Can You Find the Source and the Purpose of a Dead Woman's Teat?

This is an Election Year. Journalists all over America are chomping at the bits. Politicians are poised and ready to pose.

So why would anyone read anything without deleting all adjectives and adverbs, and why oh why would anyone believe anything to be true without considering two things: The Source of the actual statements, and The Purpose behind the statements?

Here are some recent examples of our "News" professionals.

Tuesday, March 23. Terrorist Hearings produced many diverse witnesses that claimed the 9/11 attacks were not preventable under our nation's standard operating procedures and were not the fault of current administration. Headlines from Detroit Free Press "Anti-terror Plan a Failure" and the Macomb Daily "Security under Scrutiny." Please note the Passive Sentences used.

Wednesday, March 24. Terrorist Hearings with featured witness Richard Clarke (author of a newly released Bush-slamming book, now for sale at your local bookstore) gave us these headlines: The Detroit Free Press "Terror Testimony TAKES AIM at Bush", or Macomb Daily "Clarke says Bush IGNORED TERRORISM." Takes aim? Ignored Terrorism? Not so passive, anymore. These look like action verbs don't they?

My national "News" Magazine, March 15th Newsweek "The CONTROVERSY over President George W. Bush's new TV ads featuring FAKE FIREFIGHTERS and FLEETING images of the 9/11 attacks THREW campaign officials on the DEFENSIVE -- and raised questions about the Bush team's ability to EFFECTIVELY spend its MASSIVE $150 Million WAR CHEST, some GOP INSIDERS SAY..." As usual, they don't tell us who the GOP insiders are (I always think if they can't tell me who the speaker is, it must be the janitor) - and note the purposeful lie: SOME GOP INSIDERS SAY, after all those adjectives and action verbs. The following week, in a 1 paragraph "correction" just after letters to the editor, Newsweek "regretted" (not apologized) for relying on information supplied by a member of the campaign's media team (Note: "a" as in ONE! -- not the 3 sources we came to expect from the Washington's Post Watergate investigations, and not the INSIDERS --plural, and, again, who? The janitor? Why is this a protected source? He's not a whistle blower, he is talking about the making of an campaign advertisement, for goodness sake.)

Speaking of Newsweek, did you check out the March 22, 2004 issue, especially the double trunk photo on pages 26 & 27? As part of their report on the 3/11 terrorist attack of commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, they demonstrate the current mentality of today's journalists. The first word on the page is "INCOMPREHENSIBLE". I agree. Why would you feature center stage a poor dead (or dying) young woman -- someone's daughter, someone's mother, someone's friend, someone's sister? Why? From the thousands of photos to choose from? Oh -- right. The naked tit. Yes, tit. Of course. Find a dead or dying young woman whose bodice has been ripped open from a horrific blast; show her entire left breast exposed, bloody nipple and all. That is the quality of today's journalists. Why is no one offended? Where is the FCC? Still looking at Janet Jackson's Nipple instead?

Last fall, my sister said that during the presidency of George W Bush, more jobs have been lost then during any other time in this century. At first, I said it was totally impossible, things could not possibly be worse then they were during the Great Depression. Then, it occurred to me, we were only in the third year of this century -- and so stated. She said, oh, no, she meant in the last 100 years. I said I didn't believe it. She said statistics don't lie, She has heard the reports on the news. I think she wondered who I thought I was to not believe a radio reporter. And I think I thought statistics can and are manipulated for the purpose of the speaker. But she said, I said, she said, I said.

Next time we talked, she asked if I was willing to concede that 2,000,000 jobs have been lost since George W Bush took office, and it was the worst job loss in 70 years (notice she changed it). Then I said, she said, I said, she said.

So I went to the source of such figures, the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. It was true, in a 30-month period, 2.2 million workers lost their jobs, actually .79 percent (point seven nine percent) of the total labor population.

But I also noticed in a couple rows above...

