Scene from movie Dazed & confused of students standing, sitting, and laying on and inside an orange convertible car

April 19, 2023

We Should Hang Out More

Movies often serve as perfect time capsules, offering snapshots of what life was like in an earlier time. Take Dazed and Confused. The movie is set in late seventies Texas and focuses on groups of ... Read Now >

News

1/20: Baby Boomers’ Reality: An Interview

January 20, 2011 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

The largest explosion in population for the United States occurred in the years just following the end of World War II. Known as the Baby Boomer Generation, this group has been the largest demographic of the American population and has been the driving force of the economy ever since. In the second decade of the new millennium, Baby Boomers are graying and facing the reality of retirement. Will retirement be as rosy as they might anticipate?

Perri Peltz

The Marist Poll’s John Sparks visits with Marist Poll Contributor Perri Peltz, a distinguished television news journalist and public health advocate.

John Sparks
Perri, the Baby Boomers are graying and approaching their golden years, so the Marist Poll reached out and asked if they thought those golden years were going to be as golden as they had hoped for. What do you think? What will retirement be like for Baby Boomers?

Perri Peltz
You know, it’s such an interesting question. Seventy-eight million people, Boomers, will start turning 65 come 2011. So, this is a huge change in our demographics as a country, and it’s been called everything, including the silver tsunami, that the graying of our population is really enormous, and it’s going to place tremendous demands on this country. How are these people going to be cared for? Who are going to provide for them? What about the finances? That being said, what I find fascinating about it is the Boomers who are entering these retirement years are incredibly optimistic, incredibly upbeat about what their prospects are, in spite of the fact that they’re — we’re in a recession, coming out of a recession, however you want to look at it, and obviously that places tremendous demands on this group, this population.

John Sparks
Well, what do boomers have to look forward to in the area of health care?

Perri Peltz
Health reform is obviously a very good thing for Boomers. The concern that has been stated kind of over and over again is that as you have this enormous number of people entering these years, entering their senior years, obviously health demands go up, and health care demands go up. The question that remains is who’s going to take care of these people? How are their medical needs going to be met? Do we have enough medical personnel to care for Boomers who are reaching this age where their health demands are going to be increasing? So, on the one hand, we have all of these amazing advances in medical technology and medical care, yet do we have the infrastructure? Do we have the personnel to be able to care for them? Are there going to be enough doctors? That is a real question that remains to be seen and whether — how is that gap going to be filled? Are we going to have different kinds of providers that are going to be filling those gaps? That’s a question that I think remains to be seen, but it’s without a doubt a real concern within the medical community.

John Sparks
You mentioned the optimism. Boomers have always had what I call “We’ve got the world by the tail” syndrome. And I say “we” because I am a Baby Boomer born in 1947. We took the challenge of sending a man to moon and back and made it a reality, but there are other things that are just beyond our grasp — a cure for cancer and then, of course, AIDS, Alzheimer’s. You have an expertise and an interest in public health and medicine, do you think that Boomers, the folks of my generation, have a chance of seeing any of those challenges becoming a reality in our lifetimes?

Perri Peltz
You know, I think they do. I don’t think there’s any question about it. I think that the advances that are taking place are really astounding. You look at the new medications that are happening in cancer treatment which are phenomenal. I mean chemotherapy, while it’s still an incredibly important part of cancer treatment, is becoming less of a focus as you start to look at these — this new round of treatments. So, I think that there are all of these advances that are taking place, and I think Boomers are going to be able to enjoy some of those advances in medical care. Are we going to find a cure for cancer during this period? You know, hard to say. Are we going to find a cure for Alzheimer’s? Maybe not. But, it seems as though we are making tremendous strides, and I think that Boomers are going to enjoy some of those benefits of really the things that they’ve been working on during all — during this time.

John Sparks
They’ve always had this terrific idealism besides in the areas of health, this idealism that perhaps we might even — we would seek and we would find an end to poverty. I know that you work with the Robin Hood Foundation. That’s an organization dedicated to fighting poverty. What do you think about an end to poverty? Will we be able to accomplish a goal as lofty as that?

Perri Peltz
Oh, I think that’s a really, really, really difficult one, and I think that you know with the economic period that we’re in certainly has made it even more difficult. I think that the good news about this population, about the Boomers entering retirement, they’re not really retiring. They are staying so engaged, and the numbers seem to bear that out, that this a group of people who have really little interest in stopping their activities and that they want to remain engaged, that they want to continue with the idealism for which they’ve been known for such a long period of time, that they want to continue with that and engage in fighting poverty and in fighting so many of these things. So, I think the good news is their enthusiasm, their idealism is certainly not going to end just because they turn 65. So, hopefully, that will continue, and that will help to end some of these bigger issues that we are dealing with. One of the things that I love is how many of the Boomers are volunteering and trying to make change. So, perhaps, they’re leaving the traditional workforce, but they certainly are staying engaged, volunteering in numbers that have been unprecedented, and that is only good. Right? So, whether we can fight poverty or win that battle, that’s an enormous question, but as long as this incredible force of people, who are idealistic, stay engaged, chances are good that real things yet can be accomplished.

John Sparks
Another thing that Marist asked Boomers had to do with things that they might expect to see in their lifetimes that go beyond health issues — living on other planets, microchips to make us smarter, human robots. This is certainly not the same world I was born into, but what do you see on the horizon in the form of technology, and will it be for the better or worse in the years to come?

Perri Peltz
You know it’s a great question, and I look at the age that we are living in right now, put aside living on another planet, the way that we are connected, the Internet, all of these unbelievable things that I find as though we’re living in this incredible era. So, you think about what is the next step, and it’s so hard to understand that as you’re just trying to figure out how to stay current with this technology that we have. So hard to say where it’s all going, but I think it’s such an incredible period of technology development and growth, you know, who knows what’s coming next?

John Sparks
Perri, many of our Marist listeners remember you from your days at WNBC. Can you catch us up on what you’re doing these days?

