The Wave

The Holiday Office Party – Recession Version!

I have a close friend in the hospitality business here in San Diego who says the bookings for company Christmas and/or Holiday parties are way down this year. In fact, I’ve heard that some hotel properties and swanky venues - which just a few years ago had their ballrooms and party rooms booked up a year or more in advance – have no bookings at all…zilch, nada, zero.

Does this mean that companies are not hosting parties this season?  No: that would be too Scroogelike, especially now that we’re seeing so-called “green shoots.” Company parties can be good morale boosters.   So, it’s more likely companies are planning to stage scaled-down, low-key events on their own premises, or in some senior manager’s home.

So, what could possibly happen at these small-scale-recession-era-office-parties that we all need to be concerned about?  Just about the same things that happen at the massive good-economy blowouts of yesteryear.

If there’s alcohol, someone will drink too much.  In this regard, I stand by the same three recommendations I’ve made annually since I started issuing these warnings 10 years ago:

1. Issue drink coupons (2 per person), collect all the booze in place and have someone dole it out.
2. Prior to the event designate and train a few “observers” who will not drink at the party and who have the ability to remove over-imbibers quickly and quietly.3.
3. Have a car service or taxis standing by for anyone who drinks too much and should not drive home.

- If there’s alcohol, someone will engage in inappropriate jokes or conversation.  This is trickier, more in the “gray” area, because one person’s hysterical joke is another’s offensive joke.  My recommendation: consider the party and its location as if it’s a normal workday meeting in a workplace conference room. If you think the joke you’re about to tell, or the political/religious comment you’re about to make might offend one of your listeners – or someone who happens to overhear it – for goodness sake, don’t tell it.

- Even if there’s no alcohol, people get emotionally sloppy at holiday parties.  Parties are an excuse for people to “let it all hang out,” when it comes to their feelings about others.  For many, the informality and conviviality of the event becomes an excuse to disclose a crush or a dislike: major and lingering embarrassment potential here folks!  Once again, those trusty and trained “observers” can play a useful role here – spotting discomfort (laughing a little too loud, or sudden silence) – and stepping in to change the conversation or group makeup before it all gets too awkward.

I like to party (and dance awkwardly) as much as the next person, so my apologies if this post is a serious downer.  But, better safe than sorry: with a few careful precautions our recession-era holiday parties can be the joyful, upbeat events they're meant to be. And if hosting a company party doesn’t seem right in these times of 10%+ unemployment, consider encouraging employees to donate their time and money to local or company-supported charities.

Merry Christmas, happy and safe holidays everyone!

Deport Them All?

Three years ago I was asked to write a research article titled “Can Diversity Tension Lead to Workplace Violence?” for a trade publication.  The request came shortly after the London bombings of 2005 in which British nationals who had become radical Islamists, exploded bombs in the underground and on buses.  My primary argument at the time: there are Muslims in many American workplaces, and whenever there is an attack on civilians that can be linked to terrorists who espouse extremist Islamic views, there will be an increased potential for violence against Muslims in our communities.  “Well, duh!” you may say, “That’s obvious.”

And indeed, here we are, one week after the Ft. Hood massacre and many cable news pundits, politicians and online “bloviators” are already branding Major Hasan a jihadist and terrorist, adding that Muslims ought to be banned from serving in the US military, and even rounded up and deported.  They point to the unproven allegation that he shouted “Allah Akbar!” as he began firing as proof of his radical religious views.  And yet, Hasan is an American citizen, born and raised here – yes, he was raised in the Islamic faith – but he is an American nonetheless and has every right to serve in the military and live in the country of his birth.

The fact is that until we hear what Hasan has to say about why he did what he did, no one will really know what his motives were.  Of course, many people of all political persuasions (including me) are fully prepared to accept that he really does espouse radical Islamist views – his Army colleagues apparently expressed concerns to each other about him for a number of years.  Maybe he really did decide to engage in jihad.But, from this we conclude that we need to round up and deport Muslims in America? That’s like saying we should have deported all Libertarians because Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma City bomber in case you’ve forgotten) espoused radical libertarian views and blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building killing 168 people in order to destroy the US government.  And that’s like saying we should deport everyone who calls themselves “Pro-Life” because a radical extremist in their midst decided to murder a doctor who legally performs abortions.

