-
On June 12th, 2014, three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped, and later killed, in Gush Etzion, in the West Bank, as they were hitchhiking to their homes. Under the assumption Hamas (a Palestinian Sunni Islamic organization, with a military wing known as the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades) committed the crime, the Israeli military began bombing Gaza.
Since then, rockets have killed multiple civilians and destroyed infrastructure on both sides. As the death toll has risen, diplomats have appeared on Meet The Press, and other talk shows, to explain their solution to the crisis. Such conversations are based on the idea that this struggle is over political goals, land acquisition, or justice. It’s not. If it were, the fact that Hamas has been cleared of the June murders would have ended the conflict.
This is a conflict about hate and blame. Israel blames Hamas for suicide bombings, Hamas blames Israel for 30 murders committed in a Hebron mosque by Baruch Goldstein, and the blame goes back and back and back four millennia before we’re done.
-
4,000 years ago, when Abraham was one hundred years old and his wife ninety, Sarah gave birth to a son. Abraham called him Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day, making him a party to the holy covenant God had established with Abraham.
However, Isaac was not Abraham’s first born, for Hagar had borne him Ishmael thirteen years earlier. Sarah implored Abraham to send Ishmael away. Abraham feared to send his son away but, God told Abraham to do as Sarah had requested. Thus, Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away, providing them with water and food for the journey.
Lost and near starvation, Hagar and Ishmael were saved from death by an angel. God blessed the boy, for he was Abraham’s son. Ishmael grew to have many children. His children multiplied and became known under the name of Ishmaelites, or Arabs, the people of the desert.
Meanwhile, Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. He prepared to do so, only to be stopped by God at the very last moment. Touched by Abraham's obedience, the angel of God called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven and said, "By Myself have I sworn, says the Lord, that because you have done this thing and you did not withhold your son, your only one, that I will surely bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand that is on the seashore, and your descendants will inherit the cities of their enemies.“
As a result of this blessing, Isaac fathered Jacob, later renamed Israel, who fathered the children of Israel, or the Israelites. The Israelites have been feuding with the Ishmaelites ever since.
-
The current conflict may have been triggered by the June murders, but it was NEVER about those crimes. As bizarre as it sounds to many of us, the current crisis is simply an extension of the conflict initiated by Sarah’s jealously. The murders were an excuse for the fighting to start, and the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem are simply trophies in an age old tradition of hate.
-
This blog began as a writing and literature blog with the occasional Op-Ed piece on current events & issues. The political writing has, slowly but surely, taken this blog over. Readers will still be treated to some of my thoughts on pop culture and sports, but, for the most part, Blogito Ergo Sum will feature my opinions on the state of our union and world.
Showing posts with label Op-Ed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Op-Ed. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Thursday, June 19, 2014
News Burnout
-
Subject: BC Television Promotional Photograph of Ron Cochran presenting the news program "Ron Cochran and the News" | Date: 01/31/1953 | Photographer: ABC TV | This work is in the public domain in that it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice.
"There's a local paper rolled up in a rubber band,
One more sad story's one more than I can stand,
Just once, how I'd like to see the headline say,
Not much to print today can't find nothing bad to say,
Because...
Nobody robbed a liquor store on the lower part of town,
Nobody OD'd, nobody burned a single building down,
Nobody fired a shot in anger...nobody had to die in vain,
We sure could use a little good news today." ~ "A Little Good News" by Anne Murray, August 1983
A good friend recently informed me she had watched her last news broadcast. She said that within a five minute span she learned a manager of a KFC kicked out 3 year old girl, because her facial scars, from a pit bull attack, were too grotesque looking and radio icon, and voice of Shaggy, Casey Kasem died at age 82. Before that, she had been inundated for days with rehashings of the recent Reynolds High School shooting and reports that John McCain, and other legislators, want us to go back to war in Iraq.
I can't blame her for being discouraged by the abundance of negativity being broadcast by the news. We seem to be flooded with stories of cruelty, death, tragedy, and loss on a daily basis. Heck, with so many rumors of war filling the airwaves, I often wonder if John wasn't catching glimpses of CNN when he penned Revelations.
It's hardly a new phenomenon either; Anne Murray was singing about the trend thirty years ago. Before her, Sidney Lumet was mad as hell, and wasn't going to take this anymore, and made a movie about the subject.
As I write this, today's news stories are:
"Iraq asks for U.S. air power," "Texas Republicans call for repealing the Voting Rights Act," "Iraqi militants claim mass executions," "George Will trivializes sexual assault," and "Sheriff's deputy sought crazed vengeance after his car is egged by teens."
I can't blame my friend for feeling bombarded with depressing news stories. There's a very real temptation to shut out national & global concerns, and to focus on our own microcosm. It's tempting to tell ourselves, "I'm busy enough making sure my kids pass algebra and have three meals a day. I don't need to care about what's happening in Washington D.C. and Iraq."
While I understand that way of thinking, and am often tempted by it myself, I can't help but remember the words of Ben Franklin. "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
In other words, if we don't pay attention we deserve what we get. He was right. Not keeping track of the news deprives us from knowing which politicians want to cut food stamps & healthcare, who wants to send our soldiers oversees & why, and how our climate is changing. Trapping ourselves within tiny spheres of global ignorance robs us of the ability to advocate for issues and vote in an intelligent way.
As much as I understand the appeal of blocking out the news of the world, the price of such bliss is simply too high.
-
Subject: BC Television Promotional Photograph of Ron Cochran presenting the news program "Ron Cochran and the News" | Date: 01/31/1953 | Photographer: ABC TV | This work is in the public domain in that it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice.
One more sad story's one more than I can stand,
Just once, how I'd like to see the headline say,
Not much to print today can't find nothing bad to say,
Because...
Nobody robbed a liquor store on the lower part of town,
Nobody OD'd, nobody burned a single building down,
Nobody fired a shot in anger...nobody had to die in vain,
We sure could use a little good news today." ~ "A Little Good News" by Anne Murray, August 1983
A good friend recently informed me she had watched her last news broadcast. She said that within a five minute span she learned a manager of a KFC kicked out 3 year old girl, because her facial scars, from a pit bull attack, were too grotesque looking and radio icon, and voice of Shaggy, Casey Kasem died at age 82. Before that, she had been inundated for days with rehashings of the recent Reynolds High School shooting and reports that John McCain, and other legislators, want us to go back to war in Iraq.
I can't blame her for being discouraged by the abundance of negativity being broadcast by the news. We seem to be flooded with stories of cruelty, death, tragedy, and loss on a daily basis. Heck, with so many rumors of war filling the airwaves, I often wonder if John wasn't catching glimpses of CNN when he penned Revelations.
It's hardly a new phenomenon either; Anne Murray was singing about the trend thirty years ago. Before her, Sidney Lumet was mad as hell, and wasn't going to take this anymore, and made a movie about the subject.
As I write this, today's news stories are:
"Iraq asks for U.S. air power," "Texas Republicans call for repealing the Voting Rights Act," "Iraqi militants claim mass executions," "George Will trivializes sexual assault," and "Sheriff's deputy sought crazed vengeance after his car is egged by teens."
I can't blame my friend for feeling bombarded with depressing news stories. There's a very real temptation to shut out national & global concerns, and to focus on our own microcosm. It's tempting to tell ourselves, "I'm busy enough making sure my kids pass algebra and have three meals a day. I don't need to care about what's happening in Washington D.C. and Iraq."
While I understand that way of thinking, and am often tempted by it myself, I can't help but remember the words of Ben Franklin. "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
In other words, if we don't pay attention we deserve what we get. He was right. Not keeping track of the news deprives us from knowing which politicians want to cut food stamps & healthcare, who wants to send our soldiers oversees & why, and how our climate is changing. Trapping ourselves within tiny spheres of global ignorance robs us of the ability to advocate for issues and vote in an intelligent way.
As much as I understand the appeal of blocking out the news of the world, the price of such bliss is simply too high.
-
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
The Obsolete Amendment
-
Title: Arms | Date: 12/31/2007 | Photographer: Hrs | This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
Last Friday night, around 9 p.m. PST, 22 year old Elliot Rodger stabbed his three roommates in their shared apartment, then drove five blocks to a sorority house to kill the women inside. When they didn't open the door, he marched around the corner and opened fire at a random group of students, killing two sorority members and injuring a third.
When a grieving father, Richard Martinez, blamed his son’s death on “craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA,” conservative pundits argued,
"if we pass gun control laws we should ban knives and machetes too, since Rodger killed three people with a blade."
The blade comparison doesn't hold water. According to FBI Homicide data, if you break the U.S. homicide numbers down, for one year, by weapon type, and you get the following: Guns 68% (8,583), Knives 13%(1,646), Blunt objects 4%, Personal weapons (hands, feet) 6%, Other 9% 1,646 doesn't come close to comparing to 8,583.
Additionally, if one combines the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, one would get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had approximately 30,000 gun deaths (8,583 of which were murders) in 2011, they had 112 gun deaths total. Should we believe this difference is the result of Americans being more homicidal by nature, or could it be because the rest of the civilized world has gun control laws?
GOP mascot, Joe the Plumber, addressed the issue writing, “Mr. Martinez and anyone calling for more restrictions on American’s rights need to back off and stop playing into the hands of the folks who merely capitalize on these horrific events for their own political ends. We still have the Right to Bear Arms and I intend to continue to speak out for that right, and against those who would restrict it — even in the face of this horrible incident by this sad and insane individual.”
The statement's as ignorant as it is insensitive. Private citizens only have a right to bear arms if we omit some words from the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since we have a standing army these days, can't we agree it's an obsolete amendment, and catch up to the rest of the world?