In the early 1980's 2.8 million workers lost jobs, and that was 1.24 percent (one point two four, almost twice as much) of the total labor population lost jobs.

The press is claiming more jobs have been lost under the current president then have been lost in a century??? I could not find out how many lost jobs during the Great Depression, but according to Britannica, it was 25%-30% of the labor force.

I emailed the info to my sister who emailed back that she was quoting Greenspan in a CBS Jan 26th report. Unfortunately, CBS was not quoting Alan Greenspan. As is the common practice of today, very few quotes are used. Instead, the article said things like "Greenspan sought to address fears that many of the 2.8 million manufacturing jobs lost..." But wait. Who said he was addressing fears, or that those were the fears he was addressing? It's from nothing Greenspan stated, obviously, or they would have quoted him. Another CBS report on February 13th gives Hillary Clinton credit for the same type remarks, actually they claimed she chided Bush (well, gee, I have to admit I believe she probably did chide Bush) noting 2.9 million jobs were lost, including 2.8 million manufacturing jobs. But again, no quotes. We don't know what she really said. We don't know where she got her figures. All we know is that the writer of the report has decided to make this a campaign issue.

Modern journalists today are allowed to print anything, especially if they are just regurgitating what another journalist said or printed. No accountability.

How many times are we going to hear phrases like "As reported in a story from the Washington Post" or "As reported from a source at the White House". We either need to demand honesty and ethics and unbiased news from all our journalists, or we need to rid ourselves of "Freedom of the Press" because right now, the press has absolutely no accountability. It lies, it cheats, it destroys politicians, and it can be bought. In fact, there are almost no news sources today that are not profit driven. And the alternative news sources were created for the purpose of responding with Extreme Bias -- it is their mission.

There is no incentive for journalists to work hard, no incentive for them to verify information. If it is a story slanted to their personal beliefs -- oh well -- they are just quoting. What happened to my Editor back in the '70's who considered wire services as story leads only (not stories to be published), who said "If it is important enough to print, it is important enough to assign a reporter."

And when did all these adjectives and adverbs take up residence in our news? I don't care if the flagrantly unremorseful Mr. Story went up the steep, wide, cold marble stairs hastily with a murderous grin on his ashen face, as he arrogantly submitted his disdainful resignation; all I want to know is that he went up the stairs, and submitted his resignation.

That is news. Just the facts. All the rest is editorializing, and belongs in the back of section A. Not in published-as-gospel AP stories, not in the ticker at the bottom of the news channels, not on the front page.

 When Life Is More Important Than Voting For Homecoming Queen

Last month there was considerable uproar over the Urban Outfitters t-shirt that proudly displays "Voting is for Old People." I actually didn't hear about this disgusting (and mediocre) attempt at irony until rather late. Since the nearest Urban Outfitters is several hundred miles from my home, it wasn't exactly a priority for me. Yet needless to say, I too was outraged. It is infuriating to me on so many levels, but particularly because as a government and civics teacher who actively tries to get young people to vote, not to mention as an avid follower of politics, such a statement, no matter how "playful," goes against everything that I believe in.

Last weekend I once again had the opportunity to participate as an advisor for Michigan Youth In Government. Youth In Government is a YMCA program (though generally run through schools) engaging high school students in a mock legislative process. This was my sixth year with the program, and it gets better every time. Students research and write legislative bills, then go to the Michigan Capitol to debate and pass these potential laws using parliamentary procedure. The students come from all walks of life and have all kinds of beliefs, but one thing is certain: these kids don't think that voting is for "old people." It is simply amazing to walk into that historic building and see 14-18 year old kids arguing out legislation, sitting in the actual seats that our elected representatives do. All because they are hoping to make a difference in their world.

