So I’m at home at my desk writing one Monday afternoon recently, and the doorbell rings. Not once, but a whole bunch of times in a row, hard, like it’s really urgent—a delivery guy who has no time to wait, or an actual emergency.
I’m not expecting anyone, and it’s never a good idea to just buzz someone into the building, so I grab shoes and keys and bolt down two flights of stairs to see who it is, only to find no one there.
I step outside and look up and down the block. Maybe it was the postal carrier and something needs to be signed for. I see no one.
Just as I’m giving up and going back in, a woman, accompanied by two men, comes out of the hair salon downstairs from me, and says, “Oh, there you are. I just rang your doorbell.”
“Yes, I heard you. That’s why I tried to answer the door,” I say. “Can I help you?”
“I just wanted to tell you about the Bible,” she says, smiling, taking a step forward.
The look on my face stopped her cold.
“You dragged me down two flights of stairs in the middle of my work day to tell me about the Bible? You’re kidding, right? I’m a Greek news editor—I promise, we’ve heard about the New Testament,” I tell her.
She takes not one, but two steps back.
“And by the way,” I continue, “if God is up in heaven, then I was definitely closer to Him a few minutes ago, when I was still working peacefully in my apartment on the third floor.”
I turned and headed back inside, but I’d swear I saw all three raincoated (why do door-to-door missionaries always seem to wear suits and raincoats? It may be mean to say, but I always wonder if it’s because they want to be prepared in case of an unexpected rain of frogs...) figures actually running away before I firmly slammed the door.
_______
It’s approaching dinnertime on a weeknight, and the phone rings.
“Hello,” I answer, in the customary, time-honored fashion.
“Hi, this is Danny from TruGreen Chemlawn. How are you this evening?” says an eager voice on the phone.
“Lawnless,” I answer, deadpan.
This is apparently a new one on Danny. He loses his rhythm. “What?’ Danny stammers.
“Lawnless. I live in a third-story city apartment, and I don’t have a lawn,” I explain.
This is apparently exactly the right thing to say, because he tells me he is very sorry for bothering me and hangs up before I can utter another syllable.
I bet I never hear from Danny again.
Yea! I win.
_________
Again, the phone rings. (I am beginning to develop an unconscious habit of flinching when the phone rings at certain times of day...)
“Hi, this is Ed from Soandso Marketing in Somewhere, Virginia. I’m looking for William.”
Yes! They are not a marketing company looking for me. I can tell them they have the wrong number and be rid of them.
“Sorry, you have the wrong number,” I say. “There’s no William here and never has been.”
“Well, is this 610-555-9999?,” he asks.
“Yes,” I say, repeating, “And there’s no one named William here, and there never has been.”
“Well, that’s okay, because we really just wanted the number,” he tells me.
Internally, I groan. Great. Telemarketers have somehow figured out yet another way to bug the ever-living tar out of us all by calling and pretending to look for someone who doesn’t exist.
“What for? And what are you selling?” I ask warily.
“We wanted to inform you that you have been entered in our dream prize sweepstakes.”
“Great,” I reply. “And just how would you know what my dreams are? More to the point, what are you selling?” (I’m amazed at how many times one has to repeat oneself with these folks. Maybe because they are forced to repetitively say the same thing, they don’t hear incoming data until it’s been repeated several times?)
“We have a bunch of prizes. One of them must fulfill one of your dreams,” he tells me.
I think this is rather presumptuous and tell him so.
He tells me my dreams must be rather special, why don’t I tell him about them?
EWWW!! This is getting far too touchy-feely for me. A telemarketing stranger calls up and wants to know my dreams? Why do I even answer the phone?
I tell him he’s dreaming if he thinks I’m going to tell him my dreams and could he get to the point already please, before I’m forced by sanity’s dictates to hang up the phone and end the conversation?
Get this—he tells me that’s it. I’ve been informed I’ve been entered.
I’m not sure that’s the case, since I didn’t give any real information about me other than that I am not William.
In what contest, for what supposed prize, I still don’t know. And I don’t care.
Because the day I really win, I will know it. It will be a day when no one contacts me needlessly, trying to parasitically waste my time or try to sell me something I don’t want or need.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
Goodling scandal may indicate a deeper problem
In these United States, we tolerate many ideas—nearly all ideas, in fact. We trust that everyone each has an equal say by way of their vote, and that our elected officials and those they appoint are a fair representation of the diverse viewpoints that make up our society.
But what would happen if one group of people, possibly a large group but still a minority, decided that things were not going to their liking and that they have been instructed by God to recitify that situation? What if they decided that they were specifically entitled to rule over others because of their morally superior position? What if they decided to make a concerted effort to get their people into government, even if it meant a couple of decades of work, and then perhaps violating the very principles they espouse to further that cause? What do you think about an America run on the principles of Pat Robertson?
These are not entirely a hypothetical questions, though few people have been asking them—at least not very publicly and not as many as should be asking.
In the news in the last few weeks have been the question of firings in the U. S. Attorney General’s office.
Folks who have been watching trends in government have been increasingly alarmed by the droves of longtime experienced staffers that are resigning, being forced to resign or retire, or are outright fired or removed from positions in which they have years of expertise. The Bush administration has replaced these people with its own people—people loyal to its neo-conservative cause, but not necessarily (and more often than not, not) the best in their field. Hence, the Katrina fiasco.
A few weeks ago, the name of Monica Goodling surfaced in connection with those firings, when she resigned abruptly without explanation after refusing to testify about her role in the firings of several U.S. attorneys for what appear to be partisan reasons, while asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Goodling, who was senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Justice Department liaison to the White House, like many new legal appointees in the White House, is a graduate of Regent University, the college founded by evangelist Pat Robertson 29 years ago.
Regent’s Web site boasts that 150 of its graduates have been placed in high-ranking federal government positions since 2001 and are currently serving in this administration and that “approximately one out of every six Regent alumni is employed in some form of government work.” About 5,000 students currently attend Regent University.
That seems an amazing feat for a college that is less than three decades old. Not so long ago, Regent grads had trouble passing their bar exams, though the school has apparently raised its standards since then. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft teaches at Regent, and other graduates have been raised to positions in the Bush administration.
The school’s motto is “Christian Leadership To Change the World,” and that is precisely what it and its graduates seem to be attempting. Their goal is not only to tear down the wall between church and state in America, but to enmesh the two.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t really want to wake up one day to find I live in some alternate version of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which is what this is eerily beginning to sound like. There are very good reasons for a secular government. Having specifically Christian standards may sound like a good idea to some, but who gets to decide which Christian standards? Never mind the million of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, as well as the myriad of other religions practiced by American citizens.
