Your "Reality" Life

There are hundreds of reality shows being broadcast into America's living rooms, oh hell, these days you have to include bedrooms, kitchens, minivans, and iPods as well. Worldwide 1577 reality shows have been created.

What was a summer novelty has turned into a survivor. And what have they wrought? Are they just innocent entertainment fodder? Yes, but with a further reaching effect.

Their breadth - everything from UPN to PBS, from ESPN to the Food Channel, as well as the depths to which they will plumb casting any D, E or F-list celebrity or person of trivial fame for these shows has created the universal condition whereby everyone now believes that their life, no matter how mundane, should be broadcast on television for all the world to see. What if we found out "reality" was closer to Jim Carreys' Truman Show?

It extends beyond the medium of television. Fame more than accomplishment, cruel tragedy rather than heroism insures interest in a published biography. Youtube (Broadcast Yourself!) uploads hundreds of independent films...didn't they used to be called "home movies" on the internet. Every day millions of bloggers log into their personal sites posting articles under the wildest of illusions - that they've done something or written something worthy of investing the time to read their post and that, in fact, people can find it.

All of this of course is occuring with our own soundtrack, iPod buds choreographing our expressions, our walks, our distractions. Internally we can feel just where the camera should go if there was one, looking just over our shoulder.

People who grew up with the internet or iPods, that whole digital revolution, are the first generation that spend more time in the electronic environment than they do in the natural environment. So we are definitely going to try and launch social-marketing campaigns that encourage people to just unplug, just to pull out of the virtual electronic environment and try to live more than half their lives in the real world.

Where do you live? What have you accomplished that is so worthy of our attention?

Is Jon Stewart Just a One Trick Monkey?

Leading up to the 2004 election The Daily Show with Jon Stewart struck a political nerve with a younger demographic that typically is too distracted to give a shit about national politics or world events. For making that connection Stewart is to be applauded, and for his creativity in establishing an outlet for legitimate 'fake news' he's been hailed as a media wunderkind.

But none of this may have been possible without George W. Bush - his punching bag. And frankly, while one would think you can never grow tired of watching George getting his comeuppance nightly by Stewart; we have. Times have changed in this age of the 24/7 news cycle, regular years have now become like dog years, we pack 7 years into 1 and in general, have trouble focusing on ANYTHING for longer than a week.

The White House has mastered this, and Jon Stewart knows it as well.

"Politicians have caught up. They understand that 24-hour news networks: they don't have time for journalism. They only have time for reporting. They only have time to be handed things and go, 'this is what I've just been handed by the administration.' And they read it". (Bill Moyers Interviews Jon Stewart, July 11, 2003)

So why on skewering Bush has Stewart "stayed the course". Well, for one thing its easy, cheap laughs, perfect set-ups. But its not 2003-04 anymore, its 2006, 14 dog years have passed by since the election and America, both the young and the old, have realized that these are now different times. While 7 out of 10 Americans may strongly dislike Bush, there is a realization that not much can be done about it. America has become the New Soviet Union. Bush is our Putin. We're stuck with him, we're being controlled and manipulated, and we just have to wait this thing out. The legal and journalistic systems aren't working, even 'fake news' isn't much of a relief anymore. We're in a bunker and you're teasing us John.

Not since his role in "Death to Smoochy" has Stewart faced such a career defining moment because, lately, it feels like the Daily Show is just hanging in there, waiting. Waiting for the midterm elections in the fall, waiting for a juicy Republican scandal, something, anything. Its the question a comedy show that relies on real news to feed the fake news never wants to have to answer - can they still be funny when all of the Bushisms are no longer easily picked low-hanging fruit, or worst yet, just boring.

There was that infamous Crossfire moment:

"I thought you were going to be funny," Carlson said toward the end of the interview. Stewart responded, "No, I'm not going to be your monkey.

Yet now we seem to have arrived at that monkey-moment. You can only stir the pot so many times with your followers and when there is no reformation, no revolution, no perceptible change, they change the channel.

Where will the RINO'S go? Lost Moderate Republicans

Republicans in Name Only (RINO's), its what the more devisive, conservative, overtly religious part of the Republican Party calls the more moderate members of their party. It is not a term of endearment. "Failed Republicans" is used interchangably by the same conservatives. But in 2008, it may be that this relatively silent majority within their party begins to fight back, or one by one ends up leaving the party altogether.

"I'm absolutely fed up with the conservative Republicans," said Richard Meidinger, a retired physician in Topeka. "All the abortion stuff, gay marriage stuff doesn't belong in the legislative debate."

