There will be a billion words written about the Libby pardon, so let's make this simple: anyone who still thinks Al Qaeda is a greater threat to this country than the Bush crowd is an idiot.
diderot
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Too Delicious
For nearly two presidential terms, the loyal sheep of the Republican party swallowed their reservations. The offset was too enticing. If they remained perfectly loyal to the sometimes irrational dictates of the Bush administration...the Bush administration would remain loyal to them. A permanent GOP majority was the goal--wasn't that what Herr Rove promised? Surely a little capitulation...a few chips off the Constitution...a few war deaths...were worth that prize.
But guess what. As those sheep now recognize their inevitable path to another electoral slaughter, they are attempting to jump the fence. Question the torture...worry now about the forfeit of individual rights...even belatedly withdraw your previously unfailing support for the Iraq fiasco. Senators now are rising...one after another...to acknowledge what the President would never concede--any sign of fallibility with George and Dick's Excellent Adventure. As if their 'courage' now could bring back the tens--maybe hundreds of thousands of deaths that this abortive decision wrought.
Well, my GOP friends, you now understand the not-so-hidden underside of the Bush omerta. Loyalty is essential. But it works only one way.
You pay homage to him.
He walks out on you--just like he did his military obligation to the country.
diderot
But guess what. As those sheep now recognize their inevitable path to another electoral slaughter, they are attempting to jump the fence. Question the torture...worry now about the forfeit of individual rights...even belatedly withdraw your previously unfailing support for the Iraq fiasco. Senators now are rising...one after another...to acknowledge what the President would never concede--any sign of fallibility with George and Dick's Excellent Adventure. As if their 'courage' now could bring back the tens--maybe hundreds of thousands of deaths that this abortive decision wrought.
Well, my GOP friends, you now understand the not-so-hidden underside of the Bush omerta. Loyalty is essential. But it works only one way.
You pay homage to him.
He walks out on you--just like he did his military obligation to the country.
diderot
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Ruled by the Mob
For the sake of argument, let's say you're one of the few remaining citizens who believes in George Bush--that his intentions were honorable, his patriotism pure, his fiasco in Iraq a simple mistake, his true nature sincere and divinely guided and quintessentially American.
Then you should be asked to explain this: the vast majority of his White House employees, bound by the laws of the land, including post-Watergate mandates for transparency, virtually ignored the governmental email system--instead choosing to communicate almost exclusively via their personal Republican party accounts.
This is criminal. This is illegal (see the Hatch Act). This is something to make even Tony Soprano blush.
Now a semi-honest Congressional investigation says it would like to see exactly what those governmental employees were doing at our expense on their party emails.
Guess what. Of the 81 employees whose records are sought, 55 somehow can find no record of how they corresponded. Nothing.
Remember that Nixon was impeached esssentially for erasing one single tape recording.
You remaining Bush supporters can call your President incompetent, or clueless, or simply stupid. But in any case, a crime is a crime. He should spend his remaining time in a jailyard full of stocky inmates named Bluto.
Then the could do to him what for almost seven years he has done to all of us.
diderot
Then you should be asked to explain this: the vast majority of his White House employees, bound by the laws of the land, including post-Watergate mandates for transparency, virtually ignored the governmental email system--instead choosing to communicate almost exclusively via their personal Republican party accounts.
This is criminal. This is illegal (see the Hatch Act). This is something to make even Tony Soprano blush.
Now a semi-honest Congressional investigation says it would like to see exactly what those governmental employees were doing at our expense on their party emails.
Guess what. Of the 81 employees whose records are sought, 55 somehow can find no record of how they corresponded. Nothing.
Remember that Nixon was impeached esssentially for erasing one single tape recording.
You remaining Bush supporters can call your President incompetent, or clueless, or simply stupid. But in any case, a crime is a crime. He should spend his remaining time in a jailyard full of stocky inmates named Bluto.
Then the could do to him what for almost seven years he has done to all of us.
diderot
Sunday, June 10, 2007
What's Wrong With America?
It's not often you can find out the answer to that question in a single hour's time. And all you have to do is sit yourself in front of the computer and watch Sunday's replay of Meet the Press. The proceedings lay bare the roots of what's poisoning our political discourse, protecting our pimping press, and accelerating the disintegrating state of our national character.
The initial pas de deux features Colin Powell and Tim Russert, not simply rewriting history, but effectively ignoring it as they attempt to pirouette past the damning evidence that proves the role of each in the disastrous killings of nearly 3,500 unwitting U.S. service people in Iraq. Powell, attempting to exonerate himself, instead displays what a weak, pathetic, puerile and cowardly lion he really is. Yes, he admits, 'we were wrong'--but it wasn't his fault. It was the intelligence community--and the Congress--and the administration--and, in fact, 'all of America' who believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Utter and treasonous bullshit.
Before the invasion, hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets to protest, not because they were troublemakers or anarchists or Bush-haters. But because they were Americans. They were patriots. They were willing to wait for facts...willing to protect our Constitution...willing to speak truth to power.
On that last point, enter the weasel Russert.
Now...after the bloodshed; after the unmasking; after the weeping widows and children...he can act the role of the still pandering inquisitor, putting to Powell all the questions, now faux, that would have been so helpful, so responsible, so demonstrative of at least the minimal journalistic competence had he the honesty and cojones to ask them when it mattered. He, like Powell, continues to walk in the inextinguishable light of his own ego, capable of wishing away the dark alleys of his own malfeasance.
Then, after the break, ushered in on cue is the great antidote for the lunatic right threatened by any uncomfortable truth--yet another attack on Hillary Clinton. Its mad doctors are current and former reporters for the New York Times, partners in profiteering on yet another helping of putrid slime for the uncaged neocon cannibals. Foremost is Jeff Gerth, possibly the worst, and certainly the most damaging journalist in the history of our republic. He is the author of one delusional and ultimately discredited fabrication after another, from Whitewater to Wen Ho Lee to Loral Communications--each of which sailed inexplicably past the would be editors of that would be left wing newspaper. This man should be behind bars--not continuing to soil the national fabric with his filthy game of make believe.
But instead, see how much easier it is for the 'insiders' of journalism and the body politic to pretend none of their sins ever happened...exculpated by the holy water of their own self-righteousness...cozy in the comfort that the vast legions of Beltway co-conspirators will protect them from the slightest taint of wasted American blood and tears that so decidedly stains their souls...if not their consciousness.
diderot
The initial pas de deux features Colin Powell and Tim Russert, not simply rewriting history, but effectively ignoring it as they attempt to pirouette past the damning evidence that proves the role of each in the disastrous killings of nearly 3,500 unwitting U.S. service people in Iraq. Powell, attempting to exonerate himself, instead displays what a weak, pathetic, puerile and cowardly lion he really is. Yes, he admits, 'we were wrong'--but it wasn't his fault. It was the intelligence community--and the Congress--and the administration--and, in fact, 'all of America' who believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Utter and treasonous bullshit.
