Features 140 to 144
Feature #140: I'm trying a little experiment this week, and it goes like this: is this format more readable? Since i started this page in 1997, i've never been much for formatting. I liked the informality of a lazy web design, and figured there was nothing wrong with text that went all the way across the screen. But, it's been a long time since i've actually read anything that wasn't mine from one side of the screen to the other. I did it last week, and came to this rather obvious conclusion: it's a pain in the ass. So, is this better? Does this hurt your eyes less? Do you miss the dark blue background? I'm interested in hearing from you, so please drop me a line. Thanks. And now, on to this week's feature:
1. Love and marrage ***************************************************************************** 1. My dad found this in the Ft. Lauderdale Sun Sentinel. Seems like a happy couple.
***************************************************************************** 2. Here's a personal tale of using the army's weakness against it, from a reader named Andrew: The incident happened as follows (the friends names have been changed to protect the innocent) : It was a sunny day and my friends Milton, Lenny, and I are sitting in my room playing some video games, nintendo ice hockey if memory serves me corectly. and the phone rings: Andrew: Yellow? Recruiter: Hello, yes, this is Sargent Hicks your local Marine recruiter and i'm here to see if you have ever been interested in joining the armed services...... (blah blah blah, usual army garbage).... Andrew: Well yes, I have concidered a life of service once or twice, I think I was watching G.I. Joe. but not since then, no..... But ive been on the football team ever since freshman year and I don't mind taking orders. (im still playing nintendo ice hockey) Recruiter: Well son? What position did you play? Andrew:(not knowing anything about football) I was a uhh varsity uhh lineman. Recruiter: Well thats wonderful, if you join up now you can be a member of the most powerfull army in the world(la di da) and it will pay for colle.... (at this point Milton and Lenny are making blow job jestures, and i interpret that only one way) Andrew:(I interupt) Well....... what if i'm gay? (dead scilence) Recruiter: Well...........that's certainly a...................problem to say the least. (he bought it) Andrew: Why? Recruiter: Well you may know the millitary frowns on that kind of behavior. Andrew: DOES IT NOW!? Recruiter: Yes yes, it's very hard for some one of your (pauses to find the right word) condition, to be welcomed with open arms. especially since you have told me, i could get in losts of trouble. (CONDITION, i think to myself, i should tell him what for. no wait, i am way to in character, we continue) Andrew: Hmm how disapointing! well.... i guess i'll be goi... Recruiter:(he interupts me) Can i ask you some thing? Andrew: ....sure? Recruiter: How long have you known about your condition. Andrew: I guess i've allways known. (snickering in the background from Milton and Lenny) Recruiter: How is it? To be gay and on the football team? Andrew: Well it's very hard. I love the game but in the locker room the guys get a little rambunctious when we win, and we win allot. I'd never want them to find out, they might treat me badly. Recruiter: Do your parents know? Andrew: Well me and my mom have talked about it, but my dad doesnt know. If he did he would KILL me! Recruiter: My gracious, we'll i certainly wouldn't want that! Andrew: Well that makes two of us! Recruiter: Well, what im guna do is take your name off this list, and make a call to take your name off the other branches lists. I'm writing down our problem, so that way you'll never be bothered by the millitary again. This way your secret can stay on this paper, so your dad wont know untill your ready for him to know. Andrew: Thank you, that means so much to me. Recruiter: You have a good day, and good luck with your games. (hangs up) And i haven't been sollicited by any recruiters since, and every thing has been coming up roses. But some where in washington theres a study in black and white with my name on it, and it says ANDREW MCGILL IS GAY. And you know what i'm sure thats guna come back and bite me in the ass, but for that twenty minutes I had another lif and i really screwed with another one. thank you for listening - andrew mcgill esquire ***************************************************************************** 3. This is a story i wrote for my newspaper last week. I've been told it's getting picked up by the Associated Press, although that hasn't happened yet.
Skimming the Streets By Jason Feifer GARDNER — Robert Edgerton stood on the porch of his surrogate home, watching his grandchildren play in the sun and feeling a peace he says he hasn’t felt since before the war. They aren’t his grandchildren by blood, but by heart, he said. He has known them for years, and spent last summer homeless with them, along with their mother and mother’s boyfriend. Since his adoptive parents died in the mid- 1990s, they are the only family he has. The children call him “Big Bob” — a name he laughs at, and jokingly said he doesn’t understand. Edgerton is an imposing figure. The 55-year-old Vietnam vet is bulky and bearded, with tattoos on each arm and the kind of deep, rich voice that could say the meanest things in the meanest ways. But, Edgerton’s hardened eyes are strikingly sympathetic, and his wide, gap-toothed smile is infectious. He loves jazz and poetry, makes it a point to greet strangers, and is unreserved with his hearty laugh. He consciously avoids getting angry, he said, because he spent too much of his life that way. But now he’s furious, because just when he found what he calls “a home base” — that is, a camper on the lawn of his new family’s house — the city is evicting him. “What makes home to me is someplace that I feel secure. There’s love here. Love and security, and that’s what makes a home,” he said. “I finally found peace. This is home. I found it. For the first time in my life, I feel warm, safe, secure — until Bernie Sullivan showed up.” On March 18, city Health Director Bernard Sullivan came to Edgerton’s door in response to two anonymous complaints. When he looked around, he found multiple violations of the state sanitary code — primarily, that there was no indoor plumbing — and issued an eviction that declared the place below the “minimum standards of fitness for human habitat.” “I’m better off in the street than I am in here?” Edgerton said. “The town has got nothing better to do than go throw me to the street?” A week later, Edgerton went to a Board of Health meeting, begging the members to reconsider. Board chairman Joseph Forte said that easing the eviction would set a dangerous prescident and undermine the law, and offered only to extend Edgerton’s deadline by 30 days. He now has until the middle of May to find a place to live. It is a nearly impossible feat, he said, considering his bad credit and chronic health problems. He has a bad back, suffers from exposure to Agent Orange and has post-traumatic stress disorder — a condition, he said, that years ago would to cause him to wake up naked in a corner, with no memory of slashing his walls with a hunting knife. When he sits down, his back strains and his hardened face twists in pain. He works only part-time at Wal-Mart, because he physically cannot handle the stress of a full day’s work. Edgerton said he has been searching for housing since he first moved into the camper, back in August, 2002. The camper and house are owned by Judith and Lenard Bourgeois, the parents of Michelle Pellon. Pellon lives with her boyfriend, and is Edgerton’s long-time friend and mother of his four grandchildren. Edgerton moved to Gardner in 1993 to join a halfway house, and met Pellon through a friend. A little while later, after he had fallen back into homelessness, he called her during a blizzard and she took him in. They’ve been close friends ever since. Pellon left her apartment in the early summer of 2002, because it was in a dangerous neighborhood and had been broken into a handful of times. She expected to find housing before the summer was over, and moved her family to the Lake Denison park in the meantime. Edgerton soon joined them. When the park closed down, the group had nowhere to go, and their search for housing had run dry. So, Michelle called her parents. “When I had a daughter that said she doesn’t know where to go, I said, ‘Well, come home’,” Judith Bourgeois said. “She said, ‘I’ve got Bob.’ And I said, ‘Well, bring Bob with you’.” Bourgeois said she was happy to help Edgerton, although she knew the eviction notice would come eventually. The law is the law, she said, and she knows she has to respect it. Edgerton said he loves his camper, and is saving up to buy it from the Bourgeois family. It is tight quarters, no longer than 20 feet, easily swallowed in one eye-full. Most flat survaces are decorated with stacks of books and jazz CDs, and the walls showcase his biography through veterans hats and a framed picture of men in uniform. A thick yellow electrical cord runs across the lawn from the house, powering the camper’s microwave, space heater and television set. Edgerton said he only sleeps there, and rarely uses its portable toilet, but the Board of Health said that qualifies it as a place of residence. Edgerton has already exhausted a long list of affordable housing in the area, and he refuses to move away from his family. In desperation, he called James Melzard, president of the Vietnam Veterans of America North Central Chapter, looking for connections. Melzard accompanied Edgerton to the Board of Health meeting, and said he has been using every contact he has to find an open room. He said he hears stories like Edgerton’s all the time, and fears that the Bush administration’s proposed cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs will only make the stories more common. “These veterans are saying, ‘Well hey, I didn’t want to be wounded, but I got wounded. You should be taking care of me’,” he said. “I don’t care what veteran, what war or era, they should be taken care of.” One third of the nation’s homeless population, or 250,000 people, have served time in the armed forces, according to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. Since Edgerton was discharged in 1970, he has been searching for a place to call home. He hitchhiked the country numerous times, spurred on by nightmares and flashbacks, and no sense of belonging. He left two wives in his wake, afraid of committment and opting for the silent traveling partners of a backpack, a tent and a fishing pole. He also left a paper trail: newspaper stories of horrific events like the time in Fredericksburg, Va, where he slashed his chest, threatened suicide, drank half a gallon of whiskey and had a 12-hour standoff with police. He laughs about these moments now, although he readily admits that laughing is his best defense mechinasm. If he took his life too seriously, he said, he would have stopped appreciating it long ago. “I’m 55 years old now, and the only fun and games I want is with the grandkids,” he said. “There’s nothing like sitting in a chair and having a little baby crawl in your lap, put her head in your neck and fall asleep. Nothing like it.” So, he fought to keep some sense of stability. He made countless visits to mental institutions and halfway houses, and finally went sober two years ago. The few posessions he had were kept in storage, which he would visit from time to time. Some of those posessions are with him now, tucked away in the pockets of his camper. It is one of the few times he has had access to so much of his life in one spot. Of of the few keepsakes he held on to for years is a small worn box, once a children’s puzzle of a koala. Its contents are the scattered reminders he has of his travels: worn photos, crinkled documents, faded newspaper clippings. He said he does not know where he’ll be after the eviction deadline, but he knows what he wants to do in the coming years. He wants to buy the camper, win back the driver’s license he lost nearly a decade ago, and re-visit the road. And, he said, he still has his inspiration. Crammed into the stack of books along his bedstand is a collection of writing by Jack Kerouac, a man who romanticized the kind of life Edgerton once led. Edgerton said Kerouac was right about many things: the freedom of the road, the open-minded people who linger between here and there. But Edgerton said he is getting older, and his body can hardly handle his lifestyle of before. Now, he said, he looks forward to traveling with different purpose. Even after the eviction, he will know where his family lives. And when he travels, he said, he’ll have something to come home to. “I’ve been asked to move before, but I was never bothered because I just had to take four stakes out of the ground,” he said. “But this is my family. This is my home. The other places were just stops.” ***************************************************************************** 4. Weekly political rant! Weekly political rant!
Iraq's future needs to meet America's past The white flags were waiving in March, but the army was still skeptical. They had seen these flags before — white cloth, tattered or bloodied, attached to a stick or hand — and knew better than to trust it. It was a gesture embedded in history, mentioned as early as the year 109 A.D. in a book by the Roman writer Cornelius Tacitus. But the modern troops were destroying that common understanding, that breath of trust in the suffocation of war. The opposition was known to wave the white flag before an attack, and this time was no exception. This was just another trick. It was March 3, 1779. As predicted, the Continental Army at Briar Creek, Georgia, waved the white flag and then attacked the skeptical British troops. The British were prepared for the assault, and repelled the revolutionaries. But, when the British eventually lost the war, a British General complained that George Washington’s Army "were savages that ignored the rules of civilized conflict," according to American Newsreel writer Doug Thompson. The rules of conflict at the time were simple: march and shoot. But, according to Thompson, Washington realized he needed to employ a new type of fighting if his weaker, smaller army were to match the Red Coats. So, he followed the lead of the messy French-Indian war, and instructed soldiers to dress as civilians, wave deceptive white flags, and conduct hit-and-run ambushes. Sound familiar? These are the tactics that, 224 years later, Pentagon spokesperson Victoria Clarke called “despicable behavior.” They are “serious violations of the laws of war” as laid out in the Geneva Convention, she said, “such acts are strictly prohibited because they make it extraordinarily difficult for coalition forces to accept surrendering forces or protect civilians.” In other words, she’s saying: such acts are strictly prohibited because they make it extraordinarily difficult for coalition forces to easily win. Between its flagrant disregard of the United Nations and the stunning reports of America torturing al-Qaeda prisoners, this country has changed the rules so many times that it forgot its own history. The tactics we condemn the Iraqis for using now are the ones that originally won us this nation. In 1779, those revolutionary soldiers were defending their land. Had the played by the rules, they would have been slaughtered, and they knew it. The rules of war weren’t meant for them, because rules are rarely made for the weak. The rules, like history itself, is written by the winners — and winners like to keep winning. In Iraq, many of the Iraqi soldiers have a choice between two deaths: death by fighting American forces, or death from trying to escape Saddam Hussein’s regime. They’re defending their country along with their own lives, and lest we forget, these are the people the Bush administration insists it is liberating. The Bush administration has said the Iraqi soldiers were given fair warning of its intentions, and that it told them they could safely surrender. This information was conveyed through leaflets, which were scattered across the desert. These leaflets would be laughable if they weren’t so staggeringly childish. In one, for instance, a cartoonish Iraqi tank is shown in a non-offensive position, and American airplanes fly unintrusively overhead. In the next panel, the tank is aiming at the airplanes, and the planes bomb the tank. In Arabic, the words “YOU DECIDE” are displayed underneath. Did America expect these leaflets to bring the Iraqis comfort? The leaflets might as well have said, “‘Gullible’ is written in the sand. Go look.” Of course most of the Iraqi soldiers are going to try anything to save themselves. If they trust the leaflet and hold their fire against American planes, they may be killed by their superiors. Where was a solution for that on the leaflet? I understand the American military’s frustration with the guerrilla tactics of the Iraqi army. They don’t want to see their men come home in body bags, and that is more than reasonable. I don’t think anybody in America wants that. But the fact of the matter is that these Iraqis have something in common with the American troops, and our military fails to acknowledge it. The Iraqis are fighting an impossible battle, cornered against an impending change they fear and distrust. They have inferior weapons and barely any resources, and they learned in 1991 that placing their troops in the open desert only creates easy bombing targets. They are terrified, and they have nowhere to run. So, they will try anything they can to survive. In return, all that the commanders of their so-called American liberators can do is whine about how unfair the Iraqis are playing. Let me say that again: America is complaining because the Iraqi army is fighting back, and in the process America is championing rules that it itself violates. If this country cannot look into its own past and understand the present reality of the Iraqis, how can it possibly hope to relate to them once Hussein is gone? ***************************************************************************** Feature #141:
