News: what is, what isn't, and whether it needs to be so depressing. (Part Deux)

Having established that news needs to be something truly new (a change in the status quo), several things still need to established.

First of all, the general populace doesn't need to be informed of every little tragedy or abnormal event that occurs in the world around them. Back home in Hawaii, the local news couldn't go a week without presenting at least one sob story about an alcoholic high-school jock who died in a car crash while partying with his friends late at night. The stories always followed the same basic formula: An interview with the sobbing mother ("He was such a good boy!"), followed by an interview with the sobbing girlfriend ("He was my entire world!"), the not sobbing, but more-introspective than usual guy-friend ("He wasn't -like- just another guy... he was... like... the man"), and the indifferent, divorced father ("He was... a good kid. Probably."). Afterwards, the anchor-person would solemnly intone the moral of the story, usually something along the lines of "talk to your kids about the dangers of drinking and driving", and then some fat guy would give everyone a sports update. That kind of story is nothing more than shameless emotional exploitation. Everyone that had a legitimate reason to be informed of the boy's death had already been informed. Who exactly are news reporters helping when they shove their microphones into the faces of mourning friends and family members? In order for a story to be valid news, it has to be something that affects the audience, not just something that pulls their heartstrings.

If, for instance, the mayor of San Francisco died in a car crash after a night of heavy drinking, it would be the local news station's responsibility to report the event. Millions of people have the right to be informed when the man they elected into office has his life unexpectedly snuffed out. It's an event that affects the audience. We can go even further and create an example of a slightly less significant tragedy that still warrants local media attention. Let's say that Bill Smithson, a philanthropist in the town of Smithville passed away early this morning. Mr. Smithson was a prominent member of the town, and contributed substantial amounts of money to local institutions. Buildings all over town bear his name: The Bill Smithson Public Library, The Smithson Concert Hall, The Smithson Center For The Criminally Insane, etc. The people of the town, even though they may not know him personally, are all very familiar with Mr. Smithson. Due to the fact that most of the local audience has been touched by this man's life, I have no objection to the local news doing a story on this man's death.

Generally, the question journalists should ask before reporting an event can be stated thusly: "Why does my audience need to know about this?". If the journalist honestly has a good reason to tell thousands of people about an event, he or she should do so. But If a satisfying answer to that simple question can't be found, it's best for the story to go untold.

To be continued even further...

News: what is, what isn't, and whether it needs to be so depressing. (Part 1)

In this great nation, just about everyone has something to say about what's wrong with the news. Some people believe that the news is too negative. They're nauseated when they see images of war, crime, and destruction constantly being pushed onto our national psyche via the nightly news. What about all the good news? To others, the news is a bunch of frivolous, irrelevant fluff. They're disgusted by what they perceive to be a never-ending stream of celebrity drama and scandal. Is it really in the nation's best interest to inform everyone that celebrity A is cheating on his wife, celebrity B, and having a baby with celebrity C? And a small, devoted minority thinks it's all being staged by an evil alliance of evil jews in an evil lair in the evil town of Hollywood California. But since I don't have time to fly to the west coast and investigate the aforementioned claims of an evil lair, I'll try to address the first two criticisms, and talk a little bit about what (in my opinion) real news is.

First of all, for an event to be considered news, it has to be something NEW, something that represents a change in the status quo. For example, the following story is not news:

"Today in Washington, the government of the United States of America continued to operate."

That story isn't news, because it doesn't represent a change in the status quo. By default, citizens in the United States of America assume that their government is operating. The following story, however, would be considered news:

"Today in Washington, the government of the United States of America was overthrown by a group of communist revolutionaries from Georgia. Their leader, Steve Buttersworth, has set himself up as the leader of a provisional government which is currently working on a charter that will replace the old constitution."

That story IS news because it represents a change in the status quo. Normally, people don't assume that communists are establishing a new government in Washington DC. The people need to be informed when such an event occurs.

In order for us to go a little further into the subject of what makes news newsworthy, let's take a look at what most people in our society would consider to be the status quo for the average human:

(1) Person X is born.
(2) Person X gets proper education and nourishment, and grows up.
(3) Person X lives life as an adult. He/she has a roof over his/her head. He/she has enough food to eat.
(4) Person X grows old, and eventually dies of natural causes.

