America's Caste System

If someone were to claim that America had a caste system, I imagine that at first glance, most American's would readily reject such a claim. "This is America" That alone is suppose to say it all. The land of dreams and opportunity. America, by its very name sake... is suppose to proclaim the availability of social mobility to any and all of its citizens. The idea that people are born... live... and die... in certain "castes" seems a foreign concept. "This aint India" one may exclaim.

But, how far off would the charge of a caste system be? We are seeing wages fall in this nation. We are seeing more "good paying" jobs go overseas and an influx of service level jobs. When I speak of the working poor... Or the bottom of America's caste system... for the most part, I am referring to "service" level jobs. Almost like a servant class... the service level jobs are serving the greater population in one form or another. Each of the pictures on the screen is an example of a low wage service level job. You run into these people everyday. You may be one of these people. The "invisible poor" that serve the nation in different capacities, sometimes receiving scorn of disdain from those they are serving.

"That stupid maid didn't fold my bed sheets right."

These are often the jobs with, not only the lowest wages, but close to non-existent healthcare. Out for 4 days because you had the flu? No, thats 4 unexcused absences, and thats going to count against you. Time to start looking for a new job. And if you ARE able to get a day off because you're sick... paid sick time is a fantasy. You should just be grateful that your boss allowed you to have the day off without writing you up... you want to be paid for it as well...? Ha, ha ha ha... Of all the nerve. Can you believe these slaves... er... I mean... workers.

What is minimum wage? In theory... and I do stress... THEORY... it is suppose to be the least amount one person can make and take care of themselves. No luxuries... just... the amount one can reasonably survive off of. About one third of American workers earn less than 15K per year. That is about 7.50/hr. One third of all the people in this country make about 8 bucks an hour or less. And the bottom 10% earn less than 6 grand a year. If that is not a caste system, I truly... do not know what is. Its like musical chairs, but with fewer and fewer chairs available. How can people look at numbers like that and say things like...

"why dont people just stop being lazy, go out there and make it happen."

Only so many can. And Im sure those people who say those things, they still want luxuries like being able to go to the grocery store and have fresh fruit there for them.

There is this weird dichotomy between those who despise poor workers, but enjoy the comfort (servitude?) that these full-time workers allow them to have. Noone likes the trash guy, he's a loser who probably didn't apply himself in highschool... yet, they want their trash picked up. We want our sandwiches. We want our security. We want our restaurant food brought to our table. We want our lawns trimmed... our hotels cleaned... our clothes pressed... our toll booths to give us change... our store shelves fully stocked... we want all these things to be done for us... yet we want to hold people who do these services for us in contempt.

Barbara Ehrenreich, who earned a PhD in biology, has made her career as a writer. She has penned a dozen books and articles for Time, Harper's Magazine, and The New Republic. One day at lunch, she and her editor were conversing about poverty, economics and welfare reform. She wondered how could a person truly live off of a fulltime low wage job and her editor challenged her to be the one to do the ground work on the subject.

So she did. She would not just study the subject as a 3rd party journalist, but live the life herself, with little to no outside help for 6 months. The experiment resulted in her best-selling book: Nickel and Dimed; On (not) Getting By in America (2001). This wasn't just done in one area, she travelled to different parts of America taking different types of jobs. In Florida she worked 2nd shift as a waitress and also worked as a home cleaner for Molly Maid. In Maine she worked as a “dietary aide” at a nursing home and as a hotel maid. In Minnesota she clerked at Wal-Mart.

Barbara usually lived in budget motels or dangerous, poverty stricken trailer parks. She also only ate what she could afford which she found out tended to be fastfood, compared to buying meats and produce from grocery stores for home cooked dinners. 99cent burger here... $2 burger there. In her book, she also mentions that she felt that she was always physically and emotionally drained and it seemed like she needed to work a second job on the side, just inorder to get by. Trying to move up seemed out of the question. And if she got sick during her experiment [long hours = weak immune system] she had to power through, because missing work, from a monetary standpoint, was just not an option. In fact, Ehrenreich's colleagues routinely worked more than one job, slept in cars, and crowded multiple people into small living quarters.

