A Plea for Sanity...
Is it too much to ask that we be allowed to have at least one aspect of modern life that is not tainted by the stench of pornography? I ask this because what used to be a sorta-kinda pleasureable pasttime has become an annoying minefield.
The pasttime I'm talking about is chatting online. At one time, you were able to chat freely with friends in a chat room without being bombarded by quick advertisements for porn. How many times have you been talking with your friends and something like this floats across the screen:
"Lonely F/20....Wants to chat or whatever...I can put both legs behind my head...Check out my live cam!"
And it's not only the female "bots" that leave such messages. There are male bots, homosexual bots, beastiality bots, hermaphrodite bots, child-molester bots, etc, etc. They're all shining examples of the depths to which human nature will descend.
The internet, we were told, was supposed to revolutionize our lives. Instead, it's brought smut right to your doorstep, so to speak. The ability to access information at the speed of light has had an unintended consequence: we can now also engage our penchant for filth at the speed of light, too.
What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is not my business, but do the rest of us have to be subjected to it? You can complain to AOL all you want about this sort of thing, but as long as the bot in question pays his/her bill, AOL does nothing. Yahoo is even worse.
There should be some sort of decency on the 'Net, after all. I mean, it's illegal to use foul language or make sexually-explicit suggestions, under certain circumstances, on the telephone --- why not online? Porn is restricted on TV to certain channels after certain hours, why not chat rooms?
I'm constantly bombarded by the plaintive wails of the permanently panty-bunched about how America is becoming a theocratic, Taliban-style state, what with all these evil evangelicals and conservative Catholics here, but somehow, they haven't managed to penetrate the smutty media of our day. Porn is openly advertised online, in full view of children, no less, and we're supposed to just ignore it.
I don't intend to have government interfere with free enterprise. If AOL, Yahoo, et. al. wish to take money from smut merchants, that's their business. I do, however, expect them to remember that thay have other, paying customers who expect a quiet evening of chat without the seventeen-times-a-minute pleas from cyber whorehouses and such to "check out my cam!'.
Let's not forget the threat to security such activities present as well. Giving out credit card information in order to masturbate to your computer doesn't exactly seem to be smart. Replying to smutty spam that suddenly launches you into thirteen other websites, all with some form of spyware I wouldn't doubt, is not conducive to keeping your personal information safe. Then there's the market angle: if enough people get fed up with this sort of thing, then AOL and Yahoo will be nothing but a 24-hr, seven-day-a-week porn mill, and people will find other alternatives, or create their alternatives. Such alternatives might actually cause either AOL or Yahoo to go belly up. The one sure way to ensure you get our wish from a monolithic business is to take your business elsewhere.
So, if there's anyone out here who has the technial skills and, ore importantly the finances, to help me start up a "clean" ISP, free of porn, free of spam, and free of everything execpt what people actually want from their onlin eexperience, please let me know. I've got a business model and some good ideas.
In the meantime, I'll continue to pay $23.99 a month to an uncaring corporate entity and dodge the spam, the porn and the bots. It isn't right, but at the moment, there are few alternatives.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Pandering for fun and profit...
I was watching a newscast yesterday in which the widow of Jackie Robinson, Rachel, was presented with the Congressional Gold Medal on behalf of her deceased husabnd. Long overdue, if you ask me, since the man was not only a true pioneer, a model citizen and a heck of a ballplayer, but a bona-fide role model in a world that tosses that description aropund all too easily. What Jackie Robinson had to endure to be accepted in society, let alone Major league baseball, was horrendous, and he did it with style, grace and class. He let his abilities and his character do his talking for him.
What I couldn't figure out for the life of me, though, was what was John Kerry doing on the same stage?
Apparently, Kerry had something to do with getting the medal awarded in the first place. yet another example of Senator Do-Nothing going about justifying his continued federal paycheck. Massachusetts, for all I know, has no place in the Jackie Robinson story. What possible connection vis-a-vis Kerry and Robinson could there be? Then it struck me: the man is campaigning again, and he has to be seen with every black person of repute in order to get the message across --- I 'care' about you.
Another piece out of place on that stage was Jesse Jackson. Like a bad cold, Jacskon just does not seem to go away. Discredit him and he's still there. Prove him to be a liar, and still he remains. Jesse is an anachronism, but somehow, manages to make himself releveant, or at least visible. Makes no sense to me.
Unless, of course, the idea is to pander, which was the purpose of the entire exercise yesterday. If I were President Bush, I would have demanded that jesse Jackson and John Kerry get the hell off th epodium before I stepped on it. I wouldn;t have given the the opportunity for opportunism. But that's just the kind of guy Bush is: he forgives his enemies, I guess.
To the Robinson family, I pass along my heartfelt appreciation and congratulations that Jackie's achievments continue to receive the recognition they so richly deserve. To the Kerrys and Jacksons I pass along my heartfelt disgust.
I was watching a newscast yesterday in which the widow of Jackie Robinson, Rachel, was presented with the Congressional Gold Medal on behalf of her deceased husabnd. Long overdue, if you ask me, since the man was not only a true pioneer, a model citizen and a heck of a ballplayer, but a bona-fide role model in a world that tosses that description aropund all too easily. What Jackie Robinson had to endure to be accepted in society, let alone Major league baseball, was horrendous, and he did it with style, grace and class. He let his abilities and his character do his talking for him.
What I couldn't figure out for the life of me, though, was what was John Kerry doing on the same stage?
Apparently, Kerry had something to do with getting the medal awarded in the first place. yet another example of Senator Do-Nothing going about justifying his continued federal paycheck. Massachusetts, for all I know, has no place in the Jackie Robinson story. What possible connection vis-a-vis Kerry and Robinson could there be? Then it struck me: the man is campaigning again, and he has to be seen with every black person of repute in order to get the message across --- I 'care' about you.