-
Title: Arms | Date: 12/31/2007 | Photographer: Hrs | This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
When a grieving father, Richard Martinez, blamed his son’s death on “craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA,” conservative pundits argued,
"if we pass gun control laws we should ban knives and machetes too, since Rodger killed three people with a blade."
The blade comparison doesn't hold water. According to FBI Homicide data, if you break the U.S. homicide numbers down, for one year, by weapon type, and you get the following: Guns 68% (8,583), Knives 13%(1,646), Blunt objects 4%, Personal weapons (hands, feet) 6%, Other 9% 1,646 doesn't come close to comparing to 8,583.
Additionally, if one combines the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, one would get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had approximately 30,000 gun deaths (8,583 of which were murders) in 2011, they had 112 gun deaths total. Should we believe this difference is the result of Americans being more homicidal by nature, or could it be because the rest of the civilized world has gun control laws?
GOP mascot, Joe the Plumber, addressed the issue writing, “Mr. Martinez and anyone calling for more restrictions on American’s rights need to back off and stop playing into the hands of the folks who merely capitalize on these horrific events for their own political ends. We still have the Right to Bear Arms and I intend to continue to speak out for that right, and against those who would restrict it — even in the face of this horrible incident by this sad and insane individual.”
The statement's as ignorant as it is insensitive. Private citizens only have a right to bear arms if we omit some words from the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since we have a standing army these days, can't we agree it's an obsolete amendment, and catch up to the rest of the world?
-
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Blogging Dilemmas
-
Blogging is a tricky thing. A good blogger wants to say things about the world, but doesn’t want to simply regurgitate what the mass media has already said. It’s for this reason that I haven’t blogged lately.
-
-
Being an engaged learned person, I have opinions on a variety of topics. The trick is in being able to say something which isn’t already being said.
-
Blogging is a tricky thing. A good blogger wants to say things about the world, but doesn’t want to simply regurgitate what the mass media has already said. It’s for this reason that I haven’t blogged lately.
-
- Recently, I was thrilled to see Judge McShane overturn Oregon's Constitutional prohibition of gay marriage. Some claimed McShane over stepped his bounds by overturning the will of the majority.
- Similarly, I wanted to question the wisdom of a candidate for Senate preaching against ObamaCare in liberal Oregon.
- I wanted to say something about the girls from Chibok who were kidnapped by terrorists.
-
Being an engaged learned person, I have opinions on a variety of topics. The trick is in being able to say something which isn’t already being said.
-
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Protected Lies
-
According to the story, "Banning Truthiness?" by On The Media the Supreme Court listened to oral arguments, this week, in Susan B. Anthony List vs. Driehaus, a case hinging on whether it can be made illegal to lie during a political campaign.
Title: US Supreme Court building, front elevation, steps and portico. | Date: 12/2004 | Photographer: Duncan Lock | This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.Currently, an Ohio law imposes jail time, or a hefty fine, for lying in order to sway an election. During the 2010 midterm elections, the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List wanted to put up a billboard ad targeting Representative Steven Driehaus of Ohio, for his vote on the Affordable Care Act. The ad said, "Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion."
However, in reality Driehaus, and other anti-abortion Democrats, supported the health care bill only after President Obama agreed to include a passage that specified insurance plans in the health care exchanges would not use tax dollars for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the woman would be endangered. The "List" was forced, by Ohio's law, to take down the ad. Presently, the organization is challenging the constitutionality of the ban on political misinformation in front of The Supreme Court.
The case seems straight forward to me. Driehaus' voting pattern is part of the official Congressional record, and The Susan B. Anthony List claimed something contrary to the documented facts in order to influence the masses. In my mind, lying in order to influence others is fraud. However, my mind doesn't hold much weight in Washington.
On June 28th, in a 6 to 3 vote, the court struck down the 2006 federal law, "The Stolen Valor Act," which made it a crime to lie about receiving a military medal. The ruling overturned the conviction of Xavier Alvarez who was elected to a California water board in Pomona, after falsely advertising himself as a retired Marine and winner of the Medal of Honor, the country's highest military award.
Essentially, the Justices said that The First Amendment gave Alvarez the right to lie about his background. Now, The Susan B. Anthony List is also arguing that freedom of speech equates to a right to lie.
Personally, I have a different view of The First Amendment. I've always belonged to the camp which maintains that freedom of speech allows people to say what they believe, without fear of official reprisal. In other words, if I believe my cat is God, I can stand in Pioneer Square and tell passers by, "My cat is God," and no official action can be taken against me. However, the moment I KNOW my cat is just feline my message is no longer protected, because I know it's a lie.
Again, Driehaus' voting pattern is part of the official Congressional record. Thus, The Susan B. Anthony List had evidence their claim was a lie. Therefore, according to my legal theory, their false statement isn't protected by the constitution.
One of the most famous images of the holocaust is of Rabbi Moshe Hagerman the Dayan - Jewish municipal chief judge, dressed in his Talit and Teffilin and being abused by German soldiers. This image was later identified by people who survived the war and the incident, as an image from the 'Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz', taken on July 31, 1940 | This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Unfortunately, there's a problem with my legal theory. People can honestly believe something in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews including 1.5 million Jewish children in Europe by the Nazi regime and its collaborators that took place between 1933-1945.
Multiple photos of abuse and mass graves, and volumes of eye witness testimony, exist to prove these atrocities occurred. Yet, there are those among us who will look you in the eye and tell you the Holocaust never happened. Are they delusional? Yes. Are they lying? Not as long as they believe it. Thus, their speech is protected.
There's the rub. When people can believe the ridiculous, even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the legal standard to distinguish between belief & lie becomes murky at best. Given this fuzziness, the court must side with the List, acknowledging the possibility, however unlikely, that they honestly believed their message.
Such a ruling, while initially disappointing, may protect us in the long run. If the court ruled that speaking contrary to the preponderance of the evidence constitutes a lie, evolutionists could conceivably label worshipers, such as me, as liars for ignoring, what they see as, overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
-
According to the story, "Banning Truthiness?" by On The Media the Supreme Court listened to oral arguments, this week, in Susan B. Anthony List vs. Driehaus, a case hinging on whether it can be made illegal to lie during a political campaign.
Title: US Supreme Court building, front elevation, steps and portico. | Date: 12/2004 | Photographer: Duncan Lock | This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
However, in reality Driehaus, and other anti-abortion Democrats, supported the health care bill only after President Obama agreed to include a passage that specified insurance plans in the health care exchanges would not use tax dollars for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the woman would be endangered. The "List" was forced, by Ohio's law, to take down the ad. Presently, the organization is challenging the constitutionality of the ban on political misinformation in front of The Supreme Court.
The case seems straight forward to me. Driehaus' voting pattern is part of the official Congressional record, and The Susan B. Anthony List claimed something contrary to the documented facts in order to influence the masses. In my mind, lying in order to influence others is fraud. However, my mind doesn't hold much weight in Washington.
On June 28th, in a 6 to 3 vote, the court struck down the 2006 federal law, "The Stolen Valor Act," which made it a crime to lie about receiving a military medal. The ruling overturned the conviction of Xavier Alvarez who was elected to a California water board in Pomona, after falsely advertising himself as a retired Marine and winner of the Medal of Honor, the country's highest military award.
Essentially, the Justices said that The First Amendment gave Alvarez the right to lie about his background. Now, The Susan B. Anthony List is also arguing that freedom of speech equates to a right to lie.
Personally, I have a different view of The First Amendment. I've always belonged to the camp which maintains that freedom of speech allows people to say what they believe, without fear of official reprisal. In other words, if I believe my cat is God, I can stand in Pioneer Square and tell passers by, "My cat is God," and no official action can be taken against me. However, the moment I KNOW my cat is just feline my message is no longer protected, because I know it's a lie.
Again, Driehaus' voting pattern is part of the official Congressional record. Thus, The Susan B. Anthony List had evidence their claim was a lie. Therefore, according to my legal theory, their false statement isn't protected by the constitution.
One of the most famous images of the holocaust is of Rabbi Moshe Hagerman the Dayan - Jewish municipal chief judge, dressed in his Talit and Teffilin and being abused by German soldiers. This image was later identified by people who survived the war and the incident, as an image from the 'Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz', taken on July 31, 1940 | This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews including 1.5 million Jewish children in Europe by the Nazi regime and its collaborators that took place between 1933-1945.
Multiple photos of abuse and mass graves, and volumes of eye witness testimony, exist to prove these atrocities occurred. Yet, there are those among us who will look you in the eye and tell you the Holocaust never happened. Are they delusional? Yes. Are they lying? Not as long as they believe it. Thus, their speech is protected.
There's the rub. When people can believe the ridiculous, even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the legal standard to distinguish between belief & lie becomes murky at best. Given this fuzziness, the court must side with the List, acknowledging the possibility, however unlikely, that they honestly believed their message.
Such a ruling, while initially disappointing, may protect us in the long run. If the court ruled that speaking contrary to the preponderance of the evidence constitutes a lie, evolutionists could conceivably label worshipers, such as me, as liars for ignoring, what they see as, overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
-
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Repeating Mistakes Of The Past
-
The NAZI invasion of Poland began September 1st, 1939, and the Soviet invasion
Title: Line of demarcation between German and Soviet military forces after their joint invasion of Poland in September 1939Line of demarcation between German and Soviet military forces after their joint invasion of Poland in September 1939 | Date: 01/05/2009 | Photographer: Poeticbent | Poeticbent grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions.
commenced sixteen days later. The campaigns ended on October 6th, 1939 with Germany and the Soviet Union dividing and annexing the whole of Poland. A month later, Germany attacked Finland, followed by the invasions Denmark & Norway in the spring of 1940. Then on May 10th, 1940, the Nazis invaded France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
As Germany's campaign of terror continued across Europe, eventually resulting in the dissolution of the German's pact with Russia, America practiced a blind eye policy of, "commerce and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none," by not increasing American political/military involvement in European affairs.
