An Open Letter to "Papa John"

November 10, 2012

"Papa John" Schnatter
Founder & CEO
Papa John's International, Inc.
2002 Papa Johns Boulevard
Louisville, KY 40299

Dear "Papa John,"

I'm not one of your regular customers. But I'm from New York, and New Yorkers know pizza. I've tried your Papa John's pizza, and let me just say that it pales in comparison to Original Ray's.

Actually, I have little use for pizza. You see, I'm an avid runner. My fiancee and I have qualified for next year's New York City Marathon.

Eating pizza after training for a 26.2-mile race would be about as foolish as claiming to have difficulty running your business just because President Obama, owner of the Affordable Care Act, has been re-elected.

That is why I have taken time to write to you.

You see, Papa, I'm not one of those gullible folks weaned on Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report. You are going to have to produce some of those convenient things we like to call facts to convince me that you will have to cut your employees' hours--and wages--or lay off many of them because of Obamacare.

With whom would you replace them, workers imported from China?

Or would you have to close locations or, goodness gracious, go out of business?

All because of Obamacare?

Papa, we both know there is no plausible connection between Mr. Obama's re-election and the livelihood of your unfortunate employees.

I'll be blunt because, remember, I'm from New York: If you cannot provide affordable healthcare for your employees with cutting their hours or wages or jobs, then you are as inept at business as Congressman Todd Akin is at discussing the female reproductive system.

You do believe your employees deserve to have access to affordable healthcare, don't you?

Don't you?

Even if your allegation were true, that the barons of American business cannot survive under the yoke of Obamacare, then you should have traveled the country with your man Mitt and spoken at, well, 47 percent of his campaign rallies. You could have been a game-changer.

But then, you probably thought Mitt was going to win anyway, so your presence was not required.

That's what you get for listening to Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Donald Trump and the Rasmussen Poll.

Sorry, Papa.

Just as I'm sorry to see your company's ongoing contribution to America's obesity epidemic. Maybe you should have to close about a hundred franchises, lest Americans stop expanding as if hooked on helium:

"I'll have two Double Bacon 6 Cheese Pizzas, a dozen Cheese Sticks, two Super-Size Cokes and two Hot Apple Pies to go."

"Yes, sir, Governor Christie. Coming right up, sir."

Little did I know, Papa, that you and Herman Cain, the lascivious former CEO of the Godfather's chain, had formed this loony anti-Obama pizza lobby.

And little did I know that your pitiful fear mongering could actually teach me something about your product that is truly remarkable:

Apparently, too much pizza can make you crazy.

Sincerely,
Cecil Harris

ESPN loses with jingoistic tennis coverage

Once upon a time, you could not tell the players without a scoreboard at the ballpark. Nowadays, you cannot watch tennis on ESPN without using the mute button on your remote control.

Unless you make tennis on ESPN sound like the award-winning silent film, "The Artist," ESPN's jingoistic "America versus the world" approach to the sport would render its coverage completely unwatchable.

"Serena Williams is the only American left in the main draw," ESPN told viewers often during its Friday night/Saturday morning presentation of the Australian Open before the mute button was pressed.

As if a player's nationality matters in tennis. It doesn't. It never has. And never will to the vast majority of viewers despite ESPN's attempt to brainwash people.

Tennis is an individualistic sport. Serena Williams does not play for Team USA any more than Rafael Nadal plays for the Spanish Armadas or Roger Federer represents the Swiss Cheeses.

Serena plays for Serena. If she wins the Aussie Open, it is her victory, not a reason for a flag-waving public celebration. A Serena triumph Down Under would not validate the American way of life, whatever that is, any more than a Serena defeat would bring shame to those values Americans hold dear (which in our increasingly divisive political climate is harder than ever to define).

Yet ESPN insists on sabotaging its tennis coverage with constant prattle about how the Americans are doing in a given tournament, even though that is not why tennis fans watch tennis.

Tennis fans love the drama, contrasting styles and prodigious artistry of a Nadal-Federer match. That neither player is American is utterly irrelevant. Always has been.

Unfortunately, ESPN remains tone-deaf to the truth: Tennis will not achieve NFL-type ratings here if such American players as Mardy Fish, Donald Young, Christina McHale and Melanie Oudin (who has done nothing since the 2009 U.S. Open) join Serena in the second week of a major tournament.

