"Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies."
- Voltaire (1694-1778) on his deathbed in response to a priest asking that he renounce Satan.
I read Dr. Bob’s blog for a laugh, I responded to Mr. Impacts questions regarding dating frequently even if it was only to my computer monitor and rarely as a reply. I read the home buying blog to see if anything had changed since I had last purchased, and I tried learning more about wine. It was a difficult topic, as I don’t drink the stuff, kind of like learning how to reference your papers; since you don’t think you’ll ever use it it’s tough to study. I am now current on new forms of tattoos, although I will still never grasp the desire for one. I relished the religious one, always wanting to agree or argue with what he was saying. I kept saving it for a rainy day however, until the day it was too late.
It was because of wanting to keep things mellow, which I am coming to understand isn’t or shouldn’t always be the goal of a blog. I was once accused by a history professor of starting a holy war in the first week of his humanities class that many people still hadn’t gotten over by the end of the semester. Made life interesting though.
I am going to look back on this blogging experience as a positive thing. I intend to try and keep my blog on the other subject going. I’ve lost the battle there already, but it is still worth it just to let them know they are being noticed and maybe to keep them a bit more honest. I regret not making a lot of smaller blogs if only to use more of my quote library. Hindsight is 20-20 however.
My attempts at displaying my views on the media have enlightened me a bit as well. I got a newspaper article written off my blog. It didn’t mention the blog or me, but it was the blog that got the reporters interest. In the end it didn’t turn out as I had hoped, she published it on Black Friday and didn’t have time to verify enough of my facts to include them in the article. In the words of Winston Churchill, “I thought we were throwing a wildcat onto the shores and ended up with a beached whale.” I may always wonder what would have happened if I had approached it differently, but I will always remember that I would not have approached it at all if I had not been in this class.
I’ll leave you with this quote; it’s written on the board next to my desk at work,
“You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result”
Mahatma Gandhi
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
To blog or not to blog...
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
- Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)
At first this whole blogging idea was out of my league. I didn’t know how to blog, rarely read blogs (unless they were lifted into an article) and had no idea what to blog about. Since it was required that I learn all these things in order to pass this class I have adapted. As I learned more and more about blogs I even put one to work for my fellow students. It has nothing to do with this class, but if I hadn’t taken ENG 112 this semester I would never have known that a blog could be such a powerful instrument. I am not proclaiming that my blog is causing any radical change, but it is getting attention. Not all positive of course, which is sort of what I intended. I have now found an outlet for my rebellious side.
For one of the things I have developed a keener sense of during this blogging experience is that ANY publicity is good. Especially if attention getting is your goal. If you were a Republican spin-doctor, having one of your party outed as homosexual on national TV is A-OK if it dominates the news and distracts from another over inflated budget for the war in Iraq. For my part I don’t care if someone is shouting for my head on a pike, as long as they do it in front of someone, who mentions it to someone else, and they relate it to someone else, etc. etc.
I will venture an observation about this blogging adventure though, as long as (hopefully) no one throws heavy objects at me in class. In discussing things in our groups we all seem to have a harder edge or view about our subjects but it almost never comes out in our blogs. We automatically tone it down to make it fit for public consumption. Never discuss the bad aspects of our topics. Myself included. I wanted to make a sham and a mockery of the whole media machine, citing specific examples of blatant lies and sleight of hand by the spin-doctors. What I did was create a weak generalization about how some aspects of the media aren’t what they seem to be and how they are readily misconstrued. I think I failed even at that.
I was talking with Byron about his global warming topic. What you almost never see in any global warming discussion is what could be considered one of the roots of the problem. Mainly because it is just bad news and we do not and cannot engineer a way out of it, in a humane fashion. If you magically got everyone in the world to half his or her emissions would we be saved? You’d think so but not really, we are just delaying things. What no one brings up is the fact that our planets population doubles approximately every 40 years, maybe less as the population grows. So in 40 years we are back at square one putting out the same amount of pollutants, and since we need more living space there is less forest to convert it into oxygen.
Keep halving our emissions to keep pace and soon we’ll be back to using a manual hoe to work our fields because we can’t use a gasoline powered tractor. Which might work except we’ll need to cultivate so much land to keep everyone fed we’ll need to lower our emissions even more to allow the planet to keep up.
Since the planet seems to have a restart built in, I would be more curious about what causes an ice age and how close we are to that. It seems to be Mother Nature’s way of keeping our population in check. Always yelling the sky is falling due to the worse readings ever sounds a bit like sensationalism. We’ve been around at least 2000 years and only had accurate instruments monitoring the ice caps for the last fifty or so. I am all for slowing global warming and staying around as long as possible, but sooner or later someone is going to have to deal with how to control us and not the planet, and that person is the one no one will want to hear.
Keep blogging though Byron!
"I don't get it..."
"You were not put upon this Earth to 'Get it' Mister Burton!"
Lo Pan
1st Chinese Emporer
- Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)
At first this whole blogging idea was out of my league. I didn’t know how to blog, rarely read blogs (unless they were lifted into an article) and had no idea what to blog about. Since it was required that I learn all these things in order to pass this class I have adapted. As I learned more and more about blogs I even put one to work for my fellow students. It has nothing to do with this class, but if I hadn’t taken ENG 112 this semester I would never have known that a blog could be such a powerful instrument. I am not proclaiming that my blog is causing any radical change, but it is getting attention. Not all positive of course, which is sort of what I intended. I have now found an outlet for my rebellious side.
For one of the things I have developed a keener sense of during this blogging experience is that ANY publicity is good. Especially if attention getting is your goal. If you were a Republican spin-doctor, having one of your party outed as homosexual on national TV is A-OK if it dominates the news and distracts from another over inflated budget for the war in Iraq. For my part I don’t care if someone is shouting for my head on a pike, as long as they do it in front of someone, who mentions it to someone else, and they relate it to someone else, etc. etc.
I will venture an observation about this blogging adventure though, as long as (hopefully) no one throws heavy objects at me in class. In discussing things in our groups we all seem to have a harder edge or view about our subjects but it almost never comes out in our blogs. We automatically tone it down to make it fit for public consumption. Never discuss the bad aspects of our topics. Myself included. I wanted to make a sham and a mockery of the whole media machine, citing specific examples of blatant lies and sleight of hand by the spin-doctors. What I did was create a weak generalization about how some aspects of the media aren’t what they seem to be and how they are readily misconstrued. I think I failed even at that.