Oh, and what do we do about one quarter of all American Muslims who are African Americans?  Should they be deported too, or are they “OK to stay” because they’re “real” Americans?

The reality here is that this horrific act of violence is being used by “fearmongerers” and “fringers” with a cable news platform to advocate wholesale persecution of entire groups of people – including liberals - in the name of national security.  They forget that this is what authoritarian and fascist governments do, like the Nazi’s, the Khmer Rouge and the Islamic Republic of Iran.  We’re a far, far better nation than that, in fact we’re the greatest nation in the world because of our diversity, not in spite of it.

The Problem with CNN's Latino/Black/er...Others-In-America Series

CNN has just finished airing “Latino in America” the second of two major documentary/news reports on life as a “minority” in the US.  While I can easily acknowledge the intrinsic value of educating people about these large groupings, both series have had some unintended negative consequences.

The first is the myth of homogeneity – in other words, that when we speak about “Latinos” for example, the public jumps to the general assumption (which was briefly pointed out in the documentary) that all Latinos are of direct Spanish (meaning from the country of Spain) descent. 

Now, it is true that a large majority of Hispanics (separate from Latinos) have some Spanish ancestry, the reality is most Latinos are not of direct non–Latin American Spanish descent. In fact, many are not primarily of Spanish descent; and some are not of Spanish descent at all. If you think about it for just a second, you’ll realize that there are Latinos in America who have European ancestries (e.g. Italian, German, Polish), as well as Middle Eastern (Lebanese, Egyptian, etc.) not to mention Black, Native American, and Asian ancestries.

This brings us to the second myth – that the vast majority of Latino/Hispanic/Mexican-Americans are either first generation, or second or third generation descendants of illegal immigrants.  CNN’s own Lou Dobbs fuels this misconception with his fiery, inflammatory anti-immigration rhetoric (and he’s married to a Latina and has hired illegals to work his horse farm!).

Facts: In 2007 the US Census Bureau estimated (conservatively) that the number of residents who are immigrants (legal and illegal) was 37.9 million.  Of those, the Census estimates one third or 12.6 million are illegal immigrants (from all nations, not just Mexico or Central or South America).  But, it acknowledges the numbers of illegals may be much higher because they tend not to report themselves to census takers. Fair enough: but it’s this “not really knowing” that leads to news commentators like Dobbs claiming that we’re awash in “illegals” gobbling up all of our precious resources and jobs.

But turn that last figure around for a moment – it means that two thirds, or 25 million immigrants are “legal” – in other words lawfully here in the US!  And that’s not counting all of those who are second and third generation descendants of other “legal” immigrants. Now, of course, we could have a debate about whether or not American immigration laws are too liberal, but that’s a different topic, entirely.

My point is, when we start throwing labels around like “Latinos” and “Blacks” it’s human nature for our minds to immediately jump to the easy generalizations – often untrue – about these particular groups.  This is because most of us cannot instantly embrace the vast complexity of these hugely diverse communities: doing that requires having a lot of data easily on hand, and we’re just not wired for that.  And besides, CNN is trying to drive eyeballs to their programming – they have to make their show titles short and to the point, basically taking commercial advantage of our very human and unfortunate tendency to generalize about other groups of people.

At the end of the day, or programming, it seems to me a little "cultural competence" is called for. Essentially, if we’re to have a civil and productive public discourse on “differences” in this country then we first need to acknowledge that Latinos and Blacks and Whites and Asians and on and on… are simply catchall names for incredibly diverse and complex groupings of people; and secondly that we are – like it or not – a nation of immigrants, most of whom came here legally.

Besides, if anyone has a real right to complain about all of the immigrants taking up their precious resources and jobs, it's Native Americans.

2 Obama "Happenings," One Matters

Two major Obama happenings this week: 1. President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize and 2. He speaks at the Human Rights Campaign annual dinner. One of these is much more important than the other, but it's not the one you might think.

Like many, I was puzzled by the announcement that Obama had won the prize.  But then I listened to what the Nobel Committee had to say about the award, and I realized that not only were they trying to acknowledge the political shift in the wind that his election had generated, but they were also trying to send some messages to him and the world at large: stay the course you've charted Mr. President on international dialogue for peace and nuclear non-proliferation.  Were they also giving the global finger to "W" - you betcha.