Perri Peltz
I remember … you know, I was with WNBC for a long time and punctuated — I went to CNN for a couple of years, I was at ABC for a couple of years, loved the work that I did. I had an incredible opportunity and largely focused on issues that were somehow related to public health, whether it was addiction issues or disease problems or … the AIDS epidemic is really how I got started in journalism. So, it was an amazing, amazing opportunity. About three or four years ago, I decided I wanted to return to school. I had always planned after I graduated from college to go to medical school and public health school and really focus on issues relating to public health. I never went to medical school. I kind of got sidetracked and wound up going to WNBC and starting out as a medical reporter focusing on lots of these kinds of issues. So, after 20 years in the business, I decided I wanted to go back to medical school. I did. I wound up staying for one year in medical school and then realizing that I really wanted to focus more on public health issues, that at this point in my life it was unlikely that I was going to start practicing medicine, and really what I was — wanted to remain focused on were issues concerning public health and, in specific, access to care for poor people. So, I’m now at Columbia. I’m in their doctoral program for public health and pursuing these issues about access to care, and the issues of aging certainly tie into that. I mean, what happens not only is you have this incredible population of people who are reaching retirement age, but what about the numbers of poor people? And that has traditionally been a problem in the United States. How do they get health care? And now you have to magnify that, right. As you look at this population of people, what happens to the people who don’t have health insurance, who are poor? How do they access care, and how do they access care now that they are coming in numbers that we have never seen before? So that’s really what I’m focusing on. I still try to stay current in journalism. I have a show that I do once a week for the SIRIUS XM network, which I love, and I do that once a week, and we focus on a health care issue each week, so that’s been really you know terrific and that’s how I kind of stay engaged with journalism. But, other than that, I’ve largely been a student. So, that’s what I’m doing.

Blog: Boom or Bust?

1/20: Boom or Bust?

| by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

Each year when Beloit College releases its Mindset List about the traits of the entering freshman class, I am reminded of something I find myself saying more and more often … this is not the world I was born into.

I am a classic Boomer born in 1947. World War II was history. My world in Texas reflected what was going on in other parts of the country … growth, housing starts, and the height of the military-industrial complex created out of necessity to defeat Hitler, Mussolini, and Japan. The United States was a manufacturing giant, and my generation has always been the trend setters, the driving force behind the economy, and the beneficiaries of the Greatest Generation — our parents — whose values and determination strived to make the world a better place for us. Born in the Great Depression, they never wanted us to do without. The American Dream was the goal — everyone living in a house in the suburbs with a two car garage and a college education.

Polio was the dreaded disease. Health insurance was not an entitlement. Doctors made house calls, and we paid them in cash. When I was six years old, my mother placed me in an experimental program to help find a vaccine for polio. A couple of years later, we had the Salk vaccine followed by the Sabin vaccine.

Davy Crockett was the King of the Wild Frontier, and Walt Disney capitalized on him in one of the first mass marketing campaigns utilizing the new magic box in our living room — the television. Television would play a formidable role in our lives, and for me, personally. I would spend 40 years of my adult life working in television news.

As a child, I recall the times as optimistic and fun. The shadow of the Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation were ever-present, but my day to day concerns were of cowboys, baseball, Boy Scouts and later on cars and girls. We all felt we would live forever as invulnerable as another television and comic book hero, Superman. Somehow our parents protected us from fears of doom, drought, and an economic recession that hit us in the 1950’s. I never spent a waking hour thinking about retirement.

I barely remember Harry Truman. The first real president I do remember was a grandfather-like figure who came on the television on rare occasions — Dwight Eisenhower. The world would stop when that happened, and everyone would watch and listen closely.

The optimism of my pre-teen years was followed with the youthful vigor of our next president, John F. Kennedy. He inspired us into believing we could send a man to the moon, and he talked about the torch being passed on to a new generation — us.

I saw President Kennedy in person on the morning he was assassinated. I was at the breakfast at the Hotel Texas in Fort Worth where he spoke just hours before he was gunned down in Dallas. I could have reached out and touched him in the motorcade as it left the Hotel.

Many have written that the shots that rang out in Dealey Plaza marked the transition from an age of innocence.

Regardless of when, somewhere along the way, things went awry. Some of it was our own undoing. Some of it for all good intentions were the mistakes of our parents.

The verve turned to violence and Vietnam. We began to question the status quo. We had all the answers. Our next president from an older generation vowed to end poverty with his Great Society. He failed.

We had Earth Day and became aware of our environment. We became the Woodstock Generation, and we thrived on drugs, sex, and rock and roll.

Believe it or not, though, forty years have passed, and in the course of time in the year 2010, those of us still kicking have survived many more periods of ups and downs. Greed and corruption have always been present. Every age has its own perils and promise. Today, it’s terrorists, technology, and Tweets. Tomorrow? Who knows?

Of concern lately has been the results of a survey indicating that for the first time Americans feel like the country’s better days are behind us and not ahead. Financial forecasts tell us to be prepared to work way past the age we thought we would retire. Alzheimer’s is a growing concern of many of us as medical strides have lengthened our lifespan.

We Boomers are coming to grips with our own mortality. As the world turns, our youth has given way to gray hair and wrinkles, but along with the fears and trepidation, this Boomer remains an optimist.

The earth still spins on its axis. Life is still worth living. The glass is far more than half full, and I continue to be blessed with new friends and new experiences. I am thankful for being born when I was and for experiencing life as part of the Baby Boomer Generation. I wouldn’t trade places with anyone.

I also look forward to 2011 and to continue sharing interviews and insights with our Marist followers. Happy New Year!

Baby Boomers’ Reality: An Interview

1/19: At Long Last? Well, Sort of …

January 19, 2011 | by Marist Poll

By Barbara Carvalho

While official calculations 18 months ago cited the definitional end to the recession, an economic gloom has hung over the nation … until now. According to the latest Marist Poll, a light has broken through the overcast economic forecast. Mind you, the numbers aren’t exactly rosy, but they do represent a departure from what we’ve been seeing.

Although the overwhelming majority of Americans continue to think we are still mired in the recession, there has been a decline in the number from 79% in December to 71% currently. This is nothing to write home about, but in the world of the economist, directional change counts.

