The Toys Are Us

My New Preferred News Network

2008-03-23T13:08:00.003-04:00

I spoke with my mother yesterday. She told me that she's made a new campaign promise to herself: She will no longer watch MSNBC's election coverage. Personally, I think it's a wise choice. Their coverage has been absolutely appalling. Tim Russert is through. Keith Olberman can possibly save them, but he'll have to do it while my mom and I aren't watching.

CNN has nearly lost me too. Their coverage of Obama's race speech was shameful. Obama chose to go out on a limb and carry on a grown-up conversation with the American people. CNN just shat their graphics all over the screen like bad grafiti, providing his ongoing speech with misrepresentative captions that continuously undermined Obama's message. To the average American who will not or cannot sit still for 40 minutes, CNN spoon-fed continued incendiary versions of events, choosing a shallow context in order to spin out the controversy for a few days longer. For the next few days, using dumbed-down questions and deliberately misrepresented sound-bites, CNN reminded us that they think we're just CHILDREN. Obama's challenge to the media to carry on a conversation like ADULTS would obviously not continue on CNN. Somewhere in the building, Lou Dobbs was badmouthing Mexicans and Wolf Blitzer's wondered if John King was after his job. No one seemed to have even LISTENED to Obama's speech, as far as I could tell.

At another network, a conversation, different but related, has been ongoing...

If you're like me, you don't ever think of clicking onto Fox News. To most liberals, this station represents a joke, such an absurd twist on reality that it qualifies more as entertainment than as news. This distortion has tended to favor a more Conservative and Republican agenda, sometimes so offensively one-sided that it baffles the mind. But long after many people stopped watching, strange things began to happen at Fox News...

As MSNBC and CNN's coverage has been slowly sinking into shame, dividing the Democratic Party by pitting Obamicans and Clintonites, blacks and whites against each other, Fox News has been fighting a different battle. At Fox, there has been daily infighting between the hosts who spin the news to serve their opinions and those who think that this type of reporting is irresponsible. These complaints have been raised regularly ON THE AIR, not just by guests and pundits, but between fellow Fox News hosts. It's amazing, not only for the pure entertainment value, but because Fox News seems to be the ONLY major news network that is engaging in an on-air dialog about media responsibility. It's not constant, but the cracks are showing. The faces of the media, "respected hosts," publicly recognizing that they're reporting garbage a lot of the time, are being brave and risking their jobs. Fox News is leading the way, when MSNBC and CNN still fail to recognize that they have a problem. As Liberals and Democrats discuss how to reform politics, it's the Conservative and Republican media who are talking about how to report it correctly.

Blog Update

2008-03-23T13:03:00.003-04:00

I have not forgotten about Part 2 of my "What Are They Afraid Of?" post. It is coming, probably later today. It's also worth Part One was written and aborted 5 times before I was able to say what I needed to say correctly. Also worth noting: I have quite a few posts from the last couple of weeks that I never posted. Due to the increasing complexity of the issues as well as political exhaustion.

What are they afraid of? [Part 1]

2008-03-13T15:05:00.014-04:00

Call me a little bit confused this election season, but why is Democrat Joe Lieberman stumping for Republican John McCain? For that matter, how effective is Democrat Hillary Clinton's claim that Republican John McCain is fit to lead and Democrat Barack Obama is not? Come to think of it, why are some Clinton-supporters threatening Democrats (blackmailing?) that they'll vote McCain if Obama wins? Why is super-Conservative Rush Limbaugh trying to convince Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton? And...How much racial and religious double-speak is in this endless supply of kitchen sinks anyhow? It all seems so desperate. Doesn't it seem like Democrats and Republicans alike are eager to betray party loyalties to slow Obama's run?

These tactics represent something far beyond simple competitive campaigning. It seems to me more like terror of an "anything but that" variety. The desperation to knock him out of the race is not proportionally appropriate. And, for Democrats, it actually undermines their chances in the general election. Something beyond strategy is driving these attacks. Whatever it is, it's far from reasonable. Obama is certainly not going to drive this country into the ground as Obama's opponents may want to claim (he's also not going to save us from all the ills of the world either, sorry to say). He's just a smart guy with enough wisdom to run the country and some pretty typical Democratic party platforms. A few flourishes. If he's elected, he'll surround himself with other smart people who will advise him in the areas that he is less versed in. He has EXACTLY THE SAME lack of experience at being President of the United States as Hillary Clinton and John McCain have. And that's it. He's just like everyone else who runs for president. Any candidate who makes it this far is the same. For real.

So...I guess I'm not really understanding why there is such a unified, frothing resistance to Obama. At the rate at which these attacks have escalated, in two months both parties will be trying to destroy his entire future, like a sort of political career-assassination. Why?

As became apparent in the last week of the news, skin color DOES seem to be a factor. That's right: BARACK OBAMA IS A BLACK MAN. I know you may have not have noticed (with the Clinton Campaign tiptoeing around like an elephant and the Obama campaign loudly shooshing like the sole white person a Harlem movie theater) but this election season has been increasingly laced with race-talk. America, on the whole, is obsessed with racial identity. It's part of our culture. We want to identify ourselves as "unique" on Friday and the "same" on Monday, but we can't have it both ways without offending people. We don't even know what language is racist anymore because the "PC" terms that sprung up to replace "offensive" terms are as divisive as the original terms. [FOR EXAMPLE -- Why are black people called "African Americans" when white people are called "Americans"? Isn't that creating different classes of people? The "PC" term still contains a modifier that screams "different" while actually undermining usage and eliminating it's descriptive usefulness. FOR FUN -- Have you ever watched a white person hem and haw while trying to describe a black person in all PC terms without saying "African American"? They'll use every description from height to shirt color and fingernail length before quietly whispering "dark skin".]

Anyhow... At least the campaigns are now talking about racial politics out in the open. We can thank Geraldine Ferraro for that. The door is wide open now, and bursting off the hinges. We've skipped the dancing around with meaningless language (but turned up the spin) and found out exactly what drives fears that Barack Obama inspire in so many. As it turns out, there are some people that just might be afraid of black people. Given how completely race-talk has dominated the election coverage, it might be safe to say that the melanin level of our skin is still a really big deal for some people. Who knew?

[Next - Transparency, The Next Generation, and Remembering the Past]

Where does money come from?