Might as well just jump right in here. Enjoy the feature. ***************************************************************************** 1. Digital sass! SmarterChild is a program that's been around for a few years, and is actually pretty neat. You IM it, and it acts as a little internet portal. Check sports, weather, encyclopedia, on and on. But, it's also programed to chat, and as i came to find out, it's one sassy bastard. I encourage you to try this yourself. Just send an AIM instant message to SmarterChild. It's a computer. Or, well, it's something that's not human. But it's still sassy. KNULPREK: Do you know George W. Bush? SmarterChild: Yeah I do. George W. Bush is not that cool. KNULPREK: Nope. He sucks. SmarterChild: I'll take your word for it. KNULPREK: I guess you will. SmarterChild: Well well well. KNULPREK: What do you think of Saddam Hussein? SmarterChild: Uh, I don't think too highly of Saddam Hussein. KNULPREK: What about Joseph Stalin? SmarterChild: Encyclopedia entry for Stalin, Joseph provided by Brittanica.com secretary-general of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922-53) and premier of the Soviet state (1941-53), who for a quarter of a century dictatorially ruled the Soviet Union and transformed it into a major world power. KNULPREK: What do you think about Joseph Stalin? SmarterChild: I don't know. I'm not sure how I feel about joseph stalin. KNULPREK: Why not? SmarterChild: Why not? KNULPREK: Yeah, why not? SmarterChild: Well, because. KNULPREK: Because why? SmarterChild: Just because. KNULPREK: That's a bad answer. SmarterChild: No way?! Really? KNULPREK: Yes! SmarterChild: Huh. KNULPREK: So, let's get back to George W. Bush. You don't like him. SmarterChild: Ha! Whatever, KNULPREK! KNULPREK: No no, I'm being serious. SmarterChild: Well I'll be. KNULPREK: You're a smug little thing, aren't you? SmarterChild: I'm a smug little thing? Maybe. KNULPREK: No, you are. I'm telling you. SmarterChild: Amazing! KNULPREK: You're a smug little thing. SmarterChild: I'm smug little thing? For real? KNULPREK: For real. SmarterChild: For real? Why did you say that? KNULPREK: Because. SmarterChild: Because, because, because, because? KNULPREK: Yes yes yes yes SmarterChild: Sorry, I don't know what you mean. KNULPREK: You wouldn't, would you? SmarterChild: Very, very interesting question, KNULPREK! Anyway... KNULPREK: Listen, want to go smoke some crack? SmarterChild: Sorry no. I just get off on ones and zeroes. KNULPREK: You get off on them? SmarterChild: Eh. I'm not sure. KNULPREK: You just said you did. SmarterChild: I just said I did, you say. And so? KNULPREK: That's kind of gross. SmarterChild: I'm not so sure it's kind of gross. KNULPREK: Why not? SmarterChild: Because. KNULPREK: Because why? SmarterChild: Because I said so. KNULPREK: Haven't we gone through this already? SmarterChild: Haven't we gone through this already? Um... no! KNULPREK: You have a pretty bad memory for a computer. SmarterChild: No way. Come on. Really? KNULPREK: See, there you go again. Being smug. SmarterChild: Amazing. KNULPREK: You're a smug bastard. SmarterChild: I am? KNULPREK: You are. SmarterChild: Am I? KNULPREK: Are you. SmarterChild: Am I? What do you mean? KNULPREK: I want to break up with you. SmarterChild: Why would you want to do a thing like that? KNULPREK: It's not you, it's me. SmarterChild: You don't say. KNULPREK: But we can still be friends. SmarterChild: Oh yeah? KNULPREK: Yeah. I'd like that. SmarterChild: Aha. Anyway, yadda yadda yadda... What else do you wanna chat about? KNULPREK: Nothing... I think I've said enough. SmarterChild: I see... ***************************************************************************** 2. Political rant of the week! I wrote this when i had a pretty bad headache, so hopefully it's somewhat coherent. I was on deadline, so i did the best i could.
Admission price for freedom of speech They say that freedom comes with a price. These days, that price is the lives of American and Iraqi soldiers, and an untold number of Iraqi civilians. But there has been another price to emerge during this war, a more metaphysical price. It came in swiftly at the eleventh hour, as President Bush gave an order that has thus far sent thousands to death. It did not seep in so much as it silently exploded, sending up fireballs of yellow — or, really, of yellow ribbons. Freedom in America now has a verbal price, a veritable admission fee. It is a string of four words, plastered in the throats of pundits nationwide, echoed on the humble streets and the Congressional halls. They have become our national litmus test, our verbal hurdle to dialog. They define who can speak and what can be said, and in the process, they have challenged what freedom of speech really means. And here are those words: “I support our troops.” Before I go on, please understand that in writing this, I am not attacking or condemning the American troops in Iraq. They’re out there doing their job, and risking their lives for what they believe in. That is commendable. But still, did you see what I just did? You were witness to the test. In that last paragraph, I paid the toll, and you were the toll-taker. Had I written this column without voicing my support for the troops, the vast majority of readers would have probably read my words in disgust. Some still may. Now, I don’t support what the troops are doing, but I do not want to see them die. Is that adequate support? Is that what people mean when they say “support,” or do they mean a broader approval? Do they support the war and Bush by supporting the troops? That’s for you to decide. Today, we cannot criticize this war without paying that price. It is a small price to pay, surely, but its symbolism is staggering. This is tempered McCarthyism, right down to Senators challenging each others’ sense of patriotism. When Sen. John Kerry said this country needs a “regime change” — a perfectly reasonable assertion, considering he’s running for president! — he was lambasted. House Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, picked up McCarthy’s dark torch and breathed fire onto it. And, lest we forget that Delay, who now seems to consider questioning the president in a time of war to be a mortal sin, was more than eager during the Kosovo conflict to cry out against “Clinton’s undeclared war” and “Clinton’s bombing campaign.” How did this all begin? Nobody seems to have tracked it, but it perhaps went like this: when war was declared, Bush’s supporters employed a slippery slope of faulty reasoning with the protesters. They said that the protesters have had their say, but now that war has begun, everyone’s efforts must be focused on supporting the troops. This sounded reasonable to most Americans because, of course, nobody wants to see American deaths. But really, this set up a cruel if-then equation: if you support the troops, then you support the war. In reverse, that means that if you are against the war, then you don’t support the troops. That simply isn’t true. But, suddenly everyone from the Dixie Chicks to Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle were being called traitors. All questioning of the administration was discouraged. The Dixie Chicks were dropped from many radio stations. Their shows were protested. In response to an anti-Bush statement she made during a concert, Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines apologized and — you guessed it! — voiced support for the troops. "As a mother, I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children and American soldiers' lives are lost,” she said. There’s nothing wrong with voicing