CNN - Wake Up

from The New York Times


I don't know if CNN is asleep at the wheel or what but in a NYT's article about Lou Dobb's abrupt departure Jonathan Klein, president of CNN, said the following...

“Lou has now decided to carry the banner of advocacy journalism elsewhere.” This comes directly after an offer the NYT's is reporting as "Mr. Dobbs could vent his opinions on radio and anchor an objective newscast on television, or he could leave CNN."

My bone to pick here isn't with the supposed objectivity of CNN, but what they consider objective. Its as if their following the Larry King model for the entire network; don't cover stories or hold people accountable, but just ask questions and say nothing to avoid being accused of partisanship.

My big issue with CNN on the whole is that its nothing more than fluff stories we're used to from local news on a National level, and a constant citing of opinions from Facebook, Twitter, and e-mails. I love Jack Cafferty, but he can't be the game plan for an entire 24 hour news network.

I think Lou Dobbs is a moron. It was formulaic journalism at its best; immigration issues + angry journalist = ratings. He was an oppertunistic hack and the worst kind but he was at least an opinion on a network where Wolf Blitzer is the most aggressive journalist, and where Anderson Cooper is ritualistically lampooned by the Daily Show for ignoring issues to cut away to stories about dogs. Whether you like the leftist comedy news or not, you have to agree that stories of that nature are best suited for the late night talk show circuit and shouldn't be on Cable News before midnight.

Why CNN continues to go to the well of social media is beyond me. The only rational, albeit bad, idea I can come up with is that when all the fabricated or inflated talk was written the epitath of "dinosaur media," CNN must have come to the idea that drafting off social media would save it...

As President Reagan used to say - work the difference. For those counting, the difference will never be the internet. Every idiot with a keyboard (indlucing myself) has an opinion and an outlet. I don't want to watch CNN to see whats on the internet, thats why I have an internet subscription.

The reason I watch Hardball as my source of news is because I learn things, and Matthews is someone who, with the backing of history and policy, doesn't allow people to get away with bullshit. So why is this such a foreign concept to the top office at CNN? Even Bill O'Reilly at Fox is an example of what CNN should be looking for. In short, theres nothing wrong with an opinion. In fact, CNN showcases them all the time from guys like Crazyhair13 and SnoopDogFanboi, but why not have someone on air, with a spine and a brain who can challenge people.

Because at the end of the day, the news shouldn't be about sharing gossip, it ought to be about clearing the air so people can form their own opinions. Watching MSNBC I've become more of a conservative than I have if I'd ahve watched Fox. I needed something to bounce my opinions off of, and when you have someone who's willing to go to the mat to get to the root of an issue, you can only benefit.

Now if only there was a "like" button for cable news shows...

Healthcare Again

As I read another article on how, in the developed world, America finishes last again. I'm sure this is called America hating but you need to work to make something the best, not just sit on your ass and say you're great. I've worked with too many people who operated that way, its just not me.

So I had to wonder why the republicans would sit by and not attempt to fix anything. 9 months after screaming "no" the republicans finally cook up a bill that covers less people and costs more. Why they thought, in 9 months they could build something as good as a bill 60 years in the making I don't know, but thats neither here nor there.

I think the reason this bill was opposed so heavily is because in 1994, the destruction of such a bill lead to a 12 year dominance for Republicans. Except John Boehner is no Newt Gingrich, and theres nothing close to the "Contract with America" on the table - that every republican can run on. Actually, the Republican party now is not only ununified, its in open rebellion.

I think Cantor probably went behind clsoed doors and did the historical math and realiezed 1 and 1 isn't 3, the republican party isn't going to duplicate its success in '94 with the exact opposite stratagy. And looking at where it was, what it does, and where its going the conservatieves, not the republicans, are winning the party.