This perception of a growing division within the RNC spurred along by the possible nomination a more moderate leaning John McCain that increases the divide is a scenario that the Democrats hope to exploit to their benefit in 2008. Assuming of course that they come up with a moderate candidate of their own - Billary? Mark Warner? Al Gore? In other words, it could shape up as an election that is a mad rush to the middle and (finally) away from the extremist ends of the political spectrum.

Of course, this is all based on the premise that moderate or centrist voters are willing to take either party back, and that at this point that they even care which party a candidate belongs to anymore. Not necessarily a sure bet.

Other voices are beginning to emerge, and other political realities may begin fracturing the parties beyond matters of ideology. For example, if Joe Lieberman loses the Connecticut Democratic Primary, he could end up running as an independent out of political necessity. If the Republican party takes a dive off into the deep end and goes towards a more conservative presidential nominee that appeals to a far right-wing base do you really think John McCain will bow out gracefully when 2008 could be his last remaining shot at the presidency? Even Newt Gingrich is returning back from the political graveyard willingly sucking up to any presidential hopeful (from either party) that might conceivably put him on the ticket as VP.

While no one, no one, really has a clue who the nominee's will be for 2008, what has begun to stir even before the 2006 midterm elections is an unrest in the American electorate that wants to regain some control over their elected leaders from the party machinery of both the Republicans and the Democrats. There has been too much corruption, too much failed leadership, too many lost opportunities, and too much debt piled onto our children to leave our future in the hands of these political hacks.

Others have said it better than I:

Let the present, long-running duopoly of the Republicans and Democrats end. Let the invigorating and truly democratic partisan flux of the American republic’s first century return. Let there be a more or less pacifist, anti-business, protectionist Democratic Party on the left, and an anti-science, Christianist, unapologetically greedy Republican Party on the right—and a robust new independent party of passionately practical progressives in the middle.

One of the core values will be honesty. Not a preachy, goody-goody, I’ll-never-lie-to-you honesty of the Jimmy Carter type, but a worldly, full-throated and bracing candor. The moderation will often be immoderate in style and substance, rather than tediously middle-of-the-road. Pragmatism will be an animating party value—even when the most pragmatic approach to a given problem is radical.

Update on States Selling-off Public Assets (Roads, Airports, Water Treatment Plants, etc.)

In an earlier post we highlighted a growing practice whereby state governments with a wink and a nod from the Feds are signing away the operation of infrastructure to private for-profit companies.

Why?

For a short-term cash infusion and to reduce the state government overhead for maintaining and running the infrastructure.

But then politicians can selectively use facts or conveniently ignore longterm ramifications in order make projects seem more appealing. Sometimes, amazingly, even pointing out the benefits of a public-private partnership while criticizing their own previous short-comings. Its acceptable to have been wrong in the past as long as it helps validate that they are right in the present. Even if the overall premise falls apart:

Mineta, who served as [San Jose] mayor from 1971 to 1974, said he and other mayors across the country made mistakes in deciding where to site highways in their cities. Instead of combatting congestion and urban sprawl, he said, their decisions fed both.

"We created our own congestion. I intended to relieve congestion, but only added to congestion. Now as secretary of transportation, I am trying to undo that congestion. I have come full circle," said Mineta, who said he regrets Santa Clara County's decision four decades ago not to join BART. The idea of extending BART to San Jose is still being debated.

So Mineta admits that poor decisions in the 1970s led to urban sprawl, traffic congestions and a lack of foresight in extending the public transportation system (BART). But is his focus on getting public transportation right and extending BART or in improving urban planning to reduce urban sprawl and reduce energy use?NO - his "coming full circle" is the process of getting to the point of selling off public assets to private companies to continue to build more roads??? It didn't work 20 years ago, what has come full circle other than money changing hands?

Then you have the view from the private sector:

Investment banker Carol Rein of UBS Securities says foreign investors like government assets in this country because similar investment opportunities in Europe and Australia have been successful. Assets such as toll roads and water systems are attractive to investors because they have little competition and generate steady revenue.

And there you have the problem no one will readily discuss - turning over "must-have" public service infrastructure that should be operated for the good of the people to private companies who effectively own a monopoly on the roads you must travel, the water you drink, and the transportation systems that are needed every day.

In the future, your children will curse you for letting this stuff go by right under your nose.

Rush Limbaugh - Show a Little Love, Help This Guy Out - You Could Have Been Cellmates

Wheelchair-confined Richard Paey committed almost exactly the same violations of Florida prescription drug laws that radio personality Rush Limbaugh did, with a different result:

Limbaugh's sentence, in May, was addiction treatment, and Paey's, in 2004, was 25 years in prison. Both illegally possessed large quantities of painkillers for personal use, which Paey defiantly argued was (and will be) necessary to relieve nearly constant pain from unsuccessful spinal surgeries after an auto accident, but which Limbaugh admitted was simply the result of addiction. (In fact, if Limbaugh complies with his plea bargain, his conviction will be erased.)

