The Rock Star/Messiah image of Obama is dead. Hallelujah! I think Barrack Obama has landed on a level playing field now and will have to govern with more than smoke and mirrors. Perhaps some substance will return in the presidency. It's about time, for the U.S. has slipped as badly under the Obama regime as it did under perhaps the worst president of the century, George Bush. I am hopeful that Disneyland is gone and we will now have a real world leader. At least the opportunity is there.
During his campaign Obama publicly encouraged all of this bizarre messianic image, with silly phrases like "we are the ones we've been waiting for" and invocations of "hope" and "change" in the hope of getting young idealistic voters out to the polls. It worked and he was elected. But after two years of ineptitude many of those young supporters ( and older ones like me) have abandoned ship. The do not believe the nonsense anymore. Has Obama finally seen it and started to act more presidential and less like a rock star? If not, the U.S will continue to flounder.
Grow up, Mr. President, just grow up and lead. That's my refrain these days. Obama is stunned and disappointed to discover that people who can be won over by fantasy campaigns would at some point expect substance. At least he realizes it. Candidate Obama and President Obama are different people. The "Oh, he was only kidding" syndrome has gotten hold as a result.
Candidate Obama was a bipartisan. President Obama is completely partisan and blind to anything else w but what he wants. Candidate Obama said he was hopeful and he promised change from the awful Bush years.. President Obama has been completely partisan president in the George Bush mold and has steered the most implausible legislation through Congress and into law. Now that Obama realizes he must out up or shut up he is not so hopeful anymore. He's turned into a preaching, finger-wagger who spends too much time complaining about how unfair his critics are, how bad his press is and how his lack of success is all Bush's fault.
The first stage of growing up is realizing it's not all about "me". Obama's critics have instructed him in that and he is now aware of it. But how much will the rock star grow up? Will he finally act presidential and lead to end the dysfunctional "way Washington works" as he promised when campaigning for the job he seems unfit to do.
When I voted for him I gave Obama and a Democratic controlled Congress a chance to fix what they said was broken. They have failed miserably. Please hurry and grow up, President Obama.
Monday, October 11, 2010
No News But Plenty Of Teasers
The "teaser" is a staple in TV today. It's been around for some time, but now local TV news stations are refining the tease. What is a teaser? Typically a teaser consists of auditory or visual information, or both, providing the viewer a glimpse of what he or she can expect as programing continues. as in, "Coming up in our next segment will be".... followed by a brief glimpse of what is promised if the viewer stays tuned to the broadcast. It hints but doesn't show anything and it frustrates the viewer because he or she would rather hear the news than be teased about it.
The news broadcast may begin a newscast with a tease for an upcoming story, then shift the focus: "But first, we bring you our top story..." Details when we return. But first, we bring you our top story." Teasers can be vague to make the viewer wonder and stay tuned or they may be overt, in which the audience stays tuned because it is made to feel there is something too important to miss. Usually, the more teasers in a news broadcast the less competent and informative is the station. Good local news shows have fewer teasers because they spend more time on serious news and, thus, do not need to tease to keep their audience.
Every American city has plenty of TV stations using the tease. Portland has many more than New Orleans, and its so frustrating here that no station has a clear lead in audience size. That's because when all stations tease they all begin to look and sound alike. They become interchangeable as to quality presented. So it then comes down to some crazy reason why the viewer picks on news cast over another, not because one station gives a better presentation than the others. I prefer a certain station news broadcast here in Portland because it has two of the prettiest and sexiest weather girls on TV. Huh If I am not going to get a quality TV news presentation on any of the stations, then I might as well take the sexist road and watch the station with the hottest babes.
According to a recent University of Southern California media study, a composite half-hour of LA local TV news contains 8:25 of ads; 2:10 of teasers; 3:36 of sports and weather; and 15:44 for everything else. That's a lot of fluff and way too many teasers. Only about half of a half-hour of news is news. And of that half much of it is entertainment related rather than factual news that the viewer should know. So teasers sometimes tease us to wait for what is nothing more than frivolous news. It used to be we were teased about important news stories. Now it may be something so trivial that the viewer turns angry when he or she sees that they have been tricked into staying up late at night to hear the next reality show gossip.
