The Dream has died. Long live the Dream!

I am speaking, of course, of Dr. Martin Luther King's famous "I have a Dream" speech. Dr. King's off-the-cuff, non-scripted (but previously said publicly) declarations of his vision for a truly integrated society. One in which "...little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers."

Sadly, it seems that day is just as far off now as it was then. Dr. King's Dream has been dealt a mortal blow by those who it should have benefited the most.

In Florida, we know about a 17 year old black man named Trayvon Martin. We know about a 26 year old Hispanic man named George Zimmerman, who volunteered with the neighborhood watch in his gated community. We also know that he is of mixed ancestry (His father is white, his mother Peruvian).

We know that Zimmerman, called the police to report a "suspicious individual", and against the instructions of a police dispatcher, was following Martin. We know that some manner of altercation took place in which Zimmerman was wounded. We also know that the altercation ended when Zimmerman (by his own admission) shot and killed Martin. Beyond that, we know nothing.

But don't say that to those who use Dr. King's name as a rallying point, and corrupt his Dream for their own gain. Within days of this story becoming a national one (even though the evening in question was nearly a month prior), the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were on scene in a little Florida suburb. They held rallies, spoke to any microphone nearby, and in general stomped all over Dr. King's legacy in the process.

"Look Jesse! There's a microphone!" "What's it for?" "Don't know, don't care. I feel the need to pontificate! C'mon!"

Their take was that Zimmerman killed an unarmed black teen simply because he was black, and Zimmerman was white. Then they saw the pictures. And they realized that although he lived in a gated community, and had a very "white" sounding name, George Zimmerman was NOT a "white" man. So the story changed, and suddenly we have a new hyphenation showing up in media reports: White-Hispanic.

The focus dropped from "Man kills teenager with gun" to "What goodies did the helpless teen have on him from his trip to the convenience store? And what did the "white-Hispanic wannabe cop" have against a young man wearing a hoodie?".

A Congressman breaks decorum on the House floor by wearing a hooded sweatshirt with the hood up. Facebook, Twitter, and other social media light up with pictures and videos of individuals, professional sports teams, and other groups "sporting hood" in solidarity with... I don't know, I guess people trying to keep some drizzle off their faces? Junk dealing little people on far off planets?

I'm not saying everyone who wears a hoodie is bad, but these guys seem a little shady to me...

Through all this, the rabble-rousers mentioned by name above, continue to stir up trouble. In crowds of mostly (if not all) black people, calls for "justice" go out, with the Revs at the bullhorns or microphones. The New Black Panthers offer a bounty for George Zimmerman.

Stop and think about that for just a second. A private group of citizens are offering money to people to hunt down, and capture another private citizen, so that justice is done. And it takes commentary from Conservative media before anyone thinks that this crosses a couple of lines, and this action is condemned. Had the shooter been a black man, and the GOP put out a bounty, we would STILL be hearing the outrage and the phrase "lynch mob" would be on everyone's lips.

Taken on the whole, the bounty, the instant appearance of the Revs Jackson and Sharpton, the focus on the color of the skin of the victim, type of neighborhood the shooting took place in, and the ethnicity of the shooter, etc. all adds up to yet another nail in the coffin of Dr. King's Dream.

I spoke a few years ago on this very blog how the election of the nation's first black president caused a setback in what Dr. King worked, and indeed died, for. Barack Obama received an unprecedented percentage of the black vote. When asked why, many black people replied that it was his skin color that was the deciding factor. Not what he stood for. Not what drugs he had done or not done when he was younger, but the color of his skin. Some couldn't even identify who he was actually running with, figuring that as long as the black guy got in, having Sarah Palin as vice-president, even though they disagreed with nearly everything she stood for, would have been just fine.

Now, things in the country have gotten to the point where a single young black man is gunned down in a presumably white (because we need to know it is a gated community) neighborhood by a man with a white (and let's call a spade a spade, shall we) Jewish sounding name, and the instant assumption is that it was a hate crime (national coverage of one death, and while that's been going on, hundreds of other young black men have died in violence on our streets).

The victim was guilty of nothing more than walking with a hood up, carrying skittles and an iced tea, and a white man who thought of himself as some sort of vigilante hero, guns him down. We know more about these two men, and will continue to learn more about them in the next few weeks, I'm sure, and I'm willing to bet that more people could identify them by picture than they can the Vice-president.

"You say this is a picture of the Vice-president? I know I've seen this guy before.... Hey wait a sec. That looks like me!"

But through it all, we have not been permitted to forget that the victim is black. I have seen brought to the fore a statistic that says the leading cause of death for young black men (ages 15-24) is homicide. It's not a stretch to conclude that the vast majority of those were caused by firearms. More often than not, the skin color of the victim and the perpetrator are the same. The crime is not because of SKIN color as often as it is CLOTHING color. Gangs attract young black kids, and gang violence leads to their deaths. We know that gangs had nothing to do with the Martin case, so one must wonder at the statistic being brought up now. Yes, Zimmerman had a gun. But that really isn't the point, is it? He didn't set out to gun down a black kid that night, so how can that statistic mean anything?

My point is that in this country, too many people have forgotten Dr. King's ideals, while at the same time spouting his words. They see skin color and STILL make snap decisions about a person. And some of the worst offenders are those for whom Dr. King did so much. They have names like Jackson, Sharpton, Wright and Farrakhan. They compare the Supreme Court of the United States to the KKK. The tell "Whites" that "Unless you change, your end has come".

This country is easily as divided today as it was 50 years ago. The only thing missing are the signs telling people what drinking fountains to use. However, you can go to any major city in America, and outside of whatever area is set aside for commerce and/or tourism, you can find neighborhoods. And in the neighborhoods, if your skin is not the right color, you could get robbed, beaten, or worse. Knowing what areas "belong" to what group is second nature to those who live in the cities. There is no need for signs.