Paey's sentence now rests with a state Court of Appeal.
[Tampa Tribune]

Media Update: Anti-Terrorism Funding Criticism Continues

From some unlikely sources, the way that the Department of Homeland Security calculated risk+need to come up with funds for preventing terrorists strikes in the U.S. continues to be found to be riddled with flawed logic:

• The conservative National Review called Chertoff's process "indefensible" and complained that "low-risk cities like Louisville, Charlotte and Omaha can receive 40% increases - or, for that matter, any of this money at all."


• The non-partisan Congressional Research Service flagged potential problems with Chertoff's approach in January. In a report on his plan to award funds based on need as well as risk, CRS pointed out that the 9/11 Commission recommended that the funds be handed out based on risk only and warned that adding need could mean cities with a lower risk of attack would be included in the program. "By coupling need with risk," the report said, the department "might be providing funding to states and urban areas that do not have a high risk of terrorism."


• Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York was more blunt. "Either they had an idiotic plan to slam New York or they are just completely incompetent," she said. "Neither of those scenarios make me feel any safer."

Link back to our original post on this subject.

Political Crooks of the Month Club

I'm sorry, I mean "potential" political crooks of the month club. Here they are, all currently under investigation (that we know of): 7 Republicans, 2 Democrats.

Senators
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.)
Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)

Representatives
Former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.)
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas)
Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)
Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.)
Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.V.)
Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio)

Want to find out who is making big "donations" to your state Senator or Congressman?

Isn't it about time to pull the plug on corruption in Washington, DC by choking off the money supply and influential favors?

Cheap Political Leadership

Married couples receive 1,049 federal benefits and in the state of New York, 700 state rights unavailable to same- sex couples. These are secular, civil rights bestowed upon the union of two people by governments, not from religion. Mr. Bush, conservative politicians, and narrow-minded religious leaders conveniently are only willing to discuss marriage and the proposed constitutional amendment in terms of religious meaning. They refuse to discuss any solution to the civil rights and benefits that are only available through marriage and remain inaccessible to gay Americans other than to say they would leave it up to each state to decide. These are the same states whose court decisions they fear and use as their justification for said constitutional amendment.

Separate but equal. It is a way of treating a segment of the population differently. It is illegal and immoral, and it is a painful reminder of injustices from our recent past. As late in our nation’s history as 1963, most communities segregated whites and blacks in schools, public transportation, and restaurants. Discrimination prevented many from receiving equal consideration for employment and education.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to legally prohibit and punish these injustices. Since then laws continue to be updated and there is a specific branch of the FBI charged with investigating cases of infringement of Civil Rights. Perhaps the White House is unaware of what has been recently written into law? Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241, Conspiracy Against Rights

“This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

Bush administration officials and Republican conservatives say they fear “activist judges”. But the courts cannot create new laws allowing gay Americans to marry. Their fears are really based on the knowledge that as a matter of existing law, incorporated into legal statues on Civil Rights and within the Constitution itself, if forced to provide a ruling the courts could not allow recognition of an inequality that limits a segment of the population from having access to the same civil rights and benefits as everyone else. All Americans are created equal.

In the original version of a speech prepared for the March on Washington, in 1963; John Lewis an African-American who later went on to become a U.S. Congressmen asked questions that need to be answered yet again:

"For the first time in 100 years this nation is being awakened to the fact that segregation is evil and that it must be destroyed in all forms. Your presence today proves that you have been aroused to the point of action. We are now involved in a serious revolution. This nation is still a place of cheap political leaders who build their career on immoral compromises and ally themselves with open forms of political, economic and social exploitation.

What political leader here can stand up and say ‘My party is the party of principles?

We all recognize the fact that if any radical social, political and economic changes are to take place in our society, the people, the masses, must bring them about. In the struggle we must seek more than more civil rights; we must work for the community love, peace, and true brotherhood."

At the time, it may not have been easy for every American to accept the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Stereotypes and institutional forms of discrimination are difficult to change. But as uncomfortable as some may have felt about this process of change and despite personal prejudices, the majority of Americans at that time seem to have understood that there was a moral injustice, an inequality, which had to be corrected. Today, this generation faces a similar values challenge. If we cannot move our society forward and choose to remain frozen in the same place, or even consider taking a step backward in granting equal civil rights for all, we cast our lot in with those whose views are pictured in the photo illustration at the beginning of this post.

