Myth Taken Politics

Star Wars In Theatres Now, Space Tomorrow

With absolutely no sense of irony, the debut of the current Star Wars movie coincided with news that the Air Force and Bush administration were opening the door to wars in space. Of course, this is too subtle for the press, but the apparent parallels in the movie to the current political situation is kicking up a storm. But it is the current war that we should be especially worried about with generals saying that the hoped for draw down keeps being postponed. The news of the British memo only compounds the sadness, as it won't work well in this country as a smoking gun(see The lies that led to war ). And that is because the press is still gun-shy about stories that both criticize the administration and are not slam dunks. The memo may accurately state the British position but it is second hand/hearsay regarding the Bush administration. And those of us in this country that are clued into the corruption and deception, well, we already knew.

So what to do?

Well, my suggestion is to bet. I will set up a pool where we can bet on what, how and when the Bush administration will do something that will kill all of humanity. The what could be starting a war of aggression in Iraq that leads to a greater war throughout the middle-east that dooms us. Or it could be the recent energy bill that tips the balance to global warming. Or the pitiful diplomacy of Rice and Bolton in North Korea that leads to ICBMs launching. Heck, this administration makes this pool of destruction multi-layered as they may do several, but only one of the screw ups will be the first to do us in. The other positive aspect is even if the winner gets the trifecta of what, how and when, there will be no way to collect from the rest of us losers.

Now the handful of you out there that thinks this is morbid and feels we should work to elect sane leadership, well, you don't have to get in on the action. As for me I am putting my money on: what, ruining Social Security; how, failing to protect private pensions and keeping budget busting giveaways to the wealthy, our main creditor China pulls the plug on our credit card, leading to a war with them in space; when, August 6, 2030. Your turn.

More Moyers

Bill Moyers was in the White House when his boss, President LBJ, signed the bill into law making government supported and chartered broadcasting. Moyers, now retired from the press and government, commented on how the intent of public broadcasting was to balance the commercial broadcasting.

"[Public broadcasting] will constitute a source of alternative telecommunications services for all the citizens of the Nation."-from the law creating CPB

The law was even more specific, going into how public broadcasting would include material for "instructional, educational, and cultural purposes" and is intended to "be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States"

But I would add that public broadcasting is a balance to the many lies. Lies that journalism is supposed to ferret out and report. The lies of a pseudo-culture of entertainment industry that cherry-picks commercial successes over creativity and honesty. Lies of an administration which working with Fox and against critical journalism tries to illegally interfere with government funded by independent public broadcasting:

"...a private corporation should be created to facilitate the development of public telecommunications and to afford maximum protection from extraneous interference and control."
"Except as provided in the second sentence of subsection (c)(1) of this section, no political test or qualification shall be used in selecting, appointing, promoting, or taking other personnel actions with respect to officers, agents, and employees of the Corporation."

Furthermore the law specifically states what actions are allowed by CPB to provide for diversity and balance, none of which allow for secret actions or collusion with the federal government agencies. Read it.

But more importantly, because the enemies of truth can always abolish public broadcasting, we should all speak up for public broadcasting, and push for even more openness, more diversity, more content and access. Any culture that does not promote the arts and education vigorously is liable to become poor in spirit and hope and happiness.

Newsweakened

In amongst the handwringing, the furor, the condemnations, and the shouts is the mourning for the dead. I feel horribly for those who have died or been injured. Newsweek has been very candid about the error in fact and in judgement. But it is truly hypocritical for the administration to protest when it appears that it has given itself permission to perform such an act. And that the actions taken in the name of national security that the human rights of its protestors were abused. The unstable environment has been inflamed by past actions. Now, Newsweek is having a hard time getting traction on retracting its story because the current administration, with a reputation for deception, purchasing some of the press and armtwisting the rest, is in full blame mode. Rather than be contrite (on behalf of all Americans), the administration is taking advantage of press slip up. Shame.