But,in the final analysis, Obama winning the prize isn't going to change much of anything.  Obama charted his path a long time ago; he doesn't need the Peace Prize to goad him in any new direction. And, for the second time in 2 weeks, I find myself agreeing with conservative columnist David Brooks of the NY Times who opined that the awarding of the Peace Prize to the President was just so much political posturing and that people who are inclined to value it will take heart and people who don't like moderates, liberals or international foundations who give the finger to conservatives and right-wingers are going to ridicule it and them.  So, the Obama win ain't much of nothin' - it doesn't matter. Which is too bad, because I think the Committee devalued it just a bit.

Now, Obama reiterating that he's going to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the US military - now that's something important.  I mean that.  The greatest nations in the world have gays and lesbians openly serving and doing so proudly and with distinction in their military.  A diverse array of senior officers in the Pentagon have all repeatedly said that purging gays and lesbians from the military under "don't ask, don't tell" is demoralizing and undermines unit cohesiveness. And at a time when we're fighting two wars: we need every able and willing person to sign up to serve regardless of sexual orientation.

Obama said to the assembled activists at the dinner: "I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."

No one will ever convince the right nor the wing-nuts to feel good about Obama, but judging from the thunderous cheers from the guests at the dinner, just about everyone else is happy with his re-stated commitment. Now, that matters.

Mom vs. Meltdown

If you were on this planet during the last two days, you probably heard that Serena Williams, undoubtedly one of the best tennis players ever, had a meltdown on Saturday night while competing in the US Open.  Her profanity-laced explosion occurred after a line judge called Williams on a foot fault during a critical moment in her semi-final match against come-back mom, 2005 US Open champion, Kim Clijsters.

What got lost in the deluge of F-bombs Serena poured on the judge, and her resulting forfeit of the match, and the $10K fine and the storm of media/blogger attention, was that Clijsters had only just returned to professional tennis this past May after having a baby two years ago.

Their match was a study in contrasts throughout – Serena was often angry, foul-mouthed, and volcanic (not just after the controversial call) whereas Kim was calm, cool and playing what she twitted was “the best match of my career.”  If you follow tennis, you know that Serena’s temper is well-known; in fact commentators like John McEnroe (a tantrum master himself) have often remarked that Serena has been able to channel her anger into a come-from-behind win.  Clijsters on the other hand, wasn’t particularly known for outbursts, although before she left tennis to have her daughter, she was occasionally heard to complain that she didn’t really enjoy the grind and stress of the professional tour; that she “wasn’t enjoying it.”

Generally, I’m inclined to believe that in high pressure situations at work (and trust me, professional tennis is work!) most of us have the capacity to “lose it” like Serena did.  The stories about CEO’s, managers and even employees going completely gonzo are legion – most workplaces have a collective memory of one or more of these cringe-making events.  And yet I think we’ve all met at least one manager or supervisor who could keep their heads while everyone else around them was losing theirs.  These calm, focused people are almost universally held in the highest esteem, and if they leave the company, everyone sees it as a great loss, often chanting the mantra “this place will never be the same without them.”

How does this happen?  How are some people able to draw deep from the well of emotional intelligence during a crisis while others revert to infancy?

There’s a part of me that thinks a few lucky people are simply wired from birth to calmly and effectively respond to major crises; while another part of me desperately hopes that this incredibly valuable skill can be learned.  I’m sad to say, I definitely didn’t get that skill at birth.  However, I’m often called upon by clients to help with situations where people have lost control and been abusive and I’ve been able to mediate a successful, effective resolution. I guess I’ve learned how to keep my cool when I don’t have any “skin in the game,” or as my Navy buddies say, “a dog in the fight.”

Unfortunately, most of us are forced by sheer dint of employment to play in this life-long game called work.  Occasionally, we find ourselves in a high-stress situation, like Serena did, where totally losing it completely seems like something we just are driven to do.  In her case, she forfeited the match while Clijsters kept her cool.  Kim went on to win the Championship and after the award ceremony, her 2-year old daughter came down onto the court to play with the bright silver cup mommy had just won while all the world smiled. An incredible moment of sheer joy for all.

So, it makes me wonder: has anything measurably good ever resulted from a manager or employee completely losing control at work?  I kinda doubt it.

