It's Easter Sunday.
The Sun is shining.
It's warm outside.
The birds are chirping.
There is a lot of chocolate around.
Kind of hard to not have a good day.
Happy Easter To All.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Happy Easter
It's Easter Sunday.
The Sun is shining.
It's warm outside.
The birds are chirping.
There is a lot of chocolate around.
Kind of hard to not have a good day.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Re Post: At the Garden of Gethsemane
Note...I posted this last year on Good Friday, and it seems fitting to re-post it today. I have always found this particular story to be very insightful and inspiring, even as my own faith waxes and wains.
*******************
One of the most insightful (at least for me) biblical stories is found in the Gospel of Matthew, and deals with Christ at the Garden of Gethsemane. In case you are not overly familiar with the story it takes place the day before the Crucifixion of Christ. The details aren't so important to this discussion other than Christ goes to this garden to pray, knowing that He would be betrayed by Judas, turned over to the Romans, and ultimately put to death.
Now what's so insightful about that?
Consider This: According to Christian teaching, Christ...being God...knew that by going to Gethsemane He would ultimately be put to death. At any point He could have changed His path and spared His own life, but He chose not to. He consciously sacrificed His own life, if you believe in Christian teaching, for the greater good of all mankind.
Consider This: To this day, people make conscious choices that ultimately lead to their death. For example Father Mychal F. Judge, a Franciscan priest, went into the south tower of the World Trade Center after it had been hit by an airplane to minister to the wounded. While history doesn't record whether or not he thought he would die, it's pretty clear he knew what he was doing was exceptionally dangerous.
In the final analysis, some of us will be faced with our own "Garden of Gethsemane", where we need to make a choice between self-preservation or preservation of the greater good. Ultimately that is the most personal of decisions that anyone can make, and furthermore I doubt any of us are prospectively capable of saying what we would do if put into that situation. There is, however, no greater love that can ever be expressed than through the thoughtful and conscious act of sacrificing oneself for the greater good.
*******************
One of the most insightful (at least for me) biblical stories is found in the Gospel of Matthew, and deals with Christ at the Garden of Gethsemane. In case you are not overly familiar with the story it takes place the day before the Crucifixion of Christ. The details aren't so important to this discussion other than Christ goes to this garden to pray, knowing that He would be betrayed by Judas, turned over to the Romans, and ultimately put to death.
Now what's so insightful about that?
Consider This: According to Christian teaching, Christ...being God...knew that by going to Gethsemane He would ultimately be put to death. At any point He could have changed His path and spared His own life, but He chose not to. He consciously sacrificed His own life, if you believe in Christian teaching, for the greater good of all mankind.
Consider This: To this day, people make conscious choices that ultimately lead to their death. For example Father Mychal F. Judge, a Franciscan priest, went into the south tower of the World Trade Center after it had been hit by an airplane to minister to the wounded. While history doesn't record whether or not he thought he would die, it's pretty clear he knew what he was doing was exceptionally dangerous.
In the final analysis, some of us will be faced with our own "Garden of Gethsemane", where we need to make a choice between self-preservation or preservation of the greater good. Ultimately that is the most personal of decisions that anyone can make, and furthermore I doubt any of us are prospectively capable of saying what we would do if put into that situation. There is, however, no greater love that can ever be expressed than through the thoughtful and conscious act of sacrificing oneself for the greater good.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
NEPA's Internet Underbelly
I've noted on several occasions my fondness for reading content on-line. I have about six national news sites that I regularly read, as well as the local newspapers and various local blogs. I also frequent a few local message boards. There is one message board in particular that I'd like to reference for a few moments. No, I'm not going to list the address, as that would just be free advertising, and nothing but my opinion is free around here. I will, however, give you a description of the site: it was created and exists primarily to highlight the actions of Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty and other elected/appointed city officials. In fact, just about every elected official is fair game for the anonymously posted rumors, innuendo and sometimes slander that is put on the site, with once exception: Council President Janet Evans.
Now you don't need to take my word for it that Mrs Evans has a special dispensation from critique on this site. In fact, you can take the word of one of the recent site posters, who recently wrote the following:
Posts: 102
Date: Apr 1 2:19 PM, 2010
"Hold on a minute. This site allows accusations without justification based on speculation and opinion. However, when Evans is thrown into the mix, all of a sudden it is "lay off"?!?!? Perhaps this is not as much a free speech site as I thought. Is it "free" only to the extent it is consistent with a specific agenda?!?!? or individual opinion?!?!? There have been many a person thrown to the dogs for only being questioned but since it is Evans we have to lay off?!?!?"