Tennis is a niche sport in America. Most sports fans don't watch tennis. But avid fans will watch the Grand Slam tournaments regardless of who wins the events. Why? Because we enjoy tennis. We especially enjoy our tennis with intelligent and insightful commentary that enhances our appreciation of the players involved, their biographies, strategies, strengths and weaknesses.

Alas, intelligent and insightful commentary on ESPN tennis coverage has been in such short supply that the sport's best TV analyst, Mary Carillo, finally got fed up two years ago and left the network.

Carillo wants to talk tennis, which she does now for Tennis Channel and for CBS at the U.S. Open. She does not want to wave pom-poms for American players. She does not want to spend infinitely more time talking about an American teen-ager making her Wimbledon debut than Novak Djokovic trying to repeat as the tournament champion.

Now that Disney-owned ESPN has wrested the TV rights to Wimbledon from NBC, we will no longer be able to hear Carillo's commentary of the tournament during championship weekend. Our loss.

What constitutes an even bigger loss for viewers is the realization that ESPN can substantially outbid other networks for the right to televise marquee tennis events without having any clue as to how to present the sport properly.

So, like many tennis fans, I'll be watching "Breakfast at Wimbledon" this July, ESPN-style--with my oatmeal and fresh fruit on the table, and the audio on mute.

Jesus Can Save 2012 Yankees

For the second straight year, the New York Yankees were eliminated from a postseason baseball series on an Alex Rodriguez strikeout.

At least A-Rod swung and missed to end Game 5 of the 2011 American League Division Series against the Detroit Tigers. He didn't go down with his bat on his right shoulder, as he did to end the 2010 AL Championship Series against the Texas Rangers.

Still, there is no joy in Yankeeville. Once again, mighty A-Rod has struck out.

But it's time to stop bashing the 36-year-old Rodriguez. Yes, he made $30 million for the 2011 season and hit a measly .111 (2-for-18) in the ALDS. But he wasn't the only high-priced underachiever on the Yankees -- sportsworld's most profitable franchise with a net worth of $1.6 billion.

Derek Jeter, 37, failed too often in the clutch against the Tigers. Mark Teixeira and Nick Swisher, both 30, were downright awful against Detroit. And CC Sabathia, 30, was missing more than the periods in his name versus the Tigers. He lacked command of his fastball. And he allowed mediocre hitters like Brandon Inge and Ramon Santiago to beat him in Game 3.

It's time for the Yankees to get younger and more athletic, and the key to that infusion is 21-year-old Jesus Montero (pictured left). A powerfully built right-handed hitter with a quick bat, Jesus needs to become a regular in 2012.

Jesus has the potential to become a Mike Piazza-type catcher -- a consistent offensive threat with adequate defensive skills. Russell Martin, 30, the incumbent catcher, is a .230 hitter. He simply doesn't provide enough offense to start 130 games in 2012.

But if the Yankees are insistent that Martin play regularly, then they need to bench Swisher (sorry, ladies) or refuse to pick up his option for 2012 and instead convert Jesus into a right fielder.

Right field is the easiest of the three outfield positions to play at Yankee Stadium, and Jesus has a strong-enough arm to make the transition.

After being called up from the minor leagues in September, Jesus was not overmatched against major league pitching. Indeed, he showed the maturity to hit outside pitches to right field with authority, and he handled fastballs inside like a veteran.

All Jesus needs is regular playing time to become a power-hitting threat in the middle of the Yankees' lineup -- exactly what A-Rod used to be.

And Jesus might just become the postseason clutch hitter that the Yankees need. In the last several years, we've learned that A-Rod, Teixeira, Swisher and the aging Jeter are not up to the task.

Enough About Weiner & His...You Know

Should a United States Congressman be able to keep his seat while undergoing treatment for a cybersexual addiction he didn't seem to know he had until indecent photos of himself got into the hands of his political enemies?

How I wish I had created that storyline for my next book! Sounds like a best-seller if ever there was one.

Unfortunately for Anthony Weiner--and his wife, Huma Abedin, and his political mentor, Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York--the storyline is fact, not fiction, and it will likely strip Weiner of his power.

As of today, the liberal Weiner still represents parts of Brooklyn and Queens in the U.S. House of Representatives. But that may not be true for long, nor should it be true.

Weiner has neither the grace nor gravitas of a statesman. Otherwise, he would not have sent sexually explicit photos of himself to at least a half-dozen women. Nor would he have lied about it so aggressively for 10 days before being forced to come clean because his political enemies had found even more embarrassing photos.