If there were any time for the people of this nation to come together, it is now. It doesn't matter that Trayvon Martin was black or George Zimmerman Hispanic with a white father. The Skittles, tea and hoodie are meaningless objects. Martin's previous minor offenses, or Zimmerman's aspirations to herodom, all pointless.

All that matters is that a young man is dead by the hand of a gung-ho neighborhood watch "captain". The dead are buried, and the accused will face justice (hopefully from a jury not too tainted by the media's overzealous coverage and reporting of "facts").

When all is said and done, nothing else matters. Dr. King understood this.

He wasn't just speaking to black people on that August day. He was speaking to all of us. He recognized that the freedom he sought for black people was inextricably tied to the nation's whites, and that hatred of whites was pointless. He acknowledged and called "brothers" the whites who were in the crowd in support of his cause. He spoke to recognizing people not for the color of their skin, but for the content of their character.

He spoke of not being guilty of wrongful deeds in the pursuit of freedom, and eschewing bitterness and hatred. He spoke of peace, and of unity of ALL people, regardless of skin color or religion.

He didn't speak of bounties. He didn't speak of hoodies, tea, or Skittles. He didn't speak of vigilantism. He spoke of breaking out of ghettos, not entrenching into them.

The freedom he sought has been gained. Unfortunately, there was more to his Dream than just that. And that has been forgotten.

Nearly fifty years. That was a pretty good run. Maybe, in the days to come, Dr. King's ideas, his very legacy, can be resurrected.

For now, we can only hope that the new divisions that separate us won't lead to a darkness from which we cannot hope to emerge. It doesn't matter, the color of skin of the person or persons who lead us from this edge we find ourselves on. What matters is in our own hearts.

Will we continue to shout hateful, divisive rhetoric from bullhorns, microphones and pulpits?

Or will we have the courage to stand and simply speak the words "I have a Dream"?

What is Leadership anyway? Part One: The Media

There's always a lot of talk about leadership, and I'm guilty of it too.

We talk about how an elected official is or is not exhibiting leadership. We refer to the president of the US as "leader of the free world". Marvel Comics has a bad guy for the Hulk who has an over-sized head named "The Leader". Alternate history author Harry Turtledove refers to Hitler in another universe as simply "The Leader".

But what does it really mean to be a leader?

Leaders can be those out in front, with others following their actions. Leaders can be those sitting behind a desk, delegating tasks to others who are out in front.

In journalism, being a leader means being the most trusted, and accurate in your reporting of events. It seems that modern journalistic leadership means being the first to "break" a story. For as long as there have been newspapers, there have been those who want to "scoop" the competition. But with the 24-hour news cycle, this seems to have gotten out of hand.

This just in. Lasagna is hazardous to the health of cats, except those who hate Mondays.

But this also seems to be a double-edged sword, because some of the best reporting comes from that attempt to scoop the competition. Breaking news stories don't get to be fact-checked. When one is reporting "from the scene", we, as the news consumer are getting what we really want. Reporting of just what has been observed. This is journalism at it's finest. Where the reporter has facts of the moment, and gets more information as it becomes available.

Usually, this kind of reporting comes about in covering a big court case, or other local interest story. Sometimes "coarse" language might get on the air in cases like this, because not everyone on the scene at something like that is a trained reporter.

Other times it comes about from disasters (fires, flooding, industrial accidents, etc). The imagery can be horrific, because there is no editor deciding what will or will not be seen. September 11, 2001, was a day of such reporting. Now, some images have been edited by some (not all) media outlets, because they might be "too graphic". To some of us who remember seeing things unfold on that day, there almost is no such animal.

The point is, "breaking" news is what I think of when I think of true journalism. It's raw. It's not been edited or even dumbed-down for me. It is the world, as it happens.

All too often though, what gets reported in the 24-hour news cycle is NOT the world as it happens. It's the world as seen through the biases of the talking heads, the directors, editors, and producers. Even what should be "on the scene" footage get's carefully posed, so as to not allow anything to spoil the "perfect" image.

Think about it. How often do you watch something with, say, a CNN reporter on the scene, and NOT see a reporter from MSNBC there? Then you switch to MSNBC, and see just their reporter at the same scene? The press likes to position things to get as wide a shot as possible, but make it seem like they are the only ones there to let you know. Televised reporting is theater as much as a sitcom. The only difference is that a laugh track doesn't get put over the news.

Even this "news" didn't have a laugh track. It was a live audience...

It almost seems that if you want accurate news today, you have to either be at every major news scene yourself, or rely on the internet and sit through hours upon hours of youtube videos submitted by people who are at those scenes. The proliferation and bundling of technology means that with just a cell phone, EVERYONE is a cameraman on the scene. Which means that for every event, you can literally get 5 views of the event. And 5 opinions.

That is why we rely on the media (televised, cable, and print) to tell us about what's going on. We trust that it is easier to have someone else slog through the information, footage, and opinions, and give us the straight story.

Which raises another issue. It doesn't matter who the editor/producer/director is. They have an opinion. And in the way the story is written (for reading by the public, or by a talking head) will communicate this, even if only in small ways. For years some have said there has been a liberal bias in the media. It's what gave rise to folks like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck. It's what spawned Fox News Channel. The decision to find some way to offer another point of view led to an "alternative" media, in which a conservative viewpoint is offered. To give people a choice. Because when looking to know what is going on, I want an opinion forced upon me.

Let me be clear. I personally think there is a bias in the mainstream media. That bias tends to be toward a liberal point of view, with which I do not agree. But I also acknowledge that there is a conservative bias in the so-called "alternative" media. This is a bias with which I generally agree. But the real truth is lost.

When I want to know what's going on in the world, I don't want to know what the Republicans say, or Democrats respond. I just want to know the facts. And the facts get lost. I have read articles written as what should have been hard-news stories, just a reporting of the facts, that have demonstrated through phrasing, word selection, and even overall tone, a bias. These stories come "over the wire" from services like the Associated Press, Knight Ridder News Service, and Rueters. These are supposed to be non-biased news services meant to be generic stories sold to outlets who then report these stories to the public. In exchange, the news service involved gets a mention. Suddenly the truth becomes a commercial enterprise.