Now just how bad do the rumors and speculation get on this site? Well as someone who has been reading it for a while, I've read claims that included...
- A certain state senator is having a same-sex relationship with a local judge
- Mayor Doherty has had extra-marital affairs with various members of his administration
- A former member of city council conspired to keep a young woman in jail
- The Mayor is responsible for the deaths of two children in a Scranton house fire
- A former member of city council used to perform sexual favors as a young adult
...and the list goes on, but I think you get the picture. Basically an on-line version of Jerry Springer, but without the visuals. Now with all that kind of spew sputtering forth from the pie-holes of countless anonymous posters, you would think that just about nothing would be off limits. Well, you would be wrong. Here is a posting from the administrator of the site, who by the way is just about the only person there who posts under his own name...
"Lay off Janet. She's far too good of a woman/public official to put up with that kind of derogatory assertion. Totally unjustified and you know it."
...yes, unfounded rumors and innuendo is okay at this place, except if it involves Janet Evans. "Derogatory assertion"? That specific comment came from the same site administrator who once called Scranton Times reporter Stacy Brown a "nigger"
So what's my point? Well maybe it's this: when it comes to political discourse in the Internet, I think there are two polar opposites at play in Northeastern Pennsylvania.
On one end you have blogs written by Gort, Marc Cour, Tom Borthwick and others who state facts and opinions (sometimes strongly worded opinions), but do so within the full sunlight of accountability. When Marc wrote something about my blog that I didn't like, I called him out on it. Him, by name. When others have had issues with something I've written they have told me so. When I'm wrong I'll man-up and say so. When I'm not, I'll explain why. Either way, on this side of the fence you don't find nameless cretins hiding behind an obscene avatar trying as much to shock as they are tying to make some form of quasi-point.
On the other end of the spectrum you find message boards full of bitter, angry "oppressed" peoples who claim that they can only express themselves under three conditions:
1) Anonymously (I guess so that the "man" will not keep them down)
2) Without Limits - Anything can be said, no matter how untrue, vile, obscene or otherwise stupid
3) At one message board, #2 has a footnote that says "except for Janet Evans"
I say that it's actually good Mrs Evans gets a pass in the vile/untrue innuendo department, however I just wish that same "luxury" of civility would be extended to everyone targeted.
In the end it's kind of a night vs day thing. Say what you want about "new media" such as bloggers, but what I've been reading in NEPA is impressive. No, I don't agree with all the ideology, but I do agree with the civil discourse associated with presenting ideas and opinions in a way that encourages discussion. That's a far cry from sleazy message boards that seemed to have a corner Internet discourse, particularly in the Scranton area, up until recently.
Sunlight was, is and always will be the best disinfectant.
Now you don't need to take my word for it that Mrs Evans has a special dispensation from critique on this site. In fact, you can take the word of one of the recent site posters, who recently wrote the following:
Posts: 102
Date: Apr 1 2:19 PM, 2010
"Hold on a minute. This site allows accusations without justification based on speculation and opinion. However, when Evans is thrown into the mix, all of a sudden it is "lay off"?!?!? Perhaps this is not as much a free speech site as I thought. Is it "free" only to the extent it is consistent with a specific agenda?!?!? or individual opinion?!?!? There have been many a person thrown to the dogs for only being questioned but since it is Evans we have to lay off?!?!?"
Now just how bad do the rumors and speculation get on this site? Well as someone who has been reading it for a while, I've read claims that included...
- A certain state senator is having a same-sex relationship with a local judge
- Mayor Doherty has had extra-marital affairs with various members of his administration
- A former member of city council conspired to keep a young woman in jail
- The Mayor is responsible for the deaths of two children in a Scranton house fire
- A former member of city council used to perform sexual favors as a young adult
...and the list goes on, but I think you get the picture. Basically an on-line version of Jerry Springer, but without the visuals. Now with all that kind of spew sputtering forth from the pie-holes of countless anonymous posters, you would think that just about nothing would be off limits. Well, you would be wrong. Here is a posting from the administrator of the site, who by the way is just about the only person there who posts under his own name...
"Lay off Janet. She's far too good of a woman/public official to put up with that kind of derogatory assertion. Totally unjustified and you know it."