And then there is the question, as in the case of Goodling, of people who appear to start out having the best of intentions, only to have them manipulated for political gain, which seems to be the case every single time in all of history that religion and politics are entwined.
Have folks like Robertson always vied for political power and gain? Yup. But the problem here is that he and folks like him have been quietly gaining ground.
If you actually think Robertson is just a man inspired by God to become a preacher to millions, above political ties or thought of power and personal gain, think again. His biography alone, quoted from Robertson’s own Web site, is evidence against that idea:
“Marion Gordon ‘Pat’ Robertson was born on March 22, 1930, in Lexington, Virginia, to A. Willis Robertson and Gladys Churchill Robertson. His father served for 34 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Robertson’s ancestry includes Benjamin Harrison, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and governor of Virginia, and two United States presidents, William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, the great-grandson of the signer of the Declaration of Independence. Robertson also shares ancestry with Winston Churchill.”
Okay, so Robertson claims a few famous ancestors. So what?
He’s also the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Still, despite a few million viewers, so what? What does that have to do with the rest of us?
Well, the problem may just go deeper than a bunch of lawyers in Washington, though that situation is more than a little disturbing. There is a bit of evidence that there’s a whole bunch of folks that have quietly been working to push their own “Christian” agenda, regardless of what the rest of us might think.
Lest you think I’m being entirely paranoid, I offer the following quote from a press release I received recently from a local evangelical group looking to promote National Prayer Day.
“The National Day of Prayer Task Force’s mission is to communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, mobilizing the Christian community to intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
The National Day of Prayer Web site does go on to state that “The National Day of Prayer Task Force was a creation of the National Prayer Committee for the expressed purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values. People with other theological and philosophical views are, of course, free to organize and participate in activities that are consistent with their own beliefs.”
(By the way, I didn’t change anything in these quotes—the grammatical error and capitalizations are theirs.)
It’s nice that they put in a disclaimer that we’re still free to organize around our own beliefs, but ultimately the underlying message here is that if you’re not with them, you’re inferior. And that’s a little disturbing, coming from a group that wants to “intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
There’s a big difference between taking initiative on fixing a perceived problem, and taking it upon oneself to decide that one’s way is the only right way and that it must be imposed at all costs, even by a stealth coup, if necessary. One way has a chance of success for all, and the other is a delusional psychosis that, if successful, could take us all to hell in a hand basket, literally.
I really do hope I’m just being paranoid.
But what would happen if one group of people, possibly a large group but still a minority, decided that things were not going to their liking and that they have been instructed by God to recitify that situation? What if they decided that they were specifically entitled to rule over others because of their morally superior position? What if they decided to make a concerted effort to get their people into government, even if it meant a couple of decades of work, and then perhaps violating the very principles they espouse to further that cause? What do you think about an America run on the principles of Pat Robertson?
These are not entirely a hypothetical questions, though few people have been asking them—at least not very publicly and not as many as should be asking.
In the news in the last few weeks have been the question of firings in the U. S. Attorney General’s office.
Folks who have been watching trends in government have been increasingly alarmed by the droves of longtime experienced staffers that are resigning, being forced to resign or retire, or are outright fired or removed from positions in which they have years of expertise. The Bush administration has replaced these people with its own people—people loyal to its neo-conservative cause, but not necessarily (and more often than not, not) the best in their field. Hence, the Katrina fiasco.
A few weeks ago, the name of Monica Goodling surfaced in connection with those firings, when she resigned abruptly without explanation after refusing to testify about her role in the firings of several U.S. attorneys for what appear to be partisan reasons, while asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Goodling, who was senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Justice Department liaison to the White House, like many new legal appointees in the White House, is a graduate of Regent University, the college founded by evangelist Pat Robertson 29 years ago.
Regent’s Web site boasts that 150 of its graduates have been placed in high-ranking federal government positions since 2001 and are currently serving in this administration and that “approximately one out of every six Regent alumni is employed in some form of government work.” About 5,000 students currently attend Regent University.
That seems an amazing feat for a college that is less than three decades old. Not so long ago, Regent grads had trouble passing their bar exams, though the school has apparently raised its standards since then. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft teaches at Regent, and other graduates have been raised to positions in the Bush administration.
The school’s motto is “Christian Leadership To Change the World,” and that is precisely what it and its graduates seem to be attempting. Their goal is not only to tear down the wall between church and state in America, but to enmesh the two.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t really want to wake up one day to find I live in some alternate version of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which is what this is eerily beginning to sound like. There are very good reasons for a secular government. Having specifically Christian standards may sound like a good idea to some, but who gets to decide which Christian standards? Never mind the million of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, as well as the myriad of other religions practiced by American citizens.
And then there is the question, as in the case of Goodling, of people who appear to start out having the best of intentions, only to have them manipulated for political gain, which seems to be the case every single time in all of history that religion and politics are entwined.
Have folks like Robertson always vied for political power and gain? Yup. But the problem here is that he and folks like him have been quietly gaining ground.
If you actually think Robertson is just a man inspired by God to become a preacher to millions, above political ties or thought of power and personal gain, think again. His biography alone, quoted from Robertson’s own Web site, is evidence against that idea:
“Marion Gordon ‘Pat’ Robertson was born on March 22, 1930, in Lexington, Virginia, to A. Willis Robertson and Gladys Churchill Robertson. His father served for 34 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Robertson’s ancestry includes Benjamin Harrison, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and governor of Virginia, and two United States presidents, William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, the great-grandson of the signer of the Declaration of Independence. Robertson also shares ancestry with Winston Churchill.”
Okay, so Robertson claims a few famous ancestors. So what?
He’s also the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Still, despite a few million viewers, so what? What does that have to do with the rest of us?
Well, the problem may just go deeper than a bunch of lawyers in Washington, though that situation is more than a little disturbing. There is a bit of evidence that there’s a whole bunch of folks that have quietly been working to push their own “Christian” agenda, regardless of what the rest of us might think.
Lest you think I’m being entirely paranoid, I offer the following quote from a press release I received recently from a local evangelical group looking to promote National Prayer Day.
“The National Day of Prayer Task Force’s mission is to communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, mobilizing the Christian community to intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
The National Day of Prayer Web site does go on to state that “The National Day of Prayer Task Force was a creation of the National Prayer Committee for the expressed purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values. People with other theological and philosophical views are, of course, free to organize and participate in activities that are consistent with their own beliefs.”
(By the way, I didn’t change anything in these quotes—the grammatical error and capitalizations are theirs.)