God is in the Details

Science and religion have long been entwined. I once visited the Mayan ruins that included observatories for the priests not far from the altars on which many were slaughtered. I am guessing that when the ability to predict successful planting schedules failed using observable data, the people put their faith in angry and unknowable gods and put people to horrific deaths. Faith has always been a horrible substitute for knowledge of the natural world and continues to be. In the richest nation, with food and wealth greater than could have ever been imagined to be true, there is a dangerous movement to dismiss what we know for what a few have contrived to believe.

Dangerous not just because it is a rejection of the technology that made the cornucopia of riches can lead to a slowing of the science that can continue to find answers that help to keep us alive. And the irony of living an age where science is on the edge of disaster, where we barely can control our inventions. Using evolutionary science we are creating new forms of life faster than "natural" forces ever could. Obviously the scientists that work in this field do not believe themselves to be God. But the creationists/Intelligent Design fools/fooled ill-formed thesis do bring up one important point, that the ability to create and shape life is an awesome one.

As nuclear weapons are created by more and more nations, and the United States continues to press ahead with even more dangerous weapons, we face dangers that scientists create. As scientists churn out new life forms for quick profit for their corporate parents, these corporations (entities with no conscience) lobby for fewer laws and regulations to protect life and lobby for more laws and regulations that can increase short term profit.

So what is allowing beliefs trump knowledge in a significant portion of the people of the richest nation. And coincidentally at the same time corporations and government are pushing the edges of the possible. And the Catholic church presses forward with a "pro-life" ethos that endangers life in the millions (rejecting condoms). And a movement that is on the verge of convincing doctors and pharmacists to deny medical care (sometimes life protecting care) that is based on faith.

Unlike the Mayans, or the inhabitants of Salem, or any society that scared of what they do not understand or control, we are in a society that can understand and control much of what we call nature. May be that seeming control balanced by predictions of great destruction (Global warming, meteorites, nuclear war, SARS/flu/disease, etc) at the same time control of our society is slipping away from a democratic to a new form of corporate control where people get their "choices" based on "scientific" marketing. My guess is that this contradiction of gaining and losing control is leading to many to look to for comfort in older systems.

Let us hope, and more importantly, work for a more sane society where the institutions must by their charters have protection of life as a requirement, and the improvement of the lives of all it touch the utmost goal. But the only way to succeed is to use knowledge. To rely on faith to the exclusion of science is to abandon hope, much the way that during droughts throwing people to their deaths in ancient Maya was futile. 

Crumby Treatment

The saddest part of the recent tempest in the teapot about CPB/PBS/NPR is that it is a tempest in a teapot. Public broadcasting may play an important role in the media, but it is tiny in comparison to many other countries public media systems. To fight over the crumbs that CPB hands out is pathetic. Our media is completely unbalanced in terms of ownership, which is a much more important than the irrelevant left-right balance issue. When huge corporations own such a huge portion of the spectrum (understanding, of course, that it is the public that is supposed to own the airwaves), serious journalism is in retreat.

Kenneth Tomlinson, interviewed on On the Media, stirred up the teapot a bit more. But both Mr. Tomlinson and the interviewer missed the real issues regarding serious journalism and the fundamental role of noncommercial outlets. Mr. Tomlinson's motives may be sinister, to destroy one of this countries last organizational outlets for a diverse, creative, and generally free of conflicts of interest news. Or his motive is to protect CPB his allies who would kill it. Or perhaps there is some third explanation. But either way, it is being smothered.

We should stop allowing the arguments to veer towards left-right dichotomies or censorship issues. We need to argue for better education, for better journalism, for better art. That is the promise of publicly owned and funded media. Cutting CPB is to cut out culture, injure education, and dismiss the promise of the American people. From our public education system, GI bill, to the artists that thrived during the depression thanks to the WPA, FSA and other government programs, we built one of the best educated societies. Now we are getting bogged down with attacks on teaching science and art by scientists and artists, bogged down with attacks on journalists deciding what journalism is. Fight back.