Where is the poor's voice? They are less likely to vote and, if we will go off the word of Baraba during her experiment... are too concerned, focused, frustrated with the here and now to worry about policies and pontificating that goes on in Washington. Hard to keep up with politics when you're working two jobs and worrying about making rent. And the poor have no lobby. How do the poor get the ear of Washington? They have no voice. They dont have the money readily accessible to push lobbying agendas in Congress the same way that corporations who enjoy the status quo can.

Lastly, a quick nugget about education. The United States also has very disproportioned educational opportunities. That is to say... the quality of schooling in America will noticeably vary depending on where you live. I grew up in a (somewhat) poor part of town, but was "bussed" to school on San Felipe (near the Galleria in Houston) so I can attest to the differences in the middle school education I recieved, compared to my friends who went to our "zoned" middle school. How much economic freedom can there be, when certain wealthier portions of the population have access to better funded, better equipped, better prepared schools? That is not to say that one can not make it from an inner city school, only to say that quality of education that person will recieve is just another disadvantage in the game of musical chairs.

And in a land where you have to BUY education on the university level... that is not the case in Europe where most are free or very low cost, in comparison... this only further reinforces the opportunity disparities between the haves... and the have-nots in America.

PS: a good "musical" drama-documentary appropriately titled America's Ruling Class can be viewed here. It is not just about the working poor, but it does mention the subject (among other things) and... for those too busy to watch a good 90min piece about who controls America... if you skip ahead to the 28minute mark, Barbara Ehrenreich makes a brief cameo while working as a waitress and mentions her experiment to the "stars" of the documentary.

IBM and the Nazi's

I mentioned in a previous blog my disdain for corporations. One of my many reasons for doing so is the fact that they have no soul. They are not the sole property (and responsibility?) of any one man or woman, but they are legally their own entity, and thus, the people who work in these companies dont feel any personal, moral responsibility. They are merely following orders.

This is a very old story, but one that can never be told enough. Another example... maybe the most horrid example of a company turning a blind eye to morality in the face of profitability. And that is the relation between Nazi Germany and [US corporation] IBM, starting in the mid 1930's... and the culpability that IBM has in the war crimes of the Nazi regime.

IBM president Thomas Watson started a partnership with Germany soon after Adolf Hitler took office in 1933. Germany soon became IBM's second largest customer (behind the United States) which is important to note, because, when we think of what IBM could have done, it will be weighed against all the money that they knew they could have stood to lose. Anyone can turn away their 2nd smallest customer if he or she is too controversial, but 2nd largest?

But what was IBM selling to Germany?

Punch cards

Wait... whats so bad about punch cards... you just use that to tally stuff... or... oh... oh... OH, ooooooooooooh... wow!

Above is an example of a punch card machine. Before computers, if you were trying to tally information, this was the fastest way to do it. Hypothetically... ya know... if you were trying to tally... er... um... Jews(?)... then, this would be one efficient way to do it. Who's Jewish? Who's Jehovah's Witness. Who's 25% Jewish? Who's 50%? Who's gay. Even the homosexuals had a slot on the punch cards. There can be no homosexuals in the great Aryan state, after all.

Some debate (to exonerate IBM?) how much more efficient, if at all, using this technology is over just using pen and paper, or some other system. That is to say... if you have a great system, and you have determined, dedicated men carrying out your orders, such as some hardcore SS sociopath or a member of the Gestapo... it'll be efficient no matter what "technology" you use to run it.

To be honest, I find the question somewhat irrelovent. The question with me is simply...

"Was your technology used for _____? and were you aware of it?"

Anyone who would argue his machine didn't really increase the number of dead Jews is missing the point, in my opinion. Worst case, you profited off of maintaining the numbers?

This book, by Edwin Black, argues...

"Custom-designed, IBM-produced punch cards, sorted by IBM machines leased to the Nazis, helped organize and manage the initial identification and social expulsion of Jews and others, the confiscation of their property, their ghettoization, their deportation, and, ultimately, even their extermination."

There was a Polish subsidiary for IBM created which reported directly to IBM officials on Madison Ave. They were to keep a tight hold over selling technology to the Nazi's in Poland and helped organize things such as the efficiency of the trains running from Poland to places like Auschwitz.