I was talking with Byron about his global warming topic. What you almost never see in any global warming discussion is what could be considered one of the roots of the problem. Mainly because it is just bad news and we do not and cannot engineer a way out of it, in a humane fashion. If you magically got everyone in the world to half his or her emissions would we be saved? You’d think so but not really, we are just delaying things. What no one brings up is the fact that our planets population doubles approximately every 40 years, maybe less as the population grows. So in 40 years we are back at square one putting out the same amount of pollutants, and since we need more living space there is less forest to convert it into oxygen.
Keep halving our emissions to keep pace and soon we’ll be back to using a manual hoe to work our fields because we can’t use a gasoline powered tractor. Which might work except we’ll need to cultivate so much land to keep everyone fed we’ll need to lower our emissions even more to allow the planet to keep up.
Since the planet seems to have a restart built in, I would be more curious about what causes an ice age and how close we are to that. It seems to be Mother Nature’s way of keeping our population in check. Always yelling the sky is falling due to the worse readings ever sounds a bit like sensationalism. We’ve been around at least 2000 years and only had accurate instruments monitoring the ice caps for the last fifty or so. I am all for slowing global warming and staying around as long as possible, but sooner or later someone is going to have to deal with how to control us and not the planet, and that person is the one no one will want to hear.
Keep blogging though Byron!
"I don't get it..."
"You were not put upon this Earth to 'Get it' Mister Burton!"
Lo Pan
1st Chinese Emporer
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Father knows best...
"Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity."
- Irving Kristol
Does it?
The media contributes to stereotyping in a big way. Which allows it to affect our daily lives since we strive to be what the media portarys as correct. They don’t splash tabloid headlines with some male actor who sleeps around and gets drunk driving charges. That’s what people expect so it won’t sell the rag. In order to be newsworthy it has to be a woman doing these terrible awful things….well acting like her male counterparts really. You won’t see the day the National Informer has a headline reading “Brad Pitt goes commando!” with a picture of him getting out of a limo and a glimpse up the leg of his shorts. If it does happen it’s a one day thing, not an ongoing commentary of a child star gone bad.
Too many people still perceive women as they were in the 1950s and the media reinforces it. Of course once we see it on TV or at the movies it sinks in as the way it’s supposed to be. Departures from this norm are fodder for the tabloid masses. The man makes financial decisions and the woman makes everything nice. Female friends tell me years after they divorce and get the house in the settlement companies persist in addressing anything household related to their ex’s.
Salesmen in person still tend to follow the same trends as well. When you go to a car lot, the salesman will automatically look towards the male concerning the purchase. Unless you inform him otherwise of course, the third time a dealer told my roommate to look at the color when she asked a question she threw his clipboard across the lot. I had to physically restrain her from committing further harm to him.
When you go to look at a house, the realtor will direct all the “look at this view, or that color” to the lady. Yet when they get back to the office and the contract comes out the realtor will be directing all their comments to the man. I sat in a recruiting office in San Diego a few years ago, watching people get signed up. When a male recruit was involved, it was all recruiter talking to the recruit with the father watching proudly or in horror depending on the his grasp of current events. When it was a female recruit, it was usually sign here to the recruit and everything else was directed towards the father.
Now I am not saying this is 100% etched in stone facts, but these are my observations. It would seem a large portion of respect being paid to the female as an independent consumer is simply lip service.
What can be the reasoning behind this? One theory perhaps can be that women are always considered smarter consumers then men, therefore why waste time working extra hard to bamboozle the women when we can try half as much and hoodwink the men? One survey had women as less likely to buy extravagant play toys. Preferring to invest excess income for rainy days ahead. That’s hardly playing fair in our credit heavy economic atmosphere.
One business group that seems to prefer women as consumers to men would be the good old woodchucks. Those rascally jack of all trades scoundrels who will show up to replace three shingles on your roof, come back an hour later hat in hand to tell you part of your roof is rotten. Thirty minutes after that they mention your gutter needs replacing, and by the end of the day they have a tear in their eye as they tell you that six-inch crack in your driveway is what caused your roof to go bad. Not to worry though they can fix it all! Might take a few days, and they prefer cash payments. Don’t worry about declaring the home improvement on your taxes either, as you won’t be getting an itemized statement with what cost what to fix. They are semi well versed in the art of refinancing your mortgage, as this is what it might take to pay them once they are done.
Yet they, along with what seems to still be a large part of corporate America marketing tend to think women cannot easily comprehend financial decisions. Isolate them and you can sell them anything for twice the price. This is a sad belief that seems constantly reinforced by our entertainment industry.
- Irving Kristol
Does it?
The media contributes to stereotyping in a big way. Which allows it to affect our daily lives since we strive to be what the media portarys as correct. They don’t splash tabloid headlines with some male actor who sleeps around and gets drunk driving charges. That’s what people expect so it won’t sell the rag. In order to be newsworthy it has to be a woman doing these terrible awful things….well acting like her male counterparts really. You won’t see the day the National Informer has a headline reading “Brad Pitt goes commando!” with a picture of him getting out of a limo and a glimpse up the leg of his shorts. If it does happen it’s a one day thing, not an ongoing commentary of a child star gone bad.
Too many people still perceive women as they were in the 1950s and the media reinforces it. Of course once we see it on TV or at the movies it sinks in as the way it’s supposed to be. Departures from this norm are fodder for the tabloid masses. The man makes financial decisions and the woman makes everything nice. Female friends tell me years after they divorce and get the house in the settlement companies persist in addressing anything household related to their ex’s.
Salesmen in person still tend to follow the same trends as well. When you go to a car lot, the salesman will automatically look towards the male concerning the purchase. Unless you inform him otherwise of course, the third time a dealer told my roommate to look at the color when she asked a question she threw his clipboard across the lot. I had to physically restrain her from committing further harm to him.
