News from Last Night's Town Forum: A Recap

Last night I and other progressives attended the Town Hall Forum on Health Care Reform thrown by our Republican congressman, Spencer Bachus. Here in the predominately white section of the Metro Birmingham, Alabama, area we knew from the outset, that the congressional district in which we live is so overwhelmingly GOP in makeup. As such, we were well aware that we were going to be severely outnumbered at the event. However, what we didn't make allowance for was just how outnumbered we were going to be. Many estimates projected that a total of 1,500 concerned citizens turned out to listen, boo the referee and the other team, and ask questions. Of those, maybe thirty or so were on our side. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers (and sisters).




What the local media did not report, however, was a very important element of the event that would have explained quite a bit to those not in attendance. Whether by design or purely by coincidence, most who turned out were working class, primarily rural whites living in small towns in the surrounding area, who are not surprisingly among the reddest of the red. Almost no one who opposed to the proposed plan was well-educated, affluent, or part of the so-called country club Republican set. This meant that the amount of ignorance, misinformation, rowdy behavior, and occasionally atrocious grammar they exhibited was on painful display, especially as the night wore on. At times, I swear I thought the Civil War was about to resume at any moment.



Congressman Bachus proved himself moderately adept at playing to the crowd---making sure to play the Jesus card with a kind of pious reverence and also making special effort to cite the bravery and valor of our fighting men and women in uniform. As he is not a particularly good actor, he came off seeming not much smarter than they and it was easy to see how little conviction he placed behind making these safe, crowd-pleasing statements. In truth, he didn't have to be a very good cheerleader or salesman. The masses didn't necessarily require or demand anyone with much skill at presentation, they just needed someone to say it so they could cheer, clap, or yell along in solidarity. What was supposed to be an honest discussion began, as we all expected it would, with a self-serving attempt to shore up his base and keep them satisfied that he would keep their interests at heart when he returned to Washington, DC.



And as I surveyed the mass of people opposing us, my thoughts turned to what then-Candidate Obama said in his speech on race in Philadelphia.

Their experience is the immigrant experience. As far as they're concerned, no one gave them anything. They've built it from scratch.

Truer words could never be spoken. This simple belief ran through every fear, every half-truth, every distortion, and every jingoistic platitude that most of the audience expressed vocally while at the microphone. Unlike some, I didn't automatically hate or revile these people. Rather, I felt sorry for them and I pitied their condition. Please don't take this the wrong way. I don't mean what I've said condescendingly. What I recognized in listening to their questions is that these people were absolutely starving for substantive discourse and food for thought but so rarely got it in their daily lives. Their class envy and inferiority complex towards those with education and superior financial means showed up frequently. With it I again understood how the practice of keeping the masses dumbed down, or out of the loop due to a lack of educational opportunity, or blinded by cynicism to such a degree that they do not believe participation makes a difference one way or another is a reprehensible, yet depressingly effective tactic. Their behavior, be it occasionally shouting down one of our speakers or treating those of us who favored a government-run solution as though we had leprosy could not be described as malicious or virulent. If their conduct was anything, it was impotence disguised as bravery, self-doubt disguised as cockiness, and confusion disguised as straight talk. There were no fist-fights, no moments of high drama, no pushing and shoving, and no heated confrontations between people in attendance. There were one or two of the same wingnuts with fifty page manifestos to pass out that show up at every function like this. But what did exist was in many ways more upsetting. It was a group of people who had embraced fear and emotion because they didn't have enough understanding of the topic to be able to contemplate the matter rationally.




The biggest rebel yells of what was, in all fairness, a Republican Pep Rally broke out when the controversial topic of illegal immigration was brought up by a participant at the microphone. Eager to introduce it onto the floor, Bachus and his people brought forth a slide they had prepared for the occasion designed to underline how much illegal immigration cost the average taxpayer. But only a moment or so later, after the Congressman mentioned for the fourth time that our country was broke, I mentioned to the woman sitting next to me that if we were truly broke, how we could afford to build a border fence or pay to have more border patrol police. A few people of an opposing view were sitting behind us and listening to what we were saying amongst ourselves. For a moment or so they were reduced to silence, since apparently they had never thought of the matter in those terms. In response to what we had noted, one woman to the right of me in the crowd noted without much conviction that we ought to consider throwing out all of Congress and start again. The transformation was telling. Representative Bachus had been these peoples' champion for most of the night and now many were beginning to see his limitations and the limitations of their own previously held points of view. Certainly this doesn't mean that they won't vote for him next year while holding their nose or even that they'll become Democrats and embrace a progressive agenda, but they might contemplate the matter more closely henceforth.





We did manage to catch Representative Bachus in an inaccuracy a few times when he made statements that were clearly wrong or distorted. For example, he stated firmly that people making less $35,000 in this state were automatically eligible for Medicaid. His point in saying so was to assert that, in his opinion, the existing system has no gaping flaws and doesn't need to be reformed. That was so egregiously wrong that I couldn't help but shout out, "Not in this state!" He seemed genuinely taken aback. In reality, in this state, one cannot make any more than roughly $16,000 a year and single people like me are often left out of the loop altogether. One must have at least one child before it is likely that anyone, no matter how deserving can receive the benefits. The only other option to receive Medicaid benefits is if one files for disability, but if one does that, he or she is stating officially that he or she is too ill or too injured to work. Most people I know (and this includes myself) want to work and are quite willing to pay into the system to fund the program. Moreover, a disability payment check per month pays out so little that it places one at the poverty line automatically, that is, assuming one wasn't there already. Aside from private health care, which is very expensive to buy if one's employer or lack of employer doesn't provide it, Medicaid is often the only way in this state where one can receive even some modicum of health care coverage. I know this quandary well because I recently lost my own Medicaid and have been scrambling to find ways to have my prescription drugs covered or at least somewhat paid for because the cost out of pocket is so prohibitively high.

To return to the Town Hall---the first hour and a half of it was devoted to those who opposed the government option, for whatever reason. Representative Bachus, to his credit, did allow those of us who favored Health Care Reform to speak at the end. And it was at that point that the self-satisfied, smug, arrogance that had characterized most of the Town Hall switched abruptly to sober realization. The protocol at the beginning to ask a question was to write it down on a notecard, at which point the card would be drawn out of a hat. If you were one of the lucky ones, you then read your question in front of the audience. However, by the end, in a barely concealed and highly hypocritical magnanimous gesture, he allowed our side the ability to speak in front of the microphone without needing go to through the assigned system, a pose adopted in a pretense of fairness. When an African-American woman attached to an oxygen tank due to a chronic illness that might soon kill her began to talk, I noticed a huge polar shift in attitudes and emotions in the room. She talked about the amount of money private insurance companies swindled out of her because the cost of her treatment exceeded what they were willing to pay. Though many found her question antagonistic and rambling, I did notice that the previous starch and enthusiasm of the crowd waning precipitously. Though I wish she had kept more to the point, I couldn't help but empathize with her situation. Next, her son, a young man soon to enter the Naval Academy, came up to the microphone next and asked the Congressman why we could always find the money to fund wars or other pet projects but that somehow when Health Care Reform is brought up in Republican circles, everyone asks, "How much is this going to cost?" His answer was also somewhat rambling, and he was shouted down by a few in the audience, but not everyone. Bachus was set back on his heels and made no attempt to answer the question. This question clearly rattled most of the audience as well. No matter what side you were on, the previous cock-sure bravado on display at the outset never returned for the rest of the Town Hall.

