Forgiveness for the Uninformed, Rage Against the News Machine / 2-6-12

Not forgiveness for the "Uniformed." That would be a very condescending post.

I kid, because defensive mechanism. In all honesty, I'm not sure what the point of this little essay is, yet. I'm going to start with a list, follow it with between one and a dozen observations, leading to a semblance of a point, perhaps gracing it all with a counterpoint, if you're lucky. I plan to offer a conclusiony item near the endy part.

(Not sure how it's all going to turn out. This is just how they teach you to operate in school. Begin to write, then think.)

Pre-thinking stage: engage.

a) Israel is thinking of starting a little war with Iran.

b) A riot killed 79 people in Egypt last week, and injured hundreds. The aftershock riot, a couple days later, killed 10 more.

c) Syria continues to knock off its citizens, day by day. Russia and China are vetoing any U.N. action.

d) Oh yeah, speaking of Russia, as hundreds of its citizens continue to die of cold, hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets in protest and support for apparent King Vladimir Putin.

e) The Republicans are choosing a presidential candidate, one state at a time. One guy seems to have taken charge, but it's been a pretty topsy-turvy ride so far.

f) Facebook is readying for what could be the largest IPO of all time. Hell, throw moderation out the window. This WILL be the largest one of all time.

g) Unemployment is dipping quickly.

h) Same-sex marriage is being considered/approved in three more states (WA, NJ, MN).

i) A Super Bowl was played yesterday. A good one, too. Record viewership for the game and the halftime show.

j) Outrage at the Susan B. Komen For the Cure's plan to defund Planned Parenthood caused the board to reverse its decision.

k) Citizens United is now two years old. The court case that paved the way for unlimited (unlimited!) donations from a single entity to a political campaign. It's being challenged everywhere, because most people are against bribery. (Unlimited donations! Pause for a second and think that one over.)

Those are just the top stories I can recite off the top of my head. A bit of shallow research reveals that a few other significant things are also ongoing.

l) Russian scientists are about to finish drilling through two miles of Antarctic ice and reach a pressurized underground lake that has not been explored for 100 million years. What's that again about the Mayan prophecy?

m) More European countries' debt ratings are in danger of being downgraded as they begin to deal with the consequences of unfunded spending programs. Like France and stuff. Big financial problems ahead, probably, with worldwide ramifications.

n) Fidel Castro was seen in public, touting a memoir. Remember him?

o) Hey, guess what: this little thing called "Occupy" is still happening, with peaceful protesters being mistreated by police every day, First Amendment be damned.

Thinking stage: engage.

First pointlet, then is that all that stuff listed above happened or continued to happen last week. How can a person possibly stay informed? Reading enough on each of these topics, just enough to rise above mal-informed to semi-informed, would take a person's entire trove of free time. No matter how much that person had! 168 hours might be sufficient, on a weekly basis, provided the person were a very fast reader. And possessed a time machine.

One could read headlines only. I have lots of days when that's all I can do. The experience is very unsatisfying, like a daily diet composed of fourteen snacks instead of three and a half meals.

I didn't even include any of the gossip "news" that bubbles at the surface -- Justin Bieber this, Kim Kardashian that, Brad Pitt this, MIA that. Best leave those "stories" to the professionals.

No sense in trying to stay up on the local stuff, either. Sticking strictly with national and international stories above, and just the big ones at that. Property taxes going up or serial killer strikes again in your town? You could hardly know that, unless it was your job to know so many things. So very many things.

That's why, today, pointlet two: I'm asking for and granting forgiveness to all uninformed parties everywhere. I am extending, right now, a blanket -- nay, a veritable quilt of mercy to all planetary inhabitants. You didn't know the city of Berkeley voted to pull out $300 million in assets from a large bank, so it could place the money in a more socially conscious place? Peace be with you. You didn't catch the headlines about the quake in the Philippines? Shalom anyway, Allahu Akbar and all that jazz. You holding on to something earth-shattering I didn't know about? I humbly beg your forgiveness.

There's too much information. It's too easy to disseminate. It's getting harder and harder to sort through it all, let alone keep up with a story for more than a day or two.