Another piece out of place on that stage was Jesse Jackson. Like a bad cold, Jacskon just does not seem to go away. Discredit him and he's still there. Prove him to be a liar, and still he remains. Jesse is an anachronism, but somehow, manages to make himself releveant, or at least visible. Makes no sense to me.
Unless, of course, the idea is to pander, which was the purpose of the entire exercise yesterday. If I were President Bush, I would have demanded that jesse Jackson and John Kerry get the hell off th epodium before I stepped on it. I wouldn;t have given the the opportunity for opportunism. But that's just the kind of guy Bush is: he forgives his enemies, I guess.
To the Robinson family, I pass along my heartfelt appreciation and congratulations that Jackie's achievments continue to receive the recognition they so richly deserve. To the Kerrys and Jacksons I pass along my heartfelt disgust.
Sen. Byrd: Alzheimer's Can't get here fast enough...
Pity the democrats when their elder statesman can think of nothing more constructive to do than to hurl the epithet 'Nazi' at the present administration.
The subject is judicial nominations. Judicial nominations are always important; from a normal person's point of view, it's good to know we have our full compliment of federal judges, going about those things that federal judges are supposed to do --- like uphold the law. It's also nice to know that our court system operates as efficiently as possible, if only because we have, at least, the proper number of people to adjudicate the court's business.
If, however, you are a democrat, and you've lost all vestiges of power in the corridors of Washington, judicial nominees become vitally important for another reason: since you can no longer subvert the republic by legal, Constittutional methods and procedures (like trying to pass a bill in Congress), you must depend on judges to subvert the intent of laws you wish didn't exist, or declare unconstitutional laws you do not like. You need trustworthy judges (in an ideological sense) to govern vicariously through until the day comes when you might steal power again.
Granted, Republicans have done the same thing over the years, so I cannot lay the recent bruohaha completely at the feet of the democrats. But now, here in the 21st century, these kinds of battles are getting ever more ridiculous, ever more bitter and ever more partisan.
Enter Sen. Byrd. According to the good octagenarian sentaor from the inbred state of West Virginia (and how long will it be before we find out he also had illegitimate children by a black woman, too?), the Bush administration's handling of their judicial nominees reminds him of the way in which Adolf Hitler subverted the rule of law in order to institute his Nazi vision across Germany, and eventually, across an entire continent.
Now, if I were a former Klansman and segregationist, par excellance, I would be mighty careful about who I called a Nazi. If my legacy was going to be having every rest stop and child abuse center in the Great State of West-by-God-Virginia named after me, I'd be circumspect about casting aspersions about other people's motives. When it comes to the other democrats on the Judicial committee, like Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Leahy, I'd be mighty careful about picking my fights, particularly since my party is in the minority and set to be there for the foreseeable future.
Although it is not engraved in stone that every single nomiee should be rubber-stamped, these ideological tests are ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, the litmus tests for federal judgeships should be simple and logical; if the nominee doesn't have a criminal record, has served on the bench for a respectable amount of time, and seems to make sense with his/her rulings, then that person is qualified to be a federal judge.
But qualifications and logic don't seem to enter into this equation at all. Hence, al the clap-trap about Nazis and Roe v. Wade. Incidentally, even Roe no longer believes that law to be valid. But I digress.
Aside from the fact that President Bush won the election and is entitled to nominate for any position whomever he wants, I can think of no reason other than ideology that causes these incredible battles over trivial things.
The latest excuse for delaying the process was laid out perfectly by Bill Press the other night on Hannity and Colmes. Bill made the point that the Bush Administration has had 97% of their nominees confirmed in the last five years, and dammit, can't they be satisfied with that? No Bill, they cannot. With the Presidency comes the right to nominate whomever you wish to any federal job. Congress' job after that is simple "advise and consent" not "obstruct and delay". Again, unless we're talking about a grievously unqualified candidate, there should be no problems in getting the nomination through congress. In short, the President should have 100% of his nominees, short of riminal records or eggregious behavior, nominated. To the victors go the spoils.
We're talking about Congress carrying out it's constitutionally-appointed duty to see to it that the "people's business" and the "administration of justice" are carried out. One other thing -- if Ted Kennedy was on any kind of commitee concerned with Justice, I'd be embarrassed to the point of keeping my mouth shut.
Sen. Byrd, fortunately, will not be with us much longer. I don't wish him any ill, it's just a fact of life. Perhaps that explains his attitude and his comments: it's not like anyone is going to hold an old, dying man responsible for his words and deeds. Or perhaps Alzheimers has finally set in.
Pity the democrats when their elder statesman can think of nothing more constructive to do than to hurl the epithet 'Nazi' at the present administration.
The subject is judicial nominations. Judicial nominations are always important; from a normal person's point of view, it's good to know we have our full compliment of federal judges, going about those things that federal judges are supposed to do --- like uphold the law. It's also nice to know that our court system operates as efficiently as possible, if only because we have, at least, the proper number of people to adjudicate the court's business.
If, however, you are a democrat, and you've lost all vestiges of power in the corridors of Washington, judicial nominees become vitally important for another reason: since you can no longer subvert the republic by legal, Constittutional methods and procedures (like trying to pass a bill in Congress), you must depend on judges to subvert the intent of laws you wish didn't exist, or declare unconstitutional laws you do not like. You need trustworthy judges (in an ideological sense) to govern vicariously through until the day comes when you might steal power again.
Granted, Republicans have done the same thing over the years, so I cannot lay the recent bruohaha completely at the feet of the democrats. But now, here in the 21st century, these kinds of battles are getting ever more ridiculous, ever more bitter and ever more partisan.
Enter Sen. Byrd. According to the good octagenarian sentaor from the inbred state of West Virginia (and how long will it be before we find out he also had illegitimate children by a black woman, too?), the Bush administration's handling of their judicial nominees reminds him of the way in which Adolf Hitler subverted the rule of law in order to institute his Nazi vision across Germany, and eventually, across an entire continent.