When you go to look at a house, the realtor will direct all the “look at this view, or that color” to the lady. Yet when they get back to the office and the contract comes out the realtor will be directing all their comments to the man. I sat in a recruiting office in San Diego a few years ago, watching people get signed up. When a male recruit was involved, it was all recruiter talking to the recruit with the father watching proudly or in horror depending on the his grasp of current events. When it was a female recruit, it was usually sign here to the recruit and everything else was directed towards the father.
Now I am not saying this is 100% etched in stone facts, but these are my observations. It would seem a large portion of respect being paid to the female as an independent consumer is simply lip service.
What can be the reasoning behind this? One theory perhaps can be that women are always considered smarter consumers then men, therefore why waste time working extra hard to bamboozle the women when we can try half as much and hoodwink the men? One survey had women as less likely to buy extravagant play toys. Preferring to invest excess income for rainy days ahead. That’s hardly playing fair in our credit heavy economic atmosphere.
One business group that seems to prefer women as consumers to men would be the good old woodchucks. Those rascally jack of all trades scoundrels who will show up to replace three shingles on your roof, come back an hour later hat in hand to tell you part of your roof is rotten. Thirty minutes after that they mention your gutter needs replacing, and by the end of the day they have a tear in their eye as they tell you that six-inch crack in your driveway is what caused your roof to go bad. Not to worry though they can fix it all! Might take a few days, and they prefer cash payments. Don’t worry about declaring the home improvement on your taxes either, as you won’t be getting an itemized statement with what cost what to fix. They are semi well versed in the art of refinancing your mortgage, as this is what it might take to pay them once they are done.
Yet they, along with what seems to still be a large part of corporate America marketing tend to think women cannot easily comprehend financial decisions. Isolate them and you can sell them anything for twice the price. This is a sad belief that seems constantly reinforced by our entertainment industry.
Letters from the editor
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth."
- Umberto Eco
One of the least appreciated but still very much in use forms of media is the mail. Good old mass mailings. Companies promising things too good to be true. A politician promising whatever it is you want to hear. Those last minute deals that arrive in your mailbox just it the nick of time. Oh, and if it gets there late, we’ll extend the offer just for you. Only you, and of course anyone else who breathes oxygen.
Doesn’t it fascinate you how they know so much about you? Trying to guess which credit application or store giveaway got you on this particular mailing list. It’s also fun to watch as they get things wrong, and how their mistakes display some marketing stereotyping from yesteryear.
For instance, depending on which piece of ID you check my address is one of two adjacent houses. On paper one belongs to my father and one to my aunt. I actually own one and am three quarters of the way to paying for the other. Neither was financed in my name, and I won’t pay taxes on them until it’s an inheritance tax. It was a strictly cash deal between two individuals. It is a bit disconcerting then that when mass mailings come to my fathers’ house they are 95% of the time carrying his name as the addressee. When they come to my aunts house 95% of the time they are addressed to me. Which makes my aunt very upset. I am sure my secret ownership isn’t out, but back at the mass mailing office I am sure someone is saying Homeowner: Check! Penis: Check!
It shouldn’t be this way, but it still seems to be. As for me, I usually pay cash wherever I go, and only have one credit card and one bank account at a credit union. I am pretty low on the credit radar. Yet I get all the refinance offers, I get all the home improvement ads. Still it is my aunts’ name as sole owner on the mortgage. This slowly built up from the time I moved back here five years ago. At first I had no mail, and now I get a ton of junk mail. Half the state of Oregon is probably deforested based on what they send out to me.
Mass mail or junk mail is a tried and true method of reaching the public. It is also the oldest form I think. This might be why it still reflects old values. They try and personalize whatever they send to pique your interest. The old days of ‘resident’ as an addressee just didn’t get as good a result I guess. Instant fireplace kindling. Maybe someone should tell them to get with the 21st century. Wait, that’s what spam email is for…
- Umberto Eco
One of the least appreciated but still very much in use forms of media is the mail. Good old mass mailings. Companies promising things too good to be true. A politician promising whatever it is you want to hear. Those last minute deals that arrive in your mailbox just it the nick of time. Oh, and if it gets there late, we’ll extend the offer just for you. Only you, and of course anyone else who breathes oxygen.
Doesn’t it fascinate you how they know so much about you? Trying to guess which credit application or store giveaway got you on this particular mailing list. It’s also fun to watch as they get things wrong, and how their mistakes display some marketing stereotyping from yesteryear.
For instance, depending on which piece of ID you check my address is one of two adjacent houses. On paper one belongs to my father and one to my aunt. I actually own one and am three quarters of the way to paying for the other. Neither was financed in my name, and I won’t pay taxes on them until it’s an inheritance tax. It was a strictly cash deal between two individuals. It is a bit disconcerting then that when mass mailings come to my fathers’ house they are 95% of the time carrying his name as the addressee. When they come to my aunts house 95% of the time they are addressed to me. Which makes my aunt very upset. I am sure my secret ownership isn’t out, but back at the mass mailing office I am sure someone is saying Homeowner: Check! Penis: Check!
It shouldn’t be this way, but it still seems to be. As for me, I usually pay cash wherever I go, and only have one credit card and one bank account at a credit union. I am pretty low on the credit radar. Yet I get all the refinance offers, I get all the home improvement ads. Still it is my aunts’ name as sole owner on the mortgage. This slowly built up from the time I moved back here five years ago. At first I had no mail, and now I get a ton of junk mail. Half the state of Oregon is probably deforested based on what they send out to me.
Mass mail or junk mail is a tried and true method of reaching the public. It is also the oldest form I think. This might be why it still reflects old values. They try and personalize whatever they send to pique your interest. The old days of ‘resident’ as an addressee just didn’t get as good a result I guess. Instant fireplace kindling. Maybe someone should tell them to get with the 21st century. Wait, that’s what spam email is for…
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
And now for something completely different...
"Fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds worth of distance run."
- Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
How much does watching todays news seem like a waste of time? At the conclusion of the program you have very little idea what happened in Washington or Richmond that day about things that affect the entire nation. You will know about what people think about long Black Friday lines, and holiday highway travel.