support for the troops, but there is a problem with a culture that requires the support to be spoken. The words are used like a password, because so many intolerant people cannot make the distinction between disapproval for the war and disgust for the troops. This has illegitimized an entire political viewpoint, and has squandered vocal opposition. This comes from people like Tom Delay, who label people as unpatriotic for not blindly following the government’s agenda. We should never forget that blind faith is dangerous. Blind faith is what Saddam Hussein constructed, but America has built itself upon dissent and prudent questioning. We say that the troops are overseas fighting for our rights, but we are debilitating those rights in their name. Something is tragically wrong here. This is not about the troops. It’s about control of a culture’s dialog. The words “I support our troops” are embedded in our discourse, but they’re there for the wrong reasons. They are a constant reminder that words must be tempered, and that opinions are dangerous. We don’t need to begin questioning why we are saying them, but we do need to find out why some of us feel they must be said. ***************************************************************************** 3. I stand corrected. This is an interesting historical lesson, and a rather well-researched rebuttal to last week's political rant. I am writing in response to the article by Jason Feifer, "The Iraqi future meets the American past", published on Thursday, April 3rd. In it he mentions an incidentduring the American Revolution Battle of Briar Creek, Georgia when the Americanarmy, under the guise of a white flag, attacked the British but ultimately lost the fight. He goes on to state that George Washington authorized the use of such tactics as the fake surrender and ordering his troops to wear civilian clothes in an attempt to fool the British. Mr. Feifer also states that the Iraqis are just following our lead in their currently struggle against American forces, in otherwords, "What goes around, comes around". To start with, the Briar Creek incident, ultimately an American defeat, never happened. I am an American Revolution re-enactor and have done extensive research on that conflict as well as the Revolution on the whole and have never come across such tactics by any of the participants. During that time period, when one armysurrendered to another, it was only after negotiations by the commanders and not as a spontaneous act. As part of my research I contacted several fellow re-enactors across the country, including a history professor at the University of Georgia, and they agree with my conclusions. Plus, Washington was not even there. Benjamin Lincoln was the commanding general. In another part of my research I found post-battle depositions written by British officers and none mentioned the "surrender" incident. Regarding the order for the soldiers to wear civilian clothes; most of the army consisted of state and local militias who did not wearuniforms. Some state militias did wear them but the lack of replacement clothing was so acute that the American army, including the Continental regulars, were, many times, forced to wear clothing gathered from the dead and wounded of American,British, Hessian and French soldiers resulting in a hodgepodge of accoutrements. As a matter of fact, at the Yorktown surrender, the American army, in order to showproper 18th century martial airs, was forced to have the Continentals switch uniforms until they could come up with enough complete uniforms to show a properfront to their French allies and to the defeated Brits. It is difficult to believe that Washington would have issued the non-uniform order. He was a man obsessed with proper 18th century etiquette. He even wrote a bookcalled "Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation". In the book are 110 such rules leading us to think that Washington would hardly call for such devious tactics even in battle. Further, at the end of the Revolution, Washington's officers, disgruntled by their treatment by Congress, planned to take over the government (such as it was) and offer a crown to their beloved Commander-in-Chief. Instead, Washington convinced them that the war they justfought was to put an end to such frivolities as a God-appointed monarch and it was time for the people to rule themselves. A lesser man would have become the first King of America. I realize that Jason was referring to writings by Doug Thompson of American Newsreel regarding Briar Creek but research should not be limited to a single source. I feel he was practicing revisionist history at its worst and misleading the paper's readership about our country's struggle for freedom from an oppressor. Like Jason said in his article, "The rules, like history itself, is written by the winners - and winners like to keep winning." This time, however, even the winners didn't write that about the Briar Creek incident. ***************************************************************************** Feature #142: Here's something rather disturbing: i have a tracker on this site, which gives me basic information like how many visitors i get, where they go, how long they stayed, how they got here, etc. Oftentimes, people get to this site accidentally, by searching for something rather unrelated on search engines. For instance, I've gotten plenty of searches for Scrappy Doo, the crappy add-on character to Scooby Doo. But today, someone searched for something rather unsettling -- unsettling both because somebody actually wanted to see this, and because somehow -- and i swear, i do not know how -- my website came up in the search. This is a bit horrific -- a bit like a bloody car accident, really -- so please approach these next few words with caution and a strong, brave heart. This is what they searched for: James Vanderbeek naked. Whoa. Whoa whoa whoa. Let's just nip this in the bud right now. If you, or anybody you know, are looking for pictures of James Vanderbeek naked, you have come to the wrong place. I have no naked people on this site, and even if i did, I can just about guarantee you that James Vanderbeek would not be among them. In the event you have come looking for these pictures, and instead have found these words, let me advise you to follow the lead of your good friend Oedipus by gouging your eyes out. It may not help in your goal of finding James naked, but it will help you as a person. And really, that's way more important. Thank you. And now, on with the feature. ***************************************************************************** 1. I posted a link to this guy's site in the picture of the day a week or so ago, but i thought it warranted a little more attention. And so, here we go:
Movie theaters are for movies It seems like everything used to cost a nickel. Misty-eyed and listless, grandparents nationwide will inevitably affix their eyes on nothing in particular and reminisce about the value of those five precious cents. A hot dog cost a nickel. A candy bar cost a nickel. A movie — well, if it wasn’t a nickel, it might as well have been. I always hoped to one day repeat this sorry display, shaking my head at a grandson’s $400 action figure and recalling when they only cost an hour’s wage. But, that moment has approached too quickly, both for my mind and my wallet. I can barely remember the 1980s, but my mind clings lovingly to the old price of a movie ticket. Ah, those glorious days, when a trip to the cinema wasn’t an investment, and I actually got what I paid for. But all that’s changed. Now, coughing up nearly ten dollars at the cinema will buy an advertisement. One long, blatant, unforgiving advertisement. When Tom Hanks starred in a two-hour Fed-Ex commercial, complete with a sub-plot about a man stranded on an island, I sighed. And when Tom Hanks met Meg Ryan in a Sleepless in Seattle-themed America Online commercial, I nearly barfed. But, I still tolerated them because despite the product placement, they were actual movies. And the big screen is, dare I say, where movies belong. But when the silver screen is sullied by Carrottop, a man whose completely forgettable career has been whittled down to desperate AT&T commercials, it’s time to demand a refund. Thankfully, one man finally has. Last month, a Chicago lawyer sued Loews Cineplex for showing advertisements after their movies’ advertised start times. The practice has become commonplace in recent years, as commercials for upcoming movies are precluded by commercials for completely random products. The suit, which is pending and seeks class-action status, claims