Before the invasion, hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets to protest, not because they were troublemakers or anarchists or Bush-haters. But because they were Americans. They were patriots. They were willing to wait for facts...willing to protect our Constitution...willing to speak truth to power.
On that last point, enter the weasel Russert.
Now...after the bloodshed; after the unmasking; after the weeping widows and children...he can act the role of the still pandering inquisitor, putting to Powell all the questions, now faux, that would have been so helpful, so responsible, so demonstrative of at least the minimal journalistic competence had he the honesty and cojones to ask them when it mattered. He, like Powell, continues to walk in the inextinguishable light of his own ego, capable of wishing away the dark alleys of his own malfeasance.
Then, after the break, ushered in on cue is the great antidote for the lunatic right threatened by any uncomfortable truth--yet another attack on Hillary Clinton. Its mad doctors are current and former reporters for the New York Times, partners in profiteering on yet another helping of putrid slime for the uncaged neocon cannibals. Foremost is Jeff Gerth, possibly the worst, and certainly the most damaging journalist in the history of our republic. He is the author of one delusional and ultimately discredited fabrication after another, from Whitewater to Wen Ho Lee to Loral Communications--each of which sailed inexplicably past the would be editors of that would be left wing newspaper. This man should be behind bars--not continuing to soil the national fabric with his filthy game of make believe.
But instead, see how much easier it is for the 'insiders' of journalism and the body politic to pretend none of their sins ever happened...exculpated by the holy water of their own self-righteousness...cozy in the comfort that the vast legions of Beltway co-conspirators will protect them from the slightest taint of wasted American blood and tears that so decidedly stains their souls...if not their consciousness.
diderot
Friday, June 8, 2007
John Drury
For some reason, I woke up this morning thinking about John Drury, probably the most kind, decent, caring and self-effacing co-worker I've ever known. That claim is all the more noteworthy because John was a TV anchorman in the 70's, a job where an outsized ego and self-centeredness were almost prerequisites.
We worked together for WLS-TV in Chicago, an 'owned-and-operated' station, meaning the network itself held the keys, rather than some independent local concern. And for them, this was an extremely lucrative proposition; their five 'O and O's' generated far more profit than the network itself. We were among the first 'Eyewitness News' formats, derided accurately by competitors as a 'happy talk' substitute for real news. And indeed, the nature of our product was kinetic, and often nearly vaudevillian in nature.
Against this, John was as comfortable and welcoming as your grandpa's Barcalounger.
In those days, Channel 7 dominated the local news ratings. The competitors vainly tried to copy the format, to no avail. Eventually WBBM, the CBS station in town, figured out it might as well do something different, and began presenting itself as the 'hard news' alternative. Same actors, different play. But following classical marketing theory, it worked. When you can't compete doing the same thing, doing something different is frequently helpful. (Think Volkswagen in the same era, putting the lowly Bug up against all those behemoth U.S. models). And thus, WBBM went from being a blip on the ratings meters to two blips.
Enter the dramatic conflict. The network's roving band of 'outside consultants' arrived in town, and began a presentation with their trusty foam-core boards (yes, Virginia, there was a time before Powerpoint). What those graphs showed was that, IF THE TREND CONTINUED, WBBM could indeed catch WLS in the ratings race in a couple of years! Whatever will you do?
(It should be noted that WBBM's small increase came largely at the expense of the other station in town, not WLS. The ratings and other research showed that people still loved the WLS product and people as much as ever.)
The droll and disgusted news director of the station put the question right back to the consultants--'well, what would you do?'
Unfortunately, they were ready with an answer. "In order to show the market that you're not complacent, you've got to shake things up. Show some aggression."
"OK," the news director said distractedly. "Exactly how do we do that?"
"We think you've got to fire one of you main anchors. Doesn't make any difference which one. Just fire someone."
No one was distracted anymore.
The news director lasted about 60 seconds more before getting up, proclaiming this 'the stupidest f**king idea I've ever heard", and walking out of the room.
You can guess the rest. A couple months later John Drury was out of a job...and the news director departed not long after.
There was a flood of protest after Drury's departure. "How could you take him off the air? We love him!", was the general tenor of the thousands of respondents. Unfortunately, the consultants were not around to advise exactly how to answer that question.
But when the news director...the guy who built the ratings powerhouse from the foundation up...was ushered out the door for his insubordination, those same consultants were quick to begin collecting additional fees for 'finding' his successor. The man they chose arrived with a decent resume...and a nasty cocaine habit.
And thus did one of the dynasties in the history of local news begin to dismantle itself.
John Drury rebounded nicely. He became the iconic anchor for the independent WGN TV for years...poetically returned to WLS to finish his anchor career...and was inducted into the Chicago Journalism Hall of Fame.
Sometimes nice guys do finish first.
diderot
We worked together for WLS-TV in Chicago, an 'owned-and-operated' station, meaning the network itself held the keys, rather than some independent local concern. And for them, this was an extremely lucrative proposition; their five 'O and O's' generated far more profit than the network itself. We were among the first 'Eyewitness News' formats, derided accurately by competitors as a 'happy talk' substitute for real news. And indeed, the nature of our product was kinetic, and often nearly vaudevillian in nature.
Against this, John was as comfortable and welcoming as your grandpa's Barcalounger.
In those days, Channel 7 dominated the local news ratings. The competitors vainly tried to copy the format, to no avail. Eventually WBBM, the CBS station in town, figured out it might as well do something different, and began presenting itself as the 'hard news' alternative. Same actors, different play. But following classical marketing theory, it worked. When you can't compete doing the same thing, doing something different is frequently helpful. (Think Volkswagen in the same era, putting the lowly Bug up against all those behemoth U.S. models). And thus, WBBM went from being a blip on the ratings meters to two blips.
Enter the dramatic conflict. The network's roving band of 'outside consultants' arrived in town, and began a presentation with their trusty foam-core boards (yes, Virginia, there was a time before Powerpoint). What those graphs showed was that, IF THE TREND CONTINUED, WBBM could indeed catch WLS in the ratings race in a couple of years! Whatever will you do?
(It should be noted that WBBM's small increase came largely at the expense of the other station in town, not WLS. The ratings and other research showed that people still loved the WLS product and people as much as ever.)
The droll and disgusted news director of the station put the question right back to the consultants--'well, what would you do?'
Unfortunately, they were ready with an answer. "In order to show the market that you're not complacent, you've got to shake things up. Show some aggression."
"OK," the news director said distractedly. "Exactly how do we do that?"
"We think you've got to fire one of you main anchors. Doesn't make any difference which one. Just fire someone."
No one was distracted anymore.