Now, if I were a former Klansman and segregationist, par excellance, I would be mighty careful about who I called a Nazi. If my legacy was going to be having every rest stop and child abuse center in the Great State of West-by-God-Virginia named after me, I'd be circumspect about casting aspersions about other people's motives. When it comes to the other democrats on the Judicial committee, like Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Leahy, I'd be mighty careful about picking my fights, particularly since my party is in the minority and set to be there for the foreseeable future.
Although it is not engraved in stone that every single nomiee should be rubber-stamped, these ideological tests are ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, the litmus tests for federal judgeships should be simple and logical; if the nominee doesn't have a criminal record, has served on the bench for a respectable amount of time, and seems to make sense with his/her rulings, then that person is qualified to be a federal judge.
But qualifications and logic don't seem to enter into this equation at all. Hence, al the clap-trap about Nazis and Roe v. Wade. Incidentally, even Roe no longer believes that law to be valid. But I digress.
Aside from the fact that President Bush won the election and is entitled to nominate for any position whomever he wants, I can think of no reason other than ideology that causes these incredible battles over trivial things.
The latest excuse for delaying the process was laid out perfectly by Bill Press the other night on Hannity and Colmes. Bill made the point that the Bush Administration has had 97% of their nominees confirmed in the last five years, and dammit, can't they be satisfied with that? No Bill, they cannot. With the Presidency comes the right to nominate whomever you wish to any federal job. Congress' job after that is simple "advise and consent" not "obstruct and delay". Again, unless we're talking about a grievously unqualified candidate, there should be no problems in getting the nomination through congress. In short, the President should have 100% of his nominees, short of riminal records or eggregious behavior, nominated. To the victors go the spoils.
We're talking about Congress carrying out it's constitutionally-appointed duty to see to it that the "people's business" and the "administration of justice" are carried out. One other thing -- if Ted Kennedy was on any kind of commitee concerned with Justice, I'd be embarrassed to the point of keeping my mouth shut.
Sen. Byrd, fortunately, will not be with us much longer. I don't wish him any ill, it's just a fact of life. Perhaps that explains his attitude and his comments: it's not like anyone is going to hold an old, dying man responsible for his words and deeds. Or perhaps Alzheimers has finally set in.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Taking Ann Coulter to the Woodshed...
Despite the fact that I love Ann Coulter and would gladly bear her children, if such a thing were possible, there comes a time when even such a vision of lovliness, smarts and cuteness becomes a pompous ass. Last night was oneof those times.
Calling Alan Colmes a liar crossed a line. I don't like Alan, and hardly ever agree with anything he has to say, but as far as I can tell, he's not free and loose with the truth, even his own version of it. Give credit where it's due, at least he is consistent in his ideological idocy and seems totally sincere when spewing democratic talking points.
Be that as it may, while I know Ann was attempting to be facetious on Hannity and Colmes last night, she did cross a line. Smiling and batting the baby blues could not save the situation. Ann, darling, I'd still crawl across broken glass to be bathed in your glow, but please, be a little more circumspect when throwing epithets. After all, it's what you take Maureen Dowd to task for every day.
Despite the fact that I love Ann Coulter and would gladly bear her children, if such a thing were possible, there comes a time when even such a vision of lovliness, smarts and cuteness becomes a pompous ass. Last night was oneof those times.
Calling Alan Colmes a liar crossed a line. I don't like Alan, and hardly ever agree with anything he has to say, but as far as I can tell, he's not free and loose with the truth, even his own version of it. Give credit where it's due, at least he is consistent in his ideological idocy and seems totally sincere when spewing democratic talking points.
Be that as it may, while I know Ann was attempting to be facetious on Hannity and Colmes last night, she did cross a line. Smiling and batting the baby blues could not save the situation. Ann, darling, I'd still crawl across broken glass to be bathed in your glow, but please, be a little more circumspect when throwing epithets. After all, it's what you take Maureen Dowd to task for every day.
Not So Stupid Now, Is He?
Regarding recent events in the Middle East, I have but one question to ask of all those tiny, little minds at democratic HQ, NYU, the liberal "think tanks", the editors of Slate, the Nation, The New Yorker, and a million editorial pages across the country: George W. Bush is not such a dumbass after all, is he?
Free and fair elections in Afghanistan (in which women actually came out to vote, imagine that?). Another election in Iraq. A softening of the hard line in Libya. Nascent democracy in Lebanon, the isolation of Syria, noises about something apporaching a democratic process in Egypt. The Palestinians (whatever they are) sitting down, almost willing to be dictated to. All this from a man who manages to mangle the English language everyday.
Who woulda thunk it?
Well, we did. By "we" I mean the people who don't believe that giving the world a Coke and teaching them to sing actually solves the world's problems. We are witnessing a new chapter in the history of the world: the spread of democracy in areas that heretofore would never even know what that was. In twenty years, we'll sit back and look on these developments with amazment.
Regarding recent events in the Middle East, I have but one question to ask of all those tiny, little minds at democratic HQ, NYU, the liberal "think tanks", the editors of Slate, the Nation, The New Yorker, and a million editorial pages across the country: George W. Bush is not such a dumbass after all, is he?
Free and fair elections in Afghanistan (in which women actually came out to vote, imagine that?). Another election in Iraq. A softening of the hard line in Libya. Nascent democracy in Lebanon, the isolation of Syria, noises about something apporaching a democratic process in Egypt. The Palestinians (whatever they are) sitting down, almost willing to be dictated to. All this from a man who manages to mangle the English language everyday.
Who woulda thunk it?
Well, we did. By "we" I mean the people who don't believe that giving the world a Coke and teaching them to sing actually solves the world's problems. We are witnessing a new chapter in the history of the world: the spread of democracy in areas that heretofore would never even know what that was. In twenty years, we'll sit back and look on these developments with amazment.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
My Continuing South'ren Education...