In the days since his June 6 news conference, when he said he would not resign, we have learned that Weiner's wife is pregnant with their first child. The New York Times broke that story, probably acting on a leak from Weiner himself. The pregnancy angle made headlines on the same day a photo of Weiner's weiner was posted by radio shock jocks Opie and Anthony.

Although Weiner succeeded in changing the narrative for a while, he looks like an even worse husband and a more reprehensible person for sending nude photos and sexually explicit texts to women while his wife is pregnant.

Now, we hear that Weiner is in treatment for his cybersexual addiction (and, I would hope, his habitual lying). But, apparently, he wants to keep his $175,000-a-year job. And his access to the congressional gym, where he reportedly shot some of his nude and semi-nude photos.

Clearly, Weiner has not lost the arrogance that got him in trouble in the first place.

This is not a private matter between Weiner and his wife. It is a betrayal of the trust we must have for our elected representatives. We should not expect our politicians to be perfect. But we should expect them to have better things to do with their time than send lewd photos and raunchy texts to women. We should expect politicians to make better use of our tax dollars.

Without trust in our elected officials, democracy withers and dies. As long as Weiner remains in Congress, the media will continue to ignore the important issues that truly impact on the quality of our lives and over-publicize the salicious tale of a congressman's political implosion.

"Weiner-gate" will not go away until Weiner himself goes away.

Weiner should resign from Congress, get the help he so desperately needs and make it a priority to become a better husband and citizen. Assuming therapy is successful, he could run for his old congressional seat in 2012 (if it isn't eliminated through redistricting). That way, Weiner's constituents would have the final say on whether he is fit to represent them in Washington, D.C.

The rest of us have had enough of Weiner and the body parts he just could not keep to himself.

A Slimmer CC Sabathia Means Business in 2011

Despite being the best pitcher on the most successful franchise in sports, CC Sabathia is underrated. The New York Yankees ace has won an American League-leading 40 baseball games the last two years while helping his team win the 2009 World Series. But each time, he got snubbed by voters for the Cy Young Award, which goes to the best pitcher in each major league. Cy Young voters seem to prefer pitchers who excel on lesser teams, as Sabathia did in 2007 when he won the award as a Cleveland Indian. The Yankees, with their major league-high $221 million payroll, are hardly underdogs. But Carsten Charles Sabathia — who prefers to be known as CC without the periods - seems determined to be more dominant in 2011 and beyond, whether he wins awards or not. During the winter break, the 6-foot-7 left-hander shed 25 pounds, from 315 to 290, he said, "by not eating Cap’n Crunch every day. I could eat a box at a time." Dropping that bad habit was smart. According to the product’s nutritional information, one box of the cereal contains 1,400 calories. Eating a boxful is equivalent to 10 tablespoons of sugar. Sabathia, 30, has also begun working with a personal trainer and a nutritionist. "This was just something to try to extend my career," he said. Sabathia, a four-time all-star, said he intends to lose more weight, which is fine with the Yankees because he has shown in two starts this season that he’s lost nothing off a fastball that consistently tops 90 miles per hour.

NY Times Travels Pay-to-Read Route...Again

As an increasing number of people visit newspaper websites for their daily dose of information, they are forcing publishers to grapple with the metaphorical question, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of The New York Times, is hopeful that his influential daily has found the solution to making money from the unique visitors to the newspaper's website who no longer buy the print product.

On March 17, the Times launched a metered pay-to-read system for its online readers in Canada. Eleven days later, the system went into effect for the rest of the Times's 20 million unique online readers worldwide.

The journalism industry and business analysts are watching closely. Newspapers sorely need to find a new revenue stream to compensate for advertising dollars lost to the Internet. Consumers can advertise goods and services for free on websites like Craigslist and eBay. That has had a devastating effect on print media. Since 2002, U.S. newspapers have suffered a 70 percent drop in advertising revenue--from $19.6 billion to $6 billion, according to Bloomberg Television.

The Times's pay-to-read system works as follows: A visitor to nytimes.com can access up to 20 articles, slideshows and videos for free each month. After that, the visitor will be charged on a sliding scale: $15 per month for web access and an iPad application; $20 per month for web access and an application for an iPad and other tablets; and $35 per month for access to all three platforms.

In a letter to Times readers, Sulzberger called the pay-to-read system "an investment in our future. It will allow us to develop new sources of revenue to strengthen our ability to continue our journalistic mission as well as undertake digital innovations that will enable us to provide you with high-quality journalism on whatever device you choose."