The experience can best be summed up by the story of a state representative who was in the Capitol building while Youth In Government was in session. He stopped for a moment on the House floor and listened to a rather heated debate between a student from inner city Detroit and a student from small farming community. The representative looked at a nearby advisor and said, "This is wonderful! They are really amazing! Where did they get the script?" The advisor looked blankly at the representative and said, "There is no script. This is real." The representative couldn't believe that not only were such passionate words being debated, but also that the quality of those words was so high as to surpass even the most seasoned of public speakers. In topics ranging from gay marriage (a bill they passed) to the death penalty (which they defeated) to rumble strips on the roadways (passed) to requiring a world religions class as a requirement for a state certified diploma (which not only passed but won "best bill"), these kids put democracy in action, and in the process, most of the rest of us to shame.

Many experts claim (rightfully) that the transient nature of 18-24 year olds prevents them from voting, but that can't be the whole truth. How can it be? When only 36.1% of 18-24 year olds vote, it cannot possibly only be because they are away at college, or the military, or off working. Even if the law is sometimes against them (as it is here in Michigan, where your voting address has to be the same as what is on your driver's license – a good idea except it in effect discourages young people who are away from home from voting) there have to be other reasons as to why there are not a greater number of young voters coming to the polls.

Perhaps what we "old people" are really afraid of is that young voters might stop feeling disillusioned, or convinced one vote couldn't make a difference, and instead actually get involved in the political process. It is a hard conclusion to come to, but in an election year, it is a harsh reality. If an eighteen year old votes, it has the same power as a sixty-five year old that votes. And the same power as a thirty-two year old that votes. Whether you are a soccer mom, a NASCAR dad, a member of the AARP or voting for the very first time, each vote is counted exactly the same (hanging and dimpled chads aside, of course). Traditionally, 18-24 year olds don't vote in great numbers and therefore aren't considered by many candidates to be a group worth courting. Hence, issues important to young voters aren't spoken about on the campaign trail, and so young voters become disillusioned with their candidates who don't (or won't) deal with their issues. So they don't vote. And the cycle begins anew.

John Foster-Keddie, the 26 year old (of the 50.5% voting 25-34 year old demographic) designer of the infamous Urban Outfitters shirt claims, "This shirt's real intention is to sum up the current state of political affairs, pointing a finger at all of us who've been so apathetic in the past." But that is a platitude. It is a tired expression of insincerity and a poor example of irony. Oh, and it's wrong as evidenced by youth voter turnout in the 1960 and 1992 presidential elections. As someone who is close in age to that demographic that is so lacking in voter participation, Mr. Foster-Keddie should know better.

Mr. Foster-Keddie's words discourage voter participation in young people. And that is exactly what mainstream America wants. They don't want young people to vote because it might mean taking the conversation away from those who do. It might mean having to face serious issues that young people care about. It might mean looking at social security from the standpoint of someone who is going to need it fifty years from now rather than five years from now. It might mean having to have a conversation about foreign policy that exists in shades of gray, not Cold War black and white. It might mean having to talk about the environment and renewable energy and the potential trillions of dollars of economic growth that goes with it, rather than only oil, coal and the short term fixes whose problems won't appear until the older voter is dead. And yes, it might mean looking at gay marriage, the death penalty and even rumble strips on America's roadways. Issues that are important to America's youth. But we don't want that. We are afraid that there is some sort of finite amount of political conversation in this country and if we deviate from that even slightly then what we want to talk about will somehow be lost forever. So we manipulate what is cool and hip to serve a broader political purpose. We should be ashamed.

As I reflect on the discussions and ideas those high school kids threw around the Michigan Capitol, I am reminded that young people have ideas and a passion for making the world a better place. I am reminded that young people will work with the system to affect the change they want. I am reminded that there are quite a few young people out there who do think that voting makes a difference, regardless of their age, and will fight to assure their voice is heard. To me, there's hope in these reminders, and for that, I am thankful.

