Old Stories
I saw the ushers who helped me out so nicely at the last opera, when I was freshly injured and took my niece. It turns out the letter I sent complimenting Dale and Michaelo was forwarded to the Seattle Center employees newsletter where it was printed. I was happy to hear they got some recognition after they helped Ericka and I have such a wonderful time.
I finally updated my list of blogs, in no particular order, meaning they are mostly listed in the order in which I started reading them. The last two are new ones I picked to start reading regularly. More or less randomly, a new one from Richard's list, and a new one from Rachel's. I dropped Successlessness, which I stumbled across last year. I was initially interested because it was a fellow from this area who is a fan of reality and formulaic tv. It was during the election, and I'm not generally enthused by those genres, but somehow found it interesting someone who was didn't like the Bush regime. I also dropped RebelKate who had commented on a political blog and interested me for two reasons, first because she had ditched medical school by choice, which I related to. I did the same, but before I actually started. Also, she was another person who had some beliefs which seemed to be more in line with the Bush base, but detested Bush as much as I. They both seem like nice folks, and I still find RebelKate's occasional entry interesting, but there is no interaction. The lack of interaction started to make me feel creepy. There are a number of blogs I've never commented on, which don't bother me. I guess once you comment on a stranger's blog site, no response sends a message. Sort of a passive "Bugger off mate!"
Richard talked about blogs, and the question as to whether or not bloggers are journalists. Are bloggers doctors? Are bloggers actors? Are bloggers crazy? Except for the last they are all ridiculous questions really. A journalist may be a blogger, and if said journalist writes as a journalist, then it is an editorial piece, not a news item. This obvious distinction seems to be missed by the media, demonstrating their current paucity of understanding when it comes to the ethics of their chosen field.
Like Richard says, blogs are simply a means of communication. Some people compete for readers, some could care less, most probably come somewhere in the middle. I consider my blog to be a journal, which doesn't make it journalism. Maybe there are some folks that need to read the definitions of the words they use, to be sure they know whereof they speak. I'm a journalist, one who keeps a journal, not one whose occupation is journalism. So there. My blog is not news.
I do like it a few people read my blog, but it is not my big goal. I like the day to day journal keeping. It serves to remind me of what I've done, reinforcing thoughts and memories, and providing a little focus for where I want to go. It is my platform for exploration. I've made many decisions which were crystallized while writing here. It is a sounding board. I've floated many thoughts about which I'll make decisions here. It is a spleen venting venue. Speaking of which...
What do you think of the Newsweek retraction? Here's what I posted at work:
Whether we are attacking poorly armed non-white non-christians in the gladiatorial tradition, rolling back individual protections against the misdeeds of mega-corporations, or creating a impoverished service class, our primary credo remains "Might makes right!" When you buy at Wal-Mart which is stocked by the same China which brought you Tiananmen Square, when you watch a tv series catering to the idea that 'terrorists' are the greatest threat ever known to mankind, when you buy a Humvee, when you shop at box stores to save a dime and put your neighbor out of business, you are buying into the concept. It is so pervasive in our society I don't think any of us can fully avoid supporting the concept. You don't have to if you don't want to. For myself, I try to be aware of how I can defy the concept and do so when I can. The times I don't are the only guilt I feel these days.
Grumble, grumble, grumble.
I finally updated my list of blogs, in no particular order, meaning they are mostly listed in the order in which I started reading them. The last two are new ones I picked to start reading regularly. More or less randomly, a new one from Richard's list, and a new one from Rachel's. I dropped Successlessness, which I stumbled across last year. I was initially interested because it was a fellow from this area who is a fan of reality and formulaic tv. It was during the election, and I'm not generally enthused by those genres, but somehow found it interesting someone who was didn't like the Bush regime. I also dropped RebelKate who had commented on a political blog and interested me for two reasons, first because she had ditched medical school by choice, which I related to. I did the same, but before I actually started. Also, she was another person who had some beliefs which seemed to be more in line with the Bush base, but detested Bush as much as I. They both seem like nice folks, and I still find RebelKate's occasional entry interesting, but there is no interaction. The lack of interaction started to make me feel creepy. There are a number of blogs I've never commented on, which don't bother me. I guess once you comment on a stranger's blog site, no response sends a message. Sort of a passive "Bugger off mate!"