This is not the Times's first attempt at a pay-to-read model for its online visitors. Several years ago, the Times discontinued a program called TimesSelect, which offered most online content free but asked readers to pay to read its popular columnists such as Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman.

TimesSelect led to a significant decline in the online readership of Dowd and Friedman, both Pulitzer Prize winner. Friedman, who specializes in global economic issues, told New York magazine, TimesSelect cost him virtually all his readers in China, and he rarely traveled to any country outside the U.S. without hearing from people who stopped reading him after the TimesSelect pay wall was erected.

The Wall Street Journal, a staunch competitor of the Times owned by News Corporation, offers readers some of its online content for free while charging a subscription fee for other content. But the Times's metered pay-to-read system closely mirrors that of the Financial Times.

If the Times's new model succeeds, surely other U.S. newspapers will follow the lead of the daily known as "The Gray Lady."

The New York Times Media Group owns more than a dozen other daily newspapers, including two of the three largest-circulation dailies in New England: The Boston Globe and The Telegram & Gazette in Worcester. The Times Media Group also owns 17 percent of New England Sports Ventures, whose holdings include the Boston Red Sox, Fenway Park and New England Sports Network.

Perhaps the greatest risk to the Times' pay-to-read policy is readers could limit their use of Times content to 20 exposures a month and then go to other online news outlets that will remain free such as USA Today, Gannett's flagship newspaper, or such international news sources as Reuters, BBC, Guardian, Independent, Telegraph and Al-Jazeera.

However, The Times is banking on reader loyalty toward its brand. Sulzberger believes readers who don't consider other news sources as accurate, authoritative or reliable as the Times will not object to paying for the online version.

"As you have seen during this recent period of extraordinary global news, the Times is uniquely positioned to keep you informed," Sulzberger wrote to his readers. "The launching of our digital subscription model will help ensure that we can provide you with the high-quality journalism and substantive analysis that you have come to expect from the Times."

Time as well as Times readers will tell if he is right.

TV or No TV? That is the Question

Having grown up during the television age, I have been genuinely surprised to meet people who say they don’t have a television in their home and don’t want one.

Not anymore.

Not after another weekend of sampling the vulgarity, coarseness and incivility that passes for entertainment on TV.

Indeed, if I was not a sports author and journalist who enjoys watching athletes, I would be accepting offers for my 25-inch set right now.

Channel-surfing last Saturday night while waiting for ESPN’s coverage of Australian Open tennis, I came upon “Harry’s Law,” an NBC series starring Oscar-winner Kathy Bates as a fired corporate lawyer who opens her own practice in a hardscrabble section of Cincinnati.

In this episode, Bates’s character, Harriet (nicknamed “Harry,” hence the title), tells an opposing attorney that a jury would be more inclined to rule for her client instead of his because, “You’re an a**hole.”

The obscenity was uttered so casually, so quickly, there would have been no time to cover the ears of a child who doesn’t deserve such an assault to the ears and senses.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no prude. I was a huge fan of “The Sopranos” during its six-season run on HBO. It was one of the best-acted, best-written shows in television history.

However, the profanity, nudity and whackings in Tony Soprano’s world were expected.

And HBO is a premium channel, so you know what you’re paying those extra dollars for.

But nobody watching NBC at 8:16pm on a Saturday night should expect to hear one character on a drama series call another “an a**hole.”

Whatever happened to the family hour? Remember when the networks told us the period from 8pm-9pm Mondays through Saturdays and 7pm-9pm on Sundays were reserved for family entertainment?

Has the concept of non-offensive, family-oriented nightly entertainment on over-the-air television become as antiquated as the rabbit-eared antenna?

Do TV network honchos really believe that only vulgarity sells? That only a show with characters saying crude things to each other can be “edgy” and “hip”?

Is that why Kathy Bates is allowed to speak from the gutter in prime time?

Is that why “stinks” has been replaced by “sucks” in commercials and on TV series?

Is that why Fox Sports commentator Terry Bradshaw could say “sc*mbags” on a Sunday afternoon football show earlier this month and face no consequences?

Is that why CBS now presents a prime-time sitcom called “S**t My Dad Says”?

Is this what CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, WB and UPN think they have to do to compete with the brain-numbing boorishness of shows like “Jersey Shore,” which continues to set ratings records on MTV?

Much of television today resembles a warped game of limbo in which the overriding question is, “How low can you go?”

Low enough to compel many viewers to become far more discerning about what they watch and when—or join the growing ranks of those who use a television only to watch DVDs while ignoring network shows altogether.