Schmack Friday

I've never understood the appeal of getting up at 4 am to shop on Black Friday.  But then, I've never done it, so maybe I don't know what I'm missing.  I generally avoid shopping on Black Friday.  The good stuff is supposedly all gone by 12:01 am anyway, so there's basically no difference between shopping today and shopping a week from now except there won't be crazy-neurotic zombie mobs killing each other for parking spaces a week from now.  I'm pretty sure the "amazing sales" are the unicorns of the shopping world anyway.  They don't exist.  Everyone just looks for them to keep their little shopping hearts believing in something.  Stores put out, like, one inventory item each that's on a deep discount, and then the managers watch from their towers while wringing their evil hands in maniacal delight as the shoppers take the bait like a churning shoal of ravenous minnows turned against each other.  The carnage, the mayhem, the...ah, heck, it really boils down to me not wanting to wake up early and drive around for an hour just to find parking in order to save a buck.  Yeah, that's pretty much it.

A few thoughts about the news...

...in a close vote, it's being reported that ballots are being analyzed where voters didn't follow direction to determine what they intended.  Here's an idea: if they didn't follow directions, or if we have to have analysts trying to figure out what they meant, their vote doesn't count.  Period.  Seems most rational to me.

I agree there is no such thing as a "holiday tree".  And I don't see why government buildings need to be decorated for any religious holidays anyway.  But I'm certainly not going to get bent out of shape over a Christmas tree outside a government building.  Christmas is a cultural holiday here at least as much as a religious one, whatever you think it should really be about.  I'd have a problem with a nativity.  I don't want my government endorsing or conveying religion, even if it's one I believe in, because one day it will not be one I believe in, and I want my government principle-oriented, not dogma-oriented.  But a tree is not a nativity.

Those who think it's some drastic, awful invasion of privacy to have to choose between going through a scanner at the airport or being hand-searched, the phrase repeatedly going through my head while listening to all the griping is: get the @#$% over it!  Seriously, I just don't get it.  There are reasons to dispute certain methods, but this extreme discomfort over being given options you don't like is...kind of weird to me.  But maybe I'm just unusually unconcerned about whether some TSA employee sees a high-def outline of my body features (one of hundreds they'll see daily) or whether someone brushes my privates while searching for hidden weapons.  I just...don't...get it...

Jon Stewart on Rachel Maddow

At the gym the other night, I was flipping through channels on my elliptical machine, and I came across and interview of Jon Stewart by Rachel Maddow, and I was instantly hooked.

Background: I used to dislike Jon Stewart, primarily for the reasons I heard him describing--he's a satirist, which doesn't necessarily build or isn't necessarily constructive.  When I tried watching his show many, many years ago, I was extremely disgusted by most forms of cynicism, and I firmly believed the world had enough sarcastic, snide voices.   I also used to see his criticism of right-wing or conservative political dialog or figures, and because I felt defensive, I decided he was antagonistic and was criticizing for popularity, and I wouldn't give him the reward of watching.  However, my alignment or ideology has expanded, shifted, and been tempered over time, and I am no longer more defensive of republicans than democrats or vice versa (even though I honestly thought I was fair-minded before and didn't realize how much more defensive I was of republicans than democrats, for example).  I still believe the world needs much less cynicism, but I now see Jon Stewart as more satirical than cynical, and despite my continuing insistence that we need more constructive conversation, or maybe because of it, I've been intrigued by his recent "rally to restore sanity" and his articulated reasons for it.

In this interview, I found myself nodding constantly.  It doesn't negate the need to preserve "our way of life", or defend ourselves from enemies outside of and within our borders, or move forward in keeping government in check, etc.  But what he says about the almost cartoonish "left vs. right" mentality, the role of Fox and MSNBC as 24-hour news agencies, Stewart's role as a comedic commentator on the news, etc is mostly exactly how I think of things.  I guess it makes sense why he's grown on me as I've started perceiving his light-hearted efforts to point out folly in our news media culture today and taken that to something he hoped would be constructive like the rally at the Capitol.

I so wish there were more interviews like this out there, between two people disagreeing without getting snippy and shouting, agreeing on common ground without constantly needing to bring in sensationalized dichotomies and re-drawing battle lines, and setting aside defensiveness to say, "OK, that's a fair point," or, "Maybe.  That may very well be."  In our culture, we're so ridiculously fond of what we seem to think is 'conviction' that anything other than pompous posturing and closed-eared insistence is perceived as 'wishy washy' or 'skirting the issues', if not downright unintelligent, when I think quite the opposite.

Short version: Jon Stewart has been gaining a lot of points with me lately, and this interview is an example of why.  And I had to give Rachel Maddow some credit for seemingly admitting to some exaggeration to make a point.

What I watched on Maddow's show was cut thematically, which you can find on her web site, as well as the full, unedited interview, which I've embedded below and recommend watching if/when you have the time:

"Tacoma's not so dangerous..."

Some of you got a text from me about this tonight.

OK, those of you who are familiar with the Seattle area know that Tacoma is known for being a "rougher" area, particularly in certain parts. A few weeks ago, attending the Puyallup Fair, we passed through Tacoma and were kind of joking about the scariness of certain areas. I don't remember for sure who said it, but someone said, "It's not that bad." I even remember thinking it probably wasn't as bad as we make it out to be.

But on our way home from the fair, while driving down a wide street, a woman came running out into the street waving her arms in a clearly agitated way. As we got closer, the friend driving the car started to slow down, and a couple of us (myself included) insisted, "No, keep going. Just keep driving around her and don't slow down!" The look in her eyes was more wild than troubled, and I didn't trust her body language, almost angrily waving her arms at us yelling, "Stop! Stop!" as if we weren't allowed down this road, and she was in charge of keeping us out. We may be calloused and hardened by past experiences, but this just didn't seem right. As we passed her, I could see in her eyes that she definitely seemed...like she was on something. A couple of friends in the car were worried she might really have been in trouble, so we tried calling the local police just to report a woman running into the street endangering herself and others, potentially in trouble of some sort, and we circled back around after stopping briefly a couple of blocks away. Well, none of us could get a hold of the police, and she was gone when we returned. No tragic news stories that we knew of, so we figure she was on something and we'd done the right thing in not stopping. It was no huge thing, just typical city stuff you can run into anywhere, and we went on joking about Tacoma's reputation.