The news director lasted about 60 seconds more before getting up, proclaiming this 'the stupidest f**king idea I've ever heard", and walking out of the room.
You can guess the rest. A couple months later John Drury was out of a job...and the news director departed not long after.
There was a flood of protest after Drury's departure. "How could you take him off the air? We love him!", was the general tenor of the thousands of respondents. Unfortunately, the consultants were not around to advise exactly how to answer that question.
But when the news director...the guy who built the ratings powerhouse from the foundation up...was ushered out the door for his insubordination, those same consultants were quick to begin collecting additional fees for 'finding' his successor. The man they chose arrived with a decent resume...and a nasty cocaine habit.
And thus did one of the dynasties in the history of local news begin to dismantle itself.
John Drury rebounded nicely. He became the iconic anchor for the independent WGN TV for years...poetically returned to WLS to finish his anchor career...and was inducted into the Chicago Journalism Hall of Fame.
Sometimes nice guys do finish first.
diderot
Thursday, May 31, 2007
May 31
I've always liked this day. First, my brother's birthday--and believe me, he's had a lot of them to remind me. Second, a signal to the start of summer. Some even contend May 31 is the true birthday for baseball, since the Philadelphia Athletics were formally founded on this date in 1859 to play a game then called 'town ball'--20 years before Abner Doubleday 'invented' the game. Personally, I can't comment one way or the other. But you could ask my brother--I think he was there.
At any rate, May 31 should also have a special meaning this year. It may even be an historic watershed. Because on May 31, 2007, two seemingly incompatible events did, indeed, occur. Word came from the Associated Press that in the first quarter of the year, our economy almost tanked. In the sense that economic growth, as such, was reported at an almost-invisible 0.6 percent in the United States. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan says there's a one-in-three chance that we'll actually slide into a recession this year. This is not good.
And on this same morning, the New York Stock Exchange, the Grand Arbiter of all things economic, opened at the highest point in its history.
Think about that--we're about to go under, and everyone is partying on the top deck. Welcome to the Titanic Economy.
Do you think that maybe--just maybe--we've reached the point where the wealthy may have taken a piece of the pie too big for even their swollen jowls?
diderot
At any rate, May 31 should also have a special meaning this year. It may even be an historic watershed. Because on May 31, 2007, two seemingly incompatible events did, indeed, occur. Word came from the Associated Press that in the first quarter of the year, our economy almost tanked. In the sense that economic growth, as such, was reported at an almost-invisible 0.6 percent in the United States. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan says there's a one-in-three chance that we'll actually slide into a recession this year. This is not good.
And on this same morning, the New York Stock Exchange, the Grand Arbiter of all things economic, opened at the highest point in its history.
Think about that--we're about to go under, and everyone is partying on the top deck. Welcome to the Titanic Economy.
Do you think that maybe--just maybe--we've reached the point where the wealthy may have taken a piece of the pie too big for even their swollen jowls?
diderot
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Vive la France
In his book, Paris in the 50's, former Time magazine correspondent Stanley Karnow describes the status of an intellectual class,
"...venerated as authorities on everything from art, literature and music to politics, economics, religion and complex social issues. Their Olympian status mirrored the respect long shared by the French for the power of ideas and for the elite caste that shaped and spread them. Their books and essays...triggered squabbles that, judging from the endless reports in the newspapers, enthralled the public."
Contrast that with a recent column in Fortune magazine:
"...are some American parents actually hostile to education? In my travels I'm seeing evidence that the answer is yes. I was talking some time ago with a group of school superintendents from Maryland. The dominant mood was frustration--a sense that they weren't making the progress with our kids that they wanted. A few...surprised me by saying they had received complaints from parents who were angry because their kids were being made to learn algebra: 'What do they need algebra for? It's hard!' A middle-school vice principal...in Nebraska...reported the same thing: parents angry over kids having to learn algebra. Until recent years you wouldn't...complain to school administrators that your kids were getting too much education. Now parents evidently feel it's safe to do so."
Granted, the comparison is made across an ocean, a cultural divide, and half a century, but I wonder if we Americans will ever come to grips with a cancerous fault on our body politic--the mistrust and (increasingly) outright hostility to fact-based knowledge. Ours is a culture in which what is believed is gaining significant market share over what is known. Ours is a faith-based intelligence.
A very small but telling example is the case of Monica Goodling, an underling at the Justice Department who admitted this week in her Congressional testimony that she 'stepped over the line' in applying tests of political fidelity to the Republican party in judging the merits of what were, by law, supposed to be apolitical civil service appointments. Not included in her testimony, but reported earlier by one of her superiors, was her tearful, near hysterical private reaction upon discovering she would be called on the carpet: "All I ever wanted to do was serve this President!" As if that were a defense. In her mind, apparently honoring what you truly believe trumps what is legally mandated. And this person is a lawyer.
For at least a generation, we have heard the disapprobations: "elitist snobs", "pointy-headed liberals", or for that matter, just plain "liberals". These are people to be mistrusted; they are out of touch; they flaunt their intelligence--their facts. Their ideas are dangerous. Fear them. Fight them.
In truth, speaking of those Paris intellectuals of the 50's, a good case can be made that for all their learning and pretense, they were sometimes not just out of touch, but in fact, wrong. Many of them were so blinded by their fervor for the tenets of the Communist Manifesto that they refused to accept the savagery of Stalin--until they were forced to confront the facts. They were not omnipotent.
But that's not the point. The enduring vision is of a French society where intelligence was and is honored, challenged, debated and observed, all as a matter of course. Opinions matter--but facts do more. Thinking is an assumed part of existence.
Compare that to this place where America has come...where facts are denied...where allegiance to one dogma is the sole path to both power and salvation. In so doing, we can only ponder our nation in terms of the French during World War II.
Do we see ourselves in the role of their valiant patriots, who formed a Resistance to a cult-based occupier?
Or are we to become more like the occupier itself?
-diderot
"...venerated as authorities on everything from art, literature and music to politics, economics, religion and complex social issues. Their Olympian status mirrored the respect long shared by the French for the power of ideas and for the elite caste that shaped and spread them. Their books and essays...triggered squabbles that, judging from the endless reports in the newspapers, enthralled the public."
Contrast that with a recent column in Fortune magazine:
"...are some American parents actually hostile to education? In my travels I'm seeing evidence that the answer is yes. I was talking some time ago with a group of school superintendents from Maryland. The dominant mood was frustration--a sense that they weren't making the progress with our kids that they wanted. A few...surprised me by saying they had received complaints from parents who were angry because their kids were being made to learn algebra: 'What do they need algebra for? It's hard!' A middle-school vice principal...in Nebraska...reported the same thing: parents angry over kids having to learn algebra. Until recent years you wouldn't...complain to school administrators that your kids were getting too much education. Now parents evidently feel it's safe to do so."