Richard talked about blogs, and the question as to whether or not bloggers are journalists. Are bloggers doctors? Are bloggers actors? Are bloggers crazy? Except for the last they are all ridiculous questions really. A journalist may be a blogger, and if said journalist writes as a journalist, then it is an editorial piece, not a news item. This obvious distinction seems to be missed by the media, demonstrating their current paucity of understanding when it comes to the ethics of their chosen field.
Like Richard says, blogs are simply a means of communication. Some people compete for readers, some could care less, most probably come somewhere in the middle. I consider my blog to be a journal, which doesn't make it journalism. Maybe there are some folks that need to read the definitions of the words they use, to be sure they know whereof they speak. I'm a journalist, one who keeps a journal, not one whose occupation is journalism. So there. My blog is not news.
I do like it a few people read my blog, but it is not my big goal. I like the day to day journal keeping. It serves to remind me of what I've done, reinforcing thoughts and memories, and providing a little focus for where I want to go. It is my platform for exploration. I've made many decisions which were crystallized while writing here. It is a sounding board. I've floated many thoughts about which I'll make decisions here. It is a spleen venting venue. Speaking of which...
What do you think of the Newsweek retraction? Here's what I posted at work:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=765093Someone at work made the obvious connection to Dan Rather's swan song, about Bush's Guard service, which I had avoided. Again, everybody, pro or con, had to know the story was true. My take in both cases is the whitehouse succeeded in silencing witnesses, which understandably infuriated progressive people, and which conservatives unashamedly reveled in. It is a bizarre situation, the conservatives flex their somewhat less than ethical muscles, quash the truth, and their sycophants chant, "See we're right!" They know they are promoting a lie, and arrogantly proclaim the only meaningful ethic in their arsenal, "Might makes right!"
Lots of stories going around about Newsweek retracting their story about interrogators desecrating the Koran. Frankly, it is too late. I suspect I'm not alone in believing it happened, with implicit or explicit blessing from the whitehouse. Once again, the story has not been disproved, the source has dried up. Reminds you of witnesses against Gotti type characters turning up missing doesn't it?
Is there anyone who actually believes that this didn't happen? Surely nobody is that naïve.
I revile this administration. Having the US unapologetically committing premeditated war crimes, being the bad guy in a war is not something which sits well with anybody who is a true patriot, and not a whining little sycophant.
Whether we are attacking poorly armed non-white non-christians in the gladiatorial tradition, rolling back individual protections against the misdeeds of mega-corporations, or creating a impoverished service class, our primary credo remains "Might makes right!" When you buy at Wal-Mart which is stocked by the same China which brought you Tiananmen Square, when you watch a tv series catering to the idea that 'terrorists' are the greatest threat ever known to mankind, when you buy a Humvee, when you shop at box stores to save a dime and put your neighbor out of business, you are buying into the concept. It is so pervasive in our society I don't think any of us can fully avoid supporting the concept. You don't have to if you don't want to. For myself, I try to be aware of how I can defy the concept and do so when I can. The times I don't are the only guilt I feel these days.
Grumble, grumble, grumble.
1 Comments:
Thanks for the link!
I was explaining the Newsweek retraction to Shawn, pointing out the difference between a source drying up and a false report (NPR this evening is reporting that desecration of the Koran did indeed occur, but not as Newsweek reported it).
How could anyone not believe the story? We're talking about the same government that lied to it's public in order to start a war. We're talking about the same government who has whitewashed (note: Clinton reference irony) the prison scandles in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We're talking the same government that will not comment on their secret police flying prisoners to foreign nations so that they can be tortured in a country more amenable to such abuses. Frankly, though devout Muslims may disagree with this atheist, this seems to be among the least of their atrocities.
Post a Comment
<< Home