At that point, many people in the Conference Center began to file out. Either they had heard enough or they had begun to understand that the issue was much more complicated than they had been led to believe. It was a largely deflated crowd that left the Town Hall last night and the difference between the outset of the festivities and their conclusion was as different as chalk and cheese. I suppose we might consider that something of a victory in and of itself. Even so, I'm not sure we really changed any minds last night. While I hope we at least gave people reason to think more critically about their hasty generalizations and base prejudices, one really has no way of knowing whose mind was open enough to think of things in a different way. What I drew out of the whole matter is that if most people were given the ability to have and use critical thinking rather than pure emotion or facile talking points, there's no telling how many needed reforms and proposals to aid all of humanity that we would have enacted by now.

The Media are a Reflection of Ourselves

This morning, MSNBC's First Read section included a particularly stinging criticism of President Obama's recent Town Hall forum for Health Care Reform in Colorado, stating that when someone (namely, Obama) goes after the media, they are usually on the losing end of an issue. While some recent politicians I could mention have been quick to pounce on the media as clear-cut evidence that they have been mistreated and slandered, I think in this instance Obama's decision has some major credibility, but not, I cannot emphasize enough, necessarily in the way one might first think. Jumping on the media with both feet might well be a time-honored sport for politicians or for anyone in the public eye. Our own suspicious attitudes give it a wholly sufficient degree of veracity and even if it doesn't exist at all, our wholesale belief in the matter makes it so.

The media, like us, has its own intrinsic bias because we, individually, have our own intrinsic bias. That is entirely unavoidable and despite measures that have been enacted in the past like the Fairness Doctrine, and in spite of begin taught, way back in Mass Communications 101 that any responsible journalist ought to embrace an objective stance when conveying the news, one also cannot help but be human, too. It's tough to short-circuit or re-wire human nature. Under the pretense of building a civilized society, we've been at that for thousands of years, but we've still got a long way to go. Just as personal experience colors our own political sensibilities, it dictates how we perceive the events which directly relate to us. One of the reasons the Health Care debate has been so notably vocal (and vituperative) is that this matter certainly cannot be discussed in the realm of the abstract. We all know what it is like to be sick or hurt or to see close family members suffer.

One of the the toughest lessons for me to choke down when I was in graduate school studying history is that even history itself, which one would think aimed to portray a more-or-less objective picture of past truths, actually has embedded bias everywhere. Much like in the media, some of it is deliberate, and some of it is unconscious. The facts in sequence a historian pulls together to represent and emphasize his or her own valid and well-reasoned version of the truth frequently reveals his or her own sense of their importance. Yet, before someone makes another baseless claim that this is somehow proof that liberal activist college professors are brainwashing our youth, conservative scholars do the very same thing in their scholarly articles, books, and textbooks. And, for that matter, so does the media. If you don't believe me, do me a favor and turn on your television right now.

Watch any cable news network for an hour. Look at the juxtaposition of news stories. Observe the captions placed underneath each news event. Forget for a moment what the talking heads are arguing about this moment. Notice that certain networks cover particular stories and place less emphasis on others. Or, better yet, turn the sound off of whatever channel you're watching and just focus on the screen. Look at whether the anchors are male or female, White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Native American. In each individual story, note what social class from which those interviewed come. Observe how they are dressed. I'm sure that as the perceptive viewer you are will see more beyond this, too, but you're making a good start. I myself first noticed this phenomenon some months back. You see, I have the good fortune of being able to work out at a gym almost every day. This allows me the ability to watch as many as twelve different channels simultaneously as I exercise, if I wish. As a result, I position myself quite deliberately in between the monitors beaming out all of the major twenty-four hour news channels. The interplay between each of them is as telling as what they themselves individually choose to air.

Beyond bias and beyond ulterior motive, no matter how well-intentioned, know this much. We are, to a very large extent, the media. When I fill out a Nielsen survey, my data helps determine what programs live or die, how current programming needs to be changed to get the greatest advertising market share, and what new programming needs to look like to produce the greatest amount of revenue for networks. So when President Obama or anyone else criticizes the media, he or she is criticizing each of us, to some degree. Let me add that I simply do not believe that the media has some kind of hidden agenda dictated by a smoke-filled room in some mysterious corporate boardroom. I do know that it can be easily swept up in all the same cross-currents, distractions, and hyperbole as we ourselves can. To an ever-increasing degree, we determine the role to which the media plays in our lives and we make some active and also some passive decisions which determine its level of influence. If we believed it had no basis on our lives or we saw no need for it, it would cease to exist altogether. And whether or not you see it as a needed tool or a necessary evil, it will always have a role to some extent. The media may have an agenda, but there will always be a counter-balance between the soft paternalism of what it advances and the compulsion to design content based on how many people tune in and watch.

If I could encourage the media to be more transparent in any direction, I would ask them if they'd be willing to be more open about the particulars of the news values upon which it functions. Some of them are common sense and some of them aren't. They are, in short, a set of criteria about what gets covered and what does not. Nothing breeds conspiracy theories, as evidenced by this Health Care debate, like a lack of substantive fact or information. These criteria can be found in any college textbook, so it's not like keeping people in the dark about them can be justified as a matter of national security. The media might find itself less on the defensive and more on the offensive if it attempted to refute the vast amount of misinformation about the industry. I'm sure that some amount of backstage politics and power plays factor into it, as is true with every organization, but if the media wouldn't act like one has to learn the secret handshake to achieve a greater realization of its purpose and its functionality, it might not have a need to criticize politicians or people, too.

Flying on the Ground is Wrong

Quote of the Week

"That old man with the burning eyes actually believes that there can be such a thing as the brotherhood of man. And that's not the funniest part of it. As long as he's around I believe it myself."- Heywood Brown, speaking at the eulogy of Socialist crusader Eugene V. Debs.

What We're Not (But Could Be) Saying about Health Care

When I recognize with no small amount of disappointment that the public option, if enacted, won't begin until 2013, then I recognize that I and many other people will have to deal with the ridiculous rules and restrictions governing our only current public option. For those who are under retirement age or disabled for less than two years, Medicaid is the only health care system by which the poor and disabled receive coverage. Frequently underfunded, dictated by draconian rules which frequently disqualify needy people, and subsidized with great reluctance by many (red) states, by I find it exceptionally ironic that the very Republicans and right-wingers now pushing back against any semblance of reform, while claiming to be honest-to-God Christians seem to have forgotten this passage of scripture.

"For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.'