For one thing Republicans are generally unparalleled on discipline. They don't get off message, they have a sort of hive-mind that allows small gaffes and missteps to be exploited to a maximum capacity. This, obviously, it right out the window in 2009. For one reason or another, this leftist mentality of party purity like we experienced in the 60's has come, in full force to the republican party. We've also seen a tremendous amount of "front group" use by the neo-cons who are simultaneously ousted from power but who remain the loudest voices in the public eye. Something Ellesworth Tooey would have been proud of (or pissed about because of plagerism).

Secondly, the republican party has, very appropriatly, had a long memory on many things. Not least of which is the 40th president of the U.S. But today their forgetting his 11th commandment, his revolution that lead to the '94 victory, and the unity that Gingrich brought to the table with universal position on policy through his contract with America.

Healthcare, it was said by Roger Ailes (i think), cannot be allowed to pass because it will forever hand the democrats votes from the impoversed. He's kinda right. It would forever give them the votes of a generation, but with a National Policy on healthcare, the impoversed would at least have the same economic oppertunities and thusly few would remain impoversed for long.

As a conservative who wants Healthcare, I had to go down to the crossroads and figure out why I was so passionate about it in my gut, even if it didn't make sense with regard to liberties. But ultimatly it makes the world a more hands off place, one in which everyone can afford the same oppertunities because the cost of ailments born or aquired are no longer a hunderence.

And ultimatly thats the point I'm going for. I don't care where people start or finish economically - I'm a man born fighting and can only respect those ruthless enough to take what they want. I believe thats only valid if the oppertunity to fight is there. If you can't afford your bills because you bought a $30,000 car then thats your problem.

If you can't afford your bills because you have cancer and in the end it costs $30,000 then thats unamerican. Keep fighting the good fight friends. We'll have the power soon enough.

Heavyweight Fight

I'm not much for how people "feel." Thats what Compassionate Conservatism has never appealed to me. Its also why religion has no place in politics. Jesus makes everyone too touchy feely. If you don't like something, bitch about it at your pancake breakfast.

I incorrectly called Prop 1 in Maine, but Maine has incorrectly chossen a side of history. Like Alabama before it, hopping on the supressive side of liberty never fares well for a national reputation and as a New Englander, this is gravely disappointing.

Its not disappointing because gay people want to love each other. Its not disappointing because as a society we're saying thats wrong. As I say, I don't really care much for how people feel emotionally. Its disappointing because equal protection under the law (the 14th amendment...of the U.S. Constitution) is being spit on.

No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Either you're an American, and you get the rights, or you don't get the rights. Its fair to say that in many cases - there is no equal protection under the law.

Let's be direct about this - the 14th doesn't allow gay marriage. If you want to deny marriage to homosexual couples feel free, but you then must deny rights to all marriage couples. That is after all equal.

So why aren't the pro-equality forces playing hardball? Why aren't we calling out the Maine folks for being as hateful as segregationalist southerns 50 years back? Why aren't we making the claim that they have garner themselves and this nation with a black mark?

As MLK once said "all we say to America is be true to what ya said on paper. If I lived in China, or even Russia or any totalitarian country maybe I could understand...[denial of right] (the rights denied in each situation are different)...because they haven't committed themselves to that over there. but somewhere I read about the Freedom of Assembly, somewhere I read about the Freedom of Speech, somewhere I read about the Freedom of Press, somewhere I read that the "greatness of America is the right to protest the right."

Some of those are directly appopriate (obviously) but the spirit of his message is exactly on point. If the Constitution means something, then this will not stand. Maine has decided today that the American Constitution doesn't work for them, and they've denied it. I hope the pro-equality forces will keep in mind the next portion of that final speech as they carry on..."And just as I say we aren't gunna let any Dogs or Firehoses turn us around, we aren't gunna let any In-junction turn us around."

The man gave that speech with a fever and stomach pains. The things he spoke out against were vicious and vulgar. Our fight is cleaner, but our want should be no less. The civility of this nation has come along way. We can't give up on its founding documents now just because no ones being picked off in the street. Pro-equality forces had better start sharpening their elbows and learn a thing or two about hardball because if you play clean in politics you're just waiting for someone to come do your work for you.