Granted, the comparison is made across an ocean, a cultural divide, and half a century, but I wonder if we Americans will ever come to grips with a cancerous fault on our body politic--the mistrust and (increasingly) outright hostility to fact-based knowledge. Ours is a culture in which what is believed is gaining significant market share over what is known. Ours is a faith-based intelligence.
A very small but telling example is the case of Monica Goodling, an underling at the Justice Department who admitted this week in her Congressional testimony that she 'stepped over the line' in applying tests of political fidelity to the Republican party in judging the merits of what were, by law, supposed to be apolitical civil service appointments. Not included in her testimony, but reported earlier by one of her superiors, was her tearful, near hysterical private reaction upon discovering she would be called on the carpet: "All I ever wanted to do was serve this President!" As if that were a defense. In her mind, apparently honoring what you truly believe trumps what is legally mandated. And this person is a lawyer.
For at least a generation, we have heard the disapprobations: "elitist snobs", "pointy-headed liberals", or for that matter, just plain "liberals". These are people to be mistrusted; they are out of touch; they flaunt their intelligence--their facts. Their ideas are dangerous. Fear them. Fight them.
In truth, speaking of those Paris intellectuals of the 50's, a good case can be made that for all their learning and pretense, they were sometimes not just out of touch, but in fact, wrong. Many of them were so blinded by their fervor for the tenets of the Communist Manifesto that they refused to accept the savagery of Stalin--until they were forced to confront the facts. They were not omnipotent.
But that's not the point. The enduring vision is of a French society where intelligence was and is honored, challenged, debated and observed, all as a matter of course. Opinions matter--but facts do more. Thinking is an assumed part of existence.
Compare that to this place where America has come...where facts are denied...where allegiance to one dogma is the sole path to both power and salvation. In so doing, we can only ponder our nation in terms of the French during World War II.
Do we see ourselves in the role of their valiant patriots, who formed a Resistance to a cult-based occupier?
Or are we to become more like the occupier itself?
-diderot
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Dads
I've never really figured out exactly how I feel about Joe Morgan, the Hall of Fame second baseman and now national ESPN announcer. But I do feel he is has hit on something fundamental in this quote:
"I hear a lot of people talk about their Dads being their best friends. In fact just the other day I heard Tiger Woods in an interview talking about his Dad being his best friend. Well, my Dad wasn't my best friend. He was my Dad. My Dad taught me responsibility and he taught me how to be a man. My friends are my friends, and my Dad was my Dad. I understand that a lot of people think that way about their father, but I never did. He had a responsibility to me and I had one to him, and I don't always find that with friendships. I always had the belief that he was above my friends. And he was."
diderot
"I hear a lot of people talk about their Dads being their best friends. In fact just the other day I heard Tiger Woods in an interview talking about his Dad being his best friend. Well, my Dad wasn't my best friend. He was my Dad. My Dad taught me responsibility and he taught me how to be a man. My friends are my friends, and my Dad was my Dad. I understand that a lot of people think that way about their father, but I never did. He had a responsibility to me and I had one to him, and I don't always find that with friendships. I always had the belief that he was above my friends. And he was."
diderot
Overwhelming...
Sometimes the tentacles of audacity, stupidity, manipulation and sheer criminality of Bush Inc. are simply too much to comprehend at one time. Like the giant octopus of Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, it comes from every direction and devours everything in its wake.
It seems beyond the imagination of even a Jules Verne that all of these things could be exposing themselves at the same time:
diderot
It seems beyond the imagination of even a Jules Verne that all of these things could be exposing themselves at the same time:
- James Comey, a former deputy to Alberto Gonzalez, testifies that he had to personally intervene in 2004 to prevent Gonzalez and Chief of Staff Andrew Card from coercing a sickbed signature from Gonzalez' predecessor, John Ashcroft. Ashcroft had been in intensive care for several days in a D.C. hospital when someone at the White House dispatched Card and then White House counsel Gonzalez to force him to sign off on continuation of the domestic wiretapping program. Ashcroft, then F.B.I. director Robert Mueller and Comey all threatened to quit if Gonzalez and Card didn't back off. They did, but Bush intervened by ruling that the program could continue even without the consent of his own Attorney General
- Last week, Gonzalez was subpoenaed and ordered by Congress to turn over emails pertaining to any role Karl Rove might have had in the U.S. attorney firings. The deadline was yesterday. Not only did Gonzalez not deliver the goods, he didn't even bother offering an explanation, or responding in any way. The nation's top law enforcement official does not obey the law
- An investigation by the World Bank itself concludes that Paul Wolfowitz, "...did not accept the bank's policy on conflict of interest, so he sought to negotiate for himself a resolution different from that which would be applied to the staff he was selected to head."
- As has been the custom, Bush has chosen a senior lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers to lead the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is responsible for monitoring the deeds of people like the National Association of Manufacturers. As a going away present, the Association gave him a $150,000 bonus. The lobbyist explains that even though ethics guidelines would prevent him from ruling on matters concerning the association itself for two years, it doesn't mean he'll stop involvement with issues pertaining to individual members of the association, or even similar trade groups involving the same companies
- Two years ago, when she was 31, Monica Goodling was given responsibility for screening potential U.S. attorneys. Her requirements consisted of a law degree from Pat Robertson's Regents University (somewhat worse than a mail order medical diploma). In her role, she asked candidates deep legal questions like, "who is your favorite President?", and "have you ever cheated on your spouse?" She kicked out anyone suspected of being a Democrat
- As described in the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City, "...Americans recruited to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad were chosen, at times, for their loyalty toward Republicanism rather than expertise on Islamism. The coalition government relied heavily on...a large cadre of eager young neophytes whose brashness often gave offense in a very age- and status-conscious society. One young political appointee (a 24-year-old Ivy League graduate) argued that Iraq should not enshrine judicial review in its constitution because it might lead to the legalization of abortion."
diderot
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Jerry Falwell
Would love to listen in on the conversation at the pearly gates. I wonder what Falwell is saying in response to the question of how his actions really spread the word and deed of his maker here on Earth.
diderot
diderot
Monday, May 14, 2007
Objectivity
Many years ago I was a guest lecturer at a prestigious journalistic think tank in Florida. On one occasion, they invited me to come and share my thoughts on reporting.
I stood up and delivered a lengthy monologue entitled, "The End of Objectivity", or something to that effect. Of course, the title itself set teeth to grinding. After all, if there were a Holy Grail to the reporter's quest, it is the elusive 'objectivity'.
I made two observations. First, even in those pre-Fox News, pre-Limbaugh, pre-Internet days, it was already evident that there was money to be made in partisanship, and thus it was inevitable that media owners would move to that money.
But more important was my attempt to try to draw the distinction between the terms 'objectivity' and 'balance'. Having run newsrooms, I knew the temptation to conflate the two.