More dramatic is the view that we’ve turned the economic corner. 54% of Americans nationally tell us the worst is behind us, and only 39% think the worst is yet to come. Compare this current Marist finding with what we observed only last month. This represents a flip from the pre-holiday figures when 39% thought the worst was behind us, and 53% believed the worst was yet to come.

The direction of the economy is a good barometer of how incumbents are faring. So, is it any surprise that President Obama’s approval rating is on the rebound from his November shellacking? And, under the heading of having your cake and eating it too, voters still blame President Obama’s predecessor for the country’s economic woes.

Does this now signal a new political climate? Probably not. The jobs picture remains problematic despite the overall drop in unemployment from 9.8% to 9.4% in the latest government figures. Drilling down, we see that the increase in jobs isn’t keeping pace with population growth, and the decline in unemployment is largely the result of Americans exiting the work force. Such as it is, this remains, like digging out from the two previous recessions, largely a jobless recovery. And, economic forecasts suggest this trek back to normal will take even longer to get on firmer footing.

1/19: What’s a Giant Fan to Do?

| by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

My hopes for a return of my Giants to the Super Bowl this year were dashed in a Joe Pisarcik-like collapse delivered at the hands and feet of Eagle Quarterback Michael Vick and followed the week later by the precision passing of Packer Quarterback Aaron Rodgers. Now, the New Yorker in me, along with most of my Big Apple friends, says I should be pulling for the J-E-T-S to bluster their way to the Lombardi Trophy. More on Gang Green shortly. So, what are my rooting choices as the remaining four teams wind their way to Dallas and the February 6th showdown?

Let’s start with my oldest dislike. Pittsburgh. Now, I know it’s another sport but the memory of Bill Mazeroski’s walk off homer in the 1960 World Series is still raw. I know I’m supposed to get over it by now, but I was in my formative years. And, as they say, childhood memories last a lifetime. Besides, it’s the fiftieth anniversary of his Ballentine blast. Tapes of the game, recently discovered in Bing Crosby’s wine cellar, were unfortunately broadcast quality. Talk about pouring salt onto old wounds. So, the Steelers are not an option.

Next up chronologically is the Green Bay Packers. In the NFL Championship games of 1961 and 1962, the Lombardi led Packers won back to back titles over my Giants led by Sam Huff and his defensive stalwarts. The fact that the Packers bounced the Giants from the playoffs this year has nothing to do with my dislike of the occupants of Lambeau Field. I wouldn’t have been rooting for them anyway.

And, then there are Da Bears. Who can forget my Giants being manhandled by the monsters of the midway on that bone-chilling day at Wrigley Field in the 1963 NFL Championship Game? Certainly, I can’t. George Halas’ Bears won 14-10 over my Giants and hobbled Quarterback Y.A. Tittle. Let’s not even go down the slippery slope of “The Fridge” and the 1985 season ending playoffs for the G-men. Bears 21-0. Remember Sean Landeta’s whiff punt that was returned 5 yards for a touchdown? It makes DeSean Jackson’s 65-yard game-ending punt return to cap the Eagle’s comeback this year seem like child play.

So, that brings me back to the Rex Ryan coached Jets. Now, I have nothing against Joe Namath besides my dislike of the AFL and expansion teams…. I don’t have much need for the Nets, Islanders, or Mets either. But, more to the point, there’s something about the Ryan name that sticks in my throat like Chicago bratwurst or Philadelphia cheese steak. Maybe it’s that his father Buddy Ryan was Defensive Coordinator of the ’85 Bears and later coached the Philadelphia Eagles. He had earlier been the Jets linebacker coach on their ’69 Super Bowl winning team. (The only one of the remaining four teams he wasn’t a part of was the Packers whom he probably liked anyway.) Should the sins of the father be visited on the son? I’ve still got some soul searching to do on that one. But, in the short run, (and, probably a longer run, too) it disqualifies them for me.

So, I’m down to three thoughts. Should I be part of the 26% who tell us in the latest Marist Poll they watch the Super Bowl more for the commercials than the game? I think not. I like football too much to buy into that one. Second, maybe I can solve my Super Bowl dilemma by wishing that the best team wins. That’s probably the only charitable thing I’ve written so far. But, it doesn’t allow me to scream at the TV full throttle while the game is on like I do each Sunday for the Giants. Finally, deep down inside I’m thinking maybe things aren’t really too bad. It’s only slightly more than a month until pitchers and catchers. Go Yanks! But, I bet you could already tell I’m one of those Yankee fans who the rest of the sports world loves to hate.

1/14: President Obama at the Halfway Point

January 14, 2011 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

President Obama is not only midway through his first term in office, but he is at the crossroads in his presidency. Several recent national surveys, including the most recent McClatchy-Marist Poll, have shown an improvement in his approval rating. Right now his job performance rating borders 50%, certainly an uptick from his post-shellacking numbers. He is on firmer footing because his Democratic base is more secure and independent voters are now divided. Independents only recently were giving the president a thumbs-down.

Clearly, President Obama is benefitting from the end-of-year legislative successes. The political dialogue is likely to be elevated in the coming weeks, something the president promised during his 2008 campaign. He has been unable to deliver this during his first two years in office, but perhaps he has been heard by a mournful nation in his healing address to the families of the victims on Wednesday night.

So, he begins the second half of this term with a sense of renewal. The good news for the president is that 61% of voters nationwide are optimistic about his job performance in the next two years. Hope is back on the minds of the nation. The bad news for the president is that 61% of voters nationwide are optimistic about his job performance in the next two years. Expectations are again very high for President Obama to deliver on his campaign promises about jobs, the fiscal mess, and international situation. Moreover, he needs to sustain the civility in our national dialogue that was born out of the tragedy last Saturday in Tucson.

There is a sense in the nation that we have changed direction. Americans are less negative about the country’s compass. This is a trend that can only serve to help an incumbent as he is poised to seek re-election.

Will the president’s political recovery last? The economy will dictate the answer. And, certainly the jobs picture remains problematic for the president. The next few months will be critical in defining how this president and his presidency are viewed.

