Irregular Joe

Corporate Canada accepts climate change.

2005-11-17T12:29:00.000-08:00

Too often we despair at our problems and shortcomings and envy those that seem to have it so much easier. Today is definitely one of those days when I have to stop myself from crying out "Why does everybody else get it? We're doomed!". Business leaders in Canada (sorry, not the US, if only we could see the light...) have done a complete one-eighty and embraced the reality of climate change:

The leaders of a group of major Canadian corporations have called for urgent action on climate change, a major reversal of the business community's position on the Kyoto protocol. In a letter to the Prime Minister, the heads of Alcan, Bombardier, Shell Canada, Falconbridge, Home Depot Canada and Desjardins Group, among others, said Canada needs a 50-year strategy to deal with the fallout from climate change.

This is what has always baffled me about corporations. The people running them are...PEOPLE, so why are they not concerned about the future of the planet, the well-being of their children and grandchildren? They are also presumably very educated people with access to the same scientific information about climate change. In Canada, they reached this conclusion:

The executives said they accept the consensus view of a UN panel that climate change elevates the risk to human health and to the environment.

While in the US the corporate lobby calls for more studies and creates confussion by claiming that there's so much uncertainty about climate change.

Interestingly enough, this position by Corporate Canada is a big change from their defiance and resistance two years ago to the government's plan to implement the Kyoto accord. In 2002 business groups in Canada echoed what their American friends were saying about climate change and Kyoto:

Not enough study has been done, the business coalition argued, and the entire international agreement is too confusing.

So what changed? Could it be that they realise climate change could actually hurt their bottom line? Could it be they're more concerned about sustainable, long-term growth rather than simply meeting quarterly earnings targets? It could be that there have always been people within these corporations that have pushed for more action and cooperation with environmentally friendly(er) policies. It could be that they've finally gained a greater voice.

It's hard to tell what caused this seemingly large shift. But I suspect that it's a rare glimpse into the fundamental, deep rooted differences between Canadians and Americans. These differences are of constant interest to me, and are an on-going debate in Canada's struggle to define its identity.

I am a US and Canadian citizen, and not by technicality either. I have strong ties to both countries. I was born and raised in Alberta. My mother and her side of the family are all American. I spent many summers as a kid in the US visiting my large extended family. When I graduated from college I moved to California for a job. Here in California I have lived and worked for 6 years, met my future wife and earned a graduate degree from a UC school. For those of us who know both these countries intimately, there's no question that there are very fundamental cultural differences. But now I'm getting into the topic of perhaps another post.

Canadians can rest easy knowing that although they may be miss-understood and often ignored by Americans, and sometimes lumped in with Americans by the rest of the world, they are truly a disparate people.

Joe Scarborough's slippery slope

2005-11-11T00:04:00.000-08:00

Joe Scarborough was on Real Time with Bill Maher last weekend and questioned whether torture can really be called torture when we're dealing with really bad people. Playing on the emotions surrounding 9/11, Joe employs a tool used by the Cheney/Rumsfeld camp in confounding the issue. Here's the pertinent excerpt from the transcript.

SCARBOROUGH: You know, talking about torture, it's important, I think, to define what torture is. Like, for instance, is holding Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the guy that planned 9/11, with something called “water-boarding” – holding him underwater, bringing him up—
MAHER: Okay—
ROBINSON: Yes.
SCARBOROUGH: --and – is that torture?
ROBINSON: Yes, yes, yes.
WATERS: Yes, yes.
SCARBOROUGH: Is that torture? That's torture?
MAHER: Okay, but – but why—
SCARBOROUGH: They're all torture?
MAHER: Wait a second. Why are all the—
SCARBOROUGH: You're not going to answer me?
MAHER: First of all, it is torture. Of course it is. And they do a lot worse, because, obviously, they've killed a lot of people. There are people who have died from this.

I don't think a reasonable person can deny that repeatedly drowning someone, causing them to inhale water, causing them to choke, or depriving them of air, would all be considered torture. So how can it be that Joe Scarborough questions whether others would call this torture? The answer for some would simply be that Joe Scarborough is not a reasonable person. But that simple answer is actually quite telling of why some people, normally considered reasonable, can conclude that the type of treatment described by Joe Scarborough would in fact be an acceptable way to treat people held by the U.S. Government.

You can get just about anyone to admit that a person who has committed the most depraved acts, who has murder people in cold blood, in the most vicious ways, deserves to meet the same fate as their victims. This is in fact the gut reaction of most people, and the basis for popular support of capital punishment. Even in countries that do not have capital punishment, this opinion prevails. It is this visceral, emotional reaction to the crime that brings about the mindset that we are not only justified, but that we ought to, descend, just a bit, down that slippery slope.

The emotional clouding of the issue is clear in the way Joe Scarborough phrases the question about the treatment of detainees. He invokes the heinous nature of the enemy in the same sentence as the description of their treatment. By juxtaposing 9/11 with the euphemistic "water-boarding", suddenly this treatment of someone like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad doesn't seem all that bad. Our moral compass gets skewed pretty quickly when we throw around cutesy terms like "water-boarding" and keep the horrors of 9/11 close in our mind.

What this accomplishes is it obfuscates and masks how far down the slippery slope we've actually travelled. The definitions are shifted and re-framed against the backdrop of the crumbling twin towers. It's no longer a question of inadvertently sliding farther down a slope than we ever intended to go. It would be one thing for the administration or the pentagon to come out and admit that they encouraged the use of certain interrogation tactics that got out of hand. But it's something entirely different to purposefully redefine the terminology such that we cannot even say for sure where we've ended up (see newspeak). Terms like "water-boarding", "stress positions" and "deprivation" are not helpful in knowing what in the hell is actually going on, and what the policy of our government actually is. If the newspeak versions of age-old torture tell us anything, they tell us that our government is trying to conceal something from us.

But the photographs from Abu Ghraib tell us all too clearly where we've ended up. The litany of reports on detainee abuse gives a pretty clear indication of what has been, at minimum, tacitly approved treatment of detainees. But the most disturbing part is that the Cheney/Rumsfeld push to allow this kind of treatment of people to continue belies their entire purported goal of transforming the middle-east from its tyranny, oppression and injustice. The "winning hearts and minds" appears to be nothing more than the marketting pitch, while the reality is simply raw, visceral retribution and pay-back. Which, of course, has no end in sight.

When you redefine torture based on the morality (or lack thereof) of the enemy, then by definition you lose the ability to morally distinguish yourself from that enemy. Indeed, the worst thing that could happen to us in Iraq, or Afghanistan, would be for the locals to compare us to what they had before and say: "same shit, different pile".

Speak for yourself.

2005-11-07T16:54:00.000-08:00

After a conversation with some other bloggers at Daily Kos regarding Joe Scarborough's comments on supporting the Iraq war, I was prompted to write the following letter to Scarborough Country:

Joe,
You often say on your show that you support the war in Iraq. Last night (11/03/05) was the first time in more than a month that you've spent more than a couple minutes talking about the war in Iraq. In your segment you complained about the negative reporting on the war in Iraq and claimed that there's a media bias against the war. You claimed to know of many "grunts" that support the war and presumably believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Who are these soldiers? Where are they serving? What is their job in Iraq? What is their story? Why don't you put them on your show and let them share their opinions with the American people? You are part of the media. You should tell the story that you're criticizing others of not telling. I love Gen. McCaffrey, but he's on MSNBC all the time. Bring on these soldiers that you're talking about and let's hear it from them. Ask them to tell us why the invasion/occupation of Iraq is worth their lives.