Additionally, you could summarize a little bit of what we believe the status quo of society to be:


-People are obeying the laws.
-Government is enforcing the laws.
-People are going to work.
-Buldings remain standing.
-Children are being educated
-Etc.

When you really think about it, it's only logical that much of the news is negative. People assume that the good things listed above are occurring in the world around them. They don't need to be told that "Thousands of children were born today", or that "Millions of people ate dinner tonight", or that "In the past week, a majority of citizens did not commit murder". In our subconscious, we assume that these things are happening. In a nutshell, no news is good news. But when someone breaks these normative patterns of society and life, news occurs. If you were a local news producer and you had to choose between the following stories, which would you pick?

(A) Bob Smith, an average, middle aged man, remains alive, after 38 years of average health.

(B) Jack Henderson, an average, middle aged man, was murdered in his home today. The killer remains at large in the greater metropolitan area.

What about these stories?

(A) The United Mutual building remains standing after 20 years of normal usage.

(B) The Northern FInancial building collapsed today in what officials are calling, "a terrorist action". Large portions of the downtown area will be blocked off indefinitely. The governor is urging citizens to give what they can to aid the families of those killed or injured in the attack.

In all of these cases the choice is clear. The Bad things are more newsworthy because they represent a change in the status quo that the public should be informed of.

But there's still a distinction that needs to be made between private tragedy and public tragedy. In other words, bad things that the public needs to know about, and bad things that the media has no legitimate reason to report. And there are still plenty of positive (or at least non-negative) events that can be considered truly newsworthy.

To be continued...

Why all the YouTube hype is just hype.

Google paid over a billion dollars for it. TIME adorned the cover of their "person of the year" issue with it's shiny video interface. And I think it's just another internet novelty that will seem like a big fat waste of money to certain corporate officers in about a year or so. If you've read the title of this article, you know that I'm talking about the ever-so-popular youtube.com site, a place where every cocob0y222 and katg3rl9 can post grainy videos of themselves talking about themselves, while thinking to themselves that other people actually care. And while countless commentators trip over each other to be the first to proclaim the advent of a glorious new age of media in which Mom, Dad, Dick, Jane, and Spot gather around their 15" LCD display to watch 320x240 flash videos created by the Hendersons down the street, I'd like to recognize YouTube for what it actually is: a poor quality (albeit free) distribution system for amateur videos that carries a high risk of copyright infringement lawsuits, and no risk of usurping the mainstream media.

First of all, I'm not completely "dissing" YouTube. YouTube is an absolutely wonderful place to find great videos like the "Numa Numa Dance", "The Evolution of Dance", and "KItty cat dancing!!!!!!!!!! yeeea". However, I think that only a true dullard would argue that YouTube is encroaching on the traditional media's turf. How many people skip American Idol to watch a 10 second clip of mnkyj4m111 from Wisconsin stuffing mentos into a bottle of diet coke? Many people may find the user-made videos on YouTube to be amusing, but in the end they're pretty much the same as the videos that your annoying friend (you know who he/she is) used to forward to you way back in '01.

Of course, I don't want to downplay the broad range of programming available on YouTube. What about the plethora of video blogs available for your viewing pleasure? Finally, the people who failed English 101 and can't find any real-life friends to talk to, can eloquently express their innermost thoughts via the magic of the Internet! Who doesn't want to watch some fat college student with his hat on backwards sitting in a dimly lit dorm, while offering gems of wisdom that go something like this:

"So... anyways... uh... I saw a movie today... and it had a black guy in it.... but anyways it was... like... pretty funny... but my girlfriend... was all like, no way!... but I still think it was a funny movie... also today... um... what? Shut up Chris! ... No! ... Shut up! ... You're so stupid! ......... that was Chris... he's like... my roomie.... "

And who could forget all the wonderful no budget sit-com wannabes that prove that no matter how bad the quality of mainstream comedy gets, there's always something worse just a few mouse-clicks away. Yes folks, with the advent of low-cost digital video, we're simply being deluged with high-quality content produced outside of the traditional studio system.