Tonight, a few friends and I ate at The Ram along Tacoma's waterfront. Apparently a decent neighborhood, it was also a beautiful spot to look out over the peaceful water at night. As we exited, one of the employees looked somewhat stressed as he re-entered and asked if we were parked to the right. We said no, our cars were all to the left. He said OK and let us out, suggesting we stay out of the righthand area of the lot. Meanwhile, some guy came walking up to the entrance and said, "I'd stay away from that area to the right; there's an altercation over there." Naturally, we were curious, so we looked over to find a couple of police officers a couple of dozen yards away, just arrived, standing behind their car doors, one shining a light and another raising a rifle of some sort towards the back part of the lot. Another officer was quietly walking around the side of the building. The restaurant staff were looking increasingly agitated. We couldn't tell exactly what was happening but decided it was best to not investigate too much and to get to our cars, which were really close, and lock the doors ASAP, so we did.

As I looked out from the car window towards the scene, I saw someone in the shadows and said, "I think they're talking to a man under that tree." Meanwhile, someone who shall go unnamed got out of the car and went back into the restaurant. The rest of us said, "What the...what's he doing?!" Turns out he had forgotten his leftovers. Ha, he admits that in hindsight, he probably should have left the leftovers.

I reported to my friends, "...yeah, he's right over there in the shadows...and he's waving something around in his hand...it does look kind of like a gun...that could definitely be a gun." At this point, I'm thinking, "OK, if he goes berserk, we're definitely in range. Not comfortable." I lowered myself in my seat and tried to keep the frame of the car between me and him while peeking around it as another police car drove up and parked, and the officers got out, opened the trunk, and raised rifles towards the man. Now they were between us and him. By this time, everyone was back in the car, and we'd called each other in our different cars to figure out where we were going and who was following whom to stay together. The man had now left the shade of the tree and was right in the parking lot area around the corner of the building from us, still in view. He seemed relatively casual but clearly defiant, waving his hand around. I said to my friends in the car, "Yep, that's a gun. He's waving around a handgun, and they're keeping their weapons pointed at him."

It all seemed a bit surreal. I thought, "If he points that thing at anyone, we know what's going to happen." Having coordinated ourselves, we all started pulling out of our parking spaces as more officers arrived, firearms drawn and ready, moving around the backs of our cars towards the scene. As the scene became palpably more intense, we had started driving towards the parking lot exit when we heard the loud, rapid-succession burst of gunfire. I turned back around towards the scene, and sure enough, the police had opened fire, and the man was no longer standing there. As we rounded a corner, we could see the police officers closing in around a spot on the ground with their weapons still aimed, now downward...he was down.

It was one of those moments you just don't know quite how to react to. Oh @#$%, that was gunfire right behind us. Who knows if there'll be more? Get out. Get away. Wow, I think we just saw a man gunned down. He probably didn't survive that. We could've been shot. Wow, you don't see that every day. That's Tacoma, for ya. Ha, what an experience. Man, it's times like this I wish my Facebook account were active...I'll just text a bunch of people instead. Wait, is it appropriate to laugh? Some guy probably just died. Or did they just take him down? Nah, with that many rounds fired? No way that wasn't lethal. There were a lot of cops, and that was a lot of rounds. This could've happened anywhere. Glad we got out of the lot before all of these police passing us going the other way with sirens blaring get there and tape it off. Maybe the restaurant shouldn't have let anyone out. But how could they know? What if the guy had opened fire on us as we walked to our cars? Would the one or two police officers have been able to stop him before one of us was hit? Did the man intend to commit suicide by getting them to open fire? Were there others with him we didn't know about, hiding in the parking lot? Those had better be some good leftovers. I wonder if he has relatives and how some people's lives just changed. Probably no good to think about that too much. But I don't want to be calloused either. I wonder how this will be reported in the news, or whether it's even news-worthy.

Some in our group were rattled for a while, others less so. I had felt more cautiously fascinated by the scene and how it might play out than shaken or fearful. We talked about how crazy it was to have been there right when it all happened so quickly. We quipped about never hanging out in Tacoma again or letting you-know-who pick the restaurant. I mean, what's appropriate, as far as responses go? Nothing. But I'll tell you this much: Tacoma's not exactly winning a lot of points with me so far.




Find news stories on the incident here and here.


Update: In the KIRO news story video clip, the reporter is positioned similarly to where we were, but we were just a bit further away to the reporter's left. The red tree you see in the background is the one the man was under when I first saw him. I wouldn't have been able to see the green one farther back from our angle.

Crusaders and the diminishing of journalism

This is actually my response to comments made on my previous post, The power of fact-based fiction.

I knew very well my previous post would be unpalatable to many who read this blog, and many of you would be driven to defend Beck (either gently or passionately), but I'm not going to silently stand by while I watch trends which worry me. There are a lot of people out there daring to say things few others are saying: whether you agree with someone seems to define whether someone is a courageous crusader or a misguided loudmouth, so let's set aside the heroism.

I have a thing or two to say as well, and I won't be subdued or brushed aside by the pseudo-humble pomp of the self-supposed saviors and guardians of American values and principles of government when the welfare of my country is at stake. I can muster righteous indignation, too. Does that make me more correct?

Those of us who either disagree with Beck (nevermind the Tea Party, which I have mixed thoughts about) or may agree with most of his principles but find his theories to be more interesting speculation than meticulously researched history are not pseudo-intellectual, left-wing elitists (which is a convenient stick used to beat dissenters at least as much dissenters of left-wing politics are beaten with the "ignorant yokles" or "pseudointellectual ultra-wealthy right-wing elitists" stick) or ignorantly swallowing the spoon-feedings of the left-wing media machine and our left-wing, watered-down-history public education.

I'm not going to debate, here, whether the Obama administration has secretive, underhanded, nefarious plans for the downfall of "the Republic". That's not at all what this is about.

And no, there's nobody who doesn't make some errors in fact. The problem isn't the occasional errors in fact, as I stated.

Why don't more Republicans or other conservative-leaning public figures express any dissent or concerns about Beck's rhetoric? Obviously, because he's right, and they know it, right? Or could it be that it's politically and socially advantageous for them to play nice due to his fiercely loyal supporters who are increasingly energized by a sense of victory and progress, ready to bulldoze any who try to stop them?

If he and his fellow crusaders are right, they're right. But the mentality is one that easily snowballs into dangerous proportions. So the basis of the passion and revolutionary attitude really do become that much more crucial and pivotal, which is why I focus on Glenn Beck as an obvious key player rather than, say, Rachel Maddow, whose overly-loyal listeners also often neglect to context-check her "well-documented" facts but who do not constitute the kind of force to be reckoned with that the Tea Party movement, for example, represents.

Concerns over current administrations (including Bush's) aside, there are people from all political angles, including fiscally conservative libertarians, who are concerned over Beck's weaving of theories using technically accurate but over-interpreted facts, with people joining the righteously passionate "we won't take it anymore" throngs but who most often (not always) neglect to get online (or go to a library, if that seems more reliable to some) and research "the other side" because they've already dismissed the "other side" as untrustworthy because they're either implicit in or ignorantly duped by underhanded smoke and mirrors as part of the supposed conspiracy. Maybe change will only be accomplished by the kind of passion born of believing a one-sided or extreme portrayal of "opponents", but I'd like to think that's not true.