UPDATE: The Professor Gates vs. Sgt. Crowley Affair

I got it wrong - apparently , according to an AP account of the incident, Sgt. Crowley did not yell "Police, freeze."  Apparently, they first spied each other through the window. But, I stand by my original premise: both of these guys were at fault.  Gates should not have lost control and started abusing Crowley for doing his job. But, Crowley is supposedly the trained professional here, he should have at least given Gates his name and badge number, let the abuse roll off his back and walked away.  Cops get abuse all the time, including being called racist.  Crowley could have de-escalated this.  I'm not excusing Gates here; but Crowley didn't need to arrest Gates either.

Also, see the comment below from a black San Diego Police Officer.

Folks, as a former specialist trainer for the New York City Police Department on managing emotionally disturbed and upset members of the public, and as a diversity expert, I get to weigh in on the Professor Gates vs. Sgt. Crowley affair.

First, although I haven’t seen the actual police report, here’s what I think happened here. It’s all too familiar; in an honest moment, most cops will tell you so.   Crowley responds to a burglary-in-progress call, and looks through the door and sees who he believes to be the burglars in the home.  He uses his commanding police voice to demand: “Police, freeze,” or “Police: stop what you’re doing and put your hands in the air.”  Gates, I’m sure, is surprised and has a “WTF?” moment.  He then probably says something to the effect of “this is my home! I live here!”  Crowley is trained not to accept that on face value (perps lie all the time) and demands to see ID, again using the stentorian, commanding police tone (cops are real good at that voice; it’s very intimidating and usually results in compliance).

Gates, no longer surprised but now very angry with what he perceives to be a white cop’s invasion of his home, becomes incensed and irrationally fueled by all of the times he, his friends and innocent black men across the country have been stopped by police and questioned for driving while black or being black in the wrong place and time.  So he gets very upset, shows Crowley his Harvard ID and adds in some nasty epithets about Crowley being a racist cop, demanding that he tell him his name and provide his badge number, etc.

This stuff happens all the time when white cops stop minority suspects while a crime is being committed, even when the suspect is caught with the loot in his hands! Even the guiltiest of perps will call a cop a racist during the arrest – the perp has nothing to lose by doing so.  Heck, even obviously guilty black suspects will call black arresting officers traitors and uncle Toms!

I’m sure Crowley felt disrespected, tried to walk out of the house (to protect themselves, cops are trained not to stay in confined spaces with a very upset person) without answering Gates’ questions, probably with the intention of answering them on the porch, and assuming Gates would calm down once out of doors. But Gates didn’t calm down. He followed Crowley onto the porch continuing to hurl insults and accusations that the cop was a racist.  I’m sure Gates was in “high dudgeon,” on a roll, and was determined to run this white “racist” cop out of his home with his tail between his legs.

Then, I’m thinking Crowley saw the crowd outside watching the spectacle, got all macho and decided that he couldn't allow the disrespect of one of Cambridge’s finest to go on in public. So, he arrested Gates for disorderly conduct.  Charges are dropped the next day because they really wouldn’t stick, not because Crowley or Gates did anything wrong. The arrest was purely a means of bringing a messy situation to a close as fast as possible.  If you know a cop, they’ll tell you that this whole incident played out very typically and is pretty common.

So, what I’m saying is…they’re both at fault. It’s understandable how Gates - one of the world’s leading experts on the black man’s experience and knowing in his bones the sordid history of innocent black men being repeatedly harassed by police - could just completely lose it and become irrationally abusive of Crowley.   Unfortunately, Gates’ better judgment about the officer’s intentions of preventing a crime went out the window the moment the cop started yelling at him to freeze.  I think Gates was simply not able to help himself: he’d been railing about injustice against blacks by police all of his life; he interpreted this invasion of his home by a white cop as one more example.

On the other hand, Crowley, who is an expert trainer on how police should NOT racially profile, could have handled the situation much better once Gates became abusive. Police are trained to allow innocent people to vent on them, as long as it doesn’t get physical; I’ve found that 25 year veterans tend to let that kind of verbal abuse roll off them like water.  They walk slowly away without retaliating or saying anything; it all blows over quickly.   I’m guessing that Crowley felt very disrespected and wanted to get away from a screaming Gates as fast as he could once he’d seen the ID; that’s understandable too.  But, if he didn’t apologize for the intrusion, mix-up, whatever – then he should have; police training specifically calls for an apology – mostly to diffuse the situation.  And it’s been proven again and again that a sincere police apology on the spot will usually de-escalate a potentially explosive situation pretty fast.  It seems to me Crowley didn’t try to de-escalate this; instead, once they got onto the porch, he escalated it by making the arrest.  But again, he probably just wanted to get the whole thing over with, understandable.