...yes, unfounded rumors and innuendo is okay at this place, except if it involves Janet Evans. "Derogatory assertion"? That specific comment came from the same site administrator who once called Scranton Times reporter Stacy Brown a "nigger"
So what's my point? Well maybe it's this: when it comes to political discourse in the Internet, I think there are two polar opposites at play in Northeastern Pennsylvania.
On one end you have blogs written by Gort, Marc Cour, Tom Borthwick and others who state facts and opinions (sometimes strongly worded opinions), but do so within the full sunlight of accountability. When Marc wrote something about my blog that I didn't like, I called him out on it. Him, by name. When others have had issues with something I've written they have told me so. When I'm wrong I'll man-up and say so. When I'm not, I'll explain why. Either way, on this side of the fence you don't find nameless cretins hiding behind an obscene avatar trying as much to shock as they are tying to make some form of quasi-point.
On the other end of the spectrum you find message boards full of bitter, angry "oppressed" peoples who claim that they can only express themselves under three conditions:
1) Anonymously (I guess so that the "man" will not keep them down)
2) Without Limits - Anything can be said, no matter how untrue, vile, obscene or otherwise stupid
3) At one message board, #2 has a footnote that says "except for Janet Evans"
I say that it's actually good Mrs Evans gets a pass in the vile/untrue innuendo department, however I just wish that same "luxury" of civility would be extended to everyone targeted.
In the end it's kind of a night vs day thing. Say what you want about "new media" such as bloggers, but what I've been reading in NEPA is impressive. No, I don't agree with all the ideology, but I do agree with the civil discourse associated with presenting ideas and opinions in a way that encourages discussion. That's a far cry from sleazy message boards that seemed to have a corner Internet discourse, particularly in the Scranton area, up until recently.
Sunlight was, is and always will be the best disinfectant.
Occupational Hazzard of Juggling: Objects falling on your head
There are times when I see how some folks just drop from a heart attack at a young age. It's not just juggling a career, the needs of children, the needs of family members (some of whom need more help than most), it also feels like I'm juggling all of what they are juggling as well. It's as if I'm at the center of this little corner of the universe that everyone comes to, but yet nothing stays by. I'm the first to call when there is a problem, but I'm usually the last called one called when there is a celebration...unless of course I am supposed to pay for it.
Self-loathing doesn't become me, but I had to get that one bit out of me before the stress-induced explosion ended up spewing entrails all over my computer desk.
There is just so damn much pressure these days. I know that there is nothing here that I can't handle, but man I sure wish the process were a little easier and there were more hands in the mix to help. No wonder I've been sleeping better lately, as I'm basically physically and mentally exhausted when all is said and done.
Like many internal wounds, mine are self-inflicted. More of an outcome generated from a twisted sense of right than anything else I suspect. "Catholic guilt" is what I suspect others use to describe this kind of thing, but that's far too broad for my tastes. No, my problem is that I tend to play from my own set of self-imposed rules, but yet much of what is around me could care less about those rule & fact sometimes work hard at fighting against them. Now lest anyone think that the rules in questions are controversial, here's a sample:
- Independence...I expect people to be self-sufficient or working towards self-sufficiency
- Frugal...I expect people to be watchful of what they spend
- Health...I expect that people will consciously try and be healthier
None of these things are absolute places, but rather they are more directions on a journey. For example, you go to school so that you can eventually get a job in order to be self-sufficient. You try and save some money every time you get some, even if that's just a dollar or two. You always try and find better ways to eat, new ways to become more active.
I know, all are such alien concepts in a world where the media tells us that young, pretty people don't have to work but yet live in glamorous surroundings. We've raised a society where there is this disconnect between work and consumption. Hell, I see people buying over-priced groceries at the convenience store with their Access card while talking on their cell phone. They then go on to pay cash for cigarettes. Forget Lewis Carroll, our society is already through the looking glass.
I know, I know, I'll get over this funk. I always do. The chief provider and solver-of-things is required to get over things as part of his job description. I just really wish there were some reinforcements every now and then.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Michael Penn: No Myth
A great song, even with the cheesy Stargate SG1 video.