The old joke about the broadcaster reading "The U.S. is under a nuclear attack...details on our second segment" seems almost too real now to laugh too loudly. Oh...since I have to watch teasers when I try to learn news events on TV. you get a teaser from me today. "My E mails may have already caused you severe brain damage. Open your mailbox next Friday to see if you can be saved".
The news broadcast may begin a newscast with a tease for an upcoming story, then shift the focus: "But first, we bring you our top story..." Details when we return. But first, we bring you our top story." Teasers can be vague to make the viewer wonder and stay tuned or they may be overt, in which the audience stays tuned because it is made to feel there is something too important to miss. Usually, the more teasers in a news broadcast the less competent and informative is the station. Good local news shows have fewer teasers because they spend more time on serious news and, thus, do not need to tease to keep their audience.
Every American city has plenty of TV stations using the tease. Portland has many more than New Orleans, and its so frustrating here that no station has a clear lead in audience size. That's because when all stations tease they all begin to look and sound alike. They become interchangeable as to quality presented. So it then comes down to some crazy reason why the viewer picks on news cast over another, not because one station gives a better presentation than the others. I prefer a certain station news broadcast here in Portland because it has two of the prettiest and sexiest weather girls on TV. Huh If I am not going to get a quality TV news presentation on any of the stations, then I might as well take the sexist road and watch the station with the hottest babes.
According to a recent University of Southern California media study, a composite half-hour of LA local TV news contains 8:25 of ads; 2:10 of teasers; 3:36 of sports and weather; and 15:44 for everything else. That's a lot of fluff and way too many teasers. Only about half of a half-hour of news is news. And of that half much of it is entertainment related rather than factual news that the viewer should know. So teasers sometimes tease us to wait for what is nothing more than frivolous news. It used to be we were teased about important news stories. Now it may be something so trivial that the viewer turns angry when he or she sees that they have been tricked into staying up late at night to hear the next reality show gossip.
The old joke about the broadcaster reading "The U.S. is under a nuclear attack...details on our second segment" seems almost too real now to laugh too loudly. Oh...since I have to watch teasers when I try to learn news events on TV. you get a teaser from me today. "My E mails may have already caused you severe brain damage. Open your mailbox next Friday to see if you can be saved".
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Not So Expert Testimony
In what must be another sign of the near end of our civilization, Comedian Stephen Colbert was called by Congress to testify (and he did so in character with sly innuendoes and clever remarks reflecting negatively on Congress itself) before the Congressional Subcommittee for Immigration and Agriculture on the subject of illegal immigration. What makes Colbert an expert on that or any political issue must be, according it Congress, his routines on TV that are commentaries on the current dysfunctional scene we all know and hate.
Celebrities have been called to testify before Congress before on matters of their specialty,. but not a comedian to orate about the illegal immigration mess. It now seems that journalism is so sick that comedians like Colbert and his clone, Jonh Stewart, are leading the debate in this country about serious issues. It's a bit troubling when a comic doesn't reflect the insanity around him, but rather is seen as the ideal society to which society should reach and hold on to and as the source of truth about what society should or should not do.
Gee, instead give me the Marx Brothers or Steve Martin any day. At least they were funny and not merely cynical and pompous. I don't see many truths in ambassadors Stewart and Colbert messages. But then, unlike the millions who adore them, I also find news from other sources than TV comics like them. Why did Congess call Colbert to testify? Does Congress now practice self flagellation in the form of self imposed ridicule? Why do Americans seek their news from entertainers instead of serious journalists?
But then....there is a reason so many take comedians seriously as commentators on the many ills of modern society. Sadly, it's because they only seek laughs and need not lie like those politicians and journalists who have a personal interest in telling lies or some hidden agenda to push, that Colbert and his like are seen as truth tellers.
