Re-Views of the News

Every Wednesday evening in our home, we listen to a local radio show called Views of the News. There are several reasons for this. First, we are nerds, especially when it comes to the news and media. Second, the #1 journalism school in the country resides here. It would be foolish not to tap that resource once in a while for some insight into the news media. Third, it's on after Marketplace and therefore isn't bad, classical music.

Normally, I find Views to be a nice diversion from daily life, sort of a throwback to radio talk shows (sans irate callers) of yesteryear. The topics are timely but benign for the most part. However, tonight's show sort of rubbed me the wrong way.

Before I go on, it should be noted that I in no way am attacking the hosts, producers, or KBIA. We all work for the same employer and that would be against certain policies. What I am doing is respectfully disagreeing. Moving on to the topics...

The first topic was the #balloonboy story of Falcon Heene and his fictitious balloon ride through Colorado airspace. The story was one of those classic cable news fiascoes where all news around the world stops as the newscast is hijacked by [enter random, extraordinary event that has no consequence for the rest of us and really just appeals to the voyeur inside all of us here]. I followed it on Twitter, trying to concentrate on my work but not succeeding (extending my day unfortunately).

The View's take - aside from simultaneously blaming the media and audience for indulging in such voyeuristic garbage - was that the key difference between the online media and traditional media (read "newspapers, radio, and TV") was that traditional journos think it most important to check all the facts first before reporting while the online media just get the story out there and check facts later.

They're wrong.

I blog and Tweet from time to time. While I am in no way a reliable source of information, I do understand the thinking and motivation of the citizen journalist and online media. The idea is simple, really. Put it out there. Someone in your network will repost or comment. Someone else will Google it or look it up through other means. The facts will pour in. The errors will be corrected. Through collaboration and audience participation, the narrative will be pieced together. We no longer live in a time where we wait for the evening news or morning newspaper to get the story. We watch it and participate in it as it unfolds.

The second story didn't allow me to come down from the outrage over the first misinterpretation.

Earlier this week, the fabulously infamous Yes Men pulled another great hoax on the United States Chamber of Commerce. It seems that the merry pranksters posed as Chamber spokesmen and declared that the Chamber was reversing its stance on climate control legislation. (The actual Chamber was and is against such regulations.) Of course, the Yes Men were exposed but not before they exposed the chamber for its idiotic stance. (Now you know where I stand on the political spectrum.)

Once again, the View had it wrong.

The three, wise professors thought it a travesty that these Yes Men continue to pull hoax after hoax on poor corporations and the federations that represent them. Their claim is that these deceptions do nothing to solve national and global problems. In fact, it's claimed that the Yes Men actually harm those they want to stand up for and turn public sympathy to the bad guys/multi-national corporations.

Brought into the conversation was the screening of The Yes Men Fix the World at last year's True/False festival. At least one of the View's hosts was in attendance for that showing of the film and he was appalled at the reaction of the audience who cheered for the Yes Men as they lied to and manipulated the media, corporations, and various other power brokers into falling for their entertaining pranks.

I was there too, but I had a different take as I do about this past joke played on the Chamber. What the Yes Men do is important, inspirational, and effective. It's important because it exposes wrongs committed by those in power against the powerless to an enormous audience. The film and this week's stunt inspire people by showing them that we don't have to take what corporations or the traditional media are shoving down our throats. And yes, it is effective. People are duped, even the victims. However, I seem to remember the victims of the tragedy in Bhopal and those left homeless in New Orleans due to the the re-purposing of their homes appreciated the Yes Men's work in standing up for them while exposing the truth about their situations. These people usually figured it was a hoax from the beginning, but they understood what the Yes Men were out to accomplish. Again, truths were revealed through their work of deception.

That brings me to an interesting topic in the worlds of both traditional journalism and community/citizen/guerilla journalism: truth.