It’s nice that they put in a disclaimer that we’re still free to organize around our own beliefs, but ultimately the underlying message here is that if you’re not with them, you’re inferior. And that’s a little disturbing, coming from a group that wants to “intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
There’s a big difference between taking initiative on fixing a perceived problem, and taking it upon oneself to decide that one’s way is the only right way and that it must be imposed at all costs, even by a stealth coup, if necessary. One way has a chance of success for all, and the other is a delusional psychosis that, if successful, could take us all to hell in a hand basket, literally.
I really do hope I’m just being paranoid.
Goodling scandal may indicate a deeper problem
In these United States, we tolerate many ideas—nearly all ideas, in fact. We trust that everyone each has an equal say by way of their vote, and that our elected officials and those they appoint are a fair representation of the diverse viewpoints that make up our society.
But what would happen if one group of people, possibly a large group but still a minority, decided that things were not going to their liking and that they have been instructed by God to recitify that situation? What if they decided that they were specifically entitled to rule over others because of their morally superior position? What if they decided to make a concerted effort to get their people into government, even if it meant a couple of decades of work, and then perhaps violating the very principles they espouse to further that cause? What do you think about an America run on the principles of Pat Robertson?
These are not entirely a hypothetical questions, though few people have been asking them—at least not very publicly and not as many as should be asking.
In the news in the last few weeks have been the question of firings in the U. S. Attorney General’s office.
Folks who have been watching trends in government have been increasingly alarmed by the droves of longtime experienced staffers that are resigning, being forced to resign or retire, or are outright fired or removed from positions in which they have years of expertise. The Bush administration has replaced these people with its own people—people loyal to its neo-conservative cause, but not necessarily (and more often than not, not) the best in their field. Hence, the Katrina fiasco.
A few weeks ago, the name of Monica Goodling surfaced in connection with those firings, when she resigned abruptly without explanation after refusing to testify about her role in the firings of several U.S. attorneys for what appear to be partisan reasons, while asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Goodling, who was senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Justice Department liaison to the White House, like many new legal appointees in the White House, is a graduate of Regent University, the college founded by evangelist Pat Robertson 29 years ago.
Regent’s Web site boasts that 150 of its graduates have been placed in high-ranking federal government positions since 2001 and are currently serving in this administration and that “approximately one out of every six Regent alumni is employed in some form of government work.” About 5,000 students currently attend Regent University.
That seems an amazing feat for a college that is less than three decades old. Not so long ago, Regent grads had trouble passing their bar exams, though the school has apparently raised its standards since then. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft teaches at Regent, and other graduates have been raised to positions in the Bush administration.
The school’s motto is “Christian Leadership To Change the World,” and that is precisely what it and its graduates seem to be attempting. Their goal is not only to tear down the wall between church and state in America, but to enmesh the two.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t really want to wake up one day to find I live in some alternate version of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which is what this is eerily beginning to sound like. There are very good reasons for a secular government. Having specifically Christian standards may sound like a good idea to some, but who gets to decide which Christian standards? Never mind the million of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, as well as the myriad of other religions practiced by American citizens.
And then there is the question, as in the case of Goodling, of people who appear to start out having the best of intentions, only to have them manipulated for political gain, which seems to be the case every single time in all of history that religion and politics are entwined.
Have folks like Robertson always vied for political power and gain? Yup. But the problem here is that he and folks like him have been quietly gaining ground.
If you actually think Robertson is just a man inspired by God to become a preacher to millions, above political ties or thought of power and personal gain, think again. His biography alone, quoted from Robertson’s own Web site, is evidence against that idea:
“Marion Gordon ‘Pat’ Robertson was born on March 22, 1930, in Lexington, Virginia, to A. Willis Robertson and Gladys Churchill Robertson. His father served for 34 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Robertson’s ancestry includes Benjamin Harrison, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and governor of Virginia, and two United States presidents, William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, the great-grandson of the signer of the Declaration of Independence. Robertson also shares ancestry with Winston Churchill.”
Okay, so Robertson claims a few famous ancestors. So what?
He’s also the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Still, despite a few million viewers, so what? What does that have to do with the rest of us?
Well, the problem may just go deeper than a bunch of lawyers in Washington, though that situation is more than a little disturbing. There is a bit of evidence that there’s a whole bunch of folks that have quietly been working to push their own “Christian” agenda, regardless of what the rest of us might think.
Lest you think I’m being entirely paranoid, I offer the following quote from a press release I received recently from a local evangelical group looking to promote National Prayer Day.
“The National Day of Prayer Task Force’s mission is to communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, mobilizing the Christian community to intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
The National Day of Prayer Web site does go on to state that “The National Day of Prayer Task Force was a creation of the National Prayer Committee for the expressed purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values. People with other theological and philosophical views are, of course, free to organize and participate in activities that are consistent with their own beliefs.”
(By the way, I didn’t change anything in these quotes—the grammatical error and capitalizations are theirs.)
It’s nice that they put in a disclaimer that we’re still free to organize around our own beliefs, but ultimately the underlying message here is that if you’re not with them, you’re inferior. And that’s a little disturbing, coming from a group that wants to “intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
There’s a big difference between taking initiative on fixing a perceived problem, and taking it upon oneself to decide that one’s way is the only right way and that it must be imposed at all costs, even by a stealth coup, if necessary. One way has a chance of success for all, and the other is a delusional psychosis that, if successful, could take us all to hell in a hand basket, literally.
I really do hope I’m just being paranoid.
But what would happen if one group of people, possibly a large group but still a minority, decided that things were not going to their liking and that they have been instructed by God to recitify that situation? What if they decided that they were specifically entitled to rule over others because of their morally superior position? What if they decided to make a concerted effort to get their people into government, even if it meant a couple of decades of work, and then perhaps violating the very principles they espouse to further that cause? What do you think about an America run on the principles of Pat Robertson?
These are not entirely a hypothetical questions, though few people have been asking them—at least not very publicly and not as many as should be asking.
In the news in the last few weeks have been the question of firings in the U. S. Attorney General’s office.
Folks who have been watching trends in government have been increasingly alarmed by the droves of longtime experienced staffers that are resigning, being forced to resign or retire, or are outright fired or removed from positions in which they have years of expertise. The Bush administration has replaced these people with its own people—people loyal to its neo-conservative cause, but not necessarily (and more often than not, not) the best in their field. Hence, the Katrina fiasco.
A few weeks ago, the name of Monica Goodling surfaced in connection with those firings, when she resigned abruptly without explanation after refusing to testify about her role in the firings of several U.S. attorneys for what appear to be partisan reasons, while asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Goodling, who was senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Justice Department liaison to the White House, like many new legal appointees in the White House, is a graduate of Regent University, the college founded by evangelist Pat Robertson 29 years ago.