1/4: New Year’s Resolutions: More Harm Than Good?

January 4, 2011 | by Mary Griffith

It was the best laid plans. Going into 2011, I planned to refrain from making a New Year’s resolution. And, I was in good company. According to the latest national Marist Poll, 56% of American adults said it was not likely at all that they would make a resolution for 2011. Ultimately, though, I caved.

As the hours ticked down to 2011, I questioned my decision. “There are definitely plenty of bad habits and personality flaws that I can work on correcting,” I thought. So, my ultimate decision was to resolve to worry less and enjoy life more. (No small task for the ultimate Little Miss Worry Wart.)

The ball fell, I ushered in the New Year with my loved ones, and I was on track to be more laid back. Think positively, I said to myself. This is the beginning of a whole new you. January 1st was a wonderful day, filled with family and friends. And, then, it happened. My brother, his fiancée, my fiancé, and I were gathered around my mother’s dining room table discussing our respective wedding plans. As my brother’s well organized fiancée ticked off their well-thought out arrangements, I started to panic. Granted, they are getting married before us, but that still didn’t stop my mind from racing. Are we behind? Does our more traditional style stink of boredom compared with their more avant-guard taste? Should we be doing more? I painfully held my concerns until later that evening. When I shared them with my fiancé, he stared at me and asked, “You couldn’t make it through one day, could you?”

He was right. And, so, I started anew with my resolution. But, here is the question that has been going through my mind: do resolutions do more harm than good? Think about it. Each year, many of us promise to make a change going into the New Year, but for those who don’t keep them, there is often a sense of self-disappointment and failure? In Marist’s holiday survey, nearly six in ten American adults considered the holiday season to be more stressful than fun. Is this yet another holiday tradition which ultimately stresses us out? It could be.

Mental note for 2012: resolve to stop over thinking.

12/20: Kids and Cell Phones

December 20, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

When should a child be given his/her own cell phone? Who is the phone really for — the parent or the child? What rules and restrictions should be placed on the phone’s use?

Carol Anne Riddell

The Marist Poll’s John Sparks speaks with Marist Poll Contributor Carol Ann Riddell about the plusses and minuses of equipping your child with a wireless phone.

John Sparks
Carol Anne, let’s talk about cell phones. Specifically at what age do you think a child should have his or her own cell phone?

Carol Anne
Well, I think that it’s a very individual decision, like so many things in parenting, you have to make the decision is that right for your own family. In my case, my children are young. My daughter is seven years old and has a cell phone. Now before everyone would jump up and down and say that’s completely inappropriate, I would point out that because her father and I are divorced, she’s traveling with a sitter back and forth between my home and school and her father’s home, and I want her — I want both my kids to know that they can reach me whenever they want to. Now that said, nine and seven years old are probably too young for phones in many people’s opinions, but I had to make a decision based on what I felt was appropriate to my specific situation. Now there have been some pitfalls with it. I do think that my children are still at an age where there really a bit too young to be fully responsible for something as valuable as a cell phone, so it ends up that I’m the one finding the phone, making sure it’s charged, that sort of situation. But again, because of our specific family situation, I think the benefit of being able to be in touch outweighed the downside for me, at least at this point. For most people, they think about cell phones older, more to the point of, you know tweens, I would say 10/11 years old is a more typical time to do it.

John Sparks
What are some other reasons you might give a child a cell phone?

Carol Anne
Well, I think there’s a lot of reasons, but for most parents it has to all do with security, with convenience, and with piece of mind for all of us. My children are too young to be traveling on their own, but there still are times where they may want or need to call me, and I want them to have the security of knowing that they can reach me. I want to have the security of knowing that I can reach them. There are things like day to day logistics, a piano lesson gets cancelled, a soccer game goes late, and I don’t want to be an alarmist, but you know you can’t ignore the potential for crisis situations in which we would want to be able to reach our kids first and foremost. When you think of things like school shootings, what we all went through here in New York on 9/11, the potential for natural disasters, those are all times when we, as parents, have to be able to get to our kids immediately and first and foremost.

John Sparks
So, who does the cell phone benefit most, the parent or the child?

Carol Anne
I think both. I admit that getting my kids cell phones was very much also about me. As I said, as a divorced parent, I really want to be able to contact my kids even when they’re not with me, and a cell phone gives me that access. But there’s also a very big benefit for them because they feel connected. They feel connected to me emotionally, and that’s really important to me. I think that there is another piece of this for kids which has to do with sort of the status symbol of having a cell phone, and that can be very counterproductive for kids.

John Sparks
What kind of rules or restrictions do you place on the use of the phone by your child?

Carol Anne
As many as I can come up with, John, and I think that that’s generally a good rule to follow, at least in the beginning. There’s lots of options that you can consider when you look at a cell phone for your child, like a prepaid plan. You can look at restricting what the phone can actually do, like Internet browsing and texting. We also have a habit of really looking very closely at the bill every month because I don’t want the kids downloading tons of games and ringtones. The point is that the phone is not a toy. It’s a way for us to stay in touch. Now, so far we haven’t had issues with the kids downloading expensive, unnecessary stuff, but we do have to keep a close eye on that because I think that that comes with the territory eventually. Another thing that we thought about it, and I think it’s an important thing to remember as parents go through this, is really thinking about limiting who your kids can talk to on the cell phone. Behold, don’t talk to strangers policy applies to the wireless world too and there are options with phones where you can specifically program who they can speak to, and I think that that’s a really good option for people to consider. Phone cameras, that’s another area you have to be really careful in. Kids can end up taking or receiving really inappropriate pictures, and that’s something you’d want to think about when buying a phone. I’m a big fan of going with sort of the most basic phone you can possibly get for kids. I think it’s more than enough and plenty.

John Sparks
You know in the classroom, teachers usually have rules about the phones being turned off. Do you run into problems there in equipping your kids with their cell phones?