In Washington, DC, where I have spent much time recently, I made a point to look at the benefits provided those who qualify for the District's Medicaid program. In big, bold, almost bragging terms, the extensive .pdf file stating all the particulars of the program asserted proudly that dentistry was covered, noting that this placed their program it in great contrast to Medicaid coverage in other states. What was not mentioned, however, was the reason why the District's program provided dental coverage to all. Once, not so very long ago, dentistry was not offered. Five years or so prior, a boy got an abscessed tooth, the family didn't have the money to make sure that it was treated properly or at all, and the child died as a result. Nothing like bad publicity to put in action the things we really should have been doing in the first place.

I had two instantaneous responses upon hearing this tragic story. One was from the Gospel of Matthew.

Then some people brought little children to Jesus to have him bless them and pray for them. But the disciples told the people not to do that.

Jesus, however, said, "Let the little children come to me, and stop keeping them away, because the kingdom of heaven belongs to people like these."

The second was from Robert Penn Warren's opus All The King's Men. Willie Stark was a Louisiana politician loosely based on Huey Long who began with noble intentions, but later became heavily corrupt in the process. The incident which brought him to power is noted below in this summary from another source.

While Willie was Mason County Treasurer, he became embroiled in a controversy over the building contract for the new school. The head of the city council awarded the contract to the business partner of one of his relatives, no doubt receiving a healthy kickback for doing so. The political machine attempted to run this contract over Willie, but Willie insisted that the contract be awarded to the lowest bidder. The local big-shots responded by spreading the story that the lowest bidder would import black labor to construct the building, and, Mason County being redneck country, the people sided against Willie, who was trounced in the next election. Jack Burden covered all this in the Chronicle, which sided with Willie.

Then one day during a fire drill at the new school, a fire escape collapsed due to faulty construction and three students died. At the funeral, one of the bereaved fathers stood by Willie and cried aloud that he had been punished for voting against an honest man. After that, Willie was a local hero.

In Alabama, where I have residency at the moment, dentistry and some mental health coverage is extended only to children and those under the age of twenty-one. It is, of course, denied to those over that age. Part of the reason is that this red state is reluctant to raise a sufficient amount of tax revenue to fully fund these options for all. Part of the reason is that people feel sorry for children. Pardon my boldness, but I think that's an absolutely horrible, inhumane justification employed to extend coverage. Even criminals have a soft spot in their heart for children. Anyone can feel sorry for a child because children are innocent, trusting, and vulnerable. Indeed, it is very easy to sympathize and have pity for children.

If you love those who love you, what reward will you have? Even the tax collectors do the same, don't they?

Are you doing anything remarkable if you welcome only your friends? Everyone does that!

Why don't we extend this same compassion for adults? Are we saying that we can be heartless to adults but not to children? Though it is an unforgivable travesty when a child dies of a totally avoidable medical condition, do we somehow think that if an adult dies of the same malady then we somehow aren't obligated to feel morally responsible? Would we say that he or she had plenty of options and didn't use them? Would we say they were probably cheating the system already and it serves him or her right? How simultaneously merciless and creative are we when we rationalize our refusal to act on behalf of those less fortunate than ourselves.

As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians,

Brothers, stop being childish in your thinking. Be like infants with respect to evil, but think like adults.

At the town hall forums I've see, I recognize quite a bit of childishness behavior in both thinking and in behavior. The wingnuts certainly reflect this, but those who push and shove and threaten to fight others for daring to express their own opinions are no better than they. And often every word I hear reflects a selfish desire to have it precisely they way I think it ought to be. We seem to think we're entitled to the best system in the world without having to pay for it, restrict our bad habits, and especially not to have to to wait very long for an appointment when we need medical care.

Jesus said,

Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.

Faith is not blind trust. Faith has reason behind it, but if we are so consumed to our own reservations, our own fears, and our own selfish worst-case-scenarios that we cannot entertain success or, for that matter, salvation, then we will never reach it. What has all of our intellectualizing gotten us in the end? After all, one can rationalize fascism if one so chooses. The human brain is very good at all kinds of mental games. And if the Kingdom of God is within us, what does it say about who we are? What does it say about what we can do for others who need what we can provide?

Saturday Video

A Short, But Important Entry

My Republican congressman, Spencer Bachus, will beholding a Health Care Town Forum on Monday night, 17 August. I will be in attendance to counter-balance the loonies and the well-meaning conservatives. Unsurprisingly, the town hall will be held in a very affluent part of town, meaning that the people who turn out will be predominately well-heeled and good, solid, reliable GOP voters. Certainly the poor and the low-income residents should have absolutely no say in their matters, because we all know this doesn't apply to them one bit. Hence another reason I intend to show up for the event. I already know what I'm going to ask and I already know what I plan to bring up to make my point.

My only real fear is that there will be so many people who wish to talk that they will end up restricting slots to those who draw a certain lottery number or will adopt some other method of regulating the right to speak to the lucky alone. I will, of course, blog about the experience and my observations of said experience the next day. I don't really expect to encounter many gun-totin' crazies but I do expect to see a frustrating number of Republicans spouting distortions, rumors, and ancient talking points. And I also expect to hear the same ideological points of view that I have never agreed with and wish I could change.

A Health Care V-Blog

Some of what I talk about here has already been covered in prior posts, but I figured I ought to go over it again for the sake of emphasis. The injustice in our health care system is plain to see.




Alabama Medicaid might be able to add 237,000 to its rolls, but only if Federal funding comes through. That's a bit too late for me, though. It would take 90 to 120 days for me to get my Medicaid coverage back.

WASHINGTON -- At least 237,000 Alabamians could gain health coverage through the state Medicaid program under legislation now moving through Congress, according to an official agency estimate, and the expanded rolls could end up costing state taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year.

The estimate, provided at the Press-Register's request, is based on raising the state's stringent income eligibility cutoffs to match the federal poverty income level, now $18,310 a year for a family of three.

Congressional Democrats have proposed going further in the health care legislation being debated in both the House and Senate, but "unanswered questions" make it difficult to gauge the potential impact, Alabama Medicaid spokeswoman Robin Rawls said in an e-mail.

Of the 237,000 who would become newly eligible by matching the federal poverty level, it is unclear how many are now without health insurance, she said, although many would be parents of children already on the rolls.

Even the more modest increase would represent "a tremendous leap in coverage for Alabama," said Jim Carnes, spokesman for Alabama Arise, a Montgomery-based coalition that lobbies on poverty issues. "Right now, we leave parents and working adults at low incomes out in the cold."

In Mississippi, where about a quarter of the state's population participates in Medicaid, spokesman Francis Rullan said it is "premature" to predict the legislation's impact until lawmakers agree on a final bill.

Created in the mid-1960s, the federal/state program pays for various medical services for some 800,000 poor and elderly Alabamians every month; it is also a financial lifeline for many doctors, nursing homes and public hospitals.

Rawls put the cost of increasing eligibility in Alabama at $371 million annually, not including administrative expenses. Under the House measure, the federal government would pick up the full tab for new participants through fiscal 2014, Solomon said, and 90 percent annually after that. But even 10 percent of the tab would be more than the program could handle, Rawls said. "The money is just not there."

