I've done target shooting with handguns for quite a few years, and for the last year or so I've given serious thought to getting a rifle. This brought up the topic of just why I want to learn to shoot a rifle, so I thought I'd share my ruminations with the rest of the world (or at least that small portion that actually reads my blog!).
The unenlightened have an idea of your average shooter as a knuckle-dragging red-neck who thrives on destruction and lives for the day the UN invades the US so he can plug some blue helmets. I've known quite a few avid shooters and have yet to meet one that fits that description. Quite the opposite, the majority of shooters I've known have been intelligent, polite, and all-around decent people. The overall percentage of nutcases is, in my experience, considerably smaller than that of the general population.
If there's one trait common to the truly good shooters I've known it's been confidence. Not bravado, just quiet confidence that the world won't throw anything at them that they can't handle. They get this confidence thru self mastery. The Marine Corp's Rifleman's Creed states "I must master it (my rifle) as I must master my life". To a great extent the two go together, mastery of a rifle and mastery of yourself go hand-in-hand.
Shooting is conceptually very simple, line up the sights, hold still, squeeze the trigger. It sounds easy until you try it, then you realize that your body is a bag of fluid held up by a framework that has every connection lubricated. You realize that the slightest movement will affect your aim. Making the weapon fire at the appropriate time requires you to hold as still as possible AND squeeze the trigger only when the sights are on target.
Self control isn't popular these days. People assume that a competent shot is a risk to "go postal" and commit mayhem over the slightest annoyance. We have people talking of shoot-outs over traffic accidents. The truth is the exact opposite, the competent shooter knows he has live-or-death power over anything in range and has enough self control to know that he won't unleash that power except in the gravest extreme. The expert shooter when faced with petty annoyances is in the same situation as if he didn't have a weapon, he won't resort to violence because he knows it's inappropriate and immoral. He's in the same situation as the devoted husband when he comes in contact with another woman, he knows he won't do what he shouldn't, he doesn't WANT to.
The rifleman knows that just because he's capable of doing something, that doesn't mean he will do it. It doesn't even mean he WANTS to do it. Thinking that a rifleman, or any other gun owner, looks forward to the day he has to shoot someone is the same as thinking that a person who knows CPR looks forward to the day someone has a heart attack in his presence. If it happens he's prepared, if not so much the better.
Beyond the skills and self mastery required to move from the status of "owner of a rifle" to "rifleman", there's something about rifles that's interesting and intriguing. Some people would claim that's because I grew up in a gun-free home, but I've noticed the same interest among people who grew up around rifles, have shot rifles since childhood, and currently own dozens of rifles. There's something about a rifle that not even a handgun has. The only other inanimate object I can think of that excites such emotion in an owner is a car. Pick up a well-made rifle, hold it, feel its weight and balance. Look at the way metal and wood are fit together. Notice the way metal moves against metal, observe the way springs, cams, and levers all work together. Consider the intense heat and pressure the chamber and barrel are designed to contain, not once or twice, but thousands of times over the useful life of the weapon. Consider the barrel, accurately machined to within thousandths of an inch. All designed to send a tiny projectile a great distance into a target of the shooters choosing. All so well made that if the shot misses its intended target the most likely cause is shooter error.
When you think about it rifles are truly incredible machines. A rifle built over a hundred years ago is every bit as effective for the job it was designed for as one built this year. Compare a Mauser built in the last quarter of the 19th century with a brand-new, still in the box Remington offering. Assuming the Mauser has been properly maintained and not abused it will do anything you could ask the Remington to do, and if you notice any difference in performance it'll likely be the Mauser on top.
So Christmas is fast approaching and my wife has agreed that a rifle will be The Gift for me this year. That won't make me a rifleman, it'll merely mark the first step, I'll be a rifle owner. That whole mastery of my life thing is intimidating, but it's essential. I'll let you know how it goes.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Dad's Stories - Part 2
Since both of my faithful readers enjoyed Dad's Stories - Part 1 I thought I'd follow with part 2. As with last time I make no claims for the actual truth of this story, and only say that it's either true or it ought to be.