Regent’s Web site boasts that 150 of its graduates have been placed in high-ranking federal government positions since 2001 and are currently serving in this administration and that “approximately one out of every six Regent alumni is employed in some form of government work.” About 5,000 students currently attend Regent University.
That seems an amazing feat for a college that is less than three decades old. Not so long ago, Regent grads had trouble passing their bar exams, though the school has apparently raised its standards since then. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft teaches at Regent, and other graduates have been raised to positions in the Bush administration.
The school’s motto is “Christian Leadership To Change the World,” and that is precisely what it and its graduates seem to be attempting. Their goal is not only to tear down the wall between church and state in America, but to enmesh the two.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t really want to wake up one day to find I live in some alternate version of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which is what this is eerily beginning to sound like. There are very good reasons for a secular government. Having specifically Christian standards may sound like a good idea to some, but who gets to decide which Christian standards? Never mind the million of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, as well as the myriad of other religions practiced by American citizens.
And then there is the question, as in the case of Goodling, of people who appear to start out having the best of intentions, only to have them manipulated for political gain, which seems to be the case every single time in all of history that religion and politics are entwined.
Have folks like Robertson always vied for political power and gain? Yup. But the problem here is that he and folks like him have been quietly gaining ground.
If you actually think Robertson is just a man inspired by God to become a preacher to millions, above political ties or thought of power and personal gain, think again. His biography alone, quoted from Robertson’s own Web site, is evidence against that idea:
“Marion Gordon ‘Pat’ Robertson was born on March 22, 1930, in Lexington, Virginia, to A. Willis Robertson and Gladys Churchill Robertson. His father served for 34 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Robertson’s ancestry includes Benjamin Harrison, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and governor of Virginia, and two United States presidents, William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, the great-grandson of the signer of the Declaration of Independence. Robertson also shares ancestry with Winston Churchill.”
Okay, so Robertson claims a few famous ancestors. So what?
He’s also the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Still, despite a few million viewers, so what? What does that have to do with the rest of us?
Well, the problem may just go deeper than a bunch of lawyers in Washington, though that situation is more than a little disturbing. There is a bit of evidence that there’s a whole bunch of folks that have quietly been working to push their own “Christian” agenda, regardless of what the rest of us might think.
Lest you think I’m being entirely paranoid, I offer the following quote from a press release I received recently from a local evangelical group looking to promote National Prayer Day.
“The National Day of Prayer Task Force’s mission is to communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, mobilizing the Christian community to intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
The National Day of Prayer Web site does go on to state that “The National Day of Prayer Task Force was a creation of the National Prayer Committee for the expressed purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values. People with other theological and philosophical views are, of course, free to organize and participate in activities that are consistent with their own beliefs.”
(By the way, I didn’t change anything in these quotes—the grammatical error and capitalizations are theirs.)
It’s nice that they put in a disclaimer that we’re still free to organize around our own beliefs, but ultimately the underlying message here is that if you’re not with them, you’re inferior. And that’s a little disturbing, coming from a group that wants to “intercede for America and its leadership in the five centers of power: Church, Education, Family, Government and Media.”
There’s a big difference between taking initiative on fixing a perceived problem, and taking it upon oneself to decide that one’s way is the only right way and that it must be imposed at all costs, even by a stealth coup, if necessary. One way has a chance of success for all, and the other is a delusional psychosis that, if successful, could take us all to hell in a hand basket, literally.
I really do hope I’m just being paranoid.
Friday, April 13, 2007
In the Age of Information, misinformation abounds
It probably wouldn’t be much of a warning to tell you to not believe everything you read on the Internet—after all, everyone knows that, right?
But there are some sites that are trusted more than others. If you Google a topic, you can be reasonably sure you will actually turn up some Web sites that will give you the information you need, even if it is up to you to determine which of those sites are reliable and offer accurate information.
Another site many people have come to trust is Wikipedia, which bills itself as an encyclopedia. While it doesn’t have the reputation of, say, Encyclopedia Britannica, countless people use it everyday to find out more about topics of interest.
But the big difference between Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia is the source of the listed information. While Britannica utilizes paid researchers and fact-checkers, Wikipedia is completely driven by contributions—submissions and editing done by its readers, with relatively few moderators.
That in and of itself is not a bad thing, provided care is taken. Wikipedia is free, which is a big plus, or should be, to those seeking knowledge on the cheap.
But often you get what you pay for, and while Wikipedia does monitor its listings and require citations, it really doesn’t do the job that a well-researched encyclopedia does.
The problem is that many things can “slip” through, and Wikipedia is actually susceptible to having misinformation posted.
Most particularly worrisome is its policy on biographies of living people. Despite the vulnerability of factual errors, Wikipedia does not allow the subjects of its bios to correct mistakes.
While I can see there may be some wisdom in prohibiting people from posting their own biographies on the site, it just seems plain stupid to not allow corrections by the people who probably know the subject—themselves—best of all.
While I have caught some Wikipedia mistakes myself, the problem was brought to my attention recently on Dean Radin’s blog. I’m not a big fan of most blogs, but Radin’s research into the possible relationship between psi phenomena and quantum physics is fascinating—and controversial.
It is the controversial nature of his work that has made him the target of true-believer skeptics (those that believe fervently psi does not exist), as well as a target of some religious communities.
But Radin is a serious scientist, utilizing recognized methodology and statistical analysis to examine one of the more mysterious aspects of human potential. To knowingly leave factual errors about his life’s work is to knowingly perpetuate misinformation, and for an “encyclopedia” to do that, it loses all credibility, as Radin accurately points out on his blog.
“I discovered this when attempting to correct factual errors in the entry page on my name, and for the Institute of Noetic Sciences. I’ve been asked not to edit these pages, even though I am arguably the expert on me, and an expert on (the Institute of Noetic Sciences), because it violates Wikipedia's guidelines… Wikipedia’s absurd guidelines means that for topics of interest to many people, namely controversies, the articles are guaranteed to be of poor quality. What a ridiculous state of affairs this good idea has come to, one that very effectively does one thing well—it perpetuates stupidity,” Radin wrote.
I can’t agree more, and upon closer inspection, it would seem that the more controversial the subject the less likely it is a balanced perspective is be presented. Because Wikipedia’s authors are anonymous, there is no one specifically to address about accuracy, and since Wikipedia is a decentralized group of volunteers, there is no one who is responsible.
Wikipedia may have started out a good idea, but a reference resource is only as trustworthy as it attempts to be—and Wikipedia isn’t trying very hard at all, unless it is to, as Dr. Radin so aptly stated, perpetuate stupidity, only in the false guise of wisdom.
