I am not one to parse words or soften my language to minimize any possible perceived offense to those who may be listening to me. It's not meant to be offensive it's simply how I am. I am also not able to ignore stupidity, ignorance or just plain silliness when they rear their ugly heads. There are times when moderating what I say is just not possible when confronted by the slings and arrows of outrageous thinking. Of all the things I find either distasteful or wrong with modern society, political correctness is the most insidious and dangerous element to gain a foothold. Gone are the days of rational thinking and civil discourse with someone with an opposing viewpoint.
My plain spoken approach has left me on many occasions, branded as a racist, a bigot or a sexist just to name a few. This very thing happened recently while attempting to have a thoughtful exchange of ideas on racial perceptions and it's current impact on society. I was branded a racist because I deigned to speak openly and somewhat bluntly about race relations in America. Since our new president is black, I assumed that this indicated that we as a nation had indeed made some great strides towards Martin Luther King Jr's dream of looking beyond skin color to the character of people. I assumed I could talk openly of Obama's character with little fear of reproach.
I was wrong.
By simply talking about race, I was instantly thrust into the "David Duke For President" crowd based solely on the few words I had uttered. It brought the point home to me in a clear and somewhat brutal way, that what I may think is infinitely more important than what I may I may do. Not really even what I was thinking but what someone perceived my thinking was. So many people these days have thinking that has narrowed so profoundly that to them, actions no longer speak louder than words. Words are all that matters and you'd better be saying the right ones if you want to escape the moniker of "unenlightened". This perception that words are more important completely nullifies one of my mother's most important and often reinforced lessons. Having said this, I must now question the very fabric of the "Don't run with scissors" thesis and the ever popular, "Watching TV in the dark is bad for your eyes" postulate.
I know how shocking this must seem. The faint ripping noise you may be hearing is the delicate fabric of reality being torn down the middle as the many pieces of our basic learning begin to crumble before our very eyes. Next thing you know, I'll be telling you that broccoli is bad for you.
How could my mother have been so wrong? How could she insist for so long that it would be my actions and not my words that would eventually determine the shape of my character and the quality of my ethical makeup? I had been focusing so much on my actions through the course of my life, that I had neglected to give a scant thought...to my thoughts. I suspect that the next conversation I have with my mother, the woman who raised me and tried to instill a sense of values and ethics in me and my siblings, will have some very pointed questions about swimming after I eat and whether or not there truly is a boogeyman.
Calling me a racist because I talk openly about race is tantamount to calling me a baker because I talk openly about my affection for cake. It's ridiculous at best and meant to silence independent thought at it's worst. That's the sad truth behind the rise and eventual rule of political correctness. It's meant to quell an opposing viewpoint and silence the speaker in order to bring them into line. The only thing left after that is re-education camps for the pathologically truthful. I've learned to accept the occasional mischaracterizations of what I say as the product of narrow minds. I can sometimes hear, if I listen very closely, the offended party's mind closing. Slamming shut against what they see as wrongheadedness and provincial thinking.
We live now in a society where political correctness has run amok. No longer are people blind, they are visually impaired. No one need worry about being short, fat, thin, poor or handicapped ever again. The language and thought police have rendered us all "societally neutral" now. Vanished like smoke are the differences that made our country such a rich and varied place to live. They have officially made us all the same now. Bland and devoid of individualism and independence. I expect to be served with a warrant for all the dangerous and unenlightened thoughts I may still have. I can just picture them exiting my home with file boxes filled with all those thoughts they find wrong.
I no longer have to live my life as a short, bald Italian man. Thanks to the thought police I am now a vertically and follically challenged person of color. Somehow, I don't feel particularly comforted by this change. I don't look or feel any differently than I did before which begs the question...
Is the change really necessary?
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The 4th estate is in foreclosure
"I felt this thrill going up my leg."
That phrase, spoken by Chris Matthews about a speech that Barrack Obama had given while campaigning, sounded the death knell for objectivity in the media. He may not have spoken for the majority of media outlets but he simply said what they were all feeling as the election drew near. They had chosen their horse in this race and were going to set about seeing that it won, at the expense of their own credibility.