As tanks rolled, and tens of thousands of people were systematically slaughtered, Americans took comfort in the notion that it wasn’t their problem. Of course, the U.S. WAS eventually attacked, and brought into the conflict, by which time the world was engulfed in war.
If the U.S. had drawn the line at Poland, it may have prevented years of blood shed.
Title: UKRAINE | Date: 12/10/2006 | Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
Fast forward to February 27th, 2014, one day after ministers for Ukraine's new government were named, armed men seized control of the parliament in Crimea (Ukraine's capitol) and raised the Russian flag. The next day, armed men, described by Ukrainian minister as, "Moscow's forces," took control of two airports in Crimea.
Since then, Russian troops have strengthened their foothold in Crimea, while, Russian President, Putin has publicly flip flopped between making threats and spouting transparently false denials.
I stare at a photograph of my three nephews (7 years, 4 years, and 6 months old) on the wall above my desk, and a large part of me hopes they’ll never experience a time of war. I don’t want them to know the horror of war, or grow up feeling the need to defend their country.
The peace loving Democrat in me says we shouldn’t involve ourselves in Ukrainian/Russian affairs, and practice a policy of, "commerce and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none." Then I think of nephews (7 years, 4 years, and 6 months old) of Ukrainians, who are being attacked and oppressed, and I wonder if we can turn a blind eye, without repeating mistakes of the past.
-
The NAZI invasion of Poland began September 1st, 1939, and the Soviet invasion
Title: Line of demarcation between German and Soviet military forces after their joint invasion of Poland in September 1939Line of demarcation between German and Soviet military forces after their joint invasion of Poland in September 1939 | Date: 01/05/2009 | Photographer: Poeticbent | Poeticbent grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions.
As Germany's campaign of terror continued across Europe, eventually resulting in the dissolution of the German's pact with Russia, America practiced a blind eye policy of, "commerce and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none," by not increasing American political/military involvement in European affairs.
As tanks rolled, and tens of thousands of people were systematically slaughtered, Americans took comfort in the notion that it wasn’t their problem. Of course, the U.S. WAS eventually attacked, and brought into the conflict, by which time the world was engulfed in war.
If the U.S. had drawn the line at Poland, it may have prevented years of blood shed.
Title: UKRAINE | Date: 12/10/2006 | Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Since then, Russian troops have strengthened their foothold in Crimea, while, Russian President, Putin has publicly flip flopped between making threats and spouting transparently false denials.
I stare at a photograph of my three nephews (7 years, 4 years, and 6 months old) on the wall above my desk, and a large part of me hopes they’ll never experience a time of war. I don’t want them to know the horror of war, or grow up feeling the need to defend their country.
The peace loving Democrat in me says we shouldn’t involve ourselves in Ukrainian/Russian affairs, and practice a policy of, "commerce and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none." Then I think of nephews (7 years, 4 years, and 6 months old) of Ukrainians, who are being attacked and oppressed, and I wonder if we can turn a blind eye, without repeating mistakes of the past.
-
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Bad Defense Of Bad Policy
-
The first time I lobbied the legislature for anything, I went, with a citizens’ group, to Salem to advocate for a bill which would pay a living wage to caregivers of people with disabilities. We met in a lunch room beneath the capital building, where we were addressed by a white bearded long haired 50 something guide/coach named Fritz.
Fritz perched himself comfortably upon the edge of a cafeteria table, crossed his ankles, and motioned for us to gather ‘round. “Republicans are not the bad guys,” he began. “Liberals and conservatives alike, work hard in this building, every day, to make Oregon a better place. We have honest differences of opinion about how to go about achieving that goal, but those differences don’t make one party good and the other party evil. They’re simply obstacles to be overcome as we work together as allies to improve the quality of life in our state.”
This view of party politics stuck with me for a long time. However, given the recent government shutdown, cuts in SNAP benefits (food stamps), and now the unwillingness to extend unemployment benefits, it’s become harder for me to maintain the idea that politics doesn’t boil down to a question of good versus evil.
-
Title: Rand Paul speaking to supporters at a townhall in Meredith, New Hampshire | Date: 01/08/2012 | Photographer: Gage Skidmore | This picture is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
According to the BLS' Job Openings and Labor Turnover report from Dec. 10*, in October of 2013 the American jobs market offered 3.925 million job openings. Unfortunately, unemployment numbers from the same month** reported 11.3 million Americans were out of work. That translates to 2.88 job seekers for every available job.
While it’s mathematically impossible for every job seeker to find a job, under current economic conditions, the GOP has voted to suspend extensions of unemployment benefits, and its members are rallying against the reinstatement of such benefits.
Bizarrely, even though 16 million children in the United States – 22% of American children – live below the federal poverty level***, largely because there aren't enough jobs to employ every job seeking American, Republicans are trying to justify the repeal of benefits, by claiming such a repeal incentivizes job seeking.
"When I said it's a disservice, I meant it - I am worried about the workers. Not that I think they become bad people by becoming unemployed longer, but that the longer they're unemployed, the less likely they are to ever get a job again," ~ Rand Paul.****
In other words, if the government suspends benefits, during one of the worst cold snaps in U.S. history, the, want to be working, poor will have an extra incentive to apply for jobs, which aren’t there, before their families freeze & starve.
-
WHAT!? Does Representative Paul honestly believe that sending impoverished job seekers into a state of panic over how to feed their children, pay rent, and heat their homes, make 6 million jobs suddenly appear? Of course not, he’s not stupid. It’s more likely Paul, and his colleagues, figure that since poor people don’t vote Republican, cutting programs to the poorest among us is a good way to save money without affecting their constituency.
Not only is this perspective a remarkably cruel point of view to base policy upon, it’s also incredibly short sighted. Removing millions of consumers from the market place hurts business.
If the Joneses aren’t buying groceries, not only does the grocery store have to lay off a box boy and a clerk, but the food manufacturers have to eventually lay off factory workers, which shrinks the consumer base even further.
As much as I admire Fritz’s “one big family” point of view, I can’t help but label a policy of sticking it to the poor as just plain evil.
-
Sources
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.a.htm*
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_11082013.pdf**
http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html***
http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/23/22023538-paul-borrowing-for-unemployment-benefits-weakening-us-as-a-country?lite****
-
The first time I lobbied the legislature for anything, I went, with a citizens’ group, to Salem to advocate for a bill which would pay a living wage to caregivers of people with disabilities. We met in a lunch room beneath the capital building, where we were addressed by a white bearded long haired 50 something guide/coach named Fritz.
Fritz perched himself comfortably upon the edge of a cafeteria table, crossed his ankles, and motioned for us to gather ‘round. “Republicans are not the bad guys,” he began. “Liberals and conservatives alike, work hard in this building, every day, to make Oregon a better place. We have honest differences of opinion about how to go about achieving that goal, but those differences don’t make one party good and the other party evil. They’re simply obstacles to be overcome as we work together as allies to improve the quality of life in our state.”
This view of party politics stuck with me for a long time. However, given the recent government shutdown, cuts in SNAP benefits (food stamps), and now the unwillingness to extend unemployment benefits, it’s become harder for me to maintain the idea that politics doesn’t boil down to a question of good versus evil.
-
Title: Rand Paul speaking to supporters at a townhall in Meredith, New Hampshire | Date: 01/08/2012 | Photographer: Gage Skidmore | This picture is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
While it’s mathematically impossible for every job seeker to find a job, under current economic conditions, the GOP has voted to suspend extensions of unemployment benefits, and its members are rallying against the reinstatement of such benefits.
Bizarrely, even though 16 million children in the United States – 22% of American children – live below the federal poverty level***, largely because there aren't enough jobs to employ every job seeking American, Republicans are trying to justify the repeal of benefits, by claiming such a repeal incentivizes job seeking.
"When I said it's a disservice, I meant it - I am worried about the workers. Not that I think they become bad people by becoming unemployed longer, but that the longer they're unemployed, the less likely they are to ever get a job again," ~ Rand Paul.****
In other words, if the government suspends benefits, during one of the worst cold snaps in U.S. history, the, want to be working, poor will have an extra incentive to apply for jobs, which aren’t there, before their families freeze & starve.
-
WHAT!? Does Representative Paul honestly believe that sending impoverished job seekers into a state of panic over how to feed their children, pay rent, and heat their homes, make 6 million jobs suddenly appear? Of course not, he’s not stupid. It’s more likely Paul, and his colleagues, figure that since poor people don’t vote Republican, cutting programs to the poorest among us is a good way to save money without affecting their constituency.
Not only is this perspective a remarkably cruel point of view to base policy upon, it’s also incredibly short sighted. Removing millions of consumers from the market place hurts business.
If the Joneses aren’t buying groceries, not only does the grocery store have to lay off a box boy and a clerk, but the food manufacturers have to eventually lay off factory workers, which shrinks the consumer base even further.
As much as I admire Fritz’s “one big family” point of view, I can’t help but label a policy of sticking it to the poor as just plain evil.
-
Sources
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.a.htm*
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_11082013.pdf**
http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html***
http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/23/22023538-paul-borrowing-for-unemployment-benefits-weakening-us-as-a-country?lite****
-
Thursday, October 17, 2013
New Dawn
-
President Obama speaking on the reopening of
the government, from State Dining Room |
10/17/2013 | According to C-SPAN Video Library,
"Video coverage of the debates originating from the
chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and
the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such,
may be used without restriction or attribution."
