The New Journalism

With the collapse of the trademark Seattle newspaper last week, and the fall of similar ones throughout the country, the ushering in of the next generation of journalism has begun. The days of the huge story breaking after an overeager writer spends 10 months verifying hunches are a thing of the past, replaced by the quick headline that has become the trademark of the 24-hour news cycle. In the past, a journalist would raise a question, spend the time in legitimate research to answer the question, and then had a completed account that lived up to, not only his own personal standards, but often multiple editors that held the key to it actually being published. Not so much anymore.

The idea alone that there might be a story has become the story. Headlines are filled with what might be the case, the possibility of wrongdoing, the actual hunch. Once the headline is released, the reaction will determine whether the research and costs that would need to be expended to confirm the sources or delve deeper into the issue are warranted. The AIG mess is a perfect example of this "shoot from the hip" journalism. Release the story with few, if any, facts. “AIG to give 170 million in bonuses.” Great. Just enough information for the conspiracy starved, teetering on the edge of all out revolt audience really needs to jet right past inquisitive to flat-out pissed off. The hours’ worth of research needed to find out that it was government lawyers that signed off on these payments months ago with completely valid reasons, and that this decision to allow them more than likely saved millions in additional legal fees, just was not worth it until the reaction was determined. Additionally, can these payments even be called bonuses? Isn’t a bonus something paid beyond what the company is contractually obligated to pay? Since these payments were detailed in a contract, they cannot even be considered bonuses.

What makes this story an example of new journalism is that it is simply an extention of what the general public already knows. If some small bank out in West Bumblefuck accepted government bailout funds and then gave out a bonus, would anyone really care? There is no need or desire to go find the new story, the one that does not already have a place in the public consciousness. Everyone has already heard of AIG, making it a perfect target. Need a headline? Go to what is commonly known, and put it in a new light. If you’re really good, you don’t have to wait for the reaction, you simply tell the public what to feel. Introduce the story with words like anger, outrage, and greed. And just watch as everything falls in line. It is the easiest and least expensive way to manufacture ratings.

After succumbing to this manufactured rage, a group of enraged citizens filled a bus and went on a nice tour of the homes of the AIG executives to drop off a few letters. Surrounded by media that outnumbered them 2-1, they read the letter aloud for the camera before putting it in the mailbox in front of one particular mansion. Which outraged member of society was selected to read this letter? A part time high school coach earning $9,000 a year.

I wonder how many of his tax dollars went toward the bailout.

The AIG Debacle

This is getting to be a bit much.

How far can this AIG mess go? It’s bad enough that the taxpayers handed over in excess of 180 billion to the financial giant, but nothing compares to what just happened. Not the fact that 200 million went out in bonuses. That’s an ethical issue to be debated in bars and living rooms throughout the country. That our congress insists on yet another inane kneejerk reaction to it is what we really should be upset about. Americans are protesting outside the homes of AIG executives, when it should be on the mall in Washington. It is simply another example of horrifically misguided anger on all sides of this mess, and serves as a blind diversion to the real issues at hand.

Why do we suddenly care about 200 million, hardly 1.5 percent of the amount given to AIG? These were contractual bonuses, and the inclusion in the original bailout of the provision that allowed them saved a small fortune in potential legal fees. Who in the world would not sue for their bonuses when it was clearly written into an employment contract? Lawyers would have a field day with this. Now, Chris Dodd must fight for his political life for doing exactly what some rather intelligent lawyer told him to (I am leaving out the little flop-flop of denial, however).

Isn’t the real issue, considering the global nature of AIG, the amount of the bailout that has been siphoned overseas? Not to mix the bailout with any stimulus package, but Americans have the right to believe that cash handed to a corporation in the U. S. should, at the very least, stay here. Since transparency has not yet (ever?) hit AIG, we have no idea. Whether the bailout was necessary is a debate left for those far more intelligent than I, but a high I.Q. is not necessary to realize that a politician handing out taxpayer dough has a responsibility to know exactly where it is going.