Carol Anne
Yeah, we certainly talk to them about it. My kids will stick their cell phones in their backpacks, but they remained turned off until they get out of school and they need to call me. I think parents have to be really very aware of that. You’ll probably remember in New York City there was a lot of controversy around this issue because of the policy not allowing cell phones in the classroom and kids not knowing what to do with them when they got to school, but there are some very valid arguments for why they don’t want them in the classroom that are very obvious too. There… A cell… A ringing cell phone is disruptive to everyone in the class. So in addition to the rules about I think who kids can talk to and what they can download, you really have to have rules about when they can use the phone, and the school day is absolutely off limits.

John Sparks
Carol Anne, are these phones addictive? Do they keep your child from doing homework, taking care of the chores, keeping focus on school?

Carol Anne
I don’t think that we can say that yes, phones are bad, phones are addictive or video games are bad, video games are addictive, but I do think that when parents allow kids to use cell phones inappropriately, yes, they can be bad and, yes, they probably can be addictive in some sense of the word. I think distraction is a very serious issue. We have to have strict rules about when the phones can be turned on and they can be used, but I think that this is all through the same way that you monitor things like video games and TV watching, common sense applies, and when the rules get broken, there are consequences for that. In our case, the phone gets taken away for a period of time. There is a real downside I think to kids using the phones constantly to communicate rather than sort of walking to the next room and speaking to the person in it, and I think that’s something we want to avoid.

John Sparks
You know, I was going to ask you if all this texting and tweeting and telephoning kept them from developing their social skills and makes them want to avoid face-to-face contact. What do you think about that?

Carol Anne
It’s such a fascinating topic, and I think we have to as parents, really consider how technology is affecting this generation of children because, as we know, it is a completely wireless generation. They are always connected, and we just didn’t have that as part of our experience growing up. I do think there’s a risk when kids spend too much time communicating via text and email that they lose out as far as building those face-to-face communication skills, and I think that we — there’s evidence of that. We’ve seen that, and we’ve heard that talked about a lot. On the other hand, we can’t ignore that this is our reality. Technology is here. It’s not going away. What we try to do is sort of manage screen time generally in our house, and by screen time, I mean computers and TV and iPods and phones, the whole thing, anything that has a screen. Play a game of cards or Uno instead. But I have… And we do have to remember that you can’t turn back time, and I don’t think we would want to either.

John Sparks
I agree there. Is a cell phone a necessity for my child?

Carol Anne
Ah, you know that is a very interesting question. I think it really depends on the individual family, and I think in many, many cases parents would say, “Yes,” particularly for an older child. For example, a child in New York City who is traveling alone to and from school and may be taking the bus or may be taking the subway and that parent really feels that it is an absolute necessity to check in with that child when he or she gets off the subway or gets off the bus. I think there are certainly situations where parents and kids would say, “It is absolutely a necessity.” I think there are also situations where parents are simply indulging kids like they do with any other luxury item, having the coolest, newest, fastest thing, and cell phones can fall into that category because they have become a real status symbol for children. I think that the cell phone conversation is a great chance to talk to kids about some of these things. For starters, what you just mentioned, John, what is a want versus what is a need? And what does it mean to be responsible for something that’s really valuable because a cell phone costs money. There’s real value to do that. And what’s the repercussion if you do lose that item? We have… In our house, we have this three-month replacement policy for all those types of valuable items, things like an iPod or a Nintendo DS or phone, and we’ve had to use that. That is an extremely hard lesson because 12 weeks feels like a lifetime to a child, but it’s a really valuable lesson, and you know the hard, sad, last thing I would say on that also is that don’t think that giving your kids a phone means that they’re always going to be available to talk to you because it’s amazing how often they’re too busy to pick up.

John Sparks
Well, that’s what I was going to ask. Say you get in a spat with your child, your child gets in a huff and won’t take your calls anymore, it’s kind of a power play.

Carol Anne
It can be, and I think that it’s absolutely true and sad to say, but I think in those situations what we always have to remember, right, is that we’re the parent, and you have to then reserve the right to take that phone away. If my call keeps getting declined, and that hasn’t happened to me yet, but if it does, I’ll be the first one to be putting that phone in the top dresser drawer for awhile.

John Sparks
Anything else you’d like to add, Carol Anne?

Carol Anne
You know, there’s just one other thought that I had about some of this as we were talking and that is when we think about things like the texting and the e-mailing and the sort of digital shorthand that kids have, one thing that I’ve noticed, and I’ve done some stories about this in the past as well, is that kids use so much shorthand now because of the language of texting that I think sometimes things like spelling and handwriting can suffer. I’ve interviewed teachers before who have complained about even older students really having terrible spelling skills because they haven’t really learned appropriate ways to spell, and they have a computer correct it for them so it’s not part of their knowledge base, or they will use text shorthand in a formal paper, and I think that that’s something also that as parents, we have to really watch for as kids use this kind of technology, particularly at very young ages. They’re just developing these skills to write and speak and read fluently, and when they’re young and they sort of fall into the habits of texting shorthand, I think it can be disruptive to those skills. So, I think it’s just another thing that I’ve noticed, and I’m keeping an eye on myself.

John Sparks
Certainly I’ve noticed that, or I’ve been told rather that kids no longer write nor can they read or decipher cursive because of this.

Carol Anne
I think that’s a very common thing. I think cursive is not as widely taught as it once was, and I think kids really have their own shorthand language that is part of a digital world that we just didn’t — you know we didn’t have anything like that growing up, and you know again, I think there is something to moving forward, and we can’t turn back time. We don’t want to turn back progress, and we don’t want to turn back technology, but there are some very basic skills that are not debatable in terms of their value, and I think like learning to write clearly and spell well, and I think that to the degree that texting and that kind of shorthand interrupts that is a real problem.

John Sparks
Thank you, Carol Anne. It’s always a pleasure talking with you.

Carol Anne
Thanks, John. I appreciate it.

12/2: “The 25 Greatest Baseball Players of All Time”

December 2, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

Sports journalist and Marist Poll Contributor Len Berman has stirred up a little controversy in his new book, The 25 Greatest Baseball Players of All Time. Find out what the fuss is about in his interview with the Marist Poll’s John Sparks.

