coverage ensued. LBJ got his public outcry, Congress acted, and Johnson got out his pens on August 6th.

After that date everyone could vote and a genius provision, Article 4 of the act, gave the federal government jurisdiction over the states’ voting laws to quickly act on any digression or backsliding on the intent of the law. The drafters knew any loophole would allow some states to restrict access to the polls.

The 1965 Voting Right Act worked exactly as planned for almost 50 years.

Those laws stood in tact and were proudly and publically renewed in their original form by presidents of both parties protecting civil rights until June 25, 2013 when the Supreme Court of the United States made a critical error in judgment. Five of those nine judges naively stated that “things have changed dramatically” in the South over the last 50 years and foolishly deemed Section 4, the check and balance guts of the act, to be no longer needed to monitor the voting laws in former bad behaving states and counties. Not surprisingly, it took only two months in 2013 for several states that for 50 years had to pre-clear any voting regulation changes with the federal government to start proposing new, un-reviewed, and obviously discriminatory laws to once again restrict segments of the population from voting.

There is some defensive noise about the new laws being designed to keep the polling places free of fraud (there is none in the U.S.), and that one needs a photo I.D. to rent a car or get on an airplane, so what’s the big deal about having one to vote? Those arguments are lame when compared with the magnitude of the importance of citizens having free access to the franchise. Besides, the words of the perpetrators themselves belie any such argument. Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai was checking off Republican political successes in a 2012 speech and included “voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done (accomplished).”

The true motivation for changing voting laws can’t be any clearer than that. If the states are truly protecting the integrity of the polling place, why didn’t they submit the changes for review years ago?

I don’t advocate changing the name of the Edmund Pettus Bridge. The situational irony is too appealing to suggest altering how we discuss history. But, restoring Article 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is a much needed cause to champion. 

Tiger Woods Part I

I was asked by the publisher of "Let's Talk Nevada" to do an article about Tiger and his influence on golf. I got carried away and ended up submitting a two part column. I didn't know I had that much to say.

Part 1: What Tiger Woods has meant to golfers

By: Terry Donnelly

Eldrick “Tiger” Woods.

Seeing that name in print or hearing it over the airwaves brings on an intense reaction from nearly every person who has been conscious the last 20 years. There are a handful of celebrities who are recognizable by one name and who rest upon the absolute pinnacle of society. Woods is more than a sportsman; he is a transformational modern culture icon.

Okay, that said, those intense reactions run the gambit from loving to loathing, from superstar to subhuman. Tiger Woods made himself into a massive brand that transcends any one individual. However, when the individual showed himself as a mere mortal, he has both failed, bringing upon himself immense scorn; and reached great heights with his foundation for kids and humanitarian acts. When working within his field, the 18 holes of a golf course, he has few, if any, peers.

It is because of this celebrity that those involved in news and discussion outlets (including myself) choose to focus time and words on this charisma laden media magnet.

Love him or hate him there are a few facts that cannot be denied. If you hate him for his apparent misogynistic leanings, or are tired of seeing only his shots on Sunday afternoon television while the rest of the field plays behind the scenes, or you want him to succeed because he represents a level of expertise possibly never before achieved, or you want the field to rise to the challenge; all of those opinions must stem from a series of facts.

The overriding fact here is that Tiger Woods changed the game of golf for golfers. There are basically two men who can claim that mantle since Mary Queen of Scots got hooked on the game in the 1500s. Woods is, of course one, and the other is Arnold Palmer.

Palmer came along in the early 1950s. At that time professional golfers were second-class citizens who changed their shoes in the parking lot and were considered entertainment for the golfing gentry. Sam Snead, one of those always mentioned when the word “greatest” is uttered within a golf conversation, played for over 40 years and won a record 82 professional tournaments from 1931 to 1973. During that time he won exactly $712,972–second place in last year’s Masters Tournament won more than that.

Then along came Arnold and his army of fans in 1952. Actually Arnie’s Army came later as fans flocked to watch him play whether it was in person or on the new outlet for golf–television. An equal measure of Arnie and TV moved the needle on how professional golfers were treated and the kind of living they could make at the game. The winner of the 1952 Masters Tournament won $4,000. When Arnie won his first in 1958, he won $11,250. By 1980, 22 years later when Arnie was all but done with competitive golf and had worked his magic, the winner took home almost five times that amount–$55,000.