When my Dad was a young man (probably a teenager) he lived in Hoboken, NJ and worked in a ship yard there. His foreman was a man by the name of Dave McGillary (I have no idea if I'm spelling his name correctly, I'm spelling as best I can from my memory of how Dad pronounced it). Dave wore a jacket and tie complete with starched collars to work every day. Every morning he'd come in, look up, examine the weather, and proclaim "'T ain't bad out today." It didn't matter what the weather actually was, raining, snowing, cold, hot, foggy, sunny, the weather was classified as "'t aint bad".
One day my Dad and his friends/co-workers were proving the axiom that one boy is half a man while two boys are no man at all, they were amusing themselves by dumping buckets of water from the Hudson river on each other from higher levels of wherever they were working. (I suspect the soakings Dad got from this had a lot to do with his robust immune system later in life.) My Dad knew they were waiting to get him once he went thru a doorway so he went around the other way to get into the shop area he needed to work in without his friends seeing him. His friends dumped the water on the first person to walk thru the door, who happened to be Dave McGillary. Picture a man in jacket and tie getting soaked with filthy Hudson river water, he starched collars curling up as the water soaked in. Dad made himself look "as busy as a cat covering poop on a tin roof" (Dad didn't use the word "poop", but you get the idea.) Dave pointed to him and said "Harold, if you weren't standing right in front of me when I got soaked I'd blame you!" and went off to find the miscreants.
When my Dad was a young man (probably a teenager) he lived in Hoboken, NJ and worked in a ship yard there. His foreman was a man by the name of Dave McGillary (I have no idea if I'm spelling his name correctly, I'm spelling as best I can from my memory of how Dad pronounced it). Dave wore a jacket and tie complete with starched collars to work every day. Every morning he'd come in, look up, examine the weather, and proclaim "'T ain't bad out today." It didn't matter what the weather actually was, raining, snowing, cold, hot, foggy, sunny, the weather was classified as "'t aint bad".
One day my Dad and his friends/co-workers were proving the axiom that one boy is half a man while two boys are no man at all, they were amusing themselves by dumping buckets of water from the Hudson river on each other from higher levels of wherever they were working. (I suspect the soakings Dad got from this had a lot to do with his robust immune system later in life.) My Dad knew they were waiting to get him once he went thru a doorway so he went around the other way to get into the shop area he needed to work in without his friends seeing him. His friends dumped the water on the first person to walk thru the door, who happened to be Dave McGillary. Picture a man in jacket and tie getting soaked with filthy Hudson river water, he starched collars curling up as the water soaked in. Dad made himself look "as busy as a cat covering poop on a tin roof" (Dad didn't use the word "poop", but you get the idea.) Dave pointed to him and said "Harold, if you weren't standing right in front of me when I got soaked I'd blame you!" and went off to find the miscreants.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Dad's Stories - Part 1
My father (who died in 1988) was an avid story teller. He would entertain me endlessly with his stories. Dad, as with most story tellers, never let little things like facts interfere with a good story. I thought I'd reproduce some of his stories here. I make no claims as to their truthfulness, nor that I even remember them correctly, only that they're as close as I can recall to the stories he told me.
At some point before I came along my Dad worked with two guys named Carl and Monk. Carl is a pretty shadowy figure, but Monk was bigger than life and a great number of Dad's stories revolved around him. For this first installment I thought I'd offer a Monk story.
First, a bit about Monk. Monk was a nickname (duh!), I know my Dad told me his real name at some point but I've long since forgotten it. His friends called him Monk because he looked like a gorilla, medium height but broad and strong, with more hair on his back than most men have on their heads. Dad claimed Monk was the strongest man he ever met, that Monk could chin himself from ceiling joists, holding on from underneath by his fingertips.