But surely if the public read and explored more those issues on its own comics would return to comedy, not news makers. Only an uninformed public would settle for a comedian's version of "political truth". Americans today segregate themselves into factions promoting distinctly separate views, often extreme ones. So it makes sense to them that they get their news from whomever confirms their own biases and prejudices. The true journalist won't so that. Hence, comics are the source of information. Uh..don't believe it? In 2009 Comedian John Steward was named "the most trusted man in news" by a poll of readers of the oldest and most reliable of news magazines, Time Magazine.
Let's see..a satirical character mocking Congress while testifying before them about a serious subject. Oh yes, this is the United States. It makes sense after all.
Celebrities have been called to testify before Congress before on matters of their specialty,. but not a comedian to orate about the illegal immigration mess. It now seems that journalism is so sick that comedians like Colbert and his clone, Jonh Stewart, are leading the debate in this country about serious issues. It's a bit troubling when a comic doesn't reflect the insanity around him, but rather is seen as the ideal society to which society should reach and hold on to and as the source of truth about what society should or should not do.
Gee, instead give me the Marx Brothers or Steve Martin any day. At least they were funny and not merely cynical and pompous. I don't see many truths in ambassadors Stewart and Colbert messages. But then, unlike the millions who adore them, I also find news from other sources than TV comics like them. Why did Congess call Colbert to testify? Does Congress now practice self flagellation in the form of self imposed ridicule? Why do Americans seek their news from entertainers instead of serious journalists?
But then....there is a reason so many take comedians seriously as commentators on the many ills of modern society. Sadly, it's because they only seek laughs and need not lie like those politicians and journalists who have a personal interest in telling lies or some hidden agenda to push, that Colbert and his like are seen as truth tellers.
But surely if the public read and explored more those issues on its own comics would return to comedy, not news makers. Only an uninformed public would settle for a comedian's version of "political truth". Americans today segregate themselves into factions promoting distinctly separate views, often extreme ones. So it makes sense to them that they get their news from whomever confirms their own biases and prejudices. The true journalist won't so that. Hence, comics are the source of information. Uh..don't believe it? In 2009 Comedian John Steward was named "the most trusted man in news" by a poll of readers of the oldest and most reliable of news magazines, Time Magazine.
Let's see..a satirical character mocking Congress while testifying before them about a serious subject. Oh yes, this is the United States. It makes sense after all.
Providers Versus Users
In Europe the welfare state concept is out of hand, far worse than the growing welfare system in the U.S. and Canada. For example, Sweden has 105 local districts where the majority of the population lives off of various public benefits, and does not work. This unintended consequence of the welfare state has taken a heavy toll on public services there, since an increasing share of tax revenue must be diverted to fund welfare payments, rather than social services. In essence an ever growing part of the Swedish population does not even think that working to support ones self is necessary. And looking at the rest of western Europe one can see the great decline economically there is the rest of too many welfare programs.
There are many reasons welfare is out of control, including the oft cited "stupid, spoiled and lazy" westerners who are everywhere. But one huge contribution to the growth of welfare is immigration. Although the United States’ welfare rolls are already swollen, every year we import more people (most illegal peasants with little education and job skill) who wind up on public assistance.
Many immigrants are poor, indeed, that is why they immigrate. The immigrants we admit to the U.S. are much poorer than the native population and are increasing the size of our impoverished population. Too, the Obama administration seeks to legalize the millions of illegals here and welcome millions more of the poorest and least fit immigrants.
But immigration is just one factor, and not the biggest of them, that is present in all western nations with out of control welfare systems. It merely reflects the attitude of the west that free is best and that anyone who can get the freebies deserves them. Much of society now seems to believe that the individual is not the prime responsible party in care of the family. The government is viewed as mommy and daddy to anyone who can't or does not want to support his or her self.
But the dilemma is how much more can a society give to the users? At what point do the providers revolt? They already are fed up with their status. The recent financial meltdown has brought this issue into clearer focus. It could get ugly before it's resolved.
