When anyone bothers to ask me what is wrong with the media today, I typically say something like “Paris Hilton” or any other similarly vacuous celebrity who is monopolizing headlines and magazine covers. The public has an unhealthy obsession with celebrity gossip that I’ve started to compare to religion, in the sense that the quote “religion is the opiate of the masses” can be applied. In theory the writing on celebrities could be granted some value purely on that basis - writing that exists to help people forget their troubles - but in all honesty, we’re living in a time when forgetting is the last thing we need to do.

If people considered this information as purely entertainment, and never attached the terms “news” or “journalism” to it, then it wouldn’t be so bothersome. Unfortunately, there are more people out there who know everything that is going on with their favorite celebrities than those who have a clue about where the current presidential candidates stand on the issues. Throw in readers who consider sports articles “news”, and it gets even worse - like my fiance who can tell you the scores and news on just about every professional sport, but still refuses to take a look at the candidates’ websites.

Now that the situation has escalated to the point where news outlets are paying celebrities for tidbits to place on their pages, it has definitely gone over the edge. Real journalists do not pay for real news, period. Deep Throat did not receive checks from the Washington Post. Real news outlets do not pay for news - at most, they might pay for reasonable traveling costs to make a source available to them, or a reasonable fee for a citizen’s eye-witness video or photographic material, but that’s about it.

I keep waiting for the wake-up call for the U.S. public - the earth-shattering situation that wakes them from their zombie-like existence that keeps them addicted to fake news about fake people. Who is sleeping with whom in Hollywood makes no difference to anyone, and eventually they’ll figure out that a gallon of milk is worth more than the celebrity gossip magazines. I just hope that happens before the gallon of milk costs twice as much.

whereIstand Tags

• Is “checkbook journalism” an acceptable way to pursue news stories?

Here we are again with an issue that I really wished had more than just a “yes or no” option. As I picked “no”, I was really thinking “not if she hasn’t totally lost her mind.” Of course this goes to the very heart of why I have not liked Hillary Clinton as a candidate from the very beginning.

I’ve been criticized by feminists far and wide for not backing Hillary, and have watched those same women saying that they are seriously considering not voting in November if Obama is the Democratic candidate. Of course I railed against that one, and I think dropped to the profane on at least one mailing list on that one. But, in all this time, no one has bothered to ask me straight out why I don’t like Hillary, and why I’ve been saying that we need a better woman to run for the White House - or even “anyone but her.”

I learned to despise her early on in the Clinton years, when she decided it would be a good idea to try to get Congress to adopt universal health care. Programs like this consistently annoy me to no end because the people who propose them forget how efficient the government is. They forget the lovely equations that state that social program dollars in the government equate to just pennies on the dollar in real services offered because of the bureaucracy involved. And universal health care was working so well overseas and to the north - we really needed red tape and wait lists for health services.

Then along came Whitewater. Hillary and Bill dodged that bullet, as far as indictments were concerned, but being the generally suspicious person I am, I didn’t buy that they were lily white. Their innocence is assumed, because they were never charged, but any district attorney can pull open a pile of files showing people who were probably guilty but never charged for their crimes. Bottom line for me was that no matter which way you cut it, I couldn’t have much confidence in either one of them. If they were guilty, that’s obviously a problem. To be assumed innocent also meant assuming that they were really, really stupid - a quality one doesn’t want in the person occupying the Oval Office (look at the past eight years if there are any doubts on that one.)

And most recently, she added to my disgust by denying her activist youth. I think that the American public has moved beyond holding people accountable for legal (and some illegal) acts of their young adulthoods. We all realize that the world looks much different when you’re young and impressionable. Supporting activists from the late 60’s and early 70’s isn’t a be all or end all for a political career in this century. That was last century! It would have been fine if she would have owned up to it. Denying it is worse. Feminists today saying that they respect what she did then, but failing to say that they disrespect the fact that she is choosing to lie about it now is heartbreaking. And it’s not just lies of omission. Her story is that she was helping with a child custody case, not defending Stanford students who refused to sign loyalty oaths. Add insult to injury when she condemns Obama for his activist past.

If Hillary would be stupid enough to run again, I have no doubt that these, and many more skeletons from her closet will come out - in-depth and early. It would be amusing to watch, except that I’d have to endure watching women support her simply because of her gender. That is what it is, unless someone sees something “presidential” in what I’ve listed here.

whereIstand Tags

• Is a presidential run in 2012 part of Hillary Clinton’s strategy?

This issue was illustrated on the silver screen by Robert Redford in Up Close and Personal. His career took a major hit when he trusted the woman he was with as a source - and he didn’t reveal his source until long after it made any difference (like Deep Throat being revealed long after Watergate.)