2008-03-12T10:13:00.006-04:00

I have a fond, nostalgic picture in my head from when I was a little tyke, probably around 10 years or so old. My mom and step-dad walked me up to the counter of whatever bank was in my hometown at the time (before many generations of buyouts) and told me to set down my nine dollars and forty-odd cents. I was opening my first bank account! Safely putting my money away into a place where my money could grow was an early step to my adulthood. For years after, I'd take every opportunity to go to the bank and have my passbook stamped with a new balance. Perhaps I was a strange kid, but that was exciting to me.

Of course I was not making any REAL money at all. Sure, a few pennies a month would appear on my passbook, but those teeny increments held a sense of satisfation. My account was making money. It was smart. It was responsible. These feelings and reasons were undoubtedly the whole idea for keeping money in the bank in the first place. How it works: The institution gets to play with our money and invest it in whatever they invest it in. That's how they make their money. In return, a couple of percentage point would get kicked back to us. It was an INVESTMENT. For everyone.

I don't recall when it happened, but somehow we were hoodwinked into believing that it would be IRRESPONSIBLE to NOT put our money in the bank. Around that time, the pennies started being counted backwards and some "processing fees" appeared on the bills. The banks were making money off of the customers now too, but we didn't seem to notice. I can't quite recall when my first ATM fee was charged, but I may have been blinded by the convenience of a money-spitting robot open 24 hours a day. Banks were silently snatched up by other banks and account terms were silently changed and at some point they wanted to start charging money for paper copies of bank statements, because they wanted to make sure that no one paid attention to how much money they'd been stealing from us.

[Insert worst banking crimes here, and we began to take notice]

Remember that time you were charged a fifty dollar overdraft fee because the bank took 7 days to deposit your check? Remember how impossible it was to talk to a live person on the phone? Remember how that one live person told you it would be fixed and it never was? Remember how you spent three months trying to recouperate the fees lost mysterious charges for $300 in gas in the Bronx appeared on your card? Remember when Commerce bank broke your heart and tried to slip in a line of fine print that they'd be imposing a minimum balance on their no-minimum balance accounts?

Remember the reason why you joined the bank in the first place?

Remember the day when you stopped fighting against bank fees because it seemed hopeless?

I went to a Chase ATM the other day. I only wanted to take out $20, but I skipped it because Chase now charges a $3.00 ATM withdrawl fee if you don't belong to Chase bank (plus whatever YOUR bank charges). Allow me to use some profanity, as I did at the ATM... THAT IS FUCKING INSANE! You do the math. That's more money than half the people in this world make in a day. Think about that. Pay attention. Read your bank statements. Fight for your rights. Don't let banks get away with this. Give a message by not using Chase ATMs. Don't be a sucker.

Dear U.N. Countries

2008-03-05T01:37:00.002-05:00

Please help.

Our election process has been hijacked by the media culture. In the interest of ratings and continuously hyping "good television," the news networks have fixed the Democratic Primary race. They've provided daily dirt and created constant "scandals" to prolong the race by whatever means necessary, shifting voter focus to the underdog of the day. I've even seen a graphic for "Horserace '08." What began as a healthy dialog on issues has turned into constant smear, costing both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama the trust they would need to gain votes in the general election. Democrats are becoming increasingly divided and even spiteful towards the candidate they aren't backing. I fear that the longer this battle is waged, the less chance either will have against the Republicans in the fall.

It's clear that the Democratic popular vote is evenly divided, though trends in directions steered by the media. Nobody knows what to think anymore. The truth has been lost. The uncontested influences in this contest are the networks. The rest of the world must speak. We need your help.

The New York Times, again

2008-02-27T17:30:00.002-05:00

I just read a Slate article about how The New York Times lifted some language straight out of a Miami Herald article on the same topic. What's going on over there at "The Gray Lady"? I know it's hard to find a decent newspaper in New York, but I've always tried to hold The Times to a higher standard. Are they still worthy of their reputation?

Feminism, Perverted

2008-02-27T16:10:00.003-05:00

I won't dive too deep into the subject of feminism, because there is a certain type of feminist who would claim that I have no authority or valid opinion on feminism because I am a man. It occurs to me that this is the same type of person who would claim that any woman feminist who doesn't support Hillary Clinton has betrayed her feminist ideals. This seems like a twisted perversion of reality. It's my belief that someone who dedicates herself to the equality of the sexes, the expression of individuality, and strength of independent womanhood should damn-well vote for whoever she pleases.

But, what do I know?

It is Your Destiny...

2008-02-27T14:03:00.003-05:00

And I'd always assumed that Cheney was behind the mask...

MSNBC

2008-02-27T12:25:00.005-05:00

I would like to congratulate MSNBC for their coverage of the Ohio Democratic Debate last night. Congratulations for being so tacky! Right out of the gate, they started picking at scabs and trying to start a cat fight, immediately [before full introductions had been completed] playing a videotape of Hillary saying "Shame on you, Barack Obama." Next, they trotted out the leaked photo of Obama dressed in Somali clothing, and the debate continued like that for most of the night. Tim Russert practically reduced Hillary to tears at one point by continuously cutting her off with her own quotes in an attempt to discredited her own answers. MSNBC did not moderate this "debate;" they circled the candidates with a whip and a chair.

One of my co-workers, an enthusiastic Clinton supporter (to put it mildly), has been claiming for weeks that the media has been unfair to Hillary Clinton in their election coverage. Until now, I have ignored that oft-parroted view. When my co-worker would make this claim, I would retort that the media has been EQUALLY unfair to ALL the candidates, roasting them like ants under a magnifying glass. After all, the media does love to exploit and contort information, recklessly spinning it out as scandal.

However, after last night's debate, I was inclined to agree with my co-worker. Hillary was the short end of the stick. There was clearly a difference in the way the two candidates were treated. A small part of me didn't really mind so much because I'm getting tired of listening to Hillary's bullshit. The Clinton campaign tactics of the last week have been absolutely shameful and she deserved to be questioned about them. A larger part of me, as MSNBC took it too far, became very uncomfortable with last night's coverage. I don't know if they were intentionally trying to make Hillary look bad, whether they were trying to purposefully influence the election, or whether they were simply pulling their usual tricks and presenting the news like The Jerry Springer Show. The popular perception, according to Saturday Night Live (and Hillary Clinton, who watches it, apparently), is that the media is backing Barack Obama and allowing him to coast while Clinton takes the punches. If this perception is true, it certainly does not help him at all. I wanted Obama to tell MSNBC "No thank you. Please just let us debate the issues. I can fight my own battles. You embarrasses and discredit me. Go away."

Last night was further proof to me that the political game has changed. The news outlets are wielding a great power and doing it in irresponsible and damaging ways (New York Times, for example). With all the attention that candidates get for associating with divisive people (like Farrakhan, for example), the candidates would be wise to question/reject/denounce the media outlets that abuse their power to skew the process.