That isn't to say there's nothing good on YouTube. Far from it! There are millions of great videos on YouTube, namely the ones that people rip from proprietary sources such as DVD's and television. Remember that one great scene from that otherwise lousy movie you saw eight years ago? With thousands of users working around the clock ripping, encoding, and uploading copyrighted movie clips, there's a pretty good chance you can find it on YouTube. There's only one teensy-weensy problem with this: copyrighted material is, for the lack of a better word, COPYRIGHTED. And websites hosting copyrighted materials without a license to do so can get into a lot of trouble with the copyright holders. This is where YouTube ceases to be a good business and becomes a great big legal liability. Somewhere down the road, YouTube will be the target of a copyright infringement case that most experts are predicting to be "One Bad Mutha'". The question is really one of when rather than if.

But do I really hate YouTube? No. If you don't have server space of your own, YouTube offers a video hosting solution that may not deliver the best quality, but gets the job done. My point is that YouTube isn't the threat to the traditional media that (ironically enough) the traditional media is making it out to be. Maybe once everyone starts using the Internet2, massive computer monitors become inexpensive, and YouTube offers HD video hosting/streaming, the big broadcasting networks can raise their respective white flags. Until then, pixelated Flash-7 encoded videos aren't going to cut it as serious entertainment media.

Another set of unrelated topics.

1. The Taco Bell tolls for thee...

The Taco Bell E. Coli outbreak continues to rage on, and this time, the feds believe a different veggie is to blame. Apparently, the E. Coli which has now infected 71 people across the country, is being carried by lettuce, which, if I recall correctly, is found on just about everything served at Taco Bell.

And just to make things interesting, Taco Bell's lesser known rival, Taco John's, has an E. Coli outbreak of it's own. At this point, I think it's advisable to avoid Americanized Mexican fast food altogether. Stick to good, wholesome, old fashioned, patriotic food like McDonald's. There's absolutely no health risk there, right? As the brilliant marketers over at the golden arches put it: I'm lovin' it! (TM).

2. Government enforces law. Uproar ensues.

Why is the fact that federal agents arrested 1200+ illegal immigrants in a series of massive meat-packing plant raids causing such a hubub? Our law enforcement agents have one job: to enforce the law. Illegal immigration is (as the name implies) against the law. People that are upset by the raid have only one rational course of action: to attempt to repeal our countries immigration laws. Complaining that our law enforcers are enforcing our laws is ridiculous. The following is an excerpt from the linked article that you didn't (and in all likelihood, won't) read:

Immigration officials last month informed Swift (the company that hired the illegal workers) that it would remove unauthorized workers on Dec. 4, but Swift asked a federal judge to prevent agents from conducting the raid, arguing it would cause "substantial and irreparable injury" to its business.

What a stupid company. It hires a bunch of illegals (although they claim that they had no knowledge of illegal workers in the company), is found out and warned of the upcoming raid, and then tries to convince the government not to arrest a bunch of criminals because it would hurt it's business. That's not how it works. When someone breaks a federal law, they get punished. It doesn't matter who they are, or who they work for. Justice is supposed to be blind.

Again, although it's very understandable that some might feel empathy for the illegals in our country who are just trying to make a better life for their families, any quarrel people have with these raids should rest with the laws themselves, not the enforcement.

3. Excellent Comments on Iraq

Here's a very insightful quote concerning one of the major mistakes the US made in our "war on terror" in Iraq:

"Imagine one day waking up and finding out that your nation's leaders had completely dismantled all police and military. As a result, there is not one policeman, or state, or federal law enforcement agent, or even one national guard or any soldier to protect you from criminal elements, or terrorists. It will be total chaos.

"Then imagine that instead of calling back the army and security forces, the authorities in this imaginary scenario decided to form a new army and police from racist militias, some mercenaries and organised crime gangs.

"With the new government-issued budget and government-issued vehicles, these armed groups begin arresting, torturing, murdering innocent people either because of their faith, or creed, or purely for profit.