There are many reasons welfare is out of control, including the oft cited "stupid, spoiled and lazy" westerners who are everywhere. But one huge contribution to the growth of welfare is immigration. Although the United States’ welfare rolls are already swollen, every year we import more people (most illegal peasants with little education and job skill) who wind up on public assistance.
Many immigrants are poor, indeed, that is why they immigrate. The immigrants we admit to the U.S. are much poorer than the native population and are increasing the size of our impoverished population. Too, the Obama administration seeks to legalize the millions of illegals here and welcome millions more of the poorest and least fit immigrants.
But immigration is just one factor, and not the biggest of them, that is present in all western nations with out of control welfare systems. It merely reflects the attitude of the west that free is best and that anyone who can get the freebies deserves them. Much of society now seems to believe that the individual is not the prime responsible party in care of the family. The government is viewed as mommy and daddy to anyone who can't or does not want to support his or her self.
But the dilemma is how much more can a society give to the users? At what point do the providers revolt? They already are fed up with their status. The recent financial meltdown has brought this issue into clearer focus. It could get ugly before it's resolved.
Driven To Suicide
The suicide of 18-year-old Tyler Clementi, the super bright Rutgers student, who's private gay sex romp in his own dorm room was secretly filmed and displayed on the Internet by a roommate and another twisted soul is a sad commentary on technological excess and moral emptiness. His suicide is the latest in a series of incidents in which a young person appears to have been driven to kill him/herself by online humiliation.
The internet is not the problem here so much as that technology has provided an avenue for some to lose sight of common decency. We have movies (American Pie) that glorify these types of behaviors, reality TV, where people are constantly filmed doing and saying things that no "real," decent person would want on television. But for 15 seconds of fame many will do anything. It's why when asked why reality TV participants are asked their reason for humiliating themselves. Most answer "To be famous. For them, being famous for "nothing" seems better than keeping dignity.
In some twisted way the roommate who secretly filmed the sex romp felt showing it world-wide on the net was acceptable, even amusing. Destroying a life became secondary to the acting out of the "reality" mode of behavior. They call it "cyberbullying" but by any name it is a vacuous moral state and I wonder if our increasingly savvy technology is making it easier to act as badly as the two who "outed Clementi. We have four ruined lives, one dead student, two who outed him and will forever live with the scares (and I hope, a long prison term) and the "other" man in the film that was shown on the net.
When society lowers its standards and gives personal freedom to the extent it has been given it spirals downward. For today the technology has been given without a code of etiquette and ethics to accompany it. We have huge cookie jars filled with goodies and no mommy to regulate how much we eat.
This always brings to question whether or not some believe technology excuses us from some of the long treasured social mores. Is it ok to behave differently (less respectful of others) when using a phone, behind a computer, or with camera in hand? And why would any decent person watch such a video that the two showed? Do we have less obligation to act morally if only spectator? Surely, the millions of idiots who adore the reality TV genre would have to think long and hard to answer "No".. for their behavior seems to indicate the opposite.
The sad aspect to the story of the suicide is that fault lies not in our technology, but in ourselves. And it's a whole lot harder to improve humans.
The internet is not the problem here so much as that technology has provided an avenue for some to lose sight of common decency. We have movies (American Pie) that glorify these types of behaviors, reality TV, where people are constantly filmed doing and saying things that no "real," decent person would want on television. But for 15 seconds of fame many will do anything. It's why when asked why reality TV participants are asked their reason for humiliating themselves. Most answer "To be famous. For them, being famous for "nothing" seems better than keeping dignity.
In some twisted way the roommate who secretly filmed the sex romp felt showing it world-wide on the net was acceptable, even amusing. Destroying a life became secondary to the acting out of the "reality" mode of behavior. They call it "cyberbullying" but by any name it is a vacuous moral state and I wonder if our increasingly savvy technology is making it easier to act as badly as the two who "outed Clementi. We have four ruined lives, one dead student, two who outed him and will forever live with the scares (and I hope, a long prison term) and the "other" man in the film that was shown on the net.
When society lowers its standards and gives personal freedom to the extent it has been given it spirals downward. For today the technology has been given without a code of etiquette and ethics to accompany it. We have huge cookie jars filled with goodies and no mommy to regulate how much we eat.