I'm not sure how this will turn out, still, but it appears a major point has stumbled into this post: We, as a nation, are bombarded with news. We've become are too adept at reporting stories. I submit that we have left the land of diminishing returns, news-wise, and have bravely set foot on a new patch of terra firma, where the amount of information available now places too much power in the hands of the aggregators and the opinion makers.

An amateur news-gatherer, or a semi-interested news reader, who has literally millions of informative blogs to choose from, is ironically more at the mercy now of news aggregators than ever before.

I can't stress enough how ironic the situation has become. There are hundreds of major news outlets slanted this way or that, and hundreds more trying so very hard to be unslanted. Old media and new media have merged -- you tell me how we should tell them apart. How do you find enough to make up your mind on any issue of importance? How do you find a reliable source, who will give you facts and analysis you can trust, and I don't mean based on ideology, but on sound thought processes and verifiable events?

For so very many of us, you don't. You stop by Daily Kos and the Huffington Post on your lunch hour if you're a liberal, catch some Rush Limbaugh on talk radio in the car and log on at redstate for a few minutes in the evening if you're a conservative. Why? Because you're not going to spend half your day researching a major issue or story, unless it's your job.

The junkiest of new junkies among us will always devour enough material to satisfy their appetites, and if they do it right, they'll turn that information into knowledge. The rest of us? Good freakin luck.

I don't think the current state of news presentation is healthy for our republic. But I also don't have a solution. Feel free to suggest one.

You Probably Won't Even Remember This Headline / 3-16-11

I'm not a history scholar by any means.

But it sure seems to this untrained observer that world events move at a different pace now.

In 1989-1991, an entire empire (one built on the quicksand of totalitarianism disguised as communism) disappeared from the face of the earth, just like that. My senior year in high school, a whole quarter of our social studies course was to be dedicated to studying the U.S.S.R.; it was naturally meant to fall under the rubric of geography. Yeah. That ended up being a history lesson instead.

We marveled at the breakneck speed of revolution. Boy, were we ever young.

(And before I go on, hell yes, those were awesome times to be a teenager! The world was on fire. [Hey! Billy Joel is NOT playing in the background. You're not hearing that song. You're really not. You might be hearing this one, however.] Relatively bloodless revolutions toppled regime after regime in Eastern Europe. Borders opened, walls fell, and a speedy war in Kuwait placed America so very squarely on top of the international food chain. Outside the food chain, even. For a decade.)

And to think, at the time, we didn't even have cell phones, the Internet, digital cameras, music downloading, DVD's... those things spent the 90's becoming ubiquitous.

So instead of experiencing another round of political upheaval, we held on the rest of that decade for dear virtual life as technological advances raced ahead with maniacal all-obsoleting speed. CD's used to mean something. Cordless phones used to mean something. 1 megapixel used to mean something. Digital cameras used to mean something. Huh. 128 megs of RAM was once considered ostentatious.

But you were there. You know all this.

What does it mean?

It means we're living in an uncertain era of change, and sometimes we don't even know what brand of change is lurking around the calendar's corner. Unhyperbolically, we're passengers in an era of hyper-accelerated cause and effect. Facebook and Twitter and other platforms have brought the reality of constant motion and constant contact to every doorstep, or to every doorstep's neighbor. You can be unconnected, but it takes an advanced degree in Hermitology and a will of titanium. Or a trip to the inner reaches of, say, Congo. (In a pinch, a week of watching Fox "News" will fill you with enough untruths that your connection becomes spotty.)

Everything is everywhere -- even in Congo, truth be told -- if only we want it. Sometimes when we don't want it, hm. The next thing is always about to happen; the last object in your rear view mirror is way, way, way farther than it appears.

Sudan voted to split into two nations way back in January. Remember? More than 100 people died in a bombing in Moscow a couple weeks later. Anyone recall the New Zealand earthquake that killed 200 people? Yeah, me neither. That was all the way back in February. Three weeks ago already.

Who was the president of Egypt from October 1981 until last month? Can't think back that far. That was one 9.0 quake, one tsunami, two near-government shutdowns, one bloody civil war, five major civil unrests, one oil spike, four nuclear explosions, one stock market hiccup and one Charlie Sheen ago. (Come to think of it, Charlie's kind of old news.)