Len Berman

John Sparks
Len, you had to have opened up a real hornet’s nest with a book titled “The 25 Greatest Baseball Players of All Time.” That’s a pretty tall order. What kind of responses have you been getting from the book?

Len Berman
Well, it’s … I probably should’ve given this some more thought before I decided to do it, but what happens is people are passionate about their local teams. So anybody who gets left off the list, they think I’m nuts. How could you possibly leave off Sandy Koufax or Nolan Ryan or Yogi Berra or Roberto Clemente? So I’m in the weird position of talking about my book, and most authors get to talk about what’s in their book, I have to spend half the time talking about what’s not in there.

John Sparks
Now, since I’ve read the book, I know, of course, that you didn’t come up with the list all by yourself. I can’t blame you for not wanting to take all the heat. In fact, you had a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel. You had Bernie Williams and Jeffrey Lyons and Ralph Branca and Frank Deford, just to name a few. How did you go about selecting your partners in crime?

Len Berman
Well, first of all, when you’re trying to do something, you want to reach out to people you know and will get a response from, so clearly I looked for initially people I knew and journalists I knew and respected, and then I asked the Hall of Fame for a suggestion. I knew they couldn’t get involved. That wouldn’t be proper for them to vote, and the Director of the Hall of Fame suggested Roland Hemond, who’s a longtime baseball executive in Arizona who’s seen it all. So, I tried to spread it around as much as I could to different ages and generations. People have seen a lot of ballplayers and seen a lot of games, and I told them just vote. Give me 25 names, and you don’t have to say what position they play or what era they played in, and that’s how we got who we got. And I don’t think I agree with all of them, but I do agree with most of them.

John Sparks
Well, let me follow-up. You wrote that there were 11 unanimous choices. How did you settle on the other 14? Was there a weighted vote? Was your vote the only one that mattered? Did you ever get outvoted by your own panel? Did they change your mind on anybody?

Len Berman
I didn’t vote at all, and the 11 unanimous choices were Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb, Joe DiMaggio, Lou Gehrig, Walter Johnson, Mickey Mantle, Christy Mathewson, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams, and I can’t argue with any of them. The other 14 were just whoever got the most votes. And, since I had seven panelists, luckily it broke down where four votes got you in and three didn’t. Well, listen to this collection of ballplayers who got three votes and just missed: Grover Alexander, Barry Bonds, Lefty Grove, who some considered to be the greatest pitcher ever, Satchel Paige, and Roberto Clemente. So, those were the people that just missed. The shocking thing to me was Yogi Berra got one vote out of seven, just one that came from Bernie Williams, and yet there’s ten World Series rings. I mean somebody had to catch all those pitchers.

John Sparks
You know, the book’s been out a little while, is there one player that readers have taken the most exception with?

Len Berman
Well, sure. That would be the only active player who made the book, and that’ll be Alex Rodriguez, who’s controversial for any number of reasons. Number one of which, he took performance-enhancing drugs and admitted to it. Number two, there are active players, such as Albert Pujols, who, if this book were written 10 or 15 years from now, might receive even more consideration. But Alex Rodriguez got four votes, and what I found most interesting was not only did he get a vote from Bernie Williams, which you’d expect, I mean Bernie Williams also voted for Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera, but I mean — but he also got a vote from Roland Hemond. So, that tells me that there’s widespread belief that his talents just rise above anything he may or may not have done. And the truth be told, if it weren’t for Derek Jeter playing shortstop, Rodriguez would be ensconced at shortstop and would be considered the greatest shortstop ever this side of Honus Wagner.

John Sparks
When going through the book, I couldn’t help but think about that age-old controversy about whether ballplayers should be considered role models. You mentioned about A-Rod and the steroids, some of your other 25 had their personal demons. Cobb was snarly. Ruth was a drinker and carouser. Mickey Mantle wasn’t a saint, and Pete Rose liked to gamble. Did you have any difficulty in trying to go beyond that issue? Did you judge strictly on talent on the field?

Len Berman
Well, you’d have to ask the panelists, but as far as how I addressed this, since the book is primarily aimed at young readers, I certainly did not skirt the issue. So I addressed the Alex Rodriguez issue head-on and the Pete Rose gambling issue head-on. I didn’t get into Babe Ruth’s carousing and Mickey Mantle’s drinking. The publisher did take out one story, though. I did write that Ty Cobb’s mother shot his father to death in an accident, thought he was an intruder and shot him to death. He thought she was fooling around and was sneaking into the house. The publisher, I think, decided it wasn’t a warm and fuzzy enough story for young people to read about, so that’s out of the book.

John Sparks
You know, I’m glad you mentioned that because I noticed that omission as well, and I recall seeing a — I think it was a two-act play that Gabe Pressman and I went to, believe it or not, and it was about Cobb, and according to the play, he had witnessed that incident, and the whole thesis was that that affected his demeanor in the way he interacted with other players.

Len Berman
Well, an amateur psychologist would tell you that, gee, if mom shoots dad to death, it’s going to affect your personality in later years. I don’t know if he actually witnessed it. There’s some debate over how the incident took place. Cobb has a descendant, like a great, great something, nephew or grandson who’s debunked part of the story. Some of it’s shaped in myth, but I would … yeah, anything you write about these guys from way back when is kind of speculation. We don’t know much about, for example, the great Negro League catcher Josh Gibson who made the book. We don’t. What’s written about him or what’s said about him is not really well known because it didn’t get the press coverage, and the statistics weren’t really accurate, and a lot of what he did may have just been the stuff of myth. So, you just don’t know about a lot of these people when you go way back when.

John Sparks
You mentioned a minute ago about aiming the book at young fans, but I’ve got to tell you, I think you did a masterful job at aiming your book at fans of all ages. That’s the beauty of baseball, I think. I remember my late father at the age of 80 sitting in the back seat of my car on the way home from a Texas Rangers’ game talking to an eight-year-old son of my neighbor, and baseball bridged a 72-year-old age gap when it came to conversation. I really thought you did a great job at trying to talk to people at all ages.