IBM's German subsidiary was Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft, known by the acronym Dehomag. Hollerith was the German American who first automated US census information and founded the IBM. His name became synonymous with the punch card machines and there were "Hollerith machines" found at every concentration camp when they were finally liberated.

But could (then) current IBM president Thomas Watson feign ignorance? He went to Germany at least twice annually from the years 1933 to 1939, personally supervising Dehomag.

The machines were not sold, only leased. IBM would be the sole source of the punch cards and any spare parts needed to for the machines. It services the machines directly or through some authorized dealer.

There were no standard type of punch cards. Each series custom designed based on what the Nazi's (in that area) wanted to be tabulated, and what info they wanted coming out.

What was going on in Poland could not have been a secret to IBM executives. Worldwide news headlines were quite clear about the devastation and the New York Times ran a headline that said

"Nazis Hint Purge of Jews in Poland"

Yet, IBM kept making money. IBM President Watson would even recieve a medal from Adolf Hitler (which he would LATER give back). This isn't the whole story. Far from it. Just the beginning. I know when I first heard this story a few years ago, it sounded waaaaaaaaay too insane to be true. IBM and Nazi's? Come on...

But it happens... usually no where as extreme as this... but it happens... more than we know...

Life Goes Viral

I was just watching something I recorded on the History channel about the Ku Klux Klan. I prefer watching History-International, but both channels show a lot of interesting things about provactive topics in our recent or distant past. There are many things that come to mind when watching a show about the KKK, but, one thing that I think about often, is how "open" our society is. How technology has changed our lives.

When I watch a show about old Roman conquests of Britain, it would take days for information to get from one end of the island to the other. Trying to get info from California to New York in the 1830's? Forget about it. But, not only has the time for information to travel dwindled SIGNIFICANTLY, but the access and means to information has increased. We are not relegated to 1940's newspapers for information... which... in some cases... dont get the information in time themselves...





Which tickled Harry Truman to no end. Even the Newspaper 60 years ago had not gotten concrete info about who was president when they went to print. But today? There is the internet. There is local news. 24-hour cable news. There are cameras, and microphones, and tape-recorders everywhere! You can't even sneeze without potentially being in a scandal. But, I dont watch the E! channel, and I dont care about crying celebrities and their PR "damage control".

Now, me personally, I dont have anything to hide. I dont mind the cameras. I do however mind the warrantless wiretapping of Americans under the Bush Administration, but thats another story for another day. And there are times when I think this new "viral world" we live in helps non-stories permeate our social conscious way too long. Like missing girls stories. (Its always a missing girl) And its viral in the since... the story spreads across the information medium quickly like a virus through a body.

What I thought about... how would people (in various parts of world history) have acted had the immediate news culture of today been around. I mean, how many Romans would have recognized Caesar Augustus, if he were wearing regular clothes and walked past them on the street? How many battles were fought during the civil war after the treaty was signed? How would people in groups have acted if their faces would have been on tv? Publically identifiable? Immediately identifiable?

Take my "friend" George Allen. He might have had a great career 40 years ago. He is a FORMER Senator for Virginia who was a promising young voice in the Republican party, and was gearing up politically for a presidential bid in 2008. Political campaigns will send "trackers" who film and study their opponents. What they're saying. What can I use against him. What do I need to respond to. What are his main talking points. He saw the guy during one of his Senate re-election speeches and pointed him out to the Virginian crowd... and used a name for the guy which is regarded as a racial slur.

As the picture above clearly shows... this isn't 1923... because, George Allen was posted on the internet immediately. Clips of him using the phrase were part of the "24 news cycle" and was talked about on all the cable shows. The information is out there. The public knows... and today's media has to address it.

And todays politicians... celebrities... atheletes... even average citizens... they all know... that they can suffer for it. And George Allen didn't win his Senate re-election... he didn't even choose to run for president... and is currently out of the public eye. A victim of this viral world.

Obama-Nation

Im surprised to hear some African-American people say...

'the world has changed now that Obama is President."

To me, that is just as ridiculous a notion as the people who thought (and still think) that the world changed after September 11th. How does Barack Obama's presidency change the world for the average African-American living in the United States? What does he do? How does he do it? Who is he influencing or changing the impressions of? How does Barack Obama being president, relative to any other Democrat being president... make my life better?