For more on Dean Radin’s work, go to www.ions.org, www.deanradin.com or http://deanradin.blogspot.com.
(Originally published in The Easton News, April 12, 2007)
But there are some sites that are trusted more than others. If you Google a topic, you can be reasonably sure you will actually turn up some Web sites that will give you the information you need, even if it is up to you to determine which of those sites are reliable and offer accurate information.
Another site many people have come to trust is Wikipedia, which bills itself as an encyclopedia. While it doesn’t have the reputation of, say, Encyclopedia Britannica, countless people use it everyday to find out more about topics of interest.
But the big difference between Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia is the source of the listed information. While Britannica utilizes paid researchers and fact-checkers, Wikipedia is completely driven by contributions—submissions and editing done by its readers, with relatively few moderators.
That in and of itself is not a bad thing, provided care is taken. Wikipedia is free, which is a big plus, or should be, to those seeking knowledge on the cheap.
But often you get what you pay for, and while Wikipedia does monitor its listings and require citations, it really doesn’t do the job that a well-researched encyclopedia does.
The problem is that many things can “slip” through, and Wikipedia is actually susceptible to having misinformation posted.
Most particularly worrisome is its policy on biographies of living people. Despite the vulnerability of factual errors, Wikipedia does not allow the subjects of its bios to correct mistakes.
While I can see there may be some wisdom in prohibiting people from posting their own biographies on the site, it just seems plain stupid to not allow corrections by the people who probably know the subject—themselves—best of all.
While I have caught some Wikipedia mistakes myself, the problem was brought to my attention recently on Dean Radin’s blog. I’m not a big fan of most blogs, but Radin’s research into the possible relationship between psi phenomena and quantum physics is fascinating—and controversial.
It is the controversial nature of his work that has made him the target of true-believer skeptics (those that believe fervently psi does not exist), as well as a target of some religious communities.
But Radin is a serious scientist, utilizing recognized methodology and statistical analysis to examine one of the more mysterious aspects of human potential. To knowingly leave factual errors about his life’s work is to knowingly perpetuate misinformation, and for an “encyclopedia” to do that, it loses all credibility, as Radin accurately points out on his blog.
“I discovered this when attempting to correct factual errors in the entry page on my name, and for the Institute of Noetic Sciences. I’ve been asked not to edit these pages, even though I am arguably the expert on me, and an expert on (the Institute of Noetic Sciences), because it violates Wikipedia's guidelines… Wikipedia’s absurd guidelines means that for topics of interest to many people, namely controversies, the articles are guaranteed to be of poor quality. What a ridiculous state of affairs this good idea has come to, one that very effectively does one thing well—it perpetuates stupidity,” Radin wrote.
I can’t agree more, and upon closer inspection, it would seem that the more controversial the subject the less likely it is a balanced perspective is be presented. Because Wikipedia’s authors are anonymous, there is no one specifically to address about accuracy, and since Wikipedia is a decentralized group of volunteers, there is no one who is responsible.
Wikipedia may have started out a good idea, but a reference resource is only as trustworthy as it attempts to be—and Wikipedia isn’t trying very hard at all, unless it is to, as Dr. Radin so aptly stated, perpetuate stupidity, only in the false guise of wisdom.
For more on Dean Radin’s work, go to www.ions.org, www.deanradin.com or http://deanradin.blogspot.com.
(Originally published in The Easton News, April 12, 2007)
Discriminating between bad and good news is a must for sanity
You turn on the evening news and hear it every day. Bad news again. Nineteen killed in a bus accident in Bangladesh. Shootout in Detroit leaves three dead, nine wounded. Tornado flattens church in Kansas.
Or take these real-life examples of “news” briefs that recently ran in the local dailies:
“Police detain suspect in dog beheading—(Minneapolis) A man suspected of cutting the head off a teenage girl’s dog and leaving it at her front door in a gift-wrapped box was in jail Friday on suspicion of terrorist threats. The 24-year-old man, who was not immediately charged, used to date Crystal Brown, the girl’s grandmother said.”
And:
“Teen found dead in school bathroom—(Hyrum, Utah) A 14-year-old girl who had talked about suicide died in a hospital a day after hanging herself in a school bathroom, school officials said. A classmate had found Kailey Mathews unconscious Wednesday in the bathroom at South Cache 8-9 Center.”
Isn’t news supposed to inform you of things that may affect you? How does either of these items affect anyone in the Lehigh Valley, excepting the vague possibility that the alleged animal abuser, Crystal Brown or the poor suicidal teen is related to someone in Pennsylvania? And if that is the case, how does putting either of these items in the paper inform anyone of anything they need to know?
Are we supposed to feel relieved that our dogs are safe from some twisted maniac in Minneapolis? Was he headed east? And maybe I’m incredibly unhip, but who is Crystal Brown, and why should I care who she is? A Google search turned up very little on her. Apparently she is a poet, but having a dog that was a murder victim recently is probably her bigger claim to fame at this point, which is pretty sick. Not quite as sick as a person who would behead a dog, but still pretty sad commentary.
The second “news” item is just worthless, in my opinion. Reporting something like that so far away serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever, unless there was some mitigating information that makes it locally newsworthy, such as a sudden nationwide rash of teenagers with an urge towards suicide in school bathrooms. There is nothing anyone in the Lehigh Valley is going to do about this particular sad incident—it only serves to depress and to distract one from more relevant issues.
That is a big problem with some “news” these days.
There seems to be more and more of a trend towards what I call “non-news.” These are items that have absolutely no chance of having any bearing on your life, yet are played continually on the mainstream news scene. When it came to be that an entire industry seemingly got together in some big conspiracy to waste newsprint, ink and airtime, I’m not sure, since they didn’t send me that memo, but it does seem to have come to pass.
The worst of “non-news” items are the negative briefs. Too short to actually flesh out the story with any useful information that would allow the reader to make sense of whatever issue is at hand, they basically drop a bombshell and move on to the next “story,” inevitably leaving the reader feel both unsatisfied and uneasy.
It also wastes the reader’s time. Why bother reading about something that has no bearing on one’s life, that one can do nothing about, that only serves to depress? Most people wouldn’t, but most “non-news,” especially the kind that comes in brief, sneaks up on the reader—by the time one realizes one doesn’t care about the piece, that one would really rather move on to something else, something more worthwhile—it’s over.
There are several nasty effects of this. This first is that the reader begins to approach news with some caution and trepidation. Is this news worth it, or is it just going to depress for no apparent reason?
When people tell me they’re “not into” following the news, I often suspect this is the reason—they’ve been stung by irrelevant, bad “non-news” so often they are numb to the difference and just shy away from the entire arena out of fear of getting depressed about something they can do nothing about.
