Hail to the . . . Ayatollah?
|
This newspaper article reminds me
of a story about a meeting between President Bill Clinton and Pope John
Paul II. Clinton emerged from the meeting smiling and chipper and told
the press corps waiting outside that he and the pope agreed on 80
percent of what they discussed.
A little later Pope John Paul
emerged from the meeting room looking very sad and discouraged.
Bewildered reporters asked the pope why he was so despondent after
Clinton had just told them the meeting was cordial and they had agreed
on 80 percent of what they discussed. The pope answered, "That's true,
but we were discussing the ten commandments."
Most Americans chuckle
at that because most Americans today don't want to impose their
religion or lack thereof on others. When most of us are asked to name a
country with leaders who are authoritarian and illiberal and who use
their offices to crush freedom of conscience, the answer most often is
Iran, lead by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Until a couple weeks ago.
That's when President Obama
and his Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius decided
to use provisions of so-called Obamacare to force religious
universities, hospitals, and charities, most of them Catholic, to
violate their consciences and provide health insurance that includes
sterilization and abortifacients.
Washington Post columnist
Michael Gerson said, "Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in
Obama's decision -- an edict delivered with a sneer. It is the most
transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since
the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875... Obama’s decision also
reflects a certain view of liberalism. Classical liberalism was
concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a
public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to
impose liberal values on institutions... Christian colleges and
universities of various denominations will resist providing insurance
coverage for abortifacients. And the astounding ambition of this
federal precedent will soon be apparent to every religious institution.
Obama is claiming the executive authority to determine which missions
of believers are religious and which are not — and then to aggressively
regulate institutions the government declares to be secular."
That sounds more like Iran than America. Maybe Obama just wants to be our nation's first ayatollah.
|
And one more drink will make me sober . . .
|
I thought of this article when
I watched President Obama's State of the Union and Governor Quinn's
State of the State (Illinois) messages. Both sounded like the alcoholic
who says, "One more drink will make me sober." Do they really not
understand that both the United States and the state of Illinois are
broke? Do they really not get it?
Their hearts seem to be in the right place,
and they seem to have good intentions, but we all know where good
intentions lead us when our hearts are not balanced with brains. One
without the other is ultimately disastrous.
Both Obama and Quinn gushed
Pollyannaish balderdash reminiscent of, "If we had some ham, we could
make ham and cheese sandwiches if we had some cheese." Both gave us
nothing more than whistling-in-the-dark twaddle. Geez, Louise, when
will it end? There's been a revolt in the asylum and the inmates are in
charge. Oremus.
|
Signs of the times . . .
|
Here's a math story problem for you.
How many hands does it take to show this year's $77 billion budget of
the U.S. Department of Education (DOE)? After spending trillions of
dollars since its inception, hamstringing teachers with No Child Left
Behind constraints, and ballyhooing phony test scores while forcing
teachers to teach to the test, the DOE has given us the state of
education in America captured in this photo.
If that $77 billion were block-granted
to local school districts instead of being poured down that federal
bureaucracy rathole, every district would receive between five and 15
million dollars each year, depending on district size, to apply to true
education — which takes place in the classroom, not in Washington, DC. www.johngile.com
|
Here we go again or
the more things change,
the more they stay the same . . .
There's a story
of a Russian economist who came to America and made an interesting
observation about our political system. He said, "You Americans
have two parties: the Democrats,  who are the evil party, and the
Republicans, who are the stupid party. And every once in a while
they get together and do something bipartisan that is both evil and
stupid."
Now we have a bipartisan
government-funding agreement that will in a few months send the
national debt into the thermosphere, will create inflation with funny
money, will raise interest rates, and, thereby, will create still
another round of rising unemployment. The politicians didn't just kick
the can down the road. This time they filled the can with nitroglycerin
and tossed it into the next congress and into the nursery of another
generation. The celebration in Washington and the mindless media circus
surrounding the story conjures up images of bedlam in an insane asylum. (Reprinted from www.johngile.com) |
|
"We have a temporary boon,
but the day will come
when the Internet will not be
as free and open as it is now."
Corporate print journalism’s
demise, brought about in part by the Wall Street wrecking crew and in
part by ignorant, arrogant corporate newspaper executives with
bean-counter mindsets, is creating a void which cannot be filled by the
Internet and which threatens to accelerate the dumbing down of America.
My concern is not for newspapers per se, but for the future of a free
people when absolute control over the major means of disseminating
information is concentrated in the hands of a few people who have an
on/off switch they can use at any time to shut down the information
flow or to control what information is disseminated.
We have seen it happen in China and
Pakistan. Electronic media spout the party line. The Internet is shut
down when the government deems it necessary. Access is denied those out
of favor. ISP's are even forced to help governments track down
dissenters. Our own Congress has postponed taxing the Internet for
seven years, but we can, of course, expect that to be changed
eventually, effectively shutting down the Internet for many. We need to
preserve our non-electronic dependent medium because it constitutes the
one public voice that cannot be shut down by a flick of the
government’s switch. We have a temporary boon, but the day will come
when the Internet will not be as free and open as it is now.