And I.Q. is the primary reason we should not have such a huge issue with these legally-mandated bonus payments. Economists all over the globe cannot fully understand, never mind explain, the AIG mess. Many of the executives responsible have since left the company, some not so voluntarily. It would be a very prudent move to keep as many of those involved, those that actually understand this disaster, in the rolodex. Concern needs to be paid on the return of the 180 billion, and if 200 million in bonus payments is the best shot we have at keeping the ones that can make that happen onboard, and also avoids the millions in additional legal fees we would have faced should Mr. Dodd left that one line out, then why would we fight this? If the employees can be coerced into voluntarily returning the cash, as some already have, great. Short of that, we need to just let this one go.

The Curious Case of A-theism v. Atheism.

At the beginning of April, The atheist alliance will host their annual convention, featuring keynote speaker Richard Dawkins. While it is no secret that I am an atheist, and am a fan of Professor Dawkins, the logic of such a convention is puzzling. Atheists, in their fervor, have essentially created a new religion, with a unique theology and respected leaders. And it can be no wonder that in many circles, they are developing a very negative name for themselves.

I do not believe in god. I also do not believe in Zeus, Horus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, although I find each of them extremely entertaining. This is simply a logical conclusion I have come to after a careful consideration of the current available evidence. There is certainly a chance I am wrong, and I would be pleasantly surprised at my death to find myself at a rather large, pearly gate (although I doubt I would be there long. I am sure a quick and permanent trip south would be in my future.) This conclusion makes me an “a-theist”, as in the opposite of a “theist”, or one that believes in a deity. And here is where a differentiation must be made.

An Atheist however, with a capital a, is a member of a religion that does not believe in a deity. It is very different. They will meet at conventions, hold weekly meetings, and make daily visits to websites to discuss something they do not believe in. They will march, plaster billboards and buses with their message, and welcome an all out argument. And they have, and look up to, leaders that give them clear direction on how to clarify their message to the public. In short, they have become what they so vehemently detest, an organized religion, based solely on something they do not believe in.

The fact is belief in god is not a real issue. There is nothing wrong with belief in any deity, or imaginary character. If believing in god helps you through a difficult time, or even just through the day, great. As children, many of us had imaginary friends that we swore by, often as an antidote for abuse or loneliness. There is no harm in this, and in many cases, it is encouraged. The issue is not belief in god; the real issue is the belief that god is using some of us to tell the others what to do. If all those that believed in god just stayed home on Sunday and read the bible, the world would be just fine. But go to church, and you learn to hate homosexuals and basically anyone that does not share your beliefs. Every religion feels strongly that theirs is the one god is using on this earth to spread his message, and thus all the others are false. Playing well with others takes on a whole new meaning when you are sure “the others” will all be spending eternity burning in hell.

Turning a-theism into the religion of Atheism it has become is disheartening to say the least, not to mention counter-productive. The logical, scientific approach that leads many to question the existence of god becomes buried beneath a new dogma created by the natural need of a leader to lead, and the individual thought that led one to become an atheist will quickly be replaced with the talking points provided by a what has become a new religion. It truly is an amazing phenomenon. The feeling of enlightenment and uniqueness in the great sea of humanity that one feels when finally finding a religion that speaks to them dissipates quickly, revealing the real need to be a part of something, a society, a community, a religion. That a religion could be based on non-belief should come as no surprise. Maybe Jesus was right. We are all just “sheep without a shepherd”, desperate to find one. Any one.

An Ode to Robin Hood

One of the more common assaults by Republicans is the party-line chant of socialism. “Obama is taking from hard working Americans and giving it to those that don’t want to work.” I’ve even heard him referred to as Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Yes, that same horrible Robin Hood, known by generations of children as one of the more evil characters throughout literature. But what is most obvious is that so few have any real idea what Obama’s policies truly are, and even worse, don’t want to.