 A Mother's Response

I agree, the Spanish voters have empowered the terrorists. So have the capitalists that sold them weapons. But I disagree that what goes on in Guantanamo Bay, or any other foreign prison we send suspected and known terrorists to, has anything to do with (wink wink) psychological warfare. I think the prisoners are kept in places where torture is legal. To what extent we allow that system of interrogation to go on is at the military's discretion. And that is not what we Americans expect from ourselves.

One of the saddest lessons I have learned in my life is that once very moral people do horrific evil things in the name of war. The Polaroids and letters from Vietnam describing what was done with prisoners were as bad as you can imagine. And the stories my uncle confessed to my mother after WWII were just as bad. It wasn't just that war or this war -- it is all wars.

The atrocities that are done to a soldier by the enemy are nowhere near as appalling as the monstrous things the soldier himself becomes when in a position of dominance over said enemy. That is why war needs to be eradicated from the human psyche -- not for the physical harm it does to them and to us, but for the harm it does to our souls, to our spirits. It is the mob mentality in the arena of a sporting event 100-fold, with weapons, and hatred, and unrestrained violence.

A song from the 1920's: "I didn't raise my son to be a soldier, I raised him up to be my pride and joy. Who dares to put a musket on his shoulder, to shoot some other mother's darling boy? Let nations arbitrate their future problems, put down your guns and learn to walk away. There'd be no war today, if mothers all would say: I didn't raise my boy to be a soldier."

I know. It is more complicated then that, now, since we quit the arbitration process. We didn't put all our passion into a peace. Not one of us gave it our all. Now we are in a war over there, and we haven't even begun to fight. Or to suffer. Or to sacrifice. We haven't even started the Victory Gardens, the scrap metal and rubber drives, the food rationing and gas rationing. We haven't been throwing every spare penny into war bonds. We haven't begun to fight. And this war, as all wars, once released upon the earth cannot be recanted.

 Capturing the Truth

I recently read today's provocative "My Hell in Camp X-Ray" article published in the popular British magazine "The Mirror." It's the firsthand account of a British detainee recently released from Guantanamo Bay, whose story has been picked up by all the major news organizations. I read it a second time, in its entirety, and then a third. Ultimately, although my libertarian side is generally distrustful of government power, and although I continue to express serious concern about some of the legal issues surrounding Guantanamo procedures, I just can't accept this man's story as valid. Read it for yourself, be horrified, but then stop and think about the logistics of what he's alleging.

Al-Harith describes brutal physical and psychological torture on a mass scale. Frequent beatings. Unnecessary amputations. Mind games. The forced viewing of masturbating prostitutes, including women who smeared menstrual blood across inmates' faces. Black drinking water, and food expired more than ten years. The list goes on.

Shocking and outrageous if true, clearly. But think about your friends and family serving in the military. Don't you think one of them might have raised an objection, or gone public if these things were happening? Or what about others released from Guantanamo? Don't you think a few of them might have corroborated some of these allegations?

I'm reminded of the recent, brilliant documentary "Capturing the Friedmans," covering a father and son charged and convicted of hundreds of counts of sexual abuse -- which, when described in detail, fall apart under the impossibility of the stories. Parents would allegedly drop their children off for a computer class, and the father and son instructors would, among other equally shocking activities, play "leapfrog" by anally raping each student in a big circle in the center of the room. Yet no student (among over 100 total) ever complained, and parents never noticed anything wrong when they arrived an hour later to pick them up. The students even signed up for next year's courses.

The sheer volume of these claims, of repeated, public rape, should have made the case collapse under its own weight. It's not a matter of whether such evil people could exist, but rather a matter of the logistical impossibility (or at least extreme improbability) of the charges. And while the film itself tried to be as evenhanded as possible, allowing the viewer to come to the obvious conclusion that, at the very least, the allegations must have been exaggerated, the newly released DVD presents nearly all the collected evidence, making it impossible for any rational person to allow for the possibility of the men's guilt. Indeed, this research is helping Jesse (the son) vacate his conviction after serving 13 years for a crime he didn't commit. He even has the backing of the former students who continue to insist nothing ever happened, including the few who at the time were bribed, coerced or threatened into originally "admitting" they had been abused.