So, she says it`s time she goes
But wanted to be sure I know
She hopes we can be friends
I think, yeah
I guess we can, say I
But didn`t think to ask her why
She blocked her eyes
And drew the curtains with
Knots I`ve got yet to untie
(CHORUS)
What if I were
Romeo in black jeans
What if I was Heathcliff
It`s no myth
Maybe she`s just looking
For someone to dance with
See, it was just too soon to tell
And looking for some parallel
Can be an endless game
We, we said goodbye before hello
My secrets she will never know
And if I dig a hole to China
I`ll catch the first junk to Soho
(CHORUS)
Sometime from now
You`ll bow to pressure
Some things in life
You cannot measure by degrees
I`m between the
Poles and the equator
Don`t send no private
Investigator to find me please
Less he speaks Chinese and
Can dance like Astaire overseas
What if I was
Said what if I was
Maybe she`s just looking
For someone to dance with
What if I was
Romeo in black jeans
What if I was Heathcliff
It`s no myth
Maybe she`s just looking
For someone to dance with
Local Radio News
It was reported first on Facebook (believe it or not) and then in the Scranton Times that local morning radio personality John Webster is leaving his long running "Daniels and Webster" show on WEZX (Rock 107). I think the Facebook thing is rather telling actually. Viva la Internet!
Now I don't know Mr Webster, but actually my cousin Jeanine does and I hear that he is a great guy. To the extent that this change was:
a) of his doing
b) gets him to a better place personally or professionally
then I say a resounding "Cool!". I can't say that I've actually listened to Daniels & Webster at any length in years, although I will tell you that a long time ago they put out a cassette called "Tubes & Take Recorders" (or something like that) which was very funny. It was the kind of thing that you should force outsiders to listen to as a sort of cultural primer on Northeastern Pennsylvania. Anyway it sounds like Mr Webster may have future plans already laid out, so to him I wish nothing but the best.
Speaking of local radio, I am off this week and I've yet to turn on WILK. I did try to listen to Sue Henry last week, but it became unbearable with the constant barrage of "ditto" callers. Is it me or do people who disagree with Sue Henry always seem to end up calling right before their next commercial break? I've also heard a few callers try and get Sue to admit when Limbaugh is being nothing more than a hypocritical dolt, but by and large Sue either ignores the question/comment or talks over it ("Yeah that's wacky Rush for ya say how about 'dem Red Soxs?"). By the way, you can't seem to listen to more than about 10 minutes straight without hitting a commercial on WILK; maybe it just appears that way, but boy it seems that about half of their air time is spent selling stuff. Even longer when you consider the locally produced paid programming they deploy on the weekends.
I noted my favorite WILK boner in a previous blog: that was when Sue Henry was carrying on about how Howard Stern and Opie/Anthony don't represent "her profession". Of course the during the next commercial break there was a spot for a "natural male enhancement" product. So much for that striking difference. This same product is advertised regularly on the Howard Stern Show. Yupp, that's some moral high ground for you.
These days I'm not really listening to much radio myself. I do listen to Sirius while I'm in the car, and 95% of that time it's Howard Stern. Howard's contract with Sirius is up at the end of this year, and if he doesn't re-sign I probably will not renew my subscription. I know very bright people who simply can't stand Stern and that's okay as truth be told, there are times when I have to turn it off myself. However most of the time, Stern's show is good to great, and with some regularity you hear stuff that's sheer genius. I personally think that the stuff he did in the early 1990's with Billy West (Marge Schott impersonations, Jackie Puppet, Mayor Dinkins. etc.) were some of the funniest bits ever broadcast on the airwaves.
And bababooey to ya'll!
Now I don't know Mr Webster, but actually my cousin Jeanine does and I hear that he is a great guy. To the extent that this change was:
a) of his doing
b) gets him to a better place personally or professionally
then I say a resounding "Cool!". I can't say that I've actually listened to Daniels & Webster at any length in years, although I will tell you that a long time ago they put out a cassette called "Tubes & Take Recorders" (or something like that) which was very funny. It was the kind of thing that you should force outsiders to listen to as a sort of cultural primer on Northeastern Pennsylvania. Anyway it sounds like Mr Webster may have future plans already laid out, so to him I wish nothing but the best.