America's long night is finally at its end. What began as an attempt to thwart a law designed to help the least among us, saw 818,000 federal employees furloughed from work for over two weeks. Families lost half a months wages, and our economy was thrown in doubt. Fortunately, our legislators acted at the eleventh hour to prevent the expiration of the debt ceiling and put Americans back to work.
Stop... Hush... Listen, and you'll hear a collective sigh of relief. Unfortunately, just beneath this expulsion of mass anxiety echoes of bitter grumblings resonate through our streets. Democrats blame the Tea Party, Tea Partiers blame President Obama, conservative pundits blame the "liberal media elite," and the liberal media elite blames Speaker Boehner.
This morning, the president addressed these grumblings.
"We all know that we have divided government right now. There's a lot of noise out there, and the pressure from the extremes affect how a lot of members of Congress see the day-to-day work that’s supposed to be done here. And let's face it, the American people don’t see every issue the same way. But that doesn’t mean we can't make progress. And when we disagree, we don’t have to suggest that the other side doesn’t love this country or believe in free enterprise, or all the other rhetoric that seems to get worse every single year. If we disagree on something, we can move on and focus on the things we agree on, and get some stuff done." ~ President Obama from the State Dining Room, 10/17/2013
He's right. Now's not the time for recriminations. It is time to put the recent darkness behind us, to look past the murky night and embrace the dawn we've been given. If the latest chapter of American history has taught us anything, it is that we are stronger as a united people than as a hodge-podge of bickering factions. We are at our best when we celebrate one another for our difference, rather than attack each other because of them. If we can remember this lesson, there is hope.
"We hear all the time about how government is the problem. Well, it turns out we rely on it in a whole lot of ways. Not only does it keep us strong through our military and our law enforcement, it plays a vital role in caring for our seniors and our veterans, educating our kids, making sure our workers are trained for the jobs that are being created, arming our businesses with the best science and technology so they can compete with companies from other countries. It plays a key role in keeping our food and our toys and our workplaces safe. It helps folks rebuild after a storm. It conserves our natural resources. It finances startups. It helps to sell our products overseas. It provides security to our diplomats abroad.
So let's work together to make government work better, instead of treating it like an enemy or purposely making it work worse.." ~ President Obama from the State Dining Room, 10/17/2013
-
President Obama speaking on the reopening of
the government, from State Dining Room |
10/17/2013 | According to C-SPAN Video Library,
"Video coverage of the debates originating from the
chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and
the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such,
may be used without restriction or attribution."
Stop... Hush... Listen, and you'll hear a collective sigh of relief. Unfortunately, just beneath this expulsion of mass anxiety echoes of bitter grumblings resonate through our streets. Democrats blame the Tea Party, Tea Partiers blame President Obama, conservative pundits blame the "liberal media elite," and the liberal media elite blames Speaker Boehner.
This morning, the president addressed these grumblings.
"We all know that we have divided government right now. There's a lot of noise out there, and the pressure from the extremes affect how a lot of members of Congress see the day-to-day work that’s supposed to be done here. And let's face it, the American people don’t see every issue the same way. But that doesn’t mean we can't make progress. And when we disagree, we don’t have to suggest that the other side doesn’t love this country or believe in free enterprise, or all the other rhetoric that seems to get worse every single year. If we disagree on something, we can move on and focus on the things we agree on, and get some stuff done." ~ President Obama from the State Dining Room, 10/17/2013
He's right. Now's not the time for recriminations. It is time to put the recent darkness behind us, to look past the murky night and embrace the dawn we've been given. If the latest chapter of American history has taught us anything, it is that we are stronger as a united people than as a hodge-podge of bickering factions. We are at our best when we celebrate one another for our difference, rather than attack each other because of them. If we can remember this lesson, there is hope.
"We hear all the time about how government is the problem. Well, it turns out we rely on it in a whole lot of ways. Not only does it keep us strong through our military and our law enforcement, it plays a vital role in caring for our seniors and our veterans, educating our kids, making sure our workers are trained for the jobs that are being created, arming our businesses with the best science and technology so they can compete with companies from other countries. It plays a key role in keeping our food and our toys and our workplaces safe. It helps folks rebuild after a storm. It conserves our natural resources. It finances startups. It helps to sell our products overseas. It provides security to our diplomats abroad.
So let's work together to make government work better, instead of treating it like an enemy or purposely making it work worse.." ~ President Obama from the State Dining Room, 10/17/2013
-
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Reaching The Ceiling
-
Floor proceedings of the U.S. Senate | According to C-SPAN Video Library, "Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution."
During this federal shutdown, there's been a lot of talk about the need to raise the "debt ceiling." Many people, including members of congress, aren't sure what the term means, and don't understand why it needs to be raised. Therefore, I thought it would be interesting to explore the history of the term and clarify what's being debated.
The United States first instituted a statutory debt limit with "The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917." This legislation allows lawmakers to set limits on the amount of debt that can be accumulated through individual categories of spending & debt. In 1939, this law was expanded to limit federal debt across the board, in order to close spending loopholes. The "debt ceiling," which applies to the gross debt, including debt held by bond owners and creditors, became a mechanism to limit the amount of national debt that can be issued by the Treasury.
Prior to "The Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974," which mandated the passage of an annual all inclusive budget resolution, the debt ceiling acted as a necessary leash on federal spending. However, now that Congress and the President need to pass budget resolutions in order to spend money, the debt ceiling has become redundant. It essentially forces lawmakers to approve expendatures they've already ordered.
Basically, it's analogous to ordering a steak dinner, eating the meal, THEN deciding if you want to pay for it. The moment the government passes a budget resolution, they've ordered the metaphorical meal. Thus, deciding not to adopt the debt for it is akin to dining & dashing.
When the debt ceiling is actually reached, without an increase in the ceiling having been passed, Treasury may resort to "extraordinary measures" to temporarily finance the government's expenditures and obligations. These measures may include suspending investments in the "G-fund" of the individual retirement funds of federal employees, and certain other federally held investments can be redeemed early.
If the debt ceiling is not raised by the time extraordinary measures are exhausted, the government will be unable to pay its financial obligations. This could theoretically cause Wall Street, and the rest of the fiscal community, to lose confidence in federally insured loans & government contracts. If these two fiscal bedrocks become thrown into doubt, investment markets will most likely become volatile, and the global community will lose faith in U.S. backed ventures.
To prevent this calamity from occurring, Washington NEEDS to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling by the 17th. That's it. All they have to do to prevent fiscal chaos is to agree to pay for the steak they've already ordered.
-
Floor proceedings of the U.S. Senate | According to C-SPAN Video Library, "Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution."
The United States first instituted a statutory debt limit with "The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917." This legislation allows lawmakers to set limits on the amount of debt that can be accumulated through individual categories of spending & debt. In 1939, this law was expanded to limit federal debt across the board, in order to close spending loopholes. The "debt ceiling," which applies to the gross debt, including debt held by bond owners and creditors, became a mechanism to limit the amount of national debt that can be issued by the Treasury.
Prior to "The Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974," which mandated the passage of an annual all inclusive budget resolution, the debt ceiling acted as a necessary leash on federal spending. However, now that Congress and the President need to pass budget resolutions in order to spend money, the debt ceiling has become redundant. It essentially forces lawmakers to approve expendatures they've already ordered.
Basically, it's analogous to ordering a steak dinner, eating the meal, THEN deciding if you want to pay for it. The moment the government passes a budget resolution, they've ordered the metaphorical meal. Thus, deciding not to adopt the debt for it is akin to dining & dashing.
When the debt ceiling is actually reached, without an increase in the ceiling having been passed, Treasury may resort to "extraordinary measures" to temporarily finance the government's expenditures and obligations. These measures may include suspending investments in the "G-fund" of the individual retirement funds of federal employees, and certain other federally held investments can be redeemed early.
If the debt ceiling is not raised by the time extraordinary measures are exhausted, the government will be unable to pay its financial obligations. This could theoretically cause Wall Street, and the rest of the fiscal community, to lose confidence in federally insured loans & government contracts. If these two fiscal bedrocks become thrown into doubt, investment markets will most likely become volatile, and the global community will lose faith in U.S. backed ventures.
To prevent this calamity from occurring, Washington NEEDS to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling by the 17th. That's it. All they have to do to prevent fiscal chaos is to agree to pay for the steak they've already ordered.
-
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Quiet Days and Lonely Desks
-
Photographer: Desk Driver
This photo is in the public domain worldwide.
Once bustling halls and offices are quiet today. The lonely stillness would send shutters up spines of dwellers, if any in fact could breach the pad locks securing the federally owned buildings.
818,000 public servants feel their bodies clinch as they wonder where their next rent check, or sack of groceries, will come from. Meanwhile, stores, restaurants, theaters, and other businesses which depend upon public employees, as a chunk of their customer base, brace for a decrease in business, just as the holiday buying season begins.
Some government operations DO remain open on the second day of this political tug-of-war.
WHAT'S OPEN?:
U.S. Postal Service,
Social Security Benefits,
Medicare,
Active-duty military (will keep working/fighting, but will not get paid until the funds are available),
Air-traffic control,
Immigration And Border Security,
Emergency and disaster assistance,
Federal law enforcement,
IRS can still process electronic returns and payments only
WHAT'S CLOSED?:
Any federal agency that’s subject to appropriations,
All National Parks,
All federally-funded museums, including Smithsonian and the National Zoo,
All federal government websites,
Research by Health and Human Services stops as well as the grant process,
Applying for Social Security,
Roads dependent on federal maintenance,
Head Start,
Military Commissaries,
IRS walk-in centers (paper tax return will not be processed),
Loan applications for small businesses, college tuition, or mortgages,
All Library of Congress buildings, events, and websites,
All federal contractors will be out of work
While Social Security benefits WILL go out, I mistakenly said they wouldn't in my last blog, and the mail will get through, many of the services Americans depend on for fiscal planning & assistance, food safety, education, health, and other facets of life will be unavailable to those who've paid their taxes in good faith.