In a world where information is given to us through so many pipelines, why should there be conglomerates who sell news to others, who in turn sell news further down the line, with each level adding their own "spin" to the story?

Gottabethefirst!Gottabethefirst!Gottabethefirst!Gottabethefirst!Gottabethefirst!Gottabethe...

There is so much interest in being the first to report a story, time is not taken to check to see if it is actually fact (Hell, even so-called "fact checking" websites have their own opinions proudly on display). There is so much interest in beating the other guy, to be what is mistakenly called the leader, that no time is taken to make sure something is what it has been reported to be.

News outlets will take "information" from any source, and report it as fact, with no interest in checking their sources. Just recently were two stellar examples of this.

Joe Paterno, long-time head coach of the Penn State University football team, was caught up (unfairly, in my opinion) in a scandal involving allegations of sexual abuse by one of his assistant coaches. He has been known to be ill for a while, and was unceremoniously fired for his "involvement". After being fired, his health took a turn for the worse, and he was hospitalized. Media camped out outside the hospital where he was, going so far as to asking a priest departing the hospital if he had been there to offer last rites to Paterno (the priest refrained from stating why he was there, stating that whoever he was there to see deserved privacy). Then Paterno was reported as having died.

This story was inaccurate. The media decided to run the story, not because it was correct, but because it fit the circumstances. They never bothered to confirm the veracity of the report, and just went ahead and told the world that the coach with the best win-loss record in college football had died (he did die, but not until the next day).

More recently, reports of the death of musical performers Cher and Adele made the rounds on Twitter. These stories however failed to reach the wide reporting by the mainstream media. But they could have.

"Someone tweeted Cher died? Quick! Run that story!"

"Wait a sec... Shouldn't we make sure she died before we roll out the pre-prepared obituary?"

"Maybe. I'd hate to waste that. Okay, check the facts and get back to me."

With the rise on social networking, and the 24-hour news cycle, everyone thinks that they can be a reporter. And sometimes the mainstream media lets it happen that way. A person tweets something from a "hotspot", and boom. It's fact on the air. We'll do a retraction if we have to, but we've GOT to be first to report this. We have to lead.

And that's the problem. There's limited accountability for the media. They can apologize for getting a story wrong, and toying with emotions of loved ones or fans, but they face no consequence in the pursuit to be "the leader" with a news story.

Maybe instead of trying to lead, with no accountability or responsibility for what they do, maybe someone in the media can emerge as a true leader? One who takes their responsibility to be a trusted reporter of events as they actually happen, and not "spinning", or "scooping"?

Or am I just a leader of fools for thinking that something like that could ever happen?

What if..?

It's become the thing to do. You have someone who has a strong opinion on a particular issue, or strong belief, and the fun thing to do is ask "What if..?"

It happened in 1988 when Bernard Shaw asked Michael Dukakis to consider a hypothetical question in which his wife were raped and murdered, and then explain if he would still be against the death penalty. Ronald Regan famously responded to a hypothetical about Lebanon by saying "You're asking a hypothetical question, and I've found out that I never get in trouble if I don't answer one of those."

Honestly... Even looking like this, he makes Barack Obama's ability to communicate look like grunting and pointing at paintings on a cave wall.

The hypothetical question has been used for years. The intent is to find a way to ask a question and maybe get someone to say something that puts a lie to something they may have said. Typically it's asked of criminals or politicians (what's the difference right? rimshot) to put them into a conversational corner.

The most recent example, that makes me even think about this, was an interview with Rick Santorum conducted by Piers Morgan. Morgan asked Santorum, long known for his pro-life/anti-abortion views the following: "You know, if you have a daughter that came to you who had been raped... And was pregnant and was begging you to let her have an abortion, would you really be able to look her in the eye and say, no, as her father?"

Really? A similar nonsensica-- hypothetical question was put to then-vice-president Dan Quayle by Morgan's predecessor, Larry King.

What is it about having some sort of standard that "journalists" (on either side) don't like? In recent history, hypotheticals such as this have been tossed around, mostly by liberals seeking to trap conservatives in some sort of hypocrisy (not to say that the opposite doesn't happen, but when was the last time an interviewer asked Hilary Clinton if she would go with Chelsea to the abortion clinic if she were seeking an abortion?).

The favorite issues are those involving anti-abortion or pro-death penalty stances. As shown above, such issues are being "personalized" when addressed to political candidates, to basically put them on the spot. If Dukakis stood by his expressed opposition to the death penalty, he would be seen as cold, and unfeeling where an attack on his wife were concerned. If he said as he did, he would be called a hypocrite for being willing to make an exception for HIS situation, but not anyone else's.

Classic "Far Side". And quite apt.

All too often, it seems that hypotheticals only find lease where something is a deeply held belief. Santorum has frequently said his position on anti-abortion issues. And the lead in to the quote from Piers Morgan above was, in part, "Do you really believe, in every case, it should be totally wrong..."

Maybe some questions should be asked of some liberal beliefs. If you are a liberal, open-minded person reading this, please answer the following hypothetical: How would you react if your son came to you and said, "Mom? And Mom? I have put some thought into it, and I don't think I can support the idea of legalized gay marriage. I don't think our family is legitimate, because I lack a solid father figure in the home. And I'm planning on voting Republican in the next election. And I've decided I'm going to start listening to Rush Limbaugh."

But I digress. Solid beliefs are solid for a person for a reason. If they speak of them often enough, it can be reasonably inferred that they really believe in those things.

For Santorum, the point of his anti-abortion stance has been made time and again. It should be clear to a chimpanzee, let alone an interviewer on CNN, that Santorum holds this belief. Yet Morgan insisted on asking, as though he couldn't fathom a person holding a belief he did not share.