I've just recently learned that while I might be a no-good carpetbagger, I still can perform a useful function in modern Southern Society; as class clown. In the last three weeks, I have attended two parties in which I became a minor celebrity because of my Yankee talent to do one thing better than any southerner could, which is to curse up a storm.
For some reason, foul language amuses some of these folks. By and large, many get offended, rightfully, when such colorful words erupt in an uninterrupted stream, but a great many roll on the floor holding their sides when I let loose with profanity. Biological and scattalogical terms seem to get the biggest laughs.
What's worse is that I willingly obliged. I could blame the beer, but I won't.
That most hated sound in all the world, the Yankee accent, becomes acceptable if there's some form of profanity involved. People are litterally amazed at the colorful way in which New Yorkers can string together a stream of foul words for as long as 60 seconds at a time. The most intriguing aspect of all of this though, to them, was my use of the F-word. I was complimented several times, asked for lessons on how to use the word properly and even had a lady or two tell me I had the sexiest way of saying it. I admit, it was an ego stroke.
Utilizing that word as every part of speech and occasionally as punctuation, is a skill that astounds. I have to say that I now feel stupid for having done it (not once, but twice) and should have known better than to draw that kind of attention to myself. I had been making a conscious effort to clean up my language for a long time now, and this might have set me back.
Human nature, as always, continues to amaze.
I've just recently learned that while I might be a no-good carpetbagger, I still can perform a useful function in modern Southern Society; as class clown. In the last three weeks, I have attended two parties in which I became a minor celebrity because of my Yankee talent to do one thing better than any southerner could, which is to curse up a storm.
For some reason, foul language amuses some of these folks. By and large, many get offended, rightfully, when such colorful words erupt in an uninterrupted stream, but a great many roll on the floor holding their sides when I let loose with profanity. Biological and scattalogical terms seem to get the biggest laughs.
What's worse is that I willingly obliged. I could blame the beer, but I won't.
That most hated sound in all the world, the Yankee accent, becomes acceptable if there's some form of profanity involved. People are litterally amazed at the colorful way in which New Yorkers can string together a stream of foul words for as long as 60 seconds at a time. The most intriguing aspect of all of this though, to them, was my use of the F-word. I was complimented several times, asked for lessons on how to use the word properly and even had a lady or two tell me I had the sexiest way of saying it. I admit, it was an ego stroke.
Utilizing that word as every part of speech and occasionally as punctuation, is a skill that astounds. I have to say that I now feel stupid for having done it (not once, but twice) and should have known better than to draw that kind of attention to myself. I had been making a conscious effort to clean up my language for a long time now, and this might have set me back.
Human nature, as always, continues to amaze.
My Continuing South'ren Education...
I've just recently learned that while I might be a no-good carpetbagger, I still can perform a useful function in modern Southern Society; as class clown. In the last three weeks, I have attended two parties in which I became a minor celebrity because of my Yankee talent to do one thing better than any southerner could, which is to curse up a storm.
For some reason, foul language amuses some of these folks. By and large, many get offended, rightfully, when such colorful words erupt in an uninterrupted stream, but a great many roll on the floor holding their sides when I let loose with profanity. Biological and scattalogical terms seem to get the biggest laughs.
What's worse is that I willingly obliged. I could blame the beer, but I won't.
That most hated sound in all the world, the Yankee accent, becomes acceptable if there's some form of profanity involved. People are litterally amazed at the colorful way in which New Yorkers can string together a stream of foul words for as long as 60 seconds at a time. The most intriguing aspect of all of this though, to them, was my use of the F-word. I was complimented several times, asked for lessons on how to use the word properly and even had a lady or two tell me I had the sexiest way of saying it. I admit, it was an ego stroke.
Utilizing that word as every part of speech and occasionally as punctuation, is a skill that astounds. I have to say that I now feel stupid for having done it (not once, but twice) and should have known better than to draw that kind of attention to myself. I had been making a conscious effort to clean up my language for a long time now, and this might have set me back.
Human nature, as always, continues to amaze.
I've just recently learned that while I might be a no-good carpetbagger, I still can perform a useful function in modern Southern Society; as class clown. In the last three weeks, I have attended two parties in which I became a minor celebrity because of my Yankee talent to do one thing better than any southerner could, which is to curse up a storm.
For some reason, foul language amuses some of these folks. By and large, many get offended, rightfully, when such colorful words erupt in an uninterrupted stream, but a great many roll on the floor holding their sides when I let loose with profanity. Biological and scattalogical terms seem to get the biggest laughs.
What's worse is that I willingly obliged. I could blame the beer, but I won't.
That most hated sound in all the world, the Yankee accent, becomes acceptable if there's some form of profanity involved. People are litterally amazed at the colorful way in which New Yorkers can string together a stream of foul words for as long as 60 seconds at a time. The most intriguing aspect of all of this though, to them, was my use of the F-word. I was complimented several times, asked for lessons on how to use the word properly and even had a lady or two tell me I had the sexiest way of saying it. I admit, it was an ego stroke.
Utilizing that word as every part of speech and occasionally as punctuation, is a skill that astounds. I have to say that I now feel stupid for having done it (not once, but twice) and should have known better than to draw that kind of attention to myself. I had been making a conscious effort to clean up my language for a long time now, and this might have set me back.
Human nature, as always, continues to amaze.
Il Papa di Tutti Papas...
As I write this, I have just found out that Pope John Paul II has been re-admitted to a hospital in Rome, where he has undergone an operation described as "being like a tracheotomy". For several weeks now, the Pope has been in and out of hospitals with "flu-like" symptoms. I don't wish to speak ill or to start unfounded rumors, but I believe that JP II is suffering from pneumonia, the dreaded "old man's disease", and that his days on this earth are numbered. While I do not look forward to such a prospect, it is, of course, inevitable.