Sure, it is tempting to want a bit of revenge on an anonymous source who wasn’t absolutely truthful, but revealing identities will erode the strength of current press protections. Honestly, we don’t want to do that at all these days, given the harm done by the Plame affair.

The bottom line is that when reporters start running about revealing anonymous sources, regardless of the circumstances, the number of people out there who would be willing to become sources in the future will dwindle. Anonymous sources are the reporters’ greatest tool in attempting to reveal graft in society - be it business, government or any other area. The last thing journalists need to do is alienate potential sources.

whereIstand Tags

• Should journalists reveal the identities of anonymous sources who have misled them?

Or, why the Democrats are handing the election to the Republicans. I’ve been thinking this from the very beginning. No matter how much I wanted to be optimistic, and think that the American public could be a little more open-minded than they have been in the past, I couldn’t get beyond this huge brick wall. The Democrats were stupid enough to back only a white woman and a black man as potential candidates for the presidency. They passed over the only viable candidates they had.

Now it looks like we’ll be crying the blues come November, because Obama probably will be on the ticket, and will lose. Why? He’s black. Period.

Before anyone starts screaming that I’m racist, look above and realize that I am pointing out something about the people of this country as a whole, not my personal opinion. I am basing this on the fact that there are still too many people out there who are at least a little racist. I’m not talking about the minority of white supremacists - I mean the ones who get nervous when traveling through a neighborhood where whites are obviously in the minority (or absent.) The ones who tell themselves that they aren’t racist, perhaps because they interact well with blacks in the workplace, or in social situations. But it is a false feeling, since the situations in question are ones where whites hold the majority.

It will probably be said in the future that Obama was a man before his time. It reminds me of the opinion of a gentleman I had the privilege of dealing with a long while ago. Edwin Yoder - Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist from the now defunct Washington Star, Rhodes Scholar, and current historical novelist - said in his memoirs that the civil rights movement wasn’t the best thing for this country. His assertion wasn’t based on racism, but on a recognition that the movement was forcing history to move too fast. The moves toward racial equality were forced on society too quickly, and it would have been better if those changes would have happened at a much slower pace. Racial equality was a natural conclusion that was forced to take an unnatural pace.

When people are forced to accept a group that was previously considered inferior as their equals, there is resistance. Strides forward are fought in a sort of backlash - the mistrust I mentioned above is part of that. It is the reason why the Democrats have forced themselves into a corner. Obama and Clinton are both targets of this sort of attitude, based on race and gender respectively. One running in November is bad enough, and will probably result  a Republican victory. Both running on the same ticket would virtually guarantee another four years of GOP rule.

I’d like to believe that won’t happen, but I’ve seen nothing from the people of this country to contradict that conclusion.

whereIstand Tags

• Should Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama run on the same ticket?

For years, I have cringed every time someone mentions the NRA. It is an organization that spends far too much money to protect a right to an extreme, without offering practical solutions for problems that surround their issue. True, the problem with guns in this country is not about law-abiding, sane citizens - the ones the NRA claims to represent. But, leaving the issue of criminals and mentally unstable individuals obtaining guns to someone else is one of the worst kinds of irresponsible activism.

I have wondered where this country would be if instead of wasting money on trying to change legislation to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to get and keep weapons, the NRA would spend money on practical ways to help the government keep arms out of the wrong hands. Instead of complaining about waiting periods, how about helping the U.S. pay for a comprehensive law enforcement database that would make it possible for gun dealers to do instant background checks? Instead of screaming for the right to have assault rifles, how about giving some cash to anti-gang law enforcement task forces and community anti-gang initiatives? Instead of blaming tragedies like Virginia Tech on the people, not guns, how about helping law enforcement add to that national database a special section for the mentally unstable?

The NRA has spent much more than would have been needed to do the things listed above over the years in the pursuit of protecting gun owners’ rights. There is much talk now about the evils of lobbyists, and this is a shining example of it. Perhaps it’s time for special interest groups to get proactive in their work, and become a part of the solutions in this country, instead of part of the problems. If you’re a member of the NRA, before you decide to respond to this with some nasty commentary about my trying to keep you from having guns, think about it. There isn’t a word in this about taking away your rights. Before you waste time here, take a moment and send a note to the NRA asking them to quit spending your money wining and dining politicians. Isn’t it better spent helping to keep arms out of the hands of the people you all claim you are against having them?

whereIstand Tags

• What is your view on gun control laws?

It’s been mentioned many times already, and is coming up yet again. What would happen if Hillary Clinton would give up, and step aside? I already discussed this a little elsewhere on the Net, and figured I’d chime in here as well, since it is the topic of the moment.