There is no one, essential truth. Because a journalist checks all the facts and asks all the questions she can think of doesn't mean she'll only report the truth. That is one version of the truth, no matter how thorough or ethical a journalist may be. The truth is not as simple as right or wrong. In every story, there are many truths. Each blog, newspaper article, Tweet, evening news report, vlog, etc. holds some truth. Traditional journalism does not control the market on truth. Sure, they have the training and resources to gather most of the truth, but they can never have it all.

The one part of the program I agreed with came from former host and current guest Rod Gelatt. Now, as the amateur that I am, I will attempt to paraphrase Dr. Gelatt's sentiment. He talked about how journalism and the media will change, so the students should be prepared to change their view of what it is they are training to do or plan to do in the future.

This is something the media is not doing: adjusting to change. Newspapers are dying because they were unwilling to change how they delivered information when they had a chance. Now, the New York Times is laying off its reporters. Radio and TV are jokes. Radio is becoming so homogenized that we might as well only have a handful of stations for the entire nation. And TV is all about ratings and being sensational. To counter any argument about TV journalism, all I have to do is point at Fox "News."

The media's future is online. The future is talking with communities, not about them or at them. The future in media is in collaboration. There is no more banking system where the newspapers, TV networks, and radio stations hold all the capital to divvy out to the masses as they see fit. There are many more truths out there than traditional media is willing to accept at this point in time.

At this point, I could get more revolutionary, but that would get away from my original intent just to review a radio program. I just wanted participate in the conversation instead of passively accepting the stories and opinions shared on KBIA's Views of the News. So, there you have it.

Views of the News can be heard every Wednesday evening after Marketplace on 91.3 KBIA here in COMO.

Does religion make us dumber?

I don't mean to offend with such a provocative title, but I'm really curious about this phenomena. It seems every time I encounter someone citing the Bible or using their religion as justification for their actions and opinions, I am struck at how simplistic their arguments seem to be. On top of that, they often leave no room for humor or critique. This does not apply to everyone who practices a religion, but I've noticed it a lot lately from the religious folk I know.

Recently, I've participated in a couple of debates online on various issues. Each of them involved others' religion in some way. And each of the discussions broke down in their own way due to those beliefs. It's as if any intellectual discussion ended as soon as someone pulled the God card.

The first happened as a friend posted a piece he wrote on his blog concerning gay marriage. My friend is pretty moderate with left-leaning tendencies. He proposed a somewhat benign option of creating civil unions that provide the same rights as marriage, keeping religion out of it. While the discussion barely went anywhere on his blog, the response on Facebook was a whole other issue. Friends commented nearly 100 times on the topic. Not all the comments were directed at gay marriage, but most of them were.

One guy, let's just call him "French," took it upon himself to represent the crazy wingnut, ultra-conservative, religious viewpoint. He basically went with the "Bible says it's wrong, so it's wrong" argument. When my friend's mom, who happens to be in the clergy, refuted French's assertions of biblical gay bashing, French was nowhere to be found.

Later, that same night, a woman from my hometown, we'll call her "Marla," posted a blog post of her own, giving away t-shirts that proclaimed "Baby Hugger/Love the People Then Trees" pitting anti-choicers versus environmentalists. The comments were all simple and supportive of the cause. When I threw in some dissent, Marla left an angry comment on my blog, not really addressing the message within my comment. I was commenting on the lack of compassion shown for the living while fighting for the "rights" of the unborn. Of course, due to my own crudeness, I came across as cruel and my message was lost in the shuffle.

Either way, Marla is a published author and not a dumb person. However, I can't help but wonder how she missed the subtext of my argument. I've read some of Marla's posts before and they are overly simplified takes on marriage, motherhood, and zoos. And the comments...Don't get me started on her readers' comments. There is rarely open and honest dialogue on Marla's blog and there certainly is no parting from the company line. It's all "Great post, Marla!" and "What a wonderful thought!" and "And Jesus said unto them ..." It's as if Jesus pulled the backbones and original thought from their good Christian bodies.