Here's a hypothetical example, but one that happened every day. A reporter is sent out to do the classic time or space-filler known then as 'man on the street'. In other words, walk up to random citizens and ask their opinion on a certain hot issue, and record their answers with either your notepad or microphone.
Back then, a typical topic may have been the Equal Rights Amendment for women. Now, as a reporter, you obviously have no control over what people will say. And maybe that day, for whatever reason, 80% of the people you interviewed opposed the Amendment. But you know that if you proportion your story in the paper or on the newscast that way, you're going to be accused of being biased--or, not objective.
So what you put on your newscast are three respondents supporting, and three opposing. Nice, neat, safe, and by definition balanced...but it is not a reflection of the survey you conducted that day, no matter how unscientific it may have been. It does not reflect the objective truth of what happened that day.
The essence of objectivity in journalism is to try to ferret out the truth--not to make people happy or unhappy with your approach. But that's not how it was practiced then--or is now. A classic example is how the mainstream media feels like it has to 'balance' all the 'bad' coverage of the Bush Administration by also showing their 'objectivity' in reporting charges that malign his critics, no matter what the underlying truth of those charges might be.
In fact, the evidence of this misplaced objectivity is still evident every day.
And to finish the story of my enlightening lecture to those reporters those many years ago: I was never invited back.
diderot
I stood up and delivered a lengthy monologue entitled, "The End of Objectivity", or something to that effect. Of course, the title itself set teeth to grinding. After all, if there were a Holy Grail to the reporter's quest, it is the elusive 'objectivity'.
I made two observations. First, even in those pre-Fox News, pre-Limbaugh, pre-Internet days, it was already evident that there was money to be made in partisanship, and thus it was inevitable that media owners would move to that money.
But more important was my attempt to try to draw the distinction between the terms 'objectivity' and 'balance'. Having run newsrooms, I knew the temptation to conflate the two.
Here's a hypothetical example, but one that happened every day. A reporter is sent out to do the classic time or space-filler known then as 'man on the street'. In other words, walk up to random citizens and ask their opinion on a certain hot issue, and record their answers with either your notepad or microphone.
Back then, a typical topic may have been the Equal Rights Amendment for women. Now, as a reporter, you obviously have no control over what people will say. And maybe that day, for whatever reason, 80% of the people you interviewed opposed the Amendment. But you know that if you proportion your story in the paper or on the newscast that way, you're going to be accused of being biased--or, not objective.
So what you put on your newscast are three respondents supporting, and three opposing. Nice, neat, safe, and by definition balanced...but it is not a reflection of the survey you conducted that day, no matter how unscientific it may have been. It does not reflect the objective truth of what happened that day.
The essence of objectivity in journalism is to try to ferret out the truth--not to make people happy or unhappy with your approach. But that's not how it was practiced then--or is now. A classic example is how the mainstream media feels like it has to 'balance' all the 'bad' coverage of the Bush Administration by also showing their 'objectivity' in reporting charges that malign his critics, no matter what the underlying truth of those charges might be.
In fact, the evidence of this misplaced objectivity is still evident every day.
And to finish the story of my enlightening lecture to those reporters those many years ago: I was never invited back.
diderot
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Earth Friendly
Do you want to do your part to fight global warming, and protect the earth? If you're like me, aside from those squiggly light bulbs, it's hard to know exactly where to start.
Someone on the radio the other day had an interesting breakdown. Most Americans consume half of their energy to heat and cool their dwellings. A quarter goes to transportation--everything from filling up the Hummer to that weekend flight to Reno. And the final quarter goes to everything else--from the morning expresso machine to the squiggly light bulbs.
Cut down accordingly.
There, wasn't that easy?
diderot
Someone on the radio the other day had an interesting breakdown. Most Americans consume half of their energy to heat and cool their dwellings. A quarter goes to transportation--everything from filling up the Hummer to that weekend flight to Reno. And the final quarter goes to everything else--from the morning expresso machine to the squiggly light bulbs.
Cut down accordingly.
There, wasn't that easy?
diderot
How Left Is Left?
You know, it's virtually impossible these days to state any coherent definition of 'liberal' and 'conservative'. Why is that? Subject of another post someday.
But here's a test to tell where you might actually stand along the political landscapee.
If you think this is distinctly 'leftist', you're a conservative.
If you agree with it, you're a moderate.
diderot
But here's a test to tell where you might actually stand along the political landscapee.
If you think this is distinctly 'leftist', you're a conservative.
If you agree with it, you're a moderate.
diderot
Mudville
For months, there has been a blight on the grand game of baseball. No, not steroids. No, not the injuries. And not even that evil incarnate (at least to NFL fans), Bud Selig.
The pox has been Barry Bonds. Now, you may love him or you may hate him, but I just can't stand the idea that he sucks so much attention from what is otherwise the world's best sport. The media that doesn't understand baseball can only talk about Bonds. It's something you can do without any knowledge at all...like commenting on politics for the Fox News Channel.
But today, things got even worse. Roger Clemens is back. That ideal of American sports...the guy who won't agree to go to spring training...won't agree to play with any team until he's ready...won't even travel with his teammates on the road unless he's pitching. He's too important.
Now, Bonds may or may not be a cheater. I vote for cheater.
Clemens may or may not be mentally ill (remember the broken bat javelin throw at Mike Piazza?) But even if he's not clinically nuts, he is the poster child of the truly broken foundation of our society. Clemens is the self appointed Pope of the Unified American Church of It's All About Me.
If baseball can withstand the nauseating coverage of these two morons, I assume it can survive anything.
But there is no joy in Mudville.
diderot
The pox has been Barry Bonds. Now, you may love him or you may hate him, but I just can't stand the idea that he sucks so much attention from what is otherwise the world's best sport. The media that doesn't understand baseball can only talk about Bonds. It's something you can do without any knowledge at all...like commenting on politics for the Fox News Channel.
But today, things got even worse. Roger Clemens is back. That ideal of American sports...the guy who won't agree to go to spring training...won't agree to play with any team until he's ready...won't even travel with his teammates on the road unless he's pitching. He's too important.
Now, Bonds may or may not be a cheater. I vote for cheater.
Clemens may or may not be mentally ill (remember the broken bat javelin throw at Mike Piazza?) But even if he's not clinically nuts, he is the poster child of the truly broken foundation of our society. Clemens is the self appointed Pope of the Unified American Church of It's All About Me.
If baseball can withstand the nauseating coverage of these two morons, I assume it can survive anything.
But there is no joy in Mudville.
diderot
Friday, May 4, 2007
Those GOP Debaters, Part 3
I'm not a big fan of the Democratic consultant Donna Brazille. Way to inside the Beltway (and Beltway conventional wisdom--plus, she shouldn't have caved in for Gore in Florida in 2000). Anyway, she did have a great comment on the Republican debaters: "they decided they're not out to succeed Bush--they're out to succeed Reagan."