Whats also, funny, I've heard people say that he's going to be a "black voice" in the White House to push socio-economic ideas/programs/policies that are effectual to black America. That opinion is based on what? Its clearly not based on the bills he's created in the state or US Senate. What history of fighting for black causes does he have? I like Barack Obama, I think he's a good democratic leftist, not nearly as "FDR-leftist" as I would like to see during these trying economic times... but the jury is still out on that... and I'm still hopeful. But, he's not addressing "black issues." If anything, whenever someone tried to get a comment or position on that type of topic, he skillful ducked or dodged a direct answer. Why? Because, he is a politician... and he has a large white following that he doesn't want to alienate.

No one probably knows this better than Jesse Jackson, who got caught speaking about Obama during a commercial, while he thought the Fox "Noise" Channel microphones were off. (Thats what he gets for going on "Fox NOISE" anyway) Obama spoke on Father's Day last year about black men taking more responsibility and being better parents and role models. Im not a big fan of this "current" Jesse Jackson, but as far as his lifetime, he's spent decades fighting for better conditions in urban areas that would be more conducive to stabilizing black families and making it easier for black men to play a larger role in their families. I've criticized both white and black America on the subject (click here) but Jesse Jackson was totally offended by Obama's percieved pandering. As if to say, you've never fought on these issues, how dare you come now and try to get a few brownie points with "other voters" at our expense?

The other question, lets say that Barack Obama is one of the best presidents we've ever had. I do believe that large problems usually leave a president known as one of the best or worst ever, not just in the middle... depending on how that President handles such arduous tasks.. (ask Lincoln). And clearly Obama's presidency will be riddled with large problems. Will one of the best presidencies in American history change the perceptions of people who hold negative views of blacks?

Yes, there is a monkey with a banana on that tee shirt.

There was a poll done in late September (click here) which said that one-third of white Democrats (polled) harbored negative views towards blacks. This was not a poll in 1914, this was a poll done in 2008. And this wasn't the Republican party, which is traditionally viewed as the more polarizing, insensitive and non-inclusive of the two parties. And I do agree with that sentiment about the Republican party. Since the Democrats (Lyndon B Johnson) signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a lot of (southern?) Democrats of the 60's who were against civil rights reform left the party. LBJ himself is QUOTED as saying that signing the Civil Rights Act would give the South over to Republicans for a generation, and if you look at electoral college maps since then, it has been two generations. But, this article shows that even in the (liberal) party which welcomes minorities and homosexuals... there are still an "interesting" amount of whites in this party who harbor ill feelings towards African-Americans... as having a predispotion towards being "lazy" "violent" etc.

The fact that this toy was thought up, (just like the Obama as Curious George T-Shirt above) let alone the fact that it sold like hotcakes... doesn't make me all that optimistic either. But, how do you define racism. That is a very important question to me. Because, if you think that it only means

"i hate ALL blacks... and i'll never be friends with one, let alone... vote for one...!"

Then, number 1... you're very simple... but, number 2... yes, there has a been progress. This isn't the 1950's... a lot of those people are gone, and the old ones who are still around and think that way, at least know not to show it... unless they're being polled anonymously by msnbc, ha ha ha haa...

But, I've had people say to me, that I'm different. I'm not like other blacks they've met. Which means...

"you're not like them." (who is "them"?)

I would think even the most ardent racist will acknowledge that there are some blacks who have "civilized" themselves, or have fought off their "negro nature" their "brute" urges. For that type of person, Obama becoming president changes NOTHING. He's just one of the good ones.

How does Obama change the justice system? Does he suddenly start telling juries to view black and white defendents the same? Does Obama have the power to change the hearts of men? Now, thats some change that I can NOT believe in. It is well documented in many court, prison, incarceration studies that black men get longer sentences, on average, than white men, for the EXACT same crimes. You dont believe me, go look it up. I do believe that access to better lawyers plays a role, but I think there is also something else at play, just like this early 1900's race propaganda shows...