The "Ick" Factor

2008-02-26T11:14:00.008-05:00

Hillary Clinton is a hell of a candidate. I've been increasingly impressed with her throughout the primary process. She's shown some real strength as a role model and as a future leader than I ever would have expected. Watching the Texas debate last week, I felt a sense of pride in the Democratic party. We have choices! Real people with real strength! When's the last time we've had that?

As of today, these positive feelings about her have officially soured.

During the last few weeks, as the Obama campaign has "achieved lift off," and Hillary's campaign tactics have grown more desperate, slowly casting a darkening shadow over her positive qualities. They've been throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Obama, but nothing has really worked. So, on Monday, they pulled out a doozy. Not generally known for their honorable tactics, the Clintons have never been entirely "clean," but a certain amount of strategic misdirection and political street ball is part of the game. It's expected and to a certain extent can even be admired. Everyone loves to throw around the word "dirty" when it comes to this game, but often it's just tough talk. Then there's the type of "dirty" that is "fucking despicable."

According to The Drudge Report, this photo was emailed to them by Clinton aides:

To you and I (rational thinkers), Barack Obama is dressed in traditional garb of a Somali chieftain, nothing to be too concerned about. It's not uncommon for world leaders to respectfully don cultural garb for diplomatic missions. But to some people in America, unfortunately, a brown man in a turban running for President of the United States of America is cause for panic. FOX News, having already manufactured a rumor that Obama went to school in an Islamic Madrasa, tapped into a fear that resonated with the large majority of the population who believe that all Muslims want to destroy America. Out of desperation or ill-advisement, someone in Hillary's camp decided to email a picture that harnesses that hate and fear. They stooped to a FOX News low. It's disgusting.

After the Obama camp accused the Clinton campaign of playing to these fears, Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams released the following statement:

"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely. This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry. We will not be distracted.”

Maggie Williams did NOT EVEN DENY that someone from within the Clinton camp circulated the photo. Furthermore, the above statement blames the Obama camp for tactics used by the Clinton campaign. It actually blames Obama for using the politics of hate. [Just for fun, Re-read the statement and try switching the names "Obama" and "Clinton."]

I guess this whole mini-scandal-of-the-day is old news by now, and I'm sure that everyone already knows the whole scoop, but I can't feeling a residual ickiness about all this. I'm not deluding myself by singling out Clinton or claiming that Obama is running with Mr. Clean. This is politics. Everyone plays for keeps. But there's playing hardball, questioning flip-flopping on policy, and exploiting past mistakes of your opponent. Then there's attacks that feed off of ignorance, prejudice, fear, and gullibility. These kind of attacks are insulting to our intelligence, they deepen the cultural divide in this country, and they've taken away what's left of my respect for Hillary Clinton.

Let's Talk About the Weather

2008-02-21T12:10:00.005-05:00

Sunny. 30 Degrees Fahrenheit. Winds 5 to 10 Miles Per Hour. Feels Like 11 Degrees...

------------------------------

In the last year, I've heard people refer to the temperature by the "feels like" index more often than by it's actual measured temperature. Fueled by an age of fear, the culture of dramatic exaggeration and truthiness begins to prevail over scientific measurement. This needs to stop. Science deals in absolutes and in a time when we need to slow global warming and protect our environment, we cannot afford to discredit the measured facts with "how it feels."

From accuweather.com: "The patented, exclusive AccuWeather RealFeel Temperature is an index that describes what the temperature really feels like. It's a unique composite of everything that affects how warm or cold a person feels, and measures the effects of temperature, wind, humidity, sunshine intensity, cloudiness, precipitation and elevation on the human body.

Temperature by itself gives only part of the picture. Other weather measurements, like Wind Chill or Heat Index, include only the temperature and one additional element like wind speed or humidity. Many measures are designed to rate effects on an inanimate object or an unclothed person, so they don't tell what it really feels like to someone who is appropriately dressed. Only the AccuWeather RealFeel Temperature includes every measurement relative to how the temperature feels to a person."

So... though the "feels like" temperature is listed in degrees, this composite index doesn't actually measure of anything concrete? How does that work, exactly? Maybe I'm being a little bit picky about this, but the measurement of temperature in degree units actually means something and carries weight in the scientific community. AccuWeather, this completely made up and highly subjective index, uses this highly credible and reliable measurement, applying it to a made up number loosely based on a number of factors to help people stretch the truth when they brag and complain about the weather.

I'd like to get something straight: It's 30 degrees, but it does NOT feel like 11 Degrees. The weather does not feel. You feel. You might feel cold. You might feel like your nose is falling off. You might feel like it's 5 degrees and I might feel like it's 35 degrees. But what however you feel about the weather, it's 30 degrees out. Perhaps the short gusts of wind are uncomfortable, but the temperature does not change when the wind picks up for a second. Stop saying that it's 11 degrees outside. It's not. Exagerating the temperature based on how much you shiver does nothing but discredit science.

While I'm discussing truthiness in weather, I would like to discuss global warming. Not the phenomenon, but the way that the term is bandied about. It's like a buzzword for the complainers. In fact, I can't recall one single conversation about the weather in the last couple of years in which someone did not meantion it. Hot, cold, rainy, clear, it's ALWAYS the result of global warming in someone's eyes. As if they've forgotten that every winter is pretty cold (except for during the warm breaks) and every summer is pretty hot (except for occasional cold snaps), today is always the hottest or coldest that someone has ever experienced. Now, I believe that global warming is a MAJOR ISSUE that needs to be addressed (my first science fair project was on the greenhouse effect), but it does not need to be referenced every time someone's armpits get a little sweaty. We live on a planet that has natural cycles that we hardly understand and we have less than 150 years of measured weather data collected. I have no doubt that we've contributed to the destabilization of the planet and we should take extreme weather as a hint to make some changes, but in the grand scheme of things we really have NO IDEA how much or how little influence we have over climate change.