That is the biggest danger of bad “non-news.” It’s disempowering, and being swamped with it day in and day out is even more disempowering. Being showered with negative information one can do nothing to change eventually gives one the impression that one can do nothing about anything negative, regardless of where the problem originates.
“Non-news” is also a bit confusing. In this Information Age, we’re literally flooded with information at a rate never before seen. More may be defined as better, but is it really better if the more isn’t quality stuff? There may be an endless stream of information, but there’s still only so much time in which to absorb it.
The “news” these days requires the a new set of hyper-developed skills in order to filter the “good” news, the kind with useful information, from the “bad,” or useless, kind of non-news, in order to keep oneself from drowning rather than surfing in the “news” world.
(Originally published in The Easton News, April 5, 2007)
Or take these real-life examples of “news” briefs that recently ran in the local dailies:
“Police detain suspect in dog beheading—(Minneapolis) A man suspected of cutting the head off a teenage girl’s dog and leaving it at her front door in a gift-wrapped box was in jail Friday on suspicion of terrorist threats. The 24-year-old man, who was not immediately charged, used to date Crystal Brown, the girl’s grandmother said.”
And:
“Teen found dead in school bathroom—(Hyrum, Utah) A 14-year-old girl who had talked about suicide died in a hospital a day after hanging herself in a school bathroom, school officials said. A classmate had found Kailey Mathews unconscious Wednesday in the bathroom at South Cache 8-9 Center.”
Isn’t news supposed to inform you of things that may affect you? How does either of these items affect anyone in the Lehigh Valley, excepting the vague possibility that the alleged animal abuser, Crystal Brown or the poor suicidal teen is related to someone in Pennsylvania? And if that is the case, how does putting either of these items in the paper inform anyone of anything they need to know?
Are we supposed to feel relieved that our dogs are safe from some twisted maniac in Minneapolis? Was he headed east? And maybe I’m incredibly unhip, but who is Crystal Brown, and why should I care who she is? A Google search turned up very little on her. Apparently she is a poet, but having a dog that was a murder victim recently is probably her bigger claim to fame at this point, which is pretty sick. Not quite as sick as a person who would behead a dog, but still pretty sad commentary.
The second “news” item is just worthless, in my opinion. Reporting something like that so far away serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever, unless there was some mitigating information that makes it locally newsworthy, such as a sudden nationwide rash of teenagers with an urge towards suicide in school bathrooms. There is nothing anyone in the Lehigh Valley is going to do about this particular sad incident—it only serves to depress and to distract one from more relevant issues.
That is a big problem with some “news” these days.
There seems to be more and more of a trend towards what I call “non-news.” These are items that have absolutely no chance of having any bearing on your life, yet are played continually on the mainstream news scene. When it came to be that an entire industry seemingly got together in some big conspiracy to waste newsprint, ink and airtime, I’m not sure, since they didn’t send me that memo, but it does seem to have come to pass.
The worst of “non-news” items are the negative briefs. Too short to actually flesh out the story with any useful information that would allow the reader to make sense of whatever issue is at hand, they basically drop a bombshell and move on to the next “story,” inevitably leaving the reader feel both unsatisfied and uneasy.
It also wastes the reader’s time. Why bother reading about something that has no bearing on one’s life, that one can do nothing about, that only serves to depress? Most people wouldn’t, but most “non-news,” especially the kind that comes in brief, sneaks up on the reader—by the time one realizes one doesn’t care about the piece, that one would really rather move on to something else, something more worthwhile—it’s over.
There are several nasty effects of this. This first is that the reader begins to approach news with some caution and trepidation. Is this news worth it, or is it just going to depress for no apparent reason?
When people tell me they’re “not into” following the news, I often suspect this is the reason—they’ve been stung by irrelevant, bad “non-news” so often they are numb to the difference and just shy away from the entire arena out of fear of getting depressed about something they can do nothing about.
That is the biggest danger of bad “non-news.” It’s disempowering, and being swamped with it day in and day out is even more disempowering. Being showered with negative information one can do nothing to change eventually gives one the impression that one can do nothing about anything negative, regardless of where the problem originates.
“Non-news” is also a bit confusing. In this Information Age, we’re literally flooded with information at a rate never before seen. More may be defined as better, but is it really better if the more isn’t quality stuff? There may be an endless stream of information, but there’s still only so much time in which to absorb it.
The “news” these days requires the a new set of hyper-developed skills in order to filter the “good” news, the kind with useful information, from the “bad,” or useless, kind of non-news, in order to keep oneself from drowning rather than surfing in the “news” world.
(Originally published in The Easton News, April 5, 2007)
Encouraging self-esteem is a mistake if you don’t encourage self-respect
It was a downright rotten thing last week to hear there was another life lost in the Lehigh Valley to the gang “culture.” Paul “Bam Bam” Serrano III, 18 was charged in Bethlehem by police for the shooting of 15-year-old Kevin Muzila, and police say it was a case of mistaken identity, that Muzila wasn’t even the intended target. Likely, Serrano was “auditioning” for a gang.
Though the murder took place in Bethlehem, it could have just as easily been Easton. When these tragedies happen, everyone at first grieves and asks, “Why?” It’s a valid question. Then they quickly stop asking, “Why?” and assigning blame. If you don’t believe me, go to the comments section on the daily newspapers’ Web sites and see the vitriolic diatribes. Blame the parents, blame the schools, blame Youth Services, blame Serrano—just blame someone, it’s got to be someone’s fault.
And it is. If Serrano did indeed murder young Kevin Muzila, then, as an 18-year-old citizen of this country, he is responsible, regardless of what his parents, the schools or Youth Services did or did not do.
But this is not any sort of isolated incident. This is certainly not the first time in the Lehigh Valley, unfortunately, that some dumb young punk has gotten it into his head that murder will somehow make him “more of a man” or a “better” person. In fact, it’s happened recently in just about every state in the nation.
Sure, you can blame violence on television, or bad parenting, and I don’t deny these are contributing factors.
But if you look back on it, a lot of the increased violence seemed to start a few years after there was a public push to build kids’ self-esteem.
Don’t get me wrong. I do think kids should be encouraged to feel good about themselves—at least, when they’ve done something good and deserve to feel good about themselves. It’s a bad message to send, that one should still feel good about oneself, even if one knowingly does bad things. Sorry, if you go around hurting people, you do not deserve to feel good about yourself, and a person who habitually goes around hurting people is not a good person.
But instead, the message has been, “Well, you did something very bad, but it’s okay. You’re still a good person.”
It’s not okay. That’s entirely the wrong message to send.
