The View From the Outback© 2000 Richard C. Rhodes
A great deal of what we read in newspapers, magazines, and books, and what we see in the movies and on TV is written and produced in New York City or Los Angeles. Much of the "political wisdom" comes from the PR machines of the White House, the Congress, and from the Washington media corps.
In short, one might conclude that all knowledge, wisdom, and wit are confined to those who inhabit New York City, Washington DC, or Hollywood.
I am now in my 6th decade of life experience - which was gained in many cities in the U.S. and in about 30 foreign countries. That experience has included the U.S. Marines, law school, the ATF, the CIA, Fortune 500 executive, writer, public speaker, educator, editor, and publisher - for openers. For over 20 years, I have written articles off and on for various magazines and newspapers. I've had an enormous number of letters published in major national publications. The Outback is the rural area in Northeast Texas where I have lived for the past 11 years. Every couple of weeks I will attempt to post a new set of musings from the Outback.
Each day as I read the news, I increasingly lose the will to live. Today it was the councilwoman
in Pennsylvania who said that a drug-sniffing dog should be put to death because the dog
was practicing "racial profiling."
The Catholic Bishops have published their rather comprehensive "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People." (www.usccb.org/bishops/charter.htm) The debate by the Bishops, carried on C-SPAN, was remarkably candid. After a quick read of the document, it seems to be all about sexual abuse of children and young people at the hands of priests. I did not see any language which addresses the issue of priests having sex with adult females. Perhaps there is a separate document covering that. Or, perhaps that omission is to give them some leeway in the channeling of their libidos. Let them get married, for heaven's sake.
As I had hoped, and suggested in the Outback, the five major record companies have been sued in a class-action lawsuit over the copy-protection schemes embedded in some new music CDs (that make the CDs unplayable on your computer, for example). As many of us have suggested, this copy-protection scheme is a violation of the concept in Copyright law of "fair use." The suit proposes that either such CDs be taken off the market or that they carry a warning label that they are copy-protected. I wish they had limited the suit to an attempt to get them off the market. The other way out is too easy and does little to solve the growing problem of "fair use" in general - with regard to CDs, DVDs, VCR, personal video recorders, and so forth. I know, I am a hypocrite because I keep bashing lawyers and now am applauding them. Some things are worth suing over. This is the tip of a very big issue. Go get 'em guys.
Andy Rooney said in his weekly "60 Minutes" commentary that CBS now throws away all
viewer mail without opening it! All the Anthrax letters were posted from Trenton, N.J. and now
several media outlets are refusing to accept viewer and reader mail from all over the country.
What a bunch of gutless wonders. The CBS case is particularly interesting. It says two things.
They must know they are reviled by a big portion of the public and thus expect to get Anthrax or
bombs in the mail. Their refusal to accept viewer mail is another good reason not to watch CBS.
I was preparing a letter to Morley Safer at CBS "60 Minutes" with an enclosure of my Outback
column in which I said he lied about the position of the administration on the 2nd Amendment.
Saved a stamp, anyway. If you know his e-mail, please tell Morley that I said he is a liar.
The media are fanatical about protecting their "First Amendment rights," as they should be. One
of the "hot button" words is "Censorship," as in, "the Pentagon is censoring the news by not
allowing us freer access in Afghanistan." By freer access, I guess they mean refusing to let
reporters tell everyone where all are troops are located and what their plans are. Well, this is
apparently a one-way street. CBS recently refused to air ads from the Charles Schwab brokerage
firm. The reason was that the ads made fun of the mainline brokers who have been caught red-
handed recommending "dog" stocks to clients. Allegedly, the brokers were trying to win
investment-banking fees from the companies whose stocks were being promoted. So, CBS has
decided what is right for the public to see. And has decided that Charles Schwab Co. has no First
Amendment rights. Some networks also refused to air some A.A.R.P. commercials that called for
consumers to buy generic drugs where possible. Sounds like Censorship to me.
As one watches the Congressional hearings and floor debate on various matters relating to
homeland security, you see a sense of urgency and a willingness to spend "whatever it takes."
Not to impugn the motives of our fine public servants, but as I watch them anguish so much over
the "safety of the American public," it struck me that the U.S. Capitol building - and various
House and Senate office buildings - are probably number one or two on the terrorist hit list. That
no doubts helps the sense of urgency we see in Congress.