Dad, Monk and Carl were merchant seamen. When their ship was in port they'd room together, if the ship was in for overhaul or repairs they'd get jobs. At one such time they had a furnished apartment and had jobs on a late shift. Their landlord was cheap, he'd turn off the heat at night, so when the three guys came home is was cold enough to see their breath in their apartment. Well one evening Monk said he wasn't going to work, he wasn't feeling well. When Dad and Carl got home Monk informed them that he'd found them a new, better place to stay. Monk had even packed their belongings for them and had them waiting for them, Dad and Carl didn't even have to go into their old apartment, they just grabbed their stuff and went off to their new place. All went well until they received a letter to appear in court, it seemed their former landlord was suing them for damages to the apartment. It seemed that Monk had painted the apartment before they moved out. It further seemed that he'd painted it black. Further evidence showed that the black paint he used was paint he'd gotten from the shipyard and was meant for painting the stacks on the ships. This paint was apparently about the consistency of tar, and it was on the walls, the wood work, even the kitchen cabinets. The only way to get this stuff off the walls would be to burn the place down.
Upon appearing in court, Monk produced a contract that he'd made with the landlord. He told the landlord he wanted to paint the apartment at his own expense to cheer the place up. The landlord, cheap as he was, jumped at the chance to get his place painted for free. He signed a contract giving Monk permission to paint the apartment "any color he liked". Monk told the judge "Your honor, I like black." Case dismissed.
Is this story true? In the spirit of Winston Churchill, of course it's true, or it ought to be, and more and better besides.
At some point before I came along my Dad worked with two guys named Carl and Monk. Carl is a pretty shadowy figure, but Monk was bigger than life and a great number of Dad's stories revolved around him. For this first installment I thought I'd offer a Monk story.
First, a bit about Monk. Monk was a nickname (duh!), I know my Dad told me his real name at some point but I've long since forgotten it. His friends called him Monk because he looked like a gorilla, medium height but broad and strong, with more hair on his back than most men have on their heads. Dad claimed Monk was the strongest man he ever met, that Monk could chin himself from ceiling joists, holding on from underneath by his fingertips.
Dad, Monk and Carl were merchant seamen. When their ship was in port they'd room together, if the ship was in for overhaul or repairs they'd get jobs. At one such time they had a furnished apartment and had jobs on a late shift. Their landlord was cheap, he'd turn off the heat at night, so when the three guys came home is was cold enough to see their breath in their apartment. Well one evening Monk said he wasn't going to work, he wasn't feeling well. When Dad and Carl got home Monk informed them that he'd found them a new, better place to stay. Monk had even packed their belongings for them and had them waiting for them, Dad and Carl didn't even have to go into their old apartment, they just grabbed their stuff and went off to their new place. All went well until they received a letter to appear in court, it seemed their former landlord was suing them for damages to the apartment. It seemed that Monk had painted the apartment before they moved out. It further seemed that he'd painted it black. Further evidence showed that the black paint he used was paint he'd gotten from the shipyard and was meant for painting the stacks on the ships. This paint was apparently about the consistency of tar, and it was on the walls, the wood work, even the kitchen cabinets. The only way to get this stuff off the walls would be to burn the place down.
Upon appearing in court, Monk produced a contract that he'd made with the landlord. He told the landlord he wanted to paint the apartment at his own expense to cheer the place up. The landlord, cheap as he was, jumped at the chance to get his place painted for free. He signed a contract giving Monk permission to paint the apartment "any color he liked". Monk told the judge "Your honor, I like black." Case dismissed.
Is this story true? In the spirit of Winston Churchill, of course it's true, or it ought to be, and more and better besides.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Winning the War on Terror
For the last few months the NYC police have been conducting random searches of people’s bags as they enter the subway system. The stated purpose of these searches is to stop suicide bombers before they get into the subway. I’m opposed to these searches on a number of levels, they violate our civil rights, they cause delays, and I don’t for a moment think they’ll be effective at preventing a suicide bombing. I’m taking up this subject from a different angle though, I’m also opposed to them because I don’t believe they’re an effective part of winning the War on Terror.
Over the past couple of decades we’ve been repeatedly attacked by Islamic terrorists. The first World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole, 9/11 and other attacks were attacks against American interests. I don’t believe that these attacks were in response to anything America has done, they’re attacks against who we ARE. The terrorist leaders don’t just want us to stop supporting Israel or apologize for the Crusades (where, you may note, Americans were incredibly under-represented!). They want us either dead or subject to them. Let me repeat that, they want us either DEAD or SUBJECT to THEM.