WIC (Women, Infants, & Children), which normally provides vouchers for healthy food to low income households with pregnant or postpartum women, infants, and children up to age 5, sits quiet now. Purchase slips for iron-fortified infant formula, infant cereal, iron-fortified adult cereal, vitamin C-rich fruit & vegetable juices, eggs, milk, cheese, peanut butter, dried beans & peas, tuna fish, and carrots rest within abandoned drawers, feeding no one.
-
Photographer: Desk Driver
This photo is in the public domain worldwide.
818,000 public servants feel their bodies clinch as they wonder where their next rent check, or sack of groceries, will come from. Meanwhile, stores, restaurants, theaters, and other businesses which depend upon public employees, as a chunk of their customer base, brace for a decrease in business, just as the holiday buying season begins.
Some government operations DO remain open on the second day of this political tug-of-war.
WHAT'S OPEN?:
U.S. Postal Service,
Social Security Benefits,
Medicare,
Active-duty military (will keep working/fighting, but will not get paid until the funds are available),
Air-traffic control,
Immigration And Border Security,
Emergency and disaster assistance,
Federal law enforcement,
IRS can still process electronic returns and payments only
WHAT'S CLOSED?:
Any federal agency that’s subject to appropriations,
All National Parks,
All federally-funded museums, including Smithsonian and the National Zoo,
All federal government websites,
Research by Health and Human Services stops as well as the grant process,
Applying for Social Security,
Roads dependent on federal maintenance,
Head Start,
Military Commissaries,
IRS walk-in centers (paper tax return will not be processed),
Loan applications for small businesses, college tuition, or mortgages,
All Library of Congress buildings, events, and websites,
All federal contractors will be out of work
While Social Security benefits WILL go out, I mistakenly said they wouldn't in my last blog, and the mail will get through, many of the services Americans depend on for fiscal planning & assistance, food safety, education, health, and other facets of life will be unavailable to those who've paid their taxes in good faith.
WIC (Women, Infants, & Children), which normally provides vouchers for healthy food to low income households with pregnant or postpartum women, infants, and children up to age 5, sits quiet now. Purchase slips for iron-fortified infant formula, infant cereal, iron-fortified adult cereal, vitamin C-rich fruit & vegetable juices, eggs, milk, cheese, peanut butter, dried beans & peas, tuna fish, and carrots rest within abandoned drawers, feeding no one.
-
Sunday, September 29, 2013
America Held Hostage
-
Today, House Republicans announced that they will only pass a federal budget, allowing the federal government to stay open, if President Obama agrees to delay implementation of The Affordable Care Act for one year.
The New York Times says the announcement "all but assured that large parts of the government would be shuttered as of 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday." House Speaker John Boehner, and Tea Party confederates, are about to shut down the government.
Such a shut down will cause millions of Americans to lose access to vital services (disability payments, Social Security checks, heating subsidies, military pay, food stamps, etc...). Additionally, hundreds of thousands of public servants will go unpaid just as a multitude of rent checks and mortgage payments are due.
These hardships, and subsequent economic downward spiral, are being threatened in order to keep affordable health care beyond the grasp of 30 million needy Americans. Word it any other way you want, the bottom line is the GOP is willing to damage the economy, and jeopardize the financial future of countless Americans, in order to deprive the working poor of affordable doctor visits and prescription medication.
I can only speculate about the GOP's underlying motives, but since I don't want to risk a charge of libel, I won't speculate, about what I think their motives are, here. I will say, I think their actions are unamerican. Keep in mind, they're not trying to keep a proposed bill from passing, they're threatening the livelihood of millions of people in order to prevent a law, which is already on the books, from helping the most vulnerable among us.
-
Today, House Republicans announced that they will only pass a federal budget, allowing the federal government to stay open, if President Obama agrees to delay implementation of The Affordable Care Act for one year.The New York Times says the announcement "all but assured that large parts of the government would be shuttered as of 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday." House Speaker John Boehner, and Tea Party confederates, are about to shut down the government.
Such a shut down will cause millions of Americans to lose access to vital services (disability payments, Social Security checks, heating subsidies, military pay, food stamps, etc...). Additionally, hundreds of thousands of public servants will go unpaid just as a multitude of rent checks and mortgage payments are due.
These hardships, and subsequent economic downward spiral, are being threatened in order to keep affordable health care beyond the grasp of 30 million needy Americans. Word it any other way you want, the bottom line is the GOP is willing to damage the economy, and jeopardize the financial future of countless Americans, in order to deprive the working poor of affordable doctor visits and prescription medication.
I can only speculate about the GOP's underlying motives, but since I don't want to risk a charge of libel, I won't speculate, about what I think their motives are, here. I will say, I think their actions are unamerican. Keep in mind, they're not trying to keep a proposed bill from passing, they're threatening the livelihood of millions of people in order to prevent a law, which is already on the books, from helping the most vulnerable among us.
-
Monday, September 9, 2013
The Syrian Question
-
By now, we all know that over 1,400 Syrians, including 426 children, were killed in the August 21st Sarin gas attack reportedly ordered by President Bashar al-Assad. While our government claims to have positive proof of al-Assad's complicity in the attack, many remain skeptical since U.S. officials won't release said evidence to the public.
I'm not going to take issue with the government's failure to publicly release evidence of al-Assad's guilt. It's easily conceivable that the publication of such evidence could expose the existence of intelligence assets which need to remain covert. Yet, even if the attack went down the way we believe it went down, I take great issue with The White House's call for a military response.
Understand, I'm a hardcore Democrat & Obama supporter, but on this issue he's just plain wrong. President Obama wants to respond with an action which, "...would be limited, both in time and scope – designed to deter the Syrian government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so. ...the American people are weary after a decade of war, even as the war in Iraq has ended, and the war in Afghanistan is winding down. That's why we're not putting our troops in the middle of somebody else's war."
A limited action, without putting boots on the ground, sounds good. However, he's saying we can fight a limited war without the prolonged ugly parts. It can't be done; we learned as much when we tried to send limited support to South Vietnam over 50 years ago.
Even if the President honestly believes we can strike fast and be in & out of Syria in a matter of days, he can't guarantee such results. Bush thought the same thing as he stood on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and declared, "Mission Accomplished," over Iraqi forces. Eight years later, we were still in Iraq losing American lives.
The pragmatist in me says that if we commit military forces to Syria, we need to go all the way, and remove al-Assad from power. There are problems with that approach too though, the biggest being our forces would be stuck their until a new regime could be fully installed.
The other glaring problem with a military reaction lies with the fact that we weren't attacked.
Finally, all other things aside, we don't have the law on our side. Whether Congress approves the attack, or not, without the sanction of the U.N., our attack would an international crime perpetrated in response to the breaking of 1997's Chemical Weapons Ban Treaty, which Syria didn't even sign.
-
The map graphic above is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.
-
By now, we all know that over 1,400 Syrians, including 426 children, were killed in the August 21st Sarin gas attack reportedly ordered by President Bashar al-Assad. While our government claims to have positive proof of al-Assad's complicity in the attack, many remain skeptical since U.S. officials won't release said evidence to the public.
I'm not going to take issue with the government's failure to publicly release evidence of al-Assad's guilt. It's easily conceivable that the publication of such evidence could expose the existence of intelligence assets which need to remain covert. Yet, even if the attack went down the way we believe it went down, I take great issue with The White House's call for a military response.
Understand, I'm a hardcore Democrat & Obama supporter, but on this issue he's just plain wrong. President Obama wants to respond with an action which, "...would be limited, both in time and scope – designed to deter the Syrian government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so. ...the American people are weary after a decade of war, even as the war in Iraq has ended, and the war in Afghanistan is winding down. That's why we're not putting our troops in the middle of somebody else's war."
A limited action, without putting boots on the ground, sounds good. However, he's saying we can fight a limited war without the prolonged ugly parts. It can't be done; we learned as much when we tried to send limited support to South Vietnam over 50 years ago.
Even if the President honestly believes we can strike fast and be in & out of Syria in a matter of days, he can't guarantee such results. Bush thought the same thing as he stood on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and declared, "Mission Accomplished," over Iraqi forces. Eight years later, we were still in Iraq losing American lives.
The pragmatist in me says that if we commit military forces to Syria, we need to go all the way, and remove al-Assad from power. There are problems with that approach too though, the biggest being our forces would be stuck their until a new regime could be fully installed.
The other glaring problem with a military reaction lies with the fact that we weren't attacked.
- It is both right & noble to be outraged by the torturous slaughter of a mass of men, women, and children.
- It is both right & noble to want to rescue an oppressed people.
- It is both right & noble to want to punish a regime of mass murderers.
Finally, all other things aside, we don't have the law on our side. Whether Congress approves the attack, or not, without the sanction of the U.N., our attack would an international crime perpetrated in response to the breaking of 1997's Chemical Weapons Ban Treaty, which Syria didn't even sign.
-
The map graphic above is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.
-
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Time To Move On America
-
By now, we've all heard about the tragic encounter which took place on the night of 02/26/2012. Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African American high school student, was followed, shot, and killed by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old mixed-race Hispanic neighborhood watch coordinator.
Police arrived within two minutes of the gunshot capped scuffle and took Zimmerman into custody After being treated for head injuries, Zimmerman was questioned for five hours, but eventually released under the theory the shooting had been in self-defense.