One of the recurring themes in the Congressional hearings about homeland preparedness is the
lack of ability of various public-service entities to communicate via radio, since they have all
manner of radios and operate on their "own" frequencies. For many, many years now, as a ham-
radio-operator, I can travel from city to city across America and talk with hams from my car
mobile, or from a motel on my handheld radio, on a common set of frequencies. Not all cities
use the same frequencies, to avoid interference with adjoining cities. But, we have a pocket-sized
directory of repeater frequencies. You simply look up the frequencies for Denver, for example,
dial one in on the digital dial, and you are talking to Denver hams. Next day, it may be Boise, or
Sacramento. Even overseas, you can use the same frequencies in many countries. While the
geniuses in the Congress and Homeland Security are working on this problem, I have a tip for
them. Call up the guys at the American Radio Relay League (the ham group) in Connecticut and
let them explain how to have seamless communications in any city and most foreign countries.
By the way, hams are at every major emergency or disaster, often with the only means of
seamless communications. Most of the major ham-radio VHF/UHF relay stations are on battery
backup power, and so on.
A recent flyer from an upscale home-entertainment store in Dallas listed a 50-inch TV for
$12,999, a DVD player for $7,999, and a home-theater remote control for $4,999! I am no
Socialist. I am no Communist. But I have to pause and wonder how many people in Dallas can
afford such items - and what it says about the distribution of wealth in this country. My DVD
player cost $149, and it works fine. I am going to get off the mailing list. It's too depressing.
Wes Pruden, the editor of The Washington Times newspaper, gave a talk
which I caught on C-SPAN. He is a funny guy. He was talking about how many of today's
journalists graduated from Ivy League colleges, and all that implies. He said that he had been to
Harvard - for one day. "And that is all anyone should spend at Harvard," he added. Check out
their website at www.washingtontimes.com for some first-rate reporting and commentary.
What media bias? After President Bush announced his plan for a cabinet-level post of Homeland
Security, many media outlets ran headlines or paragraphs that said that the new department
would have 170,000 people and an annual budget of $37 billion dollars. Oh, no! More bloated
government and runaway spending. The Washington Post correctly noted
that the 170,000 people and the $37 billion would be drawn mostly from existing agencies in a
consolidation of resources. See how much misinformation can be imparted with a simple
one-sentence headline. The media whores are masters at that.
Ralph Nader has been busy. He is imploring the U.S. Government to find companies other than
Microsoft from whom to buy software, as a way to punish Microsoft. He also lobbied the head of
the National Basketball Association (NBA) to look into complaints about the refereeing in the
league. I can remember when Nader was doing useful things, such as alerting the country to
unsafe automobiles ("Unsafe At Any Speed"). Now, he is a political gadfly, who will take up any
cause to get his name in print.
Abdul Rahman Yasin was interviewed by Lesley Stahl of "60 Minutes" in an Iraqi detention
center. Although I don't remember this part being broadcast, it is alleged that Yasin said that one
of the reasons the World Trade Center was chosen for the attack was that "The majority of the
people who work in the World Trade Center are Jews." In the Outback for Oct. 28, 2001, I said
in part: "I have wondered several times how many Jews worked in the World Trade Center,
which was a financial hub - and if the terrorists might have factored that into their calculation to
hit the towers." Part of the problem in putting many important issues into perspective is the
stifling effect that Political Correctness has on our dialog.
In the Outback for April 13, 2002 (Staring at the Ceiling Fan), I commented on how Hanan
Ashrawi might be a good choice as the spokesperson and diplomatic contact for the Palestinians,
in place of Arafat. In the Christian Science Monitor for June 7, 2002, John K Cooley makes a
case for Mrs. Ashrawi becoming the Palestinian Prime Minister. (www.csmonitor.com)
Tom Brokaw announced that he will retire in a couple of years. Over the past few months, I have
noticed that Tom has made an inordinate number of verbal miscues for a network anchor. The
other night (6-7-02), for example, he had trouble pronouncing Connecticut. Later, speaking of the
current graduating class of 2002, he said the "Class of 2000." I have the impression that he is
either so bored that he is not paying attention, or he has some cognitive difficulties. I am
sensitive to cognitive problems. I went to GNC to buy Lutein and asked for Taurine. Anybody
short on Taurine? I have plenty.