Santorum missed a bet. He should have used the opportunity to pull a Gingrich, and launch his own assault on an unaccountable media.

The rest of the interview should have looked something like this:

MORGAN: Do you really believe, in every case, it should be totally wrong, in the sense that -- I know that you believe, even in cases of rape and incest -- and you've got two daughters. You know, if you have a daughter that came to you who had been raped.

SANTORUM: Yes.

MORGAN: And was pregnant and was begging you to let her have an abortion, would you really be able to look her in the eye and say, no, as her father?

SANTORUM: How dare you?

MORGAN: I'm sorry?

SANTORUM: How dare you? You sit there, and ask a stupid question like that. First, let me say that you do not know my daughter.

MORGAN: I'm sorry, but you did agree that I could ask any quest--

SANTORUM: Just shut it for a second! My daughter would never "beg" for anything from me. I am her father, yes, but she has much more pride than to beg. That part of it is offensive to her, to me, and to anyone who has ever raised a daughter to be able to think for themselves.

MORGAN: Yes, well, that wasn't really the poin--

SANTORUM: I'm not done. You asked a question, and now you are going to sit there while I respond to it in the manner it deserves. Second, my daughter holds life in as high a regard as I do, so the very idea that someone would suggest that she would seek an abortion is absurd. Yes, I really do believe what I believe. I'm sorry you don't have that kind of conviction in anything you believe, but some of us do. Let me tell you something you smug, self-righteous bastard...

MORGAN: Mr. Santorum, I hardly think--

SANTORUM: Damn right you hardly think! You asked me to appear on this circus you call a show because I am a presidential candidate, not so that you could use me to get your face on the front page for asking me "edgy" questions.

You're hoping that I'd either say that I hold to my belief, and counsel her to not have an abortion, so you can point to how horrible a person, let alone a father I am, making my own daughter have to live with the constant reminder of an attack on her, or you were hoping to have the ability to have a gotcha moment, and say that my deeply held beliefs aren't so deeply held if I'd make an exception for my daughter? Bad news, I'm not giving you the satisfaction.

You want to ask crap like that, go work for Star Magazine. When you decide to ask questions that actually matter, rather than entrapping questions along the lines of "Do you still beat your wife", call my campaign manager, and maybe we'll do you the honor of showing up! (removes microphone. walks off set)

MORGAN: And we'll take a short break, your watching CNN. At least we don't suck as bad as MSNBC.

Unfortunately, Mr. Santorum is too nice a guy to have a moment like that. The truth is, too many candidates are too nice to do something like that. They don't want to be seen as a "diva"

Sure, Chris Brown is a jerk. But he might have had a point in his chair tossing. And Hugh Grant responding to a camera with take-out? Priceless...

Maybe the media needs to be reminded once in a while that they can be unbelievable a-holes too. Purposely pissing people off by asking really stupid questions should have consequences. I really don't care if it is a hotheaded celebrity, a political figure, or even some guy just trying to walk to his car. The media does NOT have the "right" to get into your face with cameras, tape recorders, or screaming questions, no matter who you are.

Maybe Gingrich, Santorum, Obama, and even Nancy Pelosi should take a page from the book of guys like Chris Brown, Sean Penn, or Hugh Grant, and flip out once in a while on some media figure who deserves it.

The media is NOT all powerful. They NEED to be reminded that they should respect boundaries. And one of those boundaries should be not trying to trap people, politicians especially, with stupid hypothetical questions.

If a "private citizen" were to get in some random stranger's face, they could reasonably expect that the person involved would react, possibly violently, especially if they are being asked stupid questions about something that has an infinitesimal chance of happening (abortions due to rape account for less than 1% of abortions in the US), if for no other reason than violating that person's "personal space".

Just because the media is the media doesn't exempt them from paying attention to such a societal norm a personal space, and just because you are interviewing a person doesn't mean that you are excused from asking questions that are stupid. If a person reacts with aggression or irritation, it is something you, as a person asking a stupid question (more often than not designed to agitate), should be reasonably prepared to deal with.

Rather than boo-hoo if someone does react this way, maybe the media should stop trying to BE the news by asking hypotheticals and "revealing" hypocrisy, or "exposing" heartlessness, and just stick to REPORTING the news.

I don't need to see an interview on live TV. I especially don't need to see one when the whole purpose is to have a "gotcha" moment, and get the interviewer as much after-action airtime as the interviewee. If the media cannot learn this simple lesson in respect, to not use an interview as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement, maybe it's time to put the idea of interviewing back to where it belongs. On daytime "chat shows" and the pages of magazines.

What if we could make such a world happen? That's one hypothetical question I love thinking about, because the answer would be we would be living in a world in which the media remembers what it is SUPPOSED to do.

*sigh* Oh, the world we live in...

Okay, Let me just start by saying: What the Hell?

I had someone with whom I went to school take issue over the fact that I only responded to her facebook posts about the president, as though I simply searched my friend's facebook walls looking for pro-Obama stuff about which to offer a countering opinion. Her other posts frequently had to do with her kids (who I would likely never meet), where she was getting coffee of cupcakes for the day in Washington DC (200 miles away from me), or trying to organize a girl's night out.

Maybe it's just me, but would you comment about things which are of no interest to you? I didn't comment on most of her other postings because they are just not things that I care about.

Now, that's not to say I 'm not going to comment on (or at least "like") a picture of a kid, but with more than 100 friends, occasionally something like that might slip through the cracks. Lord knows, I post enough things on my own wall that pass without comment. But I'm not about to call a friend out for not commenting on every little thing I post.

On the left, stuff I care about. On the right, stuff you post on facebook. Notice how they intersect? That's the stuff I comment about. It's like this for EVERY PERSON. Any questions?

I share links to news stories, links to this blog, pictures of my kids, pictures of my cats, random thoughts, or movie quotes. And I have many friends who don't comment on them. Hell, I have some friends who don't comment on anything but political posts. And I'm okay with that.