Follow Up:

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. As taken from the website of the National Organization for Marriage.

"Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”"

Click the link, read the "talking points." They know they can't call what they are asking for by its true function because they loose votes.

a rapidly expanding universe

I'm not sure where I'm going in many aspects of my life, and therefore its almost impossible for me to know if I'm in the right place currently, doing the right things, or moving at the right speed.

I'd like to believe I fight as hard and, for better or worse, fairly ruthlessly in all aspects of whatever it is I'm doing, but I've got quite some time on my hands when I ride the bus home at night, staring out the windows to avoid eye contact with the disgruntled white-collars and out into that day-light savings time darkness that still seems too early to me.

I'm running down a few paths right now. School this spring (1 econ class but whatever), i'm still taking the MTEL's, and I'd really like to get a few certs in some tech crap that sounds nice on resumes. Another political season has come to a close (my candidate lost so I'm 1 and 1 now) but the big run up to 2010 is all but here. Time to go scout that field again.

I guess I'm writing to say I'm lost and by this paragraph I assumed I'd find something out but I didn't. I'm half thinking it might be a good idea to just roll the dice, start from scratch and call it a life. Too much of what I'm doing now is because I believe I'm on track to all the success I've always wanted.

I don't want to take up this pie-in-the-sky ideology as if I was cast in American Beauty, but maybe i'd be happier being myself again. Maybe I'm still pretending I'm not home whenever the idea of loneliness comes knocking.

I don't generally quote Billy Joel, but I think I need to forget about life for awhile.

Thomas Jefferson; Renegade Genius

Reddit has me digesting quotes faster than I can refresh the page but I thought I'd post some of my favorites...

"Shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:258 Papers 12:15

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. -Thomas Jefferson, 1812

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

"An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens."

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Real Yankee Fury: Rebellion comes to the Motherland

The same forces responsible for Proposition 8 in California in 2008 have made their way into the very depths of Vactionland and are now trying to repeal the rights of homosexual unions by way of referendum. I'll make my call up front. The bright spot that was Prop 8 in 2008 is going to be eclipsed in 2009 and its highly likely that the backlash starts in Maine.

For one thing, anti-gay forces have used the same consulting firm, and the same message they did in California - which explicitly cites "the homosexual agenda already being taught in Massachusetts."

For obvious reasons, that plays differently in CA than it will in ME because I'm betting these west coast foreigners don't realize how tightly knit New England is. I suspect they also don't know how vicious the gay community is going to be over what they saw as a sandbagging in California, and if you don't think money won't pour in from all over the country think again.

Homosexuals have often been refered to as D.I.N.K.s - Double Income, No Kids. They stereotypically are big city liberals with at least one member of the house hold occupying a 6 figure income. This is now being presented in direct competition with heartland values, and more pointedly heartland paychecks. The chances that Maine will overturn their vote are growing increasingly slimmer. The Media likes to use the term “galvanized” for what Prop 8 did to the LGBT community, but that’s a “safe for television, objective” word, and what’s closer to the truth is they’ve furious for the past 11 months that they are being devalued as humans and Americans.

So what else doesn’t Schubert Flint Public Affairs, the firm representing the anti-gay proposition, understand about where they are doing battle? Politics.

California might be an exposed state, on camera, high profile, exciting. But Maine is, as Mark Steyn always refers to them, crotchety (he would, he’s a NH resident). They vote for who they want, and what they want, and they very much don’t like outsiders sticking their nose in its business. Just to give you an idea of who Mainers are; Lower 3 plates (Ma, Ri, and Ct) are routinely pulled over, the locals find us arrogant, mean, and we’re within 1 border. They also use the term “from away” to refer to anyone who’s ever had residency outside of the State. Meaning if you weren’t born there, you’re “from away” and no length of time repeals that idea. Maine also refers to some of their own as “Down Easters” (not sure if it’s one word) to denote where the rich folks of the state live.