I'd like to offer three conclusions from the observations above:

1. No longer does the phrase "We've always done it this way" carry any weight. For better or worse, traditions are measured in weeks and months, maybe years, but certainly not decades or longer. One-day-old news is exactly that. No, not news -- one day OLD.

2. People resistant to change are going to have a very, very, very hard time the rest of this century.

3. September 11, 2001 will be 10 years old when we go back to school after summer vacation. It might as well have happened a thousand years ago.

Eight Comebacks Is Enough / 12-10-10

I'm kind of not up for a full post, with research and flow and a three-point outline and all, so here are ochoremarks directed at news headlines from today.

(It's possible I may briefly stray from this blog's holy trinity of politics, spirituality and sports.)

House Democrats "Just Say No" to Tax Deal: Good for them. Someone needs to step in front of the Senate Republicans' Bus To Bankruptcy and remind us that more tax cuts for the rich is a stupidiotic and dumtarded idea. (Yes, I have a second installment of this type of headline later in the post.)

New Clothing Line Reminds TSA of the Fourth Amendment: Brilliant, I say. Check out these T-shirts that have the Bill of Rights' prohibition of unreasonable searches printed in metallic type, so they show up on the scanners. Brilliant.

Miley Cyrus Video: Partying With a Bong: Good for her. She's 18 and the stuff in the bong (salvia, not to be confused with saliva) was legal. If you have a problem with her doing this "because think of all the children who look up to her, omifreakingosh," then I have two semi-rude things to tell you. 1) Those kids aren't Miley's, so she has no responsibility in their upbringing, and 2) If you're not prepared to talk to your kids about things like bongs, then maybe you shouldn't have brought kids into this world, which contains bongs, in the first place. Maybe some other world would suit you instead.

Should You Accept Mom & Dad's facebook Request?: As a facebook-American who has recently accepted a parental friend request, I urge you to read the flow chart at the page to which I linked. Laughing is optional yet inevitable.

Gingrich Calls Assange an "Enemy Combatant": And calls the ongoing Wilileaks leaks an "act of war against the United States." I'm not a fan of Assange's crusade to expose the inner workings of diplomacy. I think his actions are ill-advised and bound to increase the instability of an already unstable world order. Lives may well be lost as a result. But do I think the U.S. should try and stop him, using force? No. I swear, for an intelligent guy, Newt is from another planet sometimes.

Tax-cut plan digs deeper deficit hole: No kidding. Ya think? That's why it was easily Baby Bush's most destructive, anti-American move. (And that's saying something.) Our unrealistically low taxes need to end at some point. And maybe the opening stages of sputtering economic recovery is not the best time for reality to set in, and for us to buck up and begin to pay our share. But the status quo is irresponsible, and practically immoral. Anything is better than our present course.

Newton should accept, then return his Heisman: Right. The Auburn QB should win the highest honor in his field, then pretend he doesn't want it? Ludicrous. (At least the blog's author admits "this won't happen anywhere but in the super-awesome dream lobe of my brain.") The sad truth is, Newton should have been suspended long ago. The NCAA rulebook states a player loses his eligibility if a person even simply *solicits* money on his behalf, let alone accepts it. Not only that, how is anyone supposed to believe that Newton's family turned down $180k from Mississippi State so the dude could play at Auburn... for free? No, sorry, the mind does not stretch that far. Go Ducks. (Blech.)

Halliburton May Pay $500M to Keep Cheney Out of Prison: This is a no-lose situation. The former "vice" president has been charged with 16 counts of bribery by Nigerian investigators. Either he stands trial or his beloved company forks out half a billion. Side note: One of the companies concurrently charged in this case already pleaded guilty to the same bribes last year and paid a hefty fine. Ah. I feel better already.

(Yes, I'll eventually post something about DADT. I'm getting there. But I have to work through some anger first.)

No Bull Peace Prize / 10-9-09

Depending on how much you hate Barack Hussein Obama, you were either stunned, pleased, or disappointed that he won the Nobel Peace prize this morning.