My third example was a much tamer one. An older brother of a high school buddy, let's call him "Michael," posted a question wondering what should be done about so many young people leaving the church after they leave their parents' homes. I suggested that they take a more constructivist approach to teaching religion and that the main goal is to simply hope your kids are happy. The tone of the conversation was of mutual respect and intellect, until...The discussion then turned to quotations as Micheal threw some Bible words at me, stating that basically, we can't be happy without God. Meh. I responded with some thoughts from His Holiness the Dalai Lama about happiness and compassion, pointing out that we were not so different in our views.

His response? Crickets.

A day later, he changed his status to include a Bible verse, another very popular tactic of my Facebook friends from the Godville in which I was raised. They love to update their statuses with long-winded words from King James and his revisionists. If I want to know what the Bible said, I'll read it myself. I'd rather know what's on your mind.

Why does open, honest debate end with a Bible quote? Why won't people address real and important issues by hiding behind their religion? Where is religion's sense of humor or room for critique?

I don't mean to only pick on Christians. Other religions do their share of dumbing things down. Take some Zionists for example. I don't honestly know where I stand on the Israel/Palestine situation. I do know that it's a mess of biblical proportions, making it a rather complex issue. However, my experience is that those of the Jewish faith who claim to be Zionist have a difficult time objectively discussing Israel/Palestine. Sure, there is a ton of history and even more emotion involved, but there is still a little room left for debate. I'd love for a Zionist to address this issue in my comments, but I doubt there will be much of a debate. More than likely, I will only offend them.

Another, more severe example is Islamic extremism. Here you have people who have suspended rational thought in order to give their lives for their religion. It's one thing to give your life to your god metaphorically as many good Muslims have done, but it's a whole other deal to take other lives in the name of that same god. I don't mean to associate extremists with peaceful practitioners, but the lack of intelligent thought in all these groups is disappointing. Besides, there are plenty of examples of extremists from other religious backgrounds. That's not my point. The point is that there's a lack of rational, intellectual thought and discussion when religion is involved.

I am regularly disappointed by those in the limelight who suspend discussion with a Bible verse. Athletes can only praise god when they win championships, but they could share a lot of insight as to the struggles for a ring. Politicians might even be worse as they cut off social discourse with their religious beliefs. Even our own president, whom I consider to be one of the smartest men of our time, closes discussion with his religion. President Obama is somewhat limited in the debates over gay marriage and abortion due to his faith. (That's Christianity, not Islam in case you missed that last fall.)

What's most disappointing is that religion should be a highly intellectual practice. Religions are philosophies and histories of humankind that deserve more critique, debate, and dialogue than they are currently receiving outside the seminary. This might have a lot to do with why I don't practice any religion. I don't know whether there is a higher power or not. I turned from religion when I witnessed its hypocrisy left unchecked.

I really don't mean to offend, but I understand if you're offended. Instead of ignoring this post or un-friending me on Facebook, engage this conversation. Prove me wrong. I want to hear proof that your religion does not preclude you from this debate. Am I way off base? Do you have examples of why I'm wrong?

Or, do you agree with me? Do you know of examples like the ones I described above that prove my point? Share.

I'd love to read your thoughts in the comments. I am open to debate. I am willing to see other perspectives. Are you?

Reason #5 Why I Live in Misery: Red lights have no meaning.

I used to get annoyed when cars in COMO would sit at a green light before finally inching forward. I can't tell you the number of times I've missed a light due to the driver in front of me taking his sweet time.

It happened again today at Stadium and Providence. We were maybe the third or fourth car back and could have easily made the light. However, it changed and the cars in front failed to move. I looked up to see three cars cross in front of us, obviously running the red light.

I knew this was a problem. I mean, besides seeing cars run numerous red lights before, the city put up those cameras all over town to deter red light runners. It hasn't worked.