Speaking of local radio, I am off this week and I've yet to turn on WILK. I did try to listen to Sue Henry last week, but it became unbearable with the constant barrage of "ditto" callers. Is it me or do people who disagree with Sue Henry always seem to end up calling right before their next commercial break? I've also heard a few callers try and get Sue to admit when Limbaugh is being nothing more than a hypocritical dolt, but by and large Sue either ignores the question/comment or talks over it ("Yeah that's wacky Rush for ya say how about 'dem Red Soxs?"). By the way, you can't seem to listen to more than about 10 minutes straight without hitting a commercial on WILK; maybe it just appears that way, but boy it seems that about half of their air time is spent selling stuff. Even longer when you consider the locally produced paid programming they deploy on the weekends.
I noted my favorite WILK boner in a previous blog: that was when Sue Henry was carrying on about how Howard Stern and Opie/Anthony don't represent "her profession". Of course the during the next commercial break there was a spot for a "natural male enhancement" product. So much for that striking difference. This same product is advertised regularly on the Howard Stern Show. Yupp, that's some moral high ground for you.
These days I'm not really listening to much radio myself. I do listen to Sirius while I'm in the car, and 95% of that time it's Howard Stern. Howard's contract with Sirius is up at the end of this year, and if he doesn't re-sign I probably will not renew my subscription. I know very bright people who simply can't stand Stern and that's okay as truth be told, there are times when I have to turn it off myself. However most of the time, Stern's show is good to great, and with some regularity you hear stuff that's sheer genius. I personally think that the stuff he did in the early 1990's with Billy West (Marge Schott impersonations, Jackie Puppet, Mayor Dinkins. etc.) were some of the funniest bits ever broadcast on the airwaves.
And bababooey to ya'll!
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
File this in the "Believe It When You See It" department
As for me, I'm not buying it...
Chrysler Chief Says Firm to Break Even in 2010
...sales are down, quality is way down, and the domestic competition (especially Ford) is getting better. Chrysler has nothing in the same league as, say the Ford Fusion or the Chevy Malibu and flagship models such as the 300 are dated. Maybe Fiat has a flotilla of new designs heading over from Italy, but I can't see how they could be introduced and make a dent this year.
Chrysler Chief Says Firm to Break Even in 2010
...sales are down, quality is way down, and the domestic competition (especially Ford) is getting better. Chrysler has nothing in the same league as, say the Ford Fusion or the Chevy Malibu and flagship models such as the 300 are dated. Maybe Fiat has a flotilla of new designs heading over from Italy, but I can't see how they could be introduced and make a dent this year.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Learning to Flinch
"Anyone who stops learning is old, whether at twenty or eighty."
- Henry Ford
I've been trying to digest all this blogger stuff swirling around me. What stuff? Well I keep finding new blogs to read, and after attending Friday's little gathering in Pittston, I got a few new ideas. I've even implemented two of ideas:
1) For ID purposes I've shortened the official name of the blog to "NCFE"
2) I actually bought my own URL, www.sgalbert.com, that I've linked to the blog
#2 has an unforeseen consequence, namely that every comment ever made to the blog was lost. Now there weren't hundreds of comments, but there a few so I'm sorry that they've gone to the great blog in the sky.
Why bring this up? Well I am waiting for chicken to defrost, so that's as good a reason as any. Also, I personally like the notion that at almost age 46 I can still learn new stuff and change things around. That gives me some sense of hope.
- Henry Ford
I've been trying to digest all this blogger stuff swirling around me. What stuff? Well I keep finding new blogs to read, and after attending Friday's little gathering in Pittston, I got a few new ideas. I've even implemented two of ideas:
1) For ID purposes I've shortened the official name of the blog to "NCFE"
2) I actually bought my own URL, www.sgalbert.com, that I've linked to the blog
#2 has an unforeseen consequence, namely that every comment ever made to the blog was lost. Now there weren't hundreds of comments, but there a few so I'm sorry that they've gone to the great blog in the sky.
Why bring this up? Well I am waiting for chicken to defrost, so that's as good a reason as any. Also, I personally like the notion that at almost age 46 I can still learn new stuff and change things around. That gives me some sense of hope.
Leonard Pitts Column, March 29, 2010
Leonard Pitts has an excellent column today that is well worth reading.
Tea partiers proved that I was right
Tea partiers proved that I was right
Politicians Using Bloggers
I've been reading Marc Cour's post-blogger "meet-up" (quotes because I think the term "meet-up" sounds quasi-juvenile; kind of like what cheerleaders do..."Hey Buffy, there is a Spirit Squad meet-up after the game!") comments and it has gotten me thinking about the issue of how politicians use and/or attempt to use the media. Since it's a Monday and I have the week off, I lack the motivation to actually structure these thoughts in anything like a traditional format. As a result I'm going to digress into writing laziness and simply interview myself. There is a benefit to this format, namely that there can be no claims of being misquoted.