At present, the state's income eligibility limits for working adults are among the nation's tightest, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a California-based research organization. Childless adults are generally not eligible; those with families have to be near destitution to qualify.

In the health care debate, public attention has been centered on proposals to add a government-backed "public" health insurance option. Less notice has been paid to plans to expand existing government programs to lessen the ranks of the uninsured.

Nationally, for example, the House bill would add an estimated 11 million people to Medicaid rolls by 2019, said Judith Solomon, a health care specialist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank also based in the nation's capital.

For the current fiscal year, Alabama Medicaid has a $4.9 billion budget. While a funding formula typically puts the federal government's portion at close to 70 percent, that share has grown this year because of extra money funneled through an economic stimulus bill. The added funding will be available through the end of next year, Rawls said.

More Than a Mob Mentality

Having listened with much chagrin at the uncivil discourse at these Town Hall forums, I'd like to ask a few questions, rather than return fire with my own incredulous anger. Rather than ripping into these people, no matter how justified an act that might be, we might seek to understand why there is this degree of unreasoned, irrational anger in our society. I could point fingers at a long list of wholly understandable things: a government that has historically promised much and delivered little, a belief in cynicism so intense that a sense of powerlessness results, a society in the middle of a shift to a fully information-based economy, a history of anti-intellectualism that discourages developed opinion, a supposed War on Terror that quickly bogged down in Iraq, an economic recession that further exacerbated existent negative growth, and a tremendous amount of change that has occurred in a short period of time, just to name a few. Where we place the blame is not nearly as important as acknowledging that this degree of fear and hostility is very real.

The media, like me, or for that matter, like us, are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to make sense of these events. There really may not be any rational conclusion to draw from a group of disaffected and misinformed citizens. When tempers flare, the effect produced, regardless of the speaker is not a particularly endearing one and it cheapens whatever legitimacy such people might have held in the beginning, but rather than almost infantilizing them, a better path towards understanding might conceivably be trod. I remember seeing a French documentary of Idi Amin from the 1970's, General Idi Amin Dada: A Self-Portrait, whose chilling final lines read, in part,

...Let us not forget that it is a partially a deformed image of our own selves that Idi Amin Dada reflects back at us.

While, the specific context of the piece refers to the complicit role that French colonialism and imperialism formed in creating a monster, in this context, it highlights that these deluded souls are corruptions of ourselves. It could also be argued that our own inaction and our own refusal to speak out and combat these unfounded views prior to now did much to create what we see before us. That so many could place full belief and full trust in lies is food for thought for each of us. When lies provide easy answers for complex matters or when lies are all certain people have at their disposal, then we all suffer in the process.

The views expressed by these people may be little more than innuendo, gossip, immature logic, urban legend, and unfounded supposition but regardless of where all of this came from, for these people, these fears are very real. To dismiss them with caustic disdain and reduce them to cranks, or wingnuts, or coordinated efforts by right-wing groups to prevent health care reform is to only see one facet of a very complex gemstone. Nor is the nature of their response anything particularly unknown to history. For example, during the Depression, small groups of radicalized and emotionally charged farmers led protests and infrequent, but nevertheless violent responses in their communities, but then, as now, they were highly isolated events. No wholesale protest on a massive scale ever saw the light of day, and this fact alone might give us reason to question the wisdom of being frustrated that we alone can't seem to cobble together a unified voice. Americans are rarely unified people. Though we may live in the United States, we also live as united individuals first, united states second, and united countrymen third.

Perhaps, in all seriousness, we might be wise to give these misguided souls an outlet. In the colonial days and before, governments often allowed there to be a certain degree of acceptable debauchery and drunken revelry. Provided that the proceedings did not get out of hand, there were certain times every year that the masses were encouraged to let their hair down and be momentarily irresponsible. The theory behind this was that doing so was a necessary pressure release that allowed people to blow off steam so that their pent up frustration did not bubble over into something more sinister later. We might considering doing something like that again, provided, now as was then, that people understood that if violence or chaos broke out that the event would never be scheduled again.

What would be even better, of course, is if we could find a way to channel peoples' often completely justified anger into something far more productive and constructive. I am not naive. There are all kinds of mechanisms, organizations, tactics, groups, power bases, and the like who exist to prevent this very thing from happening so I certainly recognize that it isn't as easy as just proposing an idea and casting it out into the world. We all have our theories. Some say it's a simple matter of extending greater educational opportunity. Some say we ought to provide a better means for everyone to attain some degree of wealth. Some say that de-emphasizing the right-wing faiths that keep people in designated positions of servitude and powerlessness is the first step.

And in this situation I will openly claim that I don't have the answer. Much like you who are reading this, I have a few proposals myself and maybe even a well-reasoned plan of action behind it. It should be said that for big picture issues like this, I'm more interested with encouraging healthy debate and hopefully generating unique solutions in others than being right or believing I've got the answer. Every one of the issues listed above have been fomenting and fermenting in our group consciousness for a very long time and sometimes all any of us can do is propose an interesting hypothesis. If we contribute our bit and allow other to do the same, we have not failed. If we accomplish at least this much, we have no reason to angrily rant and rave at a Senator or Congressperson, or embrace conspiracy theories, or threaten to pick a fight, or resort to attention-getting stunts to get our point across to a President or to the media.

When I Listen to All These Town Forums, I'm Reminded of This Scene

To Crack the Glass Ceiling, First Believe It Can Be Done

An eye-opening study attempting to shed some light as to why women are reluctant to take managerial roles and are paid less than men comes to the conclusion that women create their own self-imposed glass ceiling. The good news is, as the article states, that such attitudes of automatic devaluation have subsided drastically over the generations. Women over the age of fifty, according to the study, have the hardest time admitting their truth worth to employers and the answer is due in part to long-standing beliefs that they are not as worthy or capable as men.

However, it does shift some of the blame away from men and the willful evil of a Patriarchal society, acknowledging that women have a role in their subordination. Certainly women, particularly of a certain generation did not create the problem and while it is unfair that they themselves need to eradicate attitudes they themselves did not create, nevertheless they will still need to redouble their efforts towards breaking the chains and fixing the problems they partially created for themselves. Believing that positive change can actually happen is the beginning.

Speaking from a purely feminist perspective, the major differences highlighted here between generational attitudes of women further underline the second-wave versus third-wave divide in the movement. It pleases me greatly when I read about how younger women feel more empowered to honestly state their views with confidence, believing firmly and with good cause that they will be taken seriously. It also pleases me greatly that they are more compelled to take higher level management positions and aspire to positions of authority. Second-wavers, however, still have an unfortunate tendency to want to exist in a time warp, responding to life as though reform never occurs, change cannot happen, and nothing will ever be different. Or maybe these attitudes are simply a dusty part and parcel of an era that is gratefully not our own anymore. Many are still held hostage by past sins and I agree with this article that the best solution is to open their eyes and embrace the new reality that some still believe is not here yet. The irony is that, in my respects they won the war and yet they act like no one told them that major hostilities were over.