"This is exactly what has happened in Iraq."

That quote comes from none other than the vice president of Iraq, Tareq Al-Hashemi. And he's right on. The United States was quite naive to think that a peaceful country would emerge gently out of the state of anarchy it created. The fact is that Iraq is made up of several groups of people who want to kill each other. For years, Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, for all it's faults, did one thing well: it stabilized the country. The various radical factions co-existing in Iraq needed, as Hobbes (the philosopher, not the tiger) would say, "a common power to keep them all in awe" . Saddam delivered this in spades. When America dismantled the Iraqi Government and all it's institutions, they created a vacuum of power that the opposing religious and ethnic groups are still violently attempting to fill. The US-supported Iraqi military and police force is helpless in the face of the escalating violence because most of the people perpetrating the violence are in their ranks. Whole regions are under the control of radical militias. The leader of the most powerful Shiite death squads and militias, Muqtada Al-Sadr is a powerful member of Iraq's democratic government. Essentially, everything that could have gone wrong is going wrong. With conservative estimates of Iraqi deaths currently standing at over 55,000, and high estimates going over 100,000, the death toll in this period of anarchy is already exceeding that of Saddam's reign.

Of course, "cut and run" still isn't an option. America seriously screwed up Iraq, and if we pull out before the job of stabilizing the country is done, the Iraqis will suffer even more. It just makes you wish we had leaders that could think twice before doing something so stupid. The worst part of it all is that even if the country is successfully stabilized, it'll just be another islamic nation, which is something we could certainly do without. In the long run, I don't think that Iraq's Islamic democracy will be any improvement over Saddam's secular government. I guess only time will tell.

Radiation, food poisening, and the fat ban.

(1). Radiation: it's not just for frozen burritos anymore.

The United States military recently placed its stamp of approval on a rather unique crowd control device: the Active Denial System (ADS). Despite having the most politically correct name of any weapon in recent memory, the ADS is quite a piece of work. Here's a summary of its awe-inspiring, pain-inducing power from the worlds most complete and accurate source of information pertaining to cutting edge military technology, the wikipedia:

"The ADS works by directing electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 95 GHz toward the subjects. When the waves contact skin, the energy in the waves is turned into heat which in turn heats the water molecules in the skin to around 55 C (130 degrees Fahrenheit), causing an intensely painful burning sensation. The focused beam can be directed at targets at a range of approximately one kilometer.

A higher radio frequency is chosen because, as a property of electromagnetic waves, they are unable to penetrate the body as deeply as lower frequency waves, thereby affecting external organs only, such as skin. The United States military states the effect "penetrates the skin to a depth of less than 1/64 of an inch."[1] A spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory described his experience as a test subject for the system: "For the first millisecond, it just felt like the skin was warming up. Then it got warmer and warmer and you felt like it was on fire.... As soon as you're away from that beam your skin returns to normal and there is no pain."

The ADS is currently only a vehicle mounted weapon, however, U.S. Marines and police are both working on portable versions."

Essentially, the ADS is a device that sticks an out of control crowd in the microwave for a couple seconds on high power, creating what the military calls the "Goodbye effect". Technically, the waves of radiation emitted by the ADS have a shorter wavelength than the microwaves emitted by a microwave oven, so the comparison isn't perfect, but you get the point. The device is currently awaiting deployment in Iraq, and in the near future could be coming to a reckless crowd of flag-burning hippies near you. While Uncle Sam maintains that exposing large amounts of people to painful waves of radiation will have no unforeseen side effects, and presents no ethical problems, I'll probably remain skeptical. The concept of the government being able to disperse any crowd almost instantly, is just a little bit eerie. Not to mention the fact that any innocent bystanders among the targets will also be exposed to the device's considerable radioactive bite. This creepy increase of government power calls to mind George Orwell's "1984". While I've never actually read the book myself, I'm told by many reliable sources that it deals with a government run by the main character's older brother who does a lot of creepy stuff to the populace of England, and in all likelihood, other populaces (or populi as some are apt to say) as well. On further inspection, the similarities are startling. Is our president an older brother? Is the ADS creepy? Si to all of the above.