I am a lapsed Catholic. I say lapsed because while I was raised in the church and attended Catholic schools all my life, there are several major issues I have with the church that have caused me to doubt my faith. In fact, I'd even be willing to say that I have no faith in a sense. But despite my personal squables with the church, it is evident to me that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of a great man and it is saddening.
JP II was a stromg man who withstood the ravages of the Nazis, stood firm against the evils of communism, and had the courage of his convictions and beliefs. I cannot, for the life of me, think of a figure loved by more people around the world. I remember his first visit to the United States, when I was a child, and the buzz it generated amongst the clergy at my school, and the excitement it generated throughout New York City. It is not often that a single individual can command so much attention, so much respect and so much heartfelt empathy as JP II did in those days. I was affected by it deeply. Here was a caring man, a strong leader and source of comfort to many, and you only had to look at him to know that whatever you thought about the church, it was now in able hands.
The man will be sorely missed and the legacy will be with us for decades, if not centuries, to come.
Go with God, your Holiness. May he bless and keep you.
As I write this, I have just found out that Pope John Paul II has been re-admitted to a hospital in Rome, where he has undergone an operation described as "being like a tracheotomy". For several weeks now, the Pope has been in and out of hospitals with "flu-like" symptoms. I don't wish to speak ill or to start unfounded rumors, but I believe that JP II is suffering from pneumonia, the dreaded "old man's disease", and that his days on this earth are numbered. While I do not look forward to such a prospect, it is, of course, inevitable.
I am a lapsed Catholic. I say lapsed because while I was raised in the church and attended Catholic schools all my life, there are several major issues I have with the church that have caused me to doubt my faith. In fact, I'd even be willing to say that I have no faith in a sense. But despite my personal squables with the church, it is evident to me that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of a great man and it is saddening.
JP II was a stromg man who withstood the ravages of the Nazis, stood firm against the evils of communism, and had the courage of his convictions and beliefs. I cannot, for the life of me, think of a figure loved by more people around the world. I remember his first visit to the United States, when I was a child, and the buzz it generated amongst the clergy at my school, and the excitement it generated throughout New York City. It is not often that a single individual can command so much attention, so much respect and so much heartfelt empathy as JP II did in those days. I was affected by it deeply. Here was a caring man, a strong leader and source of comfort to many, and you only had to look at him to know that whatever you thought about the church, it was now in able hands.
The man will be sorely missed and the legacy will be with us for decades, if not centuries, to come.
Go with God, your Holiness. May he bless and keep you.
Karl Rove, Suuuuuuuuuper Genius...
Amongst the more ridculous conspiracy theories I have ever heard is the latest being pushed by Rep. Maurice (snicker, snicker) Hinchey (Communist -NY) which insinuates that Karl Rove planted the infamous, phony National Guard memos which have brought both Dan Rather and CBS to their knees. He further postulates, nay, accuses, Mr. Rove of a blatant attempt to manipulate the American media to advance a nasty (i.e. Republican) agenda.
Rep. Hinchey presents no hard evidence, no smoking gun, not even fingerprints. You could bring Quincy in on this case and he wouldn't find anything either, but that is beside the point. According to Mr. Hinchey, an evil plot is afoot to deceive the media and, ultimately, the American public which depends on said media. Said evil conspiracy, sayeth Mr. Hinchey, undermines the entire political process. In lieu of facts or evidence, Mr. Hinchey intimates that he recent bruhahas over Jeff Gannon/Guckert and Armstrong Williams insinuate foul play. The rest is left up to your fevered imaginations. The implication is that only a damned idiot (i.e. republican) could miss the connection between Gannon/Guckert, Williams and CBS and not trace it back to Rove. This despite the fact that no evidence is available or even likely to be available, and he can produce not one scintilla himself.
Assuming Mr. Hinchey is right (it could happen in some other parallel universe), then Karl Rove is a mad genius. Rove was so incredibly prescient as to predict that CBS would do the story and concoct a plot to discredit CBS, with unimpeachible details like the 1973 IBM Selectric, kerning, et. al. He then sent his minions out to find a webpage whacko with a shady past, and pornographic photos to boot, got the White House machinery to issue him a press pass, and then bribed Armstrong Williams to write lovely things about the President. By my calculations, that would mean Mr. Rove had probably not slept in about three years, and had to have employed or involved in his fiendish plot somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 other folks, all of whom have mysteriously been kept silent.
But, to return to the poor, deluded man's original concept, I defy anyone who reads this to show me just one example, from any period in human history, where the media was NOT manipulated by a ruler or ruling faction. Propaganda has been with us since Adam and Eve.
Pharohs stuck their images and names on every piece of worked masonry in Egypt to extoll their virtues, even in death. Chinese Emperors would have official history rewritten to suit their tastes and needs. Poets and playwrights throughout history have written marvels of suck-up-itude to their patrons, the rulers. Elizabeth I is still regarded in many circles as the stalwart, virgin Queen, savior of England. The faces and heads of Roman Emperors festoon coins, all with catchy slogans. FDR never allowed himself to be photographed in a wheelchair, if he could help it, to give the impression he was not a crippled man. Hitler ran the movie studios, radio stations and newspapers in Nazi Germany. Stalin told you what to write or say or do or else you wound up in exile in a place that even Eskimos avoided. Popes had church doctrine changed to reinforce their notions of infallibility. JFK's womanizing never saw the light of day until he was long dead and buried, and still he is lionized as some sort of virtuous model.
There may be differences in the type of media involved, after all, Hammurabi's Code on the side of a obelisk is a far cry from Fox News, but whatever the medium, it has always been used by the ruling elite to prop up their rule. Architechture, masonry, coinage, litterature, music, radio, television, satellite boradcasts, movies. They are all insturments of propaganda and all of them are routinely manipulated. Just ask Micheael Moore. There is nothing new under the sun, in this case.