Media bias is nothing new and certainly does not rise to the level of a crisis in America but the steady decline of objectivity snowballed out of control in direct proportion to Obama's impending nomination and subsequent victory. He's more media creation than substantive personality. They cherry picked those facts that would help propel him to glory while ignoring things that would have brought Edward R. Murrow to his feet to demand a reckoning of the facts.
Granted, Matthews and some of his more outspoken colleagues like Keith Olberman and Sean Hannity are typically termed "opinion journalists" so they tend to infuse their "reporting" with a great deal of bias. What they do can no longer be called reporting though. By it's strictest definition, a reporter goes to places where the majority of us can't go and tells us about an event or news story. Ascertaining the who,what, how, where, when and occasionally, the why of a story.
I cite Edward R. Murrow here because he is the epitome of the dispassionate observer to world events. One never knew Murrow's political leanings because he found them of no value and injurious to basic reporting. He was fierce in his questioning at times but only insomuch as it served the dissemination of the facts. He wanted the whole story, not just the bits that conformed to his world view. I viewed Tom Brokaw in this same light for many years. He seemed fair and honest and willing to lend a critical eye to most of what he reported on the nightly news. Since his retirement he is more able to lean a little and rightly so. He is no longer charged with dispassionate observance. God speed to him in fact. It is his due after all. Brian Williams, on the other hand, has proven to be a less than credible replacement for Brokaw. Williams' recent "Day in the life" of the Obama presidency turned out to be a shameless plug for for the Democrat party. It looked less like news and more like a reality TV show. Williams breathlessly "reported" the events of Obama's day with all the objectivity of a pit bull talking about a raw steak. You knew he was loving every minute of this piece. I think the word "man crush" can be used here quite aptly.
The vast majority of what churns out of journalism schools today are eager, young minds who feel it is their duty to change the world by exposing the truth behind the curtain of politics and society. They seem disproportionately interested in bringing down only one side of the aisle though and that is where the line in the sand has been crossed. Journalism schools teach opinion and not reporting these days. They are more indoctrination camps for the rich and snotty than they are schools.
At one time, many years ago, I dreamed of walking the halls of the Columbia School of Journalism immersed in the ambiance of free and open debate and discussion with students of all kinds. I imagined this would be the the ultimate expression of ideas and ideals. I was a Liberal Democrat back then and had the same idea. I wanted to change the world. To set the world right as I saw it. I voted for Clinton...twice. I railed against Limbaugh and Gingrich as hacks who had no sense of decency or honesty between them. I had grown up with the mantra of "evil, rich white people" all my life and it narrowed my view and discolored my thinking.
Around the time Clinton bombed a tent to cover up or at least minimize the damage from the Lewinsky scandal, I began to see things differently. It was a slow, painful process for me as I began to see the media's complicity in the whole sordid affair. They weren't telling me the whole story. They were only telling me the parts that they thought I needed to know. I took this to mean that they did not trust my innate intelligence enough to let me make up my own mind. They had an agenda and it became more obvious as the days and weeks progressed. I began to question everything I heard or read in the news. It was then that I began listening to talk radio. It was the only place to go at the time to hear an opposing viewpoint as it was obvious that the big 3 and CNN had already made their minds up.
These days, I gather my facts from as many sources as I can. CNN, Fox, Slate, Drudge, The Huffington Post, the NY Times and the Washington Post. Yes I listen to Limbaugh as well. He is iconic and plain spoken and makes no bones about his own bias. At least he's honest about it. Brian Williams and Katie Couric aren't honest. They peddle an agenda and disguise it as "news". They have no faith in my own ability to ascertain the truth of a story. They simply boil it down in little bite size morsels and then attempt to tell me how to feel and think about it. So did Dan Rather for that matter. His insistence that a candidate's military service had no bearing on his character seemed like preaching when he began to investigate Bush' military service. Suddenly, it had all the bearing in the world and he chased a non-story, a lie essentially, to the gates of hell and it eventually proved to be his undoing. Good riddance to shoddy reporting. He deserves the pariah's cloak he wears now.