I was amazed to hear you say you'll continue to support the war as long as these "grunts" that you talk to support the war. Do you really think we should take a poll of the troops to determine what our policy should be? I can't think of a more idiotic reasoning for supporting the war. But if that's really how you reach conclusions on issues like war then maybe you should check out this poll conducted by your affiliates. My guess is that even their ad-hoc, unscientific polling is more reflective of how troops feel about the war than your anecdotes. Since you're brighter than the childlike explanation of why you support the war, I look forward to hearing your actual rationale for supporting this war.
Regards,

Scarborough's brilliant defense of the Iraq policy

2005-11-04T12:09:00.000-08:00

Last night on Scarborough Country Joe took a few minutes out of his show's regular barrage of over-blown and over-hyped violent crimes to address his perception of media bias regarding coverage of the war in Iraq. Joe Scarborough quickly countered Gen. (ret) Barry McCaffrey's (my favorite MSNBC guest, a stand-up, no-nonsense breath of fresh air in the stale predictability of these highly spun shows) assessment that the war in Iraq is a huge problem and has been badly executed with his brilliantly well-reasoned and articulated rationale for supporting the war:

"I am going to continue supporting the war until the grunts on the ground don't support the war. And, right now, all I am saying is that the guys that I am talking over there still believe in what they are doing. "

Are you kidding me? I cannot think of a more simplistic and brain-dead way of formulating a position on the war in Iraq. Of course many troops believe in what they're doing. By definition, someone who volunteers to serve their country in the armed forces feels that it is an honorable and worthy thing to do. They signed up to defend America, to serve their country, and they go and do what their civilian controlled military tells them to do. They follow orders, that's their job, and clearly (luckily) they're very good at it. How these individuals feel about their duty is irrelevant to the discussion of this country's foreign policy. People in uniform feel proud to do what their country asks them to do, and they should. The question is: Are the sacrifices these people are willing to make worth it? Answering "yes" or "no" regarding Iraq requires that you examine a multitude of complex issues, none of which involve an ad-hoc poll of how a few grunts feel about their duty!

Joe Scarborough wrapped up his segment with the following comments:

"the troops that I am talking to over there, again, so many of them are dismayed because of the way this story is being reported at home and in Europe. And they say that that really is one of their biggest challenges day in and day out. And something has got to be done about it. "

What exactly would Joe like to have done about it? In any case, he is doing something about. Show's like Scarborough Country keep spouting off the same Bush administration platitudes and claims of media bias in an effort to counter and evade the discussion of how we got into, and how we get out, of the mess in Iraq. Once again the issue is dumbed down and another opportunity to have a serious discussion of the issues is squandered.

Alito already has democrat's approval

2005-11-02T12:21:00.000-08:00

One of the favorite arguments being thrown around by conservatives as to why the democrats have no reason to be critical of the Alito nomination is because they already approved him for his appellate judgeship.

"But it's a little hard to describe circumstances as "extraordinary" - or to condemn a nominee as somehow extreme or bizarre - when you yourselves [democrats] voted unanimously to confirm him to the nation's second-highest courts."
- David Frum, 11/01/05

"The guy [Alito] was unanimously approved for the federal appellate bench by a Democratic Senate, for heaven‘s sakes. The ABA gave him its highest rating when he went up there. "
- Pat Buchanan 10/31/05

So I guess fifteen years of judicial rulings and opinions should be ignored when evaluating whether a sitting judge has been faithful to the constitution. I guess the record of his actual on-the-job performance as a judge, which did not exist the first time his nomination was approved, should not be considered when determining if a judge should be elevated to the nations highest and most important judicial appointment. The conservatives want it both ways. They point to Alito's qualifications and vast judicial experience as a reason the democrats cannot oppose him, and then they want the democrats to ignore his vast paper trail of rulings and treat Alito as if he were the same man he was fifteen years ago. His confirmation fifteen years ago, to his first judicial appointment, has almost no bearing on evaluating his fitness to be on the Supreme Court.

SC weekly round-up (10/28)

2005-11-01T00:10:00.000-08:00

Last week the brewing White House scandal finally reached such a high fever pitch that even Scarborough Country could not ignore the story. Normally insulated for international and national current events - at least those that don't involve the search for a corpse or a killer - Scarborough Country finally took notice of the story that everyone was talking about. For the first time in over a month a topic other than the murder or disappearance a few individuals became the number one topic of discussion, but not by much.

Imminent indictments, rumors that senior White House staff were facing charges of outing a covert CIA agent, perjury and obstruction of justice, and the possibility that the architect of president Bush's election successes was in jeopardy, Karl Rove himself, barely edged out the time dedicated to two missing women (missing for weeks, if not months), and one murdered wife. Last week Scarborough Country dedicated about 27% of the show to Holloway, Wilson and Vitale (the murdered/missing persons) and almost 30% of the show to the scandal that was rocking Washington. But there was a lot more big news last week, and Joe Scarborough, in the midst of staying on top of these three obviously important cases, somehow found a way to fit it all into his show's busy line-up.

After nearly a month of staying completely silent on the controversy surrounding the war in Iraq, Joe Scarborough finally chimed in. With the death toll of American soldiers surpassing the two thousand mark, Joe had some thoughtful and insightful words at this tragic juncture:

"And, by the way, I noticed in the news break that we have now crossed and I have been seeing it all day—we have now crossed the 2,000 plateau, of 2,000 killed in Iraq. Well, you know what? If it‘s a noble cause, those are terrible, terrible sacrifices, but, at the same time, it bears repeating that we lost 2,000 men, 2,000 heroes in the first hours of D-Day back in 1944. You don‘t hear that."

Thanks for noticing Joe. I'm sure all those middle american families that are paying the price feel much better after you put it into perspective for them. All this time I just figured you were too busy talking about the really big, important tragedies like Holloway, but really all along you just hadn't noticed the 2,000 other tragedies that were taking place. A couple of other points that might be worth making:

2,000 plateau? Something tells me we have not hit any plateau. That number will keep on rising.
"If it‘s a noble cause". That's a big "IF". There's no doubt spreading freedom and democracy to the world is a noble cause, but if you can pair the words unrealistic, miss-guided, improbable, costly, foolhardy, arogant, and frought with incompetance and failure, to the word noble, is it worth it? There are plenty of noble world causes that America could spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives pursuing, but it doesn't mean we should. Doesn't that last sentance summarize what is supposed to be the conservative philosophy on foreign policy? Joe Scarborough is supposed to be a conservative! And that doesn't even touch on the main point that the war was not ever sold to the American people as some grand noble cause. It was sold to us on the pretense that we only took military action because Iraq was an imminent threat that had to be disarmed, not democratized! Something tells me that middle America never would have signed up to spend billions of dollars and thousands of American lives for this "noble" cause.

Ok, that was a bit more than two points. So Joe Scarborough breaks his silence and zero-reporting on the Iraq war to spew off thirty seconds of trite Bush administration propaganda. No wonder he manages to fill 30-60% of his show with talking heads psychoanalyzing some teenage "Goth Killer" over and over again. When you put thirty seconds for the month into a story like the Iraq war, what else are you going to talk about? I guess you call up your psychoanalytical, ex-prosecutor, ex-detective talking heads to pour over every little crime scene detail and media outlet footage of some random crime, because that's what middle america really needs to know about. Superb job Joe!

Moving back to the CIA leak coverage again, I just have to point out Joe Scarborough's astute analysis of the issue. In an effort to demystify the details of the plamegate story and break the story down to its simplest why-do-you-care reason for his self-purported middle american audience, Joe Scarborough says this:

"why do you care if you are outside of the Washington Beltway? You care for this reason, because, if you are a Republican, if James Carville had leaked the identity of an undercover CIA operative, Republicans would be screaming at the top of their lungs. "

WTF does that mean? I should care because if a democrat did it, it would be wrong? Oh I get it now, thanks Joe! I guess since we're all admitting to being blinded by partisanship, and incapable of seeing right from wrong unless it's framed in some childishly simple partisan way, then republicans should just file the plamegate story under "who gives a crap", because it wasn't the democrats breaking the law. Talk about insulting the intelligence of your audience; what a dip shit way to explain the story. How about you should care because your politicians lied to you about some pretty important stuff? How about you should care that your government would out a covert CIA agent just to push their agenda? An agenda that involved the invasion of another country, the spending of hundreds of billions of blah, blah, blah,... I've already said this part. Joe Scarborough completely misses the point.

On another news topic from last week, Rosa Parks passed away, and Joe Scarborough took a few minutes out of his week to mention her passing and pay tribute. In a bizarre juxtaposition, Scarborough Country dedicated more than five times more time talking about a neo-nazi girls band. Rather than discussing the legacy of Rosa Parks, Scarborough Country gave a good six minutes of free publicity to a cutesy girls pop band sporting tee shirts of Hitler smiley faces. Meanwhile Rosa Parks, who passed away the night before the Hitler simley face segment, got less than a minute of Joe's time. You have got to wonder who comes up with this stuff and decides what is worthy of making it on to the broadcast for the night.