There may be people who will say that if those are our options we should just give in to them, it’s better to be alive in bondage than dead in freedom. Even ignoring the fact that that would require a conversion to Islam (since I’m a Christian such a conversion is absolutely out of the question for me), let me say right now that if you believe that I have nothing more to say to you so get off my property, now.
There is a third choice though, other than death or subjection. That choice is Victory. It’s the only choice really, the other two options above are simply unthinkable. Since we’re at war, how do we fight and how do we win?
Fortunately for us (especially for me since I’m writing this entry) history provides us with a picture of a very similar enemy, an enemy that wanted to conquer the world. An enemy that raised up a generation of people who wanted only to be a part of that conquest even if they had to die to do it. An enemy who believed that they were being led into a war by their god and that death in such an endeavor was truly glorious. An enemy who raised up people who were willing to fly planes full of explosives into American ships and other targets. That enemy was Japan during World War II. The comparison between the Japanese Kamikaze pilot and the Moslem suicide bomber is truly chilling.
When I mention the Kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers I need to make it clear that these are only the very last parts of a long string, they’re the point of the spear. American gunners on American ships found that knocking out a Kamikaze was extremely difficult, they actually had to disable the plane enough that it could no longer fly. The pilot wasn’t going to break off his attack so he could bail out if his plane was damaged. He wasn’t going to break off if the antiaircraft fire was too heavy for him to get thru without being injured or his plane damaged too badly to return to base. He wasn’t supposed to return to base, to do so would have been failure. We’ll have similar problems with suicide bombers in the subway. If there’s a checkpoint they’ll simply leave and get into the subway some other way. If they can’t they’ll just push the button while surrounded by the police and the other passengers who are waiting to get thru the turnstiles.
We didn’t stop the Kamikaze pilots by shooting down their airplanes after they were loaded, fueled and airborne. We stopped them by destroying the support system that provided them with a plane, fuel and explosives. We’re not going to stop suicide bombers from killing people once they have their supply of explosives and their orders. We’re going to stop them by destroying their chain of command, by wiping out the high-level terrorists who are making the plans and giving the orders. We’re going to stop them by finding their sources of funding and eliminating them. The police who are looking thru passenger’s bags in the subway could be making raids on terror cells. The money spent on those police could be spent on intelligence to identify those cells.
Finally, we’re going to beat the terrorists the same way we beat Japan. We’re going to prove to them, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this is a war they can not and will not win. We probably won’t do it by dropping atomic bombs on cities because terrorism isn’t geographic. We will do it by systematically destroying the high level commanders of the terrorists AND by showing the very people the suicide bombers are recruited from that the ideology offered by their leaders is deeply flawed and that there IS another way to live. Our job is not just one of destruction, it’s one of rebuilding. We helped make Japan into a nation that values hard work, a nation that is arguably the most Capitalist nation in the world right now. Japan learned that they don’t need to conquer the world, if they make enough money they can buy whatever they want FROM the rest of the world. We can do the same thing in the Middle East. We’re doing it right now, in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
Just like in Japan, it won’t happen overnight. World War II ended almost twenty years before I was born and Japan became a true economic and industrial power within my memory. When I was a kid I had a choice between two radios, a quality American made one or Japanese made junk at half the price. If I bought the Japanese one it would probably break within a month. Compare that to today’s situation.
Imagine in 25 years an Al Qaida representative going to a young man in Mosul and saying “I want you to put on this backpack, go into that building, and blow yourself up.” The young Iraqi will reply “Sorry, I’m on my way to pick up my new Mercedes!”. To the promise “But you’ll get 72 virgins!” he replies “Have you SEEN what a Mercedes will attract?”
If we give the people of the Middle East real hope they won't fall for the lies of their leaders. We know that even the leaders know their promises are lies because if they actually believed them they'd be out there blowing themselves up instead of sending the poor, downtrodden and utterly hopeless to do their dirty work. The young person who now has to choose between a dismal and miserable life here and a promised life of luxury is likely to fall for the lie. The same person, offered luxury HERE won't be so quick to give it up for a lie. On that day Al Qaida will be out of business.