Maybe it's because I don't have the constant need for validation of everything I do. I work for a company the recycles used oil. I could go on and on about things that go on there (seriously, some days it's like a frickin' soap opera), but I know that most people won't care about such things. That is one of the biggest reasons I don't frequently gripe about work on my facebook wall. I don't want people thinking that I'm just interested in posting about my self-centered, vapid (if you don't know what it means, I suggest you look it up. It is a word that should be in greater use than it is, and is not nearly as insulting as people want to make it out to be) existence.

If I'm gonna post something on facebook, I'm gonna make sure it is at least marginally interesting to someone besides me, or at the very least allows for some commiseration.

When I know people posting the latest deals about a Mommy-and-Me inspired Living Social wannabee website that has a "deal" for a spa getaway for "only" $398, I sort of feel a little disconnected. In situations where people don't have the money to toss away "just because you deserve it", that $400 can buy a hundred gallons of home heating oil to keep a home and family warm for a couple of months.

Really, I know which one some people might LIKE, but I also know which one people who live in the REAL world end up having to choose.

And really, I think that's why there seems to be a disconnect. It's not a "1% versus the 99%" sort of thing. It's a real world versus "Stepford Wives" sort of thing. The site I described above is a deal site that is "for moms, by moms", and actually has that spa thing, described in the words used above. Because every mom has the ability to do things "just for them". Now, I know that most (if not all) moms would LIKE things like that, but for those who don't live as suburban trophy wives, in the present economy, that is just simply not practical. Yet sites such as the one I describe exist, as though the economy is a concern for someone else.

Which brings me back to my point. When you post about something on facebook, you are telling the world "This is something I care about. I want you to comment on it, and show me how much you care about it too". This is not a bad thing. It's social interaction in the digital age, and a new way to spread word of mouth.

But something that you need to remember, is that not everyone is going to give a rat's hind-quarters for everything you do. That is also social interaction. When I am sitting in the same room with friends (even with strangers), I tend to not pay attention to things that don't concern me. I pay attention to things people say in conversation with me, and offer little to no comment on topics that either do not apply to me, or I have no shared interest in. A couple of friends talking government employee shop, or women friends discussing Twilight rarely get commentary from me, as a couple of for instances (outside of maybe a comment about how vampires are not supposed to sparkle in the sunlight, and rather burst into painful flames).

I extend this into on-line social interactions as well. If anything I tend to go FURTHER, and stand silent on many topics for a lack of interest.

But if you post about something that I DO have an opinion about, I'm gonna comment. That's just how the world works. People speak about things that interest them. It's not up to you (or your friends) to comment on how it seems "disrespectful" that a person picks what to offer commentary on.

The end result of the interaction that started all this nonsense is that she threatened to "limit what I could see" on her wall, and her friends chiming in about how respect enters into things. If you think you have to "limit" a person's ability to interact with you, then maybe you are better off not having that person as a friend, even in the fast-and-loose way that facebook defines that word. I removed that person as a "friend", and may see some fallout from some mutual friends as a result.

But, like "real life" social interactions, people will decide what "side" to take. If I end up losing the ability to interact with some people as a result, I see that as more their thing than mine. I exited the scene in order to put a stop to the "drama" that shows up so frequently on-line.

I just wish that some people didn't treat facebook as some sort of psudo-psychotic extension of high school cliques.

And somewhere between lies the truth...

We've all seen them. The photo or video of the "pepper spraying incident" at UC Davis.

Just in case you missed it... Wait. What, have you been under a frickin' rock?!?!

There is, making the rounds, a video that claims to show "what really happened". I'm no professional, but the video shows several clips from several sources, assembled in what appears to be chronological fashion. It looks like all the clips are from the same event to me. Watch it, and make your own judgement.

Regardless, the only thing you seem to see on the news are the picture from above, or the edited video from which the picture was taken (I say edited, because the video only ever shows the pepper spraying, not the before or after).

Face it. You KNOW there was an "after" image to this. But this is just damn cute...

At best, a video or picture captures just one moment or split second in time. There is ALWAYS more context to what you are seeing. In this case, right from the word go, I knew that there HAD to be.

My feelings on the Occupy nonsense notwithstanding, It is really easy to say that no one deserves a face-full of pepper spray for engaging in a peaceful protest. If you abide by the law, follow the instructions of those who are charged with keeping the peace, and keep yourself totally separate from those who want to cause problems, you do not deserve to get pepper sprayed, tear gassed, or tazed (or shot with beanbags, rubber bullets, paintballs, etc.). At first blush, this is a cop spraying kids who are sitting down, and doing so calmly, with no apparent threat, while a crowd boos his actions (frankly, if he WAS so callous as to pepper spray indiscriminately and without cause, as has been suggested, knowing there were dozens of cell phone cameras recording his every move, the guy's got some serious inner honey badger issues).

But, that is just that moment. What led to that is more interesting.

I linked to a video above, and offered all kinds of qualifiers. I wasn't there. I did not directly witness ANY of this (not even the kittens). I can only go by what is reported. And when the media fails to report properly, it's up to others to help fill in the blanks.

The narrative that was told was that the police showed up to dismantle an Occupy camp on campus, met resistance, and whipped out the pepper spray. Surprise, surprise, there is much more to it than that.

I watched the video. It shows the police offering several warnings regarding the legality of the camp. It can be inferred that several protesters were placed under arrest, possibly for resisting the police's attempts to dismantle the camp (which would have been done for the protesters safety more than anything, given the lower level of services offered on campus on the weekends).

According the the video, the other gathered protesters began to demand their release, quickly following the lead of one voice leading them in chants. Then the voice leads a "chant", in which the police are given an ultimatum. Let those arrested go free, and we will allow you to leave.

Think about it. Armed or not, you are one of a couple dozen police officers with a crowd gathered around you, chanting at you, and telling you under what circumstances they will let you leave. That the police didn't start spraying the mob down at this point goes a LONG way to show how much discipline they have.