Anyway, the regular pie chart and table for last weeks stats are shown below. Remember, click on the pie chart to see it bigger. I hope the image is clear, I've been having problems exporting the excel charts to JPEG.

Topic - week starting 10/24/05	M	T	W	Th	F	Total min.
Supreme Court	0	0	0	19	0	19
Iraq War	0	1	0	0	0	1
Katrina/FEMA	0	4	6	0	11	21
CIA Leak/Plamegate	14	6	22	14	4	60
Avian Bird flu	0	0	0	0	0	0
missing person (Holloway, Wilson, Vitale)	15	20	4	6	10	55
Hurricane Wilma	7	0	2	0	0	9
Oil profits/gas prices	0	0	0	0	13	13
Miscellaneous (racist pop-star girls, Rosa Parks)	1	6	0	2	1	10
"CEOs gone wild"	4	5	4	0	13	13
Total minutes	41	42	38	41	39	201

SC Weekly round-up (ending Oct. 21)

2005-10-28T21:38:00.000-07:00

I'm a bit behind on posting my stats for Scarborough Country news coverage, so here's the summary for last week.

If I thought the week of Oct 10^th was fixated on violent crimes/missing persons (at 49% of the show's useful time dedicated to such stories, see round-up for the week 10/10/05), then I guess I have to use the words obsessed and wholly preoccupied to describe the coverage for the week of Oct.17^th. Since I’ve been tracking Scarborough Country’s topics (only four weeks now), last week hit a new high for total time dedicated to a handful of violent crimes. Just above sixty two percent (62.2%) of the show was dedicated to a handful of violent crimes/missing persons (Natalee Holloway, Pamela Vitale, Christie Wilson, Taylor Behl, and Scott Peterson). For a second week in a row the show scored perfect shut outs against topics like the Iraq war, CIA leak/plamegate, and the Supreme Court. Joe did find time (and money) for his show to travel to his alma mater (University of Alabama) and do a show largely dedicated to his warm feelings about the place and general nostalgia. Good job Joe, I guess you're a realist as to how many people are actually watching your show on a Friday night. I can't think of a better way to spend a national cable news program's time than discussing the origins of a college football team's mascot.

Joe Scarborough touts common sense, opening each show with the phrase: “Welcome to Scarborough Country; no passport required, only common-sense allowed.” I have to ask, where’s the common sense in pouring over the minutia and incessantly injecting nothing but speculation, guess work and opinion about a few crimes that are in the process of making their way through the criminal justice system? Talk about trial by media, most of Joe’s coverage is presented with an implicit and sometimes explicit assumption about the suspect’s guilt. The show continually displays a seemingly maniacal photo of the adolescent accused of the crime in the Vitale case, coupled with headlines like: “Goth kid killer”. Sometimes the headline includes a question mark, such as "Goth Killer?", as if that is their token attempted to maintain a presumption of innocense, which is a complete joke.

As I’ve stated before, almost all measures of violent crime are down. A show with such a singular focus on a few individual criminal cases should be relegated to court TV, but instead these topics not only dominate this program but also are frequently featured in as much, if not more, detail on MSNBC’s other programs (not to mention other cable news networks). But I only take notes for the topics of “Scarborough Country”, and the results for the week beginning Oct. 17^th are show in the pie chart and table below. Click on the pie chart image to enlarge.

Topic - week starting 10/17/05	M	T	W	Th	F	Total min.
Supreme Court	0	0	0	0	0	0
Iraq War	0	0	0	0	0	0
Katrina/FEMA	4	0	0	0	5	9
CIA Leak/Plamegate	0	0	0	0	0	0
Avian Bird flu	0	4	0	0	0	4
missing person (Holloway, Behl, Wilson, Peterson, "Shocking baby Horror")	27	30	25	23	20	125
Hurricane Wilma	1	2	12	11	6	32
Crimson Tide Football	0	0	0	0	11	11
Miscellaneous (Neo-nazi riot, global warming, CA car rescue, racy TV shows)	3	4	1	6	0	14
NFL Viking's wild party	6	0	0	0	0	6
Total minutes	41	40	38	40	42	201

The yesteryears of superhuman leaders

2005-10-23T17:08:00.000-07:00

Throughout history civilizations have relied on their leaders to guide them in times of peril. Many of the most enduring stories are those of great heroes who single handedly vanquished abominable foes and saved their people from certain doom. According to Joe Scarborough we don't have to look too far back into history to find such great heroes and leaders. There’s no need to dust off a book on Greek mythology to find inspiring tales of triumph and glory. Put those silly ancient works of fiction back up on the shelf where they belong and take a short trip down memory lane to meet a great hero of our time.

If history is merely one damned fact after another, Joe Scarborough cherry picks his facts in his latest blog post to conjure up a mythical warrior of the 1980s, a cold warrior who saved western civilization and rescued a crumbling empire from certain demise. In Joe’s latest blog we meet an equal to the great mythical heroes of the ancient world. A powerful leader whose singular vision was destined to guide her people through turbulent times and on to wealth and prosperity. As all great heroes of history the mere utterance of their name instilled fear in their enemies, and this hero has a thunderous name. And also, like many other great tales of heroism, this great leader, despite all her powers and vanquished foes, befalls a tragedy.

Meet “The Iron Lady”, Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990. You may be wondering what great feats would put Margaret Thatcher, a seemingly mortal human like the rest of us, in the category of mythical figures like Hercules and Theseus. Well Hercules, despite his supernatural strength, never saved an entire empire from certain collapse. According to Joe Scarborough, erudite student of history, the great Iron Lady was “a woman who by herself reversed the fortunes of this great nation”. By Joe’s historical account, the Iron Lady single handedly saved a once great empire from “rotting to its economic core” and “changed their fortunes forever”. You may still be unconvinced, perhaps thinking that Hercules and Theseus faced much more menacing foes like the Hydra and the Minotaur. Well again, as Joe astutely points out this hero's great feats, the Iron Lady “crushed labor unions, and buried forever the legacy of Clement Attlee”, which were both great evils that neither Hercules nor Theseus ever faced in their lifetimes.

A skeptic of the Iron Lady’s superhuman feats might point out that Britain’s economic woes in the 1970s were felt worldwide and mainly caused by the global oil crisis. A doubting Thomas may say that Clement Attlee’s legacy is hardly buried at all and that it lives on with Indian freedom and independence, British disengagement from costly occupations such as in Palestine, and the National Health System. Some may even go so far as to say that Clement Attlee’s legacy is not only alive and well but also thankfully so. Some may even dare to point to facts about the record unemployment caused by the Iron Lady’s policies in the early 1980s, the strife caused by protracted labor disputes, her implacable stance towards the conflict in Northern Ireland and how a wave of patriotism following the invasion of the Falkland Islands saved her political career at an opportune time when her popularity was at an all time low.

But the skeptic's cautious view of the Iron Lady's hero worshipers is where the tragedy of this great hero begins. As Joe laments: “Did she get the respect deserved from punks and politicians across the continent? No.” No indeed Joe Scarborough, no indeed. The tragedy here is that this great hero of our time will unfortunately be measured by the sum of her deeds, both good and bad, rather than the rosy picture painted by those who follow her ideology. The tragedy, that befalls so many leaders, is that not just their followers and supporters get to frame their legacy, but also those who believed in another path and those whose lives changed for the worse during their rule. But for those like Joe Scarborough who see the Iron Lady as nothing short of a modern day hero of mythical proportions, they can find comfort in knowing that their heroes will live on as gloriously as ever in their selective memories.

SC weekly round-up.

2005-10-19T00:08:00.000-07:00

Last week was another week of "Scarborough Country" fixated on a few violent crimes and missing person cases. Swamping out the air-time of all other topics were the familiar cases of Holloway and Olivia Newton-John's missing boyfriend, a news staple for cable news shows. To supplement the dominance of this category were a few new cases with nothing much in common other than the fact that the victims were young, white females. For the sake of thoroughness, they included: murdered teen Taylor Behl, missing CA woman Christie Wilson, and a mother attacked for her unborn baby (story covered under the headline: "Stolen baby horror").