That's the thing. I believe he's usually at least partially right! I do! It's the extent to which he takes things, perhaps deliberately overshooting to elicit the response necessary to effect change (not an uncommon tactic), that concerns me.

And just like you, some of us have had enough and, despite agreeing with many of the principles Glenn Beck is defending and concerns over the role of government, want to stop another runaway train before it's out of control, and despite trying to remain objective and fair-minded, I'm pretty damned passionate about certain trends I see, like the move, on many fronts, from as-objective-as-possible journalistic integrity to impassioned speculative commentary, combined with an apparent tendency of many Americans to seem increasingly disinterested in distinguishing the two.

The power of fact-based fiction

I've just made a connection. Bear with me. It was a total ah-ha moment for me.

You know how when The Da Vinci Code was published, and the movie released, everyone was abuzz over the questions and theories raised by Dan Brown's story? These theories were mostly not new: many had been around a long time but were brought together, interconnected into a compelling and suspenseful story alternately enjoyed and decried by much of the world. Historians who had been quietly researching these things for years knew the ins and outs enough to tease apart the fact and the speculation, recognizing when a theory is feasible and when one is disproven or a long shot at best. By now, most of us know that his theories make fun stories but aren't exactly provable, and are in some cases quite debunked (according, admittedly, to other human beings with flawed knowledge but who are far more knowledgeable in that particular field than he). But for most of the world who hadn't bothered to study most of the themes and theories in his story, the ideas seemed new, shocking, eye-opening, and illustrative of plausible conspiracies and connections they'd never thought of, except for people in smaller circles where some of these lesser-known ideas were promulgated, such as LDS people having no problem with the possibility that Jesus had a wife and being rather surprised at what a stink so much of Christendom was making over that specific notion.

But I was a bit flabbergasted as I heard conversations on various media and in person which discussed this work of fiction by a novelist (a bright one who researches, but a novelist nonetheless) who, by definition, doesn't have time to painstakingly research every nuance of every implication of his (or, more accurately, other people's) findings. They were discussing it as if he were a religious historian and anthropologist who had just written an exposé detailing his life's work. I kept thinking, "Folks, it's a novel with facts, theories, and historical tidbits (sometimes speculative) woven in, not a research dissertation!"

He raises fascinating questions and thought-provoking theories within engaging stories which could be perceived by some as plausible but which are, nonetheless, creative efforts to put the pieces together, nothing more. He brought to popular culture ideas which previously were known mostly to those with enough interest to dig them up and research them, themselves. He doesn't have time to research every detail, or he'd never publish anything, but he raises the ideas, lets people chew on them and enjoy the story, and leaves the sorting out of the rest to those who are well-positioned in the respective fields to do so. He might consult experts, having them review his story for any glaring errors, as I expect any good writer would do, but his point, I think, is not to present a completely balanced exploration of theories but to tell a compelling story which will entertain people while making them think critically about certain things. Many of the details and connections are subject to artistic license, which he openly acknowledges.

In Deception Point, for example, an incidental detail in the story includes a bit of blood trickling down into the sea from someone's cut (it might have even been a single drop, if I remember right), resulting in a nearly immediate roiling frenzy of hammerhead sharks and the eventual demise of a character due to their awakened, ravenous appetites. He used language specific to shark physiology, which would lead most people to believe he knew what he was talking about, and since it's clear he has researched his novels, most people would probably assume details such as this are factually accurate. This gave me pause as I thought, "Hey, first of all, the blood particles have to dissipate enough to even be detected, so even though they can detect small amounts of blood, it would not be instantaneous, and secondly, as far as I've studied, sharks may respond visibly but wouldn't frenzy over a few drops of blood without any other stimuli to indicate prey is present." Nevermind the part about someone getting torn apart bite by bite: maybe these sharks were so hungry they'd eat anything and skipped the whole first strike being a test bite, going right to tear-a-chunk-of-flesh-off-nom-nom-nom bites. It seemed to me he hadn't read the book I read by one of the world's leading hammerhead shark researchers or seen the same documentaries or articles about shark behavior. But that's what authors do: know enough to maintain credibility and plausibility, and fabricate or intensify reality to create an engaging story. If I wrote a novel, even with great attention to detail, could I possibly get everything exactly right and spit out a new novel every year or two? I certainly doubt it.

So what I'm saying is: Dan Brown has a knack for taking researched facts and little-known tidbits of history and extrapolating interpretations and connections to create fantastically interwoven conspiracy theories and seemingly plausible cover-ups and plots, and even though he publicly states his works are fiction, many people still read him as a historian rather than a novelist. What, then, of someone who is similarly skilled at weaving stories from interconnected facts which, though technically accurate, are laced with exaggerated interpretation and extrapolation and then never even attempting to claim they're "fiction" but calling them "commentary" rather than "journalism"? Uh-huh...you've caught on by now. This, my friends, is how I see Glenn Beck. Fascinating theories which incite critical thought. Totally relevant questions to be asking. Interesting connections found. Often factually accurate if you don't bring in too much context except for the supposedly interconnected context on which he wants you to focus your attention: the supposedly secret codes and plots he is bringing to light. But often off-base in the interpretation of facts, the imputed motives, and the overall theories.

I'll admit the idea for this post was sparked by reading an article on NPR, which we all know is a pseudointellectual arm of the radical left-wing media machine... *yawn*




Incidentally, I just looked up a couple of resources and found this fun video from MythBusters which seems to suggest there may be a difference in reactions of sharks to human versus fish blood/fluids, a distinction I don't remember reading about. Hey, I didn't claim to be an expert... :-)

Public education satire from The Onion

Oh man, these are funny:

Language warning on the first one--includes one F-bomb and a few "s-words", but I think most of you will appreciate their jabs:

In The Know: Are Tests Biased Against Students Who Don't Give A Shit?


My favorite part about this one is actually the comment at the end about MTV scientists:

Christian Groups: Biblical Armageddon Must Be Taught Alongside Global Warming

Anti-bullying and the golden rule

I recommend the following editorial by Warren Throckmorton concerning the need to set aside pompous (oops, did I insert my opinion?) political power plays to approach problems with a more solution-oriented attitude:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/05/my-take-a-christian-response-to-anti-gay-bullying/


Ellen's plea:




Incidentally, I think a war on bullying is about as winnable as a war on terror. It will never end. To really deal with the issue, parents have to teach compassion to their children in their own homes, and more than that, they need to teach their children how to deal with the persecution they simply will face in their lives. The important thing is that every child and teenager knows there is somewhere to go, someone to turn to, someplace to be safe. Be someone's shelter and safety.

Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Fiasco

Please watch as much of this as you can spare time for:




OK, so maybe their tactics are a bit strong, and the law is a touch severe, but thank goodness SOMEONE has the guts to make a stand against a degrading and immoral lifestyle against God's will.
-------------------------
It saddens me to think of how many of my friends would probably respond the way I just wrote or were nodding their heads and completely miss the point, which is not whether homosexuality is "OK" but what right the government has to put people to death for it, let alone imprison them, as well as what homosexuality is and the consequences of the way we talk about it.

The bill, which a government-appointed commission has apparently recommended be withdrawn despite the author's refusal to personally do so, would increase the severity of punishments for homosexuality, which is already illegal there, and put to death repeat-offenders who are HIV-positive, would fine or imprison anyone who does not report a known homosexual within 24 hours of finding out, and would imprison homosexuals for up to life. Such severe measures sound incredible to most Americans, I think, but we're talking about a country in which some past king was a hideous pedophile who apparently put his young male pages to death for refusing, based on their Christian beliefs, to have sex with him, so maybe it's understandable why so many are blindly believing the lies being fed to them and shouting battle cries in what they regard as a moral, or spiritual, war.

War, whether physical or spiritual, real or fabricated, is a favorite tool of the power-hungry and proud to wield control over the masses, to feel justified in oppression, lies, fear tactics, and vengeance by creating a false or exaggerated enemy, to spread the lie that any means are justified to avoid a dastardly end or the rise of a destructive or threatening people. It's been done to Jews, African Americans, Native Americans, Mormons...

If what Ssempa preaches is true, then all the gay folk I know are going about it all wrong, concerned about the welfare of youth who feel different from their peers but certainly not interested in recruiting, and thinking of their homosexuality in terms of love and affection more than sex. As far as I know, eating crap is revolting to as many gay people as straight people, but maybe I'm just duped by the nefarious gay agenda...you know, the real homosexuality. Some may believe Ssempa's cause to be righteous, but the fruits of his preaching and that of those like him are lies (or, at best, half-truths), hatred, and fear, which are Satanic by most Christian doctrine. This is not, I assert, how Jesus would bring his people up in righteousness. Call me crazy.

Of course, there's far more to this story, like addressing the claims of the evangelical anti-homosexuality preachers, or paralleling the tactics used there with certain much milder but similarly specious tactics used here against gay rights, but we can have that conversation one-on-one 'cause it's more complex than I care to write about right now. After all, haven't I gone on long enough? :-)

Conflict Between Animal Protection and Invasive Government

Note: For those of you not familiar with the ugliness of puppy mills, please do a little research and refrain from buying cats and dogs from pet stores without readily offered and clearly documented origins, and where possible, buy from local breeders you can personally check out:

• Humane Society frequently asked questions about Puppy Mills
  
• Puppy Mill on Wikipedia
  
• Stop Puppy Mills

A friend linked to an article, Council Votes on Pet Shop Ban, regarding new action soon to be voted on that would make it illegal for pet stores in West Hollywood to sell cats or dogs unless they're abandoned or rescued. Any pet shop selling any other dogs or cats would be shut down. I think one of the main hopes is that this will start a movement to shut down puppy mills and other places which abuse animals on a mass level. Many are excited about this measure and the positive consequences it may have for animal welfare. But I was immediately wary, and I commented on why:

I'm thrilled that there are enough people concerned about the hideous practices of puppy mills and others who basically abuse animals to make a buck, but I'm also really concerned about the limitations of this kind of legal action and what it means for actual freedom. Having lived in Cali for a very short time, I know this kind of thing is nothing new there, but it always makes me wary.

My friend asked what freedoms I was talking about, so I elaborated:

Whose legally granted rights are being protected here while they're moving to shut down businesses? What about pet stores who exercise responsibility and conscience by selling dogs and cats from local breeders who raise their animals well? They're probably in the minority, but they exist.

It makes little moral sense to me to go after puppy mills by shutting down businesses indiscriminately. The end does not justify the means here. Only allowing abandoned or rescued animals to be sold? How will that be documented and enforced? Why not provide an exemption for breeders who meet certain standards for the treatment of their animals?

How much can we justly legislate human freedom based on animals' supposed rights? I love animals, and it pains me deeply to see them abused and mistreated, and I believe education on what's going on is seriously needed, but this kind of action just doesn't make sense to me.

But, as the article states, this is from "the city that pioneered a ban on cat-declawing", a practice I believe should be avoided, but the feel-good criminalization of which I think is an unnerving encroachment of government into my life.

Those of you who know me well know I've always had a tender place in my heart for animals and concern for their well-being. I'm so glad people are becoming aware of the issue, but I'm also concerned about the reach of government and about possible public backlash in defense of puppy mills and against animal protection groups as a result of potentially draconian efforts.

Christian Science Monitor

A friend asked me recently what I thought of the objectivity or fair-mindedness of The Christian Science Monitor, and I didn't know what to say other than that I had a vague notion they were somewhat conservative but didn't remember why I thought that and therefore couldn't assert it with confidence. This morning, I decided to look into it, so I read some current articles, from saving the axolotl to Obama and health care to the Prop 8 trial to the devastation in Haiti. I perused the site, read the titles of many more articles (looking for clues of bias in headings, which I did think were conservative-slanted to a small degree, but it's always hard to know if preconceived notions color that perception), and read some movie reviews. The movie reviews are what reminded me I thought it was conservative. Many of them focus on any relation to biblical values or Christian principles, but this time around, I found the reviews to be pretty normal.

I did some online searching and found forums and organizations discussing the bias of news organizations, and The Christian Science Monitor was often touted as being moderate and was often accused of being either left- or right-wing biased, which is often a sign they are either both or neither, both scenarios speaking to their balance. However, my own personal opinion, judging from the wording of their headlines and the sources with whom they speak, is that they're slightly conservatively biased but fair-minded.

Where a bias did stand out to me was in yesterday's article about the Prop 8 trial, in which the author came across as defensive of the pro-Prop 8 defense and only cited conversations with defenders, one of the two being a "Protect Marriage" leader, a staunch proponent of the amendment. The author spoke of the case against Prop 8 but seemed to side with the defense, which is no crime, but he gave the opposition no direct voice, which doesn't seem balanced.

So I thought, "Hm, maybe they're relatively politically neutral but tend to show their bias in anything touching on religion or social values?" So I read more, and I found a couple of other religion-oriented articles that didn't show much bias as far as I could tell, so I wondered if I'd simply allowed my own views to inject perceived bias into the Prop 8 article.