There is, however, a few differences which change the way in which the media operates. We live in a 24-hour news cycle. We have access to more avenues of information than ever before. The competition to be first, to scoop your rivals, the need to fill valuable airtime, now makes the media even easier to manipulate than ever before. Mostly because in the race to be first, to have more information, to be the prime source, media outlets are less likely to be accurate, less likely to do real research. They'd rather be first than be right. In that kind of enviornment, people cut corners, and cutting corners often leads to egregious errors and mistakes. Just ask Dan Rather.
And speaking of Rather, he is a prime example. His half-assed, non-apology when he got caught basically came down to this; the documents may be fraudulent, but the story is true. In other words, it's what we want you to believe, despite the fact the foundation of our whole argument is made of sand. When an icon like Rather stumbles badly, or when newspapers no longer get read, in Mr. Hinchey's world it cannot be because that media cannot be trusted, it must be the result of some external force applied with malicious intent. It must be a plot.
In Mr. Hinchey's universe, as for most democrats, it must be this way because they refuse to admit that their traditional mouthpieces just might be fallible, lazy, inept or are subject to the random chance of human nature. It's almost as if they think that because someone took the time to put it in print, or if came from Peter Jennings' mouth, it MUST be true. They have this view of the press as some monolithic defender of the people's rights, and forget that the press is a business full of people with their own individual agendas and their own personal takes on things. Somehow, these factors get filtered out on their way to press or air and we're supposed to believe that we're getting the unvarnished truth.
The most potent weapon on the planet is information. The second most potent is the ability to control that information. That ability used to belong to democrats, who had an ideological lock on the three major networks and the five or six major newspapers that set the tone for all the others. They had this lock because the gatekeepers of information were either ideologically aligned with the democratic party or died-in-the-wool democrats themselves. In this age, when alternate forms of information are available to everyone 24/7/365 and arrive at the speed of light, it's not so easy to play information traffic cop anymore. These alternate forms of information cannot be outright destroyed, so democrats and their hangers-on do the next best (and predictable) thing; they belittle it, they accuse it of being wrong, they castigate it and they wrap it up in conspiracy theories. These alternate sources must be discredited at all costs.
Rep. Hinchey is merely one more in a long line of those who have decried the democrats loss of the propaganda high ground. This loss makes him and his fellow travelers delrious with fear over the consequences of being unable to control debate in this country, and they are not done with their demonizing yet.
However, history shows that when people have an alternative to the official source, they flock to it, and no amount of official repression can stop the flow of "unorthodox" information. In Islam, the printing press was all but banned until the 19th century. The Catholic Curch burned printers of protestant bibles at the stake, and persecuted the purveyors of alternate thought. Just ask Gallileo. Hitler burned books inimical to the Nazi party or it's ideology. Lenin, Stalin and Mao had dissenters shot out of hand. In Britain, you still require a license to own a television set. None of this is a new idea.
And then we have Mr. Hinchey himself. He is attempting to manipulate the media with his talk of unsubstantiated conspiracy whenever he gets on television and repeats this stuff. The pot calls the kettle black and then wraps himself in the flag as the defender of the "people's right to know".
I have news for Mr. Hinchey and his friends; the people know what they want to know. Folks who watch the nightly news and feel somewhat unsatisfied make efforts to get more information. Cynical folks investigate and experiment rather than accept the "conventional wisdom". The truly objective make an effort to hear both sides of a story. The uninterested digest whatever crap is served to them. The truly stupid don't even care.
Mr. Hinchey's conspiracy theory also leaves out two minor, but still important possibilities. If the press is a stalwart champion of the people, interested in it's own integrity, profits and reputation, then it is guilty of being sloppy, lazy and stupid in the way in which it gathers, sorts and reports information. The other possibility is that the press actually WANTS to be duped, in which case, it is a willing accomplice. In either case, the press itself is to blame. Not Karl Rove, not Republicans, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or George Bush, and certainly not the Tooth Fairy. Why would the press wish to be a willing accomplice in a fiendish plot to undermine their own credibility, you ask? How about currying favor with the ruling clique, to gain access to the players, to get inside information, to shut the competition out. This line of reasoning falls flat on it's face because even if the press did get favors and access, who would believe them after they've made such collossal mistakes in order to get the access?
CBS got fooled because it wanted to believe the documents were real. Gannon/Guckert got access because the White House knows just how important bloggers are in getting it's message out to the folks, and they perhaps didn't do their homework on him. As for Mr. Williams, I cannot even begin to imagine what his motivation was (rumored to be cash, however). In any case, the issue of the sanctity of the mainstream, official press as guardian of the people is damaged goods.
In any case, the White House did not create the enviornment the press operates in -- the press itself did. Perhaps Karl did take advantage of it, but that has been the case with every government operative since the beginning of time. Mr. Hinchey's claim is neither original nor necessarily false, but the way in which he presents it is even more odious. The real reason for all the smoke and mirrors is that Mr. Hinchey, and many of his peers, recognize that they have lost the information battle. New circumstances and methods have outpaced their ability to continue putting new prom dresses on the same old pig, and these outlets and methods are outside their realm of control. They find themselves in the same situation Neanderthal Man faced when confronted by modern Homo Sapiens.
I have no doubt that one day democrats will learn and adapt to these new realities, make effective use of the new media and in their turn, do the same things they now accuse Rove of. That's part of the art and science of politics. It just will not happen while they continue to hold their breath and stamp their feet and rampage like a 3 year-old denied a piece of candy. It requires brainpower and logical thought, and at the moment, the democrats and their press puppets cannot muster much of either.
So, the best they can do is a conspiracy theory.
Amongst the more ridculous conspiracy theories I have ever heard is the latest being pushed by Rep. Maurice (snicker, snicker) Hinchey (Communist -NY) which insinuates that Karl Rove planted the infamous, phony National Guard memos which have brought both Dan Rather and CBS to their knees. He further postulates, nay, accuses, Mr. Rove of a blatant attempt to manipulate the American media to advance a nasty (i.e. Republican) agenda.