Virtually half of the show's useful airtime for the week (49%, see pie chart) was dedicated to this handful of cases. As if to reinforce its self-irrelevance and incongruence, the MSM reported that almost all measures of violent crime are down significantly since a decade ago. I wonder if the same can be said for the proportion of media coverage dedicated to violent crime. A good portion of the reporting on the Holloway case wasn't even original "Scarborough Country" reporting. Much of the content was simply a re-run of the coverage from "The Abrams Report", another MSNBC primetime show. In my short time making recorded observations of "Scarborough Country" I've noticed that the regurgitating of content from another affiliated source seems to be commonplace. A lot of reporting on "Scarborough Country" comes from other programs like "Dateline", "Abrams Report", or local news stations (which are referenced as "NBC affiliates"). In fairness, Joe Scarborough had the week off, and perhaps most of the show's staff also had the week off. With nobody around to do any actual journalism, I can only speculate that the show's producers decided to re-run the same tired old stories, bring on the same tired guests, and rehash the same tired discussions that yield nothing new and thus by definition are not news.

Another astounding aspect of the show's topics were the perfect shutouts scored against some of the biggest stories. There was zero time dedicated to the Supreme Court, the war in Iraq, and the brewing Plame-gate scandal. In a week that saw an up-coming Iraqi referendum on a newly drafted constitution, continued wrangling over the Supreme Court nomination, and impending indictments against White House staffers, there was not a word or whisper of these stories in "Scarborough Country". But there was time, on three consecutive nights, to discuss the salacious details of an NFL player's boat party. There was also time to have guests come on the show to discuss if the paparazzi are harassing celebrities.

The week's only (faint) glimmer of substantive and meaningful journalism was some continued coverage of the FEMA/Katrina recovery and a four-minute segment on the state of the armed forces with guest retired general McCaffrey. McCaffrey, as always, had some interesting thoughts and insights into the military's current recruitment deficit, Iraq war veteran health benefits and the future make-up of the armed forces. Details are shown in the table below.

Topic - week starting 10/10/05	M	T	W	Th	F	Total min.
Supreme Court	0	0	0	0	0	0
Iraq War	0	0	0	0	0	0
Katrina/FEMA	6	6	9	12	5	38
Rove/Plame	0	0	0	0	0	0
Avian Bird flu	0	5	0	0	0	5
missing person (Holloway, Behl, Wilson, Olvia Newton-Johns Boyfried, "Shocking baby Horror")	17	20	23	23	20	103
NOPD beating of man	10	5	7	0	0	22
State of the military, recruitment, war vet. medical benefits.	0	0	0	0	4	4
Miscellaneous (sharks, pythons, police crash, paparazzi, CA dog law, SC Champion)	9	5	0	4	7	25
NFL Viking's wild party	0	0	3	4	5	12
Total minutes	42	41	42	43	41	209

For Rent: White House

2005-10-14T00:07:00.000-07:00

West Wing meets... huh? "The West Wing"? This administration should just pack up and move to a Hollywood set if they're going to script and rehearse scenes of Bush getting reports from troops in the field. They could rent the set from NBC's "The West Wing". Or better yet, the administration could rent out the White House to NBC. Shooting the show on location would add a certain feeling of authenticity that is otherwise lacking from its real-word counterpart.

From contrived town hall meetings to rehearsed teleconferences with soldiers, it seems as though this administration has a distaste or dislike for genuine interaction with the hoi polloi. The first thought that came to mind when I heard about the scripted teleconference with soldiers in Iraq was “misanthropist”. Actually my first reaction was complete disbelief. My second reaction was that it’s almost as if there’s an aversion to getting in touch with or having any contact with the people they govern. One can't help but be cynical when the president goes to these lengths to stage nothing more than him simply doing his own job. This can’t possibly help those downwardly spiraling poll numbers. When is someone in the administration going to stop the bleeding?

Republican obstructionists are good.

2005-10-13T00:34:00.000-07:00

Tucker Carlson shows his true partisan colors:

10/12/2005 - "The Situation with Tucker Carlson"
MADDOW: the Republicans, with all other nominees, have said Democrats are being obstructionist for wanting to see documents, for wanting to see a paper trail, for wanting to get questions answered in the judiciary committee hearings, and now all of a sudden, the Republicans want those things for this nominee.
CARLSON: Well, 99 percent of the time that‘s a fair charge. Democrats have been obstructionist. In this case, that‘s a ridiculous charge. It‘s actually conservatives who are being obstructionist, and good for them.

So according to Tucker it's a good thing to obstruct a nominee when you have questions about their qualifications and positions on issues, IF you happen to share Tucker's opinion of that nominee. At least the guy comes right out and says it. He has a very basic and unabashed double standard. Simply put, Democrats are almost always in the wrong (99% of the time) and Republicans, when doing the same thing Democrats do, are in the right. This is the very definition of a partisan hack. Your side is always right, the other side is always wrong. Your side can criticize the president and has legitimate concerns, the other side is being obstructionist and perhaps un-American or unpatriotic. It's this kind of divisive attitude and diametric partisan framing of the issues that hurts the political process and hurts the discussion. The Republican senators that are concerned about this Supreme Court nominee have a duty to have their concerns addressed and their questions answered. Republicans have an obligation to their constituents, and the constitution, to determine if a nominee is appropriate for the position they are being nominated. Now repeat the previous two sentences and replace the occurrence of "Republican" with "Democrat". If your agreement or disagreement with those two sentences changes with the changing of the words "Republican" or "Democrat" then you are a partisan lackey.

Comments not working for firefox, hacked my new template.

2005-10-11T22:09:00.002-07:00

I switched to a new template from blogger templates. It seems the comments feature is hosed for firefox. It should be fixed now for IE. Sorry if you tried to leave a comment...

Scarborough Country weekly round-up.

2005-10-10T00:16:00.000-07:00

This past week was a big week for news, especially in national politics. But how well does the mainstream media cover the stories and issues that really impact Americans? This post is my attempt to quantitatively track one small sample of the overall MSM news coverage, namely MSNBC's "Scarborough Country". I intend to post my results each week, and analyze what is good and bad about Joe Scarborough's news coverage.

As I've said in previous posts, my sense is that overall the MSM does a pretty shoddy job of covering the news, current events and issues of public interest and importance. Generally the media seems dominated by celebrity trials, or sensationalized, shocking crimes and trends towards what used to be the sole domain of the tabloids. But I don't really have any way to quantify why I feel this way. It's really a general sense I get from watching the cable news channels and reading MSM web sites. In the past I've had posts that quantify the apparent obsession with a few criminal cases, and a seemingly disproportionate amount of media coverage. For last week's "Scarborough Country" this feeling certainly seems to hold true. Before getting into the specifics of last week's coverage I'd like to qualify how my data was collected.

I Tivo'ed each show (gotta love Tivo!) and watched the show noting the show's topic, and the start and end time of each topic, as shown by my Tivo's time bar. It should be noted that the Tivo time bar is in minutes. Consequently I cannot measure more precise than the minute readings. Thus, there is a truncation error (maximum of 59 seconds) that may occur at the beginning and end of each measurement. I assume this error is randomly distributed and should not greatly impact the results. My data is not precise down to the second, but I will also say that it is accurate. I do not count time given for commercials, time given for MSNBC's news update, and time where Joe Scarborough is introducing the show and its topics. The remaining time, which I record for each topic, I refer to as "useful on-air time" or simply "useful time".

Looking at the distribution of last week's show (see pie chart above), it seems that my general sense of disproportionate news coverage certainly holds true for last week's "Scarborough Country". I don't even know where to begin in pointing out how lop-sided the show's coverage was. How about zero time dedicated to the war in Iraq? That seems crazy. What also seems crazy is that Joe dedicated more time to bash actor Donald Sutherland's remarks about Bush than he did talking about Tom Delay and the Rove/Plame case combined. Joe Scarborough took time in his broadcast three days in a row to basically call Donald Sutherland a sissy, overly emotional, and imply that he's being a bad American by criticizing Bush overseas.

The good aspect of the show has to be the amount of time dedicated to hurricane Katrina relief and reconstruction efforts, which took up the largest proportion of the show's time for the week (one third). There is huge public interest in following that story. There are billions of tax dollars being spent (and miss-spent) to recover from the hurricanes and the American people deserve answers as to why the government was so inadequately prepared.