This always brings to question whether or not some believe technology excuses us from some of the long treasured social mores. Is it ok to behave differently (less respectful of others) when using a phone, behind a computer, or with camera in hand? And why would any decent person watch such a video that the two showed? Do we have less obligation to act morally if only spectator? Surely, the millions of idiots who adore the reality TV genre would have to think long and hard to answer "No".. for their behavior seems to indicate the opposite.
The sad aspect to the story of the suicide is that fault lies not in our technology, but in ourselves. And it's a whole lot harder to improve humans.
Open Or Closed
The most disingenuous word in government today may be "security", as in, "We are taking away your rights or freedom for security reasons.". Americans can curse George Bush for the security ruse that now is frequently brought into play when politicians want excuses for bad or dishonest policy ("Oh, but we did this to protect you from terrorists"). It was the Bush crowd that made secrecy a standard for all our government, political persuasion aside. Now, instead of an open democracy we have a closed one that is filled with scripted pronouncements, lies and illusions. No wonder politicians can lie more often and more easily.
The reason that I mention this is because I just read a story about how the public has lost much of its once unhindered access to the Capital and White House grounds. Now, the public is permitted to see the Capitol only from the extreme outside as Senators and Representatives there have arranged the time honored "capital tour" to be conducted far away from them. But then, members of Congress even avoid their constituents when they go back home to their districts. It's part of the elite mindset that politicians have. They want to be seen and spoken to by constituents as little as possible.
Security concerns, swelling crowds and the wish to keep the public away means the average person isn't allowed to see much of the Capitol for very long. For any single citizen, the chance of seeing a Senator walk by or to speak with him or her is almost an impossible one. Thirty minute tours of a small part of the Capital or Supreme Court building is not what an open democratic society should have. It's what is given today. But it wasn't always that way, and shouldn't be now. Security concerns should not trump reason and openness in a free society. Taxpayers have the right to see what they pay for the government structures and engage those who represent them inside of them.
I remember as a boy how I was given complete access to roam the White House, even going unescorted into the famed Lincoln bedroom and getting a glimpse of the President of the United States as he entered a limousine on the grounds of the White House. He stood just a few meters from the tourists that day. Years later when I was a teacher I took students to Washington DC for a week of the "Close-up" program, Congressmen roamed the hallways and grounds of the capital openly and apparently were unafraid of contact with the public. We rode in underground elevators with Congressmen. One could say "hello" and often engage in a conversation with them.
Being in touch with constituents is a primary part of the function of an elected official in a democracy. That politicians today only want scripted meetings with constituents or that they give staff members of their offices the duty to contact voters instead of doing it themselves is a sad sign of the times. The only safety concern government officials here have now is not for the voting public, but rather safety from an elected representative having to openly face those whom he or she is supposed to represent. From my view that is a far worse terrorism than all the phony terrorist scenarios we hear from politicians today.
The reason that I mention this is because I just read a story about how the public has lost much of its once unhindered access to the Capital and White House grounds. Now, the public is permitted to see the Capitol only from the extreme outside as Senators and Representatives there have arranged the time honored "capital tour" to be conducted far away from them. But then, members of Congress even avoid their constituents when they go back home to their districts. It's part of the elite mindset that politicians have. They want to be seen and spoken to by constituents as little as possible.
Security concerns, swelling crowds and the wish to keep the public away means the average person isn't allowed to see much of the Capitol for very long. For any single citizen, the chance of seeing a Senator walk by or to speak with him or her is almost an impossible one. Thirty minute tours of a small part of the Capital or Supreme Court building is not what an open democratic society should have. It's what is given today. But it wasn't always that way, and shouldn't be now. Security concerns should not trump reason and openness in a free society. Taxpayers have the right to see what they pay for the government structures and engage those who represent them inside of them.