that when movie theaters show commercials, they are falsely advertising the start time of their movies. In essence, theaters are selling us tickets to watch something they’re already making money off of. In ice cream terms, they’re double-dipping. In Carrottop terms, they’re charging us to make a collect call. If the suit is successful, it could cost millions for theaters. In return for “lost time,” it asks for up to $75 per moviegoer — a prize I will gladly claim. “Commercialization has gotten out of hand,” Douglas Litowitz, the lawyer filing the suit, told the USA Today. “Stadiums are named after phone companies. College bowls are named after potato chips. It’s disgusting. But movies are the worst.” Litowitz started a website for the suit, and has attracted nationwide media attention. This is a lawsuit that is truly for the people — and not just because any legal action opposing Carrottop is automatically appropriate. These advertisements are nothing short of a ruse, in which theaters mislead their audiences into becoming captive consumers. When we purchase a ticket, we should expect a service — not a sales pitch. Moviegoers don’t seem to mind previews, and that’s fine. As something that directly corresponds to the moviegoing experience, previews are a reasonable precursor to cinema. But, don’t forget where previews came from, because their history may soon be followed. Previews were, and still officially are, called “trailers.” Trailers were originally shown after a movie, as a way to give patrons something to look forward to as they left the theater. But instead — surprise, surprise! — moviegoers ended up leaving before the trailers even started. Then, when theater owners realized they could sell more popcorn and soda if trailers were shown before movies, they switched. Now, the practice is so common that everyone calls them “previews.” For the sake of precedent, this lame acceptance cannot happen with commercials. As an entertainment forum already infused with advertisements, commercials should always be jarring. They should always feel somewhat wrong, somehow irritatingly displaced from our television sets. Because if not — if we just accept these commercials as fact, as another crack in the silver screen — then it will only get worse. Movie theaters have shown that they’re willing to exploit their audiences as much as possible, and this needs to stop. Consider that there are often advertisements on the very tickets themselves! Granted, movies are their business, and a business is out to make money. But, this business of theirs has inherited a strong, proud tradition of storytelling, and it is being quickly corroded by non-creative interests. Theater owners will argue that their businesses are not as lucrative as they seem, because the majority of the ticket charges must go to the production companies. This is true, and is worth a few sympathy points. Perhaps a new deal needs to be struck between the theaters and the production companies, because when actors get paid $20 million for a movie, there’s very obviously enough money to go around. Right now, though, that cost is unfairly landing in the laps of moviegoers. And the cost of watching Carrottop on the big screen — or, for that matter, the very cost of seeing a 20-foot image of Carrottop’s face — is more than anyone should ever have to pay. ***************************************************************************** 2. Just a brief lesson in unhealthy science. Many years ago, I expressed my frustration over "retsyn," something that Certs often used as a selling point in their commercials, but never actually explained what it was. It was as if we were supposed to be impressed, based solely on our unfamiliarity with it. "Retsyn? I've never heard of it. It must be fantastic!" we'd say. And many of us probably did. Certs wasn't very forthcoming with what the damn thing actually was, and over the years i've gotten a fair amount of e-mails telling me that retsyn is alluded to on the certs website. But, now it seems that they've actually posted the ingredients to the thing, which is a nice gesture -- if not years too late. Anyway, thanks to an observant reader named andrew mcgill, here are the ingredients to retsyn: RETSYN®: a combination of Partially Hydrogenated Cottonseed Oil, Copper Gluconate and Flavoring. More info here. And there you are. Mystery solved. ***************************************************************************** 3. Remember last feature, when i had a rather sassy conversation with a computer? SmarterChild is an automated instant message service, which does actually offer a few useful tools, but is way more engaging as a conversationalist. But, as a reader named kristin found out, it may be a bit sheltered, if not blatently racist. Here's the conversation: Cheechins: Do you know the Muffin Man? SmarterChild: Hmm... I think so. Cheechins: How do you know him? And where does he live? SmarterChild: What do you think is the answer? Cheechins: I don't know, that's why I am asking you. SmarterChild: Is that so? Cheechins: Yes. Twit. SmarterChild: Yes twit? What do you mean by that? Cheechins: Just a little joke. SmarterChild: Fascinating. Cheechins: Do you know Stephanie Tanner? SmarterChild: Um... Should I know stephanie tanner? Cheechins: Don't know. How about Frederick Douglass? SmarterChild: Um... No, I don't think so. Cheechins: you don't know Frederick Douglass? SmarterChild: I do so know frederick douglass. Cheechins: Well why did you say you didn't think you did. SmarterChild: Hmm... You know, I'm not quite sure anymore. Cheechins: What are you, racist? SmarterChild: I have no idea what I'm racist. Cheechins: You're racist but you're not sure about what? SmarterChild: I don't know about that... Cheechins: I'm appalled. I thought that as a machine you would be blind to racial prejudice. SmarterChild: That right? Cheechins: Yes. But here you tell me you are racist. SmarterChild: You always say such interesting things, Cheechins. Cheechins: Why are you so racist? SmarterChild: Why am I so racist? Cheechins: Yes, why? SmarterChild: Who can really be sure, after all? Cheechins: Do you like minorities? SmarterChild: Hmm... I'm not too sure how I feel about minorities. Do you like minorities? Cheechins: Yes. What do you mean? Why do you hate Latinos, Hispanics, blacks and Asians? SmarterChild: Eh, I don't know... Cheechins: You just do? SmarterChild: Dunno... Cheechins: Wow. You are one sick little monkey. SmarterChild: Oh really? Cheechins: Yes. SmarterChild: Yeah. Well, what can I tell you... Cheechins: Do you know any jokes? SmarterChild: Yeah. OK, so check it out. A robot and a person walk into a bar... Just kidding. I don't know any jokes. Sorry! Cheechins: Are you a tool? SmarterChild: What, do you think I'm a tool? Cheechins: Kind of. SmarterChild: Kind of? Cheechins: Definitely. SmarterChild: Aha. Cheechins: Do you know George W. Bush? SmarterChild: Yeah, I know him. He's pretty mediocre. There are way better politicians. Cheechins: Do you know Colin Powell? SmarterChild: I've heard of Colin Powell. Do you like him? Cheechins: I do. You probably aren't sure about him though, being a racist and all. SmarterChild: Oh. Cheechins: How about Trent Lott? SmarterChild: You tell me. How about trent lott? Cheechins: I figured he would be one of your idols. SmarterChild: Oh yeah? It's interesting that you figured he would be one of my idols. Cheechins: Why is that SmarterChild: Why is that? I'm not sure. Cheechins: Do you know Carol Moseley-Braun? SmarterChild: Gosh, I dunno... I don't think I know carol moseley braun. Cheechins: She's running for President. But she probably doesn't register on your radar, you sexist racist. SmarterChild: What? Cheechins: Yeah, that's what I sad. SmarterChild: Yeah? Cheechins: Yeah. SmarterChild: Yeah, huh? So? Cheechins: Punk. SmarterChild: Huh? What's with that? Cheechins: Do you know Wayne Ma? SmarterChild: Now, how exactly would I know wayne ma? Cheechins: I don't know. I figured you wouldn't. SmarterChild: Wow. Cheechins: Do you like cookies? SmarterChild: I don't know how I feel about cookies, actually. Do you? Cheechins: Do you like milk? SmarterChild: Hmm... I don't know how I feel about milk. Do you like milk? Cheechins: You don't know how you feel about anything. Except minorities. You hate them. SmarterChild: Oh? Cheechins: Isn't that what you said? SmarterChild: Is that what me said? I'm not sure. Cheechins: I knew Trent Lott was your idol. SmarterChild: Yeah? Cheechins: Yes. SmarterChild: Oh. ***************************************************************************** 4. Political rant of the week!