Unless you are the friends and family of Natalie Holloway (Alabama high school student missing in Aruba, as if I had to clarify that) or George Smith (missing cruise ship honeymooner) it seems that the coverage of these two high-profile cases is completely disproportionate. Granted that these are two very tragic cases, and I certainly hope they are solved soon, but no one could possibly argue that this is as important or tragic as the hurricane disaster. Yet these two cases were given virtually the same focus and attention as the hurricane disaster. Last week Joe Scarborough even addressed the criticism leveled at his show for the amount of coverage given to the Holloway case. His defense was that there is something about the case that just makes Americans care. There's no doubt Americans care. And I'm sure the local community in Alabama has mobilized to do what they can to help and get answers. I'm sure the congressman and senators from that state are involved. But I don't see why this case needs national attention or how it is that Joe Scarborough feels that two missing person cases deserve as much focus as the hurricane reconstruction or the Supreme Court nomination. Like I've said in the past, unless it's Dick Cheney missing in Aruba, why on earth is it getting so much national attention? By the way, the Supreme Court nomination accounted for 9% of the show, while the controversy dominated many other headlines. Joe Scarborough just seems completely out of touch on that one.

The details for last week's shows are shown in the table below.

Topic - week starting 10/03/05	M	T	W	Th	F	Total min.
Supreme Court	6	0	7	6	0	19
Iraq War	0	0	0	0	0	0
Katrina/FEMA	20	13	4	13	19	69
Tom Delay	0	4	0	0	0	4
Rove/Plame	0	0	0	3	0	3
missing person (Holloway, Smith)	19	12	23	10	4	68
Ashley Smith, drugs/religious redemption	0	0	0	2	8	10
Donald Suterland's remarks on Bush	0	3	2	4	0	9
Miscellaneous (god's wrath, pythons, police crash, sea lions, Kate Moss, porn & media)	0	10	6	4	8	28
Total minutes	45	42	42	42	39	210

Joe investigates God

2005-10-05T21:29:00.000-07:00

Last night Scarborough Country dedicated an entire segment of the show to debating whether Katrina's destruction of New Orleans and Mississippi was the wrath of god. Once again Scarborough Country comes through with hard-hitting journalism and important discussion of the issues that most affect America. No less than three guests were invited on the show to share their viewpoint on this vital and pressing issue in the gulf coast reconstruction effort.

Sarcasm aside, this is a typical example of how the media has become cheap and lazy. Instead of doing real investigative journalism, instead of researching issues, checking facts, sending people out into the field to put together informative and thoughtful reports, they slap together these low-budget, heated yelling sessions about some complete non-issue. With the show dedicating close to 25% of its useful on-air time to nonsense like this, you'd think there was a dearth of important topics and news to cover. Next time Scarborough Country is in desperate need to fill their air time with something (anything), and topics like Iraq war, supreme court nominations, budget deficits, gulf coast reconstruction, disaster preparedness, and government corruption (to name a few), don't seem to come to mind, here are a few suggestions:

Give an update on the Cambodian Midget Fighting League.
Interview a vampire or druid.
Have Joe Scarborough bust out into a Gregorian chant for 10 minutes (or required time).
Explain the importance of the media in a democracy (or get someone that can).
Lastly, explore topics vital to the functioning of a healthy democracy (see #4).

The draft

2005-09-30T18:32:00.000-07:00

I was reading another blog today that presented arguments for why the military should bring back the draft. As evidence to support the position the blogger cited the military's failure to meet its recruiting objectives. See the post here.
Regardless of the need for troops in peace time or in war time, I agree with the blogger and think there should be a collective responsibility to defend this country. The military should be mostly composed of draftees. Perhaps I don't really understand the practical implications of such a drastic shift. I acknowledge the point that a military probably operates more effectively if the members choose to be there. I'm not old enought to remember any of the problems with a draftee military fighting wars, so my position here does not benefit from that perspective. But to me it is a very compelling argument that the sacrifices should be borne by all segments of society (rich, poor, middle-class, well-connected, "nobodies", famous, everyone). It's also compelling to me the arguments that such a military would help social cohesion, help break down class and race barriers, and inject the leadership of this country with a true sense of the cost and consequences of sending the military to fight wars. If more leaders in congress, the cabinet, the white house, etc... had sons and daughters in the line of fire I can't help but think that their decision making process would be radically altered. Too many segments of American society, including the civilian government leaders, are insulated form the sacrifices and the cost. The war doesn't affect the majority of us all that much. We fund it through our tax dollars, although with such huge deficits we aren't really funding it, it's the kids in diapers and the yet-to-be-born that will pay for it. We see plenty of media coverage on the war. We hear plenty of debate, and we all [should] have an opinion on whether we support or oppose the war. But if random young americans, from all segments of society, were being called on to serve in the military I think we'd all have a real sense that this directly impacts our lives. I think we'd all be strongly for or against certain military actions and it wouldn't be based on partisanship or ideology, it would be based on very real and difficult choices.

Incompetence beats corruption

2005-09-29T00:45:00.000-07:00

The bad news for the Republican Party seems to be coming out all at once. The way things are looking I think things will get worse before they get better. But the growing list of political trouble spots would really just be bumps in the road and business as usual if the administration had adequately responded to Katrina.

FEMA's Katrina relief debacle.
Slipping support for the war in Iraq.
Tom Delay indicted on conspiracy charges.
Sentator Frist's financial dealings investigated.
White House leak of Plame's identity and possible involvement of Karl Rove.

This list would have been manageable and any political fallout limited if it were not for item #1. The Katrina relief disaster is what really hurt the Bush administration and will have lasting effects that could potentially magnify any other troubles that arise. Just like how 9/11 solidified support for the president and gave him wide latitude in pushing forward policy initiatives, the seemingly impotent response to this crisis has eroded the president's support and given him no room to move. The reason this has been particularly damaging is because Bush predicated his leadership on "preparedness" and protecting America. Time and time again he stood in front of the American people and told them how he was making them safer with things like the patriot act, the Department of Homeland Security, terror alert levels and the war in Iraq. His administration defined itself with security. The government's Katrina response opens up all kinds of questions and doubt about how prepared the government is for a crisis, whether we are any safer now than we were on 9/11 and the president's leadership abilities. The Katrina response exposes the Bush administration to attacks on all fronts. Suddenly the other four items on the list become a much bigger problem. Take for instance item #2, the war in Iraq; a growing political liability for the Bush administration and the republicans. If support for the war was fading before Katrina now opponents of the war can point to Bush's failed leadership on Katrina as reason to question his leadership on the war. They can also point to the cost of the war in Iraq as money that is needed for rebuilding the gulf coast. They can also claim that the failed relief effort was partly due to the lack of National Guard resources that are currently deployed in Iraq. The other items on the list also become amplified because of the now infamous former FEMA directory Michael Brown; an appointment that has been widely reported to be an example of cronyism in the worst degree. The appointment of a seemingly unqualified person to such an important position raises questions about the level of nepotism going on in the Bush administration.

Allegations of corruption rarely seem to derail political objectives, at least when it just involves plain, good old-fashioned greed. But what will really hurt the Bush administration is the appearance that cronyism lead to incompetence and ineptitude that threatened the safety and lives of Americans. Certainly Bush’s legislative goals will be substantially diminished if not largely defeated, and with another Supreme Court nomination looming he may find himself having the tread lightly.

Katrina and Climate Change

2005-09-14T16:39:00.000-07:00

Last night Bill Nye the Science guy was on "Scarborough Country" and talked about the relationship between increased hurricane frequency and intensity and global warming.
Here is an excerpt from the show's transcript:
----------------
NYE: And, in my view, there is no question that global climate change will exacerbate the hurricane problem. When you have more heat in the atmosphere, these big cyclonic storms, as they are called, storms that go in a big cycle, a big circle, they are going to get bigger, both in the mid-Atlantic and in the Pacific Ocean. And this is consistent with every climate change model.

Now, whether or not Greenland is going to get a little warmer, Norway colder, the Pacific Northwest dryer, these are details that are very important. But, fundamentally, more heat energy in the atmosphere means more hurricanes and, in general, bigger ones.

