Indicators

The LATimes did at least a fairly decent job today on covering the World Bank issue. Well, aside fromt the byline found in the paper, at least.

But a KFI host yesterday really bashed in the Times for its coverage of the missing Coalition soldiers (a haughty report on page six really doesn't do justice). The Times proved this host's point today with its follow-up story. Maybe if newspapers listened to the airwaves, they'd stop fumbling!

Oh, and a final thing...y'know how pictures are worth a thousand words? And how words in a newspaper these days are almost worthless? Well, they add up. Those who have a hard copy of today's Times with them will have a blatantly obvious example staring up at them on the top flap of the front page: Iraqis "cheering" on a destroyed carrier in which Danish troops were attacked.

And you wonder why most LATimes readers are against the war....

Journalistic Foci

Okay, so it's been a while. But I haven't changed, and neither has the LA Times, so the posts'll be along the same lines even now. For example, we got a lower-right Front Page story "The Iraq war, spliced for a YouTube world." OK, so this article's not as bad as most, and any anti-war sentiments are implied, and it takes some thinking to get there, actually. But the real kicker paragraph comes near the end:

"When a bombing happens in another city, it's a big deal," he said. "When it happens here, people [in the rest of the world] are used to it. The think, 'OK, so another 100 people died.'"

I bet most of you don't realize what kind of gold has come with this quote. The key here is the media reporting the war. Most headlines are ignorant of all else save one thing - how many died. What was the cause, who committed the injustice, and were any of our troops involved in bringing the perpetrators to justice at the time?

Who knows, and who cares, because to the Mainstream, Drive-By Media, all that matters is the dead. And if all that's reported in the media is who died, OF COURSE people throughout the world are only going to think "oh, more have died!"

But the saddest part is, this is no journalistic agenda. This is the essense of journalism itself. If it bleeds, it ledes, but only because, as the journalistic mentality goes, people close to the individual need to know. That is why people, en masse, are against the Iraq War - their attention spans are so short, all they have time to know is who died, and ergo to them that's all that happens. Because people are too busy to read about the merits of our troops' good an valiant actions, they come away with a false impression of the war that hurts reality.

And young, budding journalists are taught from day one that the very first thing they should mention, should it happen, are deaths from an incident. I should know. I was in that introductory class.

Welcome to your special World of Journalism.

Penraker Will Love...

Well, normally I'm not one for the old books. And yet I find, quite oddly, that I hate Socrates and Plato with a passion, yet I find Aristotle quite acceptable. That said, I had been reading the latter's "Nicomachean Ethics" - which my philosophy professor told the class to buy even though we never read it, so I held on to it for summer reading - and I found a passage that would greatly inspire the author of the blog penraker.com:

"For the many naturally obey fear, not shame; they avoid what is base because of the penalties, not because it is disgraceful. For since they live by thier feelings, they pursue their proper pleasures and the sources of them, and avoid the opposed pains, and have not even a notion of what is fine and [hence] truly pleasant, since they have had no taste of it."
- (Aristotle, X9-1179b)

i.e., Says I, this means in today's society that people generally pursue the good feeling of orgasms while simultaneously avoiding pregnancy - the whole point of sex, not the other way around. People today are destroying the future generations in favor of "feeling good" now, because of the pleasant feeling following the plateau stage of intercourse. This, of course, boils down to the ethical/moral dilemma of the lack of care for our children, which is of course a major focusing point of penraker's blog.

Why The World Is So Mad At Us

On August 18, an unscrupulously anti-American Santa Monican named Sarah Tamor wanted to know "why is the world so mad at us?"

Consider this answer, Ms. Tamor: it's people like you! Consider a part of your "letter to the editor":
"Sweig forgets that domestically, Bush inherited a multibillion-dollar budget surplus and transformed it into a multibillion-dollar deficit."
All an inherent lie - but I don't blame you. You didn't know.

Or, you didn't read.

You see, the White House finally allowed its own deficit figure - some two hundred something billion - to be compared/contrasted to the real figure, which was double to triple that amount.

Yeah, they screwed up big-time. And that's to say nothing of the Public Debt.

But this implicates someone else as well.

Who, you might ask?

Former President Bill Clinton.

Ohmygod, how?

Well, the newly released/reconciled figures show that Clinton ran his own deficit.