Six weeks, and one media blitz, later, Zimmerman was charged with murder. On July 13, 2013, Zimmerman was found not guilty on all counts, including second-degree murder and manslaughter.
Commentators and civil rights leaders have dominated the airwaves, since the verdict was handed down, trying to make some sense of the outcome. Some blame Rachel Jeantel's slang heavy testimony for stealing credibility from the prosecution's case. Others are simply content to write the jurors off as being ignorant racists who blame Trayvon's mode of dress for the incident.
Like many people, I saw bits and pieces of the trial, on MSNBC, while drinking my morning coffee. While I personally think Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter, having watched bits of testimony here and a trial motion there, I don't feel as though I saw enough of the proceedings to be able to second guess the jury.
I didn't see the evidence which led the jury to their conclusion, so I don't know whether they got it right. What I do know is that ongoing public speculation of racism, and/or botched testimony, can only serve to create bitter feelings and divide people.
If the federal government can make a civil rights case against Zimmerman, more power to them. If law & sociology professors can glean lessons from these events, I think that's great. However, the media and public need to move on. Let's focus on issues which NEED to be addressed, including cabinet seats which remain unfilled, immigration, the military's policy regarding sexual assault, etc...
-
The picture above was created by a government unit of the United States and is in the public domain under U.S. law.
-
By now, we've all heard about the tragic encounter which took place on the night of 02/26/2012. Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African American high school student, was followed, shot, and killed by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old mixed-race Hispanic neighborhood watch coordinator.Police arrived within two minutes of the gunshot capped scuffle and took Zimmerman into custody After being treated for head injuries, Zimmerman was questioned for five hours, but eventually released under the theory the shooting had been in self-defense.
Six weeks, and one media blitz, later, Zimmerman was charged with murder. On July 13, 2013, Zimmerman was found not guilty on all counts, including second-degree murder and manslaughter.
Commentators and civil rights leaders have dominated the airwaves, since the verdict was handed down, trying to make some sense of the outcome. Some blame Rachel Jeantel's slang heavy testimony for stealing credibility from the prosecution's case. Others are simply content to write the jurors off as being ignorant racists who blame Trayvon's mode of dress for the incident.
Like many people, I saw bits and pieces of the trial, on MSNBC, while drinking my morning coffee. While I personally think Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter, having watched bits of testimony here and a trial motion there, I don't feel as though I saw enough of the proceedings to be able to second guess the jury.
I didn't see the evidence which led the jury to their conclusion, so I don't know whether they got it right. What I do know is that ongoing public speculation of racism, and/or botched testimony, can only serve to create bitter feelings and divide people.
If the federal government can make a civil rights case against Zimmerman, more power to them. If law & sociology professors can glean lessons from these events, I think that's great. However, the media and public need to move on. Let's focus on issues which NEED to be addressed, including cabinet seats which remain unfilled, immigration, the military's policy regarding sexual assault, etc...
-
The picture above was created by a government unit of the United States and is in the public domain under U.S. law.
-
Sunday, July 14, 2013
American Secret Court – Necessity Or Travesty?
-
Lately, the press has been abuzz with the revelation that a "secret court" has been approving surveillance warrants for the NSA, without hearing counter arguments or opening proceedings to public scrutiny.
The existence of the program came to light when now-retired Judge James Robertson, who served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court from 2002 to 2005, blew the proverbial whistle. According to Robertson, the court hears only the government's side when secretly deciding whether to approve search warrants and surveillance requests.
Being a card carrying liberal, I typically fall in line with those outraged by such news, and part of me has. The problem is that I find myself torn on this particular issue.
On the one hand, there's a tiny lawyer in the back of my head giving a fevered lecture on the idea that our judicial system can't maintain a justifiable air of integrity unless its adversarial structure remains intact. A tribunal, functioning as a "rubber stamp" for the state, isn't truly an impartial court of law, but is an extra-constitutional extension of the executive branch. The presence of such an unchecked extension flies in the face of the very concept checks & balances.
I get that, and I can easily stand behind such an argument. The dilemma becomes apparent though, when trying to conceive of a realistic alternative to the covert warranting process.
No, we don't want a government that can spy on anyone who touts an offbeat political view, or detain any citizen wearing a turban. Yet, we also can't expect government agencies to tip their hand, by notifying a suspect's legal representative, every time they think they've caught wind of a terrorist cell. Notifications, allowing legal challenges to potential warrants, could conceivably force suspects further underground. Worse yet, such notifications could coax cells into executing terrorist acts before they otherwise would have.
We all know Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." However, he lived in a day when global communications took months, rather than nano-seconds, and a single act of terror couldn't kill 2,977 innocent people on a sunny September morning.
Should we sacrifice a certain level of privacy, in order to feel safe, and trust the government not to abuse that sacrifice, or was Franklin still right? Is the constant threat of mass murder a justifiable price to pay to assure individual privacy and freedom?
I don't know. What do you think?
-
Source = Former FISA judge sees problems in secret court – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
The picture above was created by a government unit of the United States and is in the public domain under U.S. law.
-
Lately, the press has been abuzz with the revelation that a "secret court" has been approving surveillance warrants for the NSA, without hearing counter arguments or opening proceedings to public scrutiny.
The existence of the program came to light when now-retired Judge James Robertson, who served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court from 2002 to 2005, blew the proverbial whistle. According to Robertson, the court hears only the government's side when secretly deciding whether to approve search warrants and surveillance requests.
Being a card carrying liberal, I typically fall in line with those outraged by such news, and part of me has. The problem is that I find myself torn on this particular issue.
On the one hand, there's a tiny lawyer in the back of my head giving a fevered lecture on the idea that our judicial system can't maintain a justifiable air of integrity unless its adversarial structure remains intact. A tribunal, functioning as a "rubber stamp" for the state, isn't truly an impartial court of law, but is an extra-constitutional extension of the executive branch. The presence of such an unchecked extension flies in the face of the very concept checks & balances.
I get that, and I can easily stand behind such an argument. The dilemma becomes apparent though, when trying to conceive of a realistic alternative to the covert warranting process.
No, we don't want a government that can spy on anyone who touts an offbeat political view, or detain any citizen wearing a turban. Yet, we also can't expect government agencies to tip their hand, by notifying a suspect's legal representative, every time they think they've caught wind of a terrorist cell. Notifications, allowing legal challenges to potential warrants, could conceivably force suspects further underground. Worse yet, such notifications could coax cells into executing terrorist acts before they otherwise would have.
We all know Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." However, he lived in a day when global communications took months, rather than nano-seconds, and a single act of terror couldn't kill 2,977 innocent people on a sunny September morning.
Should we sacrifice a certain level of privacy, in order to feel safe, and trust the government not to abuse that sacrifice, or was Franklin still right? Is the constant threat of mass murder a justifiable price to pay to assure individual privacy and freedom?
I don't know. What do you think?
-
Source = Former FISA judge sees problems in secret court – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
The picture above was created by a government unit of the United States and is in the public domain under U.S. law.
-
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
A Quick Thought For Our Nation's Birthday - Micro Blog
-
In honor of July 4th, our nation's birthday, I leave you with the following thought from our first President.
“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” ~ George Washington
Think about it
-
In honor of July 4th, our nation's birthday, I leave you with the following thought from our first President.
“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” ~ George WashingtonThink about it
-
Thursday, June 27, 2013
DOMA's Demise
-
On the morning of June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law which prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, in a narrow 5 to 4 vote.
In the opinion for the majority, Justice Kennedy wrote, "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
In a sister decision, regarding Hollingsworth vs. Perry, the court ruled that the traditional marriage activists who originally put Proposition 8 on California's ballot had no legal standing to appeal the ruling which struck down the state's ban on same sex-marriage. The ruling essentially legalized same sex marriage in California, making it the 13th state to recognize the institution.
While these rulings are being hailed as milestones for equal rights, they do leave some questions unanswered. According to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, a marriage which is legally performed in one state is recognized as valid in all 50 states, yet according to the DOMA ruling, the federal government must recognize same-sex marriage in all states where such marriages can legally obtained. So, if a same-sex couple marries in one state, then moves to a non-same-sex marriage state, does the federal government still recognize the marriage?
Instead of trying to answer questions such as that, Tea Party poster girl, Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) offered this public statement: "Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted."
Representative Bachmann, and others like her, are still trying to use God as an excuse to deny equal rights to same-sex couples. Being a Christian myself, I find such use of God's word to be highly offensive.
-
A BRIEF DETOUR VIA MY SOAP BOX
2000 years ago, when Christ walked with the apostles, old people were taken care of by their adult children or they weren't taken care of. Thus, marriage that couldn't produce children, same-sex marriage, was considered to be taboo for practical reasons by Judeo/Christian thinkers. Such a taboo may have been a product of the best thinking of the time, but it's just wrong by any modern standard.
Faith should never be used to justify bigotry. In my mind, having true faith means accepting people's differences & trusting that God knew what He was doing when He made people the way He made them. HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING!
SOAP BOX DETOUR ENDS
-
Civil rights still have a long row to ho in this country. However, these two rulings have put us ever so much closer to realizing true equality across the board.
-
The courthouse picture above was created by a government unit of the United States and is in the public domain under U.S. law.
-
Follow my blog with Bloglovin
On the morning of June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law which prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, in a narrow 5 to 4 vote. In the opinion for the majority, Justice Kennedy wrote, "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
In a sister decision, regarding Hollingsworth vs. Perry, the court ruled that the traditional marriage activists who originally put Proposition 8 on California's ballot had no legal standing to appeal the ruling which struck down the state's ban on same sex-marriage. The ruling essentially legalized same sex marriage in California, making it the 13th state to recognize the institution.