Are you that much more comfortable with their views representing your country? Would you join them?

Friday Fluff: Pizza Delivery with a Special (Cold) Side Item

A pizza deliveryman stopped by police told officers that he was delivering pizzas in the same station wagon he used to ferry bodies for a mortuary transport service.

Police say 24-year-old William Bethel Junior was stopped last Friday in Lower Southampton Township in suburban Philadelphia driving a station wagon with an expired inspection certificate. While checking the vehicle, police noticed a stretcher in the rear and asked what purpose it served. Police say Bethel told them that although he was delivering pizzas for a major pizza chain, he also “transports deceased bodies in the same vehicle.”

The car was impounded and Bethel was cited for driving with a suspended or revoked license and without a certificate of inspection. Bethel says it was the first time the vehicle had been used for both purposes. He says he had been called to fill in at the restaurant, and because his car was in the shop, he had taken the wagon. The car owner says he was fired and the restaurant manager says he resigned.

County and state health officials say there is no law against delivering a body and food in the same vehicle.

Homeland Security to New York City and DC - Go to Hell

Shortly after 9/11, while red-hot zones of destruction and death in New York City and Washington, DC were still smoldering, something absurd began happening and it has gone beyond being just pathetic - it has become a national disgrace.

Local politicians and communities far removed from any viable terrorist targets out of an irrational fear or sheer greed, began clamouring for federal funds from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to protect themselves from perceived possible attacks that are never - NEVER - going to occur.

Yesterday, funding levels for protecting Americans and our vital national interests were announced and the levels were reduced for cities that are likely targets and increased in states that conveniently are aligned with close Congressional and Senate elections in the fall. Incredibly, the Statue of Liberty is not even included in a list of important national landmarks. How disproportionate are they? Rhode Island got $4.5 million, Wyoming $4.4 million, South Dakota $4.4 million - Washington, DC $4.3 million.

"Although the District is home to the White House, the Capitol, FBI headquarters and many national monuments, it received a smaller state grant than Montana, Hawaii and Utah, each of who has received $4.5 million".

The Bush administration has frequently played politics with protecting Americans from terrorism and it is deep-rooted in the Department of Homeland Security. Once again, objective analysis is reconfigured to achieve a political goal and any data to support their skewed analysis is deemed "classified" and unavailable for scrutiny.

While the mixture of greed and politics may be the rule rather than the exception, one would think that most Americans had hoped the cause of defending citizens on our own soil was a cause noble enough to rise above such pettiness. We learned differently, and ominously, during the 2004 election.

Bush and Cheney circled the heartland creeping out the populace over the threats posed by terrorism right there in their small communities, their schools, their churches, their farmland. These communities have no moral basis for trying to slither into the spotlight of the antiterrorism debate on protecting likely targets and should only feel nothing but shame for stealing, yes STEALING, funds needed to protect those living in areas who are in danger of being a likely target - in the center of a bullseye.

If you are scared and you live in South Dakota, how anxious can you possibly be when you know in your heart that the areas most likely to be attacked are far, far away from you? That many of the "red" states have hijacked protecting our country from terrorist attacks for political fear mongering when they are so far removed from the cross-hairs is disgraceful.

As someone who lives in the nations capital - prime target #1 or #2 - I know of what I speak. Before you take the DHS funds out to your far flung communities can you answer any of these questions with a "yes"?

• 
  Every day of your life when you go to work, do you go through metal detectors, have to carry an ID badge at all times, pass through security cameras at every entrance and exit, and get greeted in the lobby with posters announcing the daily threat level?" Every day of your life when you ride the subway do you see machines on the platforms monitoring the air for harmful chemicals, does your heart race a bit if the subway car stops in the middle of a tunnel before starting again not knowing whether it is a normal delay or an explosion in the tunnel, do you walk past explosive-sniffing dogs?
• 
  Every day of your life does walking around town include the extra steps needed to walk around security blockades, bollards along the sidewalk installed to stop a possible truck-bomb, and endless security checkpoints? Is it frustrating for you to mail a letter or throw out a candy wrapper because all of the mailboxes and the trash cans have been removed from the streets for fear that they could be used to hide a bomb?
• 
  Despite trying to live a normal life by consiously trying to avoid the "security enhancements", can you not get through a single day without seeing a visual reminder that your safety, your life, are always at risk?

For those morally weak politcal leaders, and others who stand beside them for personal gain, who are diverting money needed to protect those who live in the most targeted areas, your actions will come with a debt to be repaid. For if there is another terrorist act on our soil at a major metropolitan center whose funding you reduced for political benefits elsewhere, though you may call for water to wash your hands and proclaim your innocence, blood will be on your hands.