Alex Gourevitch's article "The Politics of Fear", states "Environmentalism is one of the few movements on the left that presents itself in the same totalizing political terms that the war on terror does on the right." I think he makes a fair point. Our current obsession with global warming, fueled by political rhetoric but rooted in reality, has hardened into a fear that borders on irrationality. We allow ourselves to feed into this fear by making "global warming" into a meaningless catch phrase and we back it up with our feelings, not science. In our world, 30 degrees becomes 11. In our world, we obsessively count hurricanes. In our world, snow in March is cause for panic. And in our world, we use counter-productive language that might actually be reducing our chances to fight the sky from falling. Because the sky IS falling. The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

Preserving an American Pastime

2008-02-19T17:16:00.002-05:00

Baseball has evolved beyond what the purists have failed to preserve. The olden days when portly Babe Ruth fought through hangover pain to swing a piece of wood are over. The integrity of the sport (indeed, of ALL SPORT) has been replaced by spectacle and showmanship (Anyone who has watched somkeone dunk a basketball behind their head can agree with that). Unfortunately, this trend has been partially fueled by the use of performance enhancing drugs, apparently a commonplace practice in modern professional sport. The sad and shameful courtroom parade has soiled the purity of the baseball forever, as the baseball legends and childhood idols float on by, unapologetically.

Or has it?

Actually, baseball will always be baseball. The sport's scandals have really only sullied the reputation of Major League Baseball's American and National Leagues. They will never, ever be the same again. The drugs will not go away. The records will continue to be broken, then questioned. So I say: LET IT HAPPEN! Perhaps it's a very Dutch of me to suggest turning a blind eye to drug use, but if America's "War on Drugs" has taught us anything, we should understand that demand creates supply. And as long as players want to hit home runs and break records, there will always be performance enhancing drugs.

Let these leagues roil in the chaos of drug-abuse, as over-sized beasts howl with 'roid rage, back-flip over Fenway's Green Monster and occasionally tear each other apart, limb from limb. Perhaps someday, clones and androids could complete in these "anything goes" leagues. It would make great television and the scandals could just continue to be part of the sport, like a tradition. How else will we find out how fast a fastball can REALLY go?

For the purists, I'd propose that a third league be introduced, and anyone who wishes to play the sport without "cheating" could play in it. Baseball in this league would be baseball, as God intended. We could celebrate the joy of the game and smell ballpark franks and real grass (and drunk fans) without the pungeant sting of chemical sweat burning our eyes. In this new league, the purity of baseball would survive at least a little longer. Then, at the end of the season, come tournament time, the leagues would compete and the healthy clear-headed players of the purist league would have a chance to prove that heart and sportsmanship can truimph over the drug-addled super-humans. Or, maybe, they will be eaten.

Attached 64-page "Obama Blueprint For Change." Free Specifics Inside!

2008-02-15T22:59:00.005-05:00

Barack Obama has taken some flack in the last few days as lazy pundits continue to claim that he campaigns with all style and no substance. The news trend of the week has been to make light of "the cult of Obama" and claim that Obama provides nothing but an empty promise of "hope" and "change." I will concede the point that the majority of Obama supporters are about as empty as the throngs of people who show up to an American Idol audition and don't even intend to try out. But then again, can't the same be said for Clinton supporters? McCain supporters? What percentage of the people who vote in this country do you really think are well versed in the policies of their chosen candidates? 10%? 5%?

Also, these are the primaries! It's been a really long time since the battle for nomination has gone on so long. It usually doesn't extend much past Super Tuesday, if even until then. Within the individual parties, candidates have extremely similar policies and plans (like Clinton and Obama, for example), slightly different takes on the overall beliefs of the party as a whole. Typically, primaries are little more than beauty contests where a small handful of people try to stir up something a little more exciting than the finer points of one bulleted 15-part plan versus another. The specifics of policy are usually debated in greater detail during the general election.
This year, the situation is a bit different. Since this year's Democratic primaries are going on a bit longer, the thin nature of idealistic rhetoric is becoming tiresome. We have to start talking about the meat of the matter right now.

I guess it's only natural for the bloggers and reporters and pundits to criticize the Obama campaign because it really has become A MOVEMENT, for better or for worse. The masses have been inspired by a politician! That's practically unheard of these days! So, as a blanket criticism of "Ozombies" and "Baramobots" (the many, many blindly uninformed followers), the critics have ignored the knowledge of the informed supporters and, worse, Barack Obama himself, loudly declaring that he doesn't have a clue. As usual, out of either resistance to research or a brazen aversion to honest reporting, they are MAKING THE NEWS UP, spinning rumor and popular perception as truth. It's foolish to think that ANY candidate could have come this far on just a wing and a prayer. But the tiresome media strikes again!

It took me about 2 minutes to find this online:

Here is the "Obama Blueprint For Change," 64 pages of specifics.

I'm sure that another 10 minutes would produce an even more specific breakdown if I wanted to take the time, but hopefully I've made my point. I recommend that anyone who is an Obama supporter should take the time to do their homework so that next time someone calls you "a fanatic," you can dazzle your accuser with specifics. And if you're someone who baselessly regurgitates the media's claptrap about Obama being a shallow gasbag, maybe you should start reading too.

[By the way, I'm perfectly willing to defend Hillary too if and when need be. But this week's mischaracterization of Obama was just bothering me tonight.]

Oops!

2008-02-13T10:47:00.004-05:00

I'd like to congratulate my friend Dennis Hurley for "duping the man," inadvertently pulling the wool over the eyes of Esquire Magazine.

The story, in short: As a promo for a movie that he'd been cast in a few years back, Dennis and cohorts posted a fake profile of "Sam" (played by Dennis) onto Myspace. Part of that profile is Sam's cringeworthy dating video. Fast forward in time to January 2008 when Esquire magazine featured the video in an article "The Five Worst Online Dating Video Profiles." Here's the tagline: "These days, striking out with the opposite sex is as simple as buying a webcam and 'being yourself.'"

Oops!

Now, I'd love for this blog selection to fold right into my continuous discussion about the irresponsibility of the media and those too lazy to follow the simple rule of making sure you know what you're taking about [Yes...I don't do that all the time either, but then again I'm writing for a readership of 3 people]. I'd also consider using Dennis's video to begin a discussion about social networking. What makes Sam any less legitimate than the videos of people their real names but sport a cool face and spit half-truthes? If Sam was real, he'd still be roasted as an example, even though he'd be one of the few truly honest people on Myspace.

I guess that's a discussion for later too...

Right now, I just want to revel in the glory and brilliant entertainment of Dennis Hurley, Sam, and anyone else who fooled the big guy. Congrats!

Here is the Esquire article and embedded video.
Here is a write up of how it happened.

"McCain's Peeps"

2008-02-12T22:51:00.004-05:00

Whenever I'm watching a major 24-hour news network (CNN, for example) and, during election coverage, and 70's-ish male gnome of a pundit refers to "the over-65 and veteran vote" as "McCain's Peeps," I feel confident that my opinion about the path of modern language and it's increasingly rapid (de)evolution holds water. Slang has stormed the beaches of geriatric politics. Can the youth be far behind?