Anyway, the mob continues to follow the lead of this one voice, who calls out new chants, and in general makes a bad situation worse. The chants go from "Set them free", speaking of the arrested protesters, and spread to one that includes "Fu*k the police!". The tension is escalating, no matter how much anyone wants to say "it's just words, and the police have weapons".

Do we really need to have a discussion about how words really mean things?

The police start to go down the line of sitting protesters and explain to them that when the vehicle comes for those already arrested, that they (the sitting human chain) will be subject to force. They ask if this is understood, and in at least one instance on the recording, receive a nod in acknowledgment. Think about that for just a second, if you will.

The police have offered warning after warning, after warning, and are now gently explaining to those who don't seem to get that there is a point to follow instructions, that they will be punished for their failure to do so. Is this REALLY the action of out-of-control, jack-booted thugs? If only those who really DO commit crimes were as polite. "Excuse me sir. I intend to beat you senseless with this crowbar, take your money, and I might just drag your wife into that alley and rape her while I'm at it. Do you understand what this means?"

But I digress. The police start to move a squad car into position while the crowd orders them (?!?) to stop their vehicle. Then the officers pull out the pepper spray, and begin to shake it. Now the mob starts to see that the police mean business. But rather than disperse, they begin to shout encouragement and offer advice to those about to be pepper sprayed on how to deal with it!

Final warnings are given, then Lt. John Pike begins what he told the protesters he would do.

This was not someone who "casually" pepper sprayed "peaceful" protesters. Lt. Pike showed amazing restraint prior to this point, but his hand, frankly, was forced. If the police did not do something to move the protesters, as they said they would, their credibility would have been eroded, and the mob would have had the impression that they could do as they wish, as long as they outnumber the police.

Every step of the way, according to reports and video clips, the police offered restraint and warnings. The protesters acknowledge that there was an attempt to restrict police movement (a threatening gesture, and not at all "peaceful protest"), and at the end of the encounter, the protesters, again led by the lone voice of the agitator, called out to the police that they would be "willing to give" the police "a brief moment of peace" to leave with their weapons and not be followed (quite frankly, I'm AMAZED that the agitator was not arrested for damn near inciting a riot).

All in all, there is, as I and many other suspected, a LOT more to this story than the MSM allowed to be reported, and shows once again, that virtually any involved in the Occupy protests simply do not understand what peaceful protests and assembly are. The police did not "react" violently to their "peaceful assembly".

The police offered repeated warnings to the Occupiers to remove their illegally set up camp. Had they done so (even if only until the police left, and reconstructed their camp), the escalation that led to several students getting to experience pepper spray first-hand would never have happened.

This crowd, for instance, dispersed peacefully, with no pepper spray used.. Granted it took a few warm days, but...

It all goes back to one, very simple point. You have a God-given and human-codified right to free speech. You may exercise it as often as you want, wherever you want. But, that right doesn't exist in a vacuum. You MUST BE PREPARED to accept responsibility for what you say. When your free speech steps over the line of legality, as a responsible citizen you MUST recognize that you may well face consequences.

The police did not have to show the restraint that they did, and this instance is very, very far from the brutal, out-of-control, stomping of anyone's rights as it has been portrayed.

More than anything, this is a teachable moment. What the media tells you is true, might not be the whole story. There IS a bias in the MSM, AND in the "alternative" media. True journalists don't exist anymore. EVERYONE has their slant on a story, and makes it known, one way or another.

It's up to us, as citizens who want to be informed, to expose ourselves to what we are told, and to dig a little deeper. We need to be willing to step out of our comfort zones to find the truth, or at least the other side's idea of the truth.

It's an old saying, "There are three sides to every story. Your's, their's and the truth". Modern "journalism" has made it incumbent upon those who want to be fair and reasonable to seek the truth that lies between the biases.

While it makes for fun times to be able to fly off the handle about your political preferences, and point to something in the news as support, remember that the news is being reported, not by true journalists, but by those who are after ratings or newspaper sales. The truth is as a homeless person, left out to wander in the street, noticed by only a few.

Seek the truth, and don't let the media define for you an entire person on the basis of a single moment in time.

After all, just about all of us have some picture of video that we wish didn't exist, and would not want to be judged on the basis of that one snapshot of our lives.

Something about Iowa...

Okay, so aside from "first in the country caucus/primary", what makes Iowa so important that candidates are willing to spend millions advertising only in that state?

Latest polls show Ron Paul gaining traction in Iowa, and his campaign has outspent all other campaigns in that state, but how is Iowa indicative of the rest of the country?

In case you ever need to find it any other time but an election year...

Is the importance of Iowa overblown by the preponderance of media attention there? It seems to be the case more and more, that many allow the media to pick candidates by the use of language (front-runner, also-ran, or top-tier), and as the first nominating event in the country, the media loves to focus on Iowa. But is the opinion of a mostly rural state the best way to determine political trends in national elections?

Is Iowa important because the "middle-American" voters see more than anyone else in the country, or is it important because the media have told us it is? Who is really selecting our national candidates?

Those in "fly-over country", whose opinions are dismissed in virtually every other way? Those in the media, who see their role as more "kingmaker" than impartial observer? Those who think the "first is best, simply because it's first"?

Or do we decide, as a NATION who should lead us? Back in 2008, events were manipulated so that the only "reasonable" answers to the question of "Who should be president?" were a known liberal from the Chicago political machine and a "maverick" career politician who was known for "reaching across the aisle".

Aside from the caricatures, there's no reason to put this here. But Wow. You really can find almost anything on the 'net...

Now we have a political field of 8 Republicans, three of which are hanging on out of sheer orneriness (Santorum, Bachmann and Perry), and once again, all eyes are on Iowa, as though the answers can be found in the farmlands.

But are we focusing on what matters, or on what we are being told matters?