Blogged Down in Definitions

There is no easy way to define what is journalism or who is a journalist. As blogging, podcasting, moblogging and RSS wend their ways into our media at the same time as media consolidation among the traditional forms of broadcasting, the question of a free press and democracy become trickier as well. It is very difficult to discuss journalism in the United States due to the misunderstanding of what bias means and the myth of a liberal versus conservative media. One way to stand apart from these false distinctions is to look at an even more murky issue: art.

Art is much harder to classify then journalism and even harder to explain. But the counterpoint allows for freeing our minds from stereotypical patterns. Whether something is "art" is often left to the producer of the "object/idea/thing." Art critics will sometimes critique art in terms that are based on precedence, like workmanship, subjective criteria, and sometimes based on the whether the artist had succeeded in accomplishing their mission (to delight, to confound, to...). Finally art is often judged by the march of time, separated from the fads and fanatics, does the piece still "succeed."

Issues of whether the artist was left or right wing, sponsored by the wealthy or governments, whether the contemporary audience was informed or not, all help to contextualize the art, but are not deterministic as to the seriousness or quality of the work. Journalism may have aspects that are much easier to check at the time of creation then art (such as factualness, reliability, readibility, etc.), but journalism needs similar freedom to let time determine its full value to society. Journalism should be judged by its seriousness, comprehensiveness, ability to inform, newness, validity, insight and other issues.

Blogging is a form of journalism. In some cases it may fail or be worse than nothing. In most cases the lack of an editorial process, should give readers pause (blogs should be by definition, individual efforts). It will be difficult to sort through the many issues that arise, whether corporations can infringe on the freedom of speech/press of their employees, whether corporate owned journalistic efforts can stay free of anti-journalistic influences (protecting and promoting advertiser and owners' interests).

Just in case there are still some that really believe in liberal or conservative bias in journalism, remember that as long as the information is factual and comprehensive, the pieces will be informative and an educated audience will be able to glean relevant information. I read the Wall Street Journal because it has serious and insightful reporting. I listen to NPR because I learn new things. I do believe that media consolidation introduces constraints based on conflicts of interest and efficiencies that hurt journalism (efficiency is always bad for accurate and comprehensive reporting). I believe the Internet, XML and self-publishing offer both a new venue for journalists and citizens that will enrich our society. Whether a particular blog deserves attention or credibility may be hard to determine, but may be that is a job for the press and readers.

Anti-Progressive Indexing

Fortunately for the United States, the incompetence of the Bush administration is starting to shine through the glare of patriotism that had obscured the massive failures of this administration. Even our Fed. Chairman has reminded us of the "budget" triggers he had recommended to pull back the tax giveaways. The Bush administration is close to the biggest heist of all times, the raiding of our society's biggest nest egg, Social Security. But as it becomes cornered by a faltering economy and poor reputation the administration is resorting to desperate measures including appearing in an unstaged press conference and actually describing the eviscerating measures.

The ultra-conservatives have basic misunderstanding of the function of a democratic government. I get the impression that they believe that our government's main function is to redistribute wealth and that in the past, the redistribution has been geared to taking from those that succeed economically the most and giving to those that have failed economically. So now the effort is to change the direction of that redistribution. (See below for the actual main role of our government)

I believe this myth has led to their peculiar and dishonest tactic of calling reducing Social Security benefits as being progressive (the administration probably has been holding back on this portion of the plan because it was so clearly a negative). Dressing up massive cuts of a system that people depend on as being "progressive"  is a bald-faced lie.

Since most people understand intrinsically that the role of Social Security is as a cushion for everyone (and I mean everyone) to avoid impoverishment in their old age and in the old age of their parents. It is not a redistribution of wealth from one person to another, but rather as a pension plan, it is designed to redistribute resources through time. And this helps perform the most important role of a democratic government in society, to protect all of its inhabitants. I hope that all of us, reread the founding mission of our government which is clearly outlined in the text below.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. - entire Preamble of the U.S. Constitution