Len Berman
Well, thank you. There’s a couple of factors involved there. Number one, I think baseball’s the one sport that does bridge the generations. My dad told me about seeing Babe Ruth bat, and my eyes just lit up, so I think that’s one. And number two, I’ve always — this is my second — or actually it’s my fourth kids’ book, but my second of this kind of style. Last year it was the 25 Greatest sports moments of all time, “Greatest Moments in Sports” it was called, but I’ve never tried to write down to kids. So I think if you — in some respects maybe the vocabulary might be on the high level for youngsters, but I just always — I wrote simply. I didn’t write complex sentences, but I always tried to just write simply, and I think the publisher did a wonderful job of putting picture — the old pictures are just great, which I had nothing to do with, and I think that’s why kids, as I like to say, of all ages might enjoy the book.

John Sparks
No, it’s really packaged well. Any plans for a sequel, and if so, what would you call it?

Len Berman
Well, I don’t know if I want to follow-up on the baseball. I’m not sure of the other sports. We’ve had some ideas we’ve been running back and forth with the publisher. Nothing that’s in cement just yet, but I think the publisher wants to keep the series going. It’s just a matter of hitting on the right … I mean one thought is greatest athletes of all time, then you incorporate people like Jim Thorpe. Although Jackie Robinson’s, who’s made my last two books, would also make that book as a great. Jesse Owens, so there’s some great, great athletes. Jim Brown. So I don’t know. That’s a possibility. Another possibility would be a blooper, like the greatest craziest sports moments of all time, some serious and some not so. You could do Buckner and Bonehead Merkle and Wrong Way Corrigan and some of those other classics.

John Sparks
You generate a lot of controversy when you go after the 25 greatest, but I got to thinking: You’d probably generate just as much controversy if you wrote about the 25 worst baseball players of all time. I mean I just wonder who might be on that list?

Len Berman
I know. I don’t know how you would figure that out. I mean that’d also be kind of mean. I mean could you imagine telling your grandkids: Look at this, I’m one of the 25 worst of all time. There are some interesting stories. I once interviewed a guy who passed away who played with Walter Johnson of the Washington Senators and got into exactly one Major League game, and I asked him how he did, he said he couldn’t remember. So, I don’t know. I don’t know how you’d pick the worst.

John Sparks
It’s a great book, Len. You always do great work, and it’s always a pleasure talking to you. Before we go, could I get you tell the Marist listeners how they can subscribe to your Daily Top Five for those that don’t know that?

Len Berman
Yeah, just simply go to my website, https://www.thatssports.com and I send out a free daily email, if anyone’s interested. It’s on my musings on sports, and there’s always something to talk about. So, thatssports.com is the place.

11/23: Hard Hits on the Gridiron

November 23, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

What should be done to reduce the number of head injuries in, both, the NFL and college football? The Marist Poll’s John Sparks took up the topic with Marist Poll Analyst and CBS Sports Play-By-Play Broadcaster Verne Lundquist.

Verne Lundquist

John Sparks
Verne, there’s been more talk about football and head injuries this season than any other that I can recall in quite some time. What’s the reason?

Verne Lundquist
Well, I think it’s the growing awareness that there’s been trauma because of head injuries, not only in the National Football League, but also in college and on down to high school. It just seems to me that the more science explores the impact of football and head injuries, the more they learn and the greater the safety precautions need to become, and so, I think that there’s just a heightened awareness about all of it.

John Sparks
You know even Congress has gotten in on the act. There’ve been hearings. You think there’s an answer on how we can reduce or eliminate concussions suffered on the gridiron?

Verne Lundquist
I don’t know, John, unless it’s in the increased safety level and increasing technology in the development of the helmet. It is and always will be a contact sport as long as football is played with the current rules. I think you can change some of the rules too to — but you can’t change the nature of the game. I think it’s all going to be dependent upon technology and an increase in the safety of the helmet.

John Sparks
You know hard shell helmets, as we know them, were developed in the late ’40s to prevent fractured skulls, and some say that the helmets actually encourage players to hit harder and with more force because they feel they’re so protected. Do you think that’s true?

Verne Lundquist
Well, I think for years the technique was taught to lead with the helmet. I think it was a coaching technique, and kids, probably not in junior high but in high school and certainly in college, were taught that technique and then perfected the — not the art of it, but the technique of it as they advanced into the higher levels of the sport. And, this goes back to the increasing awareness of the damage of helmet, not only helmet-to-helmet hits but helmet-to-body part hits. I just… I think that the technique… Well, not the technique, the coaching aspects of it need to change, and I think they are. I… You know the NFL is cracking down now on helmet-to-helmet hits. The college game is. We had an example in a recent big time game, Georgia and Auburn, where one of the Auburn defensive players was flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct. He used his helmet to spear the opposing quarterback in the small of the back long after the ball had been released and was gone. He was flagged for unsportsmanlike, but that was a potentially serious injury, a potential serious injury, and there’s a school of thought that he should’ve been suspended for a game, and the more suspension… I did see somewhere someone was suspended just this past weekend in college, and I think we need to have more of that.

John Sparks
So, in the NFL, for instance, a player who commits an illegal helmet-to-helmet hit, think they ought to be fined or suspended then?

Verne Lundquist
Well, I think suspension works better than fines because it’s so — it’s such an incidental part of their financial compensation package. For these multimillionaire athletes, I think suspension without pay is much, much more effective than strictly a fine. It’s a pittance for most of them. It sounds great to the average American, you know $25,000. That’s a salary — a yearly salary for some folks, and at least a half yearly salary for most people. But, for a guy who’s making $3 million a year, it’s the cost of doing business. So, I’d rather see them suspended without pay for a game or two.

John Sparks
There’s been a suggestion by some folks that we just do away with helmets; we slow down the game; we change it. That would ease parents fears who worry about injuries to their kid. Do you think we’d ever seen anything like that happen?