Over the past couple of decades we’ve been repeatedly attacked by Islamic terrorists. The first World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole, 9/11 and other attacks were attacks against American interests. I don’t believe that these attacks were in response to anything America has done, they’re attacks against who we ARE. The terrorist leaders don’t just want us to stop supporting Israel or apologize for the Crusades (where, you may note, Americans were incredibly under-represented!). They want us either dead or subject to them. Let me repeat that, they want us either DEAD or SUBJECT to THEM.
There may be people who will say that if those are our options we should just give in to them, it’s better to be alive in bondage than dead in freedom. Even ignoring the fact that that would require a conversion to Islam (since I’m a Christian such a conversion is absolutely out of the question for me), let me say right now that if you believe that I have nothing more to say to you so get off my property, now.
There is a third choice though, other than death or subjection. That choice is Victory. It’s the only choice really, the other two options above are simply unthinkable. Since we’re at war, how do we fight and how do we win?
Fortunately for us (especially for me since I’m writing this entry) history provides us with a picture of a very similar enemy, an enemy that wanted to conquer the world. An enemy that raised up a generation of people who wanted only to be a part of that conquest even if they had to die to do it. An enemy who believed that they were being led into a war by their god and that death in such an endeavor was truly glorious. An enemy who raised up people who were willing to fly planes full of explosives into American ships and other targets. That enemy was Japan during World War II. The comparison between the Japanese Kamikaze pilot and the Moslem suicide bomber is truly chilling.
When I mention the Kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers I need to make it clear that these are only the very last parts of a long string, they’re the point of the spear. American gunners on American ships found that knocking out a Kamikaze was extremely difficult, they actually had to disable the plane enough that it could no longer fly. The pilot wasn’t going to break off his attack so he could bail out if his plane was damaged. He wasn’t going to break off if the antiaircraft fire was too heavy for him to get thru without being injured or his plane damaged too badly to return to base. He wasn’t supposed to return to base, to do so would have been failure. We’ll have similar problems with suicide bombers in the subway. If there’s a checkpoint they’ll simply leave and get into the subway some other way. If they can’t they’ll just push the button while surrounded by the police and the other passengers who are waiting to get thru the turnstiles.
We didn’t stop the Kamikaze pilots by shooting down their airplanes after they were loaded, fueled and airborne. We stopped them by destroying the support system that provided them with a plane, fuel and explosives. We’re not going to stop suicide bombers from killing people once they have their supply of explosives and their orders. We’re going to stop them by destroying their chain of command, by wiping out the high-level terrorists who are making the plans and giving the orders. We’re going to stop them by finding their sources of funding and eliminating them. The police who are looking thru passenger’s bags in the subway could be making raids on terror cells. The money spent on those police could be spent on intelligence to identify those cells.
Finally, we’re going to beat the terrorists the same way we beat Japan. We’re going to prove to them, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this is a war they can not and will not win. We probably won’t do it by dropping atomic bombs on cities because terrorism isn’t geographic. We will do it by systematically destroying the high level commanders of the terrorists AND by showing the very people the suicide bombers are recruited from that the ideology offered by their leaders is deeply flawed and that there IS another way to live. Our job is not just one of destruction, it’s one of rebuilding. We helped make Japan into a nation that values hard work, a nation that is arguably the most Capitalist nation in the world right now. Japan learned that they don’t need to conquer the world, if they make enough money they can buy whatever they want FROM the rest of the world. We can do the same thing in the Middle East. We’re doing it right now, in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
Just like in Japan, it won’t happen overnight. World War II ended almost twenty years before I was born and Japan became a true economic and industrial power within my memory. When I was a kid I had a choice between two radios, a quality American made one or Japanese made junk at half the price. If I bought the Japanese one it would probably break within a month. Compare that to today’s situation.