And there’s a subtle, but important difference between self-esteem and self-respect.
The message of self-respect would go something like this: “Well, you’ve done something very bad, and it’s definitely NOT okay. I know you can be better person than that. Now live up to it.”
The kid with self-respect would not lower himself to become a murderer or a criminal, but unfortunately, the kid with self-esteem but no self-respect might not stop himself, if he thinks there’s a chance of gain. After all, you might murder someone (or rape them, or steal their stuff), but underneath it all, you’re still a good person, right?
Obviously, that’s wrong. But there’s a good chance Serrano was thinking something along those lines.
So, whose fault was it? If proven guilty, Serrano’s. But every one of those folks who told him it was okay, that he was still a good person anyway, who didn’t set him straight along the way, whether they be parents, teachers, coaches or even strangers, might just share a bit of the blame.
The gangs, who promote this “culture” of violence in our neighborhoods, near our homes, poisoning our children, need to be deglamourized. And, underneath it all, because they do what they do, they are not good people.
A tale from the West Ward
Last Friday, I was at a stop sign approaching Ferry Street, when I noticed two young boys on the corner, one of who was repeatedly making a gang gesture reminiscent of the censored Beardsley Lysistrata illustrations at me. I didn’t immediately notice, if you can believe that, and then did a double take to see if I was really seeing what I was seeing. These boys were no more than 9 or 10.
I decided to stop for a moment and stare. The boy, egged on by his friend, continued to make the dramatic, vulgar gesture.
I pondered this for a moment. Obviously, they were trying to get me to react. It’s not like young boys haven’t been known to make rude gestures at women for centuries. But seriously, you had to be there; this was way over the top. I really couldn’t just let a little kid stand ignorantly on a busy street corner gesturing like that at his crotch, especially when I was pretty certain he didn’t have a clue what he was really doing.
I rolled my window down and asked him pleasantly if he knew what that gesture meant. I was right; clearly he didn’t. But his friend, the one who’d egged him on did—sort of.
“Suck it, baby!” he told me exuberantly, as though he would get some sort of prize for the right answer.
So I decided to push it a bit, to teach them a lesson.
“Suck what?” I asked.
“Uh...”
“Suck what? That is an action involving opening one’s mouth and wrapping one’s lips around something. Suck what?” I said. “I assume by ‘baby,’ you mean me, even though I’m 37, and you appear to be considerably younger.”
The egged-on perpetrator got a burst of courage at this point, and tried one more time. He made the gesture again, and said, with a shrug, “Suck it.”
“Rest assured it will not happen, but are you actually telling me you want to pull down your pants, underpants included, and somehow make me wrap my lips around your privates, here in public, on this street corner? Because that is what you are proclaiming, for all the world to see,” I said to him.
He stopped cold, eyes wide.
“I’m in fourth grade,” he said.
“I thought you might be about that old,” I told him. “And I pretty much thought you might not really know what you were doing when you made those gestures. I don’t know who showed you that, but they are not a good person to listen to, whoever they are. They are definitely not cool. What do you suppose could happen if you made that gesture at someone who took you seriously? Or who’s crazy, and got offended and tried to hurt you? Are you sure you’re really ready to deal with that?”
Things were pretty somber after that. I told them to have fun but be careful, and they waved goodbye as I drove off.
The whole conversation took less than two minutes, but they were the best-invested two minutes of my day, if not my week.
(Originally published in The Easton News, March 29, 2007)
Though the murder took place in Bethlehem, it could have just as easily been Easton. When these tragedies happen, everyone at first grieves and asks, “Why?” It’s a valid question. Then they quickly stop asking, “Why?” and assigning blame. If you don’t believe me, go to the comments section on the daily newspapers’ Web sites and see the vitriolic diatribes. Blame the parents, blame the schools, blame Youth Services, blame Serrano—just blame someone, it’s got to be someone’s fault.
And it is. If Serrano did indeed murder young Kevin Muzila, then, as an 18-year-old citizen of this country, he is responsible, regardless of what his parents, the schools or Youth Services did or did not do.
But this is not any sort of isolated incident. This is certainly not the first time in the Lehigh Valley, unfortunately, that some dumb young punk has gotten it into his head that murder will somehow make him “more of a man” or a “better” person. In fact, it’s happened recently in just about every state in the nation.
Sure, you can blame violence on television, or bad parenting, and I don’t deny these are contributing factors.
But if you look back on it, a lot of the increased violence seemed to start a few years after there was a public push to build kids’ self-esteem.
Don’t get me wrong. I do think kids should be encouraged to feel good about themselves—at least, when they’ve done something good and deserve to feel good about themselves. It’s a bad message to send, that one should still feel good about oneself, even if one knowingly does bad things. Sorry, if you go around hurting people, you do not deserve to feel good about yourself, and a person who habitually goes around hurting people is not a good person.
But instead, the message has been, “Well, you did something very bad, but it’s okay. You’re still a good person.”
It’s not okay. That’s entirely the wrong message to send.
And there’s a subtle, but important difference between self-esteem and self-respect.
The message of self-respect would go something like this: “Well, you’ve done something very bad, and it’s definitely NOT okay. I know you can be better person than that. Now live up to it.”
The kid with self-respect would not lower himself to become a murderer or a criminal, but unfortunately, the kid with self-esteem but no self-respect might not stop himself, if he thinks there’s a chance of gain. After all, you might murder someone (or rape them, or steal their stuff), but underneath it all, you’re still a good person, right?
Obviously, that’s wrong. But there’s a good chance Serrano was thinking something along those lines.
So, whose fault was it? If proven guilty, Serrano’s. But every one of those folks who told him it was okay, that he was still a good person anyway, who didn’t set him straight along the way, whether they be parents, teachers, coaches or even strangers, might just share a bit of the blame.
The gangs, who promote this “culture” of violence in our neighborhoods, near our homes, poisoning our children, need to be deglamourized. And, underneath it all, because they do what they do, they are not good people.
A tale from the West Ward
Last Friday, I was at a stop sign approaching Ferry Street, when I noticed two young boys on the corner, one of who was repeatedly making a gang gesture reminiscent of the censored Beardsley Lysistrata illustrations at me. I didn’t immediately notice, if you can believe that, and then did a double take to see if I was really seeing what I was seeing. These boys were no more than 9 or 10.
I decided to stop for a moment and stare. The boy, egged on by his friend, continued to make the dramatic, vulgar gesture.
I pondered this for a moment. Obviously, they were trying to get me to react. It’s not like young boys haven’t been known to make rude gestures at women for centuries. But seriously, you had to be there; this was way over the top. I really couldn’t just let a little kid stand ignorantly on a busy street corner gesturing like that at his crotch, especially when I was pretty certain he didn’t have a clue what he was really doing.