The thing that—the thing is, see, though, if we all got to work on it right now, we could, as the saying goes, have it all. That is to say, we could have reduced energy use, less dependence on foreign oil. We could have a much higher quality of life for our citizens, and we could have a future without catastrophic global climate change, if we got on it right now.

So, I am hoping that these storms, as miserable as they are, I am hoping that the death and destruction as a result of this will not, if you will, be in vain. I am hoping we will take a cue that this is time to really address global climate change...

SCARBOROUGH: All right.

NYE: And, dare I say it, Joe, change the world.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, Bill Nye, let‘s try to do that tonight.
-------------

I'm hoping that the issue of climate change get's more and more coverage in the media. Although talking about it won't fix the problem, perhaps more awareness will bring about more action. What would be good to see is more analysis and debate of how government policy can address the problems, and how private industry can be encouraged to be part of the solution. The recent energy bill passed by the federal government did not get nearly as much discussion and analysis in the media before it was drafted and after it was voted on. A Washington Post article highlights how the energy bill is yet another squandered opportunity for this country to get on the right track. The CATO institute also has an article that is heavily critical of the energy bill. There needs to be more coverage of these issues in the mainstream media. I think "Scarborough Country" and the MSM in general will need to do a better job of addressing big issues like this and try a lot harder if they are going to try to change the world (for the better).

This is a great article published by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) that shows, through quantitative analysis, how the MSM have failed to accurately present the scientific consensus behind global warming and how the majority of the reporting on climate change is misleading people to conclude that there is some kind of scientific debate about whether or not human activity is contributing global warming. In a previous post I linked to this article, by Science Magazine, which demonstrates the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. I just wish the MSM weren't so ignorant about science and would stop trying to tell "both sides" of a scientifically proven, well-understood and widely accepted phenomena.

Real Time with Joe Scarborough

2005-09-12T23:22:00.000-07:00

Joe Scarborough appeared on Bill Maher's HBO show "Real Time" on Friday, September 9th, 2005. To be clear, Joe Scarborough was not a panelist on the show (those who sit at a table with Bill Maher and converse for the better part of the hour long broadcast). Joe was one of the two or three guests that also usually appear on each show via a remote video connection. Bill Maher usually has a brief one or two minute conversation with each guest.

I was happy to see Joe Scarborough appear on Bill Maher's show as the two have clear differences of opinion on many issues, but can usually have a respectful exchange of ideas and points of view. In this case the two seemed to have more common ground than usual. Bill Maher started off by saying that most of the blame for the botched Katrina relief efforts should be put on president Bush. Although Joe Scarborough was clearly not going to go to the level of criticism and blame of Bill Maher, the two found themselves in the rare position of agreeing (at least to a degree). But the eerie lack of confrontation and discord between the two men was not so much a shinning example of bi-partisan consensus and agreement as it was more the eerie calm before a storm.

Before the weekend was over whatever respect and cordiality existed between Maher and Scarborough seemed to vaporize when Joe Scarborough let off the fuming anger that was building up from his appearance on "Real Time". On Sunday the safety valve in Joe Scarborough's head blew open and he vented out into cyberspace his scathing indictment of Bill Maher, his show and its audience, blasting the show for being a bastion of left wing partisans seizing on the tragedy of hurricane Katrina to score political points against Bush. Calling the program a sickening horror show Joe Scarborough also likened the audience to trained apes. Joe went further in his criticism and accusations against the show and its fans with the following charge:
"These idiots in the audience were obviously comfortable using the brutal deaths of women, children, grandfathers, and babies to score some political points against a Republican President."
Now I'm sure Bill Maher would be the first to admit that his audience acts like a bunch of animals. The show's primary purpose is entertainment, hosted by a comedian, so I guess "trained" means they were on their best behavior. But the implication of the last charge quoted above is that anyone who is not republican and is critical of Bush's handling of the hurricane aftermath must be using the deaths of their follow Americans to score political points. Although certainly true for some partisan zealots, a blanket statement like that, directed towards the audience of a late night show, is just completely ridiculous. I fear that if Joe Scarborough makes another appearance on "Real Time" he may end up giving himself a massive aneurism.

The basic premise behind Joe's post, titled "Katrina and political partisans", is best summarized with the title itself and Joe's own concluding remarks:
"...even in the face of epic human suffering, their political loyalties remain more important than gaining an understanding of what went wrong and how we can stop it from happening again."
Blind political partisanship is one of my favorite topics, and I absolutely agree with Joe's concluding statement as it applies to partisan zealots, of which I think it's safe to say there were a few in that audience. But Joe Scarborough's main point gets lost in his palpable fury over the predictable and expected laughter and gearing that happens on a late night comedy show. Why couldn't Joe just make his point without resorting to name calling and assuming the absolute worst about the people in the audience, their intensions and motivations, of which he knows very little? Making gross generalizations and assumptions about the audience makes Joe come across like a raving mad man who is trying desperately to score his own cheap shots. Joe Scarborough should save his attacks for a legitimate target. There's a surplus of partisan hypocrisy in American politics and Joe Scarborough should spend his time and energy exposing the great harm that it does instead of attacking the audience of a late night program.

Category 5 political shit storm

2005-09-07T16:17:00.000-07:00

"Mr. President, Governor Blanco and Governor Barbour, all is not well with your relief teams. We deserve answers sooner rather than later."
- Joe Scarborough, 09/05/2005

The political waters are getting pretty rough for the Bush administration when stalwart supports like Joe Scarborough are demanding answers to the blistering criticism over the government's hurricane disaster response. Ever since Katrina made landfall every politician in Washington and the affected states has been shamelessly fleeing and clamouring for the high-ground, desperately trying to get out of the path of the political shit storm that has gained immense strength churning in the sea of government ineptitude. Members of congress are coming out of the woodwork calling for investigations, hearings, and yes, they're already calling for the undoing of the multi-billion dollar paper shuffle known as the "Homeland Security Act". The first major test of the Department of Homeland Security and congress already wants another crack at reorganizing federal agencies.

"members of Congress such as Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) are pushing to move FEMA out of its department and back to Cabinet-level status. "
- Washington Post, 09/05/2005

"we should not have ever put FEMA in Homeland Security. We thought about it. Heck, we did it. Who are we going to blame for that? We did that. Maybe it was recommended, I don't know. But you make mistakes. Last time I checked, we are still human beings."
- Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.), US Senate floor, 09/06/2005

Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic, but right now it looks like the only thing that the federal government will accomplish after spending untold millions of tax-payer dollars on the inevitable congressional hearings and investigations will be another expensive paper shuffle. The federal government doesn't need a new org chart, they need leadership! No org chart, no matter how cleverly devised, will remedy poor leadership in a time of crisis.

It was the duty of those in charge to make do with the system that was in place and take action. As Secretary Rumsfeld said: "You go to war with the military you have, not the military you wish you had", and the same applies for DHS and FEMA. You aid disaster stricken Americans with the agencies you have, not the agencies you wish you had. Someone needed to step up and take charge.

Given the scope of the disaster and the various levels of government and agencies involved, the responsibility to take action squarely rests on the president. True leaders shine in the chaos, uncertainty and pressure of a crisis. True leaders forge clarity, certainty and confidence from the fog of disarray swirling around a calamity. The president failed the American people, either by appointing inept, inexperienced, incompetent people to critical positions or by sheer lack of his own ability to comprehend, react and rally the government's resources in a time of crisis.

The Katrina Commission

2005-09-02T17:41:00.000-07:00

What's really amazing to me is that this entire hurricane nightmare scenario has been predicted for some time. Experts have identified for years steps that needed to be taken to lessen the devastation and prepare for the eventual large scale relief effort needed. I was forwarded an article from the Houston Chronicle dated 12/01/2001 (that's right, 2001!) that details almost exactly this type of scenario in New Orleans. My prediction is that there will be calls for a congressional investigation, similar to the 9/11 commission, to look into how the local and federal officials failed to prepare and respond.