Imagine in 25 years an Al Qaida representative going to a young man in Mosul and saying “I want you to put on this backpack, go into that building, and blow yourself up.” The young Iraqi will reply “Sorry, I’m on my way to pick up my new Mercedes!”. To the promise “But you’ll get 72 virgins!” he replies “Have you SEEN what a Mercedes will attract?”
If we give the people of the Middle East real hope they won't fall for the lies of their leaders. We know that even the leaders know their promises are lies because if they actually believed them they'd be out there blowing themselves up instead of sending the poor, downtrodden and utterly hopeless to do their dirty work. The young person who now has to choose between a dismal and miserable life here and a promised life of luxury is likely to fall for the lie. The same person, offered luxury HERE won't be so quick to give it up for a lie. On that day Al Qaida will be out of business.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
The Media
OK, it's time for a quiz. One question, if you're wrong you get poked with this cattle prod. Question: What is the purpose of the media? Answer: To keep the citizens of this nation informed about current events. ZAP ouch! Answer: To provide entertainment. ZAP ouch! Answer: To numb the minds of the population so the Martians will have an easier time taking over. Hmmmmm, this has possibilities but ZAP ouch!
Any media outlet, newspaper, TV, radio, etc is a business. In any business, if you want to find out what they're doing you follow the money. If you think the 35 cents you pay for your morning newspaper is all the money the publisher makes on it you're sadly mistaken. If you watch network TV (gag!) you can watch shows starring actors and actresses who are paid millions of dollars for FREE. Where's the money? Where does the money paid to professional athletes come from? How about the money paid to newspaper writers? Magazine photographers?
Everything you're interested in in any form of media, songs on the radio, pictures of pretty girls in a magazine, news in the newspaper, the comic strips, restaurant reviews, absolutely everything is the bait to get you to the hook buried in there. That hook is the advertising. That's where the media makes its money, companies pay to run ads, the more people who are exposed to the ad the more the media outlet can charge for it.
Kinda makes you wonder about our unbiased media huh? Some years back there was a scandal in NYC involving Woody Allen, his girlfriend, and his girlfriend's adopted daughter. This story ran with front page headlines in the newspapers every day, pushing much more important news deep inside the newspaper. People criticized the newspaper for doing so, but they missed the newspaper's reason for existing. If more people will buy the newspaper with a headline about Woody, Mia, and Soon Yi than will buy it if the front page talks about a crime that was committed then the newspaper HAS to run the more productive headline. If people saw that headline, said "BFD" and walked away the next day the Allen family would could get a couple column inches on the society page.
Remember that whenever you see a news story on TV. They're not trying to help you make an informed decision on who to vote for. They're not trying to present both sides of an issue so you can make an intelligent choice. They're trying to keep your butt in your chair in front of your TV until the commercial comes on. That's the ultimate goal of all the writers, editors, producers, reporters, cameramen, right down to the girl who just brought the news anchor a glass of water.
Bias is obvious with non-news shows. Every show has a target audience, whether it's a professional sporting event, a sit-com, a crime drama or a reality show. The commercials will be for products that would be of interest to that target audience. They don't show commercials for toys during Desperate Housewives and they don't show commericals for Preparation H during the Saturday morning cartoons.
You want unbiased news? You're not going to find it. Balanced reporting that covers both sides of an issue is going to cause people who already have strong beliefs on the issue to change the channel. That's OK if those people aren't part of the advertisers demographic, they're not going to buy that product anyway. It's a disaster if the group that tunes out is the group the next set of commercials is aimed at though. So they keep a bias in the news to hook the people who are most likely to respond to the commercial.
But Mark, I really want to understand the entire issue so I can make a truly informed decision. Ah, I see you seek the path of enlightenment. In every news story you're exposed to look for the bias. It's there, trust me, just because it fits in with your political leanings doesn't mean it's not biased. Get under the bias to the actual facts. Then find another source for the same issue, find the bias again and get to the facts. Maybe the facts don't match. Keep digging, you'll finally unearth all the facts surrounding an issue, then make your decision based upon those facts.
Most of us don't do this. Most of us find a news source we believe is unbiased (meaning one we agree with) and swallow what they tell us whole. That's easy. It's also lazy. Being an informed citizen of a free nation takes work.