The genuflections to St. Ronnie truly were nauseous.
diderot
The genuflections to St. Ronnie truly were nauseous.
diderot
Those GOP Debaters, Part 2
I didn't watch the whole debate last night, but I did see the section where Matthews asked the candidates their thoughts on the prospect of having Bill Clinton living in the White House again. They all laughed.
Nothing could demonstrate how out of touch these clowns are with the American electorate. Perhaps their pollsters didn't have the nerve to inform their candidates of Clinton's incredible lingering popularity among voters. If he could run again, he'd win in a landslide.
Come November of next year, the joke will be on them.
diderot
Nothing could demonstrate how out of touch these clowns are with the American electorate. Perhaps their pollsters didn't have the nerve to inform their candidates of Clinton's incredible lingering popularity among voters. If he could run again, he'd win in a landslide.
Come November of next year, the joke will be on them.
diderot
Those GOP Debaters, Part 1
This sounds like a nasty diatribe, but seriously, they're honest questions.
I coach a soccer team with four girls from Mormon families. Great kids, great players. But when we have games on Sundays, they can't play, because that's a day for family only (and other Mormons).
OK, so if Mitt Romney gets elected, what happens on Sunday? Is he only President of the Mormons? Does he take every Sunday off, no matter who attacks us?
And if not, why not? Where is the line drawn? How does that faith decide who gets to associate with the outside world on Sundays, and who doesn't?
diderot
I coach a soccer team with four girls from Mormon families. Great kids, great players. But when we have games on Sundays, they can't play, because that's a day for family only (and other Mormons).
OK, so if Mitt Romney gets elected, what happens on Sunday? Is he only President of the Mormons? Does he take every Sunday off, no matter who attacks us?
And if not, why not? Where is the line drawn? How does that faith decide who gets to associate with the outside world on Sundays, and who doesn't?
diderot
Monday, April 30, 2007
Filthy Rich
The single most important columnist in America, Paul Krugman in the New York Times, raises an important issue today--how the gusher of profits in corporate America is not having the promised effect, namely increasing the amount those companies spend on research, production capacity, and God-forbid, their employees. Instead, it appears a disproportionate amount of those profits is being used to 'buy back' a company's stock from current shareholders. What this does, among other things, is increase the value of executive stock options.
At the same time, another feature article last week pointed out that the beleaguered Japanese giant, Sony, continues to suffer a 'crisis of the week', but still has seen its stock grow at a healthy pace. Buried in the report was the acknowledgement that most of the people buying that stock are Americans.
These two issues are related in this way: they both indicate how the richest of Americans simply have more money than they know what to do with. The deck has been stacked so heavily in their favor that they really have run out of safe and sound outposts for their wealth, so they artificially prop up troubled concerns like Sony.
For the last five years and more, our economy has run on two very powerful cylinders. The first was housing, which had the advantage of not only creating jobs, but also creating something tangible--even if we have now reached the point where we've built more Florida condos than can ever be used.
The second cylinder is more cynical--it's simply the transfer and handling of money. It requires very few jobs (even though those who have those jobs tend to be excessively well rewarded), and this part of the engine produces nothing. When a stock or a company is bought or sold, nothing really makes our economy or our nation inherently better.
With the decline of the new housing market, faux wealth is now even more reliant on just shifting money around. And when an economy relies on creating something out of nothing, a bad ending draws nearer.
The rich get richer, and the rest of us will be left again paying the price.
diderot
At the same time, another feature article last week pointed out that the beleaguered Japanese giant, Sony, continues to suffer a 'crisis of the week', but still has seen its stock grow at a healthy pace. Buried in the report was the acknowledgement that most of the people buying that stock are Americans.
These two issues are related in this way: they both indicate how the richest of Americans simply have more money than they know what to do with. The deck has been stacked so heavily in their favor that they really have run out of safe and sound outposts for their wealth, so they artificially prop up troubled concerns like Sony.
For the last five years and more, our economy has run on two very powerful cylinders. The first was housing, which had the advantage of not only creating jobs, but also creating something tangible--even if we have now reached the point where we've built more Florida condos than can ever be used.
The second cylinder is more cynical--it's simply the transfer and handling of money. It requires very few jobs (even though those who have those jobs tend to be excessively well rewarded), and this part of the engine produces nothing. When a stock or a company is bought or sold, nothing really makes our economy or our nation inherently better.
With the decline of the new housing market, faux wealth is now even more reliant on just shifting money around. And when an economy relies on creating something out of nothing, a bad ending draws nearer.
The rich get richer, and the rest of us will be left again paying the price.
diderot
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Unity 08
If its backers have their way, you're going to be hearing a lot more about this organization over the next year and a half. It's a new political party, one supported entirely by online participation and donations, and one which aims to split the difference between the radical polarization and bitterness effected by both parties. The net will elect its presidential candidate, and he or she must only agree to name a running mate from the other party. Harmony, unity and common sense from the middle.
Sounds good, doesn't it?
It's not. And here's why.
While net power is here to stay, the idea of currently 'splitting the difference' between radical wings of both parties is a false remedy. Look at it this way.
Think about two teams pulling on a rope in a tug of war. Consider them on a football field, with the center of the rope right on the 50 yard line, and extending to the 25 yard line on either side. Each party has its moderate members more toward the middle, and its 'radical fringe' on either end.
When George W. Bush and his band of incompetent crooks were wrongfully granted power, they started tugging with all their might. 'Bipartisanship?', some asked. They just laughed and pulled harder. Before long, the 'radical left' found itself still at the end of its rope (pun intended), but now standing almost at midfield. The midterm elections stopped the pulling for the time being, but the left hasn't retaken any ground. So while Unity 08 is sweet talking Americans into splitting the difference, the middle of the country can read the hash marks.
They see that the center now stands at about the conservative 25 yard line--that's how much ground they've gained at the expense of the middle class, the military and the U.S. Constitution.
The moderates of America don' t like where they're at. They overwhelmingly oppose Bush, his policies and his folly in Iraq. They realize there are seven years of surrendered turf to be reclaimed. And if Unity 08 wants to lure and satisfy them, they're going to have to help move the middle back to the true center of our nation--legally, economically and morally.
To paraphrase Yeats, the center will not hold.
diderot
Sounds good, doesn't it?
It's not. And here's why.
While net power is here to stay, the idea of currently 'splitting the difference' between radical wings of both parties is a false remedy. Look at it this way.
Think about two teams pulling on a rope in a tug of war. Consider them on a football field, with the center of the rope right on the 50 yard line, and extending to the 25 yard line on either side. Each party has its moderate members more toward the middle, and its 'radical fringe' on either end.