There is still a LOT of campaigning to do before the primary season gets underway. If you are one of my Republican friends, don't focus overmuch on how the politicos will try and shmooze those who in almost any other situation they consider rubes, and instead keep an eye on how they will treat the nation as a whole.

The US is more than just Iowa. Seeing candidates play along with the media-driven, over-importance of Iowa is no way to gauge how a man or woman will govern as a president over a nation.

Kicked out of the Park, is OWS over?

Wow. Two months. It was a little over 2 months ago, this very blog, that I stated what I have since seen in several blogs, editorials, and op-ed pieces (This is an excellent example of what I mean from today's Baltimore Sun).

Okay, Wall Street Occupiers. You have our attention. Now what are you planning to do with it?

(warning: Graphic language)

Or THIS?

You see, the problem is, it may well be both. We'll start with the video.

This is a black man who feels very passionately about the cause. So much so, he's willing to not only oppose the "1%", but he's willing to call for violence against the police, and violence against the trappings of the "1%". This is the face of the OWS "movement" that is seen most often. That of a passionate man or woman who speaks loudly. It doesn't matter if they are simply stating their own opinions. These are "the fringe elements" that get all the attention, like the TEA Partiers.

Part of me cringes when I see hats like this...

Any time you get groups of people together, there will always, ALWAYS be those who are a little too passionate for those around them. Holds true in anything, not just political circles.

The real trick is to remain a supporter while gently making sure everyone knows who the crazies are. In the case of OWS, it is tough to tell who the crazies are, because anytime you have people voluntarily live in the street for weeks at a time, in a "camp" that has health and sanitation issues, to say nothing of safety and security concerns, the lines between crazy and sane begin to blur.

How can you come out of a smoke-filled tent, push a drum aside with your foot covered with a sock full of holes, run a hand through your stringy, unwashed hair before grabbing a bowl of tasteless gruel (called lunch) prepared in an old Chock-full-o'-nuts can over a sterno, and expect to have any credibility when dismissing the sign waving anti-Semite as being "not part of the true movement"?

When trying to distance yourself from crazy, it helps to be cleaned up, and at least shaved (for a guy, anyway. For the women, maybe make sure you have a top on. I'm not kidding. I won't link to it, but type in "topless protesters occupy wall street" in a youtube search).

The second thing from above, the poster, is the "official" plan for November 17th. There is a call to "occupy" the subways, thus putting out thousands, if not millions of working folks, and march in the streets to "our bridges". Words simply cannot express how bad an idea this really is, and if anyone of the organizers for the OWS thought about it, they would not want to follow through. I anticipate huge numbers of arrests and/or fines for crimes ranging from disturbing the peace to jaywalking. It will be an absolute miracle if there is no violence stemming from this plan.

The poster itself, though is more along the lines of what caught my attention. Look familiar?

Yup. The OWS (or at least their well-funded backers who will print up posters for them) have decided that their cause deserves to be thought of like the man who stood down a column of tanks in Tienanmen Square in China in 1989.

The problem with the use of the imagery is that it simply does not apply. In China in the late 80's, the people had little to no political voice. The decisions on what was best for the populace were made by the Communist Party. All you, as a citizen, were expected to do was deal with it. You couldn't vote, and if you dared to speak out against the Party, you suffered for it (as many did in the so-called Tienanmen Square Massacre). Protest was put down, violently. You toed the line, and you shut up. That was it, end of discussion. The very idea that a protest could go on for several weeks would have made even the most freedom-minded Chinese laugh out loud. The government moved quickly to silence dissent.

This is not anything like what has happened at ANY Occupy protest in America. Yes, there have been some instances where police have had to use non-lethal crowd control measures, including beanbag rounds, rubber bullets and tear gas, but according to almost all reports, those measures have only been brought to bear AFTER the police were attacked by rock or bottle throwing protesters (see the video above for an example of what one might look like). And yes, the police have had to get aggressive in placing some protesters under arrest. It tends to happen when one antagonizes a man (or woman) with a badge, gun, honking big flashlight, nightstick, training, and the duty to get those who start trouble off the streets.

It really has nothing to do with the freedom of speech. People are saying plenty (again, see the video above). It has to do with the expectation that you are responsible for what you say.

Now look at China, late 80's. If the video above was shot there/then, the man would have been tackled, beaten raw, and dragged off before he ever got the chance to talk about Molotov cocktails. If he were lucky, he might be allowed to go free after spending a week or two in a prison that makes a Zuccotti Park tent look like a room at the Marriott. If he wasn't so lucky, and the local Party member decided he didn't like his haircut, well... People still get killed just for knowing where the bodies are buried.

OWS has even less similarity to Tienanmen Square than it does the TEA Party. The imagery of this poster, and the continued narrative that the OWS is this country's "Arab Spring" are flawed (First Amendment here, but not there and all that. Read my post a couple of months ago. It'll fill you in), and not the issue at all. Thus far, the focus has been on the noise makers, not on the change makers.

And with the questions about who the change makers are still floating around, OWS seems to have peaked, with nothing gained. We just had an Election Day pass. There were victories by Democrats in many races in New York, but commentary by the Governor did not seem to include any acknowledgement of the OWS "Movement". By contrast, the first Election Day after the rise of the TEA Party, it was possible to say that many of the results were influenced by, if not outright taken over by, the TEA Partiers.

It's like I have said before, and is now being echoed by the media and others. OWS needs to take their "movement" into the political arena now, and start MAKING the changes they seek, rather than expecting things to change FOR them. Elections are how things are done in this country.

To Echo the Baltimore Sun, it's time OWS grows up. The tantrum has been heard. Now make us understand why we shouldn't put you in the corner.

The 9-9-9 Plan for Dummies...

There's been a lot of talk lately about the richest 1% vs. the rest of the country, and flat tax versus what we have in place now, and how "fairness" plays into all of it.