Beyond the general feeling that the race is getting extremely nasty (talk of supporters from both sides refusing to stick with the Dems come November), it is a no-win situation. Why? When operatives from the GOP are celebrating the fact that the Dems are still at it, it cannot be a good thing for the Dems. They are giving McCain an advantage that may not be able to overcome. He is already building his campaign momentum for November, and as long as the Dems are still fighting amongst themselves, they will start the race a lap down.

Advice for the moment: Don’t forget who the real enemies are, and quit helping them win.

whereIstand Tags

• Should Hillary Clinton drop out of the presidential race?

The troop surge in Iraq is yet another of those gray issues, that honestly can’t be answered with a yes or no. While it is helping to a minor extent on a military level, it isn’t making an appreciable difference on other “fronts” in Iraq. Theoretically the troops are there to help the Iraqi government get and maintain control long enough to start more work on the restoration and creation of the country’s infrastructure. The military is claiming small triumphs, in that they are seeing the light at the end of the proverbial tunnel in the battle against the insurgents - albeit that light is rather far away and dim. But those accomplishments may not be rightfully claimed by the U.S. troops in all cases, since there has been a shift in power in some regions to the hands of the Iraqi military and local militias - the people are doing it for themselves.

Because I became aware of that shift thanks to a podcast on iTunes (Alive in Baghdad - Solidarity Trumps Al-Qa’eda - 3/17/08) , and not from mainstream media, I’m suspecting that the U.S. is trying to claim credit for something the military really isn’t doing. Early on in the war I remember an investigative report (60 Minutes or 20/20) that showed the U.S. military preventing Iraqi citizens from setting up local governments, and jailing their selected leaders. This was presumably part of the policy to remove the Bathists from power. The situation reminded me of a snippet of speech from John F. Kennedy that mentioned peace in our world, and his contention that we should not seek a “pax americana” - a noble concept that spoke of a desire to keep the U.S. from becoming like the British Crown by insisting on making the world America. That certainly applies to the current situation.

We are being used, by our leaders, and the leaders of Iraq. It is a false hope that Iraq will miraculously become a miniature U.S. in the Middle East. That is contrary to the wants and needs of the Iraqi people, and contrary to their historical and cultural existence on this planet. A democracy as we define it will not survive in that climate, and the best we can hope for is a democratic style government. Regardless, it must be chosen by the the people of Iraq, not us, and our continued presence in Iraq is preventing the people of that country from standing up on their own, and doing what they need to do.

Our current priority in Iraq should be to protect aid workers as they help to rebuild infrastructure. Humanitarian organizations are coming out now with reports on the state of Iraq, and those reports are dismal at best. Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross both agree that attempts to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens are falling short of expectations. Much more should have been accomplished, and probably could have been if international forces had been more focused on supporting humanitarian efforts. I proposed an issue addressing this concern - both political and humanitarian, since it is an open question about the needs and wants of the Iraqi people in general. Iraq should be viewed as a harsh lesson that the U.S. truly doesn’t know what is best for other nations.

whereIstand Tags

• Has the surge in military troops made progress in Iraq?

First, glad to finally be able to blog here. Thank you many times over to brianr for getting things working for me!

I had said that if I could blog here, I would say a bit more about my contention that the world would be better without religion. Beyond wars being fought for the sake of faith - like Iraq today, to some extent, since we’re supposedly fighting with individuals and groups that consider us infidels - there is the enduring issue of oppression. The organized religions of the world have always used their power to control people. Whether it was controlling people of different races, or as is more common today, women, faith was and continues to be used as a weapon.

I have a great deal of trouble thinking that there could be a greater power out there that would stand by and allow all the atrocities for its sake, which is why I consider myself an atheist. It wasn’t a light decision, and by no means a blind one. Over the years I have read many sacred texts, some in part, most cover to cover. Bibles, Q’uran, philosophical texts from Zen Buddhists, and texts on various pagan faiths including thelema, wicca, witta, and Norse traditions - not bragging on this, but trying to point out that when I started to question what I was raised to believe, I bothered to search for other options. In all of that reading and exploring, I realized that religions serve one basic purpose. They fill voids.

Some explain the unexplainable, some give people a sense of belonging that they lack elsewhere in their lives, and more often than not today, they give people a place to put pain. It is the opiate of the masses, in that it helps to dull the pain of living. I’ve been accused more than once of being a masochist, so maybe that is part of the reason I couldn’t justify believing in any deities. I like my pain, and would rather keep it for myself - my mother would say that I’ve been doing that since birth, but that’s another story.

—————-
Now playing: Rush - The Way the Wind Blows
via FoxyTunes

whereIstand Tags

• What would a world without religion be like?