I watched a Russian news service the other night. It was about 45 minutes long, with no commercials. There was one anchor, and he read most of the stories (in English) in a calm voice. There was no fluff, no celebrity goofs, no joking about the topics between anchors. As I watched I couldn’t tell how he felt about what he was reporting one way or another. He just did his job and reported the news. Although it sounds boring it was quite addictive. As you absorbed what he was saying you formed your own opinion about it. Very refreshing.
I remember the news being like that early in my life. After dinner dad would sit and watch the news. We kids would be shushed and knew to play quietly or sit quietly until it was over. There were no flashy graphics or catchy banter between stories. The anchor delivered the news, be it Cronkite or one of the other newsmen of the time. I say newsmen because there were no women at the anchor level back then.
Even though there must have been shootings, muggings and terrible house fires at the time, you saw almost none of this. It was all national or local news that concerned a large portion of the populace. In talking to my elders they all say they knew more about what their elected officials did back then voting wise then they could ever hope to now. People actually watched, they wanted to learn what was happening in the world.
These days we would think this kind of news delivery would be boring, and advertisers and TV executives know it. Since news divisions have been subjugated to the entertainment department in most cases what gets into your local news is almost exclusively for shock value. That or a human-interest story designed to tug at those old heartstrings. Back when news was news that kind of thing would have been on Merv Griffith or the predecessor to Oprah. News executives want to keep you hooked throughout the program by dropping teasers of something yet to come after this commercial break. You might notice the weather report is never at the front of the news program.
In today’s world most people go to more then one source to get their news. I think that is a tribute to how bad news reporting has gotten in the last few decades. If you get the channel try watching the BBC one night. It is a great deal different then anything you might see on an American network. It covers mostly national or international topics, and there is rarely a fluff story thrown in. One reason for this may be the lack of any competition. Hopefully though it is because they consider it their job to inform; not entertain.
- Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
How much does watching todays news seem like a waste of time? At the conclusion of the program you have very little idea what happened in Washington or Richmond that day about things that affect the entire nation. You will know about what people think about long Black Friday lines, and holiday highway travel.
I watched a Russian news service the other night. It was about 45 minutes long, with no commercials. There was one anchor, and he read most of the stories (in English) in a calm voice. There was no fluff, no celebrity goofs, no joking about the topics between anchors. As I watched I couldn’t tell how he felt about what he was reporting one way or another. He just did his job and reported the news. Although it sounds boring it was quite addictive. As you absorbed what he was saying you formed your own opinion about it. Very refreshing.
I remember the news being like that early in my life. After dinner dad would sit and watch the news. We kids would be shushed and knew to play quietly or sit quietly until it was over. There were no flashy graphics or catchy banter between stories. The anchor delivered the news, be it Cronkite or one of the other newsmen of the time. I say newsmen because there were no women at the anchor level back then.
Even though there must have been shootings, muggings and terrible house fires at the time, you saw almost none of this. It was all national or local news that concerned a large portion of the populace. In talking to my elders they all say they knew more about what their elected officials did back then voting wise then they could ever hope to now. People actually watched, they wanted to learn what was happening in the world.
These days we would think this kind of news delivery would be boring, and advertisers and TV executives know it. Since news divisions have been subjugated to the entertainment department in most cases what gets into your local news is almost exclusively for shock value. That or a human-interest story designed to tug at those old heartstrings. Back when news was news that kind of thing would have been on Merv Griffith or the predecessor to Oprah. News executives want to keep you hooked throughout the program by dropping teasers of something yet to come after this commercial break. You might notice the weather report is never at the front of the news program.
In today’s world most people go to more then one source to get their news. I think that is a tribute to how bad news reporting has gotten in the last few decades. If you get the channel try watching the BBC one night. It is a great deal different then anything you might see on an American network. It covers mostly national or international topics, and there is rarely a fluff story thrown in. One reason for this may be the lack of any competition. Hopefully though it is because they consider it their job to inform; not entertain.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Around and around we go...
"I criticize by creation - not by finding fault."
- Cicero (106-43 B.C.)
I spent last Tuesday night fighting a brush fire. It wasn’t my first time doing such a thing, but it was an unexpected way to kick off the holiday weekend. I spent many years of my life living in southern California where you have the biannual destruction of the vegetation and collection of the insurance payouts. It’s an amazing cycle of payola/rebirth/destruction. Ever since El Nino departed the area has been dried out by the time the Santa Anna winds arrive every year. At the drop of a match, flare, or cigarette it bursts into flames.
As I raked furiously at burning leaves I thought about the times out there when our entire town was threatened by brush fire. It makes people do strange things. You never know a person until you see how they react in a truly stressful situation. I remember riding around in my jeep delivering sandwiches and drinks to the water truck drivers with ash falling in thick globs like some sort of weird hot weather snowstorm. I almost got shot as a looter. The drivers appreciated it though as they spent two days trapped inside the town when the highway was closed in both directions. Nobody complained and nobody bitched, we were all there to help and people appreciated it.
Until the news crews and FEMA showed up. Then the story changed to “It was every man for himself!” and “Where was our government?” In a dress rehearsal for Katrina President Bush told someone to go take care of it but never checked to see if they had. The governor dragged his feet about accepting federal help throughout the whole debacle (I think it cost him re-election, and rightly so). Of course, right in the middle to hype the spin was the news service.
I watched as a gentleman calmly explained that he felt lucky that a water truck had stood by his house for six hours in the middle of the night. He ended his story by mentioning the truck left when the wind shifted. The next day a story in the paper was headlined “Water trucks flee fire scene!”
Good news doesn’t sell evidently. Every media outlet was busy bashing the response so if your story didn’t reflect ineptitude by someone it wasn’t worthy. Now I am not saying the government got it right by any means, but the media painted them with broad strokes.
The FEMA people who showed up to handle claims were mostly part timers. There is no large trained staff of claims people sitting in Mount Weather waiting to jump on a plane to respond to a disaster. FEMA has people they train and call up for duty when a disaster strikes. For the most part they aren’t in this position for a big paycheck (since there isn’t one) but because they care in some way.
It doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to figure out what the reaction of a citizen would be when told the home they valued at half a million dollars isn’t worth that. Or that the real Mona Lisa is still hanging in the Louvre, and wasn’t in his living room when his house went up in flames. Throw a camera on them right after they receive this news and the fireworks start.