Regarding the Outback column of May 15, 2002, on Halle Berry, I got a letter from one of the
black thinkers and writers I said I admired. In response to the copy of the Outback column I sent
him on "Halle Berry - First Half-Black Woman to Win an Academy Award," he wrote me in
part: "It is right on the money." Also, census figures show that more people are starting to check
American instead of some ethnic background. This was explained in part by the intermarriages
between races that is blurring the lines of ethnicity. Hmmm. Seems to me I said that.
Lawyers for the entertainment industry are now trying to make a claim that those of us who have
equipment that allows us to fast-forward or skip commercials are "stealing." Goodness, gracious.
If you don't need a new car, or know which beer you already like, or have good tires, or don't
care about drugs for diseases you don't have, or don't watch food commercials because they
program you to eat more, or don't care what movies are coming out, or don't want "Frasier" or
"Friends" ruined for you by a promo that gives away the plot line, then you spend a lot of time
muting or zapping the commercials. Frankly, many commercials are getting better, with
imaginative themes and beautiful graphics and music. Even I will watch a really good
commercial once or twice. But most of the time, we use the garbage disposal called the "fast
forward" button or the gag, called the "mute." Make better and fewer commercials and we will
watch. Stealing? Stupid damn lawyers. They will be (are) the ruination of our society.
The Biggest Missed Sign of 9-11
Of all the missed signs and failures to connect the dots about the terrorists attacks of 9-11, one
simply brings tears to my eyes and makes me sick to my stomach. I am speaking of the
interactions between Johnelle Bryant of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and several of the
terrorists who applied for government loans.
In about April of 2000, that is the year 2000, Mohamed Atta came to a U.S.D.A. office
in Florida and spoke with Ms. Bryant about getting a loan for a twin-engine crop-duster aircraft.
(I have never seen a twin-engine crop duster, and Ms. Bryant thought it impractical.) He said he
wanted to use it both for crop dusting and for charter flights and was seeking a $650,000
loan.
In his visits with her, Atta tried to buy from her a photo on the wall with a panoramic view of
Washington, D.C. and pointed out the Pentagon and White House. He said that he wanted to visit
The World Trade Center, and asked about the security measures there. He asked her if she had
heard of al Queda, but she thought he was referring to a woman's name. He mentioned Osama
Bin Laden to her, but she had never heard of Osama (as many, if not most, Americans had not
back in 2000). He told her that Osama would someday be known as the world's greatest leader.
Apparently prompted by a Dallas Cowboy souvenir on her desk, Atta mentioned "America's
Team," and that Texas Stadium had a hole in the roof.
Ms. Bryant turned down the loan, because Atta was not an American citizen, but she referred him
to some other agencies where he might get help.
Atta returned on another occasion, this time wearing glasses. He claimed to be an accountant for
Marwan Al-Shehhi (another terrorist who died in the plane crashes of 9-11), who was with him,
and he wanted a loan of $500,000 to buy land to raise sugar cane. In his "crop-duster" visits, he
claimed to be a graduate engineer. This time, he claimed to be an accountant. Think about how
distinctive Atta looked. How could anyone not have had questions when he showed up in two
different contexts, seeking loans for completely different projects? And claiming two completely
different professions? My fingers hurt as I write this.
Brian Ross, of ABC News, interviewed Johnelle Bryant. Two transcripts are on the ABC
website. (www.abcnews.go.com) Also, you can do a google.com search on "Johnelle Bryant."
Everybody flaps their gums about the President and others saying that Americans should be
"alert." Alert to what, most ask? Does this story help you put the "be alert" admonition into a
better perspective?
The Great Wal*Mart Copyrighted Artwork Fiasco
In the Outback of May 29, 2002, I commented bitterly about the fact that Wal*Mart refused to
print photos I had taken of some of the artwork in my home. The paintings had been
photographed leaning against an outside brick wall and at an angle. There were shadows in the
photos of my arm and some faint reflected clouds in the background. Wal*Mart employees said I
needed a release from the artist to make copies of the paintings. Are there a lot of great artworks,
with very large formats and frames, being printed at Wal*Mart on 4x6 or 8x10 sheets and sold as
"knockoffs"?