Sorry, Bush-haters. Guess you'll have to retract that statement of yours!

I guess I might have to retract a statement of my own.

Perhaps Ms. Tamor was not ignorant.

Perhaps, instead, she'd deliberately lied.

- Sentientity

Israel, Exams, and Other Sh*t

FOLLOWING THE CALIFORNIA EXIT EXAM
To begin with, though I am often (actually,mostly) critical of the Los Angeles Times, it can - at times (no pun) - say the right thing...or at least allow others to do so when "appropriate."

Such is the case with the Exit exams. Mercifully, the Times' editorial staff chose to run an op-ed on the fact that the Exit exams were working and, also - for a change - backed up a correct end with the appropriate means (in other words, objectivity that in any other section would seem surprisingly out of place). Enter former Los Angeles major Richard Riordan into the mix with a somewhat more subjective pro-Exit Exam op-ed of his own, and one has a newspaper that has reformed appropriately on at least one issue. Riordan's persuasive op-ed - which utilizes Thomas Friedman's The World Is Flat, can be found here.


CIVILIAN DEATHS IN THE MIDEAST, SAN FRANCISCO STYLE
In response to the July 22 Opinion article "'Civilian casualty'? That's a gray area," angry San Franciscoan Evan Elliot writes:
"Dershowitz writes: 'The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit.' That sounds fair enough, but there's a problem: Israel has blocked many roads in all directions, so thousands of civilians cannot leave southern Lebanon. So much for Israel trying to minimize the deaths of innocents."

Evan, I do not think you have done your research. You acknowledge the claim that Israel has been trying to minimize civilian deaths, yet you've ignored the thousands of firsthand reports from all categories of sources that Hezbollah encourages death; you seem to believe that failing to prevent death is worse than purposely causing it. At least Israel tries to minimize deaths, but it is a feat near impossible when the enemy (in this case, Hezbollah) will do anything to put civilians into the line of fire so that it could hide within the mesh of said civilians.

Do us all real Americans a favor: go back to pre-Dec. 1941 America; you might just fit right in!


THE RIGHT WORD AT THE PERFECT TIME
It seems that someone used the Times for personal purposes. Sylvan Collin wasted no breath in bashing in Bush as best she could (in retaliation for Bush saying "shit") with the following:
"Shame on The Times for applauding Bush's use of profanity. The president is not just another guy whose frustration justifies his use of profanity. The president's language in public should be carefully controlled and should reflect the dignity inherent in his high office.
Another reason for condemning rather than applauding Bush is that he does not practice what he preaches. His administration's official policy is that the use of obscenities is immoral and offensive. The FCC, which is controlled by Bush appointees, invokes stiff fines on U.S. radio and TV stations that broadcast the s-word used by the president. His use of that word demonstrates his hypocrisy."

Shame on you, Sylvan! It is in your second paragraph that I find your hypocrisy. Remember, this was small talk. D'you know that phrase? Or are you resistant to the fact that perhaps some people might not talk formally all the time when expected? Don't forget, radio and TV stations are intentionally open to the public; small talk is supposed to be private...right?

Bush is a man with responsibilities. He's not a celebrity.
Oh, and speaking of which, he was the only man who acted responsibly at the G8, being the only leader with a clear stance against the terroristic Hezbollah.

Hey, Sylvan and Evan - take your anti-Israel shit somewhere else - some place private!


- Sentientity

Good Bedfellows: Cellphones, Insanity

Two issues: Cell Phones. Insanity.

Insanity first.

(scroll down)

So, the root of my complaining? The recent case surmized by the Times as such: "a 17-year-old Arizona man named Eric Michael Clark, who shot a police officer, believing him to be a space alien."
This case found its way to the Supreme Court.
And, guess what?
They prosecuted him. And, in my opinion, rightfully so.

But former NAMILACCC president Jim Randall, in his July 16 editorial "Mental Illness Is Not a Crime," disagrees. Allow me briefly to whine about some of the things he says:

"Although it's unknown exactly what went on in the mind of the young man after he shot the policeman, it's reasonable to believe the state of terror that drove him to take another man's life could have easily propelled him to flee."

Okay, so right off the bat, Randall says he believes that the murder of a policeman by a deranged individual is reasonable. Let us continue...

"To make inferences about his state of mind by using the standard of what a person without a brain disorder would be thinking if they ran away from the scene of the crime is unreasonable."