[It's like watching the prequel to the film Idiocracy.]

Fuzzy Math / A Pleasant Shift of Power

2008-02-11T19:49:00.000-05:00

I've been watching A LOT of primary election coverage. I have not, however, been watching across a variety of networks, testing how the coverage has differed. After a quick examination, I am certainly aware of the variation in "the score" from each news camp. As usual, in an effort to provide breaking news, there has seemingly been a scramble by the news outlets to call each primary like it's a sporting event. Our fascination with numbers keeps us constantly trying to measure who is "winning" so the newsies give us a guestimated bunch of numbers, each tallied using a different semi-relevant formula. It's funny. They're kind of meaningless to use as more than a rough guage, but I can't help taking these numbers at face value.

So far, I have not noticed any evidence that the news outlets (with their "unbiased" endorsement of candidates) have been presenting the delegates using specific formulas that favor their candidates, but I don't trust them enough to doubt that it's happens. If the newspeople are making any attempt to create the news, it sure hasn't seemed to have any effect whatsoever. Credibility hasn't seemed to suffer either, even though the rush to be first has only seemed to produce bad predictions that have been consistantly (almost amusingly) unreliable.

I credit the American people who seemingly could give a hoot what the newsfolks have been saying. They're listening, instead, to the candidates (who have all shown great public speaking chops), talking to other people, and showing the spunk of lively independent thought. It has taken the power back from the media, who have instead been at their best when simply reporting the news, not telling us what to think. It's been a long time since I've felt proud like this.

I've got Bloggy Fever

2008-02-11T19:41:00.000-05:00

When I first started writing this blog, I wondered if I had enough to talk about. Now, I'm concerned that I can't keep up with all of the things that I want to say!

Digging a Deeper Level of Hell

2008-02-11T18:29:00.000-05:00

The other night, after several beverages at an East Village watering hole, my friend Becky weighed in on a topic that I've been thinking about and blogging around the edges of: Celebrity Exploitation. She and I and Matty J's sister were discussing the television channel VH-1, popularly referred to by us as "the harbinger of the apocalypse." We were weighing the pros and cons of reality television shows that give new life (a "second chance," if you will) to third-rate has-been celebs. Along side these sad people are a whole new breed of first-timer has-beens, "regular folk" who are so blindly desperate, that they fail to recognize what type of show they have sold themselves to. These are shows that rely on the impending disasters resulting from forcing lost souls to interact in confined spaces, competing for television airtime, often in shameful indignified ways.

According to Becky, we watch these shows and revel in the related celebrity tabloids because it makes our lives seem better. Well put, B. No matter how bad it gets at home, at least we don't have to constantly run from the paparazzi until it drives us completely insane! And we can feel better about making minimum wage because these rich people are fucking miserable all the time! It's not so bad performing independent theater because who wants a job in Hollywood where they eat their young?! It's not so bad living with that irresponsible drug addict because it's better than living with Corey Haim!

Life does seem a whole lot better with this perspective. Never mind, the REAL human tragedy on the whole godddamn continent of Africa. It's much more comfortable to feel lucky in life by exploiting the human tragedy of people who we don't have to feel bad for or guilty about. For just dollars a day, we can avenge our secretly capitalist jealousy that we feel when talentless "beautiful people" are handed fistfuls of money. We dish out our money in support of an industry that terrorizes celebrities, damning them to a new Hell so that our lives seem like mere Purgatory in comparison. Well, no wonder our lives feel so empty. Duh.

Fair-Minded Words

2008-02-11T16:34:00.000-05:00

No matter what your idiology is, the mention of "religion" and "government" in the same breath probably makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. They are the two stongest forces of social development in the world, the roots to the rise and fall of civilization throughout history. In a lot of ways, they both muck things up. It's delicate.

I won't even try and make sense on this issue. Instead, I'll let Barack Obama do it (oh, stop groaning...I'm not including this to force your hand in adopting him as president, rather for you to consider his words carefully and perhaps adopt one or two of his ideas). Below is a link to a speech he gave to Call to Renewal's Building a Covenant for a New America on June 28th, 2006. In it, Obama threads the needle on the issue of the role of religion and government, walking a fine line to stress the necessity of both, but in a way that does not erode our democratic values. He inclusively embraces everyone on all sides of the church and state issue, patting us all on the head while also very softly smacking on the nose with a newspaper. He uses law and scripture, and also admits his own culpabilty and mistakes. He does not have all the answers to ending the culture wars, but he speaks without pointing a finger or blaming anyone for dividing us, all the while charging everyone with the task of reuniting us.

Here is the video. It's about 40 minutes long, a good length to keep on in the background while you're... I dunno... doing whatever it is that you do.

For those without modern technology, below is the transcript.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barack Obama's 'Call to Renewal' Keynote Address
June 28th, 2006
Washington DC

Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here at the Call to Renewal's Building a Covenant for a New America conference. I've had the opportunity to take a look at your Covenant for a New America. It is filled with outstanding policies and prescriptions for much of what ails this country. So I'd like to congratulate you all on the thoughtful presentations you've given so far about poverty and justice in America, and for putting fire under the feet of the political leadership here in Washington.

But today I'd like to talk about the connection between religion and politics and perhaps offer some thoughts about how we can sort through some of the often bitter arguments that we've been seeing over the last several years.

I do so because, as you all know, we can affirm the importance of poverty in the Bible; and we can raise up and pass out this Covenant for a New America. We can talk to the press, and we can discuss the religious call to address poverty and environmental stewardship all we want, but it won't have an impact unless we tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America.

I want to give you an example that I think illustrates this fact. As some of you know, during the 2004 U.S. Senate General Election I ran against a gentleman named Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes is well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless.

Indeed, Mr. Keyes announced towards the end of the campaign that, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."

Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama.

Now, I was urged by some of my liberal supporters not to take this statement seriously, to essentially ignore it. To them, Mr. Keyes was an extremist, and his arguments not worth entertaining. And since at the time, I was up 40 points in the polls, it probably wasn't a bad piece of strategic advice.

But what they didn't understand, however, was that I had to take Mr. Keyes seriously, for he claimed to speak for my religion, and my God. He claimed knowledge of certain truths.

Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, he was saying, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.

Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.

And so what would my supporters have me say? How should I respond? Should I say that a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? Should I say that Mr. Keyes, who is a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?

Unwilling to go there, I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates - namely, I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.

But Mr. Keyes's implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and my own beliefs.

Now, my dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we've been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics.