I will admit that the vast majority of media outlets don't lie outright when they give me the news. They simply omit those facts that clash with their own ideas and ideals. I can't watch Sean Hannity for the same reason I can't watch Chris Matthews. I have my own opinions and I don't need Matthews describing the thrill up his leg or to hear Hannity beating the drum of "radical friends" while wrapping himself in the flag at the same time. Neither has any credibility with me. I just want all the facts, even the uncomfortable ones. Don't wash the story clean of the parts you don't like.
I was raised Catholic. A sin of omission... is still a sin.
That phrase, spoken by Chris Matthews about a speech that Barrack Obama had given while campaigning, sounded the death knell for objectivity in the media. He may not have spoken for the majority of media outlets but he simply said what they were all feeling as the election drew near. They had chosen their horse in this race and were going to set about seeing that it won, at the expense of their own credibility.
Media bias is nothing new and certainly does not rise to the level of a crisis in America but the steady decline of objectivity snowballed out of control in direct proportion to Obama's impending nomination and subsequent victory. He's more media creation than substantive personality. They cherry picked those facts that would help propel him to glory while ignoring things that would have brought Edward R. Murrow to his feet to demand a reckoning of the facts.
Granted, Matthews and some of his more outspoken colleagues like Keith Olberman and Sean Hannity are typically termed "opinion journalists" so they tend to infuse their "reporting" with a great deal of bias. What they do can no longer be called reporting though. By it's strictest definition, a reporter goes to places where the majority of us can't go and tells us about an event or news story. Ascertaining the who,what, how, where, when and occasionally, the why of a story.
I cite Edward R. Murrow here because he is the epitome of the dispassionate observer to world events. One never knew Murrow's political leanings because he found them of no value and injurious to basic reporting. He was fierce in his questioning at times but only insomuch as it served the dissemination of the facts. He wanted the whole story, not just the bits that conformed to his world view. I viewed Tom Brokaw in this same light for many years. He seemed fair and honest and willing to lend a critical eye to most of what he reported on the nightly news. Since his retirement he is more able to lean a little and rightly so. He is no longer charged with dispassionate observance. God speed to him in fact. It is his due after all. Brian Williams, on the other hand, has proven to be a less than credible replacement for Brokaw. Williams' recent "Day in the life" of the Obama presidency turned out to be a shameless plug for for the Democrat party. It looked less like news and more like a reality TV show. Williams breathlessly "reported" the events of Obama's day with all the objectivity of a pit bull talking about a raw steak. You knew he was loving every minute of this piece. I think the word "man crush" can be used here quite aptly.
The vast majority of what churns out of journalism schools today are eager, young minds who feel it is their duty to change the world by exposing the truth behind the curtain of politics and society. They seem disproportionately interested in bringing down only one side of the aisle though and that is where the line in the sand has been crossed. Journalism schools teach opinion and not reporting these days. They are more indoctrination camps for the rich and snotty than they are schools.
At one time, many years ago, I dreamed of walking the halls of the Columbia School of Journalism immersed in the ambiance of free and open debate and discussion with students of all kinds. I imagined this would be the the ultimate expression of ideas and ideals. I was a Liberal Democrat back then and had the same idea. I wanted to change the world. To set the world right as I saw it. I voted for Clinton...twice. I railed against Limbaugh and Gingrich as hacks who had no sense of decency or honesty between them. I had grown up with the mantra of "evil, rich white people" all my life and it narrowed my view and discolored my thinking.
Around the time Clinton bombed a tent to cover up or at least minimize the damage from the Lewinsky scandal, I began to see things differently. It was a slow, painful process for me as I began to see the media's complicity in the whole sordid affair. They weren't telling me the whole story. They were only telling me the parts that they thought I needed to know. I took this to mean that they did not trust my innate intelligence enough to let me make up my own mind. They had an agenda and it became more obvious as the days and weeks progressed. I began to question everything I heard or read in the news. It was then that I began listening to talk radio. It was the only place to go at the time to hear an opposing viewpoint as it was obvious that the big 3 and CNN had already made their minds up.