While these rulings are being hailed as milestones for equal rights, they do leave some questions unanswered. According to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, a marriage which is legally performed in one state is recognized as valid in all 50 states, yet according to the DOMA ruling, the federal government must recognize same-sex marriage in all states where such marriages can legally obtained. So, if a same-sex couple marries in one state, then moves to a non-same-sex marriage state, does the federal government still recognize the marriage?
Instead of trying to answer questions such as that, Tea Party poster girl, Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) offered this public statement: "Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted."
Representative Bachmann, and others like her, are still trying to use God as an excuse to deny equal rights to same-sex couples. Being a Christian myself, I find such use of God's word to be highly offensive.
-
A BRIEF DETOUR VIA MY SOAP BOX
2000 years ago, when Christ walked with the apostles, old people were taken care of by their adult children or they weren't taken care of. Thus, marriage that couldn't produce children, same-sex marriage, was considered to be taboo for practical reasons by Judeo/Christian thinkers. Such a taboo may have been a product of the best thinking of the time, but it's just wrong by any modern standard.Faith should never be used to justify bigotry. In my mind, having true faith means accepting people's differences & trusting that God knew what He was doing when He made people the way He made them. HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING!
SOAP BOX DETOUR ENDS
-
Civil rights still have a long row to ho in this country. However, these two rulings have put us ever so much closer to realizing true equality across the board.
-
The courthouse picture above was created by a government unit of the United States and is in the public domain under U.S. law.
-
Follow my blog with Bloglovin
Sunday, June 16, 2013
The Struggle Continues
-
The Cheerios commercial above tells the story of a little girl who pours cereal on her sleeping dad's chest in a well meaning attempt to help his heart. What was meant to depict a sweet little moment of loving concern, in order to sell breakfast cereal, has turned into a PR nightmare for General Mills.
The commercial, featuring a mixed race couple and their daughter, has motivated two entirely different camps to send tens of thousands of complaints to the food manufacturer.
A year later, similar minds in South Carolina tried to make possession of a government-issued photo I.D. mandatory in order to vote. This sounds reasonable until one takes into account the fact that, "an estimated 81,983 voters in South Carolina do not possess a government-issued photo ID, mainly because of missing or inaccurate personal documents. These are mostly elderly, black longtime residents."
Southern conservatives are literally trying to revive Jim Crow in order to, "take their country back." "Back from what?" I would ask. Back from tolerance, equality, and brotherhood? Are these really things to be overcome?
True, we white folk had it nice when, "everyone knew their place." We had first crack at good jobs, public bus seating, and restaurant food among other perks of our perceived birthright. The price of these luxuries was merely the subjugation of an underclass based on race.
The price seemed cheap to us. As long as the underclass entertained us by singing Mammy, then politely left by the back door, we didn't have to look into the eyes of those being turned away from white hospitals, being corralled to the back of the bus, and being denied the right to vote or attend adequately funded schools.
Yes, ignorance truly was bliss. It's not something we should look to return to though. It's a state of affairs we should constantly struggle to remain above.
As for the second group of objectors, I'd ask if they remember the Willises from The Jefferson's? Tom was Caucasian and Helen was African American. More recently, on the big screen, a Caucasian appearing Spock courts, Swahili born, Lt. Uhura.
Even if these inverse examples didn't exist, the depiction of any mixed race couple, by a multi-billion dollar corporation, is a positive thing. Anything that shows races interacting peacefully, even lovingly, should be scene as a positive message, saying people are people despite our physical differences.
-
The Cheerios commercial above tells the story of a little girl who pours cereal on her sleeping dad's chest in a well meaning attempt to help his heart. What was meant to depict a sweet little moment of loving concern, in order to sell breakfast cereal, has turned into a PR nightmare for General Mills.
The commercial, featuring a mixed race couple and their daughter, has motivated two entirely different camps to send tens of thousands of complaints to the food manufacturer.
- White supremacists complained, in mass, about the depiction of a mixed race couple as being acceptable.
- A portion of African American women complained, in mass, that such depictions typically feature Caucasian females and African American males, rather than vice versa.
A year later, similar minds in South Carolina tried to make possession of a government-issued photo I.D. mandatory in order to vote. This sounds reasonable until one takes into account the fact that, "an estimated 81,983 voters in South Carolina do not possess a government-issued photo ID, mainly because of missing or inaccurate personal documents. These are mostly elderly, black longtime residents."
Southern conservatives are literally trying to revive Jim Crow in order to, "take their country back." "Back from what?" I would ask. Back from tolerance, equality, and brotherhood? Are these really things to be overcome?
True, we white folk had it nice when, "everyone knew their place." We had first crack at good jobs, public bus seating, and restaurant food among other perks of our perceived birthright. The price of these luxuries was merely the subjugation of an underclass based on race.
The price seemed cheap to us. As long as the underclass entertained us by singing Mammy, then politely left by the back door, we didn't have to look into the eyes of those being turned away from white hospitals, being corralled to the back of the bus, and being denied the right to vote or attend adequately funded schools.
Yes, ignorance truly was bliss. It's not something we should look to return to though. It's a state of affairs we should constantly struggle to remain above.
As for the second group of objectors, I'd ask if they remember the Willises from The Jefferson's? Tom was Caucasian and Helen was African American. More recently, on the big screen, a Caucasian appearing Spock courts, Swahili born, Lt. Uhura.
Even if these inverse examples didn't exist, the depiction of any mixed race couple, by a multi-billion dollar corporation, is a positive thing. Anything that shows races interacting peacefully, even lovingly, should be scene as a positive message, saying people are people despite our physical differences.
-
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Guns Don't Kill People, But They Make It Easier For Lunatics To
-
Those of you who receive my newsletter know this blog was to be on the recreation of our heroes. I was going to examine the revamping of characters such as Sherlock Holmes into a contemporary detective, Superman into a dark brooding hero, etc...
I was recouping from a nasty stomach bug and mulling the blog over in my mind, when my friend Sonya began posting her outrage at events at Santa Monica College on her Facebook page. Realizing something ugly had just taken place, I switched my podcasts off and turned CNN on.
Police in S.W.A.T. gear were ushering additional squad cars onto the scene and "encouraging" reporters to stay behind the yellow crime tape. I soon learned that an ebony clad gunman's rampage in Santa Monica had left four people dead.
Armed with a semi-automatic rifle & 1,300 rounds of ammo, an assailant's spree began at home by killing his father and brother, and setting their house ablaze. He then carjacked a lady's car and shot at a public bus, eventually making his way to the aforementioned college campus where he shot at several people and the library. The shooter ended up killing four people and wounding five others before being put down by police.
This was yet another link in the long bizarre chain I wrote about back in January. Somehow a portion of our population has accepted the idea that violence is an acceptable response to anger and/or frustration. Why?
I used to poopoo the idea that TV & video game violence lead to real world violence. "Surely," I told myself, "people can distinguish between fiction and reality." The idea that real people would kill others, in an attempt to mimic The Joker, The Punisher, or The A-Team was completely absurd to me. Perhaps I was wrong.
Be that as it may, the moment we begin censoring content for violence is the moment we start the slippery slope toward only being able to publish/perform state approved messages. None of us want to live in that world.
So, what can we do?
We can make guns harder to get. Without the ability to obtain a military assault rifle, the Santa Monica assailant couldn't have caused the mayhem he caused. He couldn't have done it.
The U.S, averages 87 gun deaths each day as a function of gun violence, with an average of 183 people being injured, according to the University of Chicago Crime Lab and the Centers for Disease Control. Yet, in Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), during 2011 & 2012 combined, there was a total of 44 gun related homicides. The difference being, the British government legally curtails ownership of guns.
Before you cry, "2nd Amendment," can we all agree that we can buy meat in stores, call the police, and protect ourselves with tazers and mace when we're in the bad part of town? Private citizens no longer need to keep and bare arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia, which makes the 2nd Amendment obsolete.
You can't tell me it's OK for our government to collect meta-data on our phone calls, in the name of national security, but it's not OK for them to legally curtail the ownership of guns. The fact of the matter is, if gun ownership was legally curtailed, the police would have legal cause to confiscate such weapons BEFORE tragedies like this occur.
-
Those of you who receive my newsletter know this blog was to be on the recreation of our heroes. I was going to examine the revamping of characters such as Sherlock Holmes into a contemporary detective, Superman into a dark brooding hero, etc...
I was recouping from a nasty stomach bug and mulling the blog over in my mind, when my friend Sonya began posting her outrage at events at Santa Monica College on her Facebook page. Realizing something ugly had just taken place, I switched my podcasts off and turned CNN on.
Police in S.W.A.T. gear were ushering additional squad cars onto the scene and "encouraging" reporters to stay behind the yellow crime tape. I soon learned that an ebony clad gunman's rampage in Santa Monica had left four people dead.
Armed with a semi-automatic rifle & 1,300 rounds of ammo, an assailant's spree began at home by killing his father and brother, and setting their house ablaze. He then carjacked a lady's car and shot at a public bus, eventually making his way to the aforementioned college campus where he shot at several people and the library. The shooter ended up killing four people and wounding five others before being put down by police.
This was yet another link in the long bizarre chain I wrote about back in January. Somehow a portion of our population has accepted the idea that violence is an acceptable response to anger and/or frustration. Why?I used to poopoo the idea that TV & video game violence lead to real world violence. "Surely," I told myself, "people can distinguish between fiction and reality." The idea that real people would kill others, in an attempt to mimic The Joker, The Punisher, or The A-Team was completely absurd to me. Perhaps I was wrong.