For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.

Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.

This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.

Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness.

And I speak with some experience on this matter. I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were. My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I.

It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma.

I was working with churches, and the Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me. They saw that I knew their Book and that I shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed that a part of me that remained removed, detached, that I was an observer in their midst.

And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well -- that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone.

And if it weren't for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church.

For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.

And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship -- the grounding of faith in struggle -- that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today.

Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.

You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.

That's a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans - evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values.

And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.

Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.

More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical - if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.

Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.

Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. Our fear of getting "preachy" may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man.

Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby - but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix.

I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws. But I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation's CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers. They have more lawyers than us anyway.

I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys. I think that the work that Marian Wright Edelman has done all her life is absolutely how we should prioritize our resources in the wealthiest nation on earth. I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.

But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman's sense of self, a young man's sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.

In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that.

But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.

Some of this is already beginning to happen. Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.

And by the way, we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you've got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate.

Across the country, individual churches like my own and your own are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, helping ex-offenders reclaim their lives, and rebuilding our gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.

While I've already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.

But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.

Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.

This goes for both sides.

Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.

The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.

So we all have some work to do here. But I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring to this debate. And I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to divide. They're tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that's not how they think about faith in their own lives.

So let me end with just one other interaction I had during my campaign. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. Senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School that said the following:

"Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you."

The doctor described himself as a Christian who understood his commitments to be "totalizing." His faith led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage, although he said that his faith also led him to question the idolatry of the free market and quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize much of the Republican agenda.

But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor went on to write:

"I sense that you have a strong sense of justice...and I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason...Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded....You know that we enter times that are fraught with possibilities for good and for harm, times when we are struggling to make sense of a common polity in the context of plurality, when we are unsure of what grounds we have for making any claims that involve others...I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

So I looked at my website and found the offending words. In fairness to them, my staff had written them using standard Democratic boilerplate language to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.

Re-reading the doctor's letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words. Those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.

So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own - a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.

And that night, before I went to bed I said a prayer of my own. It's a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It's a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come. Thank you.

Will Ferrell, You Disappoint Me

2008-02-08T17:25:00.000-05:00

I walked by the new poster for Will Ferrell's Semi-Pro and I felt exasperated. As a Saturday Night Live alum and comedic movie actor, he's been consistantly funny. I absolutely love him. But how many movies can this guy make about being goofy-looking in the world of sports? I have no doubt that the movie will be hilarious, but I guess I just hoped for something different, perhaps something with at least a hint of emotional depth. Jim Carrey in The Truman Show and Adam Sandler in Punch-Drunk Love both delivered powerful and textured dramatic performances. Will we ever see anything along these lines from Will Ferrell?

Poetry?

2008-02-08T10:39:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I blogged a reaction to the New York Times article on Japanese Cell Phone Novels, then went off into outer-space with my musings on the evolution of language. Here is a link to a blog that has translated the first chapter of Sky of Love, by Mika. The blogger raises an interesting point that the structure of the Japanese written language is already economical in ways that lend it to text messaging, as do it's cultural ties to poetry and hiaku. Could we assume that when this form of novelization reaches our shores, it will usher in and revitalize American poetry? Or maybe it will just sound like very blunt American text messaging(omigod he soooo hot u like him 2 u bitch ;)

txspk 4 u ;)

2008-02-07T16:04:00.000-05:00

Below is a New York Times article about the birth of Cellphone Novels in Japan. These are entire novels written on phones, in text message form, presumably with simplified language, ROFLMAOs, and emoticons. Just recently, some of these cellphone novels have been published in hardcover form:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/world/asia/20japan.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin

So what about language? There is currently a generation of children growing up dependent on cell phones, texting, and instant messaging. They are efficient multi-taskers and have now refined a form of language that cuts through the difficulty of long words and sentences and have little time for the distraction of complex concepts. It's efficient LOL! I suspect that texting and instant messaging will only become more and more relevant over time. Even now, I know people that communicate primarily in this way.

I love my language as it is and it's been upsetting to watch the steady dumbing-down of it in newspapers (Today's New York Post headline: "Psych Out For Britney"). However, it seems that it simply isn't as relevant as it used to be. [If you've actually read this far into this post without simply skimming for key words, chances are that you're older than 28. If you read any entry longer than 3 paragraphs, you just might be 35!] If I wanted to appeal to the kids, I'd use less words, shorter words, and maybe I'll boldface the really important ones. The literary limitations of writing for an exclusively text-savvy reading audience propels us rapidly toward a language quite similar to George Orwell's "Newspeak," short, to the point, and universally or internationally understandable.

As appalling it is to imagine a semi-literate future, I'll gaze into the half-full part of the glass. Language cannot die. Language as we know it certainly can die, and that may be a terrifying prospect for many of us, but whatever happens to it, it's probably just a form of evolution. Textspeak (or "txspk" - I just made up a new word!:P) may look like an uneducated language disaster administered by the stupid, but it's a only been around for about a decade or so. Sooner or later, a new vocabulary could develop, someone will need to invent away to effectively express subtext ("ntxt"?), and new words would be created using a new set of rules. What might look to us like a seemingly random jumble of numbers, uppercase and lowercase letters, colors, and smiley faces might actually contain new levels of complexity and meaning. Eventually, some wiseass would translate Shakespeare and language will live on.

Our Tension.

2008-02-07T15:07:00.000-05:00

In response to my post about our fascination with celebrity downfall, my good friend "Charlie Willis" makes a great reference to Greek Tragedy, but he also says:

"I think that it DOES serve some sort of purpose by releasing pent-up tension from the masses. I just don't know how healthy that is."

This got me a-thinkin'... How closely related is the public's schadenfreude to the tension? What is the tension, where does it come from, and where do we release it? Is the tension a side effect of feeling insignificant or voiceless, causing us to express what power we have by destroying others? Which personality type combats perceived powerlessness by ridiculing those in the public eye; which personality type combats perceived powerlessness by trying to seek out the public eye (American Idol Contestants), therefore subjecting himself/herself to the ridicule? Can these personality types be the same?

Unprecedented!