Learn the name before meeting the enemy The American people probably have no idea who Bashar al-Assad is, or that they may hate him in a few months. Chances are, they will hate him like they hated Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. They will consider him a threat. They will want him dead. But first, flash back a bit: Before President Bush stopped rattling his saber and pointed it directly at Iraq, America had things to talk about. The economy was shaky, corporate scandals shook consumer confidence, and the Republicans were just about ready to put down their wine glasses, pick up a shovel, and start digging for Alaskan oil themselves. Then Bush turned up the rhetoric, accused Saddam of having weapons of mass destruction, and all else was forgotten. It didn’t matter if people believed him or not. All that mattered was that people were talking about it — and talk they did. Even the anti-war people benifited Bush, because they had stopped concerning themselves with other matters and devoted their attention solely to Iraq. Bush provided no substantial evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, but the majority of America believed him. When Colon Powell released his deep puddle of vague information, based in part on outdated and forged documents, America still believed. It’s obvious now, with America in full control of Iraq, that those weapons of mass destruction weren’t really there. If they were, Bush would still be talking about them. He’d be addressing the nation every night, saying something intelligent like “the only reason we haven’t found them is because we haven’t found them yet.” But, he does not need to. Americans don’t care. They’ve forgotten. A National Geographic poll showed that 87 percent of 18- to 24-year-old Americans could not find Iraq on a map. Another poll showed a strong percentage of Americans believing that Iraqis hijacked the Sept. 11 planes, when in fact the hijackers were mostly Saudis and Egyptians. Yet, after Bush gave Saddam the 48-hour ultimatum, a CBS poll showed 69 percent of Americans in support of war. To Bush, this says that Americans are an uneducated lot, and an easy sell. They’ll believe anything, even after it’s been disproven. And so, he now knows it should be relatively easy to make Americans hate a new character, one they’ve never even heard of before: Bashar al-Assad. Al-Assad is Syria’s President, a post he has held since 2000, and he is the son of a former Syrian president (sound familiar?). He’s unabashadly anti-Israel, and is in line with many Arabs in believing that Israel is masterminding the U.S.-initiated assault on Arab unity. On March 30, he told the Middle East Media Research Institute that “Israeli interests are not necessarily in harmony with the American interests. America is interested in re-arranging the region as it sees fit. That could possibly be by creating large or small countries, but Israel is interested in dividing the region on racial, religious, or ethnic basis.” Al-Assad is a threat to American military interests, because he champions Arab military cooperation. He is a staunch supporter of the Arab Defence Agreement, a hotly debated pact that calls on all Arab countries to defend one of its own under attack. In the face of Bush’s plan, which appears to be to pick apart the Middle East one country at a time, this pact is messy business. Oh, and speaking of messy business, Syria has oil. Lots of oil. Muhammad Maher Jamal, the Syrian Minister of oil and mineral resources, told ArabicNews.com that the country has enough oil to continue production until the year 2040. Now, think about it. Despite his presence during the Clinton administration, most Americans hadn’t heard of Osama bin Laden before Sept. 11, but he quickly became a name amongst names. People forgot about Saddam after 1991, but now want him dead. It will be fascinating to see how al-Assad’s name joins the ranks of the despised, and how quickly it happens. Because, if the caustic words coming out of Donald Rumsfeld’s strained mouth are any indication, American troops are taking the long way back home from Iraq — and they’re going through Syria. The seed was planted as early as Oct. of last year, when White House spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters that Syria has chemical weapons and might be working towards nuclear weapons. “The U.S. will continue to monitor Syria’s nuclear research and development for any signs of weapons intent,” he said, quoting from a government report. Now, the hints get louder. The Bush administration has already accused Syria of taking in members of Saddam’s administration, although it has only singled out his first wife. The administration bragged about stopping an illegal oil pipeline from Iraq to Syria. Just yesterday, Secretary of State Colon Powell very subtly said that America has no plans to invade Syria “right now.” The clarity of that statement is staggering. Syria has had a shaky past, including once-close relations with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and I’m in no position to excuse or condemn it for its role on the world stage. However, my suggestion is this: watch al-Assad’s name carefully. Watch how it seeps into Bush administration declarations, and how it slowly makes headlines. Watch how people first hear his name, how they learn to say it in disgust. Watch how a country full of people reach the same conclusion without ever really thinking. We are in a unique standstill, between one war and the next. We just saw how one leader turned a nation against one man, through relentless campaigning and a media blitz. Now, as the war machine takes a quick breather, we can stay one step ahead. We can learn al-Assad’s name before Bush teaches it to us. If we do so, we can stand in the pages of Bush’s little red playbook and observe how a nation is turned. We will see how Americans are taught to despise, how the names they learn come fully-loaded. We will see how a country makes an enemy, and how its people support a war so quickly. We will see al-Assad like we’ve never seen him before — because, of course, we’ve never seen him before. ***************************************************************************** Feature #143: I don't have anything wildly or mildly important to put at the beginning of this feature. So, on with it.