This study's alternate title might be: Beware the dual power of self-fulfilling prophecy and low expectations. What is not in debate is the notion that sexism exists and plays a major role in the proceedings. What is in debate is whether the very idea of the glass ceiling deserves a much more nuanced definition and understanding. Fully applicable to this discussion is the Eleanor Roosevelt quote--"no one can make you feel inferior without your consent." Any social injustice will, by its very nature, create this pervasive response of inferiority and low esteem. The example that comes to my mind first is the study where African-American children were shown dolls with white features and dolls with black features. When asked which of them they liked better, they chose the white dolls.

What I am glad to see questioned is the idea that prejudice and discrimination are a passive exchange from oppressor to oppressed. That has never seemed like a satisfactory explanation to resolve anything. Neither am I advancing victim blaming. Living products of a society that long preached and to a lesser extent still preaches submissiveness and deference to men, women need not be shouldered with any of the blame. But there comes a time where taking the steps necessary to reach upwards towards the light of empowerment and equal citizenship comes with some degree of obligation to refuse to reinforce stereotypical notions. What would be foolishness personified would be to blame the Patriarchy while doing absolutely nothing in one's own life to push back against it.

Don't Worry about the Donut Hole, First Put Down the Donut

An article on MSNBC's website explores the idea of restricting medical coverage or charging extra taxes and fees on those people who simply refuse to take care of their bodies. Those who stubbornly maintain unhealthy practices, thus creating significant health problems for themselves in the process, it is proposed, ought not to expect to be covered by a public plan. Or, rather they ought to required to pay into the system to cover the inevitable cost of surgery or treatment when their bad habits end up costing taxpayers paying to sustain the public option. In some respects, the latter proposal exists already, as those who continue to smoke despite decades of proven research that directly correlates smoking with debilitating, and highly preventable diseases, are already forced to pay private carriers to defray the cost of expensive treatment later in life. Countries with fully socialized medical systems already tax cigarettes severely, operating under the sensible notion that if a person is going to destroy his or her body, he or she ought to have at least paid several hundred, if not thousand dollars into the kitty before they need that first oxygen tank, or for that matter, lung.

Though I personally agree with both proposals, the devil, as they say, is in the details. Determining a fee scale for fairly weighing the potential cost per person for those not inclined to be healthy would be tricky. Should one need to pay $50 a month into the system if he or she continues to remain morbidly obese and adheres to a steady regimen of fattening foods? Why not $40 instead? Why not $60? What if the person claims he or she has a medical condition that makes losing weight very difficult? If so, should we make an exception for him or her, or should he or she be scheduled for a gastric bypass, instead? Based on what specific condition or conditions should we charge and how frequent should payment be required? Each person involved in the process would probably have his or her own preferred way of handling the matter.

Also unmentioned in the MSNBC article is the element of race--or rather, what our reaction to the element of race would be if someone invoked it. Since many African-Americans still live in poverty, and since poverty frequently fosters obesity---for those who eat a poor diet and keep poor health behaviors, attempting to introduce the idea of personal responsibility into health coverage could quickly become sidetracked by an accusation (though completely groundless) of racism. It needs to be noted that the charge would not really stick because these identical risk factors exist within every demographic of low-income residents across the board, regardless of racial identity. I thought I might focus on the southeast specifically for the rest of this entry because it's a region I know best and it has the highest percentage of people who would conceivably be instructed to either pay into the system or to die sooner as a result of bad health habits.

Included in the above article is a graph pointing out the percentage of obesity in every state of the union. Three of the highest are in the southeast and the forth is a predominately white state, West Virginia. Yet, if you survey from state to state, obesity by percentage is usually only a few points off of those highs for our entire country. The South has a well-deserved reputation as the stroke belt because of its combination of those who eat a poor, unhealthy diet, a large percentage of people of all stripes living in poverty, a high percentage of residents who smoke, and a large number of residents who live sedentary lifestyles while rarely taking the time to exercise. This has been a serious issue for decades, but no one has ever seen fit to address it directly.

Indeed, while the description might well apply to many people in the United States, it is particularly applicable to the South. The region's rate of heart attack, heart disease, lung cancer, high blood pressure, stroke, and diabetes are distressingly high. Dixie is also is home to a large proportion of African-Americans whose ancestors were taken by force and pressed into slavery until the practice was finally banned at the end of the Civil War. Those who did not leave the South during the Great Migration for the promise of less white supremacy and more opportunity in the North settled very close to where their ancestors had been forcibly taken, nearly a century before, and they continue to live there today. Poverty in these places often resembles that of a third world country and in some instances, it is so extreme that indoor plumbing or electricity are often in short supply or sometimes not even present altogether, even now in the twenty-first century. I don't think it's any surprise or wonder that the health of these people suffers greatly as a result, but what is true is that these people, who are the poorest of the poor, would be obligated to either pay to maintain their bad habits or have their coverage denied if it was deemed avoidable had different lifestyle choices been taken, instead.

But, before one cries foul, take into account their neighbors of a different skin color. One only needs to travel a few miles in any direction to locate the poor whites. Their economic condition might be a bit better, but their level of health is often just as bad. Here, as before, residents adhere to a diet of fried, fatty foods, if not relying intermittently on fast food to augment an already poor diet. Cigarettes, if not snuff are the opiates of the masses. This is a culture satiated by advertising and glorified bad habits and as such they are rarely informed enough to see past the manipulative advertising tactics that freely exploit them and reinforce bad habits. Good health is one thing, but if you don't live in a place that places a premium on the practice, doesn't provide opportunities for pursuing preventative care, and you don't know what preventative care actually means, then what you have going for you is the realization that you shouldn't smoke (but you do), you ought to eat better (but you don't), and you ought to exercise (but you keep putting it off).

To back up a bit, what always gets me about charges of racism or racial bias is that they all seem to stem from the same premise--the belief that that black culture and white culture are completely dissimilar in every way and do not brush up against each other. If you took the notion at face value, you'd think both lived not just on different planets, but also on wholly different solar systems. However, it should be said that no two groups of people can ever live in close proximity to each other while engaging in frequent contact without influencing each other to a great degree. One might have noticed that the bad health habits of both poor whites and poor blacks were remarkably similar to each other, if not identical. One might have noticed or at least noted that the diet of poor people, regardless of race, tends to also be completely similar, if not almost interchangeable. It is deeply unfortunate that we don't often give credence to this fact, because if we did, we might find we had more in common then we ever did in opposition.

Though I am biased because I was born in the South, I think that the reason the South by turns such an interesting, maddening, fascinating, and frustrating part of the country is because there was this cross-pollination and interplay between blacks and whites. It continues today, though Hispanic immigration has muddied the dynamic and added a brand new flavor to the old ways. And before we make snap judgments about who lives and who dies, or who pays what, when, and how much, we would be wise to examine the bigger picture. I'm in favor of giving people a financial incentive to stay healthy, if for no reason that I don't delight in seeing people suffer in pain and in sickness when a better strategy would spare them of it. But I also know that if we are quick to throw loaded terms like racism or discrimination around when a sober discussion of the facts would be much better served, then we rarely accomplish more than acting like children. When we throw these terms around these days, we take our time-honored positions and begin lobbing grenades at each other, but rarely do we ever reach a "teachable" moment. We don't really know how to listen. We just know how to be outraged.