"Help keep my baby pure." What I didn't show is the follow up article attached to this picture (from 1914, i believe) which told of a... we'll say "crazed black man," but thats not the term that was en vogue, at that time, who attacked some white woman, either on a alcohol or cocaine binge. But, dont worry, he was brought to "justice." The article also told of the good people in his town who didn't need to wait for a court case, but... well... let's go ahead and see that article...

Now, THATS how you keep a family pure! Had you just kept liquor off the streets, we wouldn't have had that problem! They're crazy enough now... under the influence of a controlled substance? Who knows what they'll do! Almost like, when a jury sees a white man accused of a crime, there may be SOME jurors who think that there must be some weird circumstances... "what could have caused him to do this?" where as, if a black man commits the same EXACT crime... "he's only doing what comes natural to him" That would seem to be in line with the above article about the poll of white Democrats from 2008 showing that blacks are percieved to be predisposed to laziness and violence.

"We must give him a longer sentence, because we've gotta keep that animal off the streets.!"

Someone, needs to save that white woman! Because, throughout American history, if there was one race of men raping women from the other race... historically, it was black men going around raping white women... riiiiiiiiiiiiight?

I was also shocked to see a 2004 article in the New York Times (click here) that states the top colleges in the United States are now preferring to take blacks from Africa as opposed to African-Americans born in the US. That was a "wow" moment to me. As if to say... If we give college access to a black person from Los Angeles, or DC, he's just going to waste it... its good to say that we have blacks in our schools, but it would be better if we started bringing in people from Africa. They're probably not lazy and will take advantage of this opportunity.

To me, what that acknowledges without saying explicity, is the perception of growing up a descendent of slaves, and living under segregation and racism has shaped the state of the African-American. It seems contradictory to say "those events happened so long ago" and that people today shouldn't be affected by them, while at the same time... choose people of African descent, who did not go through those things, because you think they'll perform better. I will point out at this point, that Obama's father is from Kenya, his mother is from Kansas, he has no slave blood in him, and he grew up mostly with his single mother, then his white grandparents. I, personally, dont try to "define" black, Im not saying that type of background makes him any less black. I will point out that noone ever tries to define "white"... but those people who hold a higher view of Africans, compared to African-Americans... I can assure you, those type of people are well aware that Obama is not the descendent of slave ancestry.

I like Barack Obama... but his election can't be expected to fix all of that. He's not ATLAS. His shoulders are not that big. He wasn't punished by Zeus... no man, should be asked to carry that much.

The Economy Hits Small Businesses

Employment at small businesses with 500 or fewer employees decreased by 614,000 positions in March, marking one of the sharpest drops yet in 14 consecutive months of declines, according to an employment report released Wednesday by payroll processor ADP (ADP, Fortune 500).

The numbers indicate that small businesses (which employ half of America's work force) are currently taking the brunt of the recession. Compare their numbers to businesses with more than 500 employees who lost (only?) 128,000 jobs over the same time frame.

Though downsizing is said to be a last resort for businesses, banks are still hesitant to lend to companies, consumers are spending less, industries are cutting back and business customers are taking longer to pay.

There is a large dominoe effect that affects businesses. You can take any market, the laws apply the same. Lets take... um... (picks one out of the air) restaurants for example. The restaurant is affected by layoffs of businesses near them. Less customers during normally busy lunch hours. Less corporate accounts. Less expensive dinners. Less high end purchases on the menu. The restaurant now faces reduced income. They in turn, not only, order less from their suppliers, but take longer to pay.

The wholesalers, who usually have a robust business selling their goods (tomatoes, meats, tables, table cloths etc) to restaurants, are now seeing that they are are getting less orders and are being paid slower than normally. So the guy who sales table cloths is now seeing a 10% decline in his business. With the lower income, and inability to get a new line of credit... he lays off some of his work force. More people who can't afford to go to the restaurant. He's buying less cotton from the cottom distributor, and whereas his "terms" for payment with the cotton factory use to be 30days, now he requires 45 days to pay. Now the cotton factories invoices are coming 50% later than usual. So on and so on and so on...