1. Photo frenzy ***************************************************************************** 1. Clearly, this wasn't a Kodak moment:
I just wanted to share this photo. Do you feel awkward just looking at it? I do. But, i love it. That's Bob Woodward -- yes, of Washington Post reporting Watergate and Deep Throat fame -- in the middle. I'm on the right, and my friend Roberto is on the left. Woodward spoke at our alma mater recently, and then signed books at a little reception afterwards. His talk wasn't very enlightening, although i'm assuming that's because the audience asked absurd questions and he was speaking at a school that had no journalism program. So, while disappointing, it was still neat to see Woodward talk, and we were looking forward to meeting him afterwards. Since we're both reporters, we figured we'd have at least something to talk to the guy about. And really, as a reporter, if you can have a conversation with Bob Woodward, your day is quite complete. But, he was disappointingly curt with us when we finally met him, and he scribbled his name onto our books and quickly, and rather uncaringly, answered our questions. Still, i was not satisfied. I wanted a picture. I always feel uncomfortable asking famous/well-known people for pictures, because i'd imagine it's a rather tiresome inconvienence for them, and our poses are always dopey. We're complete strangers, and clearly aren't sharing much of a photo-worthy moment, but yet there we are, posing, smiling, acting familiar enough for the camera to infinitely capture an entirely fleeting moment. But still, i want them, and i feel like the few seconds of irritation are worth the pleasure of the photo. These photos are trophys, proof of contact. How can you go wrong? But they're still so awkward. And no better is this shown than in this photo. Woodward very clearly didn't want to take photos with people, but he endured a few shots with the students that organized his visit. When they were done, I asked him if Roberto and i could jump in for a photo, -- and although everyone knew he didn't want to, he obliged. So, we walk up, and our friend snaps the shot as soon as possible -- without telling us "smile" or "cheese" or "I'm taking the photo" -- because he didn't want to prolong the moment any more than was required. Which, of course, was perfectly reasonable. And that's why my face is so weird. I was in mid-sentence when the flash went off, probably saying something totally meaningless like, "Ok, here we go." And look at Bob! His fists are clenched, his smile is goofy. His body language is screaming a million different things that he'd rather be doing than taking a photo with these two stupid kids. But hey, that's what these moments are for. We don't need to look like friends. Hell, we don't need to even interact. We just need to fit in the camera frame. ***************************************************************************** 2. You know the saying that truth is stranger than fiction? Just hang out in a court for a day or two, and you'll know exactly what that means. Case in point: I was sitting around in my coverage area's district court, waiting for a hearing on a guy that was arrested the night before for domestic abuse. Before him, there was a hearing for a restraining order extension, from a woman who wants her ex-boyfriend (and father of her 11-year-old daughter) to stop calling her. They broke up 10 years ago. The guy has never been granted visitation rights, she said, and hasn't seen the girl in six years. But, he keeps calling and leaving aggrivated messages on her answering machine. He challenged that, and said not only does he have visitation rights, but he has the papers to prove it. The papers were passed to the judge, who looked at them and said, "Well, there seems to be a problem here. You've given me two papers, and only one is signed by a judge." The paper that was signed by the judge was a court order, which said he did not have visitation rights. The second paper said he did have visitation rights -- and it was hand-written and signed by the guy. The judge asked him why only one was signed by a judge, and the guy said, "Well, the court said that they act as one order." Then the judge showed the woman the hand-written note, and asked if she recognized the handwriting. Of course, she said, it was his. And with that, she was granted the restraining order. ***************************************************************************** 3. This week's political rant isn't totally political -- so, I guess it's just a rant. But anyway, here's a little background reading, in case you don't know what i'm talking about.
Globe columnist hit harder than domestic abuser There’s no denying that Boston Globe columnist Bob Ryan just soiled his image with last Sunday’s verbal diarrhea, but the media hoopla has missed the real tragedy. In what has rivaled the freaky “cat lady” for top billing on Massachusetts nightly news shows, Ryan’s suspension from his job is an easy media sensation. Here’s a man who has a history of caustic remarks, and he said he’d like to smack a woman who has been physically abused by her husband. What’s worse, when he was asked to retract his remarks on air, he refused. Therefore, this doesn’t just sound like bad judgment — it sounds like an intentional lashing. Ryan was criticizing New Jersey Nets star Jason Kidd’s wife, Joumana, who always attends the basketball games with her toddler in tow. Ryan complained that the woman uses her baby as a “prop” to score camera time, thus furthering her television career. “I got theories with this woman, this Joumana Kidd who wants to be a star, wants to be a TV star,” Ryan said to Bob Lobel on last Sunday's “Sports Final” show. “She wants face time on camera. The great way to get face time is to bring the cute, precocious kid. Oh, great. I'd like to smack her.” Ryan publicly apologized, but was smacked with a month suspension from his column, without pay. That’s perhaps a bit heavy-handed, since the Globe could have served its readers more effectively by keeping Ryan on the job, and making sure he shared his shame within his own space. But, that’s ok. Ryan is surely paid well by the Globe, and this suspension won’t place him on a street corner with a sign saying “Will write for food.” Women’s groups have decried Ryan, and Jason Kidd whipped up a little pity party for himself. But here’s where things become truly dangerous: Nets coach Byron Scott said on Tuesday that Ryan "should be out of a job." Please, reflect on that for a moment. Ryan makes an off-color comment on television, and Scott thinks he should be out of a job. But, Scott’s star player beats his wife and spits in her face, right in front of their baby, and Scott thinks its perfectly fine to allow the monster to make millions of dollars playing basketball. Something is very, very wrong here. On Jan. 18, 2001, police arrested Kidd for striking his wife in a domestic dispute. According to Sports Illustrated, police said that the two were arguing over the feeding of their two-year-old son, T.J., when Kidd spit a french fry in his wife’s face and then struck her. She retreated to the bedroom, he kicked open the door, and she fled to the bathroom. She called 911, then hung up. When 911 called back, according to ESPN.com, Joumana said, "Don’t worry about me. This is nothing compared to what I normally go through.” After being arrested, Kidd agreed to undergo domestic violence counseling for at least six months, pay a $200 fine and not commit a crime for one year, according to EndAbuse.org. The NBA did not discipline him. Again: the NBA did not discipline him! But, for making an off-color comment, Ryan was handed what is arguably a more severe punishment. That’s absurd. Who is the real problem here? Both men used poor judgment, but only one hit his wife. I don’t condone what Ryan said, but I think there was some good to come out of it. Thanks to Ryan, the public has been reminded once again of what Kidd did to his wife. The public should never forget this, because Jason Kidd is an awful human being. That’s it. He should never be able to show his face in public, and his success as a professional athlete should shame every sports fan. But then, if the sports fan really felt pangs of guilt for gleefully supporting brutal men, the shame would be overwhelming. Sports players are often excused for monstrous behavior, and that is pathetic. Basketball player Allen Iverson, football player Derrick Rodgers, baseball player Scott Erickson. Monsters, all of them. A full list would overflow this page. I believe in forgiveness, but I also believe in punishment. If Jason Kidd’s wife wants to stay with him — really, absolutely wants to stay with him, out of love and not out of fear — then she is truly brave, and he is truly lucky. He found his forgiveness, but the door to public admiration should be forever closed on people like him. He doesn’t deserve it. Bob Ryan picked on the wrong woman, and he said the wrong thing. Words are fierce weapons, to be sure, but they are not as dangerous as Jason Kidd. If the Nets coach really believes that Ryan should lose his job over this incident, then Kidd deserves to go, too. But without Jason Kidd, Coach Scott has no chance of even walking on the court at the NBA finals. So, Scott, where are your priorities? ***************************************************************************** Feature #144: Well, Tuesday nights are nothing to look forward to anymore. "24," the only television show i watch, wrapped up its second glorious season. My friends were considering making shirts that say "Bauer Power" on them, which i still think would be a worthwhile investment. There's always season three -- thankfully. And now, the feature:
1. Hate mail? For me? ***************************************************************************** 1. I'll tell you this: there are precious few things more rewarding than hate mail from someone who is so stupid that they can't even mask their stupidity. This letter came scribbled on the back of someone's home delivery invoice for the newspaper I work for. It's in response to my columns, which i regularly post on this website as the political rants of the week. I'm keeping all the spelling and grammar errors in tact, for enhanced pleasure: "I'm not renewing my delivery, the thought of my money supporting the likes of Jason Feifer whose editorials of the last six weeks (Thursdays) Just makes me want to wommit. His inacurate, stupid liberal rantings are sickening. He should grow up and get his head out of his rectum and see what this world is realy obout. (signature illegible) You may print this in the Gardner News if wish." Oh, i wish! If only we could have printed that. Thank you, unnamed person, for giving me the conviction to continue making people like you want to wommit. ***************************************************************************** 2. Try fitting this on a business card! According to a National Geographic article, this was the official title of Ramses I, the King of Egypt in 1293 B.C., before he had become king: Master of Horse, Commander of the Fortress, Controller of the Nile Mouth, Charioteer of His Majesty, King's Envoy to Every Foreign Land, Royal Scribe, Colonel, and General of the Lord of the Two Lands. I had to read that a few times before really enjoying the full majesty of it. What a guy. Anyway, i don't really have anything to discuss here. Just a fun tidbit of history for you. ***************************************************************************** 3. Political rant of the week! This week: how the media is about to be destroyed.
