What Happened to Journalism in America?

For quite awhile I've been deeply troubled by, what seems to me, the extremely biased attitudes of most media reporters covering this presidential race. I just read an article by Michael Malone, one of the nation's best known technology writers, posted on http://www.abcnews.com/. The beginning of his article states

Oct. 24, 2008 —
"The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.
The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.
But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist."

He points out, quite eloquently, that most journalists have lost their way in trying to report objectively and fairly and have instead been drinking the kool-aid of biased, one-sided reporting by promoting the cause of one candidate while ravaging the other. He gives reasons for this spectacle which I won't eloborate on here except to say that this unwarranted and unpardonable behavior is a travesty of American journalist expression. If the media is to remain the watchdog of American life and politics it has to return to its roots of impartial reporting. To do less risks the very freedoms we hold dear...

I encourage you to read Mr. Malone's commentary in its entirety. You can access it at http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6099188

Germs? What germs?

Are we becoming phobic about germs? When did we become convinced that we needed antibacterial hand soap? And how about those disinfectant wipes at the grocery store to wipe down your shopping carts handle?

I can tell you, my friends, that I can remember a time, not that long ago, when we weren't so obsessed with this kind of germ warfare. Oh sure, I know all about AIDS and such but really, did you know that some germs are good (and even necessary for our survival) for us?

And about those store wipes for the carts, forget them. As soon as you start touching anything in the store or reach into your pocket or purse you're putting just as many germs within your touch as you took off to begin with (not good grammatically but true).

And Now A Word From My Sponsors

Oh wait, I don't have any sponsors. Wow, I guess it's up to me to fund my own self-promotions of myself and my beliefs.

Now polititians have a much better deal. Politicians, on both sides of the fence, not only get money (through contributions) from individuals like you and me (i.e., registered voters) but also from PACs (political action committees) and 527 groups. Now I'm sorry, but for the life of me, I can't see how contributions from PACs or 527 groups can ever be considered ethical even for politicians!

Let's look at PACs first. PACs are made up of corporations and/or other special interest groups who have a special interest or cause they want to promote. Can corporations or special interest groups vote and are they affected by the rules of government like you and I? No. But, can they curry favor by contributing to a particular candidate or politician? Yes! Hey, come on now, isn't that what's called "buying a candidate's vote? In my opinion, no entity, except an individual citizen of the United States, should be allowed to contribute to a politician and then only within the $1,000 limit prescribed by federal election law.

To reiterate, current election laws allow for contributions up to $1,000 per individual voter but up to $5,000 for PACs! Hmmm, does this sound fishy to you too?

Now if this wasn't bad enough Congress finagled themselves a new, better deal. The new deal goes by the name of "527 politician","527 committee", "527 political group" or just "527 group". You see, while politicians may accept no contributions of more than $1,000 per election from an individual and $5,000 per election from a PAC they can also set up a politician 527, and now these members of Congress can raise unlimited "soft money" from individuals, corporations and unions. Come on now, isn't this a clear case of the inmates running the asylum!

Does anyone else find this situation detestable? Why isn't everyone up in arms about this? Are we too complacent, too complicit or just too damn lazy to care? My understanding is that the mighty Roman Empire fell under the weight of its own corruption and moral decay. Is that to be our fate as well?

There's still time to act. Get off the couch and make your feelings known, now!

Do We Need 'Em?

I've been wondering for quite some time about our American political "party" system. Republicans, Democrats, why do we still need them? Is this some artifact of our Founding Fathers that no longer serves a useful purpose? Think about it; do we really need to govern based on an "us versus them" mentality where one side claims victory and the other is vilified?

Can't a politician simply state his or her position on the issues, run for office on that basis and then govern that way if elected?

Partisan politics really came to a head for me over this so-called "Bail-out" bill. I watched with incredulity as Nancy Pelosi (Dem) stood behind the podium this week and railed against Republicans at a time when she should have been asking for bipartisan support. What gives? Why do we need this sort of partisan politicking?

It seems to me that all of the antics I see played out on the Hill by both parties often produce a lot of bad policies that are not only detrimental to the American concepts of freedom and liberty but are also destructive to our basic concepts of capitalism (and for that matter the whole American way of life thing).

I'm beginning to think Joe Lieberman, Democrat turned Independent, has the right idea.

Why Pundits?

Okay, I know this question has been asked before but, since when did media "personalities" (especially on TV) go from just reporting the news to telling us how we should interpret the news?

I feel pretty damn comfortable coming to my own conclusions and I don't need anyone else telling me how to think. How 'bout you?

So Why?

Yeah, I know, you're wondering "Why should I waste my precious time reading this guy's highly opinionated and biased postings?". I don't blame ya one bit. Frankly, I started this blog because I just couldn't keep my opinions to myself anymore (so what else is new?)!

Ya see, I observe so much wide-eyed weirdness, so much blantant bias, so much incessant bullshit going on around me I've just gotta speak my peace, no, yell out loud "Am I the crazy one or are they?".

So what's with the title of this blog? I guess the best way to explain it is like this: It's easy to think you're brilliant when you don't know what you're talking about. That applies to everyone; you, me, every politician, every media pundit, every teacher, professor, activist, passivist, youngster, teenager, adult and elder, male and/or female. All of us are guilty as hell and we seem to like it that way.

Fine. We're all (in my humble opinion) brilliantly ignorant. So what are we to do about it? Well, I don't know about you but I'm gonna start discussing it. I'm going to "call out" those people places and things I think are way out in left field and at least in that way I can get it off my chest.

And, if by chance, someone should wander by my blog, read something I've said and wish to comment for, against or otherwise please do so. Maybe I'll learn something...