Red lights mean nothing in this town. It's as if they see pink and that doesn't mean stop. I often heard the term "fresh red" when the light has just turned red, meaning there's still time to cross.

No, there isn't. If it's red, you stop. If it's yellow, you better be practically through the intersection or you should stop.

The odd thing about this trend is that it isn't that dangerous because no one goes when the light is green. It changes, they look both ways as two more cars enter and exit the intersection. Then they move. They go so late in the light that the car two spots behind has to decide whether to go on "orange" or stop for red. I'm sure you can guess which choice they make.

All I ask is that you all stop on red, go on green, and at least err on the side of caution when it's yellow. I want to see my daughter grow up.

It's the Economy, Stupid

Darkow" border="0">
See Cartoons by Cartoon by John Darkow - Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com - Email this Cartoon

You'd have to be living in a cave not to know that our economy is in the crapper. Jobs are disappearing left and right; the stock market is in shambles; foreclosure rates are on the rise; and certain states who will remain nameless can't even find the funds to pay state tax returns. (We're still waiting.) You don't have to be Ben Bernanke to know that things are bad.

Now, I'm no economist (read: "I'm a blowhard with an opinion and a blog."), but it seems to me that there are some simple ways in which we should view this financial crisis. These are just a few of my opinions on the economy.

Don't just throw money at the problem.
This goes from the top-down. Instead of the federal government throwing wads of cash at financial institutions and auto makers, maybe they should try policing the greedy, multinational corporations. That and they could just let the businesses built to fail do that which they were intended (make a profit for a select few, while creating substandard products and high-tailing it to Mexico before declaring bankruptcy).

The idea of spending our way out of the hole even prevails throughout the not-so-rich, AKA 95% of us. Somehow, it's believed that spending more money, adding to our debts will be best for the economy. Isn't that how we all got into this mess? If you know that you can't afford that $300k home even though the lender wants to lend you three times that, don't buy it. Just because your neighbor has leased Hummer doesn't mean you need one as well. We will not spend our way out of recession.

Not everybody lives in the poor house.
Folks forget that there are still a select few that own most of the wealth. Actually, I often hear that 5% of our country's population owns over half the wealth. I'm sure those folks are not hurting nearly as much as your neighbor or yourself. Sure, some real estate guy somewhere lost a million dollars last year. Of course, he's worth nine or ten million, but whatever.

There is still a disproportionate amount of wealth controlled by a small number of people. I'm not saying that all of Terrell Owens' $8 million has to go to the poorest of the poor, but why can't he make $100,000 to play football so that a few people could make $30,000 a year building homes? What is Bill Gates really going to do with $58 billion? He can't give it all to education...or can he?

The Boomers are screwed.
Our parents bought into the myth that their pensions and Social Security would carry them into the sunsets of their lives. As it turns out, they're lucky if they don't have to be greeters at Wal-Mart for the remainder of their time on Earth. Don't get me wrong. I feel sorry for Baby Boomers, including my own folks. They believed in the false promises of their financial stewards in the boardrooms, on the trading floor, and in Washington. I don't know that I'll be able to afford retirement, but at least I don't have false hope.

Capitalism is fine. Democracy is fine. Together, they don't work.
Some economist or Libertarian will jump all over me for that statement, but it's true. Capitalism doesn't work without governmental oversight. You'd think that a government for and by the people would be able to keep the capitalists under control, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Once corporations were granted individual rights, our demise was underway. It takes a fool not to realize that those with more resources can afford more influence. The evidence is in the last 200 or so years. Why else would so few own so much of the wealth?

Soemthing has to give. Some sort of balance has to be maintained. Our present pace cannot be sustained.