In Dallas the other day, I went to a branch of a major film and camera store chain and told them
my story. They said that although there was a general agreement not to make prints of
copyrighted material, in the case I described, they would make the prints. This is another lesson
about the inability of big business to be flexible, to make sensible judgements. Wal*Mart has
a policy and their employees are not empowered to think, to make independent judgements. The
much smaller outlet in Dallas has the same rules, but their employees are allowed to exercise
independent judgements.
As you may recall, I scanned the negatives into my computer and made my own prints - which
will be used for insurance purposes and to send to art galleries in an attempt to sell two of the
paintings.
Just for the hell of it, I went back to the Wal*Mart that refused to print my negatives. I made one
4 x 6 print of one of the paintings at an automated kiosk, using a .JPG conversion of the negative
I scanned into my computer. The guy who trimmed the print and took my money did not say
anything about the content of the photo. It is probable that he did not notice. So, sue me. I would
love to be a test case for the proposition that I am not allowed to make reduced-sized copies of
artwork I own to provide copies to my insurance agent and copies for art galleries with whom I
want to place the paintings on consignment.
CIA/FBI - Off With Their Heads
As the backbiting, sniping, and confrontations continue over who knew what and when they
knew it about terrorists in the United States, there have been calls on various editorial pages for
the resignation of FBI Director Mueller and CIA Director Tenet. Mueller, at FBI, was only on the
job for a week when the 9-11 attacks took place. Granted, he has issued some obfuscatory
statements lately about what the Bureau knew and when they knew it. But, I have little doubt that
his subordinates fed him some bad info to cover the FBI's ass. Give the guy a chance.
I don't know much about Mr. Tenet at CIA, other than he is a career intelligence professional,
not a political buddy appointed to the job.
They can fire and hire all the directors of this and that they want up there in the DC Zoo. But,
until some new guy or gal comes in and changes the cultures in both the FBI and CIA, not much
will change. For example, at the FBI there is an old-boy network that is hard to break through. If
you try to rock their boat, they will find ways to sabotage you - to discredit you. That may be part
of what is happening to Mueller at the FBI, as he seems to be sincerely trying to change the
mindset and mission there.
A lot of Special Agents In Charge and mid-level supervisors are going to have to be "offered"
early retirement if there is to be a real change in attitude and mission. Otherwise, the old-boy
network will grind up, and make sausage of, any new director who tries to make wholesale
changes. Maybe we should start calling FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III - "Robert
Knockwurst Mueller."
Much has been said of the lack of communication between the FBI and the CIA. That is not the
only breakdown in communications. This has been a monumental problem for years. Way back
when I was a Treasury agent, the FBI and Treasury practically never talked to each other about
cases of mutual interest. I was steeped in the knowledge of the Federal Firearms Law and the
National Firearms Law, which are investigated by Treasury. So, I was asked by the FBI to tour
Pennsylvania with them to address chiefs of police and law enforcement groups. That was nearly
unheard of! One of us sharing the spotlight. I actually worked on only one gun-crime case in
connection with the Philly FBI. One case in the four years I was in Philly.
I gotta digress. We were on a kick in Philly to do co-operative Federal law enforcement PR
gambits, like displays in bank lobbies, TV shows on WFIL and WHYY, and so forth. Of course,
I was the Treasury "gun guy" in all of these events. One day, I was waiting in the vestibule of the
FBI office for the head of one of the sections who was working with me on the TV shows or
some PR thing. The receptionist, Mary, as I recall, was eating chocolates and offered me one. She
was putting one in my mouth in a suggestive way, when the Boss popped through the door. "We
don't allow our agents to fraternize with the staff,' he said, imperiously. "That's one reason that I
am not one of your agents, Norris," I said. Ouch.
I feel such a kinship with Agent Coleen Rowley in Minneapolis. She had wanted to be an FBI
agent since about the 5th grade. As a young kid, I had a similar dream. I had gone to law school
for the sole purpose of becoming an FBI agent - until a Minneapolis FBI career agent counseled
me not to do so. I was attending the University of Minnesota law school and was applying for a
summer clerk (intern) job at the Minneapolis field office. They liked to get an advance look at
potential agents.
As a young kid, I had delivered newspaper to the home of one of the Minneapolis FBI agents. He
saw me filling out the application and invited me to his home for a chat. Walter said that after many
years, and with a law degree, he was still called in and told what questions to ask during an
investigation. He listed several reasons why I would not like working for the Bureau. Partly, it went way back to Hoover's edict "don't embarrass the Bureau." Walter suggested that I get a job as a Treasury agent, ATF, Secret Service, or whatever, which I later did. In retrospect, I would never have made it in the FBI - too damn independent. And no,
Treasury did not fire me for insubordination and/or independent thinking. I resigned to join the
CIA.