Q: Do I think local politicians would like to use bloggers and other similar types for exposure?
A: Sure, and why not? Being a politician pretty much means you are in the "use" business. You use voters to get elected, you use your job to get things done, and if you are a Pennsylvania legislator, you may use your per-diem for mortgage payments.
Q: Do I think that local bloggers have an obligation to be unbiased when talking about local politicians?
A: No. I will take it one step further though...I don't think that any media at any level is completely unbiased. We humans put bias into everything we do. It's in our nature. We are social creatures by design, which means we are constantly making judgments about those around us. Over thousands of years we have managed to replace "Should Thor be allowed to join our tribe?" with "Do I think Sarah Palin is a nit-wit?", with the latter being expressed in somewhat less direct ways (but expressed never the less). Honestly, I think this is wired into our genetic code.
What we do have an obligation to is, in my opinion, intellectual honesty. For example, if a blogger is working/volunteering/for a particular campaign, I think they should disclose that fact every time that write about that campaign or candidate in question.
Q: Should bloggers blatantly endorse candidates?
A: I can't say "yes" or "no" definitively, so instead I will settle with a "maybe". The reason for the vacillation on my part lies in the fact that while I think bloggers certainly can endorse candidates, I think that the net result of any endorsement could end up being the perception that the endorser has sacrificed credibility if it isn't backed up with some hard facts and reasoning. In essence it's not the act of endorsement that I might have a problem with, it's the reason for the endorsement. In this area you also have to wonder what else could conceivably be transpiring if someone were so blatant in their support of a candidate.
Look, one of the beauties of this whole blogging act is that it gives voice to people who are not connected, liked, or otherwise in a position to have their voice heard. To quote those noted philosophers the Fabulous Thunderbirds, that's "Powerful Stuff". The blog itself though is just a tool. For example, I could use a hammer to build a house for the poor, or I could use it to bash someones head in. The hammer itself has no feelings on the subject...it's just the tool, and the real judgment would be placed on the person using the hammer. For me, the same holds true for blogs as it does hammer, hence the "maybe". Fortunately, the very mechanism of blogging has a sort of self-correcting aspect to it: If I were to start blatantly shelling for a candidate, then other bloggers could very well call me out on it.
Q: Would I ever endorse a candidate?
A: Probably not. Now I've said one or two good things about Bob Morgan, for example, but those comments had more to do with how I know Bob than his qualifications for any particular position de jour he may be running for at any moment. In point of fact I am glad that he lost his last election, as Walter Griffith seems to be kicking ass and taking no prisoners. Sorry Bob. Conversely, I've said some less positive things about Scranton's city council President Janet Evans, but that doesn't mean I'm automatically going to write nice things about her self-nominated arch nemesis Mayor Chris Doherty.
Q: Would I criticize another blogger who endorsed a candidate?
A: I might, if it seemed that the endorsement wasn't based on some kind of rational thought process. That, by the way, has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with logic and reasoning. Consider the value of my criticism though, as it plus $0.75 can get you a copy of the Scranton Times.
Q: Do I think the turnout on Friday night was indicative of some kind of blood-in-the-water feeding frenzy on the part of politicians at the prospect of free publicity?
A: Abso-freak'n-lutely. By and large though I haven't seen anything written locally that makes me think that any particular candidate actually benefited from this event. Did I mention a candidate name or two in my post-Friday comments? Sure I did, but not in any terms that I think were slanted positively or otherwise. Sure, Corey O'Brien's representative told me about the cage fights, but I still think think he (O'Brien) is not overly qualified for the job he seeks in the next election.
Q: Is local political blogging a net positive, a net negative or by and large neutral?
A: It is absolutely a net positive, and in fact I think it holds tremendous potential for NEPA as a whole. Consider the chief alternatives...
...local message boards filled with anonymous posters who do nothing but slander, throw verbal bombs and generally act like rabid ass###es
...websites put up by local politicians, filled with smiling pictures of Candidate X and his beautiful family
If the above is the competition for breathable air in the local Internet space, then the competition is over before it ever began.
I can respect the opinions of anyone who "mans up" to his or her own. I have no respect for those who snipe from behind anonymous walls simply because they are too ashamed to put their name on their own opinions. I can think of only one instance where there is any justification for that kind of behavior.