Within days of arriving FEMA could do no right, and this was years before Katrina. Short of handing out blank checks, which probably would have gotten them headlines of wasting of government funds, nothing they did was good enough. There was always someone ready to complain and a news crew ready to amplify their complaint into a statewide crisis.
Are we that fascinated by bad news? We’ve all seen people slow down for crash scenes, creeping by the wreckage hoping for a glimpse of something morbid and memorable. The media seems to think we crave it, once they find a thread to start tearing at the beatings continue right up until some celebrity debutante forgets her panties. Just like that it’s over. Old news. Not even worth back page space.
Forget that FEMA spent countless hours processing every claim in an old bank building until everyone had theirs processed. Forget the things that needed to be addressed before the next set of fires. The Marines are always first to volunteer to assist, but are turned down every time because they haven’t been ‘trained’. It takes a lot of training to drive a truck or aid in evacuations. Forget the fact that people took their money and went and rebuilt bigger and more expensive houses right in the same canyon that burns out every time. Naturally they all become ardent conservationists and refuse to let the brush be cleared because it might endanger the spotted cockroach or something.
Today it seems journalists think responsible news reporting consists of finding something wrong, spreading hate and discontent, and moving on before anyone has a chance to see if they are right. The ‘Shock and Awe’ version of reporting. And we are eating it up, and asking for more.
- Cicero (106-43 B.C.)
I spent last Tuesday night fighting a brush fire. It wasn’t my first time doing such a thing, but it was an unexpected way to kick off the holiday weekend. I spent many years of my life living in southern California where you have the biannual destruction of the vegetation and collection of the insurance payouts. It’s an amazing cycle of payola/rebirth/destruction. Ever since El Nino departed the area has been dried out by the time the Santa Anna winds arrive every year. At the drop of a match, flare, or cigarette it bursts into flames.
As I raked furiously at burning leaves I thought about the times out there when our entire town was threatened by brush fire. It makes people do strange things. You never know a person until you see how they react in a truly stressful situation. I remember riding around in my jeep delivering sandwiches and drinks to the water truck drivers with ash falling in thick globs like some sort of weird hot weather snowstorm. I almost got shot as a looter. The drivers appreciated it though as they spent two days trapped inside the town when the highway was closed in both directions. Nobody complained and nobody bitched, we were all there to help and people appreciated it.
Until the news crews and FEMA showed up. Then the story changed to “It was every man for himself!” and “Where was our government?” In a dress rehearsal for Katrina President Bush told someone to go take care of it but never checked to see if they had. The governor dragged his feet about accepting federal help throughout the whole debacle (I think it cost him re-election, and rightly so). Of course, right in the middle to hype the spin was the news service.
I watched as a gentleman calmly explained that he felt lucky that a water truck had stood by his house for six hours in the middle of the night. He ended his story by mentioning the truck left when the wind shifted. The next day a story in the paper was headlined “Water trucks flee fire scene!”
Good news doesn’t sell evidently. Every media outlet was busy bashing the response so if your story didn’t reflect ineptitude by someone it wasn’t worthy. Now I am not saying the government got it right by any means, but the media painted them with broad strokes.
The FEMA people who showed up to handle claims were mostly part timers. There is no large trained staff of claims people sitting in Mount Weather waiting to jump on a plane to respond to a disaster. FEMA has people they train and call up for duty when a disaster strikes. For the most part they aren’t in this position for a big paycheck (since there isn’t one) but because they care in some way.
It doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to figure out what the reaction of a citizen would be when told the home they valued at half a million dollars isn’t worth that. Or that the real Mona Lisa is still hanging in the Louvre, and wasn’t in his living room when his house went up in flames. Throw a camera on them right after they receive this news and the fireworks start.
Within days of arriving FEMA could do no right, and this was years before Katrina. Short of handing out blank checks, which probably would have gotten them headlines of wasting of government funds, nothing they did was good enough. There was always someone ready to complain and a news crew ready to amplify their complaint into a statewide crisis.
Are we that fascinated by bad news? We’ve all seen people slow down for crash scenes, creeping by the wreckage hoping for a glimpse of something morbid and memorable. The media seems to think we crave it, once they find a thread to start tearing at the beatings continue right up until some celebrity debutante forgets her panties. Just like that it’s over. Old news. Not even worth back page space.
Forget that FEMA spent countless hours processing every claim in an old bank building until everyone had theirs processed. Forget the things that needed to be addressed before the next set of fires. The Marines are always first to volunteer to assist, but are turned down every time because they haven’t been ‘trained’. It takes a lot of training to drive a truck or aid in evacuations. Forget the fact that people took their money and went and rebuilt bigger and more expensive houses right in the same canyon that burns out every time. Naturally they all become ardent conservationists and refuse to let the brush be cleared because it might endanger the spotted cockroach or something.
Today it seems journalists think responsible news reporting consists of finding something wrong, spreading hate and discontent, and moving on before anyone has a chance to see if they are right. The ‘Shock and Awe’ version of reporting. And we are eating it up, and asking for more.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Bandwagons, America's favorite vehicle
"Public opinion is like herding sheep...once you get one going in the direction you want the rest will surely follow. You could be herding them to slaughter and the last one will be pushing to be in the lead right up til the end."
Anonymous
How often have we seen it happen? Two people share a concept that turns out well. Then a third joins, and a fourth, and suddenly the bandwagon starts rolling and it's everyone for themselves in trying to catch up and jump on board. No matter that the original concept might not apply to everyone, but they want to get their piece of it so when the great reckoning comes they can say they were on 'that' bandwagon.
I saw this again recently in an article on CNN.com. It was about global warming, sort of. In it you read about all these other ideas to help stop the rise in gases affecting global warming. As you read you notice that these are all ideas you have heard somewhere before. Indeed they are, it even mentions in the article that these were studies and ideas presented many times in the past. The difference here is global warming is the latest buzz word. It's a hot topic in today's news.