And so, back to Guantanamo, you have to think of the big picture -- in today's world, the military couldn't keep these kinds of abuses covered up on such a large scale. The International Red Cross (ICRC) has met with the prisoners and continues to make regular visits. According to the ICRC, the staff "speak to the internees in private, without supervision by the authorities." They have called most of the allegations made in the past (none of which rise to the level of the recent ones) "distortions." It would seem unlikely that, of all people, the very U.S.-critical ICRC would be complicit in such a massive cover-up.

Even the BBC's own reporting, which was designed to shock with the human rights abuse angle, directly conflicts with many of Al-Harith's claims, particularly with regards to disallowing showers, water, and prayer. Even the CBS investigation, again if anything trying to slant the story against Guantanamo policy, finds nothing even approaching the recent Mirror article.

In other words, either Al-Harith is lying, or everyone else, every military person serving there, every Muslim chaplain, every Red Cross volunteer, every foreign and domestic reporter, every single one of them is lying. This becomes an issue not of believability, but logic.

Judging by the pack mentality of the online anti-Bush/anti-America crowds since the story was released, Al-Harith's accusations will be accepted as unchallenged gospel. Of course every possible negative claim against Bush's evil henchmen must be correct -- we, after all, are the villainous thugs who started this whole mess. All the Guantanamo prisoners are helpless innocents who would never dream of harming anyone, other than perhaps in self defense against the capitalist/Christian "war against Islam."

In reality, none of us knows how the prisoners have been treated. I'm certainly open to the possibility that some of the claims have some basis in fact. But the unsubstantiated outrageousness of much of this story makes me cast doubt on the veracity of even the smaller allegations, and helps to renew, not diminish, my faith in the integrity of our military. And just as in the case of Jesse Friedman, I sure as hell hope my logic and gut feelings are right.

 Granholm is Driving Me Crazy

If you have ever driven certain expressways around Lansing, you know what it might feel like to be the last living person on Earth. It is an eerie experience, lanes and lanes of cement and concrete, and no one in your way. You can change lanes, you can zig zag from far left to far right. And no one would ever know. I imagine all that roadway serves some purpose. Perhaps on weekdays between 3:30pm and 3:35pm there is some mass exit from The Lansing factory. Perhaps a whistle blows and hundreds and thousands of cars make their brief appearances. I don't know. I don't live there.

Maybe that is why it enrages me so when I hear that Governor Jennifer Granholm has signed a law that tells us, the Metro Detroiters, how we must drive on our Metro Detroit roads. She doesn't know. She doesn't live here.

But she expects us to move over a lane whenever there is an emergency vehicle or a tow truck on the side of the road! (If you can, and of course you can 'cause it's the law and you know you'll have to or you may get stopped and if you can't find your proof of insurance right away it is another $300 fine on top of the $50 & 90 days in jail for not changing lanes.) It's not bad enough that they took over our right to drive in the right and left lanes (they were re-labeled "Shoulders" back when I was a kid). But now they want to take away our right to drive in the adjoining lanes as well. Typical politics from the ivory tower, isn't it? Can't you just see Granholm in the back of her chauffeur-driven limo, noticing a wrecker on the side of the road and thinking "Gee, I have a good idea." But no, she would never ask the chauffeur what he thinks. Salaried people never ever ask hourly people how their autocratic whims will effect our lives.

So here I sit in Detroit, where we have three lanes of bumper to bumper lights and chrome all trying to dance in synchronized order, trying to pace ourselves to one another so we can get on and off merging ramps. The Shriners' parade motorcycles have nothing on us. If we are exceptionally agile, it takes us just less than forty-five minutes to go the fifteen miles to work -- well, if there is no rain, nor snow, nor fog, nor ice.