Ah, hypocrisy - wonderful hypocrisy! First, he gives no direct indications that the Supreme Court made inferences based on the thoughts of normal crime scene-fleers, a failure of reporting that makes me wonder what kind of sourly terrible taste for bad journalism the shmucks who chose to run Randall's column have. Second, he contradicts what he said in the previous statement, in which he too extrapolates what might be reasonable to assume goes through a deranged person's brain...or does he think he's an authority on the issue?

"Clearly, if someone with a mental illness demonstrates they are capable of murder, they need to be removed from society for the public good until they are no longer a danger. They need to be in a hospital. But to hold them morally accountable for their actions, as though delusions and hearing voices would not impair their basic judgment, defies fairness and common sense."

Gee, such a bleeding heart!
Though his first sentence is absolutely true [in my opinion], what he doesn't realize is that Clark is not merely "capable of murder," the deranged lunatic actually committed murder! Jeez! And of course, Randall's mainitaing that we're holding Clark "morally accountable."
What a shitload. We're not. We're holding him legally accountable. Oh, and who said anything about "fairness." Fairness to the mentally ill's one thing. Fairness to murder? Quite another.
And before his conclusion (to which we'll get in a moment), Randall does a breakdown:

"The problem of criminalizing people with a mental illness goes far beyond the single tragic case in Arizona. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says there are currently 2.2 million people in prison or in jail. Given that it's estimated that 15% of this population suffers from a severe mental illness, that means the United States has roughly 330,000 people incarcerated who suffer from brain disorders. Professor Richard Lamb of USC estimates that roughly half of this population should be behind bars (a drug dealer suffering from major depression would be an example).
But that means another 165,000 should be hospitalized or in outpatient care, not incarcerated. Instead, they are thrown in cages — brutalized, isolated and often untreated — not because of faults in their character or because they behaved in a way they knew to be wrong, but because of behavior stemming from biologically based brain disorders."

First, he does not cite his first source (the Bureau of Justice) in a footnote. Second, he proves he can do eighth grade math. Ooh, big one, I say we believe everything he says, eh?!
Third, he bases the entire second portion of this argument on the estimations of a college professor. Now of all things, that is the most bizarre.
But the most important thing to note is the observation that in this passage he was referring to the number of jailed/imprisoned people who are mentally ill, not the percentage of mentally ill people who are in jail/prison. Such a mishap, I think, discredits his assertions somewhat.

And finally, for good laughs, his conclusion:
"Future generations will look back on us and our treatment of people with mental illness much as we look back on the Spanish Inquisitors who burned Jews at the stake for not recanting their religion, or on the white racists who lynched African Americans for being insubordinate. Future generations will see us through the lens of history and ask how we dared to be so ignorant."



Okay, and now on to...cell phones.
So, many politicians in CA (incl. the Guv'nor) want to make the usage of cell phones in cars...illegal. At least, they wanna make the one-hand-on-wheel aspect illegal.

But a [rightfully] well-publicized report was issued demonstrating that people who use earphones during cell phone conversations in the car are just as likely to get into a car accident as people actually holding a cell phone to their ear.

Like, what?

In other words, this silly legislation, if it passes (which it won't because no one in California would vote for it), would be a completely worthless waste of politicians' time and taxpayers' money. Oh, and an interesting fact: the first cordless phones were invented for use in the car!

More good laughs, incredulities and hypocrisies from the LA Times coming later today...

- Sentientity

Hello, I'm a High School Graduate and My Job Pays Better Than Yours!

The concluding fact-byte to that July 24 article entitled "That Raise Might Take 4 Years to Earn as Well," by Molly Hennessy-Fiske, has me somewhat...startled. And desperate.
It reads:

Four-year college graduates
2000: $54,396
2004: $51,568
Percent change: Down 5.2%
High school graduates
2000: $28,179
2004: $28,631
Percent change: Up 1.6%
Source: The 2006 Economic Report of the President

I am a high school graduate working in a movie theater for the minimum wage.
I'm going to a university in Georgie next year.

Am I setting myself up for disappointment?

I sure hope not! :-(


- Sentientity

Schwarzenegger plays...period.