Joe in Biloxi

2005-09-02T12:07:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Joe Scarborough did his show from Biloxi, Mississippi. Scarborough Country is one of the many shows reporting on the recovery and relief effort. It seems that the media has inundated the disaster areas almost as much as hurricane Katrina did. In this case though I have to say that I think the media frenzy surrounding this story is a good thing. I wonder what would happen if there were little or no media coverage of how badly the relief efforts have been miss-managed. I think the only reason things seem to be getting on track now is because of the wide-spread reporting on how bad the situation is and how the relief effort was not even coming close to meeting the scope of the challenge. The clear lack of coordination of various government agencies and NGOs is quite disturbing. Certainly the disaster response system in this country has had billions of dollars poured into it since 9/11. So where have all those homeland security dollars gone? If a storm, which was literally seen coming miles away, can apparently catch this country's disaster response system completely off guard, then how is it capable of reacting to an unforeseen event like a terrorist attack? A nuclear, radiological or chemical/biological attack could require a similarly sized evacuation and relief effort. I consider this a big "F" on government's report card for homeland security preparedness.

Mother Nature getting meaner.

2005-08-29T14:24:00.000-07:00

A recent article on Time's web-site discusses the link between global warming and increased frequency and ferocity of hurricanes. The issue of climate change seems to be gaining more and more awareness in the public's consciousness. Many more governments around the world are having serious discussions and implementing new policies to tackle the problem. The U.S. however seems to be getting left behind. President Bush's decision not to support the Kyoto accord on climate change was reviled by environmentalists. Bush's reasoning of Kyoto not being good for the U.S. economy is particularly short sighted and simplistic. What about the economic impact of climate change? Hurricane Andrew in 1992 caused an estimated $26 billion in damage. Hurricane Katrina, following almost the same storm path and being stronger than Andrew, will surely top that price tag. On top of this, oil prices and gas prices will certainly soar to new records. FEMA will undoubtedly pay out millions if not billions from the federal treasury to help the afflicted regions. Of course there have been hurricanes long before humans started driving SUVs and chopping down trees, but worsening hurricanes is yet another example, among the millions of examples, of how climate change is deleterious to the U.S. economy. From all the media coverage of the Hurricane there seems to be very little discussion of how climate change ties in with this. Of course the issue of the damage caused by hurricanes can go way beyond climate change. What about sustainable growth and the over-development of coastal areas? The federal government plays a big part in encouraging/discouraging development of property in high risk hurricane and flood zones. Are we going to perpetuate a cycle of continually building up expensive developments and million-dollar homes, having them wiped out by hurricanes, FEMA paying for disaster relief and insurance bail-outs, and then doing it all over again? The media loves to show the bleak pictures of devastation left in the wake of the storms, but where's the discussion of how we as a society might live in more sustainable planned and built communities? Joe Scarborough is a former congressman from Florida, someone I expect would have some perspective on these issues. I’ll be watching his show, hoping to find some kind of insights into these hurricane related issues.

Dick Cheney missing in Aruba

2005-08-26T12:54:00.000-07:00

Is it just me or does the mainstream media seem obsessed with a handful of sensationalized cases? While watching Scarborough Country last night I decided to record the amount of time spent on each topic. Last night's show had five topics of discussion. Three of the five topics I've lumped into a category I call "milk carton", which were: 1) Natalie Holloway, 2) Olivia Newton-John's missing boyfriend, and 3) the missing cruise ship honeymooner. Topics four and five were: 4) a segment on great white shark habitat near San Francisco and 5) Hurricane Katrina. The show also had a one minute break for a "news update". The pie chart shows the percentage of time the show dedicated to each category. Certainly there is a public interest in hearing about missing persons and criminal cases. I'm not trying to minimize or play-down the seriousness and tragedy of those cases, but it seems to me that there is a grossly disproportionate amount of time being spent on those topics. I know what you're probably thinking; my tiny sample of one show on one night of the year is hardly representative of the overall content in the vast sea of media sources in America. Well I'm a bit of a news junky, and although I don't have the time or patience to collect a larger, more scientific sample, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you'd be hard pressed to find a cable news channel with a content distribution much different than the one shown above. I know there are media sources that are less sensationalized and tabloidesque, but television news is a pretty big slice of the overall pie. This is my primary frustration with the mainstream media (MSM). Where's the discussion of issues that impact the daily lives of all Americans? How can important topics like education, healthcare, social security, the environment, the economy, etc... get so swamped out by two or three criminal investigations? If the MSM is going to get so wrapped up in one or two cases I expect it to be something really crazy, like Dick Cheney disappears without a trace while vacationing in Aruba and was last seen at a night club in the company of three young men. Now that's a story where I'd understand the MSM setting up camp outside the secrete service headquarters and demanding answers.

It's all about the ratings and what sells, and the MSM have bills to pay, right? I don't buy that argument. I think quality, informative news programs would sell. But that type of programming is much harder to put together. It requires research, investigating, thoughtful and intelligent staff, talent and creativity, all of which requires time and money. Analyzing a complex world and presenting the hard choices and trade-offs that we face is a daunting undertaking. But rather than stepping up to this challenge, the MSM have largely cowered under a facade of fake news, tabloidism, and nauseating repetition. The mainstream media are apparently too cheap to spend the resources to get the job done right. In the process of cutting costs, and increasing the return to their investors, they're cheapening and cheating the American people. In the end I think they may end up undermining their own interests of staying in business. As the quality of news coming from the MSM deteriorates, people may turn to alternative sources, to the technologies that are enabling less centralized and more distributed forms of mass communication. And when the big stories do break, people may have become so used to tuning out the static and chatter that the MSM will be obsolete and irrelevant. Or at least I can dream...

Now to somewhat contradict myself, there is a part of me that is glad that the media is rushing to the aid of families like the Holloways who are enduring a heart-breaking tragedy. I feel terrible for those families, and I hope they get the help they need. I admire Joe Scarborough for committing so many resources of his show to helping. But to keep things in perspective, there must be more than one American teen that has gone missing over the last several months. There is a glaring disproportionality in the way these things are covered in the media. I intend to continue tracking this disproportionality and lack of common-sense.

Joe Scarborough versus Bill Maher

2005-08-25T14:41:00.000-07:00

On August 23rd, 2005, Bill Maher appeared on Scarborough Country (see transcript). Bill Maher has been an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration, and the religous right, and is the host of HBO's show "Real Time with Bill Maher". Rather than blasting Bill Maher for critisizing the mistakes made in Iraq and calling for the troops to come home, Joe Scarborough had kind words for someone with an opposing view. Joe said he respected Bill Maher for being fair, and for not having an ideologically driven position on the war in Iraq. I couldn't agree with Joe Scarborough more on those points. As I've stated before, there's nothing worse than partisan ideologues. I am however still left wondering how it is that Joe Scarborough can blast Senator Chuck Hagel for voicing concerns over the war, saying that Chuck Hagel was hanging the troops out to dry, but is respectful and courteous towards Bill Maher's opinions. I guess I'll just have to let that one go. For Aug. 23rd, 2005, Joe scored a 5 (out of 5) on the common-sense scale, brining up that low average for the week. Good job Joe!

Moral absolutism in the age of terror

2005-08-25T10:47:00.000-07:00

Today I read Joe's recent blog entry titled "Moral relativity in the age of terror". With a big sexy title like that I got all geared up to read a meticulously crafted article perhaps laying out the glaring moral contradictions and fallacies in the left's doctrine on fighting the war against Islamic extremism. I guess that was a silly expectation to begin with, especially considering that there probably isn't even any clearly articulated and identifiable doctrine on fighting Islamic extremism that could be broadly attributed to the entire "left". But at the very least I did expect Joe to hit me with something thought-provoking, and maybe even controversial.

Joe's article was a terse, heavy criticism of the human rights group Amnesty International for a report issued on human rights violations in Iraq, titled "Iraq - In cold blood: abuses by armed groups". Joe's issue with the report seems to be two fold: 1) Amnesty's usage of the term "armed groups" in place of "terrorists" and 2) Amnesty's reporting of human rights violations committed by US troops, which Joe refers to as "obscene on their face". Joe backs up his categorical rejection of Amnesty's report on U.S. troop violations by making statements like: "American troops do not detonate bombs in the middle of a group of children collecting candy." which although true seems to be the rebuttal of a claim that was never made in the Amnesty report. The examples of U.S. violations that Amnesty does site are well known and widely reported cases such as the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The Amnesty report unequivocally condemns the insurgent attacks targeting civilians referring to them as "perfidious", "marked by appalling brutality" and uses the strongest possible language by describing the insurgent attacks on civilians as war crimes and crimes against humanity. The report is lengthy and grim in it's documentation of human rights violations committed by the "armed groups" or insurgents. In the brief section of the report that does address U.S. military human rights abuses, the report focuses on recommending that the U.S. military apply humanitarian law to detainees, and take extra precautions in the use of "proportional" force to mitigate harm to civilians and non-combatants. Recommendations that I would say are coherent with a policy to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and steps that our Military is probably actively improving.