Q: Do I think local politicians would like to use bloggers and other similar types for exposure?
A: Sure, and why not? Being a politician pretty much means you are in the "use" business. You use voters to get elected, you use your job to get things done, and if you are a Pennsylvania legislator, you may use your per-diem for mortgage payments.
Q: Do I think that local bloggers have an obligation to be unbiased when talking about local politicians?
A: No. I will take it one step further though...I don't think that any media at any level is completely unbiased. We humans put bias into everything we do. It's in our nature. We are social creatures by design, which means we are constantly making judgments about those around us. Over thousands of years we have managed to replace "Should Thor be allowed to join our tribe?" with "Do I think Sarah Palin is a nit-wit?", with the latter being expressed in somewhat less direct ways (but expressed never the less). Honestly, I think this is wired into our genetic code.
What we do have an obligation to is, in my opinion, intellectual honesty. For example, if a blogger is working/volunteering/for a particular campaign, I think they should disclose that fact every time that write about that campaign or candidate in question.
Q: Should bloggers blatantly endorse candidates?
A: I can't say "yes" or "no" definitively, so instead I will settle with a "maybe". The reason for the vacillation on my part lies in the fact that while I think bloggers certainly can endorse candidates, I think that the net result of any endorsement could end up being the perception that the endorser has sacrificed credibility if it isn't backed up with some hard facts and reasoning. In essence it's not the act of endorsement that I might have a problem with, it's the reason for the endorsement. In this area you also have to wonder what else could conceivably be transpiring if someone were so blatant in their support of a candidate.
Look, one of the beauties of this whole blogging act is that it gives voice to people who are not connected, liked, or otherwise in a position to have their voice heard. To quote those noted philosophers the Fabulous Thunderbirds, that's "Powerful Stuff". The blog itself though is just a tool. For example, I could use a hammer to build a house for the poor, or I could use it to bash someones head in. The hammer itself has no feelings on the subject...it's just the tool, and the real judgment would be placed on the person using the hammer. For me, the same holds true for blogs as it does hammer, hence the "maybe". Fortunately, the very mechanism of blogging has a sort of self-correcting aspect to it: If I were to start blatantly shelling for a candidate, then other bloggers could very well call me out on it.
Q: Would I ever endorse a candidate?
A: Probably not. Now I've said one or two good things about Bob Morgan, for example, but those comments had more to do with how I know Bob than his qualifications for any particular position de jour he may be running for at any moment. In point of fact I am glad that he lost his last election, as Walter Griffith seems to be kicking ass and taking no prisoners. Sorry Bob. Conversely, I've said some less positive things about Scranton's city council President Janet Evans, but that doesn't mean I'm automatically going to write nice things about her self-nominated arch nemesis Mayor Chris Doherty.
Q: Would I criticize another blogger who endorsed a candidate?
A: I might, if it seemed that the endorsement wasn't based on some kind of rational thought process. That, by the way, has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with logic and reasoning. Consider the value of my criticism though, as it plus $0.75 can get you a copy of the Scranton Times.
Q: Do I think the turnout on Friday night was indicative of some kind of blood-in-the-water feeding frenzy on the part of politicians at the prospect of free publicity?
A: Abso-freak'n-lutely. By and large though I haven't seen anything written locally that makes me think that any particular candidate actually benefited from this event. Did I mention a candidate name or two in my post-Friday comments? Sure I did, but not in any terms that I think were slanted positively or otherwise. Sure, Corey O'Brien's representative told me about the cage fights, but I still think think he (O'Brien) is not overly qualified for the job he seeks in the next election.
Q: Is local political blogging a net positive, a net negative or by and large neutral?
A: It is absolutely a net positive, and in fact I think it holds tremendous potential for NEPA as a whole. Consider the chief alternatives...
...local message boards filled with anonymous posters who do nothing but slander, throw verbal bombs and generally act like rabid ass###es
...websites put up by local politicians, filled with smiling pictures of Candidate X and his beautiful family
If the above is the competition for breathable air in the local Internet space, then the competition is over before it ever began.
I can respect the opinions of anyone who "mans up" to his or her own. I have no respect for those who snipe from behind anonymous walls simply because they are too ashamed to put their name on their own opinions. I can think of only one instance where there is any justification for that kind of behavior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)