The end of the Big Three is not the end of the world.
Now that Obama and Congress have thrown so much at Detroit, there's no way they'll let them fail. However, if one, two, or all three car makers closed their doors, someone will fill the gaping hole in the market. Without Fords or Chevys to purchase, consumers will look for something else. Here comes a Hyundai or Toyota with a suitable alternative. With the increased demand, factories will need to be built. That will create jobs and there are a few out-of-work auto workers out there who'd gladly take those jobs. Sure, $100 an hour might be out of the question, but it will be something. (Also, some CEO might not make millions of dollars for running the company into the ground.) Besides...

Buying local doesn't mean the same thing in every market or industry.
One way I see us getting out of this mess is to return to buying locally. Local food producers will become more attractive as they can cut shipping costs and provide a higher quality product. Little DIY economies that are both self-sufficient and humble are popping up everywhere, filling the void of corporate0induced hegemony. The money people spend on local businesses goes right back into the community, improving life for all.

Now, buying local does not mean that only American-made cars or something of the like. Corporations don't count as local, no matter where you live. Corporations are bigger than the borders in which we perceive contain them. Chrysler is bigger than Detroit. Anheuser-Busch (rather InBev) is bigger than STL. These corporations don't put as high a percentage of their profits into their local communities as their Mom-and-Pop counterparts no matter how many hospital wings or parks they build.

I'm OK with individual welfare, not corporate welfare.
It would really be OK with me if our government started helping people pay their mortgages, put food on the table, and provide a decent education for the people of this country rather than shell out billions to wasteful and greedy corporations. Why do we continually expect that corporations know better how to handle our tax dollars than individuals? I'm sorry but I trust that single mother of three who somehow balances her minimum wage income to provide the necessities for her kids than that corporation who wastes money on corporate jets and bonuses for executives who cut hundreds of jobs.

People regularly criticize individual welfare programs, but they don't realize that our government passes out way more money to failing corporations than we do to individuals. Skip the middle man. Give the assistance to the people.

War is expensive.
One of the biggest expenditures (both human and monetary) of the past eight years has been war. It would be way cheaper to send negotiators and humanitarian aid to trouble spots around the globe rather than tanks and soldiers. Kill them with kindness. It's cheaper.

Greed really is the root of all evil.
In the end, most if not all of our problems are based in greed. Why do some people need two houses? Why does a corporation have to dominate every other company in their industry? Why does a corporate chain have to wipe out the competition in every town?

I could go on. I could actually cite my arguments. However, this is is not the beginning nor the end of the discussion. What do you think? Am I way of base? Do you have better ideas or thoughts? Please share. Be civil. I can handle critiques, not rudeness.

(BTW-The comic above is drawn/written by my neighbor. He has a pickup truck that he keeps debris in the bed so that no one will ask to borrow it.)

The Day in Teabagging and Other Political Rants

I haven't done many political posts since the election. I felt that Obama's victory did all the talking for me. However, when a bunch of right-winged nuts decided to tea-bag Tax Day away, I knew I had to comment. To do this, I've opted to simply comment on some of the things I witnessed today and the days leading up to all the tea-bagging.

With protests, come signs. And the signs for the tea-baggers were particularly offensive. Case in point:

Yes. You read that sign correctly. It says, "The American Taxpayers Are The Jews For Obama's Ovens [sic]." Where does one even begin with this one? This takes the whole "you're a Nazi" political argument ten-thousand steps too far. Really? The struggles of American taxpayers (he meant upper-middle class white people) are the equivalent of Hitler's genocide of 17 million Jews? Really? That leads into this sign and the corresponding report below...
I love how the guy holding the sign uses the classic third-grade argument of "because he is" when explaining to the reporter why he thinks Obama is a fascist. I guess I would say is touché...That and Barack Obama could be many things to many people, but I don't think "fascist" could be an accurate descriptor. According to Wikipedia, a fascist "is intended to mean 'oppressive', 'intolerant', 'chauvinist', 'genocidal', 'dictatorial', 'racist', or 'aggressive' – all concepts that are at least loosely inspired by the ideology of actual fascism." While one may not agree with our president's policies, it would be difficult to prove that he is any of these things, including a "fascist".