Obama has not proposed any new taxes on anyone. He will simply allow the Bush tax cuts on the rich to expire. So taxes they would have paid 7 years ago would start up again. These will affect those making approximately $250,000.00 and over, and those would see rates grow from 35% to 38% on only the amount over the $250,000. For the slow among us, taxes do not affect what you already have. And it is entirely reasonable to believe that anyone making above a quarter million a year might have a few bucks in the bank; there are very few entry level jobs starting at that level. So the rich will pay a slightly higher percentage on the money that they do not yet have, after taking huge advantage the last few decades of the numerous tax breaks and loopholes afforded them to grow their fortunes.

Since the population in this tax bracket is miniscule, what are the majority of Republicans up in arms about? In her recent documentary “Right America, Wronged America”, Alexandra Pelosi (yes, you-know-who’s daughter) followed the McCain campaign bus from rally to rally, interviewing attendees. At one point, there is a plumber in an on-its-last-legs truck, with a sign on the side calling Obama a socialist. Near tears, he explains how he does not want his money taken from him and given to the man that only wants to work 2 or 3 days a week. Even after it was explained to him that was not the case, and that he would be in the group benefiting most, he remained in denial, not wanting to hear more.

Since the Reagan administration, we have been saddled with the “trickle-down” economic belief that the rich would somehow use that wealth to create jobs and grow the middle class. In the past, I would have referred to it as a theory, but it no longer deserves even that status. Expecting the rich to “spread the wealth around” is like asking Rush Limbaugh to turn down a cheeseburger. (By the way Rush, dieting is slimming. Wearing black isn’t). We have put our future in the welcoming arms of the upper class, and now have nothing to show for it. Brainwashed Republicans can cry out for smaller government all they want, but an intelligent White House is needed now more than ever.

America is not, and never has been, the land of equal rights. We were drastically behind many developed countries when it came to legal equality for women and African Americans. What we have been is the land of equal opportunity to get rich. No matter your color, creed or gender, if you could act, run fast or hit a baseball, we made you rich. If you could guess right in the stock market or lottery, we made you rich. It didn’t even matter if what you were good at was illegal. Hell, we made Jesse James a folk hero.

But work hard for a living, and we can make no promises. Be a great teacher, and we’ll let you pay bills, but no more. History is littered with accounts of the real labor that went into the building of our nation, and those workers were often left with little or nothing to show for it, while the Rockefellers and Vanderbilt’s had far more than they would need in a hundred lifetimes. Certainly they had admirable business ability, and are worthy of the recognition they have received, but is it more warranted than the very labor those fortunes were built on?

It should be easier in this country to make a living, and harder to make a fortune. And with the massive transfer of wealth this country has seen over recent decades, it will take a Robin Hood to get it done. For those not wanting their money to go to those not working, it is time to realize that 1. More than likely, no one is taking your money, and 2. There’s a good chance you will be getting some of it. And considering that most fortunes are passed down from previous generations, when was the last time you saw a rich person work? Do you really have an issue taking an extra 3% from Paris Hilton?

To Saudi, with love.

Not that we, as Americans, have the right to tell anyone else what to do with their lives (but we will anyway, dammit), but this goes just too far. A Saudi woman, after accepting a ride from a man, was taken to his home; gang raped, and became pregnant. Her sentence? (Of course, she must have a punishment; she wasn’t smart enough to grow a dick) One year in prison, plus 100 lashes once the child is born. Just to be clear, this woman will go through childbirth in prison, then will have her hands tied above her while a guard whips her 100 times. For comparisons sake, a man caught smoking on a commercial flight was given 30 lashes for his crime, and an army officer that used his cell phone on a plane on an airplane was given 70 lashes. So, for the record, that’s

Smoking on plane...... 30 lashes

Cell phone on plane....... 70lashes

Getting gang raped and becoming pregnant............. One year in prison and 100 lashes

Oh, and.......Priceless

While we often categorize the terrorists as extremists, and therefore not indicative of the Muslim people as whole, the examples above are not of this group. These were judicial rulings handed down in a court of law; not by the same groups that flew planes into the towers or attack ships. There were no protests outside the courthouse, no ACLU to argue the case, no petitions signed, and no politician standing up for a change. This is the norm; and if there are those with reservations, they are certainly not going to put their lives on the line for the cause. It is simply a matter of social laws being dictated by religion.