Concentration of communication
power down one narrow channel is inimical to free speech and freedom of
the press. It is liberty, already suffering encroachment, that is at
risk, not just a profession and the jobs of journalists. Ironically,
corporate print journalism’s self-destruction creates an opportunity
for public-spirited journalists willing to listen, really listen, and
to think and act creatively to fill the void. Fatalists always think in
terms of either/or outcomes and naturally think digital communication
will end the print medium, just at fatalists said TV was the end of
radio. Not everyone is a couch potato or an Internet addict. Corporate
types and the greedy groupies of the Wall Street wrecking crew can’t
see it, but opportunities abound for us to have strong, community-based
print journalism and to have the best of both worlds.
What is at stake is powerfully expressed by Neil Postman in this excerpt from Amusing Ourselves to Death (ISBN: 9780143036531, also quoted below):
"George Orwell, in his classic
1984, feared those who would ban books. Aldous Huxley, in his classic
Brave New World, feared there would be no reason to ban a book, for
there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who
would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us
so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.
"Orwell feared that the truth would
be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea
of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley
feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some
equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal
bumblepuppy.
"As Huxley remarked in Brave New
World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever
on the alert to oppose tyranny 'failed to take into account man's
almost infinite appetite for distractions.' In 1984, Huxley added,
people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are
controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we
hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us...
"Today our national character and
aspiration, once symbolized by the political radicalism of Boston, the
melting-pot of New York, and the industrial dynamism of Chicago, are
symbolized by Las Vegas, Nevada, a city dedicated to entertainment and
proclaiming the spirit of a culture in which all public discourse
increasingly takes the form of entertainment. Discourse in America ,
once generally coherent, serious, and rational, has now, under the
governance of television, become dangerous nonsense, shriveled and
absurd.
"Our politics, religion, news,
athletics, education, and commerce have been transformed into congenial
adjuncts of show business, largely without protest or even much popular
notice. The result is that we are a people on the verge of amusing
ourselves to death." (From Amusing Ourselves to Death, ISBN:
9780143036531, also quoted below.)
|
|
"We
have increasing numbers of Americans who are unable to concentrate for
a sustained period on a complex subject and come to a logical, rational
conclusion. Our greed and our mindless worship of technology have swept
us into Huxley's Brave New World of disinformation and the standardization of idiocy."
(From www.johngile.com)
|
In Amusing Ourselves to Death,
Neil Postman points out, "There has been no worthwhile discussion, let
alone widespread public understanding, of what information is and how
it gives direction to a culture. There is a certain poignancy in this,
since there are no people who more frequently and enthusiastically use
such phrases as 'the information age,' 'the information explosion,' and
'the information society.' We have apparently advanced to the point
where we have grasped the idea that a change in the forms, volume,
speed, and context of information means something, but we have not got
any further.
"What is information?
Or more precisely, what are information? What are its various forms?
What conceptions of intelligence, wisdom, and learning does each form
insist upon? What conceptions does each form neglect or mock? What are
the main psychic effects of each form? What is the relation between
information and reason? What is the kind of information that best
facilitates thinking? Is there a moral bias to each information form?
What does it mean to say there is too much information? How would
one know?
"What redefinitions of important cultural meanings
do new sources, speeds, contexts, and forms of information require?
Does television, for example, give new meanings to 'piety,' to
'patriotism,' to 'privacy?' Does television give new meaning to
'judgment' or to 'understanding?' How do different forms of information
persuade?
"...No medium is excessively dangerous if its users understand
what its dangers are. It is not important that those who ask the
questions arrive at my answers or Marshall McLuhan's. This is an
instance in which the asking of the questions is sufficient. To ask is
to break the spell...
"Educators have become somewhat 'media conscious.'
It is true enough that much of their consciousness centers on the
question, How can we use television or the computer or the word
processor to control education? They have not yet got to the question,
How can we use education to control television or the computer or word
processor? It is an acknowledged task of the schools to assist the
young in learning how to interpret the symbols of their culture. That
this task should now require that they learn how to distance themselves
from their forms of information is not so bizarre an enterprise that we
cannot hope for its inclusion in the curriculum; even hope that it will
be placed at the center of education.
"What I suggest here as a solution
is what Aldous Huxley suggested as well. And I can do no better than
he. He believed with H.G. Wells that we are in a race between education
and disaster, and he wrote continuously about the necessity of our
understanding the politics and epistemology of media. For in the end,
he was trying to tell us that what afflicted the people in Brave New World
was not that they were laughing instead of thinking, but that they did
not know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped
thinking."