Rep. Hinchey presents no hard evidence, no smoking gun, not even fingerprints. You could bring Quincy in on this case and he wouldn't find anything either, but that is beside the point. According to Mr. Hinchey, an evil plot is afoot to deceive the media and, ultimately, the American public which depends on said media. Said evil conspiracy, sayeth Mr. Hinchey, undermines the entire political process. In lieu of facts or evidence, Mr. Hinchey intimates that he recent bruhahas over Jeff Gannon/Guckert and Armstrong Williams insinuate foul play. The rest is left up to your fevered imaginations. The implication is that only a damned idiot (i.e. republican) could miss the connection between Gannon/Guckert, Williams and CBS and not trace it back to Rove. This despite the fact that no evidence is available or even likely to be available, and he can produce not one scintilla himself.
Assuming Mr. Hinchey is right (it could happen in some other parallel universe), then Karl Rove is a mad genius. Rove was so incredibly prescient as to predict that CBS would do the story and concoct a plot to discredit CBS, with unimpeachible details like the 1973 IBM Selectric, kerning, et. al. He then sent his minions out to find a webpage whacko with a shady past, and pornographic photos to boot, got the White House machinery to issue him a press pass, and then bribed Armstrong Williams to write lovely things about the President. By my calculations, that would mean Mr. Rove had probably not slept in about three years, and had to have employed or involved in his fiendish plot somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 other folks, all of whom have mysteriously been kept silent.
But, to return to the poor, deluded man's original concept, I defy anyone who reads this to show me just one example, from any period in human history, where the media was NOT manipulated by a ruler or ruling faction. Propaganda has been with us since Adam and Eve.
Pharohs stuck their images and names on every piece of worked masonry in Egypt to extoll their virtues, even in death. Chinese Emperors would have official history rewritten to suit their tastes and needs. Poets and playwrights throughout history have written marvels of suck-up-itude to their patrons, the rulers. Elizabeth I is still regarded in many circles as the stalwart, virgin Queen, savior of England. The faces and heads of Roman Emperors festoon coins, all with catchy slogans. FDR never allowed himself to be photographed in a wheelchair, if he could help it, to give the impression he was not a crippled man. Hitler ran the movie studios, radio stations and newspapers in Nazi Germany. Stalin told you what to write or say or do or else you wound up in exile in a place that even Eskimos avoided. Popes had church doctrine changed to reinforce their notions of infallibility. JFK's womanizing never saw the light of day until he was long dead and buried, and still he is lionized as some sort of virtuous model.
There may be differences in the type of media involved, after all, Hammurabi's Code on the side of a obelisk is a far cry from Fox News, but whatever the medium, it has always been used by the ruling elite to prop up their rule. Architechture, masonry, coinage, litterature, music, radio, television, satellite boradcasts, movies. They are all insturments of propaganda and all of them are routinely manipulated. Just ask Micheael Moore. There is nothing new under the sun, in this case.
There is, however, a few differences which change the way in which the media operates. We live in a 24-hour news cycle. We have access to more avenues of information than ever before. The competition to be first, to scoop your rivals, the need to fill valuable airtime, now makes the media even easier to manipulate than ever before. Mostly because in the race to be first, to have more information, to be the prime source, media outlets are less likely to be accurate, less likely to do real research. They'd rather be first than be right. In that kind of enviornment, people cut corners, and cutting corners often leads to egregious errors and mistakes. Just ask Dan Rather.
And speaking of Rather, he is a prime example. His half-assed, non-apology when he got caught basically came down to this; the documents may be fraudulent, but the story is true. In other words, it's what we want you to believe, despite the fact the foundation of our whole argument is made of sand. When an icon like Rather stumbles badly, or when newspapers no longer get read, in Mr. Hinchey's world it cannot be because that media cannot be trusted, it must be the result of some external force applied with malicious intent. It must be a plot.
In Mr. Hinchey's universe, as for most democrats, it must be this way because they refuse to admit that their traditional mouthpieces just might be fallible, lazy, inept or are subject to the random chance of human nature. It's almost as if they think that because someone took the time to put it in print, or if came from Peter Jennings' mouth, it MUST be true. They have this view of the press as some monolithic defender of the people's rights, and forget that the press is a business full of people with their own individual agendas and their own personal takes on things. Somehow, these factors get filtered out on their way to press or air and we're supposed to believe that we're getting the unvarnished truth.
The most potent weapon on the planet is information. The second most potent is the ability to control that information. That ability used to belong to democrats, who had an ideological lock on the three major networks and the five or six major newspapers that set the tone for all the others. They had this lock because the gatekeepers of information were either ideologically aligned with the democratic party or died-in-the-wool democrats themselves. In this age, when alternate forms of information are available to everyone 24/7/365 and arrive at the speed of light, it's not so easy to play information traffic cop anymore. These alternate forms of information cannot be outright destroyed, so democrats and their hangers-on do the next best (and predictable) thing; they belittle it, they accuse it of being wrong, they castigate it and they wrap it up in conspiracy theories. These alternate sources must be discredited at all costs.
Rep. Hinchey is merely one more in a long line of those who have decried the democrats loss of the propaganda high ground. This loss makes him and his fellow travelers delrious with fear over the consequences of being unable to control debate in this country, and they are not done with their demonizing yet.
However, history shows that when people have an alternative to the official source, they flock to it, and no amount of official repression can stop the flow of "unorthodox" information. In Islam, the printing press was all but banned until the 19th century. The Catholic Curch burned printers of protestant bibles at the stake, and persecuted the purveyors of alternate thought. Just ask Gallileo. Hitler burned books inimical to the Nazi party or it's ideology. Lenin, Stalin and Mao had dissenters shot out of hand. In Britain, you still require a license to own a television set. None of this is a new idea.