These days, I gather my facts from as many sources as I can. CNN, Fox, Slate, Drudge, The Huffington Post, the NY Times and the Washington Post. Yes I listen to Limbaugh as well. He is iconic and plain spoken and makes no bones about his own bias. At least he's honest about it. Brian Williams and Katie Couric aren't honest. They peddle an agenda and disguise it as "news". They have no faith in my own ability to ascertain the truth of a story. They simply boil it down in little bite size morsels and then attempt to tell me how to feel and think about it. So did Dan Rather for that matter. His insistence that a candidate's military service had no bearing on his character seemed like preaching when he began to investigate Bush' military service. Suddenly, it had all the bearing in the world and he chased a non-story, a lie essentially, to the gates of hell and it eventually proved to be his undoing. Good riddance to shoddy reporting. He deserves the pariah's cloak he wears now.
I will admit that the vast majority of media outlets don't lie outright when they give me the news. They simply omit those facts that clash with their own ideas and ideals. I can't watch Sean Hannity for the same reason I can't watch Chris Matthews. I have my own opinions and I don't need Matthews describing the thrill up his leg or to hear Hannity beating the drum of "radical friends" while wrapping himself in the flag at the same time. Neither has any credibility with me. I just want all the facts, even the uncomfortable ones. Don't wash the story clean of the parts you don't like.
I was raised Catholic. A sin of omission... is still a sin.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Reform we can all believe in...at last!
I have it on good authority that house Republicans have drafted a bill that will bring sweeping change to another segment of our economy that has seen prices for it's services skyrocket out of control in the last ten years. This service is every bit as critical as health care and has consequences just as far reaching as climate change. I applaud their attempt to bring this under government control to give all of us equal access to it's services. It's about time this group, with it's huge lobbying arm and enormous political influence is made affordable to everyone and not just the wealthy. I'm talking of course...
about lawyers.
This new bill, if passed, will finally make legal services affordable for every American, not just the OJ types who can buy the best defense that money can buy. Some of the parts of this new bill spell out clearly the ways legal services will be rationed out to the public. I'll cite a few examples here;
Sec. 2.1.34a - At no time, shall an attorney collect more than 2% of his client's base salary on any judgment, award or other monetary gain resulting from a claim of damages. All monetary rewards shall be under the supervision of the "Damages Czar" and subject to review by a panel appointed by the President.
Sec.4.31.1c - All attorneys shall be reviewed on a yearly basis by the "Attorney Czar" and/or his/her appointed panel to show cause why they should be allowed to continue to practice law in the United States. Those found deficient will subsequently have their licenses revoked and assigned to job retraining to find employment in some other vital area...like working for UPS or Blockbuster. Said attorney shall work outside the legal system for a period of no less than five (5) years before being allowed to reenter the legal field, subject to review by the "Reentry Czar".
(One of my personal favorites)
Sec. 3.2.45.1a - Any criminal defense attorney found to have knowingly worked for, and consequently won acquittal as the result of a "technicality", a guilty client, will subsequently be made to serve the same sentence as the offender, irrespective of crime, income level or education level.
Sec. 1.2.1d - The costs associated with legal services shall henceforth be subject to a qualifier denoting income level and those persons found to be earning less than $150,000 per year shall receive free legal care. This amount may change should Joe Biden wander near a microphone.
Sec. 14.4.56a - No attorney shall be allowed to hold public office until such time as he/she has spent a period of time no less than 3 years outside the legal system and has demonstrated an ability to live amongst the "common folk". Heretofore referred to as the "Mobile Home" clause.
Sec. 17.5.34f Henceforth, no attorney shall be allowed to advertise on radio, cable, television, any print media or any other media not yet invented. Be happy we're letting you stay in the phone book.
Sec.4.32.11 All citizens shall be provided, on a one time basis, free use of up to but not exceeding, three (3) "legal eagles", those attorneys rated highest on their review by the Attorney Czar to provide defense in severe, serious or catastrophic circumstances. This will hereafter be referred to as the "Dream Team " clause. Remember, if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.