When George W. Bush and his band of incompetent crooks were wrongfully granted power, they started tugging with all their might. 'Bipartisanship?', some asked. They just laughed and pulled harder. Before long, the 'radical left' found itself still at the end of its rope (pun intended), but now standing almost at midfield. The midterm elections stopped the pulling for the time being, but the left hasn't retaken any ground. So while Unity 08 is sweet talking Americans into splitting the difference, the middle of the country can read the hash marks.
They see that the center now stands at about the conservative 25 yard line--that's how much ground they've gained at the expense of the middle class, the military and the U.S. Constitution.
The moderates of America don' t like where they're at. They overwhelmingly oppose Bush, his policies and his folly in Iraq. They realize there are seven years of surrendered turf to be reclaimed. And if Unity 08 wants to lure and satisfy them, they're going to have to help move the middle back to the true center of our nation--legally, economically and morally.
To paraphrase Yeats, the center will not hold.
diderot
Friday, April 20, 2007
Roundtable: Virginia Tech
An email thread from the past couple of days:
diderot:
My following of the coverage so far has been almost exclusively the Today Show, and as is their history, they always go for the potentially most emotional interviews possible. Nothing communicates the sorrow of the moment like people being sorrowful on TV (which doesn't hurt their ratings, either, but that's another story). Anyway, I've seen about 6-10 classmates interviewed either live or on tape the past couple of days--and none of them--not one--showed any tears or real emotion. And this isn't a criticism--they were all clearly somber and concerned and caring and sad...but they didn't show emotions the way I would expect young people in that situation to.
Is this just a coincidence? Did the 'together' ones just happen to show up on camera? Maybe. But it also seems like maybe we've created a new generation of young people that are so used to shock and violence and tragedy that this stuff (kind of) rolls off their backs?
hortense:
I agree with your assessment on the lack of emotion, and it IS because they have been de-sensitized. Great observation and something I've been saying for years. Even in car accidents their response is, well, that's really bad but life goes on. Ask my wife, a high school counsellor, she has seen over the years a complete change when a death occurs to a fellow student. We had that kid die in an accident earlier in the year, the same kids when asked do they need some time to talk, reflect, console? Nope, life goes on. I'm gonna scream. I thought I was the only one who noticed that, glad I wasn't. We have created a bunch of "this happens everyday" children. Oprah had three people on yesterday and they were all great. See if you can't watch that show. The one kid from Columbine, who lost his sister in that tragedy was more insightful than anybody else. He goes around the country trying to talk to HS kids about the very stuff that puts some of them in those "places" from where there is no escape. He and his father have a massive program that reaches 50 - 60 thousand kids a week. Now that's doing something. The one administrator she had on was very good also pointing out all the legal hoops you have to go through before any pro active measures can be taken. What part does the media play? Scary to have to leave it in their hands.
oketo:
I just talked to (daughter in college) and she said a couple of things that may or may not reinforce. First she said that nothing has been obvious to make her campus safer. You would think that there would at least be a show of added security for a few days. She also said that in her Lit class the teacher said that the class needed to talk about VT. She said that she and another boy are the kids that talk the most in the class. She said no one spoke. The teacher asked her what she thought since she must have something to say---chip of the old block--she said that she did not know what to say. She did not know where to begin. So, are they numb from shock and fear or are they numb from overexposure to violence? I don't know.
I watched MSNBC for about 3 hours last night...reporters that I like. But I was discouraged that they spent so much time on the killer and his mailed pictures and text. Did that exposure make him into a media star? Was it necessary to keep showing the as--ole with his two guns? I don't know where you draw the line. What I kept saying is that I wanted to see them talk about the kids and teachers that were killed. They had been lumped into the "name" 32 killed. It is my belief that if we want to sensitize the culture we need to tell their stories. Dwell on their lives and what we are losing with their deaths. Many of the kids were wonderful kids who had already done wonderful things and their future was ahead of them. I think we need to put a face and a story to the number 32. That makes Americans sensitive! Instead we put a face on the killer and his ramblings. So there will now be thousands of kids who will have the killer's picture taped up in their school lockers but I bet no one will ever remember any of the dead students. The teacher who blocked the door so his students could jump out the window and was then killed, his name should be the household word not Cho.
hortense:
Now, where does it go from here? Cannot agree with Oketo more about the coverage and focus on the killer. I don’t care anymore, tell me about the families and how they cope with this grief, tell me about the teacher, tell me about how these kids came to be in college. There is a story, in fact there are 32 stories. The media is so full of shit because they believe we focus on the person responsible. The only people who are interested in the killer are the same people who watch Jerry Springer and professional wrestling. In other words, uneducated individuals who have no interest in anyone but their own. Profiling, you bet, cause that’s what’s true.
oketo:
The talking heads were so predictably into that attack mode minutes after the killings were announced. Who are the "they" that everybody assumes is keeping watch over all of America? It usually falls on teachers, counselors, social workers--any counsellor can verify how hard it is to get parents to accept that their kid has issues, then try to find open beds in psych wards or hospital programs for young people and then try to get insurance companies to accept diagnosis and pay for hospitalization and then have a 3-5 day limit for hospitalization. It is almost impossible to get insurance companies to pay. Parents that do accept responsibility and have their kid hospitalized many times go broke trying to pay for all the things the insurance company will not. Cho was hospitalized while at VT, but I also heard that he was released after a day or two. Insurance??
diderot:
Could this guy have killed 32 people, even with a machete? No way. He was that lethal because he had guns. The media and politicians are so cowered by the NRA and the gun culture that they won't even bring up this subject anymore. In England, a smaller country but a pretty similar society, they ban handguns. I don't remember the government there suddenly turning England into a forced police state, as the gun nuts claim would happen here. Rifles and shotguns remain there for hunting, but no handguns are legal. The last full year on record, they recorded 163 deaths nationally from firearms (including suicides). A total of 12 policemen were wounded by firearms (including their own), none fatal. The same year, there were 993 gun deaths--JUST IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS! Overall, 30,000 Americans a year die from guns. That's like 10 different 9/11 attacks put together. Twelve times all the people we've lost to date in Iraq. Every year. And no one even talks about it anymore.
oketo:
Guns. Yeah. Where is the debate? I read in the Trib yesterday that Americans have 90 guns for every 100 people in the country. The most in the Western world. A typical number is 15, 18 etc. Some are higher, but the teens is a typical number. A gun story. After the polls closed on Tuesday a Repub-lick-an Poll watcher arrives. He is entitled to our unofficial results once we are done. Well it takes about an hour to finalize the precinct results so he is hanging out. Now remember there are two Dems and two Pub heads at each precinct. So this guy, and he looked pub, starts ranting on how the "stupid Democrats are trying to make an issue about automatic weapons due to VT". (Which had happened hours before. He was, as with most pubs, not concerned about the people affected but about the politics.) Well he then realizes there are two Dems in his forced audience and he backtracks that it is, "not all Dems". So I was not about to let this go and if I did not speak I would have had to hurt him. So I asked him if HE thought it was OK for "this guy" to be able to obtain two guns and then kill 32 people? Was that a good thing? These kids are just a trade off? He walked to a different corner of the gym. This is a side point but I get so tired of the arrogance of the right. They feel very free to vent at any moment, in any audience as if no one could possibly disagree with them unless that person is sooo stupid.
diderot:
My following of the coverage so far has been almost exclusively the Today Show, and as is their history, they always go for the potentially most emotional interviews possible. Nothing communicates the sorrow of the moment like people being sorrowful on TV (which doesn't hurt their ratings, either, but that's another story). Anyway, I've seen about 6-10 classmates interviewed either live or on tape the past couple of days--and none of them--not one--showed any tears or real emotion. And this isn't a criticism--they were all clearly somber and concerned and caring and sad...but they didn't show emotions the way I would expect young people in that situation to.
