Transmission of information

There are a number of “memes” or ideas that are propagated by the right-wing, one common one being this idea that the mainstream media (daily newspapers, most notably the New York Times; network television) is “liberal”.

A syndicated column by John Leo, which was carried by my local paper, has the columnist once more trotting out the tired rhetoric about the medias bias, and of course, it tilts leftward. While I wish that this was true (tilted left, particular towards progressive thought and ideas), the fact remains that the media that Leo is talking about—the mainstream variety—is biased in a direction befitting corporations and big-business. Because most media is owned by large corporations whose primary objective is maximization of profit—furthering their own bottom line by whatever means necessary—the needs of common, everyday, working-class Americans goes wanting in the press and other media coverage.

Columnists like Leo are transmitters—spokespeople whose job is to send or transmit information for consumption by the masses to determine how much traction these ideas garner. Over the past decade, those on the right—Leo, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity and others—have been disseminating ideas like this one—“the media is liberal”—and these “memes” have gained traction to where unsophisticated people repeat that mantra without giving it any thought, whatsoever. It’s an accepted fact, even though a casual analysis of much of what is accepted as “liberal” media, rarely, if ever, promotes ideas that are left of center, or progressive in ideology.

When these ideas become entrenched and internalized by the masses, it becomes difficult to refute the lies and misinformation. As often happens, those most likely to succumb to this subtle form of propaganda, are those most often hurt by this very propaganda. This is what makes it so insidious and effective.

This is where your information ends up

Day after day, all of us are asked for sensitive and personal information, just to keep our foot in the door and maintain an economic beachhead in our capitalist economy.

All of us have qualms about sharing so much info--social security drivers license numbers, addresses, income level, the list goes on. We always receive assurances that our information is safe and protected, but its possible that someone is using that information for less than benign purposes.

Here's an emerging story that shows what can happen to some of our information that we divulge.

HST leaves the room

Hunter Thompson shot himself. I guess that sentence isn't as odd as it originally seemed when I contemplated writing it. Actually, when you view his life, you understand that obviously Thompson figured that it was time to leave this planet and so he took the initiative to do so.

There are always certain figures that are larger than life and there will never be another Hunter S. Thompson. San Francisco Bay Guardian writer, Tim Redmond, does a good job with a tough assignment--capturing the iconic Thompson in 1,000+ words.

The LA Weekly's Marc Cooper also weighs in on Thompson's death by suicide.

In a day and age of manufactured and plastic celebrities, journalistic hacks and wannabes, Thompson's shoes will likely go without filling, and the writing profession, as well as American culture will be the worse for it.

Steroids and the younger athlete

Since the Jose Canseco interview on 60 Minutes about his steroid usage detailed in his recently released book, the topic has been all over sports call-in shows and bantered about by the hosts of these programs.

While there have been those who have unequivocally condemned Canseco and his condoning the usage of a banned and potentially hazardous substance, many have actually taken to defending this blight on baseball. Adding to the entire circus is the lack of accountability coming from athletes, afforded the privilege of million dollar salaries and national prominence. It's from that stage where professional players could begin sending a message that steroid usage isn't ok. Of course, that's not going to happen, so those covering sports should take the lead of ESPN and continue to call upon these role models (yes, they are role models--good or bad) to be accountable for their actions. It's also about time that major league baseball owners started exhibiting some courage and call for league-wide monitoring of the athletes, since they seem incapable of doing it themselves.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the biggest concern I have about the entire issue, is the message that it sends to high school and college athletes, seeking an advantage in their own sports performance.

As a father of a college athlete, as well as a coach of college players, I’m aware of the potential magnitude of widespread steroid usage moving into high school and as reported this morning on ESPN, middle school athletes.

While ESPN occasionally crosses the line in its self-promotion, they are one of the few sports media venues that are willing to address serious issues confronting the world of sports. This week, they’ve been running a series on steroid usage. It was obvious to me from watching this morning’s segment that steroid usage among amateur athletes has the potential to explode unless parent, coaches and other officials recognize the danger and become proactive in addressing the issue.

A parent who lost a son to steroid abuse, Don Hooten, has started a foundation that has as its goal, “to raise awareness among the general population of the United States about the dangers of steroid abuse for the purpose of minimizing the abuse of this drug by adolescents and young adults.”

I’d encourage all parents and coaches, as well as others connected with student-athletes, to begin educating themselves about steroids, the signs of usage and the potential harm they can cause. This issue is not going away soon, and responsible adults need to prepare ourselves to face up to the possible effects and consequences, rather than pretending they don’t exist.

Hurting children

Americans posture and puff about their commitment to children. From the lip service we pay about education, to our indignation we exhibit if anyone dares to question our inadequate parenting skills, Americans talk a good game about children. Rarely however, do we back it up. A good case in point is how our schools continue to fail large numbers of children, leaving them ill-prepared for life after school, yet little is done to bring about any substantive reforms that benefit all children, not just a handful.

From the government we choose, to the services that are taken away, our nation cares very little about our children. If we in fact did care, we'd address the issues that plague children during childhood and adequately care for them, rather than engaging in moral posturing.

A good anecdote for this is the specter of seeing a parent physically abuse their children in public and being foolish enough to intervene (been there, done that); this is a good illustration of disconnect I'm talking about between what we say and what we do. Anyone who's been in that unenviable position has heard some parent, whose just beat the crap out of their defenseless kid in public, utter the refrain, "Don't tell me how to raise my kids,"; yeah, just go right on beating the crap out of them, because as a parent, it's your right.

Molly Ivins latest column is a case in point concerning the Bush administration's utter lack of concern for children. I know conservatives, the enablers that they are, will justify whatever this administration does and doesn't take kindly to anyone who points out there shortcomings; remember "Don't tell me how to raise my kids....."? As Ivins points out, the budget shenanigans and the funding for the empire's expansion is being done on the backs of one group in particular; our children.

As Ivins writes, "Budgets are the guts of government. That's where you find the answer to the first of the three important questions about who runs a society: Who's getting screwed? Who's doing the screwing? And what the hell will they do to us next?

There was a time when reporters actually read budgets to find out what was going on, but the things are so humongous these days, we've given up on that. Consequently, there's usually a bit of a pause after a budget comes out, while we wait to hear from the various special interest groups that study their own section of a budget in minute detail. Then, the screaming from injured parties commences, and the press presumably sits up and takes note of who's screaming loudest.

With President Bush's proposed budget, may it die in committee, no pause is necessary. Read any overview of the proposal, and you can see exactly who's getting screwed: children."

I'd encourage you to read Ivin's latest; it's a good one!