The mix of television and Arnold Palmer brought about a new era for professional golf. The television contracts and the throngs of people who flocked to tournaments around the country put money in the coffers and the share for each participant began to rise. Golfers quickly went from traveling by carpool from tournament to tournament and having to live by their wits as well as their clubs, to being household names who flew on chartered (or in Arnie’s case his own) jets. The pros knew it too. To a man they realized that Arnold Palmer had singlehandedly gotten them all a raise in pay and a boost in status. To this day they all call him “The King” behind his back and “Mister Palmer” to his face.

Fast forward to 1996. The game had grown even more thanks to the continued efforts of Palmer and others like Jack Nicklaus and Deane Beman who were smart and handled the affairs of golf’s celebrity well. When a young man named Tiger Woods won his first Masters Tournament in 1997 his first place prize was $450,000, about eight and a half times what Seve Ballesteros won in 1980.

What happened next is almost unexplainable. When Tiger won again in 2001, his paycheck for the weekend at Augusta was $1.1 million. After only four years of Tiger being in the field, the purse had more than doubled and last year’s 2014 winner, Bubba Watson, pocketed $1,440,000. The purse of the Masters has tripled since 1996 when Tiger Woods burst onto the golf scene.

Television was already a big part of golf, so Woods didn’t have the novelty factor of the tube to help him change the face of golf once again.

In 20 years, the last three of which Woods had hardly played at all due to injuries and other self inflicted personal woes, he redefined what it meant to be a top golfer. In those years he has amassed 79 victories (three short of Snead who took over 40 years to win his 82), 14 major tournaments with 18 being the standard set by Nicklaus, and an eye popping $110 million in prize money. That laps the field in any comparison. Phil Mickelson is second on the all time money list at $75 million–$35 mil short. Fifth place is $48 million and 10^th is $37 million–pocket change to Woods. Arnold Palmer is 388^th on this list with a miniscule $1.8 million. Any modern player who is around for even a couple of years has won much more than Palmer did in a star-studded career.

I’m done writing about the super stars. What about the average Joe on the pro tour these days–the guy that goes to work on the links every weekend and shoots a round of par each time. If there were such a golfer he would have earned $2,111,425 last year. That number is a bit skewed because of the US Open, which is made rigorous to the point of ridiculous every year and a score of par, can win. Take away that one million dollar paycheck and our par shooting pro pockets over one million dollars and never shot a score in the 60s all year.

Suffice it to say that all pro golfers’ boats have risen with the flood of interest that Tiger Woods brought to the game. He is a transformational super star of the highest magnitude whether you like the way he runs his personal life or his approach to the game.

Will he best Snead’s 82 career victories? Likely. Will he surpass Nicklaus’ 18 majors? Doubtful. Will he retire from the game after his recent crash-and-burn disaster of a comeback? Not going to happen. Will he ever regain the respect he held after the year 2000 when he produced maybe the best golfing year ever? No.

So, Woods’ golfing future seems to be a mixed bag. But, like Palmer, the other pros know Woods has vastly improved their bank accounts, and set a higher bar for their golf skills as well.

Golfers and the game of golf are better for having Tiger prowl among us.

Tiger Woods Part II

Part 2: What if Tiger becomes extinct?

By: Terry Donnelly

What would a sports/media world with a Tiger Woods void look like?

We already have a fairly good idea.  Answer #1: boring.  Answer #2: costly.

It has been since August 4, 2013, over 18 months, since Woods has won a tournament and nearly seven years since he won the 2008 US Open, his last major tournament.

He isn’t only not winning–he isn’t even playing.

Media speculation is high about Tiger Woods and his achy back and/or damaged psyche. He remains a physical specimen equal to Adonis, albeit with an Achilles back. And, was once given credit for reducing other players to Jell-O with his mind. That isn’t the case any more. Tiger’s “No Fear” has turned into other golfers’ “No More Fear.”

When in his prime … it seems odd to be speaking of Woods’ prime in the past tense, and that may be premature–which was the eight years following the turn of the millennium, Woods dominated both the sports page, the lifestyle page, and occasionally, even the front page. His every move on and off the course was micro-scanned and commented upon.

His was a Midas touch seldom seen in any genre.