In a response to George Skelton's July 20 article "It's a Good Time for Angelides to Tune His Pitch," Arch Miller of Arcadia had the following to say:

George Skelton wrote that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger "has benefited from a
style change." A few paragraphs later, he wrote: "And which Schwarzenegger would
we get: the celebrity non-politician, the blustering bully or the positive
bipartisan?"
Skelton accurately describes and defines Schwarzenegger's governorship. For
Schwarzenegger, being governor is just another acting role (granted that this
role has real power). And he will act however he perceives he must to increase
his box-office appeal.
I could opine here about the exigent for the American voter to look beyond
the superficial and telegenic candidate, but I may as well wish that people
would stop talking on their cellphones while driving. Neither will happen.

Personally, I don't think Arnold became guv'nor just 'cuz maintaining his constituency was kinda like "his box-office appeal." As a matter of fact, I think his opponents are far more likely to use his movie days against him as he is to use 'em for himself.

In the beginning, furthermore, he was not as "infected" by politics - he had a strong opinion on political issues [that usually are the right opinions], but increased pressure from union-backed democratic [and the occasionaly republican] legislators in the senate and assembly had in the past year caused him to back down somewhat. But now he's a guv'nor, and he might have to play that nasty game of politics to stay one step or more ahead of his competitor (Angelides) because he is, after all, the lesser of two evils.

- Sentientity

The Arms Dealers

Today, the Los Angeles Times once again has demonstrated its ignorance of the truth concerning events in the Israel-Lebanon War, ignorance which is at its most glaring through the op-eds of Joel Stein ("Not so fast, buddy, Beirut's my sister) and Zev Chafets ("I want Falwell in my foxhole"). Actually, Chafets' article wouldn't've been so bad had it not been for the fact that his op-ed serves as ammo to the Los Angeles Times' already expert ability to somehow associate fanatical right-wing Christianity (read: Pres. Bush) with Israel. That's where I, personally, draw the line.

Joel Stein, however, has lots and lots for which to answer. To summarize his article, he claims that Beirut is like Los Angeles' sister city (as is Eilat, Israel) and therefore we must defend her as best we can when she's in a right bad state, especially if we're talking about sibling rivalry and fighting (in this case, Israel v. Lebanon).
That personification is nowhere near the most accurate description of the conflict. There is a much better explanation: let us assume [again] that Lebanon and Israel are like fighting sisters [odd as that may be]. Now, associate Hezbollah with some deadly modern virus or disease such as SARS, HIV or avian flu. The SARS/HIV/avian flu has infected sister Lebanon and is trying to use sister Lebanon to infect sister Israel. Israel realizes that sister Lebanon is in a catatonic state, or perhaps controlled by this virus as a human is controlled by the Borg. Therefore, sister Israel realizes that saving Her sister Lebanon might cost Lebanon an arm and a leg. That is the sacrifice, but it is either that or the infection and subsequent destruction of sister Israel.

In his own CURRENT op-ed, Jonathan Chait surmises, as did Alan Dershowitz the previous day, that the concept of 'disproportionate force' - the criticism that many anti-Israel critics have thrown at the sovereign, always-at-stake state of Israel - is terribly lopsided as Hezbollah has almost complete control of Lebanon, in the same way that the Nazis gradually wrested control of Germany from the Weimar Republic in the early 1930s; Chait suggests, furthermore, that Israel would only truly be at fault if its stated goal - neutralizing Hezbollah in Lebanon as best it can with as little collateral damage as possible - is in fact verifiably achieved.

Meanwhile, I have my own solution: Let Lebanon Fall.
Yes, Israel blew it way back then when it had to protect itself from invaders stationed in Lebanon and in doing so exerted some military hold in Southern Lebanon, only to relinquish control back in 2000. But during that time span, Hezbollah turned itself from a fanatical organization of terror - much as many nutcases and orators unjustly perceive The Minutemen - into a legal political party, essentially deadening Lebanon to true progress and, indeed, truly making it a puppet of Damascus and Tehran. Lebanon was lost a long time ago. Let Israel put Her to rest!


Finally, in the meantime, I have one final qualm with Israel, believe it or not. The fact that it engaged in arms dealing with the U.S. I mean, we might as well've thumbed our nose at the rest of the world by explicitly aiding and abetting Israel's ability to counter Mideast terrorism. I am not saying we should have done this, only that this move decreases Israel's - and our - credibility.

- Sentientity