That wild and wooly female agent from Minneapolis, 21-year-veteran Coleen Rowley, was a joy
to behold as she testified before the Senate. (She is the FBI legal counsel in Mpls.) She
mentioned the layers of bureaucracy, up to 7-9 levels from an agent to the Director. Even
Director Mueller seemed incredulous when he told of getting memos to sign that already had
about eight signatures on them. And so it will be a gargantuan job to streamline the Bureau, cut
down the layers of supervision, and give agents the freedom to make mistakes without the threat
of a transfer to Kabul. I like this guy Mueller. I seem to be in somewhat of a minority.
I roared with laughter at the following part of Mrs. Rowley's written statement to the
committee: "I've heard there is a saying at FBI Headquarters, 'Big cases, big problems; little
cases, little problems; no cases, no problems.'" Coleen, dear, that exact phrase was obviously
stolen from my office of BATF (then known as A&TTD) back in the early 1960's in
Philadelphia. That attitude was one of the reasons I left.
The FBI has a history of worrying first about their public image. Hoover was maniacal about it. He was a master at PR. You had to wear a certain type suit and shirt, a tie, and wear a hat - not a baseball cap - a hat.
There were weight limits. It is said that Hoover did not even like to hire agents with protruding ears or
balding. And on and on. I remember a young lady who had recently hired on in DC at an
administrative job. We both stayed in the same rooming house, while I was attending a Treasury
enforcement school. She said she was only allowed to have a male in her room if she kept one
foot on the floor, such as when she sat on the side of her bed to chat - in a room with little
furniture. She said that she was told that if she had a car accident, to call the FBI before the
police.
Throughout the FBI, there is a chilling effect on potential chance taking or imaginative thinking
during an investigation. In the old days, the threat of a screw-up was a transfer to North Dakota.
FBI agents are not allowed to make mistakes, or so the culture dictates. But, they have made
plenty in recent years and many have come to light. You would think the Fargo, N.D. office
would be packed with agents, but it isn't. You would think that a lot of senior people would have
been fired, but they haven't.
The FBI's lack of co-operation with local law enforcement was legendary. They viewed it as a
one-way street. You tell us, the FBI, everything. We will tell you squat. Hate is a strong word,
but the FBI was hated by much of local law enforcement. A local cop might arrest a bank robber
and an FBI would "adopt" the case as a Federal crime and the evening news would speak of "FBI
captures bank robber."
Once, we got rousted on a stakeout by some cops. When we showed our credentials, they
apologized. "We thought you were Philbricks," one said. Philbrick was the guy on TV who led
three lives for the FBI ("I Led Three Lives"), as you old geezers will remember. The point. They
thought we were FBI agents and they were going to hassle us and possibly blow the stakeout.
One of a thousand stories. My mentor, who was chief of BATF in Chicago and later New York
City, would not let an FBI agent into his office, always referring them to some junior agent. He
had his reasons, which space does not permit me to delineate.
I wish I had time to go around the Dallas Metroplex and ask the 40 or so police chiefs, "How
well is the FBI now communicating with you on matters of importance?" "Better than before,"
would not be much of a ringing endorsement.
Then, there were bureaucratic roadblocks. Actual documents that forbid the FBI and CIA to share
certain information. It was the result of the bleeding hearts who were afraid we would end up
with that "all knowing" KGB. Well, that might not have been a bad idea, given what we have
seen lately.
Strangely, I know more about the culture within the FBI than I do about the CIA, where I served.
The CIA is tightly compartmented. The "need to know" concept is adhered to. You need a
special endorsement on your building pass to get into many areas at HQ, and so on. When assigned to Washington, I did not work at the HQ building in Langley. Overseas, you have enough going on just to get your job done without worrying about an organizational chart.
But, I have
noted before that CIA is not under Civil Service. Civil Service status would destroy the
effectiveness of the Agency or the FBI. When I was there, there was a climate of independence
and "can do" within CIA. Not all promotions were made on the basis of seniority. Good ideas
and new thinking were encouraged. More often than not, the bosses were really smart and capable
people. It was the smartest and finest group of people I have ever known, in or out of
government. What a shock for those who make a career out of knocking the CIA.