People, we are living in 1984.

------------------------------------

(2). Jamba Juice and Taco Bell will probably kill you.

There seems to be an epidemic of food related disease going around:

- Jamba juice has apparently served 1,800 pounds of strawberries possibly contaminated with listeria, a disease with a 20% mortality rate. Ouch. Luckily, the aforementioned strawberries were only located in Arizona, California, and Nevada Jamba Juice locations. I believe this is what they call "Lucky you live Hawaii". But just to be safe, it's probably best to order the secret, legendary, and strawberry-free "White Gummi Bear" for the time being.

- Taco Bell is now dealing with a rash of E. coli contamination amongst it's green onions, forcing it to recall the tainted produce from 5,800 taco bell locations. According to the AP, the Taco Bell E. coli has already infected 36 people across the country. Since I haven't eaten at Taco Bell for several months, I proclaim myself "relatively safe". But what Taco Bell dishes use green onions anyway? Is it just the nachos? Or are trace amounts embedded in most of their dishes? We'll probably never know... until it's too late.

------------------------------------

(3) New York City Bans Trans Fats

New York City is known for a lot of things, mainly: The mafia, gross corruption, and Hillary Clinton. Soon, however, the city will make history as the first city to ban the use of trans fats in its restaurants. For those who don't know what trans fats are, the worlds most complete and accurate source of all information pertaining to nutrition, the wikipedia, has you covered:

"Unlike other fats, trans fats are neither required nor beneficial for health.^[1] Eating trans fat increases the risk of coronary heart disease.^[2] For these reasons, health authorities worldwide recommend that consumption of trans fat be reduced to trace amounts. Trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils are generally considered to be more of a health risk than those occurring naturally.^[3]

Trans fats are increasingly being linked to chronic health conditions (see below), are tightly regulated in a few countries, are mandatory on product labels in many others, and are the central issue in several ongoing lawsuits (particularly against fast food outlets). Many companies are voluntarily removing trans fats from their products, or establishing trans-free product lines."

So, trans fats (A) have no legitimate nutritional purpose, and (B) do a lot of really bad things to the human body. Some experts compare banning trans fats in restaurants to banning lead and arsenic in foodstuffs. But still, does the government have the right to tell private institutions what they can or can't put in their food? Heck yes. If a substance is essentially a poison, it shouldn't be served to the public via delicious, inexpensive fried foods, period. If banning is considered a bit extreme, every purveyor of food should at the very least be required to declare what menu items contain trans fats, as well as the health risks of consuming the said fats, similar to the warning labels placed on boxes of cigarettes. Hopefully, New York City's ban will give chain restaurants a little push towards business practices that are slightly less evil.

------------------------------------

And that's about it.

Democrats are in da' house. And da' senate.

The Democrats now have control of the house, the senate, and more. This is a portion of what the soon-to-be speakerette of the house, Nancy Pelosi, had to say about it:

“Tonight, the American people have entrusted us with their hopes and aspirations, for themselves, their families, and their future. We will honor that trust.

Democrats share the faith and values that Americans uphold in their families and in their communities. We intend, working together, to build a future worthy of that faith, worthy of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, and worthy of the hopes and dreams that Americans have for our children.

Tonight we have made history; now let us make progress.”

First of all, do these politicians really delude themselves into thinking that Americans entrust them with their hopes and aspirations for themselves, their familes, and their future when they vote for them? Generally speaking, the only people whose hopes and dream's depend on certain candidates being elected are the candidates themselves. The Democrats were elected because the Republicans didn't do jack for two years. Nothing else.

Secondly, what faith and values do the Democrats share with the American people? Faith in Socialist government policy? The value of tax increases? Seriously, if there's anything I hate about smarmy political speaches, Republican or Democrat, it's the vague references to American "faith" and "values". Last time I checked there were very few beliefs and values that all Americans shared. Pretending that America is united doesn't make it a reality.

Lastly, I shudder at what this new Democratic "progress" will entail. The Republicans were lousy, but when Republicans are bad, they're Democrats. When Democrats are bad, they're Communists.