People usually decide that their suggestions or ideas would get more consideration if they link them to whatever is new and exciting. They'll at least get more air play. Even though there is a still debate in the scientific community as to the extent humans play in the current global warming trend, it's what everyone is talking about so finding a way to attach yourself to it is an instant way to get more publicity. Marketing departments have done it for years. If Adidas could figure out a way to link their footwear to halting global warming they would.
Global warming has provided the bandwagon upon which health, and vegetarian agendas have jumped aboard. Eat less meat and walk more. Both good ideas, and we as Americans have known this for years.Are Americans more obese then other countries? It seems so. Yet we are a richer country income wise then most, and throughout history well off people tend to throw away more food then the poor had to eat. Portraits painted in the 17th and 18th centuries always portrayed the model as plump, as this was a sign of wealth and healthiness displaying that they could afford to eat well. Plus rich enough to get their portraits made to boot. Do we know we are fat? Again the answer is yes, as most media has pointed to a growing obesity epidemic in our children. Nothing anyone has tried has slowed down the trend so far. So now we'll make it about saving the planet.
Politicians are experts at catching the bandwagon and at times dismounting without the public even realising it. Since global warming is such a current topic they all have their stance on it prepared. If enough people voice their concern about something you can bet politicians will be ready to pay lip service to it. They are equally skilled at sliding off the bandwagon and denying having ever been aboard. When the numbers in the Iraq war debate started shifting in Bush's favor, there was a mad rush to get on the wagon. Now that it appears that particular one went straight over the cliff many of our elected officials want to deny ever having been a part of it.
A far more common place we see bandwagons is in sports. Every year people jump to whoever is the hot team. Last year Saints fans came out of the woodwork, but with their 0-4 start this season they all but disappeared. Last year Sean Payton was hailed as an innovator and savior of the franchise. Unfortunately for the Saints he appeared to believe that and got a little too caught up in his own parade, as his changes to the offensive playbook this offseason not only confused the opposing defenses but his own offense as well. Apparently the shredding of the changes, and surgery to deflate his head during their bye week may have saved their season.
Another example would be the Denver Broncos. They had a dynasty for several years, but with their declining playoff appearances and early playoff exits it appears their bandwagon has lost a wheel (and their vaunted running attack). Empty seats abound at Invesco Field these days. If they continue to lose this season, it would be a great time to buy those hard to get seats as a season ticket holder for whenever they get it back on track.
Anonymous
How often have we seen it happen? Two people share a concept that turns out well. Then a third joins, and a fourth, and suddenly the bandwagon starts rolling and it's everyone for themselves in trying to catch up and jump on board. No matter that the original concept might not apply to everyone, but they want to get their piece of it so when the great reckoning comes they can say they were on 'that' bandwagon.
I saw this again recently in an article on CNN.com. It was about global warming, sort of. In it you read about all these other ideas to help stop the rise in gases affecting global warming. As you read you notice that these are all ideas you have heard somewhere before. Indeed they are, it even mentions in the article that these were studies and ideas presented many times in the past. The difference here is global warming is the latest buzz word. It's a hot topic in today's news.
People usually decide that their suggestions or ideas would get more consideration if they link them to whatever is new and exciting. They'll at least get more air play. Even though there is a still debate in the scientific community as to the extent humans play in the current global warming trend, it's what everyone is talking about so finding a way to attach yourself to it is an instant way to get more publicity. Marketing departments have done it for years. If Adidas could figure out a way to link their footwear to halting global warming they would.
Global warming has provided the bandwagon upon which health, and vegetarian agendas have jumped aboard. Eat less meat and walk more. Both good ideas, and we as Americans have known this for years.Are Americans more obese then other countries? It seems so. Yet we are a richer country income wise then most, and throughout history well off people tend to throw away more food then the poor had to eat. Portraits painted in the 17th and 18th centuries always portrayed the model as plump, as this was a sign of wealth and healthiness displaying that they could afford to eat well. Plus rich enough to get their portraits made to boot. Do we know we are fat? Again the answer is yes, as most media has pointed to a growing obesity epidemic in our children. Nothing anyone has tried has slowed down the trend so far. So now we'll make it about saving the planet.
Politicians are experts at catching the bandwagon and at times dismounting without the public even realising it. Since global warming is such a current topic they all have their stance on it prepared. If enough people voice their concern about something you can bet politicians will be ready to pay lip service to it. They are equally skilled at sliding off the bandwagon and denying having ever been aboard. When the numbers in the Iraq war debate started shifting in Bush's favor, there was a mad rush to get on the wagon. Now that it appears that particular one went straight over the cliff many of our elected officials want to deny ever having been a part of it.
A far more common place we see bandwagons is in sports. Every year people jump to whoever is the hot team. Last year Saints fans came out of the woodwork, but with their 0-4 start this season they all but disappeared. Last year Sean Payton was hailed as an innovator and savior of the franchise. Unfortunately for the Saints he appeared to believe that and got a little too caught up in his own parade, as his changes to the offensive playbook this offseason not only confused the opposing defenses but his own offense as well. Apparently the shredding of the changes, and surgery to deflate his head during their bye week may have saved their season.
Another example would be the Denver Broncos. They had a dynasty for several years, but with their declining playoff appearances and early playoff exits it appears their bandwagon has lost a wheel (and their vaunted running attack). Empty seats abound at Invesco Field these days. If they continue to lose this season, it would be a great time to buy those hard to get seats as a season ticket holder for whenever they get it back on track.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
May I ask you a question?
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually."
- Abba Eban (1915-2002)
It always begins like that, a simple little question, and before you know it you are part of a poll. One of the respondents. Nine out of the proverbial ten. You have voiced your opinion and it has been twisted into whatever they wanted it to be in the first place.
“Do you favor Proposition 134a?”
“Why … no…”
“Our most recent poll shows 89% of your district were in favor.”
Which our fragile psyche translates into “Does that mean I am wrong?” As Americans we favor the majority. If everyone else says it is right, it must be true. If television says it is, then it must be. If this guy is saying he surveyed 100 people and 89 said yes, I must be in the minority and therefore wrong. Minority is an unfavorable term in our American version of the English language. Just ask anyone who is one. Why can’t we all be equal, and just be people? Why can’t both sides of the poll be right, and just have different views? Because as Americans we want a winner and a loser. In a poll the majority wins and therefore we want to run with the herd.