Earlier this week, I posted the following video on Facebook...



It is hard for me to believe that someone at Fox News or in one of the various right-winged PAC's behind the tea-bagging failed to realize just what "tea-bagging" actually is. That's just the beginning of the jokes. Just do a search on Twitter for the tag "#teabagging" and let the hilarity begin.

My friends at South DeCola posted this comic and a couple of other comments on the day's events.


For a good round up, check Triumph the Comic Dog's Twitter feed. I finally had to turn the Twitter off today so I could get some work done. I read more sexual innuendos involving teabags, balls, and nuts than I care to count.

What really gets me about the whole tea party thing is how misinformed it is. Most of the people at these protests are getting a tax cut. In fact, I'd bet more than 90% of the protesters are getting an Obama tax cut since 90% of the entire population qualifies for said cut.

And what do they want the government to do with their taxes? Start an endless and costly war under false pretenses? Continue to allow large corporations to reap the benefits of a rather forgiving tax code wrought with many loopholes allowing them to escape paying their share? Run up the greatest deficit in US history after starting with the greatest surplus? Oh wait, that was the last guy.

Do they want our bridges to continue to crumble along with schools, social security, and our health care system? Come on. Tea-bagging Day was the biggest joke since two terms of George W Bush.
______________________________

Since I'm on the subject of right-winged nut jobs, I'd like to address all the gay marriage bashing going on now that the "gay agenda" has garnered some victories in Vermont, DC, Iowa, and even COMO. The video I posted here popped up and I felt as though the flood gates were going to open with anti-gay sentiment, but all the tea-bagging caused the wingnuts to forget this fight. I mean, who could concentrate on gay couples getting married when there's all that rampant tea-bagging going around. I know I wouldn't be able to concentrate.

Thankfully, someone did a spoof on the anti-gay marriage video. Enjoy.

Daddy in Misery

Don't misinterpret this post's title. I love being a dad. Love it. However, I have a problem with how dads, moms, babies, and families are treated or expected to act.

Take Lu's and my trip to the doctor's office today as an example. Lu had a fever yesterday and hadn't been herself for the past 24-36 hours. R and I decided to get her an appointment ASAP. Since she had another commitment during the doctor's appointment, I had to take the baby to the clinic alone.

While going through the preliminary checks with the nurse, she commented on Lucia's attire. She said, "Ooh, you're wearing a lot of colors. Daddy must have dressed you today." I don't know if she was saying that Lu looked bad or mismatched or what. Whatever she meant, it sounded sort of insulting. I know how to dress my daughter. She happened to be wearing an outfit of mostly blues and greens (which she looks good in) with her pink plaid jacket.

After I explained that Mommy actually was the one to dress Lucia, the nurse explained that whenever her husband dressed her daughter he dressed her like a boy.

What the hell does that mean?

This is what she was wearing. Maybe she was giving me a hard time for putting those shoes on her. She hasn't quite grown into them yet. Either way, what did the nurse mean?


Another example of something that annoys me about parenthood is the lack of changing tables in public restrooms, especially men's restrooms. I don't know how many times I have been forced to change my daughter's diaper on the floor of a public restroom or had to pass her off to her mother because only the women's restrooms were suitable for changing.

Why is this a hard concept for stores and restaurants? Just put one of those Rubbermaid fold-away changing tables in every restroom or provide family restrooms in addition to those divided for the sexes.

Eventually, I plan to start one of those Google Maps that identifies all the businesses with changing tables for dads. That or I'll start changing diapers on restaurant tables and counters (after we eat).

People always assume R is solely responsible for Lucia's well-being. Sure, thanks to breastfeeding and whatnot, Lu is in a mommy stage and turns to her mother the most. However, that does not excuse me from my responsibilities as a parent. I can dress, feed, soothe, entertain, nurture, and teach my daughter as much as my partner. Granted, I don't do nearly enough, but I'm working on it. It doesn't help that so many people assume and accept that I do nothing. And it certainly isn't fair to R having to take so much responsibility. It's as if she has nothing else to do (like write a book) and I am incompetent because I'm a man.