Pictures of Me

Start, stop, and start
Stupid acting smart
Flirting with the flicks
You say it's just for kicks

You'll be the victim of your own dirty tricks
You got yourself to tease and displease

Doors swinging wide
You walked in to hide
Looking at your feet
Failure's complete

Saw you and me on the coin-op TV
Frozen in fear every time we appear
I'm not surprised, and really, why should I be?

See nothing wrong
See nothing wrong

So sick and tired of all these pictures of me
Completely wrong
Totally wrong

Go walking by
Here comes another guy

Jailer who sells personal hells
Who'd like to see me down on my fucking knees
Everybody's dying just to get the disease

I'm not surprised, and really, why should I be?

See nothing wrong
See nothing wrong

So sick and tired of all these pictures of me
Completely wrong
Totally wrong
I'm not surprised, and really, why should I be?

See nothing wrong
See nothing wrong

So sick and tired of all these pictures of me
Oh, everybody's dying just to get the disease

Everybody's dying just to get the disease
Everybody's dying just to get the disease

The Cost of Unpaid Hopes and Dreams

The dubious practice of unpaid internships was designed to provide college students hands-on experience at an existing company or organization in their chosen field, often giving them for the first time a true idea of the daily responsibilities of their eventual career. Now it seems that those who are much older, have much more experience, and more substantive financial means as a result are taking these jobs in hopes that doing so might give them an advantage in taking a brand new career path or to bolster their own resumes. This, of course, leaves many students out of the loop and eliminates their ability to work an unpaid position. But, in true American fashion, for every problem, there is often a solution, provided one can pay enough for the privilege.

According to a recent article in The New York Times, students (but increasingly their parents) are paying internship placement services substantial sums of money to ensure that they locate an applicable position as an unpaid intern. If ever we needed more proof of the fact that we are living in a decadent society, the fact that people are willing, quite voluntarily, to shell out cold hard cash in order to obtain an unpaid job could not be more glaring evidence.

I have always believed that there was something inherently wrong in principle about the very idea of unpaid labor. Volunteer jobs are one thing, but the implicit understanding of volunteer labor from the beginning is that it's meant to be sporadic and meant to be somewhat banal. Volunteers set their own time table and their own hours, which is why the tasks they perform should not be considered gainful employment. Internships, however, are full time occupations that require a serious commitment of time and energy and as such they are identical to other positions in the same organization that are paid and are provided benefits in return for services rendered.

A few months back, I spoke with a young woman who was desperately trying to finish her Master's Degree in social work. In the process of getting her degree she was balancing her remaining classwork with one part-time internship for which she was monetarily compensated, and another part-time internship job for which she was not. She admitted, with no small frustration, that if it wasn't for student loan money, she would not have the ability to make this arrangement work. As it was, she was barely able to sustain herself, pay for rent, feed herself, and cover other basic necessities. Yet, in the same breath she informed me with great pride that she was sure that having worked a prior unpaid internship job at another organization had given her the ability to attain her current position as the hired, but uncompensated help. She might have been able to list an impressive work history on her resume, but I couldn't help but think of how unfair it was that even completely unpaid jobs had their own hierarchy and pecking order.

I recall how I myself wanted to slave away at an unpaid internship position during my undergraduate days. The position was at a non-profit political activist group devoted to finding ways to improve voter turnout among lower income residents. Even though I had a scholarship which paid my tuition (though not textbooks, an expense I am grateful my parents covered), my father could not be convinced that working a full-time job for which I received not even a dime's worth of salary was a good option for me or anyone. Since he alone would have had to cover my living expenses, I quickly realized that I wouldn't be able to accept the organization's offer. Though I was disappointed then, I understand his reservations now.

What I can't help but notice is that in this country, we like to highlight instances of racism, sexism, and homophobia in an effort to hopefully eradicate them someday from the face of the earth. This is well and good and an attitude wrought of high-born, noble sentiment. However, what almost no one ever confronts in our society is the virulent scourge of classism. No controversy rages on the blogsophere, the cable news channels, or the news services about a shameful classist incident that reminds us of our classist past. Classism is a real phenomenon that supersedes and is more pervasive than any of these other societal ills combined. It goes well beyond skin color, gender, or the treatment of LGBT citizens. It clouds our perspectives so much that we are frequently unaware of how we perpetuate classist responses and reactions to situations. We have been known to tilt at windmills on behalf of other problems of prejudice with -ism endings, but we would be wise to channel a bit of that energy towards something else.

It is heavily classist that unpaid internship jobs, assuming they even provide eventual employment, are extended only to those who have the economic means to attain them. It is even more classist that only those who have the finances based on fortunate birth and can afford live off of their parents' nickel while working an unpaid internship job. The implication, whether by design or creation, is that only middle to upper middle to upper class students ought to take these jobs. No deserving working class kid need apply, because he or she simply won't be able to fit the criteria. Since this matter negatively impacts class rather than any other grouping, it affects Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgenders, Men, and Women. It might be is easier for us to showcase a struggle in two easily identifiable and delineated camps, which may explain why classism isn't often alluded to or pointed out. We are all complicit in its continued existence and thus it is situations like the one noted above that ought to make us aware of just how deeps the roots of the problem lie.

Quote of the Week

An opinion, right or wrong can never constitute a moral offense, nor be in itself a moral obligation. It may be mistaken; it may involve an absurdity, or a contradiction. It is a truth, or it is an error; it can never be a crime or a virtue.- Frances Wright

A Brief Reflection

Would it be unforgivably tactless of me to mention that while I do not agree with anything that South Carolina First Lady Jenny Sanford stands for politically, I think she's hot?*

*Said statement does not extend to Sarah Palin

PETA Correspondence, Part Two

PETA wrote back. First, their response, then mine. Thanks are due to those who suggested links and provided them in your comments to previous posts.

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply to our previous message.

For many years, animal protection organizations had gone, hat in hand, to the powers that be, asking them politely to stop hurting animals—and making very little progress. Early on, PETA realized that, for groups advocating social change, it's more important to be effective than popular. This doesn't mean that we go out of our way to offend people. On the contrary, we much prefer working in cooperation with companies or agencies to find a solution to a problem, and we're often successful with such negotiations. But many of those meetings may never have occurred if the decision makers weren't eager to avoid the embarrassment of a public campaign.

We're aware that many of our tactics strike some people as being silly or extreme—in fact, we hear it often enough that we've devoted an entire page on our Web site to the topic. But basically, the reason is simple: We do what works. We're always looking for new ways to reach people, but sometimes it seems as though we've tried everything—and I mean everything—practical and legal to get our message across (though, I should add, we have never thrown red paint on fur-wearers, despite that persistent myth), and we keep the things that have proven effective.