The short answer: it doesn't. Nothing about finance is "fair". The sooner this is realized, the sooner it might be possible to get to a point where there is at least some measure of justice in how taxes are collected in this country.

There's always going to be some economist or accountant who talks about how someone who is richer can pay more, and so, should, while someone who is barely getting by should be allowed to pay less (in terms of taxes). The current tax structure is this way. The richer you are, the more you pay.

In terms of socialist thinking, this is fair. This is right. This is how it should be. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". In terms of rational thinking, this kind of thought is stupid.

There are those who are able-bodied and get from the government (who gets by taxing others), but put nothing in. So much for "from each..."

So, how to make things closer to "fair" with taxes? First, let's look at how things are now.

The top tier of wage earners pay the most, and get the least "benefit" from the government (yes, there are the programs and departments that taxes pay for, such as the military that benefit everyone, but in terms of getting something tangible from the government, the "rich" don't. They just pay for it). Those at the bottom pay nothing, but get benefits ranging from medical assistance (if not outright total health care), food stamps, and even welfare "benefits", effectively, money for doing nothing.

To many, there is a lack of common sense to this. Many get without giving, and some give without getting. But to others, this is totally reasonable. If you make more, you have more to spare for the "greater good", and so should be compelled to give more to the government to distribute as it sees fit. Take the fact that you are talking about money out of the equation, and this approach just doesn't make sense, and is hardly "fair". The 9-9-9 Plan seeks to change all that by leveling the playing field a little bit, and giving each American a dog in the economic fight.

Say you are the best worker in your team of 100. You take the widgets, combine them with the thingamabobs, and produce more whatchamacallits than anyone else in your group. You enjoy being the best in your group. It means that you have accomplished something that not everyone can say they have.

One day, management tells you that orders are starting to fall behind. You know that there is a need for 1200 whatchamacallits a week, and you are doing all you can to meet that goal. Management even gives your group special privileges as incentive to produce more, but you, and some of the other hardest workers can't use those benefits, because you devote most of your time to making the whatchamacallits.

Yet no matter how hard you work, you keep falling short of the goal. The ones that get missed in a week still need to be made, and ultimately, your group starts falling behind Despite this, sales keeps promising more and more units to customers. You keep falling behind and work that needs to be done isn't being done.

One day you look at the numbers for your group. You, alone, account for something along the lines of 380 whatchamacallits each week. The next four guys seem to be able to manage another 200 between them. The next five guys can manage about 110 or so. The next 15 guys each manage about 10. The next 25 guys between them manage along the lines of about 11 whatchamacallits a week. The next 3 of guys eek out about one each on a good week. Finally, you see that the remaining 47 guys in your group produce nothing, yet they still get the benefits of being in the best group, which you and some of the hardest workers cannot use, because you are too busy working.

Management comes to you, and tells you that you, as the best worker in your group, needs to do more, and maybe convince the next couple of guys down from you to pick up more slack, and try to fulfill the backlog that has developed. When you explain that 47 in your group have done nothing to help out, and that if they could just be made to produce a few whatchamacallits, you might be able to ease up a bit, and maybe not burn out.

Management tells you that things will remain as they are. It's okay to give special privileges to those who aren't really working, and to expect that only the best workers will shoulder the full load.

This, in a nutshell, is the current tax system. The best workers (the rich) are those who are producing the whatchamacallits (taxes), that management (the government) use to fulfill orders and offer special privileges (national debt and public welfare programs). Sales keeps promising what isn't there, and you get farther behind (Congressional spending and deficit spending). As the best worker (the wealthiest 1%), management has told you that YOU need to tell those closest to you to produce more (government won't stop promising, but expect the highest earners to pay more taxes to support out of control spending).

Using the same general set-up, let's say that you are still the best worker. Management has cracked down and now requires that all employees produce at least 9 whatchamacallits a week. You still aren't hitting your goal, and in fact are producing fewer, but management has changed things so that now additional production can result in access to the benefits previously offered (but unavailable to you and some others because of your workload).

You are also asked to train new employees to produce the minimum of 9, while keeping up the your higher production rate. Since this is easier to do that the frantic pace at which you worked before, you are all for it.

Obviously, there are those in your group who complain about having to produce 9, where they didn't have to produce anything before, but as the orders are able to be fulfilled, and with new hires and training in place, eventually surpassed, the benefits they enjoyed before can now be shared more equally by ALL the people in your growing group, and by working harder, some additional benefits can be bought by anyone for 9 additional whatchamacallits produced.

Everyone is now producing 9 units each (9% income tax), and more employees can be hired and trained by those whose level of work won't suffer (9% payroll tax), and the increased benefits bought for additional work (9% sales tax) will ultimately lead to the backlog of products being eliminated, and a surplus can be realized quickly.

This is what Herman Cain has proposed. Those who haven't produced will now be called upon to do so, but it will ultimately benefit everyone else.

It is not an instant fix. There IS no instant fix. It's not even a perfect plan. But it is one that allows those who currently stand to lose nothing (because they add nothing to the economy) to take some degree of ownership, and as a result, pride in keeping things going forward, in addition allowing those who are able to create jobs (the rich corporations) to have more money to do so, adding more payers of taxes into the mix.

The idea that any of this can take place in a vacuum is a flawed one.

But the rich will pay less taxes, and just hoard their money.

Wrong. You don't get richer by sitting on money. You spend it in ways that will produce some dividend. By having more money, the rich will find ways to try and make it into yet more, which in the past has been shown to happen by expansion of a company. Expansion of a company = need for more employees. More employees = more being paid into payroll taxes. More taxes spurred by greater hiring = economic growth. Economic growth = people more willing to spend money on new goods = greater taxes collected on the sales of said goods.

Like I said, it's not perfect. But it is a damn sight better than the stagnation we have experienced with taxes to date, which make rich men (and women) out of only two groups. The accountants who prepare tax documents for the rest of us, and the economists, who try and predict how the next economic disaster can be turned into justification for themselves.