So, who is the professional here?  Crowley: he’s trained and an expert in dealing with this “racially loaded” stuff.  So, I put a little bit more onus on him for this mess.  Then again, Gates shouldn’t have lost his cool and abused Crowley, it was unnecessary. I guess what I’m saying is, it took two to tango into this pile of poop and smear it all over the place.  It’s going to take both of them to clean it up.  I won’t hold my breath.

I Dropped My Health Insurance

I’ve been thinking about writing about this for a long time, but I guess I was too embarrassed to openly admit it: I no longer have health insurance.  I dropped it, I simply couldn’t afford it.

I’m not like those people whose employer pays for all or a portion of their health insurance premiums.  As a solo consultant and small business owner, I had been buying my own health insurance for many years.  I’ve watched the premiums go up and up and up every year.   I shook my head and paid assuming – like auto insurance – that I couldn’t afford to be without.  It was all OK, while the economy was OK.

But then this past Spring, I took a look at all my debts and bills and projected what my income was likely to be. Then I looked at how much my premiums were about to go up yet again (nearly a 35% increase).  Bottom line: something had to go.  So I swallowed hard and stopped paying my premiums.

You see, I figured that I’m in pretty good health for a 49 year old (the only doctor I ever see regularly is my chiropractor), and besides: the President and Congress are finally going to do something about making insurance affordable, right? So, I thought, I can just do without it for a while.

Well wouldn’t you know it?  About a month after dropping my insurance I started having chest pains while on a business trip.  Crap! Am I having a heart attack? I can’t afford to be ill!  The pain subsided and I went into denial that it ever happened.  Then a week later, the pain came back while I was at home on a Sunday morning, reading the paper.  So, I took myself over to the emergency room, preparing myself to pay through the nose.

Turns out after a blood test, an EKG and lots of questions by nurses and doctors, that my heart is fine; I actually had some kind of chest infection.  After 3 hours, they released me and I steeled myself for the bills. They came in recently.  Total cost including the blood work around $2,750.00 – about $1,000 an hour.  It’s not jaw dropping, but it sure ain’t chump change.  I called the billing department – they said they’d be willing to negotiate if I paid everything right away.  Interesting.

Now, I’m talking about all of this because right up until this morning, I was pretty sure that finally the government was going to do something about the insane cost of health care in this country.  Silly me. Now, they’re saying they won’t do anything before the summer recess.  Who knows if they’ll ever get anything done.

All I know now is that I can’t afford health insurance and there are a lot of politicians (who have terrific health care they don’t pay for) and wealthy Americans with health insurance who don’t seem to give a damn about those of us who can’t afford the premiums.  They’re so worried about America going “socialist” they’ve forgotten about middle-class hard-working Americans who are really struggling.   News flash: Social Security is “socialism,” are they gonna give that up cause they’re against socialism?  Federal employees and active duty military have retirement benefits that are extraordinarily generous – that’s “socialism” too.

Call it socialism, communism, or totalitarianism for all I care – I just want some decent health insurance that I can afford?! Is that too much to ask?

Heard of Juneteenth?

On June 19 in 1865 the Union Army, led by Major General Gordon Granger, marched onto Galveston Island, Texas to take possession of the State from the Confederates and to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation which had legally abolished slavery in the US two years earlier. When they heard the news, former slaves danced in the streets. The next year, former slaves celebrated the anniversary of their being free, creating the first Juneteenth celebration.

Here we are 144 years later and so much has changed for African Americans that it’s almost breathtaking to consider, i.e. an African American President; more African Americans in the middle and upper classes than ever before and most recently just two days ago, the US Senate – APOLOGIZING for slavery!  I’m hoping you heard about this, even if you may not know about Juneteenth.

The Senate resolution was sponsored by Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin, and it "acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery," and "apologizes to African Americans on behalf of the people of the United States for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws."

Wow.  We’ve come a long way baby. But please remember, we’ve got a long way to go: African American unemployment and high-school dropout rates are twice that of whites, to list just two examples.  Happy Juneteenth!