This goes along with the double standard I felt during R's pregnancy. Sure, she was expected to take her maternity leave, but I was blatantly teased once about my paternity leave. My time off wasn't even a quarter of what R was given (although, she should have received more) and I was made to feel bad about taking my two measly weeks to help out.

R and I talked about this double standard as we negotiated our day. It was plenty acceptable for her to cancel a class this morning in order to be available for Lucia in her time of need. However, had I canceled my training session this evening, I'm sure someone would have questioned that decision, wondering why Lucia's mother couldn't handle it on her own.

I'm frustrated with how folks expect so little from dads. I'm even more frustrated that I fall into the trap of fulfilling those prophesies all the time. There's always more I could do, but it seems as if it's OK for me to flake. Default care always falls on R's shoulders. I'm doing what I can to right this wrong, but I've got a lot working against me.

Sometimes the expectations aren't just for the parents. People often have these preconceived ideas for what Lucia should be. I really get annoyed when folks try to pigeon-hole my 7-month old daughter.

First of all, Lucia is not "Daddy's little girl" or his "princess". She is Lucia. Lucia is my daughter. She is as much her mother's little girl as she is mine. And that princess crap...Don't even get me started. Lucia will be allowed to be herself, whether that's princess-like or a tomboy or whatever she wants to be. To me, the terms "Daddy's little girl" and "princess" are limiting no matter how well-meaning people intend it to be.

Secondly, Lucia does not have to constantly be identified as a girl. Sure, she is a female and has been given a feminine name. Yes, we periodically dress her in somewhat girly clothes, but this is not a prerequisite for her identity. Lucia does not lose who she is as a 7-month old because she's wearing blue or lacks a frilly dress. It's not a big deal if you confuse her for a boy. It doesn't offend me. We won't give her baby bangs or those headbands with bows just so you know she's a she. Lucia is Lucia and that's enough for me. (Sorry for rhyme. Too much Sesame Street.)

I could probably go on but I won't. I don't want to offend anyone for making comments or assumptions about my family and me that were only meant to be positive. Also, it's fine if you want to cling to traditional gender roles within your own family. I just have to vent about all this somewhere. It gets old and tiring to constantly have to combat with societal views that do not jive with my own.

So, when you see me with my kid, don't assume that I'm counting the minutes until Mommy returns. Try not to limit Lucia to a princess with no gumption or identity that stretches beyond traditional gender roles. Know that I love and try to take responsibility for my Lucia as much as her mother does. Know that this daddy thinks about these things and is trying to raise his child the best he can.

Beer Wars

Something's been brewing on the beerosphere and the Columbia Beer Enthusiast Ning over the last month. A new documentary about the craft beer movement titled Beer Wars is set to hit theaters in mid-April. Check the trailer below.

I know this seems right up my alley, but I have a problem with the promotion and distribution of this film. As of now, the documentary does not seem to be getting wide release or even a limited release to some art house theaters (meaning our own Ragtag). Instead, the folks promoting the film are showing it one night (April 16) at various theaters with a live discussion to follow.

Here's video for that...

I know you're still wondering what's my problem.

Well, first of all, if I'm going to see a movie about beer, it would be nice to see it at a theater where they can actually serve some of the beer discussed in the film. Not only does the Ragtag serve some great craft brews and imports, but they are also an independent theater, one who often caters to documentaries taking on corporate America. Instead, our screening here in COMO is at the Forum 8 theater. Nice choice. Beer Wars will be seen in the theater between the new Pixar movie and the latest horror B-movie to fill the winter film season.

The second part I have a problem with is the fact that Ben Stein is hosting the post-film discussion. I don't want Ben Stein's egotistical conservative stance to dampen my night of hearing some of the best brewers in America talk about Beer Wars. I'd rather go back to the bar afterward and discuss it over a few pints.