I wanted to find out more about Christian Science, so I went to their web site and poked around. After some digging, I found a F.A.Q. page about their beliefs and discovered something interesting: they apparently have few. That is, they claim to have very little in the way of religious creed or doctrine, only a few key principles in adherence to the Bible, such as the virgin birth, and the resurrection and ascension of Jesus (though they reject the notion that he was deity). As far as I could tell, they have some core beliefs and principles, but no exhaustive framework of doctrine and prescribed law. Suddenly, their relative "objectivity" in news reporting made more sense to me, as did something else. Their language in response to being asked about hot-button social topics, such as abortion and homosexuality, was very diplomatic but indicated an undertone of "we think it's not god's will or part of his goodness but is part of the 'unreality' along with illness and suffering (if I understand correctly, they seem to believe a kind and just god would not and did not create illness, frailty, suffering, and death, but that they are all, in some way I don't think I understand, false perceptions, or unreal constructs, deceptions grown out of not being in harmony with god and his infinite goodness and healing) and that since we all experience these things, they do not impose judgement but also do not embrace the concepts, though they embrace the people and hope and pray for their happiness and healing. This sounds good and well as they present it, but I'm skeptical of the subtexts and implications, and it also would explain the occasional bias that comes out, assuming their reporters are all also members of The Church of Christ, Scientist.

In short, I think they're mostly fair-minded and moderate in their approach, and that their bias is revealed when it touches on the few beliefs they more concretely espouse. But the process of reaching that tentative assessment was more interesting, to me, than the assessment itself, which is why I've journaled it and posted it. ...and I'm curious to hear what y'all think of The Christian Science Monitor and its objectivity.

If Only This Were Journalism

Editor's Note from the current article in National Geographic titled "The Polygamists":

"The room darkens, and Stephanie Sinclair's photographs flash on the screen. For months she has been photographing members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the FLDS. Its members are known to most of us because they believe in polygamy, but Stepahnie's photographs tell a deeper, broader story. They are able to do so because FLDS members trust her.

Stephanie has no agenda. She does not judge. There is nothing superficial or glib about her work. Her photographs are honest. They reflect her insatiable curiosity. They also reflect her compassion and sense of responsibility. The best photographers understand the obligation that comes with the privilege of access to otherwise hidden worlds and lives. Stephanie understands that others may want to pass judgment, but that is not her role. She photographs what she sees and provides the opportunity for insight. The rest is up to the reader.

In a world full of shrill voices and agendas, we at National Geographic are committed to an unbiased presentation of facts. Yes, we will cover controversial topics like the FLDS, and yes, we will devote time and resources to get the story right. It's what we've been doing for more than 120 years. Our commitment is to show the world in all its complexity--and to publish the work of photographers, like Stephanie Sinclair, who can present that complexity with compassion and fairness."

It would be foolish to fully accept any implication that all things in National Geographic are both fully correct and completely objective--in my opinion, there's no such thing--but to openly state that is the goal and to champion such efforts is more than most news organizations do in a sensational world. I appreciate the effort, at least.

And it's motivation to practice photography and writing, perhaps in a formalized environment, to join that effort, if there really are outlets for it...hm...

Defending Traditional Marriage Unjustly

CONSERVATIVE GAY RIGHTS SUPPORTERS COME OUT

Margaret Hoover recently wrote an opinion piece called "Why I'm Joining the Fight for Marriage Equality" on the Fox News web site which included the following passage:

"Some Republicans support gay rights, but prefer progress through legislative action or majority rule at the ballot box, rather than judicial action. But what if a democratic election imposes mandates that violate a citizen’s constitutional freedom? In the event that majority rule insufficiently protects individual liberty, our system of checks and balances puts forth that it is the role of the courts, to guarantee and protect the rights to individual Americans.

That’s why the Supreme Court, in 1967 Loving v. Virginia, legalized interracial marriage –six years after our current president was born to an interracial couple. At that time 73% of the population opposed 'miscegenation.' How long would it have taken to change popular opinion, for the minority to democratically win their constitutional rights? As Martin Luther King, Jr. famously asserted, 'Justice delayed is justice denied.'"

I imagine she was partially emboldened by Ted Olson's recent article, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage", in Newsweek describing his reasons for fighting to overturn California's Prop 8. I recommend this article to all willing to hear his viewpoint. He does clearly state his opposition to the religiously-motivated view of same-sex relationships as inherently immoral, so there's probably a fundamental divide between him and many conservatives, but he is speaking from a politically conservative viewpoint. And though I take issue with a couple of his arguments, it's an interesting read with some valid arguments I think more opponents of same-sex marriage should consider, even if they don't change their ultimate position on the issue.

I think the majority of conservatives shrug and consider these people renegades (which is only attractive when they're renegading on the right side) and odd anomalies among conservatives. They're just vocal people who have been misled on an issue or don't grasp the moral profundity and ramifications of it. They lack the religious underpinnings to give them the big picture on the "real" consequences of the issue. They're no threat because true conservatives (or in other words, religiously motivated ones) will not be swayed by even the most prominent defectors from the defense of the nation's moral fiber. If I'm interpreting these voices correctly, this is very disheartening and saddening to me.


PRINCIPLES

Let me begin with a few points I want made clear:

• I do not support change for change's sake. I think blind "progress" without regard to consequence is irresponsible and haphazard.
  
• I do believe the rights and freedoms of religions are attacked by a few ill-willed anti-religion crusaders and that religions need to stand up for religious freedom.
  
• I do believe children have a right to opportunity and to be raised by loving parents who will teach them true principles of happiness, and I think the ideal family unit includes a mother and a father, all else being equal (which it never is, but for the sake of argument...).

UP FRONT: I DIDN'T AND DON'T SUPPORT PROP 8

That said, I have never supported Prop 8, nor have I actively opposed it. I've been very cautious around the issue, though if I were a Californian who had to vote, I would've voted against it to err on the side of individual and religious freedom. I admittedly was in a torn position. My church's leaders, from the very top, urged all members to do what they could to pass it. It was seen as a righteous cause to save this nation from moral deterioration and, ultimately, from its utter downfall. It was also considered by many to be a defense against an organized assault on religion and traditional values. Though the leadership made statements that support of Prop 8 was not required nor was it considered in worthiness, there was a definite sentiment in local wards (congregations) that if you spoke against it, you were on the fringe, apostate, unworthy, or otherwise sadly misguided. I believe many allowed themselves to be silenced by this social pressure, and discussions on the topic of same-sex marriage were often, in my experience, guided by champions of traditional marriage who paid little attention to their logical defense and relied on battle cries against moral degradation and calls to follow the prophet to rally the troops. Many ate up and proliferated the us-or-them fear tactics spread by ad campaigns, including one produced by a company sponsored by the church. I was disgusted, disappointed, and deeply saddened by the anger-motivated politics, the preemptive strikes based on fear, the dismissal of same-sex marriage as a farce, and the refusal to even consider compromise but to take the quick and easy road to security. I was also disappointed by many of the same things on the other side of the issue.