Bush got his majority to approve the Iraq war. Ask congress today to have every member stand up who voted in favor and you’ll get excuse after excuse. Basically it’s all the same one deep down, I didn’t want to stand out and take a chance, and if I voted with the majority I could use it as cover. “Well everyone else was doing it…” We learn this as kids; they do it all the time.
Old Dominion University conducted some polls on a proposed football program. You notice things they left out in the article "Old Dominion debates getting into the football game" (DUCIBELLA,2005) discussing it. Ninety percent of respondents among alumni favored it. (Para 11) Of course, they didn’t ask them to pay for it. In releasing the poll they left out the fact that they didn’t mention it would take 30 million to get the program up and running. They simply trotted off to inform the board at the university that an overwhelming majority favored a football program. A dean at ODU conducted her own poll in a classroom, how many favored a football program. Most hands went up, and then she asked who would be willing to pay higher tuition for it. (Para 16) You can guess the outcome.
Polls are still one of the most favored methods of skewing public opinion. They still work extremely well. Frighteningly so. It works especially well on older generations. They have a different outlook, still wanting to take people at their word. Also wanting their words to be listened too. In order to have your opinion desired you have to be thought of as smart. If they are right they will be perceived as smart. So they go with the majority in order to have the most amount of people agree with them as possible. See how smart I am? All these people say so.
Since we are presented only with the side of the argument the pollsters want us to hear it should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Normally it isn’t. It doesn’t help that the polltakers can hide behind different labels proclaiming them to be independent or some such. Where’s the proof? Is there an independent polltakers institute that certifies poll-taking companies to be independent? Who could you get to fill that job? The Pope? Afraid not, even the Catholics use polls. Polls are a big part of everything from getting land rezoned to selling multimillion dollars product lines to getting politicians elected. The amount of bribery, payola and graft that goes on must be staggering. Even if your interest couldn’t buy their way to a favorable outcome it’s no worry. Make your own poll. Who is going to know?
Is Bush doing a good job? Check with the poll by:
“Responsible Educators Pursuing Unified Business Licenses In Companies Allowing National Security”
Surely with a name like that it must be true, nonpartial and working in the best interests of the American people.
For the sake of argument let’s say they are honest hard working people. Can a poll still be slanted one way? I’d say yes. If I walked up to you with a rattlesnake in one hand and a pack of gum X in the other and asked which you preferred, I bet nine out of ten would prefer the gum. When I run the commercial do I have to mention the rattlesnake?
Maybe, just maybe, it’s all on the up and up and it’s when the poll results are turned over to the people who paid to have it conducted that it gets skewed. That’s only natural, because they definitely have an opinion, and they want it to be yours.
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually."
- Abba Eban (1915-2002)
It always begins like that, a simple little question, and before you know it you are part of a poll. One of the respondents. Nine out of the proverbial ten. You have voiced your opinion and it has been twisted into whatever they wanted it to be in the first place.
“Do you favor Proposition 134a?”
“Why … no…”
“Our most recent poll shows 89% of your district were in favor.”
Which our fragile psyche translates into “Does that mean I am wrong?” As Americans we favor the majority. If everyone else says it is right, it must be true. If television says it is, then it must be. If this guy is saying he surveyed 100 people and 89 said yes, I must be in the minority and therefore wrong. Minority is an unfavorable term in our American version of the English language. Just ask anyone who is one. Why can’t we all be equal, and just be people? Why can’t both sides of the poll be right, and just have different views? Because as Americans we want a winner and a loser. In a poll the majority wins and therefore we want to run with the herd.
Bush got his majority to approve the Iraq war. Ask congress today to have every member stand up who voted in favor and you’ll get excuse after excuse. Basically it’s all the same one deep down, I didn’t want to stand out and take a chance, and if I voted with the majority I could use it as cover. “Well everyone else was doing it…” We learn this as kids; they do it all the time.
Old Dominion University conducted some polls on a proposed football program. You notice things they left out in the article "Old Dominion debates getting into the football game" (DUCIBELLA,2005) discussing it. Ninety percent of respondents among alumni favored it. (Para 11) Of course, they didn’t ask them to pay for it. In releasing the poll they left out the fact that they didn’t mention it would take 30 million to get the program up and running. They simply trotted off to inform the board at the university that an overwhelming majority favored a football program. A dean at ODU conducted her own poll in a classroom, how many favored a football program. Most hands went up, and then she asked who would be willing to pay higher tuition for it. (Para 16) You can guess the outcome.
Polls are still one of the most favored methods of skewing public opinion. They still work extremely well. Frighteningly so. It works especially well on older generations. They have a different outlook, still wanting to take people at their word. Also wanting their words to be listened too. In order to have your opinion desired you have to be thought of as smart. If they are right they will be perceived as smart. So they go with the majority in order to have the most amount of people agree with them as possible. See how smart I am? All these people say so.
Since we are presented only with the side of the argument the pollsters want us to hear it should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Normally it isn’t. It doesn’t help that the polltakers can hide behind different labels proclaiming them to be independent or some such. Where’s the proof? Is there an independent polltakers institute that certifies poll-taking companies to be independent? Who could you get to fill that job? The Pope? Afraid not, even the Catholics use polls. Polls are a big part of everything from getting land rezoned to selling multimillion dollars product lines to getting politicians elected. The amount of bribery, payola and graft that goes on must be staggering. Even if your interest couldn’t buy their way to a favorable outcome it’s no worry. Make your own poll. Who is going to know?
Is Bush doing a good job? Check with the poll by:
“Responsible Educators Pursuing Unified Business Licenses In Companies Allowing National Security”
Surely with a name like that it must be true, nonpartial and working in the best interests of the American people.
For the sake of argument let’s say they are honest hard working people. Can a poll still be slanted one way? I’d say yes. If I walked up to you with a rattlesnake in one hand and a pack of gum X in the other and asked which you preferred, I bet nine out of ten would prefer the gum. When I run the commercial do I have to mention the rattlesnake?