When you are in some foreign country and you are crawling around a foreign consulate in the
dark, trying to plant a bug, you are on your own. The consequences of failure are often
horrendous. Most of the CIA, however, is not real cloak and dagger, like the division I was in. It
is a huge group of paper pushers and analysts. I am sure there is an entrenched bureaucracy there
that defies description - even detection. After all, the very mission of the Agency is covertness
and often deception. How do you crack the code from the outside when every request is met with
"I can't answer that on the grounds of national security"?
After I left the Agency and had a chance to see corporate America close up - and I somehow
managed to become a marketing director in a division of a $9 billion company - I realized how
much like the Civil Service much of corporate America was. I used to make the statement that
you could take a half-dozen of my old bosses at CIA, many of whom had a law degree or a
Ph.D., and run General Motors better than it was presently being run.
Now, all is sweetness and light with the FBI and CIA. The FBI and the CIA are "communicating
with each other." Wonderful. If they could also include BATF, Secret Service, Customs, INS,
DEA, Border Patrol, and maybe NSA in the loop - and get all their computers to talk to each
other, we would have something. Don't hold your breath, notwithstanding the proposed
department of Homeland Security. The computer and software suppliers are going to get rich
providing new technology to all these agencies that is compatible. And it will take years.
The lethargy, complacency, smugness, and lack of urgency of the American counter-intelligence
effort about matters within the United States had a long time to become solidified and codified. It
will take a long time to drastically change course. President Bush's initiative to bring many
agencies under the umbrella of a cabinet-level position of Homeland Security is a good one.
Unless you have worked on cases with several Federal law-enforcement agencies and in the CIA,
as I did over the years, you cannot imagine how fragmented and uncoordinated the effort is. And
how ferocious the turf wars have been over decades. And how many forms there are to fill
out.
All of this uproar about the closed-door intelligence inquires in Congress is a bit of a joke. And
just where the hell have all these geniuses with the oversight responsibility been all these years?
At fundraisers. There are 88 congressional committees and subcommittees with oversight of
homeland security matters. When these folks start casting the stones at the glass houses of the
FBI, CIA, et al., don't forget to ask questions about those who was supposed to be "minding the
store" all these years.
I commend to you the reading of my Outback for January 26, 2001. Read "Bush Administration
Needs to Review the Mission of Federal Law Enforcement," and "FBI Director Louis Freeh
Stays on the Job." Both were written during the first month of 2001.
If you are interested in understanding the FBI, I implore
you to read "The Bureau - The Secret History of the FBI," by Ronald Kessler. His 1 1/2 hour talk
on C-SPAN let me know pretty much what the book would highlight. In particular, with all the
browbeating of Director Mueller, who had been on the job only one week prior to Sept. 11, 2001,
Ronald Kessler adroitly lays the blame for much of what happened on Sept. 11 at the feet of
former director Louis Freeh. Mr. Freeh has yet to be called to testify before any committee in the
Congress that is investigating intelligence failures and future reforms. That's a strange town, DC,
and its actions often defy logic.
Crawl This, Buster
June 7, 2002
Mr. Roger Ailes, CEO
Dear Mr. Ailes:
For quite some time, Special Report with Brit Hume was the only TV newscast I watched. That
was until you started the screen crawl. At first, I cut a piece a cardboard and made some hinges
out of duct tape. I would flip up the cardboard mask to cover the screen crawl when I began to
watch Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or CNBC. After a while, I decided I was not going to let you
put me through that hassle and inconvenience. I simply removed Fox News, CNN, MSNBC,
CNBC, and all others with screen crawls, from my favorites lists. I no longer watch any
channel with a constant screen crawl. Not a single program.
After a couple of months of this new routine, in which I watch many more hours of The History
Channel, PBS, A&E, C-SPAN, HBO, and The Discovery Channel. I find I have no withdrawal
pangs. In fact, I feel a certain sense of tranquility in that I am no longer subjected to hordes of
experts, who generally have no expertise, and shouting panel members, telling me what to think
and telling the administration how to run both domestic and foreign policy. How presumptuous
of all of them.