LEGISLATION SHOULD PROTECT FREEDOMS

My political philosophy, simple though it may be, and though its application may shift with understanding, is to defend the rights of the most while minding the welfare of the nation to the best of my understanding. But I like to think I believe in freedom before comfort, and in defending the rights of the most before protecting my own interests or defending my own values. I believe rights should be defended, and if giving everyone equal rights means someone's freedom or interests will be threatened, then that threat must be addressed and freedoms defended, but not by discrimination or by removing the rights of a select portion of the population, particularly based on traits they can't control.


THE CASE AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

This leads to an interesting conflict in this issue: even if homosexuality is something people can't control or turn on or off (and I believe this is true in most or all cases), the kind of relationship they pursue is completely within their control, so if marriage, by definition, means "the union of a man and a woman", then gay people have every right to marriage like everyone else. It just may not bring them the happiness or fulfillment it brings the average "straight" person. So be it, they can choose not to pursue it but to seek committed relationships in other ways, such as civil unions (where they're legal). If they're not legal, then they can still choose to stay together. They don't need the government's tax benefits or recognition or insurance access to make their relationship meaningful or significant to them. Besides, those government benefits were designed around families and children, which is not what the vast majority of gay partnerships are about anyway, nor should they be because children should have the right to grow up with a mother and father where possible. And if a same-sex couple's church wants to sanctify their relationship in its eyes by marrying them, well...that's too bad because the government says the church can't do that because that's not what marriage is to begin with, and no church has the right to tell the government what it can or can't do, so the church is welcome to sanctify their relationship in some other way but without calling it marriage. Let them call it a God-sanctioned union if they want, but that shouldn't be forcing the government's hand because that would, in turn, affect all other churches and the tax system and insurance companies... The majority of the people have spoken in secular support of marriage being a heterosexual institution by definition, not just a "type" of relationship or a "contract" between any two consenting adults. It is an institution designed to foster an optimal family arrangement in which to raise children with male and female role models as mother and father, and even if many people today treat that institution like garbage and defile its original purpose, that doesn't justify changing its original definition to boot. Marriage's definition is at all vague or debatable only because it was culturally assumed to apply only to mixed-sex couples when it was instituted: there was no need for the clarification until gay people started wanting their version of it, sometimes encouraged by their churches' support.

OK, so that's a perspective I can understand. And it's not completely based on discrimination or assumptions about the motives of why gay people are seeking marriage. It's based on some pretty sound logic, I think, although I think it does make a stretch or leap here and there. Unfortunately, I don't hear much of this kind of argument, but what I do hear from opponents of same-sex marriage is that gay people are just trying to hijack marriage, or gay couples don't stay together anyway so marriage is a joke for them, or gay people don't want kids (and those who do shouldn't be allowed to have them because it's better for kids to be in orphanages or raised by single people than by a same-sex couple), or the nation will fall apart if we allow such perversion as homosexual marriages, or homosexuality will be taught in schools as a moral equivalent to mixed-sex couples, or the church will be forced to marry same-sex couples or lose its tax-exempt status, or the temples will close if we refuse to marry them, or...whatever. And yes, some of these arguments have some basis in truth, though I think most of the feared consequences would be defended and ironed out in the courts in the long run. And no, I don't consider any of them valid reasons to deny a portion of the population their rights. They are red herring. They are points to consider in working it all out, but in using these arguments to support banning same-sex marriage, what people are saying, at the root, is that it's OK to deny citizens rights as long as granting those rights makes life harder for me or goes against my religious beliefs. Shame on you! What country do you live in?! I've had to bite my tongue so many times as friends and family have stated their support for discriminatory legislation based on an "us or them" mentality: it's their rights or mine which have to go, so it's gonna be theirs. Is that freedom and democracy?

I understand much legislation has moral underpinnings, but I also believe most legislation is about defending the rights, freedoms, and safety of the nation's citizens. It's my belief that if you can't defend a law based on preserving rights, it should probably be discarded. I support laws against smoking in public places. It limits people's freedom to smoke where they choose, but it preserves the health and safety of those the smoker is forcing to breathe carcinogens. Now, perhaps I'm wrong in this. Perhaps it's the responsibility of passersby to wear a mask if they don't like inhaling second-hand smoke. But it's the smoker who is creating the hazardous situation for others by smoking in a public place, so I believe the smoker shoulders the responsibility. Perhaps the real approach should be to promote laws allowing smoking only if some sort of special filter is placed on the end of the cigarette, preserving both the smoker's freedom and that of the passersby. I'd be open to that. So I admit there are times when laws become a bit...subjective as to what rights and safety they're protecting, but I believe the arguments should at least be framed in that light rather than saying, "I think smoking is wrong, and it makes me uncomfortable to be around smokers, so I support making smoking in public illegal."


TYRANNY OF MAJORITY RULE

Please watch/listen to the following clip from 7:14 to about 8:10, which is from a speech by Ronald Reagan regarding the dangers of socialism and which contains a few gems of what I regard as sound political thought which relates to other issues:


I don't believe in "moral majority rule" in the sense it seems many conservative friends do. That, to me, is tyranny. Denying rights to some because you believe their decisions to be against God's will is shady territory, and I suspect many LDS people, for example, might change their tune if they lived in an Islamist nation, for example. If the population of the United States appeared to be tipping to a Wiccan majority, I suspect Christians everywhere would call for individual and religious freedom, not legislation of morality or religious values. I suspect they would say, "You do your thing, and I'll do mine, and as long as we're not infringing on someone else's rights, we're OK." But when you are part of the moral majority, it's a cozy place to enforce your beliefs and standards through law without considering whether you're really protecting freedoms or just letting your moral superiority call the shots to protect your own interests at the expense of truly upholding the freedoms which allowed your religion to grow in the first place.