Killing Time?

Three highly visible “hate” murders of Americans by Americans in the last ten days…

1. Dr. George Tiller, who performed late abortions, shot while attending church by an extremist anti-abortionist;

2. Pvt. William A. Long, a soldier, shot while on a recruiting assignment at a Little Rock mall by a man who’d converted to Islam as a teenager and who claimed to be angered by the killing of Muslim civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and

3. Stephen T. Johns, a security guard, shot while on duty at the Holocaust Museum by a self-professed white supremacist with a long record of violent tendencies.

I will not, out of respect for those killed, promote the murderers by mentioning their names here.

Mainstream media commentators on the Left such as Keith Olbermann, Paul Krugman and Judith Warner have used the murders of Dr. Tiller and Mr. Johns as just the latest examples of how right-wing media commentators – most specifically Rush Limbaugh and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck – can incite the kind of hatred that leads to violence.

But little mention by these same commentators has been made about what precipitated Pvt. Long’s murder.  Of course, the right wing media would have us believe that Pvt. Long’s murderer was driven by a perceived “hate America first” bias they claim is being spouted by MSNBC and The New York Times.

If only either explanation were that simple.  Rather, I would argue that while the media can play a supporting role in the kind of hatred and anger that leads to murderous violence, it is not the primary driver.  Intolerance of anyone or any opinion different than our own is the driver – and we are all, on the right and the left, guilty of it.  The media – in an effort to drive ratings – merely fans the intolerance, until someone believes the time is ripe for killing.

As I see it, each of the three murdered men are symbols of ideas that some people find intolerable.  In his murderer’s mind, Dr. Tiller symbolizes abortion; Mr. Johns’ murderer was attacking a museum about the Holocaust which he considers a myth and Jewish conspiracy; and in the mind of Pvt. Long’s murderer, the US military symbolizes the killing of Muslim innocents.  Now, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t hold strong opinions on these three issues: abortion, the Holocaust and killing Muslim civilians.  But I also don’t know an American who would deliberately pick up a gun and kill another American over these issues.  If I did, I like to think I would report them to the proper authorities.

There is no question in my mind that intolerance, and violence fueled by intolerance done by Americans against Americans, is on the rise in this country.  The Government issued a warning about this trend last April.  Now, media commentators certainly do loudly underscore that intolerance. But so do poorly enforced gun control laws filled with loopholes that allow mentally unstable people to get their hands on lethal weapons.  And so do any of us who don’t call media commentators to account on their biases, lies and hate-filled speech.  It's time we started focusing on the news and the facts, rather than blowhard commentators.  (This is why you'll find me listening to NPR and watching the News Hour on PBS - they're about as down-the-middle, fact-driven media as you can possibly find. And their audience is split 50/50 on either side of the aisle.)

But, regardless of the commentator, if we just stand idly by, nodding at whichever talking head spouts intolerance that we happen to agree with, then we are part of the problem too; we're making it killing time.

The Smearing of a Nominee

If you've been watching Fox or listening to Rush, you could easily be forgiven for believing that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is a "racist," "bigot," "activist," "bully," and a "terrorist."

While Republicans freely admit that they were going to oppose any of Obama's nominees, the level of hysteria, distortion and outright lies they're pushing about Judge Sotomayor is breathtaking.  Here's a brief summation of the kind of incredibly offensive and untrue things the right-wing media has been saying about her in a list compiled by Media Matters (yes, I'm aware this is a "left-wing" blog, but Rushbo, Beck, Tancredo and company said these things, MM is just reporting what they've said).

I have no problem with the Senate, the American public and the media scrutinizing a nominee's record, papers and decisions - but making up stuff out of thin air and repeating it over and over as if it were true, come on.

Now, before you start saying that the left did the same thing when Anita Hill made things up about Clarence Thomas, you'd better check your facts - turns out that after Thomas was confirmed, the folks who had defended him and smeared Hill admitted that he had in fact done what she accused him of doing as reported in "Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas" by two Wall Street Journal reporters.

In any event, smearing and lying is smearing and lying - no matter which side of the aisle is doing it.  The real question then becomes - should we just repeat this kind of stuff when considering a nominee or should we look into the facts?  I believe the latter is certainly preferable, but not very common.