Everything in the media makes sense if you remember its true function, to expose you to paid advertising. Remember that, write it on the back of your hand if you have to. I'll even put new batteries in my cattle prod in case you forget.
Any media outlet, newspaper, TV, radio, etc is a business. In any business, if you want to find out what they're doing you follow the money. If you think the 35 cents you pay for your morning newspaper is all the money the publisher makes on it you're sadly mistaken. If you watch network TV (gag!) you can watch shows starring actors and actresses who are paid millions of dollars for FREE. Where's the money? Where does the money paid to professional athletes come from? How about the money paid to newspaper writers? Magazine photographers?
Everything you're interested in in any form of media, songs on the radio, pictures of pretty girls in a magazine, news in the newspaper, the comic strips, restaurant reviews, absolutely everything is the bait to get you to the hook buried in there. That hook is the advertising. That's where the media makes its money, companies pay to run ads, the more people who are exposed to the ad the more the media outlet can charge for it.
Kinda makes you wonder about our unbiased media huh? Some years back there was a scandal in NYC involving Woody Allen, his girlfriend, and his girlfriend's adopted daughter. This story ran with front page headlines in the newspapers every day, pushing much more important news deep inside the newspaper. People criticized the newspaper for doing so, but they missed the newspaper's reason for existing. If more people will buy the newspaper with a headline about Woody, Mia, and Soon Yi than will buy it if the front page talks about a crime that was committed then the newspaper HAS to run the more productive headline. If people saw that headline, said "BFD" and walked away the next day the Allen family would could get a couple column inches on the society page.
Remember that whenever you see a news story on TV. They're not trying to help you make an informed decision on who to vote for. They're not trying to present both sides of an issue so you can make an intelligent choice. They're trying to keep your butt in your chair in front of your TV until the commercial comes on. That's the ultimate goal of all the writers, editors, producers, reporters, cameramen, right down to the girl who just brought the news anchor a glass of water.
Bias is obvious with non-news shows. Every show has a target audience, whether it's a professional sporting event, a sit-com, a crime drama or a reality show. The commercials will be for products that would be of interest to that target audience. They don't show commercials for toys during Desperate Housewives and they don't show commericals for Preparation H during the Saturday morning cartoons.
You want unbiased news? You're not going to find it. Balanced reporting that covers both sides of an issue is going to cause people who already have strong beliefs on the issue to change the channel. That's OK if those people aren't part of the advertisers demographic, they're not going to buy that product anyway. It's a disaster if the group that tunes out is the group the next set of commercials is aimed at though. So they keep a bias in the news to hook the people who are most likely to respond to the commercial.
But Mark, I really want to understand the entire issue so I can make a truly informed decision. Ah, I see you seek the path of enlightenment. In every news story you're exposed to look for the bias. It's there, trust me, just because it fits in with your political leanings doesn't mean it's not biased. Get under the bias to the actual facts. Then find another source for the same issue, find the bias again and get to the facts. Maybe the facts don't match. Keep digging, you'll finally unearth all the facts surrounding an issue, then make your decision based upon those facts.
Most of us don't do this. Most of us find a news source we believe is unbiased (meaning one we agree with) and swallow what they tell us whole. That's easy. It's also lazy. Being an informed citizen of a free nation takes work.
Everything in the media makes sense if you remember its true function, to expose you to paid advertising. Remember that, write it on the back of your hand if you have to. I'll even put new batteries in my cattle prod in case you forget.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Voting
Next Tuesday is Election Day. That day I, and my fellow New Jerseyans will be selecting our new Governor, among other elected officials. Voting is ALWAYS a selection of a lesser of two evils. The best possible candidate for any position never actually runs for the job, so we're left with people who actually WANT the job. Generally their reasons have nothing to do with an honest desire to make NJ a better place to live. They're after the goose that lays the golden eggs of political power. I said in an earlier posting that when you elect someone to office you give them immense power, that power is like a drug for some people, the more they have the more they want.