Businesses are looking for additional business loans, because they need loans now more than ever to cover their "pay gaps". However, banks (who are gun shy of more defaults) are less likely than ever to give out business loans. Loans are going to be based on collateral, (something that can be "liened against" and seized in the event of a default) but, how many businesses... SMALL businesses in particular... are going to be likely to have increased their assets in the last year? And from the bank standpoint...

"...if you only qualified for $20,000 worth of loans 18 months ago, in your current condition, what makes you think we're going to risk giving your $32,000, now?" - loan officer

We're not even going to speak about employer offered health insurance. According to statements from President Obama in March, the current pace of loans to small businesses is half of what it was last year. How these small businesses plan to survive with half the access to funding they had only a year ago...

...nobody knows.

But, as the employers of half the nation's citizens, one thing we do know... what affects small businesses, does affect us all.

Group Think aka Conformity

I dont understand group think. I hate it. Just the idea of blind conformity. Im not an anarchist, but I love debate. I love different ideas. I love the idea of people bringing something different to the table. In a perfect world, individualism would be celebrated. But its not. Everyone wants to fit in. Everyone wants to be accepted. Its hard to stand alone. But why is that? Is it human nature to want to be part of a group?

In the 1950's, a man by the name of Solomon Asch tried to understand and evaluate group think. He performed a series of studies which would come to be known as the Asch Conformity Experiments.

What Solomon did was have a group of students come together for a vision test. In actuality, all but one of the volunteers were in on the study, and there was only one person who was the focal point of the study. How will the views of the group affect the individual?

The way the experiment was set up. All of the students were in a classroom. They were asked a variety of questions about a group of lines (e.g. "which is the longest?", "which lines are equal in length?" etc) and the group had to give their answers aloud. The only person who was actually the focus of the study always had to go last. The group participants always gave the same answer. Sometimes correct, sometimes incorrect, but always the same answer... and slowly they started giving more and more wrong answers. When there was no pressure to conform, only 1 out of 35 participants ever gave a wrong answer. When, the study's focus was surrounded by fellow students all giving the wrong answer, that student gave the same incorrect answer 36.8% of the time... and 75% of the students being studied gave an incorrect answer (going along with the group) at least once.

There were later variations of the experiment seeing just how many "confederates" were needed to coerce conformity, examing the influence of one... to as many as 15 people in on the study. When one or two people gave the wrong answer, their influence on the focal point of the study was almost none.

When the people who are in on the study are not unanimous, even when it was only 1 dissenting voice, the study focus was much more likely to give the obvious correct answer. Even if the 1 dissenter gave another incorrect answer, it still made the study focus more likely to give the correct answer, which was at odds with the rest of the students, showing how much influence a dissenting minority can have.

Interesting...

America's Fourth Estate

The fourth estate is a term first attributed to 18th century France. There were three divisions of French Parliament. 300 Clergy known as the First Estate (the church). There were 300 noblemen, known as the second estate and the third estate were the commoners. The regular people. Of course, we come in last place. The general public had 600 members in parliament. Now, there was a press gallery that covered the politics of the day. A European philosopher and political theorist by the name of Edmund Burke is credited with looking up at the Press Gallery after the French revolution and uttering

"Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all."

I was listening to a female journalist a few days ago speak about the press. And she said something that is not mentioned regularly enough. That the press is the only job whose protection and freedom are explicitly stated in the Constitution. That is to say, you can not have a truly functioning democracy if you do not have a free press.

What of the current state of the American press? What is being covered today? Who is making these decisions? Why are these decisions being made?

These are questions that should always be asked, but I think its dire in American press, particularly televised news, where I keep the majority of my disdain. Nothing is above criticism, including print, however in my last blog, I mentioned one reason to save print is so we dont have to rely on televised news.

This sailor story is driving me crazy.





This isn't news. This should be covered in passing. If there is some SIGNIFICANT change, it can be mentioned again, at that time, but for CNN to spend 1% of their day, let alone big chunks of their 1 hour news cycles covering this story is outrageous. Its another example of the mainstream media giving people what they think they want, rather than what the press knows we need. I dont want to hear from the sister-in-law. She's just as oblivious as the commentators. I dont need some anecdotal emotional connection to draw me into this story even more. In the last 18 months, there have been 62 successful ransoms by these Somali pirates. How many of them have you heard about? And if you were aware of one or two of the previous times... how long were they a story? When they were Asian and European ships... were they not important?