And then we have Mr. Hinchey himself. He is attempting to manipulate the media with his talk of unsubstantiated conspiracy whenever he gets on television and repeats this stuff. The pot calls the kettle black and then wraps himself in the flag as the defender of the "people's right to know".
I have news for Mr. Hinchey and his friends; the people know what they want to know. Folks who watch the nightly news and feel somewhat unsatisfied make efforts to get more information. Cynical folks investigate and experiment rather than accept the "conventional wisdom". The truly objective make an effort to hear both sides of a story. The uninterested digest whatever crap is served to them. The truly stupid don't even care.
Mr. Hinchey's conspiracy theory also leaves out two minor, but still important possibilities. If the press is a stalwart champion of the people, interested in it's own integrity, profits and reputation, then it is guilty of being sloppy, lazy and stupid in the way in which it gathers, sorts and reports information. The other possibility is that the press actually WANTS to be duped, in which case, it is a willing accomplice. In either case, the press itself is to blame. Not Karl Rove, not Republicans, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or George Bush, and certainly not the Tooth Fairy. Why would the press wish to be a willing accomplice in a fiendish plot to undermine their own credibility, you ask? How about currying favor with the ruling clique, to gain access to the players, to get inside information, to shut the competition out. This line of reasoning falls flat on it's face because even if the press did get favors and access, who would believe them after they've made such collossal mistakes in order to get the access?
CBS got fooled because it wanted to believe the documents were real. Gannon/Guckert got access because the White House knows just how important bloggers are in getting it's message out to the folks, and they perhaps didn't do their homework on him. As for Mr. Williams, I cannot even begin to imagine what his motivation was (rumored to be cash, however). In any case, the issue of the sanctity of the mainstream, official press as guardian of the people is damaged goods.
In any case, the White House did not create the enviornment the press operates in -- the press itself did. Perhaps Karl did take advantage of it, but that has been the case with every government operative since the beginning of time. Mr. Hinchey's claim is neither original nor necessarily false, but the way in which he presents it is even more odious. The real reason for all the smoke and mirrors is that Mr. Hinchey, and many of his peers, recognize that they have lost the information battle. New circumstances and methods have outpaced their ability to continue putting new prom dresses on the same old pig, and these outlets and methods are outside their realm of control. They find themselves in the same situation Neanderthal Man faced when confronted by modern Homo Sapiens.
I have no doubt that one day democrats will learn and adapt to these new realities, make effective use of the new media and in their turn, do the same things they now accuse Rove of. That's part of the art and science of politics. It just will not happen while they continue to hold their breath and stamp their feet and rampage like a 3 year-old denied a piece of candy. It requires brainpower and logical thought, and at the moment, the democrats and their press puppets cannot muster much of either.
So, the best they can do is a conspiracy theory.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Mission Accomplished --- Hilary said So...
In a cynical and transparent move intended to "re-invent" herself in the eyes of the American public, the Hildebeast made an announcement the other day, contradicting two years of democratic (small 'd' intentional) party rhetoric and intimating that, as far as SHE is concerned, the Insurgency in Iraq is losing steam.
A far cry from John F-ing Kerry's assertion that Iraq was "teetering on the brink of civil war", a talking point that has been made by everyone from Charley Rangel to Nancy Pelosi to Al Gore to Howard Dean. Now, all of a sudden, a successful election in Iraq is a good thing, despite the numbers of U.S. troops in place, despite the fact that every democrat of note was dead-set against the invasion (unless voying for it before you voted against it was considered good politics at the time).
With a wave of her gnarled, palsied claw, Hilary has given the whole operation in Iraq a clean bill (no pun intended) of health and praises the Americans that made it possible, without even obliquely mentioning the president, and declares all to be just fucking peachy. Within minutes, democrats all over the country emerged from their spider holes to parrot the new party line, knowing that most Americans have attention spans too short to remember what they had said yesterday. Or what they had been saying for three years, for that matter.
The new and improved democratic party was on offer with that speech made in Iraq the other day. All the signs were there. Hilary trotting around with John McCain, suddenly concerned for ther Iraqi people and praising the U.S. Military. Other indications of the general gearing up for 2008: defending the status quo on Social Security, caving in on the new laws restricting trial attorneys, bathing.
Stay tuned, it's going to get a whole lot more like Bizzaro world around here...
In a cynical and transparent move intended to "re-invent" herself in the eyes of the American public, the Hildebeast made an announcement the other day, contradicting two years of democratic (small 'd' intentional) party rhetoric and intimating that, as far as SHE is concerned, the Insurgency in Iraq is losing steam.
A far cry from John F-ing Kerry's assertion that Iraq was "teetering on the brink of civil war", a talking point that has been made by everyone from Charley Rangel to Nancy Pelosi to Al Gore to Howard Dean. Now, all of a sudden, a successful election in Iraq is a good thing, despite the numbers of U.S. troops in place, despite the fact that every democrat of note was dead-set against the invasion (unless voying for it before you voted against it was considered good politics at the time).
With a wave of her gnarled, palsied claw, Hilary has given the whole operation in Iraq a clean bill (no pun intended) of health and praises the Americans that made it possible, without even obliquely mentioning the president, and declares all to be just fucking peachy. Within minutes, democrats all over the country emerged from their spider holes to parrot the new party line, knowing that most Americans have attention spans too short to remember what they had said yesterday. Or what they had been saying for three years, for that matter.
The new and improved democratic party was on offer with that speech made in Iraq the other day. All the signs were there. Hilary trotting around with John McCain, suddenly concerned for ther Iraqi people and praising the U.S. Military. Other indications of the general gearing up for 2008: defending the status quo on Social Security, caving in on the new laws restricting trial attorneys, bathing.
Stay tuned, it's going to get a whole lot more like Bizzaro world around here...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)