And the issue of religious involvement came to the fore this week with the introduction of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. With the announcement, the Obama administration has gone to great lengths to be clear that this organization will work with all groups, “no matter their religious or political beliefs,” despite the fact that the majority of the council members are deeply rooted in religion. These include Rabbi David N. Saperstein, Director & Counsel for the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Dr. Frank S. Page, President emeritus, Southern Baptist Convention; Rev. Otis Moss, Jr., Pastor emeritus, Olivet Institutional Baptist Church; Eboo S. Patel, Founder & Executive Director, Interfaith Youth Corps; and Dr. William J. Shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, among others. This seems odd.

Certainly, one can understand the political reasons to maintain at least the illusion that one is working in the best interests of religion. Many have been the presidential candidates that have suddenly found god just prior to a run for higher office. However, this is a blatant disregard for separation of church and state. Ignoring the enormous cost of setting up this new “office” and the 11 actual offices and staff needed, this “office” the first step in the Obama re-election campaign for 2012. The 40 million evangelicals that could always be counted on by the Republican Party as guaranteed votes might think twice now that a Democrat has set up a religious office. If you thought he scored a mandate last November, you haven’t seen a thing yet.

The last thing we need is more religious influence in our government. However, we have gone a step further now by actively funding faith-based activities, using tax-payer dollars in the name of Christ. No matter how honorable the cause, it is just the next step on the road to abortion warranting jail time and homosexuality resulting in a death sentence. Seem far-fetched? Just how long do you think it will take for those 40 million votes to become 60 million? Or 80?

Come to think of it, maybe the fact that “faith-based” is in the title really doesn’t mean anything. I am sure there would be no issue getting the “White House Office of Atheist Affairs” started.

Just felt like posting this...

I received this joke a while back, and since am working on 2 new postings, I decided to post this in the interim. Let me know what you think..

Why did the chicken cross the road?

SARAH PALIN: I'll find ya a reason and bring it to ya.

BARACK OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a change! The chicken wanted change!

JOHN MC CAIN: My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.

HILLARY CLINTON: When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure right from Day One that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn't about me.

GEORGE W. BUSH: We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.

DICK CHENEY: Where's my gun?

JOE BIDEN: I'm tired of walking on egg shells because of this chicken.

COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.

BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken. What is your definition of chicken?

AL GORE: I invented the chicken.

JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.

AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white? We need some black chickens.

DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he is acting by not taking on his current problems before adding new problems

OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.

NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he's guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.

PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.

MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information

DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Did he cross it with a hare? Did he cross it with a bear? Did he check if the road was hot? I kinda doubt it, I think not! Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed, I've not been told. Just one more thing I have to say, it's been bugging me to this very day. If the chicken is a she, why do we keep saying HE?

ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.

JERRY FALWELL: Because the chicken was gay! Can't you people see the plain truth? That's why they call it the other side. Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay, too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like "the other side". That chicken should not be crossing the road. It's as plain and as simple as that.

GRANDPA: In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.

BARBARA WALTERS: Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heartwarming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.

ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.

JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.

BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2009, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken2009 This new platform is much more stable and will never cras##$%###.......reboot

ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?

COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?

SARAH PALIN: Because it could see Russia from there.

For all the panties in India

A few weeks back, a radical group called the Sri Ram Sena (Lord Ram’s Army), took responsibility for an assault on several young women last month in a pub in Mangalore, a college town in the southern state of Karnataka. The group (think right wing Jerry Falwell conservatives) has fought against everything from couples kissing in Bollywood films to cheerleaders at sporting matches. An article in TimesOnline details the story, and I urge you all to read and support the cause. In just over a week, the Facebook page that was started in response to the attack has over 12,000 members, and is growing rapidly. A campaign for all members to send pink panties to the leader of the group on Valentines Day is simply brilliant. I will keep this blog updated with any new news on the story, and I applaud what may be one of the more effective non-violent social statements in recent memory.