Nobody I know can listen to one or more people talking and read and comprehend a flying screen
crawl. Everyone I know, and everyone I have heard comment upon it, says they hate the damn
things. Why you and all the others persist in doing it, is one of the great mysteries of modern
television. Like the Mafia meeting at Appalachin, maybe you and the other guys ought to get
together and decide whether it is really worth it to run the crawls. You all are obviously playing
Monkey see, Monkey do, and it would help to find out which Monkey started all of this and talk
some reason into him.
My judgment is that the crawls run off more people than they attract. Anyway, you guys are
making the big bucks, so you must know what is best for me and other viewers. If you ever kill
the crawls, I'll go back to watching Brit Hume and maybe a couple of other programs on Fox
News. The other channels, I am not so sure, because since I have had a chance to live without the
verbal clutter in my life - I like it too much.
A former viewer,
Richard C. Rhodes
CC: CNN, MSNBC, CNBC
(Footnote: I got an e-mail response from a senior VP at FoxNews asking that I give them another
chance and to take a look at their revised crawl. He said in part: "You are not the only one to find
it (screen crawl) distracting: in fact, I do at times as well."
I took a quick look at the "new" crawl on FoxNews.
As part of my response to his e-mail, I said:
John,
I am deeply grateful that you took the time to respond to my letter to FoxNews.
Here in the Outback, when we see something slithering across our path, we do not ask if it is
a Copperhead or a Rattlesnake. We shoot it, since "a snake is a snake." Similarly, "a crawl is a
crawl," and nothing can change that irritating fact.
"Snail Mail" No Longer a Joke - It is a Reality
Have you been thinking lately of writing your Congressman about a bill that will be voted on in a
couple of weeks? Don't bother. Do you want to write to FBI HQ to suggest a way to make an
immediate improvement in counter-terrorism? Don't bother. In one Congressional hearing about
the mail service, somebody said they were just now getting their Christmas cards in
Congress.
In a letter I received lately from the BATF, here are comments about the pace of mail being
delivered to D.C.:
"All mail designated for Washington, DC, is directed to a mail processing center where mail for
certain Zip codes - including ATF's mail - is hand sorted. Mail to U.S. government agencies is
then sent to one of the irradiation centers in Bridgeport, N.J., or Lima, Ohio. At those facilities,
the mail is given a high dose of ionizing radiation and then sent back to the Brentwood facility
for up to 48 hours to dispel any gases. The mail is then sent to another postal center where it is
sorted for delivery. The U.S. Postal Service is currently taking steps to decreases this 4- to 6-
week time frame to a maximum of 2 to 3 weeks, until they're able to opening a local irradiation
centers to process the mail more quickly."
As noted earlier, if you can believe Andy Rooney, CBS is throwing out all viewer mail. One can
understand why they are nervous. They have a lot of angry viewers, or former viewers. I sent a
letter to MADTv in California, complimenting a cast member. It came back with the addressee
blacked out, so nobody along the way would know their address, I assume.
But you know who is still opening their mail, don't you? The phone company, the electric
company, and your credit-card companies. There are checks in those letters! So, one has to take a
risk to reap the reward of payment. Not much of a risk, if you look at the real odds.
All of this because of a handful of Anthrax letters. This is a double blow to the
U.S. Postal service. They are spending billions of dollars to irradiate and otherwise screen mail.
But people are sending less mail, partly because there is no point in sending it to a lot of places. It
will get there too late or not at all. The FBI apparently has no clue as to who mailed the Anthrax
letters.
Top that off with the fellow who planted bombs in rural mailboxes, and you could make a bundle
if you were the supplier of Aspirin and Ibuprofen to the U.S. Postal Service. They have a
collective giant-sized headache. I am almost starting to feel sorry for them.
Radio Shack and the "What is Your Last Name" Nonsense
Radio shack is the only American retail company that I'm aware of that asks for your name when
you make a retail cash purchase. This allows them to enter the transaction in their
customer database. When I wrote the former president of radio shack, John Roach, he said that it
was a very important part of their sales strategy. For one thing, it was this input into the database
that allows them to decide to whom to send their flyers. He said, of course, that it was not a
requirement that we give our name. But you would never know that in talking to most of the
Radio Shack clerks. They act like they are FBI agents and you are under investigation. I
sometimes tell them that my name is Johnny Cash. Once in a while, somebody gets the message
about the Cash. Usually, I have to explain it.