2008-02-07T11:11:00.000-05:00

Unprecedented: Having No Precedent
Precedent: prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance (Merriam-Webster Online)

I absolutely HATE the word "Unprecedented." It's an ugly enough SOUNDING word, but the way it gets tossed around, filler for those who have nothing real to say, exhausts me to no end. I'm not saying that it's always used incorrectly (though it often is), but it certainly seems used poorly. It cropped up in big-time as the modifier for "The Unprecedented Terrorist Attacks of September 11th," then slowly became somewhat of a stale household word, a staple of boring political speech. Soon enough, budget line-items were unprecedented, the new Pontiac was unprecedented, the extra Pizza Hut Cheese (Melty!) was unprecedented, and everything else was unprecedented too. Perhaps, I'll blame George W. Bush for ruining the word, for I associate it with dumb people trying to sound smart. And it's everywhere, as though it was on sale and we all lazily bought it so no one had to think of a better word, or one that actually adds significant nuance. It just lives within sentences, like a sqatter or a large punctuation mark for uninspired stupidity. Or perhaps some unknown author or speech-writer took the extra time to carefully choose the word "unprecedented" as though it had never been used before (Unprecedented!), to surprise us(!) and catch us off guard.

More Britney

2008-02-06T16:23:00.000-05:00

I came across this article today. It ties in with my "Schadenfreude" post:

http://www.portfolio.com/culture-lifestyle/culture-inc/arts/2008/01/14/Britney-Spears-Career-Analysis

This is absolutely sickening. It's difficult enough to stomach the morbid fascination with Brittney's downfall and oncoming mental illness, but this indicates that we've destroyed her because it's profitable. Someone is getting rich off of this, because we feed into it.

In generations past, did we always have this fascination with celebrity downfall? When I think about the subject, I feel very, very empty. And speechless. I might have so much to say about cautionary tales of greed, the ghetto-fabulous lifestyle, conspiracy theories of the malicious penitant, manifestations of public jealousy, children dreaming of "being famous when they grow up", and the awful-sick-angry feeling I got when I saw the movie posters for Robin William's Man of the Year. Perhaps I need to hold off and spend a little time planning my scripted attack on Hollywood.

Schadenfreude

2008-02-05T10:58:00.000-05:00

Happy Super Tuesday everyone. Hope those of you with a primary today have voted! It's sure been a lot of fun the last few days. It's nice to see so much excitement over the electoral process.

That being said, I want to talk about something else entirely. I've been meaning to talk about it since the last few rounds of crisis in the family of Brittney Spears. I'm speaking of "Schadenfreude", a German word with no English equivalent that (according to the Harper Collins German-English Dictionary) translates to "malicious glee or gloating." I wish that witnessing this behavior was uncommon, but celebrating the failures of others has become a national cultural pastime. Admittedly, I participated recently by passing around the videos of Tom Cruise, under the destructive spell of Scientology, but I'm not proud of it. I know that I'm a good person, but even I could hardly resist the urge to invite others to celebrate in the misery of Tom's insane ramblings.

Hillary Clinton is crying. American Idol contestants are crying. The New England Patriots are crying. We are laughing. We are clapping. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

Wilford Brimley To Breathe Life Into McCain Campaign

2008-02-04T21:12:00.000-05:00

Umm...no complaints today. Finally I can stand by celebrity endorsement of political candidates!

Endorsed by an Action Movie Star

2008-01-31T17:44:00.001-05:00

I don't know about you, but I'm a little puzzled about celebrity endorsements. Admittedly, I'm a little bit entertained when action stars get in the polital ring. Riding up in the elevator at work, I see that Arnold Schwartzenegger has just endorsed McCain (yes, yes...Arnold is already in politics, but he will always be just an actor to me). Stallone also endorses McCain. Huckabee has the ever-legendary Chuck Norris. Perhaps action stars are well suited for pairing with candidates. Both types use simple catch phrases and give the illusion of strength. It also seems to be a very Republican partnership.

I think I'll have a lot to say about celebrity endorsements soon enough, perhaps enough to put together a list. Right now, I'm not sure if I even have an opinion or complaint, but I'm a little puzzled. Is there a demographic out there who's vote for "the leader of the free world" will be swayed by their preference for Rambo over Walker, Texas Ranger? Will the renouned bouncer Dalton suddenly appear and shake up the Republican order?

Sources and Links

2008-01-31T17:40:00.001-05:00

Reading back at my last couple of posts, I realize that I've been a little vague. I'm still learning how to blog, but in the future, I plan on posting some links and sources for what may look like bold statements.

Your Vote Counts?

2008-01-30T11:26:00.000-05:00

I certainly hope that everyone who reads this blog plans to vote this year (and, more importantly, I hope the multitudes of people who don't read it vote too). After all, it's pretty much the single most important right that we have in a democracy. Our little voices add up and speak as one voice. It's somewhat silly that with all of the sputtering rah-rah-democracy-for-the-world rhetoric that Americans like to force onto everyone else, less than than half of eligible Americans actually take advantage of their voting rights.

I think our voting responsibility actually runs deeper than just showing up to the booth to cast a ballot. I'm not talking about joining a campaign, though I certainly admire those who do (shout-out to my parents who always get involved). What I'm talking about is insuring that your vote is actually counted. We need to pay more attention to what happens with those ballots.

If you're alive and even somewhat aware of your surroundings, you may recall some recent elections when the number hand-counted votes and the number of computer-counted votes have varied from one degree to another. There was a national election a few years back where I recall hearing something like this... Call me crazy, but when the results are in dispute, it seems like an appropriate time for a recount, no matter how long it takes. Dennis Kucinich requested a recount when the New Hampshire votes didn't match (tiny NH is supposed to be an EASY state to count), and he didn't get much any public or press support, just a pat on the head and some trash-talk about a looney short elf from the pundits. He had such a low percentage in the polls, and obviously wasn't trying to win the thing, rather he wanted to set a precident of honesty this primary season. It's really a shame that he didn't get much support. I suspect that there will be more than a few states during the primaries where the numbers just won't add up. We'll need more watchdogs like Kucinich looking out for our democratic interests.

You may have also noticed the news networks declaring winners before all the votes have even been cast, let alone counted. I just recently saw a news network declare a winner before even 1% of the results had come in. That's right. No shit. 1% of the vote. And it's also important to point out that these percentages are based on polling information, not counted ballots. Granted, exit polls are typically a fairly accurate measure of results, but they're hardly official.

It seems like the power over primary results have been somewhat hijacked by the media, who can and will say anything they want, who have an agenda and a bias. Someone wrinkly white man in a room somewhere declares a winner, despite the actual tally of your votes, and we all unquestioningly accept "the news" and move on. Those who do question are practically demonized. Al Gore had a legitimate complaint during the 2000 election, but he was largely criticized for being a whiner, the visible public showed little interest in the recount process, and Gore eventually grew a beard and disappeared to the college lecture circuit for two years. I seem to remember that a recount eventually produced some other questionable results, but by then the public had adopted Dubya as the president anyhow.