Be that as it may, the moment we begin censoring content for violence is the moment we start the slippery slope toward only being able to publish/perform state approved messages. None of us want to live in that world.
So, what can we do?
We can make guns harder to get. Without the ability to obtain a military assault rifle, the Santa Monica assailant couldn't have caused the mayhem he caused. He couldn't have done it.
The U.S, averages 87 gun deaths each day as a function of gun violence, with an average of 183 people being injured, according to the University of Chicago Crime Lab and the Centers for Disease Control. Yet, in Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), during 2011 & 2012 combined, there was a total of 44 gun related homicides. The difference being, the British government legally curtails ownership of guns.
Before you cry, "2nd Amendment," can we all agree that we can buy meat in stores, call the police, and protect ourselves with tazers and mace when we're in the bad part of town? Private citizens no longer need to keep and bare arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia, which makes the 2nd Amendment obsolete.
You can't tell me it's OK for our government to collect meta-data on our phone calls, in the name of national security, but it's not OK for them to legally curtail the ownership of guns. The fact of the matter is, if gun ownership was legally curtailed, the police would have legal cause to confiscate such weapons BEFORE tragedies like this occur.
-
Saturday, April 13, 2013
All The News I Can Use - Really?
-
"In the infancy of mass communications, the Columbus and Magellan of broadcast journalism, William Paley and David Sarnoff, went down to Washington to cut a deal with Congress. Congress would allow the fledgling networks free use of taxpayer-owned airwaves in exchange for one public service. That public service would be one hour of air time set aside every night for informational broadcasting, or what we now call the evening news. Congress, unable to anticipate the enormous capacity television would have to deliver consumers to advertisers, failed to include in its deal the one requirement that would have changed our national discourse immeasurably for the better. Congress forgot to add that under no circumstances could there be paid advertising during informational broadcasting. They forgot to say that taxpayers will give you the airwaves for free and for 23 hours a day you should make a profit, but for one hour a night you work for us." ~ Aaron Sorkin - The Newsroom: The 112th Congress (#1.3) (2012)
I woke up earlier than normal the other morning, so I turned on one of the major TV networks, figuring I'd start the day with a bit of news. At a time when; Kim Jong-un is pointing missiles at Tokyo & South Korea, Congress is trying to iron out a gun control strategy which will address recent events without alienating 2nd amendment activists, and our President is trying to sneak cuts in Social Security past his liberal base; the morning news show I was watching treated me to a recap of Dancing With The Stars and a story about one of the "New Kids On The Block," now in his forties, getting hair plugs.
I had to turn it off, because I could feel my brain going numb. Don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting that everything on TV needs to be high brow. I, for one, love food shows and SciFi. I love learning new recipes, seeing what people eat around the world, watching a certain British chef rip into oblivious restaurateurs, and heroes in spaceships blasting aliens.
While I'm entertained by those things, when I turn on the "the news" I don't want to see a rundown of Gwyneth Paltrow's newest cookbook or learn which blush highlights a middle aged red head's cheek bones. Save those stories for FOOD NETWORK or O. When I turn on the news, I want to see "up to date stories meant to successfully inform and educate the American electorate."
Even with cable, we can't get access such reporting for most of the day, here on the west coast. CNN, for example, airs its final hour of CNN Newsroom from noon 'til 1pm, then the network reverts to a string of opinion based talk shows such as;
The Lead with Jake Tapper: The return of Anthony Weiner: Disgraced congressman considers run for NYC mayor,
The Situation Room: Wolf Blitzer brings you the latest in political news and international events,
Erin Burnett OutFront: Anthony Weiner stages a comeback. Do sex scandals still matter?
Anderson Cooper 360ยบ: AC360° exclusive: Former Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, talk about her recovery and efforts to change gun laws,
Piers Morgan Live: America's ongoing gun debate: The deal proposal that would expand background checks on sales of firearms.
These shows cover topics within the news, but often feature boisterous WWE caliber arguing and opinion bashing in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Red faced activists and self proclaimed influence peddlers customarily interrupt the host, with the idea that the loudest argument will eventually be accepted as the right argument.
CNN Headline News isn't much better, having broadcast entire blocks of live testimony in the Jodi Arias murder trial. Although vivid descriptions of her abusive relationship, with Travis Alexander, satisfied voyeuristic appetites across the country, the broadcasts offered no real informative value to anyone not on the jury.
If I had my way, news shows would feature straight no nonsense reporting on important stories on; politics, economics, crime, national security, and global events; and stories involving kids fashion, celebrity gossip, diet tips, make-up tips, etc.... would be confined to non-news shows & networks.
I have little, if any, hope of having my wish granted. The simple truth is, these non-news stories boost ratings and sell products.
Many Americans say they're tired of sex scandals on news, yet viewer ratings seem to sky rocket for any show featuring stories about Charlie Sheen's antics, Tom Cruise's divorce from Katie Holmes, and Angelina Jolie's relationship with Brad Pitt.
As these titillating tales boost ratings & commercial prices, the aforementioned stories on; kids fashion, celebrity hair plugs, diet tips, and make-up tips; are selling; kids clothes, Hair Club memberships, diet books, and lip stick; reducing such segments to virtual infomercials.
Being fed a steady diet of media regurgitated Pablum, instead of hard news has taken its toll on the populace. According to a nation wide survey/quiz, twenty-nine percent of Americans can't name the Vice-President, yet Kim Kadashian, a woman known for dating famous men and partying with Paris Hilton, has over seventeen million Twitter followers.
Think about it.
-
"In the infancy of mass communications, the Columbus and Magellan of broadcast journalism, William Paley and David Sarnoff, went down to Washington to cut a deal with Congress. Congress would allow the fledgling networks free use of taxpayer-owned airwaves in exchange for one public service. That public service would be one hour of air time set aside every night for informational broadcasting, or what we now call the evening news. Congress, unable to anticipate the enormous capacity television would have to deliver consumers to advertisers, failed to include in its deal the one requirement that would have changed our national discourse immeasurably for the better. Congress forgot to add that under no circumstances could there be paid advertising during informational broadcasting. They forgot to say that taxpayers will give you the airwaves for free and for 23 hours a day you should make a profit, but for one hour a night you work for us." ~ Aaron Sorkin - The Newsroom: The 112th Congress (#1.3) (2012)
I woke up earlier than normal the other morning, so I turned on one of the major TV networks, figuring I'd start the day with a bit of news. At a time when; Kim Jong-un is pointing missiles at Tokyo & South Korea, Congress is trying to iron out a gun control strategy which will address recent events without alienating 2nd amendment activists, and our President is trying to sneak cuts in Social Security past his liberal base; the morning news show I was watching treated me to a recap of Dancing With The Stars and a story about one of the "New Kids On The Block," now in his forties, getting hair plugs.I had to turn it off, because I could feel my brain going numb. Don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting that everything on TV needs to be high brow. I, for one, love food shows and SciFi. I love learning new recipes, seeing what people eat around the world, watching a certain British chef rip into oblivious restaurateurs, and heroes in spaceships blasting aliens.
While I'm entertained by those things, when I turn on the "the news" I don't want to see a rundown of Gwyneth Paltrow's newest cookbook or learn which blush highlights a middle aged red head's cheek bones. Save those stories for FOOD NETWORK or O. When I turn on the news, I want to see "up to date stories meant to successfully inform and educate the American electorate."
Even with cable, we can't get access such reporting for most of the day, here on the west coast. CNN, for example, airs its final hour of CNN Newsroom from noon 'til 1pm, then the network reverts to a string of opinion based talk shows such as;
The Lead with Jake Tapper: The return of Anthony Weiner: Disgraced congressman considers run for NYC mayor,
The Situation Room: Wolf Blitzer brings you the latest in political news and international events,
Erin Burnett OutFront: Anthony Weiner stages a comeback. Do sex scandals still matter?
Anderson Cooper 360ยบ: AC360° exclusive: Former Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, talk about her recovery and efforts to change gun laws,
Piers Morgan Live: America's ongoing gun debate: The deal proposal that would expand background checks on sales of firearms.
These shows cover topics within the news, but often feature boisterous WWE caliber arguing and opinion bashing in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Red faced activists and self proclaimed influence peddlers customarily interrupt the host, with the idea that the loudest argument will eventually be accepted as the right argument.
CNN Headline News isn't much better, having broadcast entire blocks of live testimony in the Jodi Arias murder trial. Although vivid descriptions of her abusive relationship, with Travis Alexander, satisfied voyeuristic appetites across the country, the broadcasts offered no real informative value to anyone not on the jury.If I had my way, news shows would feature straight no nonsense reporting on important stories on; politics, economics, crime, national security, and global events; and stories involving kids fashion, celebrity gossip, diet tips, make-up tips, etc.... would be confined to non-news shows & networks.
I have little, if any, hope of having my wish granted. The simple truth is, these non-news stories boost ratings and sell products.
Many Americans say they're tired of sex scandals on news, yet viewer ratings seem to sky rocket for any show featuring stories about Charlie Sheen's antics, Tom Cruise's divorce from Katie Holmes, and Angelina Jolie's relationship with Brad Pitt.
As these titillating tales boost ratings & commercial prices, the aforementioned stories on; kids fashion, celebrity hair plugs, diet tips, and make-up tips; are selling; kids clothes, Hair Club memberships, diet books, and lip stick; reducing such segments to virtual infomercials.
Being fed a steady diet of media regurgitated Pablum, instead of hard news has taken its toll on the populace. According to a nation wide survey/quiz, twenty-nine percent of Americans can't name the Vice-President, yet Kim Kadashian, a woman known for dating famous men and partying with Paris Hilton, has over seventeen million Twitter followers.
Think about it.
-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)