Is this just a coincidence? Did the 'together' ones just happen to show up on camera? Maybe. But it also seems like maybe we've created a new generation of young people that are so used to shock and violence and tragedy that this stuff (kind of) rolls off their backs?
hortense:
I agree with your assessment on the lack of emotion, and it IS because they have been de-sensitized. Great observation and something I've been saying for years. Even in car accidents their response is, well, that's really bad but life goes on. Ask my wife, a high school counsellor, she has seen over the years a complete change when a death occurs to a fellow student. We had that kid die in an accident earlier in the year, the same kids when asked do they need some time to talk, reflect, console? Nope, life goes on. I'm gonna scream. I thought I was the only one who noticed that, glad I wasn't. We have created a bunch of "this happens everyday" children. Oprah had three people on yesterday and they were all great. See if you can't watch that show. The one kid from Columbine, who lost his sister in that tragedy was more insightful than anybody else. He goes around the country trying to talk to HS kids about the very stuff that puts some of them in those "places" from where there is no escape. He and his father have a massive program that reaches 50 - 60 thousand kids a week. Now that's doing something. The one administrator she had on was very good also pointing out all the legal hoops you have to go through before any pro active measures can be taken. What part does the media play? Scary to have to leave it in their hands.
oketo:
I just talked to (daughter in college) and she said a couple of things that may or may not reinforce. First she said that nothing has been obvious to make her campus safer. You would think that there would at least be a show of added security for a few days. She also said that in her Lit class the teacher said that the class needed to talk about VT. She said that she and another boy are the kids that talk the most in the class. She said no one spoke. The teacher asked her what she thought since she must have something to say---chip of the old block--she said that she did not know what to say. She did not know where to begin. So, are they numb from shock and fear or are they numb from overexposure to violence? I don't know.
I watched MSNBC for about 3 hours last night...reporters that I like. But I was discouraged that they spent so much time on the killer and his mailed pictures and text. Did that exposure make him into a media star? Was it necessary to keep showing the as--ole with his two guns? I don't know where you draw the line. What I kept saying is that I wanted to see them talk about the kids and teachers that were killed. They had been lumped into the "name" 32 killed. It is my belief that if we want to sensitize the culture we need to tell their stories. Dwell on their lives and what we are losing with their deaths. Many of the kids were wonderful kids who had already done wonderful things and their future was ahead of them. I think we need to put a face and a story to the number 32. That makes Americans sensitive! Instead we put a face on the killer and his ramblings. So there will now be thousands of kids who will have the killer's picture taped up in their school lockers but I bet no one will ever remember any of the dead students. The teacher who blocked the door so his students could jump out the window and was then killed, his name should be the household word not Cho.
hortense:
Now, where does it go from here? Cannot agree with Oketo more about the coverage and focus on the killer. I don’t care anymore, tell me about the families and how they cope with this grief, tell me about the teacher, tell me about how these kids came to be in college. There is a story, in fact there are 32 stories. The media is so full of shit because they believe we focus on the person responsible. The only people who are interested in the killer are the same people who watch Jerry Springer and professional wrestling. In other words, uneducated individuals who have no interest in anyone but their own. Profiling, you bet, cause that’s what’s true.
oketo:
The talking heads were so predictably into that attack mode minutes after the killings were announced. Who are the "they" that everybody assumes is keeping watch over all of America? It usually falls on teachers, counselors, social workers--any counsellor can verify how hard it is to get parents to accept that their kid has issues, then try to find open beds in psych wards or hospital programs for young people and then try to get insurance companies to accept diagnosis and pay for hospitalization and then have a 3-5 day limit for hospitalization. It is almost impossible to get insurance companies to pay. Parents that do accept responsibility and have their kid hospitalized many times go broke trying to pay for all the things the insurance company will not. Cho was hospitalized while at VT, but I also heard that he was released after a day or two. Insurance??
diderot:
Could this guy have killed 32 people, even with a machete? No way. He was that lethal because he had guns. The media and politicians are so cowered by the NRA and the gun culture that they won't even bring up this subject anymore. In England, a smaller country but a pretty similar society, they ban handguns. I don't remember the government there suddenly turning England into a forced police state, as the gun nuts claim would happen here. Rifles and shotguns remain there for hunting, but no handguns are legal. The last full year on record, they recorded 163 deaths nationally from firearms (including suicides). A total of 12 policemen were wounded by firearms (including their own), none fatal. The same year, there were 993 gun deaths--JUST IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS! Overall, 30,000 Americans a year die from guns. That's like 10 different 9/11 attacks put together. Twelve times all the people we've lost to date in Iraq. Every year. And no one even talks about it anymore.
oketo:
Guns. Yeah. Where is the debate? I read in the Trib yesterday that Americans have 90 guns for every 100 people in the country. The most in the Western world. A typical number is 15, 18 etc. Some are higher, but the teens is a typical number. A gun story. After the polls closed on Tuesday a Repub-lick-an Poll watcher arrives. He is entitled to our unofficial results once we are done. Well it takes about an hour to finalize the precinct results so he is hanging out. Now remember there are two Dems and two Pub heads at each precinct. So this guy, and he looked pub, starts ranting on how the "stupid Democrats are trying to make an issue about automatic weapons due to VT". (Which had happened hours before. He was, as with most pubs, not concerned about the people affected but about the politics.) Well he then realizes there are two Dems in his forced audience and he backtracks that it is, "not all Dems". So I was not about to let this go and if I did not speak I would have had to hurt him. So I asked him if HE thought it was OK for "this guy" to be able to obtain two guns and then kill 32 people? Was that a good thing? These kids are just a trade off? He walked to a different corner of the gym. This is a side point but I get so tired of the arrogance of the right. They feel very free to vent at any moment, in any audience as if no one could possibly disagree with them unless that person is sooo stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)