(Amusing Ourselves to Death, ISBN: 9780143036531)
(Reprinted from www.johngile.com)
|
|
Tea Party movement:
|
| When I was asked to speak at a Tea Party Town Hall in Illinois, I chose the title "Principles Versus Personalities." Click here to see why. |
|
Major political conflict erupted
in Washington today when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, ran
into Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, as Reid was leaving
the Capitol and McConnell was entering. Click here to read what happened.
|
Allan Zullo
"Maybe the country needs
a journalistic revolution."
|
|
Allan Zullo responds to
"The wrecking crew"
I
worry that Huxley was spot-on in his predictions about our
society. Another downside to the move away from print
journalism: Millions of people who cannot afford laptops, smart
phones, iPads and Kindles will become less informed, relying solely on
TV for all their news.
Critical thinking will continue to shrivel
up until it no longer exists. Maybe the country needs a journalistic revolution.
(Read about author/journalist Allan Zullo at http://allanzullo.com.)
|
| Our language "becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish; but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." — George Orwell, Politics and the English Language |
It looks as though
the bottom line is that the more things change, the more they stay the
same. What I see happening in the world of journalism today makes me
think that our Brave New World is in reality a predictable remake of
the Tower of Babel. We have abundant knowledge — shallow, titillating,
shortsighted — and too little wisdom. We are mastered by, not masters
of, technology.
Sad? Yes. Hopeless? No. But I
do feel sorry for the young people who know nothing but the corporate
culture that has imposed dehumanizing values on them (Huxley, anyone?)
and made their quality of life so much poorer than their parents have
known.
Why bother trying to turn the tide? Arthur Hugh Clough's poem is one of my five favorites:
Say not the struggle naught availeth, the labour and the wounds are vain, the enemy faints not, nor faileth, and as things have been, things remain.
If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars; it may be, in yon smoke concealed, your comrades chase e'en now the fliers, and, but for you, possess the field.
For while the tired waves, vainly breaking, seem here no painful inch to gain, far back through creeks and inlets making comes silent, flooding in, the main.
And not by eastern windows only, when daylight comes, comes in the light; in front the sun climbs slow, how slowly, but westward, look, the land is bright.
It is not hopeless, not yet.
|
Ben Dale
"In an age of fragmentation, how will we learn to pull together?"
|
|
Ben Dale responds to
"The wrecking crew"
Regarding the lack of local news,
I can find no fault with that complaint. I share that view. But lately
the paper has been too much a cheerleader for any and all things that
someone feels might be an "improvement" to the community, such as
advocating building a suspension bridge lengthwise along the river for
an east side bike path at a time when the city is letting road repair
deficits mount and seeking to close fire stations and end ambulance
service. It is a matter of priorities in tough times. Our schools are
going to hell, but hard questions are not being asked. We don't need
cheerleading, we need information.
Regarding the bean counters,
I love to hate them, too. But consider this: In three years Gatehouse,
the current owner of the Register Star, has lost about 95% of its stock
value. The stock is now listed over-the-counter for 9 1/2 cents a
share, with no takers — trading volume today was zero. Losses in the
first quarter of 2011 were more than half of the losses posted in all
of 2010. I'm sure the people in charge of trying to meet the payroll
must be going nuts right now.
What's next?
An Internet only paper with maybe a printed Sunday edition? Will
someone else buy the company? It is getting to the point if someone
says they want to buy a paper for $1 they will ask if you want one copy
or the company.
As a former editor
who also covered business, I don't like what is happening to the
company's product, finances, or prospects. But I can also see that the
story is not nearly as simple as many people would make it appear to
be. What is the answer? If I knew the answer to that I would gather up
$10,000 and make an offer for Gatehouse. They might even take me up on
it — that would be a tragedy.
We are seeing the end
of the era of print journalism. I don't mourn the end of a production
process, but I am concerned about the demise of a news gathering and
dissemination process/philosophy that at some level strove for fairness
and accuracy. It appears we will have to go through a period of yellow
journalism and opinion journalism similar to the 1890-1920 era before
we get back to fact-based news, assuming there is still a market for
facts rather than opinions, demagogy, and advocates of quick fixes to
everything.
For one thing,
in the "good old days" there were three TV stations in most markets,
one daily paper, and maybe a weekly. The hurdle to entering the field
was high, but the standards for the media were also somewhat high. Now
anyone can start a blog or send an e-mail. The hundreds of cable
channels further fragment the market. We don't all discuss what was on
the 10 p.m. news or what the network news reported, rather we are all
our own editors sending around links to YouTube posting and blogs,
often with little knowledge or concern for accuracy or fairness —
topics that used to be debated in-house. The market is hopelessly
fragmented and none of the participants has the share needed to fund a
major investment in professional news gathering. As a result, many
people would no longer know professionally produced news if they saw it.
As a society, we
have fallen into a nihilistic period in which we despise or distrust
every pillar that holds the building up. The president is an idiot,
Congress is filled with crooks, the Supreme Court is biased, media
can't be trusted, religion is a farce. At the local level the picture
is the same, or even worse. What basis will we find for developing a
consensus about what is going on in the world so we can work together
and function as a society? Can we ever again believe that good,
decent, honest, honorable people can have radically different opinions
and still be good, decent, honorable people? In an age of
fragmentation, how will we learn to pull together? That is what we have
lost.
|
|