First, he brought throngs kids stampeding to the game. Golf is not a game to which youngsters will ever flock on their own accord. Many come to the game through family and learn to love it through that avenue. But, Tiger made golf cool. His charisma had kids sending their parents to the sporting goods stores for junior sets of Nike (Tiger’s long time sponsor) clubs, golf balls, gloves, red shirts for Sunday play, and, of course a TW or swoosh laden hat. Those kids then followed Tiger onto the golf course. The influx of fresh faces made the game’s future seem as strong as Tiger’s short game.

The First Tee is a foundation that operates in all 50 states and several foreign countries. It provides leadership and support for kids playing golf. It was established in 1997, just as Woods was coming onto the scene. With Tiger as a spokesperson, First Tee programs were flooded with over nine million kids participating. The program is still vital today, but First Tee fairways are not as crowded these days. Other young, golfing stars like Ricky Fowler, who has all the traits (game, looks, style) to get kids to go gaga over him, are leading the advertising. But, kids don’t go gaga like they did for Woods. In the early 2000s every golf-related television program was supported by a First Tee ad. That is not so today. Much is the pity. The First Tee got inner city kids into real golf for free. It still does, but the numbers today pale. Kids are vital to the future of the game and without Tiger, the game’s Pied Piper, in the headlines, the rosy future is now a bunch of shades of gray.

Next is the fact that Tiger’s influence went far beyond kids. Adults all sported the hat and the Swoosh too. Other manufacturers got in on the payday by offering bright colors and stylish clothing to catch the golfers’ eyes. New and improved equipment was coming out of the golfing R&D departments at a frenzied pace. All in the name of “hitting it like Tiger.” Business boomed. Now that Tiger isn’t playing, any old driver will do.

There are still Tiger Woods columns that pop up nearly daily, but they are mostly wishful or mournful. They deal with his injuries, whether or not he will remarry, speculating about his future, and Ouija Board analysis about whether he will ever return as Sampson. Every media writer wants Woods back. He makes good copy whether he is behaving badly in Vegas or on the course knocking down flag sticks seeking yet another record.

The biggest money loser seems to be television. When Woods was winning he played in about 18 to 20 tournaments out of 45 offered each year. Advertisers courted those lucky 20 and millions of viewers spent weekend afternoons in front of the tube looking at green grass after their morning round was over and bets settled. When Woods was not in the field, the numbers were way, way down. Now that he is not playing at all, golf television’s yearly bottom line is in serious trouble. The Masters, one of the most prestigious tournaments, played on one of the most beautiful courses in the world–the tournament that eschewed most sponsors just because they could–was far off its own over-the-top, Woods-in-the-field viewing rates. Even if Tiger wasn’t winning, as long as he was playing people watched in droves. TV viewers may not have even known who was leading. It didn’t matter; the cameras were steadfast on The Man.

When Tiger Woods is playing well, he enriches himself. But, far beyond that, he enriches his sponsors, the media, the PGA, the other players, the PGA charities (of which there are many), and most importantly, the golf industry in general because when Tiger plays the days are sunny and everybody loves golf.

There have always been good, even great, players competing. Their names are historical and their skills envied. However, as mentioned in Part 1 of this column, there are few transformational figures. Arnold Palmer was the first god-like figure in golf’s over 500-year history. As skilled and as fine an example Jack Nicklaus was and remains today, he never made that kind of impact.

Then came Tiger. He dominated news–not just sports news–all news for nearly 20 years. He wasn’t just on the cover of golf magazines like Sports Illustrated and Golf Digest; he was on the cover of GQ, Vanity Fair, Vogue, People, Time, and Newsweek–most of them multiple times–over 100 in all.

If he doesn’t return to at least a near equal to his former stature, golf is likely in for some really tough times. Someone else will eventually come along who can end the drought and inspire the dreams of golfers, but that golfer, as talented and as sexy as many of them are, just doesn’t seem to be on the scene today.

In over 500 years there have been two saviors, Arnie and Tiger. And, if it takes as long as it did to get an Arnold Palmer in the game, hundreds of years, the game will be gone. If Mr. or Ms Golf Hero can come along in the next generation or two, as long as the game keeps its pulse, there is hope.

I’m rooting for Tiger to be the phoenix.