I remember as a boy how I was given complete access to roam the White House, even going unescorted into the famed Lincoln bedroom and getting a glimpse of the President of the United States as he entered a limousine on the grounds of the White House. He stood just a few meters from the tourists that day. Years later when I was a teacher I took students to Washington DC for a week of the "Close-up" program, Congressmen roamed the hallways and grounds of the capital openly and apparently were unafraid of contact with the public. We rode in underground elevators with Congressmen. One could say "hello" and often engage in a conversation with them.
Being in touch with constituents is a primary part of the function of an elected official in a democracy. That politicians today only want scripted meetings with constituents or that they give staff members of their offices the duty to contact voters instead of doing it themselves is a sad sign of the times. The only safety concern government officials here have now is not for the voting public, but rather safety from an elected representative having to openly face those whom he or she is supposed to represent. From my view that is a far worse terrorism than all the phony terrorist scenarios we hear from politicians today.
Selling Foods That Prevent Disease
Nestle, one of the world's most successful packaged food companies and the maker of many of those chocolates I love to eat, has announced plans to marker new foods that act like medicine. Err....sort of like medicine...at least they claim. Nestle announced it would invest about $500 million in a new venture called 'Nestle Health Science' to develop foods and supplements designed to help prevent diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer's and cardiovascular disease. Is that possible?
I am already overloaded with sensory info from food sellers about their alleged "healthy foods" and am "sick" of it. Misleading health claims from food makers have already done damage to people in making them thinking their "healthy eating' can actually prevent discomfort (as in those pro biotic yogurts that stop constipation). Now Nestle proposes to start a new information (misinformation) program that will claim eating their food can prevent disease.
Disease claims and labeling language on packaged foods are already too complex and dishonest. I wonder how governments will regulate claims that a food can "Help prevent Alzheimer's" or "Keep your heart healthy". I doubt there can be regulations so specific to stop the same mania society presents today about foods. We already categorize foods as good and bad (often wrongly), demonizing some foods that are fine and ennobling others that are not what they are claimed to be.
I would much prefer to have the governments of the world ban any claim that a food is healthy or not healthy. Listing ingredients is enough information to allow consumers to choose what they want. Frankly, there are times I would prefer a Nestle Crunch chocolate bar to an apple or other "healthy" food choice, and I do not think eating that candy bar will harm me anyway, and I don't think it is "healthy" to make people feel guilty about a food choice.
The world today is lost in trendiness and political correctness. this includes food labeling. Humans today cant even eat bacon and eggs without feeling guilty that they are abusing their bodies. It is nonsense! We should take political correctness and trendiness out of our kitchens and stomachs. Eating should be a satiating concept, not a torture of guilt. I raise my donut in toast to the end of denomination of food.
I am already overloaded with sensory info from food sellers about their alleged "healthy foods" and am "sick" of it. Misleading health claims from food makers have already done damage to people in making them thinking their "healthy eating' can actually prevent discomfort (as in those pro biotic yogurts that stop constipation). Now Nestle proposes to start a new information (misinformation) program that will claim eating their food can prevent disease.
Disease claims and labeling language on packaged foods are already too complex and dishonest. I wonder how governments will regulate claims that a food can "Help prevent Alzheimer's" or "Keep your heart healthy". I doubt there can be regulations so specific to stop the same mania society presents today about foods. We already categorize foods as good and bad (often wrongly), demonizing some foods that are fine and ennobling others that are not what they are claimed to be.
I would much prefer to have the governments of the world ban any claim that a food is healthy or not healthy. Listing ingredients is enough information to allow consumers to choose what they want. Frankly, there are times I would prefer a Nestle Crunch chocolate bar to an apple or other "healthy" food choice, and I do not think eating that candy bar will harm me anyway, and I don't think it is "healthy" to make people feel guilty about a food choice.
The world today is lost in trendiness and political correctness. this includes food labeling. Humans today cant even eat bacon and eggs without feeling guilty that they are abusing their bodies. It is nonsense! We should take political correctness and trendiness out of our kitchens and stomachs. Eating should be a satiating concept, not a torture of guilt. I raise my donut in toast to the end of denomination of food.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)