MY PLEA

To my friends and family who actively oppose same-sex marriage (which includes most of you who read my blog, I think): I'm not saying you have to support same-sex marriage to be logical or for me to see you as fair-minded. I'm not saying opposing legalization of same-sex marriage is tantamount to tyranny. Notice I've not actually spent much time here debating the validity of each claim or making the case for same-sex marriage because that's actually beside the point for my purposes here. I'm just saying please, please make sure your reasons are just, true, and virtuous. Please make sure you're not denying your brother, mother, son, or friend his or her right to marry his or her sweetheart for reasons that are not based on true principles you would support even if you were on the other side of them, being denied what you regarded as a right but others did not. Please make sure your own feelings about the morality of same-sex partnerships aren't your only motivation for supporting legislation like Prop 8. Please consider your arguments the next time you're making them, and imagine a member of another church or an atheist making them against your church's practices or your own decisions they believe to be detrimental to the moral fiber of the country. Please express your position with love, with rationale, and with patience, and consider the possibility that if you can't do that, you're possibly not secure enough in your position to be denying an entire subset of our nation their rights over it. Please recognize the social and very personal impact of this cultural battle and be sensitive how it will affects those you love who may be granted or denied the ability to be married by either their church or state, along with its accompanying rights and responsibilities. Please consider the possibility that this is not an all-or-nothing issue and that there are compromises to be found. Just consider it? I know it won't change your mind, for most of you, but it will focus on the real issues and hopefully minimize unnecessary animosity and division.

How Seahorse Women Prevent Deadbeat Dads

Just the other day, I was talking with a friend about the phenomenon of men sowing their seeds everywhere they go and moving on to the next exciting option, or the deadbeat dad syndrome. Well, a National Geographic article in honor of Father's Day has sparked in my mind what may be a solution. One solution might be a practice that is, as of yet, not so socially accepted: stay-at-home dads. Of course, this would require keeping "dad" around through the long pregnancy until there's a little one to stay home for. But seahorse women have found an ingenious solution. They say, "Hey baby, you wanna mate? Yeah, I'm feelin' ya. Come on over, sugar," at which point they do their dance, get their flirt on, then promptly stuff their man full of eggs and shout, "Alright, chump, you got your action, now let's see you 'deal with the consequences' of your decisions, eh?" For some reason, they then stick around for the duration of the breeding season, or possibly future breeding seasons.

Of course, "mom's" parental role is finished as soon as she has dumped her eggs off. After "dad" goes through labor and pumps out a dozen to several hundred youngsters, he's done, too. But he sticks around with the wicked woman who did this to him. Maybe he's thinking, "Shoot, I saw my fish buddy have sex the other day, and he had a whirl and was scot-free to go find another chick to have fun with. If seahorse women are gonna be pulling this crap, I might as well at least stick around with the one who seems to like me..."

Male pregnancy. Clever, wicked seahorse babes.



Note: for more unusual parenting, read this article published for Mother's Day.

Birdbrain Statistics

I'm reading Alex & Me by Irene Pepperberg, which I originally blogged about here, chronicling her research with Alex, the African Grey Parrot who won the hearts of many bird- and research-lovers worldwide over the years. I love reading about her research methods and Alex's antics. He was smart but a difficult student at times.

One recent passage amused and interested me:

I found myself having to prove over and over that Alex had more going on in his bird brain than some mechanical trickery or other. One such challenge was, "Oh, he can produce labels all right, and he sounds convincing, but does he really understand what he's saying? Does he comprehend the noises coming from his beak?"

It seemed quite clear to me from my hundreds and hundreds of hours watching and listening to Alex that he did indeed know what he was saying. A simple example: if Alex said "Want grape" and you gave him a banana, he'd spit it right back at you and repeat insistently, "Want grape." He wouldn't stop until you gave him a grape. If you were dealing with a child, you would accept without question that he or she really wanted a grape, and that banana simply wouldn't do. But that's not science. Science needs numbers. Science needs tests to be done over and over again--actually, sometimes sixty times or more--before the answer has statistical legitimacy, and before scientists will take you seriously. Poor Alex.

On a sidenote, earlier in the book, she talked about how she was trying to teach Alex to say "apple", but after two weeks of training and struggling to make the "puh" sound in "apple", he had other plans in mind. She describes it:

...he looked at the apple quite intently, looked at me, and said, "Banerry...I want banerry." He snatched a bite of the apple and ate it happily. He looked as if he had suddenly achieved something he had been searching for.

I had no idea what he was talking about. So I said, "No, Alex, apple."

"Banerry," Alex replied, quickly but quite patiently.

"Apple," I said again."

"Banerry," Alex said again.

OK, buddy, I thought. I'll make it a bit easier for you. "Ap-ple," I said, emphasizing the second syllable.

Alex paused a second or two, looked at me more intently, and said, "Ban-erry," exactly mimicking my cadence.

We went through this double act several times: "Ap-ple." "Ban-erry." "Ap-ple." "Ban-erry." I was a little ticked off. I thought Alex was being deliberately obtuse. In retrospect, it was quite hysterical. When I told one of my students, Jennifer Newton, about it later, she literally fell off her chair laughing. But Alex hadn't quite finished with me just yet. At the end of that session he said, very slowly and deliberately, "Ban-err-eeee," just as I might do with him when I was trying to teach him a new label. Maybe he was thinking, Listen carefully, lady. I'm trying to make this easy for you.

...No matter how hard we worked to get him to say "apple," he stuck with his label. As far as Alex was concerned, "banerry" it was and "banerry" it was going to stay.

A few days later I was talking to a linguist friend about all this. He said, "It sounds like lexical elision." It's a fancy term for putting parts of two different words together to form a new word. Alex might have thought the apple tasted a bit like a banana. Certainly it looked like a very large cherry (it was a red apple). "Banana" + "cherry" = "banerry."

That passage had me laughing so much my eyes were watering. I've experienced the personality of greys, so I could easily picture the interaction, and it brings me joy.

This relates to the first section I quoted because it illustrates Alex's stubbornness and their general relationship. When it came to repeating the tests enough to gather the statistics necessary for scientific reporting, there were other challenges:

The tests involved putting various of his "toys" on a tray and asking questions such as "What object is green?" "What matter is blue and three-corner?" "What shape is purple?" "How many four-corner wood?" At first, Alex answered correctly most of the time: "key" or "wood" or "wool" or "three," et cetera. But before too long, he started to act up. He would say "green" and then pull at the green felt lining of the tray, hard enough that all the objects would fall off. Or he would say "tray" and bite the tray. Sometimes he'd say nothing and suddenly start preening. Or he'd turn around and lift his butt in my direction, a gesture too obvious to need translation. Once he grabbed the tray out of my hand and flund it on the floor, saying, "Wanna go back," which meant, I'm done with this. Take me back to my cage.

Who can blame him? None of the objects were new to him. He'd answered these kinds of questions dozens of times, and yet we still kept asking them, because we needed our statistical sample. You could imagine him thinking, I've already told you that, stupid, or simply, This is getting very boring. He was like the bright little kid at school who finds none of the work challenging and so passes the time by making trouble.