It's very difficult to still feel like my vote counts and to retain faith in the process. The Constitution ingeneously sets forth a very clear set of guidelines, but sometimes I feel like it's being perverted before our eyes. Election may never be completely clean and accurate (and may have never been) and we should slow down for long enough to patiently monitor and check the results. We could also stand to understand, respect, and support those who call for recounts. This may take a little longer (time we certainly have before Inauguration Day), but it would be very rewarding to trust the electoral process again and to feel like our votes still actually count.

Welcome

2008-01-28T16:24:00.000-05:00

Welcome to my blog, my very own personal forum to record my passionate complaints and send them out into the vast tubes of the ethernet for half a dozen people to read, the concrete evidence of my thoughts and words that will possibly only serve to embarass me and get me into trouble some day.

I don't claim to have any new thoughts or ideas to share, rather I have dedicated this little space in the online world to the dredging up of old, tired curmudgeonry. I will attempt to not bore you with the mundane and inescapable; instead I'd rather focus on those things that "simply aren't fair." I sometimes get the feeling that most Americans have succumbed to the perceived helplessness that is natural to feel in times of international crisis (i.e. right now), and it may be easier and more comfortable to turn a blind eye, but it's hardly a productive way to solve our problems. Though it seems fruitless shouting into the void to ever complain publicly about big over-ooped words like "injustice," if we simply stop trying, we will start to forget about the reality of our surroundings and continue to tolerate the crimes committed against us.

Despite how that last paragraph sounded, I'm really not aiming for this blog to be my venting-space for political discourse, rather a place to complain about the things that just make me want to stand up and shout "What a bunch of bullshit!" (i.e. "$2.50 ATM fee! WHAT?!"). This blog is about complaining about the bullshit because we are not helpless unless we allow ourselves to be. We have the internets at our disposal, people! And by using the time-tested tactic of complaining about stuff, we have a wonderful opportunity to take a little bit more control in our lives. Why? Because if you complain loud enough and long enough, you always will get your way. Because it's annoying. I learned that when I was 2 years old, and so did you.

So, once again, welcome to my blog, my adult version of screaming like an infant. Life is most certainly not fair, but it shouldn't be this bad...

An Unfocused, Meandering Rant About the Media

2008-01-28T14:12:00.000-05:00

Criminals: Mainstream media outlets, claiming to report "news"
Crimes: That's Bullshit!

Evidence: Attention to Immediacy over Accuracy

Last week, I managed to hear rumors of Heath Ledger's death nearly five minutes before the internet caught a hold of it. Over the next few minutes, I watched as this unsubstantiated rumor hit the news sites like a shock wave, a mere 45 minutes after he was supposedly discovered. Granted, these rumors turned out to be true, but I don't recall a press conference during that first hour and I have my suspicions that these online publications didn't get the scoop from their sources within the New York Police Department. In fact, during that first hour, I don't recall mention of any actual sources.

Evidence: Sensationalism at all costs

The next day, numerous headlines claimed that Heath Ledger had died of an over-dose. Perhaps that will turn out to be the truth; in fact, there were a bunch of pills on the floor next to his body. However, it was also reported that the results of the autopsy would take 11 days, so... how can these papers claim over-dose? Apparantly these newspapers are quite comfortable with reporting unconfirmed information, in large bold letters, because it sells well.

Evidence: Talking Points

Often, a government-type calls a press-conference and makes some type of soundbyte-ready claim, often completely vague or unbelieveable (and usually using the word "unprecidented"). Then, each "news" network "reports" on the "story" and miraculously they all contain much of the same exaxt language, often using the exact same wording (I must credit "The Daily Show With John Stewart" for calling out the media whenever this happens, often providing a clever montage of everyone using the provided talking points). It's almost as if a bunch of third graders all used the same encyclopedia entry for a report on sharks, or "reporters" were provided a bullet-pointed summary by some press agent or something. It's uncanny how everyone reports the same exact thing sometimes. Unprecidented, even.

Evidence: Unapologetic Bias

It's destructive enough that the primaries have been reported on like a live sporting event, blasting at us as up-to-the-minute coverage, rife with misinformation, rumor, anonymous sources, and conflicting information. Sifting through all the hooey in search of reality is hard enough, but don't forget that the news is no-longer unbiased. Most of these organizations have an agenda of their own. Last Friday, the New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president. I don't even know what to think about that one. Can't they just pretend like the newspaper isn't trying to influence what happens in the world. We all know that there's an agenda, but it's pretty ballsy for the pick a side during an election and still expect us to believe that they're providing unbiased coverage.

Analysis:

I'm really not being foolish or naive. Of course I understand that these newspapers, television networks, and websites are in business. Of course they're not under any legal obligation to provide unbiased, fact-checked news. They don't even really have to report on anything at all if they don't. They could make ALL of it up if they'd like (I don't doubt that if it could turn a profit, they would). It doesn't seem like the code of journalism gets much respect anymore. It's really sad, honestly. Considering the sheer power that these networks carry, particularly in keeping an eye on the govenment, it's a dang shame that they don't do news anymore. Just bullshit.

Complaint:

Do they really have to treat us like we're stupid? I mean, maybe we are stupid, eating up propaganda by the fistful, obsesseing over celebrity boob, and ignoring the war. We might be stupid. Sure. But I take it as a sign of disrespect that any network can so boldly claim to be unbiased, or to call itself an authority, or hold itself up to the tradition of journalism that used to be great and honorable. It's an absolute insult to the public as well as the institution of journalism that the mainstream media still claims to provide a "public service" when it so clearly has it's own interests in mind. And they're no longer even trying to hide their crimes.

Of course, we've not been very respectable as readers and viewers, either acting like gullible suckers or distracted monkeys. The day after the NH Primaries, a Brittney Spears story was still getting as many hits online (I wish this was an exaggeration). That's some shameful shit. This country is standing on the edge of disaster and the one thing we CAN still do to influence it's course is to get involved in the political process, but those Spear's sisters are just so tragically interesting.

Okay. I've ranted enough. That being said, I recommend not believing everything that you hear, see, and read. Assume that everything is at least partially exaggerated, so be skeptical and find your own sources. It's okay to get your entertainment, but take a second during the day to remember that it's our responsibility to find out about the REAL stories too. Beyond the big headlines on page one, there's of important stuff going on. There is plenty of ourstanding reporting out there, so go find it. You will not only be rewarded with the respect that you deserve as a reader/watcher, but you might actually discover the news buried in there somewhere.