The film's promoters have missed a golden opportunity to show this film in beer-friendly environments without the event being tainted by a right-wing nut. I'll just wait for Beer Wars to come out on DVD and watch it at home with an IPA or barley wine.

Fixing the "Problem"

We have a problem. Whenever an issue arises that steps outside whatever society has deemed "normal" our response is to police and punish the act. No one thinks about how new developments might benefit us or our community or even if the act is truly criminal. Our knee-jerk reaction is to fight innovation at every step.

An example of this is skateboarding. Before this extreme sport became a national pastime, it was outlawed in nearly every town and city across the country. I remember the day they put up the "No Skateboarding" signs in my hometown. Kids were slapped with citations for choosing to skateboard. It didn't seem to matter that they chose to spend their time on skateboards rather than on drugs or whatever kids do to get into trouble. Eventually, someone wised up and created skating parks and started skateboarding events. What was once a hobby for punks and degenerates has now become a viable sport and even career choice.

A very similar sort of activity that has not gained nearly as much positive redirection is graffiti. Cities and towns are obsessed with stopping graffiti artists. While I understand the detrimental effects of gang signs spray-painted on public buildings or the destruction of private businesses (especially mom and pop shops), I don't get the big deal about artists simply trying to improve the scenery.

Take this guy for instance...

Buket, as he's known on the streets, tagged a freeway overpass during rush hour. Granted he's just trying to get his name out there, but listen to cranky old Charlie Gibson talk about graffiti...

Of course, there's a local story that caught my eye this morning. It seems our city council has nothing better to do than head an effort to clean up graffiti as soon as it appears. That sounds like a challenge, not a deterrent.

COMO has embraced skateboarding with its own skate park, why not create a similar space for graffiti? For a town that claims to support the arts, it sure has a lot to learn about art. Take Banksy for instance. Here is a graffiti artist who has made a living out of his craft as well as some of the most compelling art around. Plus, he has found ways to make something ugly like urban landscapes beautiful and thought-provoking.

Besides incarceration or legal trouble, our society also likes retribution through the wallet.

The AP is all up in arms over bloggers quoting their "stories" without proper compensation. Of course, when bloggers quote other sources, they normally link back to the original text, allowing their readers the opportunity to make up their own minds while simultaneously increasing the source's traffic. Now, there's a whole pricing scale for quoting AP stories. This is how the archaic journalism fascists want to combat their irrelevancy in a Web 2.0 world? Why not join us? Oh wait. Newspapers have tried the blog thing. They must not make enough money from these endeavors, otherwise they wouldn't care. The fact is that more and more people are ending paper subscriptions and signing up for RSS feeds instead. (I'd quote an AP story, but I'm sort of broke right now.)

Whatever. Newspapers regularly cite sources without linking back to their sites. Why doesn't the AP practice what they preach? I guess the only recourse we have is to never use the AP as a source or to ask for compensation whenever interviewed by a so-called journalist.

In fact, I may just do that. Whenever I'm interviewed for a news story, I should warn the reporter that I will require monetary compensation for my words. It's my intellectual property, isn't it? Of course, I am rarely quoted, so this may be a mute point.

But I digress from my original argument.

Why doesn't the AP take a more proactive stance by embracing the blogosphere? Just ask that bloggers link back to the original source (which they already do) and maybe even include the AP in their blogrolls. Conversely, the AP could provide training for bloggers in reporting ethics and listen to claims by bloggers that traditional media is biased. This is just a beginning, but let's fix the problem instead of punishing it.

I could go all day, but I won't. Maybe if we all start thinking of ways to bridge the gap between tradition and new ways of expression, we might rediscover the benefits in invention.

(If you plan on quoting any part of this blog, just link back and leave a comment with a link to your blog/news story. I'll figure out a pay scale later.)