________

On another note, Nancy Pelosi scares me. She might as well be Josef Stalin's wife. She's just that scary. The only thing that scares me more than Nancy Pelosi is this page from a children's book entitled "Why Mommy is a Democrat":



There are so many things disturbing about this image, that I scarcely know what to say. This haunting image of fat, slightly demented, liberal squirrels is fundamentally damaging to the deepest levels of the human psyche. For those who wish to inflict further nightmares upon themselves, check out more pages from the book at it's website. The fact that Democrats want the government to act like everyone's "mommy" is precisely the reason why conservatives disagree with them. Everyone already has a mommy. We don't need another one.
_______

On yet another note,
check out the Democrat who's first in line to run for president in '08. And for those who didn't click on the link (you know who you are), it's none other than the beloved governor of Iowa! All the guy needs to do is change his last name from Vilsack to something solid and respectable, like Robertson, become governor of a state that people actually care about, like Nebraska, and he's ready to re-take the whitehouse for the Democrats, the squirrels, and all the good little Americans who just want everyone to share their toys!

It's that time of year again!

Most people assume that absolutely no day of importance stands between the sugar laden gluttony of Halloween (or church approved Halloween substitute) and the poultry laden gluttony of Thanksgiving. This is a huge mistake. On November 7th, all of the people that count will be celebrating the anniversary of Russia's glorious, yet inaptly named, October revolution. Truly, this is a holiday that people near and far can celebrate with zeal. A holiday where we remember that with dedication, armed peasants, and just a little bit of magic, a small group of intellectuals can screw up much of the civilized world for decades! If everyone pitches in, I know we can make this the best Communist Day ever.

For those that want to understand what Communist Day is all about, this is the story of the very first Communist Day, taken straight from the worlds most complete and accurate source of all information pertaining to communism, the Wikipedia:

"On October 25 (November 7), 1917 , Vladimir Lenin led his forces in the uprising in Petrograd, the capital of Russia, against the ineffective Kerensky Provisional Government. For the most part, the revolt in Petrograd was bloodless, with the Red Guards led by Bolsheviks taking over major government facilities with little opposition before finally launching an assault on the Winter Palace on the night from November 6 to November 7. The assault led by Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko was launched at 9:45 p.m. signalled by a blank shot from the cruiser Aurora. The Winter Palace was guarded by Cossacks, Women's Battalion, and cadets (military students) corps. It was taken at about 2 a.m. The latter date was made the official date of the Revolution."

Of course, the story doesn't end there. Legend says that every Communist Day eve, jolly old Saint Lenin travels all over the world in his magic sleigh pulled by flying musk-oxen, to wreck his terrible vengeance on the bourgeoisie oppressors, and to visit the houses of all the little boys and girls. Good children are given an extra allowance of potatoes to make it through the harsh winter, but the naughty children are shipped to labor camps in Siberia. I hope everyone's been extra good this year!

But what's a holiday without some rousing holiday songs? On Communist Day, the accepted custom is to sing random passages from the Communist Manifesto to the tune of Bob Dylan's classic song Positively 4th Street. The words usually don't match up to the tune, and the results are often incoherent and obnoxious, so the spirit of Mr. Dylan's original song is kept relatively intact.

And don't forget about the food! On Communist Day, the whole community gathers together and plunders the home of the nearest wealthy man, taking special care to obtain any foodstuffs that may be found on the premises. The food that has been confiscated from the oppressor is then cooked over an open fire that has been lit in a public place, preferably a WalMart parking lot. Following the meal, the adjacent WalMart can be protested against, vandalized, or destroyed, depending on individual discretion.

Presents can also be exchanged on Communist Day, but must consist solely of potatoes grown on public land. All other presents must be considered bourgeoisie and are to be discarded as relics of capitalist oppression. On the surface, the humble potato may seem like a meager gift, but in the hands of the determined worker of the world, it has a seemingly endless array of uses, and should be received with gratitude. Remember: it is not just a potato, but a potato of liberation.

So this year, remember to make November 7th a day you'll cherish always, and may the Communist spirit last throughout this year and the next!