Sometimes, however, Alex chose to show his opinion of the boring task at hand by playing with our heads. For instance, we would ask him, "What color key?" and he would give every color in his repertoire, skipping only the correct color. Eventually, he became quite ingenious with this game, having more fun getting us agitated rather than giving us the answers we wanted and he surely knew. We were pretty certain he wasn't making mistakes, because it was statistically near to impossible that he could list all but the correct answer. These observations are not science, but they tell you a lot about how sophisticated his cognitive processes really were. Whether you would describe what he did as something to amuse himself or as making a joke at our expense, I cannot say. But he was definitely doing something other than routinely answering questions.

This, of course, led me to wonder how you report, statistically, the responses of an animal which seems to be deliberately refusing to give you the responses you need to support your research. Obstinate little cuss. I love it. I'm enjoying the book muchly.





Alex showing Alan Alda what he can do:


ABC News report when Alex passed away:


A longer video on Dr. Pepperberg's research with Alex and other parrots:

For The Seafood Lover In You

Hey, seafood lovers! I thought I'd throw out a recommendation for those of you who give a rip about sustainable fisheries and being responsible stewards of oceanic ecosystems: download the appropriate Seafood Guide for your region from the Monterey Bay Aquarium web site. You can print it, fold it, and keep it in your wallet or purse for reference when ordering seafood to avoid eating and therefore promoting the decimation of certain species or destruction of ecosystems.

I haven't had one for a while because mine expired (they change from time to time as populations decrease or bounce back), but now that I have a new one, I'll be referring to it regularly again.

In addition to populations being threatened, there are other factors to consider. Certain fish farming practices, particularly in unregulated countries, lead to huge amounts of basically toxic runoff which then negatively affects neighboring ecosystems secondarily. Also, trawling huge nets through the water can result in "bycatch" (catching/killing and discarding unintended species) or actually ripping up the seafloor, destroying swaths of natural habitat somewhat like clearing fragile rainforest habitat.

That said, this isn't about panicky environmentalism; it's a fair approach based on solid science. It's about making choices based on the most sustainable options first, then the "Good Alternatives", then avoiding certain options to minimize demand for destructive practices.

Some restaurants responsibly purchase their seafood only from sustainable or non-threatened populations, but most simply respond to market demand by supplying whatever we consumers demand to eat. While ordering responsibly is probably the most helpful thing we can do, I think there's something to be said for asking your server questions: "Where is your salmon from? Is it farmed? Is it from Alaska?" I've found they often don't know, so they may have to go ask someone. And now at least two people know customers are concerned about this and may eventually take note and respond by purchasing more responsibly. If they don't give me a clear answer, I let them know I'll need time to pick something else.

I also printed a sushi guide! I didn't know they had those. I'm excited to use it!

Undersea Volcano

Coooooooooool!

Fox News's Unfortunate Obsession

I know most of you who read this blog are Republicans or otherwise socially conservative and likely fans of Fox News, so this may offend the sensibilities of many of you, but I'm sick of the pandering, coddling, and self-important moral superiority oozing from Fox News.

Example: I have heard far more about Miss California on Fox News than anywhere else. Far more. I gather news primarily from NPR (including local news and BBC news), CNN, Fox News, and ABC News between talk radio shows. The Miss California gay marriage thing has, of course, come up all over the news, and most reports have been about what she said and that idiot's reaction. You know, the gossip-blogger-turned-pseudo-celebrity who asked the question. I don't think she's being roasted just because of her views on marriage but because she was launched into the spotlight by said idiot's flatulent ranting, which in turn led to her being touted by NOM (you know, the purveyors of that "A storm is coming, and I am afraid..." melodrama) as a beacon of virtue and courage. Finding any kind of dirt on beacons of virtue and courage has long been a hobby of the media, liberal or otherwise. So I think it too simplistic to decry the "liberal media's" tactics. It's business as usual, unfortunately. Fox News does it, too, when said beacon isn't someone they care to hold up as a martyr. As I see it, Fox News is making far more of an issue of it because they think the American people don't see that those who released the photos or leaked the boob job news are trying to discredit someone with whom they disagree or someone who has a culturally unpopular (even if majority) opinion.

One thing I really appreciate about Fox News is their tendency to cut through the fluffy pop culture crap or to dissect the sociopolitically liberal undercurrent in much of the media which is out of touch with much of America (though I think they often blow it way out of proportion). But therein lies a problem: I'd like them to point out such motives, hidden agendas, and underhanded tactics, and then move on to...oh, I don't know...NEWS!!! Come on folks, I do not need to be Hannitized for a half hour by analysts blathering on about why Miss California's boobs are only news because she's politically incorrect. But they've gotta grab ratings from a hot topic they're trying to make even hotter. You can insult my intelligence, Mr. Hannity, but I can change the channel. And I did. It's like Fox News's clarion call to mind media bias has become an obsessive crusade not to inform the American people but to declare their misinformation. It's old and tired. Give me something to support, not something to decry. Give me stories, not editorial analysts squabbling over motives and credibility.

But then, maybe I'm not Fox News's audience anyway. I'm one of those spineless moderates. I'm one of those gutless, wishy washy, pawns who mask their inability to take a stand with a weak facade of independent, critical thinking and open-minded refusal to demonize the motives of those with whom they don't agree. I guess I can always go get my news from the other pseudo-balanced closet liberals at NPR. Actually, the more I watch Fox News, the more my mancrush on Anderson Cooper grows.

Meanwhile, there's a lot of news to be reported, a lot going on in your backyard, a lot going on across the globe that affects you besides Obama's latest hypocrisy or Miss California's martyrdom. To not realize the turmoil and war on another hemisphere, or to miss out on the everyday personal and social trials of people around the world and their uplifting, humanizing experiences because you're too busy being inculcated about why the liberal media is once again deceiving the American people with boob job news...it just seems sad.


P.S.--Kudos to Greta for her recent report on foster care reform and to Glenn for consistently balancing the big picture (a la "The Real Story") with personal stories. That's the stuff Fox News needs more of, conservative slant or not.

P.P.S.--Don't even get me started on MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

I Want To Shadow Them

Very cool stuff. But then, I'm a nerd that way:





While we're at it, check out this story: Chimps Trade Meat for Sex--And It Works

Though I have to question...have they really established causation--i.e. trading meat LEADS to more sex--or do male chimps just feel more inclined to share with the ladies who've caught their eye and reciprocated signs of willingness? Or have they decided who they wanna get frisky with and instinctively make sure their reproductive partners are well fed to make healthy babies? Is that too complex a thought process to be a viable explanation? OK, I'm a nerd (everyone who reads this blog really should already know that), but I question that stuff.

RadioTime

I love this web site. I can listen to Doug Fabrizio, Kim Komando, or Dr. Laura whenever the heck I want...at least whenever the heck they're playing anywhere. Oh, the joy of internet radio:

radiotime.com