I rolled my window down and asked him pleasantly if he knew what that gesture meant. I was right; clearly he didn’t. But his friend, the one who’d egged him on did—sort of.
“Suck it, baby!” he told me exuberantly, as though he would get some sort of prize for the right answer.
So I decided to push it a bit, to teach them a lesson.
“Suck what?” I asked.
“Uh...”
“Suck what? That is an action involving opening one’s mouth and wrapping one’s lips around something. Suck what?” I said. “I assume by ‘baby,’ you mean me, even though I’m 37, and you appear to be considerably younger.”
The egged-on perpetrator got a burst of courage at this point, and tried one more time. He made the gesture again, and said, with a shrug, “Suck it.”
“Rest assured it will not happen, but are you actually telling me you want to pull down your pants, underpants included, and somehow make me wrap my lips around your privates, here in public, on this street corner? Because that is what you are proclaiming, for all the world to see,” I said to him.
He stopped cold, eyes wide.
“I’m in fourth grade,” he said.
“I thought you might be about that old,” I told him. “And I pretty much thought you might not really know what you were doing when you made those gestures. I don’t know who showed you that, but they are not a good person to listen to, whoever they are. They are definitely not cool. What do you suppose could happen if you made that gesture at someone who took you seriously? Or who’s crazy, and got offended and tried to hurt you? Are you sure you’re really ready to deal with that?”
Things were pretty somber after that. I told them to have fun but be careful, and they waved goodbye as I drove off.
The whole conversation took less than two minutes, but they were the best-invested two minutes of my day, if not my week.
(Originally published in The Easton News, March 29, 2007)
The U.S. should consider giving peace a chance in Iraq
There are some people that aren’t going to like my column this week. Actually, I hope no one likes reading my column this week—there’s just no way this is a happy subject.
The fourth anniversary has past since the U.S. invaded Iraq, and obviously, despite having deposed and executed Saddam Hussein, we’re still there. And now, we’re about to send more troops, including some from the local area.
That’s about as personal as it gets, when family and friends are asked to bid goodbye, perhaps forever, to those they love that have pledged themselves to the defense of our nation.
But this is no longer about any form of defense. It never was. The lies that led our nation into this mess prove that.
In the land of the free, you’d think we’d have some sort of accurate picture of what is actually happening in Iraq. But unless you’re an Internet research freak with a lot of time to burn, if you’re an average member of the American public, you really don’t have a clue what’s going on over there and how bad the situation is.
I admit, running The Easton News, my time for such in-depth international research is limited. And, it’s horrible, heartbreaking, sad, depressing stuff. So I know I don’t have the entire picture. But I’ve got a lot more than you’re going to see on Fox News.
It’s estimated that the average American child will see more than 10,000 murders and other graphically depicted acts of violence on television before their 18th birthday. But it’s rare to see even a draped coffin arriving home when a soldier is killed on network. And until the scandal with Walter Reed, you never saw American troops with major injuries. (Unless, of course, they were being shown off, like Jessica Lynch. Remember her?)
Why? Because the draped coffin is just too much of a reminder of the grim, inescapable reality of the situation—that this is a horrible war where people are getting maimed and killed.
And, lest the American public feel any remorse towards the Iraqi people, we aren’t shown any real picture of their lives either.
At most, we see optimistic diplomats or angry young men in the street or, occasionally, someone who looks rather poor and dirty. Not really a very good representation of the Iraqi people. In fact, with such a limited, and mostly negative view, it’s pretty good at reinforcing a stereotype.
But casualties in Iraq are so extensive that, combined with a shattered, practically non-existent day-to-day infrastructure, no one really knows how many civilians have been killed. And civilian injury tallies went out the window a very long time ago.
It is being reported that the rate of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is incredibly high among our troops in Iraq, both when they come home and, for some, while they continue on active duty right now. And while the good news is that we can and do save a higher percentage of wounded soldiers than any other war, many, many more of them will live with major disabilities for the rest of their lives.
The best way we can support our troops is by pressuring our leaders to bring them home. The best way we can keep our nation safe is to end this war and try to rebuild the international goodwill that this administration has squandered so carelessly.
(Originally published in The Easton News, March 22, 2007)
The fourth anniversary has past since the U.S. invaded Iraq, and obviously, despite having deposed and executed Saddam Hussein, we’re still there. And now, we’re about to send more troops, including some from the local area.
That’s about as personal as it gets, when family and friends are asked to bid goodbye, perhaps forever, to those they love that have pledged themselves to the defense of our nation.
But this is no longer about any form of defense. It never was. The lies that led our nation into this mess prove that.
In the land of the free, you’d think we’d have some sort of accurate picture of what is actually happening in Iraq. But unless you’re an Internet research freak with a lot of time to burn, if you’re an average member of the American public, you really don’t have a clue what’s going on over there and how bad the situation is.
I admit, running The Easton News, my time for such in-depth international research is limited. And, it’s horrible, heartbreaking, sad, depressing stuff. So I know I don’t have the entire picture. But I’ve got a lot more than you’re going to see on Fox News.
It’s estimated that the average American child will see more than 10,000 murders and other graphically depicted acts of violence on television before their 18th birthday. But it’s rare to see even a draped coffin arriving home when a soldier is killed on network. And until the scandal with Walter Reed, you never saw American troops with major injuries. (Unless, of course, they were being shown off, like Jessica Lynch. Remember her?)
Why? Because the draped coffin is just too much of a reminder of the grim, inescapable reality of the situation—that this is a horrible war where people are getting maimed and killed.
And, lest the American public feel any remorse towards the Iraqi people, we aren’t shown any real picture of their lives either.
At most, we see optimistic diplomats or angry young men in the street or, occasionally, someone who looks rather poor and dirty. Not really a very good representation of the Iraqi people. In fact, with such a limited, and mostly negative view, it’s pretty good at reinforcing a stereotype.
But casualties in Iraq are so extensive that, combined with a shattered, practically non-existent day-to-day infrastructure, no one really knows how many civilians have been killed. And civilian injury tallies went out the window a very long time ago.
It is being reported that the rate of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is incredibly high among our troops in Iraq, both when they come home and, for some, while they continue on active duty right now. And while the good news is that we can and do save a higher percentage of wounded soldiers than any other war, many, many more of them will live with major disabilities for the rest of their lives.
The best way we can support our troops is by pressuring our leaders to bring them home. The best way we can keep our nation safe is to end this war and try to rebuild the international goodwill that this administration has squandered so carelessly.
(Originally published in The Easton News, March 22, 2007)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