Another question... how does the press relate to politics, and politicians that they cover? Are they friends? Are journalists enamored with being part of the "in-crowd" of Washington? It seems the high school mentality of "cliques" and being a part of a group isn't juvenile at all. Its just human nature. We like to think it ends when the "teen" drops off of our age, but we should know better.

I'll give you one example. This is Judith Miller of the New York times...





Now, I will single her out, because her case is so public, but I am under no delusions that this is a rare case. People like their names being in the big newspapers. Being well-known and well thought of. People like the idea of being able to call government officials and hold conversations without needing to fight and dig. Even better... when government officials view you well enough to call you and initiate conversations.

Or is it?

In some cases, as Meet the Press host Tim Russert said when under oath during the Valerie Plame case... conversations between journalists and government officials are only "on the record" when the government official says so. Consider that. Press members hanging out, going to dinners, lunches... having drinks with Washington officials... and only when the politician says its okay, can information in a conversation be published as news. If this is the practice of most of the media, then you're nothing more than a puppet. Just the voice of the government, rather than an independent voice. We might as well be communist and call it "Ministry of Information."

Case in point, during the Valerie Plame (CIA Leak) investigation, it was discovered that people like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove would call up people in the print press like Judith Miller and tell them information they WANTED to be on the record. Then Dick Cheney goes on a show like Meet the Press the following day and quotes a New York Times article, giving the American people the impression that he is referencing a secondary source corraborating his opinions. This is something the Bush administration did, and not just on one occasion. But, it shows how a spineless press, more focused on getting their invites to special parties, rather than doing their own investigations... can poison the information the American people recieve.

And did you know George Bush had scripted press conferences? Does Obama??? I would hope not, but in all honesty, we really dont know. The only reason we know about Bush is that in one of his earliest press conferences the retard actually said to one of the reporters that this is a scripted press conference. This was done on camera, and I've seen the footage. What exactly does that mean? It means that... its already been decided who he's going to call on. Its already been decided in what order. And its already been decided what questions are going to be asked.

Wow. Think about that.

Not in Venezuela. Not in Cuba. Well, probably there too, ha ha ha haa... but, it should NOT be happening in America. And all these press lapdogs are following orders, just raising their hands. Why is that? For the express purpose of giving the appearance of a real press conference. Just looking at it, you would think that the President was really choosing people, and that he had no idea... no anticipation about what the questions were... y'know, like a TRUE press conference, but that was not the case.

Even sadder than the fact that these spineless jellyfish went along with this (can't risk losing White House priviledges!), the press... didn't...

wait for it...

wait for it...

The press did not INFORM the people that this was going on. Pathetic. And now people want to ask... "how did everyone get it wrong?" How could they not? As if people were doing much more than printing what they were told by government aides... or asking the president what they were "allowed" to ask him.

And I've yet to hear anyone ask Obama if Afghanistan is "the good war." Noone is raising the question if we should be there. Deja vu? Shouldn't the press pose these questions? And when did occupation become a necessary second step after war anyway? The Russians (who are far more brutal than us) tried this with the same people (remember, when we gave Osama bin Laden money and weapons in the late 70's?)... and it didn't work.

What important stories are not being covered? What are we not being informed of? When a president takes office, his solemn oath, his most important duty is to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. Im hoping they all come back with Obama, he's done some good things on that front so far, but how the press stood silent for eight years as Bush did everything he wanted to "fight for freedom" is beyond me.

What about CIA torture? What about details of this bankding debacle? What about fair coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Whats interesting to me is how often Europeans protest. I love it! Even when I think its an "interesting" subject, these guys will take to the streets and let their politicians know what they think. The war in Iraq, the banking crisis, Israeli offensives, US secret prisons. About 3 or 4 years ago, there were French protests about extending the work week from 35 to 40 hrs per week. I dont remember the reason off hand, but I remember seeing French college students marching in the streets several years ago as well. And only a few months ago, there were HUGE Greek protests after the police killed one kid.

My immediate thought was, "wow... all this because the police shot a teenager? Imagine if Americans protested when a kid died. We'd be out in the streets all the time." (but would behaviour change if they knew a well-informed public was watching?)