PETA works in a wide variety of ways, however, because there is no one method that will work equally well for everyone. As you mentioned, we do use graphic images showing the conditions for animals on factory farms, inside laboratories, etc., and we know that they are disturbing. They upset us, too. But they are also a powerful motivator. Our graphic "Meet Your Meat" video, for instance, is our single most effective vegetarian outreach tool precisely because it upsets people—enough to want to do something about it. Hardly a day goes by when we don't hear from someone that they never "got it" about an issue affecting animals until they saw it with their own eyes. In the end, blaming the messenger doesn't help animals any more than averting our eyes—it takes action.

It will also come as no surprise that the media playing field is far from level. The press isn't eager to cover stories about animal rights—especially since many of our campaigns are directed at changing the policies of the corporations who are major advertisers. So, while some people may roll their eyes at our sexy vegetarian contests, and "nude" demonstrations, or celebrity spokespeople, the media can't ignore them, affording us the opportunity to reach people who may never have thought about how their choices affect animals. Even the skeptics are often curious enough to visit our Web site, where they can learn about many of our programs that rarely make it into media coverage of our organization, from our undercover investigations and animal rescue operations to our doghouse deliveries and mobile spay/neuter clinics.

We agree that it is important to have a "big picture" mentality about social issues—as individuals. As an organization, however, PETA's sole focus is animal rights. There are already far more issues affecting animals than PETA can address, and we owe it to our members to use their donations to help animals, as they intended. Our members and supporters are a diverse group with wide-ranging opinions on social and political matters, so we can't presume to speak for them on any issue other than animal rights. Fortunately, our pro-animal activities, with an emphasis on compassion and responsibility, tend to improve the human condition as well.

Although our more provocative campaigns may challenge some sensibilities, PETA is fortunate to have a large (and rapidly expanding) number of dedicated members and supporters—growing from 800,000 to more than 2 million in just the past five years. And the younger generation "gets it" even more: Our youth outreach division, peta2, has the largest youth following of any social justice movement, animal rights or otherwise. We hope that other motivated people will view our successes as a template that may also help advance other causes.

Thanks again for your reply. I hope that this has given you a better understanding of our thinking on the concerns you raised, and that, even though we may not be in complete agreement, we can still work together on those areas in which we do agree.

Regards,

Christine

Christine Doré

Marketing | PETA
christined@peta.org

______________

Dear Christine,

In all honesty, I must say I was not expecting a response at all to my last message but I am surprised and grateful to have received such a detailed e-mail from you. As such, your letter deserves a similarly nuanced and extensive reply.

Before I launch into the guts of your argument, allow me to highlight two websites which are highly critical of PETA's methodology and organizational structure. One of these you might be aware of, and one you are probably not.

The Problem With Peta

PETA Kills Animals

Both of these sites register many of the same reservations I have had and highlight many concerns of which I was not aware until I visited. I include these to bolster my arguments and I hope you will take them into consideration in a spirit of constructive criticism.

Now, to your reply. You cite that, in your own words, it's more important be effective than popular. I agree with that sentiment, but as it pertains to PETA, I still have serious doubts that your tactics are truly effective. I will take your word for it that your organization has never advocated, nor participated in throwing paint on fur coats and that said action is based purely in myth, but I simply do not believe that the admitted methods you use, particularly regarding the graphic display of emotionally charged imagery you use to make your point are anything near a rousing success. I contend again that they are viewed by the general public as extreme and radical, winning you few converts and many detractors in the process. Forgive the comparison, but it seems to me that your strategy is much akin to an anti-abortion protester who holds up a sign displaying a graphic picture of an aborted fetus or even holds an aborted fetus in his/her hand purely for the sake of shock value.

I never doubt PETA's motives nor its intent, but I do frequently doubt its strategy. Additionally, I do not doubt that many companies who practice animal cruelty were unwilling to undergo the embarrassment of a full-scale PETA onslaught and under threat of a major campaign revised their practices accordingly. It is the plight of every activist group to figure out how to shake people out of their complacency, make them realize that there is much injustice in the world, direct them in positive channels towards reforming it, and keep their interest in the process for more than just the short term. But again, I have discovered in my own life and own career that resorting to cheap theatrics and publicity stunts is the quickest way to marginalize the message. Perhaps your intention is not to come across as such, but nevertheless this is how you are perceived by many. Don't get me wrong. Everyone knows who and what PETA is, but if you were a politician, you'd have both high name recognition and high negatives. Intentions aside, in this regard, perception IS reality.

I take some liberty with what you've said regarding your impact on the media. The media is inclined to broadcast your events because you frequently resort to---again, whether intended or not----sensationalist, attention-getting means to attain coverage. Increasingly I find that PETA gets all of maybe a minute on the cable news networks and whatever function, protest, or event you're holding gets billed and noted as "PETA's latest crazy stunt" and they then promptly move on to other stories and other matters. PETA doesn't really have much of a shelf life regarding the interest of the media and will never have it so long as you continue to cling to these same ways. While PETA's reluctant coverage is due in part to the fact that, as you correctly point out, many corporations indebted to the news media profit from animal cruelty, PETA is also at fault for managing to appeal to only to one news value. By this I mean that bizarre and strange news stories, i.e., a PETA event, will be covered to some limited degree because they are so different from the norm, but as you may have noticed they have a very short lifespan and rarely hold up in the media more than a day or two. Stories with a greater news value, however, are covered longer, more intensively, and by more outlets. If you can break out of your conventional ways and really think outside the box, then you'll have more friends and adherents then you could even imagine. And to reiterate, PETA's methodology doesn't just offend SOME sensibilities, it offends MANY sensibilities.

In my opinion, PETA's aim ought to be on reinventing itself and its image in the general public. Right now it has a golden opportunity to do so. I encourage PETA to fully use the internet and New Media to get its message across, particularly when the state of the conventional Mainstream Media is in turmoil as it continues to hemorrhage money and advertising revenue as a result. If your organization refuses to take a long, hard, self-reflective look at itself, then it will always appeal to a very narrow demographic group and for every member it attracts, it will repel two.

Thanks for your reply,

Kevin.

Saturday Video

Dedicated to the public figure of your choice.

The Media's Slow Burn Out

A year or so ago, I began to notice that there was something massively wrong with the picture when viewing the news report of one of my local affiliates. Thinking at first it must be me, I even contemplated adjusting my dial, despite years of being warned that I needn't do such a thing. What had previously been a professionally run, highly competent broadcast was teeming with numerous flaws. They were so painfully frequent that the product looked like it belonged to a high school mass communications class instead of a well-run organization of adults. Rudimentary elements like routine coordination between each anchor, seamless video editing of investigative reports, and maintenance of a proper and consistent audio volume were nowhere to be found.

Even the anchors couldn't disguise their frustration and weariness. Underneath the fake smiles and forced small talk was the specter of anger. The effect produced was surreal and for a moment I felt perhaps I must be watching a movie about a dysfunctional television station. One didn't have to read the headlines and balance sheets to recognize that something was going very, very wrong underneath the surface. At the time, I didn't realize just how dire the situation was, but when read the substantive facts and financial statements which confirmed my initial suspicions, I was shocked to learn that the problem stretched far deeper than I could have ever dreamed. Recently, the owner of one station has filed for bankruptcy and another one has been forced to eliminate some news broadcasts altogether and and in so doing lay off those assigned to it.