But back to NJ. Next Tuesday I'll choose between two major-party candidates and a number of third-party candidates. I don't trust any of the candidates, but I don't trust any elected official, especially not the ones I vote for. I always cast my vote with the understanding that the candidate made promises to me in return for my vote and that if said promises are not met then next time my vote may well go elsewhere.
So who will I vote for? I'm not going to tell you that, but I'll offer some of my thought processes. Of the two major-party candidates I completely dispise one of them and merely intensely dislike the other. There actually was a candidate in the primary who I liked and would have voted for, but he didn't win the primary. How about a third party? I voted for Ross Perot because I thought that as a businessman he'd bring a level of financial responsibility to our nation. I was misguided. I was misguided first in believing that such issues were the most important and second in believing he actually had a chance of winning. Live and learn, die and forget it all. There is no third party candidate in NJ who stands the slightest chance of winning, period.
But Mark, if you dislike both candidates so badly why not vote third party as a protest? I've considered it, but won't do so. First, the two candidates are quite close in the polls, if one were so far ahead that protest votes wouldn't likely affect the outcome I might cast one, but as it is it's just too close. And while I don't think either candidate would be a GOOD governor for NJ I do believe one would be far worse than the other. Given the tightness of the race, my protest vote is a vote taken away from the lesser of two evils which may well ensure that the worse of those evils gets elected. I learned my lesson from Perot.
I can cast one vote. If the candidate who I believe would be a disaster for my state is elected he'll do so with no help from me, I won't cast my vote for him, I won't withhold my vote from his only viable opponent. Perhaps I can help elect a governor who'll be merely bad instead of dispicable. Then maybe next time around we can replace him with someone who merely leaves a lot to be desired, followed by someone who's not too bad, followed by someone who's pretty good. I may never live to see the day, but we've got to start someplace.
So get out from in front of your computer next Tuesday and vote. No excuses. I don't care if the line is long, you've waited on long lines to see a movie. I don't care if it's raining, you went to work in the rain, you can vote in the rain. If you don't vote, don't complain about the Governor selected by those of us who did.
But back to NJ. Next Tuesday I'll choose between two major-party candidates and a number of third-party candidates. I don't trust any of the candidates, but I don't trust any elected official, especially not the ones I vote for. I always cast my vote with the understanding that the candidate made promises to me in return for my vote and that if said promises are not met then next time my vote may well go elsewhere.
So who will I vote for? I'm not going to tell you that, but I'll offer some of my thought processes. Of the two major-party candidates I completely dispise one of them and merely intensely dislike the other. There actually was a candidate in the primary who I liked and would have voted for, but he didn't win the primary. How about a third party? I voted for Ross Perot because I thought that as a businessman he'd bring a level of financial responsibility to our nation. I was misguided. I was misguided first in believing that such issues were the most important and second in believing he actually had a chance of winning. Live and learn, die and forget it all. There is no third party candidate in NJ who stands the slightest chance of winning, period.
But Mark, if you dislike both candidates so badly why not vote third party as a protest? I've considered it, but won't do so. First, the two candidates are quite close in the polls, if one were so far ahead that protest votes wouldn't likely affect the outcome I might cast one, but as it is it's just too close. And while I don't think either candidate would be a GOOD governor for NJ I do believe one would be far worse than the other. Given the tightness of the race, my protest vote is a vote taken away from the lesser of two evils which may well ensure that the worse of those evils gets elected. I learned my lesson from Perot.
I can cast one vote. If the candidate who I believe would be a disaster for my state is elected he'll do so with no help from me, I won't cast my vote for him, I won't withhold my vote from his only viable opponent. Perhaps I can help elect a governor who'll be merely bad instead of dispicable. Then maybe next time around we can replace him with someone who merely leaves a lot to be desired, followed by someone who's not too bad, followed by someone who's pretty good. I may never live to see the day, but we've got to start someplace.
So get out from in front of your computer next Tuesday and vote. No excuses. I don't care if the line is long, you've waited on long lines to see a movie. I don't care if it's raining, you went to work in the rain, you can vote in the rain. If you don't vote, don't complain about the Governor selected by those of us who did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)