They are, for the most part, highly resistant to outside influence. And unlike in MA (correct me if I’m wrong), in Maine Gay Marriage was a bill presented to the state legislature. It was signed by an elected Governor. There was no unilateral move to “force” gay marriage on the people of Maine. If its going to be repealed they want that to be up to them and I can put hard money on the fact that these outsiders are going to been shown to be the same crop from California, and that’s going to go horribly wrong for the anti-gay forces out there.

As it stands, I believe only 1 New England state does not allow Gay Marriage to happen, and that’s Rhode Island. The walls are coming down fairly consistently for a couple of reasons.

For one thing, Big City conservatives tend to be fiscal conservatives with more of a libertarian streak than a social/compassionate conservative bent. They don’t feel “saving” marriage is a big issue, and as die-hard free market people, the monetary output of legal gay marriage is both lucrative and befitting their deregulatory philosophies.

Secondly, all sides are on board now. This seems like a Liberal issue, but the reality is, on this one at least, Liberals are holding fast to Constitutional precedents, and how this mess began was Big Government Republicans attempting to regulate Morality.

It doesn’t fit Reagan-ites to use the government to regulate things like morals, and you know damned well the democrats didn’t do this.

The fight is going to be filthy. I don’t think, even if I’ve presented it that way, that it’s going to be a cake walk. But the homosexual community is more than likely seething, prepped for battle against the exact same group who made them second class citizens in, of all places, California.

Best of Luck to my Yankee brothers up in North Country. We always did know how to throw a revolution, I hope and expect that won't change now.

My review of Knockemstiff

“if I wanted to read books I liked I’d have been a math major, and I’d have read at home.”

Ian was a man made for books, and like everyone I’ve known, he had a piece of him I admired. His was a patience and a discipline to read through the worst of novels with an analytic mind, giving a more due credit to books than I ever could.

Life can be about overcoming obstacles, and how you go about doing it. Mine, in this case, is the bus. Required for transit, good for little else save for being a roving flu box that spreads a pandemic like gas on a fire. But it does force me to read. There’s no one to speak to, and it prevents me from being approached by vagrants and street-corner salesman.

I’m a man of non-fiction. I love reading political material or at the very least analytical pieces. But I force myself into fiction because it’s good to tackle something from all angles, even if one of those angles is only 10% of your total. Fast forward to me reading Knockemstiff. I wanted to finish it so badly so that my review would pack more of a punch, that maybe I could cite decent strokes of the pen, or great plot directions…

But Knockemstiff for all its many sub-stories, for its umbrellas reach over a small county in Southern Ohio can be summed up thusly: Faulkner’s first book from 8th grade, when he realized he could write profanity and still get an A.

Downtrodden people, dead end lives, and the assumed correlation between grotesque situations and good writing. That’s the only theme I can see marching down Pollock’s deranged Main Street. That somehow, if we have some physical representation of something horrible and revolting, then we’ve perfectly summed up a character and thusly have written well.

Before you assume I just can’t handle the heat, let me explain why I took such issue with it, and moreover why I don’t recommend you buy it.

For one thing the vulgar discourse is on just about every page. It’s so ever present that by the time you get past the last trucker/hitchhiker tranny rape scene, you’re knee deep in a man marching in his own diarrhea by some dick-headed cops in some rich snobby town. And that’s, I assume, a subtle outlier as well. This is social commentary at its most inexperienced and juvenile. You can almost hear the inner teenager complain about some social ill, but do nothing but drag it out to hyperbole to prove a point, and never look in the direction of a solution.

The other issue is I’m not sure if he wants to be Faulkner (he does) or Salinger. Scenes where a newly homeless man takes refuge in a rusted-out landmark of a car, and for an ending to this story, he finds in the car the small skull of a mouse that an owl, who is thought to inhabit the car, has likely killed. The scene closes with this man putting the skull in his mouth.

I’m sure if you liked Knockemstiff you’re offended that I’m painting all of this out of context. If so, you’re probably smarter than I am, please explain this to me. I think if anything, the book serves to keep people out of Southern Ohio which, having never been, doesn’t sound like a bad idea.