In reading stories like these, I don't ever forget that human beings are are the ones suffering the most. I might cheer for the destruction of the greedy corporations now in danger of losing their shirt, but I never forget the people who chose to make their living from it. For example, my first cousin worked for years as an news anchorwoman and roving reporter at several small cities in Alabama and one in Pennsylvania. When, some five years ago, soft news and gossip began to replace more substantive coverage, she was so discouraged by the direction the media was headed that she got out of the field altogether. Though she was not the only person to do so (and certainly will not be the last), she may have been one of the first to abandon ship.

I have to say that the decision shocked me because I recognized that she was setting aside her life's chosen vocation and with it years of preparation. She was effectively scrapping a hard-fought job in an industry that had insisted she sacrifice mightily for the privilege. She had enrolled and receive a Master's degree in Communications from a very prestigious college. She had padded her resume and increased her knowledge of the trade by taking a job as an intern at a local television station, one that required her to awaken five mornings a week at the unholy hour of three o'clock in the morning. After years as a field reporter, she was offered, and accepted a job as a anchor, even though this meant she needed to resume the practice of rising at 3:00 am. And even after all of this, to her credit, she recognized big trouble on the way and had no serious qualms in leaving it all behind.

Naturally, local television news isn't the only major outlet suffering mightily. Like so many other fields, the recession has only exacerbated trends that were already in place. My local newspaper is being forced to reduce salaries five percent to eight percent and after months of assuring employees to the contrary, is going to begin offering buyouts to those who were with the paper for at least five years. Local satellite bureaus devoted to the news of each individual municipality in the metro area will close by the end of the summer, likely shrinking the size of an already reduced daily edition. The trend also extends to magazines and periodicals who have increasing seen their readership embrace online news and online editions.

Increasingly, as many have noted, the mainstream media has tried to emulate New Media purveyors and the blogsophere by either attempting to formulate its own copycat edition, with notably minimal success, or it has shamelessly poached ideas in a desperate effort to stem the bleeding. I've actually heard some commentators mention quite cavalierly that the conventional media is on its last legs and that the blogosphere will spring up to take its place. Though I appreciate the thoroughly Democratic spirit of such a sentiment, I know it's highly unlikely to occur. There will always be a need for the so-called professional media and, to modify a quote by Voltaire, even if the media did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it. This grasping about in the dark will eventually hit upon a niche and soon enough the big boys will find a way to reinvent themselves by way of New Media. When the MSM's offerings transition to fully electronic incarnations that require monthly fees to access and when it becomes highly covetous of its own ideas, then we'll be right back to the status quo ante bellum. The internet is much like the Wild West right now and those who appreciate the anarchic spirit of the medium recognize fully that with time, some will try to limit its scope and in so doing place content regulation in place.

In the meantime, however, enjoy this admittedly odd period in American history. In it, one can have the satisfaction of seeing the Fourth Estate collectively gasping for breath like a fish out of water. This might be the end of conventional or old media, but something new will sprout up in its place. Sooner, rather than later, it will rise, Phoenix-like, from the ashes because there is too much financial incentive, too many established power brokers, too many people willing to compromise their true opinions for the sake of money, and too many well-trod paths that lead from reporter's desk to positions of influence and back. Yet, I believe that there will always be a role for the blogosphere to be a regulatory force upon these impulses and in that respect we ought to take the time now, when we have it, to not squander the chance to cement our place as the gatekeepers of the gatekeepers.

Mouthpiece Theater: A Cautionary Tale for the Mainstream Media

Yesterday, citizen activists and citizen journalists like you and me were amused and relieved to discover that the frequently reviled Washington Post online video series Mouthpiece Theater featuring Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza had been killed by the company. Apparently criticizing the Huffington Post as gutter journalism is okay, but as reported today by Politico, referring to the Secretary of State as a "mad bitch" crosses the line.

Denigrating amateurism by mocking it only works if the delivery is infused with wit and grace, and this series had none of that. When misogyny enters the picture, even if justified as a tongue-and-cheek shot at lunkhead ignorance, it's time to hang it up.

To be fair, Mouthpiece Theater was, more often than not, woefully inept satire rather than derogatory and offensive invective, but the premise upon which it was predicated grew out of a desire to lob grenades of sour grapes and derision upon the blogsophere and the changing climate of New Media. A word of caution to the so-called professionals: if you're going to mock New Media citizen journalists, then take care not to imply that everyone of them are uncouth, ridiculously misinformed yahoos. If you do, then you'd better back that unsubstantiated generalization up with lots of laughs. Otherwise, the end result will be so woefully unfunny that you'll be tempted to aim for the lowest common denominator. The intent might have been to wink at bloggers in on the joke who find it frequently exasperating how many kooks, trolls, and pretenders grace our ranks, but it was always difficult for me not to read between the lines and view the true motives behind the bad punchlines.

In many ways, Mouthpiece Theory reminded me of the movie Wayne's World, in which Wayne and Garth have just signed a contract that would allow their show to reach a larger television audience. When walking onto the set at which each of their forthcoming shows will be taped and performed, they are astonished to find how commercialized and ersatz the program has become now that major advertisers have been employed and big money is at state. "Does anyone else find this weird?", Garth puzzles, "I mean, we're looking down on Wayne's basement..only that's not Wayne's basement...isn't that weird?" Or, in other words, one must understand New Media to emulate it and probably not be a rank-and-file member of conventional outlets, otherwise the effect produced looks much like a fifty-year-old dressing in fashionable, trendy clothes while at the same time deliberately using youthful slang, both of which he or she is thirty years too old to credibly pull off.

Andy Cobb and Josh Funk, two comedians who perform as part of The Public Service Administration have recorded a video parody of the late Mouthpiece Theater which is included below. Their efforts, in no small part directly contributed to the Post's cancellation of the aforementioned video series. And when I ponder this, I think about our role as citizen activists. New Media is such a nascent concept that we are even now shaping its scope and even its definition, but I am proud to be part of a new paradigm of modernity. It is tempting to fear that which is a largely unknown quantity but I believe firmly that many of us were designed for these times and destined to take their roles and their places to build something for this age.

And in saying this, I recognize my limitations and everyone's limitation. As for me, I know single payer coverage is off the table. Maybe I can't convince my neighbors to stop fearing the government. Maybe I can't stop the latest genocide. Maybe I can't bring every American soldier home from combat in a distant land. When I feel powerless against the system, in all of its multifaceted ways, even modest triumphs like these give me renewed hope. If we can continue to be a means by which the Mainstream Media is kept honest and in so doing forced to realize that fighting us will never work as well as embracing the overwhelmingly good things which we have to offer, then I know we can accomplish much and could accomplish even more if we could put aide our petty grievances and in-fighting for the sake of the collective good. We are the only people holding us back. We are here to stay and we serve an important role in shaping the debate.




h/t Blue Gal