Are we just uninformed? I see skits on the Tonight Show where Jay Leno asks random easy questions, and sooooooo many people seem oblivious. So many people, in fact, that there was a half hour show dedicated solely to that concept called "Street Smarts."

Were you aware that there were protests (again) in Iraq against America's presence. Again as in, within the last 2 weeks, not some 2004 footage.

Im sure the cable news producers decided it was either going to be that or... do another national news story about a missing person.

Here's what I dont get... and I have nothing against little kids like Caylee Anthony, but a lot of people go missing. The coverage of that situation has been asinine. How many other missing children could have covered, let alone other news stories FAR more pertinent to a national audience? Who made that choice? Lets run this for 6hrs a day? There were no other missing children in those months? How did you pick her? And if you have to pick and choose which story you're going to run, should it be run at all? There have been stories of people who have tried very hard to get their missing child in the mainstream media. Apparently, they didn't fit the "profile." (for whatever reason) I think we know what the profile is, but, I digress. If you TRULY cared about missing children, and you wanted missing kids to be found...

i know im not the only person who gets that missing person's photo update thing in my mail

...if you truly cared about missing kids... you'd have a missing kids channel. Or a missing kids daily or weekly show. But, the truth is, its about ratings. Tv news is now about ratings... and (certain) people seem to identiy with a certain "profile" of missing child.

"We gotta tune in and see the latest on baby Caylee!"

Do we really?

Don't Stop the Presses

In the near future... more and more Americans will have to figure out how to keep up with City Hall, their neighborhoods, their children's schools, store openings, new products and sales and other local stories — without a 170-year-old staple of daily life... the local newspaper.



It seems to be an under reported story in the mainstream media (which I never hesitate to criticize) but if you go online and SEARCH for this story, you will see numerous articles about the issue. Time even has a "Top 10 Endangered Newspapers." (click here)

About 80% of newspaper revenue comes from advertising, and the Newspaper Association of America expects those sales to drop 9.7% in 2009 to $34.2 billion, after falling 16.5% in 2008. The major question is... is this a permanent business model change or a temporary issue heightened by the recession? My opinion is that more and more people are going online for information (which affects sales) and advertisers have creative ways to market products to consumers online (which affects ad revenue).

I personally dont read the "hard copy" newspaper. I think it has outlived its usefulness.




But how many companies have prepared for a transition from "brick and mortar" to "click and mortar" if not online-only. I dont think that newspaper companies have out-lived their usefulness, they are extremely important and its very disconcerting to see newspapers close, but at the same time, could there have been steps taken to evolve their business? Is there still time? I've seen some of the figures (net loss) and they are unbelievable.

What is the future of investigative journalism? Blogs are cool. Dont get me wrong... you may not know this, but I blog from time to time... but this is just me giving my opinion on things. And if I do give any information, its usually based on news articles that I have read. But the person that works for the New York Times, he's not basing his story off some WordPress blog he saw online. He's the person who's researching the information. She's the person calling back, checking with sources. He's the person flying to Mumbai or New Delhi. She's the person interviewing Gordon Brown or Angela Merkel in England or Germany. He's following up on the sales reports and comparing them to what he was told by the CFO.

We need the actual reporters who get paid to "dig" for the facts. Not just online knuckleheads (like me!) who give opinions based on things we have read. I merely talk about artifacts found in Egypt. Newspaper reporters are the archaelogists who have the dirt under their fingernails.

We are seeing papers doing one of two things. They are either closing altogether or taking deep steps to cut costs. Publishing less frequently (e.g. Sunday, Tue, Thu only)... decreasing the number of pages per issue... downsizing the staff... cutting salaries... transitioning to a web presence. And again, what of local news. Now, far be it for me to accuse local TELEVISION news of airing/focusing on certain types of stories... but, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal will not tell you whats going on in your own neighborhood like your local newspaper will.

Here are a few newspapers that have closed after more than a century of printing.

Cincinatti Post 126 years

Kentucky Post 126 years

Rocky Mountain Post 150 years

Ann Arbor News 169 years

Seattle Post-Intelligencer 146 years (going to a web-ONLY presence)