Well, that's not entirely fair. Even though I am an unabashed - or at most minimally abashed - fan of the man, I found myself admitting this morning that he's not the most deserving laureate ever. Then I did some research. (Allah forbid!) I unearthed some interesting finds. Found me some interesting unearthings.

But first, let's hear some hate. Every one of the following comments I culled from my facebook friends and their friends. All statements were posted today. None of them is made up; there's no need to manufacture this kind of contempt for the President. It just naturally bubbles up when given the chance. And it often gets the chance. A lot of people really dislike him a lot.

"I'd like to humbly accept my award for winning "The Biggest Loser" for all of the weight I intend to lose some day."
"I think the prize was awarded just to see if Obama would take it. He knows he hasn't done anything, we know he hasn't done anything, the world knows he hasn't done anything. Some where behind the scenes there's some blond haired Norwegians laughing and poking each other: 'See! I told you Obama and his big ego would accept the award, now pay up!' "
"SOME skepticism? Honestly, wtf did he do to deserve that?"
"it's officall, the world has lost it's mind. How does this guy compare to mother Theressa or Nelson Mandella?"
"At least now I know I have a shot at winning it because I don't do carp either. What has the world come to?"

Now, an assortment of facts, buttressed by opinion. You know, the way reason is supposed to work. And I promise to not do any carp at all. Either.

First, BHO actually meets the criteria the Nobel committee is supposed to follow. The NPP is to be conferred on, and I quote: "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

There's an argument that Obama has moved swiftly in these areas, already, although you wouldn't know it from media coverage. Please, whatever you think of the man, acknowledge that Obama is presently using the power of his office to ease tensions in a variety of places around the globe. He's actually aiming to restore peace in actual real-world situations. Right now. I found this buried in the main story at CNN.com:

"The award comes at a crucial time for Obama, who has multiple administration officials dispatched on global peace missions. Obama's envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, has returned to the region to advocate for peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Mitchell met Thursday with Israeli President Shimon Peres. He plans to meet Friday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before talking with Palestinian leaders in the West Bank. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was starting a six-day trip to Russia and Europe on Friday. On the trip, the secretary will discuss the next steps on Iran and North Korea, and international efforts to have the two countries end their nuclear programs.The centerpiece of the trip will be her visit to Moscow, where she will work toward an agreement to take the place of the Start II arms control pact, which expires December 5."

Granted, it's not immaterial whether Obama meets the criteria the American public has laid out in its collective mind. Clearly he would be viewed more legitimately, and the award would carry more weight, if it were universally agreed that his efforts to bring about peace had already borne some fruit. For example, Jimmy Carter scored himself an NPP in 2002, 21 years after leaving office, for in large part his work in mediating the Israel-Egypt peace talks, and those two nations have now enjoyed cordial, war-free diplomatic relations for 30 years, and everyone pretty much agrees Carter earned that puppy.

And then, we have the little matter of precedent. The Nobel committee has actually conferred a Peace Prize on heads of state for efforts, as of then unfulfilled, to change the world. Mikhail Gorbachev won it in 1990. As it says: for his "role" in the "process." Not for his results, at the time, as of yet unachieved.

Not sure how this fits into my narrative, but I found it at nytimes.com, which quotes John McCain as saying: "Oh, I’m sure that the president is very honored to receive this award. And Nobel Committee, I can’t divine all their intentions, but I think part of their decision-making was expectations. And I’m sure the president understands that he now has even more to live up to. But as Americans, we’re proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category.” Take it for what it's worth.

And finally, consider that an American President is surely one of the very most powerful people on earth... ah, who are we kidding, surely one of the most powerful men on earth, and most certainly one of the three people with the most power to wreak destruction and annihilation on a worldwide or local level. Who, besides the head of the Communist Party in China and the Russian Prime Minister, has the capacity to kill as many people as our top exec? Ruin as many lives? Snuff out as many nations for political gain?

Therefore, my parting thot is: The fact that we now have a President who uses the office to try and solve conflicts, rather than a careless warmonger who places little value on human life, is cause for celebration. Not ridicule.