Verne Lundquist
Well, we have a sport; it’s called rugby, and it’s as violent as football is except it’s played with no pads and no helmets, so I don’t see it happening. I think the sport is so popular that they’re not going to do away with helmets in the game. At the base of the attraction of football for most of us is the anticipation. It’s not anything we should be proud of, but I think there’s an attraction to… not the violence of the game, but the aggressive nature of the sport. I think that is part of what makes it attractive to fans and players, so, you’re not going to completely get away with that — get away from it rather.

John Sparks
I didn’t realize it, but I’m not surprised, there is an organization called the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment. Now, that’s a mouthful. But, one of its board members who is a…

Verne Lundquist
I didn’t know that either.

John Sparks
One of its board members, he’s a neurosurgeon up in Massachusetts, and he says you can prevent concussions, but to do that, the helmets would have to be much larger and the padding much larger. And, he add that other than making players look like aliens from another planet, the hit of your helmets would be more likely to cause neck injuries. So, here we again. Do you see that we might get to this stage where we drastically reformat/redesign the current paraphernalia that we wear?

Verne Lundquist
No, I don’t think so. Remember there was a kid — a kid, a young man from Buffalo Bills, I want to say his name was Mark Kelso, and he had his helmet designed with the padding on the outside of it, and so his helmet was much larger than most. And, God bless him, he did look a little like an alien, and he paid a price every week in the taunting that he received from the opposition, and I just think the innate narcissism of most athletes is that they’re not going to go for anything that makes them look less attractive, and that certainly would.

John Sparks
I guess the bottom line is that really football wouldn’t be football if you changed the game, and everything I sense is that it’s the most popular game in the country. I know you’re preparing for the current CBS Game of the Week. I presume that ratings are as high as ever.

Verne Lundquist
Well controversy helps, doesn’t it, John? And, we’re in the midst of this Cam Newton scandal or non-scandal, depending on your perspective, and so last week we had Georgia/Auburn game featuring Cam Newton: Will he play? Won’t he play? And, we had our highest rating of the year. So, I mean we all know that. P.T. Barnum taught us all that 125 years ago that if you can get them into the tent, keep them entertained, and it’s kind of sad. It’s not a grateful — gracious commentary on the fan base, but it’s true, and we know it. And, it goes back to the point I made: I think the element of violence is part of the attraction of the sport of football. I really… I’m not proud to say that, but I think it’s true.

John Sparks
Hey, I appreciate your time, Verne. It’s always a pleasure talking with you. Good luck with the broadcast this weekend.

Verne Lundquist
Thank you, John. I’ll talk to you down the road.

11/8: The New Political Reality 2010

November 8, 2010 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

Although the political leadership in Washington is offering up its carefully crafted conclusions for Election 2010, I’m checking out pre-election and exit polls to find out what voters nationally were actually saying.

To the degree this election was a referendum on the president, something the GOP had hoped for, and not the choice between national parties or localized issues the Democrats had wanted, then President Obama’s forty something approval rating was a prescription for Democratic disaster on Election Day. There was no reason to suspect he would overcome the historical trends.

Also, generic questions about voter preferences for Congress pointed to the same conclusion. The McClatchy-Marist national poll numbers, like many other polls, thought the gap in voting for Congress would hover around 6% in favor of the GOP among those most likely to vote.

Team Obama’s efforts to rally the Democratic base to close the so-called “enthusiasm gap” clearly came up short. Although the McClatchy-Marist national poll found a narrowing gap in the closing days of the campaign from a plus 23% in favor of the GOP over the Democrats to a plus 14%, this was clearly a case of too little, too late.

The turnout recipe for this midterm election had a decidedly different flavor than 2006 or 2008. This year’s electorate was older and more conservative. Not a good sign for the Democrats.

This data all identifies the strong headwinds that President Obama and the Democrats had to navigate. With the energy of the Tea Party, the sleepiness of the president’s electoral base, and the shifting tides of independent voters, the White House was truly in for a “shellacking.”

A few additional sidebars.

More of the same from President Obama? Following the vote, President Obama said what president’s typically say in defeat. He learned his lesson. But, is he planning to change his approach or improve on his communication? So far, he put the Bush tax cuts on the table. He also said he failed to convince voters of his policy successes. These are mixed signals and don’t speak well to the “lesson” he claims to have learned.

The Tea Party giveth and the Tea Party taketh away. The dugout chatter this election season has been about the Tea Party. According to the Exit Poll, approximately, 40% of this year’s electorate was supportive of their efforts. Tea Party candidates for the U.S. Senate, for example, in Florida, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin were victorious. But, in Delaware, Nevada, and Colorado their Senate candidates went down to defeat. In the House of Representatives numerous candidates with Tea Party backing will be taking the oath of office in January.

What’s a GOP leader to do? Nationally, voters want the new Congress and the White House to work together on a common agenda. But, Republican voters and Tea Party sympathizers are divided over whether the GOP should compromise with President Obama or stand firm even if it means things don’t move ahead.

Out of the starting bloc, Speaker-to-be John Boehner seems less confrontational than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. This may reflect nothing more than the fact that Boehner already has his majority and McConnell is still in search of his in 2012.

What does this mean for the next few years? As The National Journal’s Charlie Cook writes, the biggest post-election sin is over reading a mandate or creating one that simply isn’t there. On health care, the plurality of voters want the recently passed law repealed, But, a similar number want it either left alone or expanded. On the fiscal side of the ledger, voters who want to reduce the deficit or spend to create jobs outnumber those who think cutting taxes should be the highest priority for the next Congress. Yet, tax cuts may take all the oxygen out of the committee rooms.

What’s the bottom line? What a difference two years has made for President Obama. But, neither party is particularly popular. The GOP is viewed unfavorably by 52% and the Democrats are seen that way by 53%.

The election may have been more about President Obama losing the war on expectations and the winds of change swirling for the third consecutive election than about a specific policy mandate.

Looking ahead to 2012? President Obama will have to do more than hope the Reagan comeback of 1984 and the Clinton comeback of 1996 are in the cards for him, as well. The GOP will have to find a way to reconcile the Tea Party movement with its established leadership. Did anyone mention jobs and the state of the economy? That may, again, be paramount for everyone’s chances next time.