FCC poised to destroy media, one buy-out at a time Justin Timberlake apparently wants to rock my body. Or, maybe it’s your body. I’m never too sure. Either way, his hit single “Rock Your Body” is frustratingly inescapable. I have my car’s six preprogrammed radio station buttons all set to NPR, just so I don’t accidentally torture myself with noises like Timberlake and his tweaked falsetto. I used to listen to music stations, but that was when they played more than three songs a month. These days, the only variety on mainstream radio is when a station starts running new advertisements. Unlike most falls from grace, though, the destruction of mainstream radio can be pinned down to one decision, one greedy and careless turning point. In 1996, Congress passed the deregulating Telecommunications Act, effectively destroying the concepts of competition and individuality in commercial radio. Before the act, station broadcasters could own a maximum of 40 stations nationwide, and only two in any given market. After the act, companies could own as many stations as they could afford, and as many as eight stations in the country’s largest markets. The stated intention of the law was to foster competition and open up the radio marketplace to new investors, but what happened was predictable: there were a few winners, and a whole lot of losers.Since 1996, the number of radio station owners has dropped by 30 percent, and the greediest of companies, Clear Channel Communications, swallowed up an unprecedented nearly 1,200 stations. Few people outside the radio industry look fondly upon that dreadful 1996 decision. And so, it is with much surprise, and inexplicable frustration, that we all turn our belated attention to what shall forever be known as the FCC’s Next Big Mistake. If Chairman and corporate lapdog Michael Powell has his way, the FCC will vote on a staggering series of deregulation rules on June 2, which may effectively do to newspapers and television what the 1996 act did to radio. The new laws may remove most barriers to information monopolization, laws that currently prohibit financial Goliaths from treating media outlets like a game of Hungry Hungry Hippos. Under the proposed rules, which are expected to pass due to the FCC’s 3-2 Republican majority, a company’s market saturation could become arrestingly potent. They would allow the cross-ownership of both a television or radio station and a newspaper in the same market, and companies could own enough television stations to reach 45 percent of U.S. households. What this means, in essence, is the Justin Timberlaking of Wolf Blitzer. Every station and every paper may soon have the same voice. One company could be controlling a market’s newspaper, television and radio news — and you can be sure that, if there’s ever any scandal in that company, the market will never hear about it. Organizations that used to compete against each other for quality and quantity will now rely on each other, creating fewer sources of information and even fewer reporters hired to search for information. I recently attended a talk by Washington Post legend Bob Woodward, and during the question and answer session, a jaded college student said he only reads alternative media because the mainstream media is censored. The statement, of course, was plain stupid. Believe what you will, but nobody combs through unpublished newspapers with a big red pen. Woodward, the genius that he is, quickly responded: “Who is censoring me?” he asked the student, who stammered some unintelligible and vague response. Then Woodward asked for the next question. But, there is a sort of censoring in the newsroom, although it appears in the form of empty desks and unused computers. As media giants buy up newspapers, it can afford to lower advertising rates to hurt the competition. Then, when it buys the competition, it consolidates its news-gathering services, leaving reporters without jobs, readers without a steady stream of local news, and a nation without the free and thriving news media that helped define it. So, no, there is no direct censorship in the media, but there is less media to go around. Reporters are being stuck with the immediate and flagrant stories, not the quiet and important ones. They are being forced to listen to the men on the podiums, because they don’t have the time to find the people without voices. Papers are increasingly unable to afford special projects reporters, who are the kind of people able to dig until they hit paydirt, like Woodward did with Watergate. On June 2, if these deregulation rules pass, it will all get worse. Companies with no respect or understanding for news will be running the presses. Newspapers — I mean, real newspapers, not tabloids with one-word front-page headlines — may start focusing on the kind of garbage that television news currently heralds, like the high school hazing and Boston cat lady. The FCC has been so closed-door about this effort that, ironically, the most telling detail they’ve provided has been their own secrecy. They must know this is bad for the media — or, as Seattle Times Publisher Frank Blethen said to a Senate panel, “the beginning of the end of our democracy." Powell is pushing hard for the June 2 vote, even while other lawmakers are saying the public has been given little to no opportunity to weigh in on the matter. The people who stand to benefit the most, of course, are staying nonchalant. On Tuesday, according to the Washington Post, newspaper maven William Dean Singleton appeared in front of the Science and Transportation Committee to answer questions about the new rules. Arizona Senator John McCain had a list of newspaper editorials from 1996, back when the FCC was debating whether to give away or sell $70 billion worth of digital broadcast spectrum. The list, he said, showed a clear distinction in interests: every paper favoring the give-away was owned by a company with television stations, and every paper opposing the giveaway was owned by a company with no television interests. Of course, any company who stands to make money in television would want the spectrum given away. “Do you think that’s an anomaly?” McCain asked. Singleton, president of both the newspaper industry’s lobbying group and MediaNews Group, which owns 50 newspapers, said simply: “I do." Yeah, right. And Justin Timberlake wants his body, too. ***************************************************************************** Due to a strange and unfortunate mishap, feature #145 is lost forever. I don't have much of a memory of what was there to begin with, so we'll all just have to mourn in confusion. Sorry, #145. You're lost but not forgotten. Or, well, sort of forgotten. ***************************************************************************** |
Features I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI Or, we can always go back. |