We are not courteous drivers around here. We try not to even look at each other in case the guy in the next lane is crazier then the one tailgating behind the guy in front who is talking on the cell phone next to the gal who is screaming at her kids while trying to curl her eyelashes.

No one waves you through. No one lets you in their lane (it is their lane, after all, and they are not going to share it). Changing lanes in Detroit is an adrenalin rush and a challenge to even the fittest and most sober of drivers. And now, we are in March, the beginning of spring and the beginning of lane closures and construction projects. All too soon, when we want to go the 15 miles to work, it will take sixty minutes, maybe ninety minutes. If we are lucky.

I don't mean to be unsympathetic to policemen, EMS workers and now tow truck drivers that are perched every five miles assisting some unfortunate. I am not even unsympathetic to the construction workers and flag girls. But we already have a great law on the books that states when emergency and road workers are out, traffic is required to slow down to 45 or 50 miles per hour. This law has never been enforced.

Instead, the few people that do show enough common sense to slow down are labeled "Gawkers" by the press.

Why create a new law when the old law was never given a chance? When emergency vehicles on the road, all lanes, by law, should slow down. Maybe even lower it to 30 mph. Then, we could get out of the lane if needed in a safe and orderly manner without creating more accidents, more grid locks, and more stressed out crazies.

 Mel's Passion is Not for Me

Please don't show me the Immaculate Conception. Please. I really don't need to see it to believe in it.

And you can keep the home videos of The Birth, while you're at it.

And you can definitely keep Mel Gibson's well-known passion for torture and pain. Whether it concerns Lethal Weapons, Patriots, Conspiracy Theories, or Bravehearts, Mel Gibson sure does love to show men suffering. My sister said it is because he does it so well. Maybe. But what a thing to be good at.

I, too, am grateful for all that God has done for us and for me. But I do not put my religious emphasis on the death and resurrection. I put it on the teachings and understandings. I don't celebrate the death, I celebrate the life. God raised up his Son from death, and His Son raised up Lazarus from death -- but I don't worship Lazarus, do you?

We all have suffered torture and pain to varying degrees -- we are all living in fragile bodies. But certain cruelties, like the unspeakable purposeful torture by fellow humans to each other, are too painful to enjoy with popcorn. Look at the Inquisition! All in the name of some Pope trying to possess the Chalice, the Holy Grail, the cup that held Christ's blood (or bloodline). Just look at what Vann Nath and Bou Meng suffered through in Cambodia. You can, you know -- their paintings and stories are all over the Web. Three days? They were tortured and beaten for a year! 16,000 were beaten, tortured, starved, and finally murdered in Cambodia's Killing Fields. And of course six million Jews (and more than twice that number when you add in Ukranians, Poles, and Yugoslavians) were tortured, beaten, starved, and murdered in the nazi concentration camps. They didn't even have the divine knowledge of an immediate here-after. Unlike Christ, they died for nothing. Which is the more depressing story?

Sorry, but this has always been a bone of contention between Christian church and me -- since Jesus was pretty sure He was the Son of God or Son of Man, He knew He was suffering for our sins, He knew He would make a path for us to follow Him into Heaven to be with God, He knew. He knew.

Mary Magdalene said "Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you. But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men."

 A Little Housekeeping

I apologize for being a little missing in action with regards to ludicrosity postings this past month; I hope you've enjoyed some of the guest columns in the interim. It's not that I've run out of things to say -- far from it -- but have been caught up with some busy weeks in my personal and professional life which interfere with my column-writing time. Still, there are two ludicrosity.com events that I'm working on which you may find of interest:

• We will soon have the ability to view articles by topic, author, and/or a keyword search


• We will soon be releasing Volume One of our ludicrosity articles in book form, along with additional comments and opinion

Until then, thank you for your continued readership, comments, and emails, and it's nice to see our visitor count expanding every month. And don't worry -- I've got plenty to comment with regards to Kerry coming up.