I'm obviously making a joke here but it's important to demonstrate the absurdity in having the government run something so vital as health care. Are Medicaid and Medicare running so smoothly and flawlessly that we would knowingly allow the government to take over the health of the entire country?
The current system is flawed but still remains the best in the world, with more life saving and life changing research and treatments being made available every day. Any good that may come from the Medicare and Medicaid system must be granted to the thousands of health care professionals who dispense care, not the the Federal Government. All the government does is to provide an avenue for those services, not for the services themselves. Sadly, for those who need to travel down that avenue, they find it filled with obstacles, potholes and speed bumps that inevitably reduce it's overall effectiveness.
Having written this piece leaves me wondering what other areas the government would be more adept at handling over the private sector. How about Government Run Automotive mechanics...or plumbers? I'd thought maybe the government should have a hand in the news and information business but it seems these days...they already do.
about lawyers.
This new bill, if passed, will finally make legal services affordable for every American, not just the OJ types who can buy the best defense that money can buy. Some of the parts of this new bill spell out clearly the ways legal services will be rationed out to the public. I'll cite a few examples here;
Sec. 2.1.34a - At no time, shall an attorney collect more than 2% of his client's base salary on any judgment, award or other monetary gain resulting from a claim of damages. All monetary rewards shall be under the supervision of the "Damages Czar" and subject to review by a panel appointed by the President.
Sec.4.31.1c - All attorneys shall be reviewed on a yearly basis by the "Attorney Czar" and/or his/her appointed panel to show cause why they should be allowed to continue to practice law in the United States. Those found deficient will subsequently have their licenses revoked and assigned to job retraining to find employment in some other vital area...like working for UPS or Blockbuster. Said attorney shall work outside the legal system for a period of no less than five (5) years before being allowed to reenter the legal field, subject to review by the "Reentry Czar".
(One of my personal favorites)
Sec. 3.2.45.1a - Any criminal defense attorney found to have knowingly worked for, and consequently won acquittal as the result of a "technicality", a guilty client, will subsequently be made to serve the same sentence as the offender, irrespective of crime, income level or education level.
Sec. 1.2.1d - The costs associated with legal services shall henceforth be subject to a qualifier denoting income level and those persons found to be earning less than $150,000 per year shall receive free legal care. This amount may change should Joe Biden wander near a microphone.
Sec. 14.4.56a - No attorney shall be allowed to hold public office until such time as he/she has spent a period of time no less than 3 years outside the legal system and has demonstrated an ability to live amongst the "common folk". Heretofore referred to as the "Mobile Home" clause.
Sec. 17.5.34f Henceforth, no attorney shall be allowed to advertise on radio, cable, television, any print media or any other media not yet invented. Be happy we're letting you stay in the phone book.
Sec.4.32.11 All citizens shall be provided, on a one time basis, free use of up to but not exceeding, three (3) "legal eagles", those attorneys rated highest on their review by the Attorney Czar to provide defense in severe, serious or catastrophic circumstances. This will hereafter be referred to as the "Dream Team " clause. Remember, if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.
I'm obviously making a joke here but it's important to demonstrate the absurdity in having the government run something so vital as health care. Are Medicaid and Medicare running so smoothly and flawlessly that we would knowingly allow the government to take over the health of the entire country?
The current system is flawed but still remains the best in the world, with more life saving and life changing research and treatments being made available every day. Any good that may come from the Medicare and Medicaid system must be granted to the thousands of health care professionals who dispense care, not the the Federal Government. All the government does is to provide an avenue for those services, not for the services themselves. Sadly, for those who need to travel down that avenue, they find it filled with obstacles, potholes and speed bumps that inevitably reduce it's overall effectiveness.
Having written this piece leaves me wondering what other areas the government would be more adept at handling over the private sector. How about Government Run Automotive mechanics...or plumbers? I'd thought maybe the government should have a hand in the news and information business but it seems these days...they already do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