Maybe, just maybe, it’s all on the up and up and it’s when the poll results are turned over to the people who paid to have it conducted that it gets skewed. That’s only natural, because they definitely have an opinion, and they want it to be yours.
DUCIBELLA, J (2005,April 25). Old Dominion debates getting into the football game. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from PilotOnline.com Web site: http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=85495&ran=33168
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Sportswriters (The fantasy kind)
"Blessed is the man, who having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact."
- George Eliot (1819-1880)
Where oh where do they come from? These out of nowhere geniuses who want you to believe their total grasp of the sports world. While presenting no credentials to speak of, the majority simply wants you to believe based on their being online. One of the most evident and currently ramped up angles being fantasy football. All the major websites have fantasy pages; it is a craze that has swept the nation. Armchair quarterbacks who have never had a chance to display their intimate knowledge of the game before can now do so.
To feed the anxious masses in their quest for knowledge that will give them the slightest edge in the coming weekends contests, those same websites have amassed a gallery of so called experts who are ever so willing to spew forth what passes for knowledge.
Now, occasionally you will see articles from Howie Long or Chris Carter. Advice from them I take to heart. Both are well known players of the game. After them comes a long list of people I have never heard of. Some of them mention they have worked at this paper or that, been football fans forever, but none of them have ever coached or played the game. Judging from some of their photos next to their byline it is blatantly obvious some of them never played any organized sports.
The televised versions of advice shows for football addicts always have ex-players or coaches. The written kind rarely does. Is it that football players can’t write, or that seeing these pundits we regard as experts online on TV would cause us to drastically revise our opinions of their expertise? Where did they get these people? Did someone suddenly realize they needed a fantasy football department on their sports page and go scoop up all the loiterers around the water cooler?
Yet it works. People blithely read about these peoples predictions week after week and accept them as gospel. Even after botching up the easiest of calls they do everything but say they weren’t the only one wrong so it isn’t their fault. They can’t begin to explain the play that the team ran to win the game, but since they guessed right they are experts. It was once supposed if you gave enough monkeys typewriters, one would eventually complete the works of Shakespeare. Meaning to me, one monkey would sooner or later, through luck, hit all the right keys in the right order. Suppose it happened, does that mean you would give that monkey a book deal?
- George Eliot (1819-1880)
Where oh where do they come from? These out of nowhere geniuses who want you to believe their total grasp of the sports world. While presenting no credentials to speak of, the majority simply wants you to believe based on their being online. One of the most evident and currently ramped up angles being fantasy football. All the major websites have fantasy pages; it is a craze that has swept the nation. Armchair quarterbacks who have never had a chance to display their intimate knowledge of the game before can now do so.
To feed the anxious masses in their quest for knowledge that will give them the slightest edge in the coming weekends contests, those same websites have amassed a gallery of so called experts who are ever so willing to spew forth what passes for knowledge.
Now, occasionally you will see articles from Howie Long or Chris Carter. Advice from them I take to heart. Both are well known players of the game. After them comes a long list of people I have never heard of. Some of them mention they have worked at this paper or that, been football fans forever, but none of them have ever coached or played the game. Judging from some of their photos next to their byline it is blatantly obvious some of them never played any organized sports.
The televised versions of advice shows for football addicts always have ex-players or coaches. The written kind rarely does. Is it that football players can’t write, or that seeing these pundits we regard as experts online on TV would cause us to drastically revise our opinions of their expertise? Where did they get these people? Did someone suddenly realize they needed a fantasy football department on their sports page and go scoop up all the loiterers around the water cooler?
Yet it works. People blithely read about these peoples predictions week after week and accept them as gospel. Even after botching up the easiest of calls they do everything but say they weren’t the only one wrong so it isn’t their fault. They can’t begin to explain the play that the team ran to win the game, but since they guessed right they are experts. It was once supposed if you gave enough monkeys typewriters, one would eventually complete the works of Shakespeare. Meaning to me, one monkey would sooner or later, through luck, hit all the right keys in the right order. Suppose it happened, does that mean you would give that monkey a book deal?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
In the beginning...
"You got to be careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there."
- Yogi Berra
A blog; "a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer.” (Merriam-Webster, 2006-2007)
This is what I am creating, now if I only knew what to create it about. Back in class I gave some glib answer when asked, but I really had no idea at the time. Now I have a few ideas but no time. Reflections and comments, is this describing a rant? I can rant on quite well. Now I need a subject.
My first idea is the media. I would do politics but it’s just too easy. By media I mean the whole information superhighway. It’s amazing what will pass for news on any given day. Plus where they get some of these people they use to report it truly boggles the mind. Have they ever heard of this thing called history?
It’s a bit foggy but I think this will be my subject. Good thing this is a blog as it will probably morph a lot before the end. I tend to get off track quite a bit, as I always want to cover all the bases. For the ENG 111 veterans just check my foray into the world of arachnids in the middle of my paper on choosing a college degree.
So pending instructor approval I will spend the next several weeks picking on the media. Sportswriters, news anchors, weather guessers, the dying newspaper reporter (profession, not personally), celebrities who want you to care about their causes or opinions, the list can go on and on. I just have to think of more. Maybe later…
- Yogi Berra
A blog; "a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer.” (Merriam-Webster, 2006-2007)
This is what I am creating, now if I only knew what to create it about. Back in class I gave some glib answer when asked, but I really had no idea at the time. Now I have a few ideas but no time. Reflections and comments, is this describing a rant? I can rant on quite well. Now I need a subject.
My first idea is the media. I would do politics but it’s just too easy. By media I mean the whole information superhighway. It’s amazing what will pass for news on any given day. Plus where they get some of these people they use to report it truly boggles the mind. Have they ever heard of this thing called history?
It’s a bit foggy but I think this will be my subject. Good thing this is a blog as it will probably morph a lot before the end. I tend to get off track quite a bit, as I always want to cover all the bases. For the ENG 111 veterans just check my foray into the world of arachnids in the middle of my paper on choosing a college degree.
So pending instructor approval I will spend the next several weeks picking on the media. Sportswriters, news anchors, weather guessers, the dying newspaper reporter (profession, not personally), celebrities who want you to care about their causes or opinions, the list can go on and on. I just have to think of more. Maybe later…
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)