I see no problem with Amnesty's rational for using the term "armed groups". It's clear to anyone who even skims over the report that Amnesty is also calling the "armed groups" war criminals and accusing them of crimes against humanity. In that sense, Joe's definition of a "terrorist" is no different than Amnesty's definition of an "armed group". Slamming Amnesty for the minutia of their semantics just seems like Joe is reaching far and wide for reasons to dicredit them.

After reading Joe's article I was left with the impression that Amnesty's report must have been, in a nut-shell, giving the U.S. a big "F" and the insurgents a "C+" or maybe "B-" on their human rights record. But after reading the Amnesty report I couldn't reconcile the disconnect between Joe's harsh criticisms of Amnesty International and the reality of their report. Joe concludes his article by stating: "Amnesty is so blinded of their hatred of America and its president that they can no longer tell right from wrong." I'm left wondering what the basis for that claim is, and how he can conclude that a group whose very existance is dedicated to the protection of human rights is engaging in moral relativism. Amnesty International's stance on human rights is one of the few consistently applied moral absolutes. They defend the human rights of all people, everywhere.

Joe Scarborough demonstrates a great moral absolute of his own. It seems that Joe's position is that America can do no wrong, that, by definition, everything America does is right since it is righteous in its fight against terror. It's only from that position of intransigent support of American policy that anyone could conclude that Amnesty's report is obscene and that Amnesty harbors hatred towards America.

Birth of an online tirade

2005-08-23T23:50:00.000-07:00

I'm betting that what's driving me nuts is also driving quite a few other people crazy. My blog's title, "Irregular Joe", generally refers to the ills that I think are plaguing the mainstream media in this country. I can't exactly cover such a broad topic, so I've decided to limit my topic to MSNBC's show "Scarborough Country", hosted by Joe Scarborough.

Why pick on Joe? Because I like Joe, and I think he's capable of seeing the other side of an argument and acknowledging its merits. That basic civility and respect for another's point of view seems to be fading from American politics and news programs. Unlike many of his contemporaries, I think Joe Scarborough has demonstrated honesty, intelligence, thoughtfulness, and intense loyalty. This loyalty at times can easily be confused as bigotry and vehement partisan bullheadedness. But I think there is a difference between Joe Scarborough and the many in his line of work that are blinded and consumed by their hatred for the opposition. If I can't keep Joe on the honest track, by deconstructing and examining the arguments expressed on his program, at least I've formulated my own opinions on the matter and perhaps gained some knowledge and insight into the issues.

I've watched "Scarborough Country", regularly and intermittently for the past several years. I don't exactly see eye-to-eye with most of what Mr. Scarborough has to say. Some of what Joe says is on the mark. Some of it seems ridiculous, and a lot of it sounds like blatant partisan propaganda. But what I've come to realize is that show's like "Scarborough Country" seem to be becoming the norm on Cable news stations. I see that trend as disconcerting, and something all Americans who care about the health of our democracy should be concerned about.

Joe is up-front about the fact that his show is an "opinion show", namely his opinion, and in principle I see nothing wrong with opinion shows. Where I see a problem is that this genre of red-state, blue-state, partisan showdown news programming is becoming the way we discuss issues in this country. I see it as further polarizing the political discourse in this country and debasing and harshening the tone of our debates and disagreements. It seems that the politicians, and now the media, are becoming ideologues, squeezing out the middle ground with their extreme left and right wing politics, and failing to deliver the pragmatic compromises that America needs and most Americans genuinely crave. The partisan rhetoric and propaganda is the static that is becoming deafeningly loud and threatens to drown out the voices of moderation, tolerance and diversity.

The quality of our news sources and the relevance of the content coming from the mainstream media seems to be sinking lower and lower. Cable news is awash with hour upon hour of reporting and "investigating" of celebrity trials and sensationalized missing person cases. The relentless news coverage of sensationalized criminal cases is the static that is swamping out the information and rational discourse that Americans need to face the tough issues of our time.

The people I interact with in my daily life, people who work regular jobs to pay their bills and raise a family, people who work towards building a brighter future for their families and communities, people who care about the future of this country and the planet, are not worried about celebrity trials. We worry about things like globalization, outsourcing, the environment, corporate and government corruption, health care, education, retirement, security, and yes crime, but not to the inordinate degree that one would conclude by turning on a cable news channel. We worry that a polarized and ideologically driven political system will squabble incessantly in dead-lock and fail to address the big issues of our time. We worry that the issues that really affect us are being drowned out by the comparatively irrelevant and meaningless static. In part I blame the media for it's poor stewardship and dereliction of the vital duty to keep the electorate informed and be a vigilant government and corporate watchdog.

Programs like "Scarborough Country" are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. I'm not blaming Joe Scarborough for all the failings and imperfections of the media and the American political system. I don't intend to single out Joe and bash him for his opinions. If Joe's opinions are well reasoned and thought out, even if I disagree with them, I'll respect that and formulate my reasons why I agree or disagree. I also intend to track the content of Scarborough Country as an example of the disproportionate amount of journalistic and media resources spent on a few isolated criminal and celebrity cases. I intend to point out the shameful partisan rhetoric when I see it. The ideologues that blindly follow the party line, while incessantly berating and smearing anyone in opposition are turning the political discourse in this country toxic. My goal is to point out the hypocricy of blind partisanship and to call it the venom that it is. It's the poison that is doing this country no good and Americans should not tolerate the demagoguery and smearing that permeates politics. Joe Scarborough espouses common sense, and I intend to hold him to that.

I'll conclude my inaugural post with the root-cause of my decision to start a blog on this topic. Today I emailed Scarborough Country to express my displeasure at attacks that Joe and a guest leveled against Senator Chuck Hagel for an appearance that he made on Sunday, Aug. 21st, 2005 where he expressed concern about the Bush administration's policies in Iraq. I just got fed-up of watching partisan ideologues smear people with opposing views rather than having an honest discourse and debate of the issues. The kind of poisonous assault on Senator Hagel for his remarks is precisely the kind of partisan rhetoric that is dishonest, toxic and hurts the political discourse. It seemed that Joe Scarborough was particularly upset that Senator Hagel, a republican, would dare express a view that does not favor the Bush administration. For Monday, Aug. 22nd, 2005, Joe Scarborough certainly towed the party line. Joe, your lack of tollerance for decenting opinions within your own party is making you look like a partisan ideologue. But tomorrow's another day. Maybe you can tone down the rhetoric and address the issues.

The transcript of Joe's shameful remarks can be found here (or check msnbc.com).

my email to MSNBC:
Joe,
How you can equate Senator Hagel's comments to undercutting our troops is the most outlandish non sequitur I have heard in some time. Siding with someone that accuses Sen. Hagel of helping the insurgents and selling out our troops is beyond the pale. When are you going to realize that criticizing our government's policies is NOT a criticism of the men and women serving our country? It's really quite a simple concept; criticizing policy makers does not equate to criticizing the military that is bound to carry out those policies. Would you really rather live in an America where we all blindly support costly foreign wars, and never question our government, no matter how bad things seem to get? Vilifying and slandering those who raise questions and criticize, especially those who question something as important as a war, is a monumental disservice to everything that you've purported to stand for. An intelligent, articulate man such as you should be able to formulate a coherent, rational rebuttal to Sen. Hagel's remarks rather than teaming up with some partisan zealot and demonizing, condemning and bashing the Senator on the air. Many Americans share Senator Hagel’s concerns about our presence in Iraq continuing along the protracted and costly path that it has followed thus far. It’s outrageous that those Americans who are the most concerned and worried about the war (and the troops!), are accused of being traitors and sell-outs. If that’s the kind of demagoguery you’ve sunk to on your show, you can consider this casual viewer, a non-viewer.