Anyway, this has been going on for 25 years or more that I have been a customer of Radio
Shack. I am so sick of it, that I will do anything I can to keep from shopping there, and I buy an inordinate amount of electronics stuff. But there are some things that only they have on the shelf. I bought $2.99 battery the other day. The young clerk
glared at me when I told him that my name was Johnny Cash. I told him that I don't give my
name for any purchase under $10. He was pissed, and I left the store in a huff.
A lot of female friends really object to giving their name to some person behind the cash register
for a cash purchase. Actually, if I were a woman, I would never write a check in a retail outlet
and hand it to male clerk. That gives the clerk your name, address, and phone number. There are
just too many weirdos out there. And guys like me, who are leaning over trying to read your
name on the check.
You guessed it. I wrote a letter to the current CEO of Radio Shack, Len Roberts. I went into
the whole litany about how this was an invasion of privacy, and how Radio Shack was the only
company in America that asks for your name for a cash purchase. And how many times over the
last 20 years I have done everything I could to shop somewhere else - and that I was not alone.
I suggested that at a minimum, he institute a policy that with a purchases of less than $10 no one
is to ask your name. After all, why should they care about such cheapskates? They want to know
about the big spenders. If I get a response from Mr. Roberts, I will comment on it in a future
Outback. In the meantime, just stare at the Radio Shack clerk and say in the measured voice, "My
name is Johnny Cash."
(Update: I received the following e-mail in response to my letter to the CEO of Radio Shack:)
From Chuck McConvey
Mr. Rhodes
We received your above subjected correspondence.
Although you will probably always be asked (when it is legal to do so), you
are certainly under no obligation to provide us with your name and address
information. Our store managers and associates have been instructed to
simply continue with the sale if a customer declines to provide the
information. We understand that not everyone wishes to receive our monthly
sale flyer, and that is the reason we even bother to ask. We do not sell or
loan the list to anyone.
There are other valid reasons to have a name and address on file - we can
locate receipts to validate warranties for example.
We disagree with your premise that it is a violation of privacy to ask for
the information. Nothing is violated when the information is freely given.
We also do realize that this is a sensitive issue for some. Strong opinions
are nothing for anyone to fear. We appreciate the feedback and we thank you
for taking the time to write and express your concerns. Customer feedback
is always welcome here, even when it is somewhat less than flattering.
Respectfully,
Chuck McConvey
*****************************************************************************
Now, I am more incensed than ever. I am a former marketing director in a $9 billion company. What kind of corporate nonsense is: "We received your above subjected correspondence." What is wrong with "We received your letter"? No wonder nobody understands the other party. It is all corporate goobledygoop. Plain English, like I write, is a wonderful way to communicate. But I digress.
One of the main points in my letter was that it made no sense to ask for a customer's name for a small cash purchase. Mr. McConvey first says that the reason they ask our name is related to the monthly sale flyer. Later, he says that another valid reason to have a name and address on file is that - "we can locate receipts to validate warranties for example." Make up your mind. I used the example in my letter of a cash purchase for a $2.99 battery. Not a lot of $2.99 batteries get returned under warranty, I am guessing.
I am more resolved than ever to avoid shopping at Radio Shack. The real irony is that the manager of the store where I refused to give my name had earlier offered me a job. I hope you will give it serious thought before you shop at the only store in America that asks your name for a cash purchase.
I will continue to communicate and share my concerns with my fellow ham radio operators nationwide, who are big Radio Shack customers, and through whatever other means I have available. There is absolutely no reason not to institute a policy with a low-dollar cutoff for asking a customer name on a cash purchase. The leadership at Radio Shack continues to abuse the good nature of their customers. Why do you put up with it? Are you a bunch of sheep? At a minimum, remember that your name is "Johnny Cash." And you are sticking to that story.
If you would like to send a letter to the Boss at Radio Shack (and probably not receive an answer from him), you can send it to:
Mr. Leonard H. Roberts, Chairman & CEO
COPYRIGHT 2000 Richard C. Rhodes
You are welcome to quote sections from this page - or the whole page, as long as the source URL is included. Of course, I would be flattered if anyone linked to this page. It is very hard to be the writer, editor, fact checker, copy editor, and publisher of anything. So, I welcome corrections of fact, notes of misspelled words, and so on.
Suggested Reading From Past Columns
Click Here for Suggested Reading List
Archive of Back Issues
Richard C. Rhodes
|