Confirmation

Last spring when it was months and months away (and thus seemed like “nothing” to agree to) I agreed to help out with the church Confirmation class. Today was the first day I was scheduled to be there. I wasn't sure it was the best idea with various things that needed to be done (for example, I am so far behind on e-mail, not to mention OfB), but it turned out to be a super night.

Sometime I'll have to talk about confirmation. It is something very near and dear to my heart, and especially with the pastor teaching it — he was my confirmation teacher, so it is kind of neat to return to the class years later and help out the current class. At any rate, back to my story…

When the class broke up into small groups, I quizzed four students on the books of the Bible and their first set of catechism questions (more on that later, for those wondering — and no, I'm not Catholic). They did good at that and also seemed to enjoy the game we played.

Before hand my pastor invited me over to dinner to discuss what I would be helping with this year. What I didn't know was that him and his wife had conspired to have a surprise birthday cake (my birthday is on Friday) for me at the end of supper. It was a great surprise — hey, isn't anything chocolate a good even without a surprise attached?

So, it was a good day. But now I am tuckered, so for now… good night.

On Media Bias

Because I've seen, during this whole Rathergate thing, a lot of people either arguing that the media has no bias or that it is controlled by a vast conspiracy, I felt it was high time to present again what I feel is a more realistic view. Before I get to that, let me link to two must read editorials on the issue, both from former CBS News employees:

• Throwing the Book at Them by Dennis E. Powell, The National Review. Dennis is a good friend of mine, check out his piece.
• 60 Minutes of Fame by Bernard Goldberg, The Wall Street Journal.

I wanted to present the view that I believe most conservatives and some liberals — at least those who have taken time to formulate a position about the media — will agree with. That is the view best expressed by Bernard Goldberg in his books Bias and Arrogance. It has also been expressed by Bill Sammon of the Washington Times and, yes, even Rush Limbaugh. Mr. Goldberg, as you may know, is a former CBS News reporter and is also, at least according to himself, a life long Democrat (which, as he notes in the book, means his motivation has been from concerns for good journalism rather than political partisanship).

Essentially, Goldberg and others who agree with him, believe the media is not part of a vast conspiracy (right wing or left wing), but rather certain key non-conspiratorial factors lead to a general left leaning world view within the press. Broken down into their basic forms, they are:

1. Mindset: Why do journalists get into journalism? Many say that it is because they want to “make a difference” rather than to “report the facts” or “inform people so they can intelligently make up their own minds” (not that they imply they do not feel they are reporting the facts, simply that does not seem to be the main objective). This often seems to be a left leaning activist type mindset to challenge the “establishment.”
2. Education: The major journalism schools, such as Columbia School of Journalism, have professors who are generally acknowledged to be liberal either by themselves or others analyzing their records.
3. Location: Most of the major reporting takes place in two of the most liberal cities in America: New York and Washington, D.C. Even Republicans in New York are often liberal, perhaps to the point where they would vote for Democrats if they lived in Missouri and voted by the issues rather than by the name of the party. The press lives and works within these liberal cities and are likely to be at least somewhat impacted by the world view of the place they live in.
4. Colleagues: This is what causes some of the biases to perpetuate. Each generation of reporters presumably comes up under the leadership of the last (at least most of the time). So they are impacted by the methods and beliefs of those they work with and respect. Since the major networks generally do not tap outside talent (say, a bunch of conservative reporters in the Midwest, for instance), this creates a situation where the ideology that media members believe in continues through the ranks over time. This has a lot in common with argument three. This is not a case of being forced to believe a certain way so much as a case of being influenced over time by those around you.

The net result here is that in a poll that Mr. Goldberg cites, from the late eighties or early nineties, approximately 10% of media correspondents in, I believe it was Washington D.C., who voted in the 1984 election said they voted for President Ronald Reagan. This provides a very stark example of how bias could occur without any conspiracy, simply because there are not enough opposing voices in the media to call into question common beliefs and assumptions of that group.

Thus, for example, if it turns out that [it was still questionable when I originally wrote this — I meant to post this several days ago] Ret. Lt. Col. Bill Burkett was the producer of the documents, a group composed mostly of liberals might be less prone to questioning the credibility of Mr. Burkett (if he says what they assume to be the truth — that President Bush lied about his National Guard record) than a group composed with a strong mix of liberals and conservatives. This isn't accusing liberals of anything — people just see what they want to see. Fox News is good proof of that on the conservative side.

Now let me slip in one bit of defense here, because I know the common objection to this position: “The media sure gave Clinton a hard time.” That is true, but the thing is, that does not conflict with this theory. Remember, this argument suggests that the media is generally biased because of the views of the individuals in it, not by a top-down conspiracy that forces the issue. Thus, if President Clinton could be used as a vehicle for a journalist to gain fame and a glowing promotion that only a breaking story could provide, that will probably override even their political leanings. Everyone wants to get the big story. Bill Sammon, on the other hand, argues he feels the media felt “betrayed” by the Clinton Administration since most of them presumably voted for President Clinton and then they had to watch different scandals occur. I do not agree with that latter theory, but I present it in addition to the former to show that there are several ways to explain the press's treatment of the former president without explaining away a liberal bias.

Weird Quotient

I found this while cleaning my hard disk, I must have saved it in a file for later posting at some point. I don't even remember when I originally took it anymore, but here it is.

BREAKING NEWS from CBS News

Here are some CBS News press releases asisaid was able to obtain from an unimpeachable source. I will not be able to provide the source's name for fear that it might endanger that source's health and well being.

• MEMO ONE: White House is Actually Blue
• MEMO TWO: CBS News Announces New Spokesman

White House is Actually Blue
NEW YORK (CBS News) — CBS News has obtained documents that confirm, without a doubt, that the White House is actually Blueberry Buckle blue, a shade of paint produced by Behr Process Corporation. It is true that the documents appear to be incorrect, at first, since the White House appears to be a shade near what its name implies, but that simply is not the case.

According to Dan Rather, anchor of CBS Evening News, “These documents are true. This story is true. It is as true as a sweating bird on a 110 degree day.” Rather, who reported these findings on Wednesday in a shocking 60 Minutes II segment, explained that the White House has actually been painted with Behr's Blueberry Buckle since the days of George Washington.

When close minded partisans questioned the omniscient report, pointing to the fact that the White House clearly seems to have a white coloration, Rather responded, “it is possible that a certain color of blue could actually look white.” Other right wing conspiracy nuts argued that the White House could not have been painted Behr's Buckleberry Blue color since the time of the first president since Behr was founded in 1947. “The fact remains that some companies did produce Buckleberry Blue capable paint in the 1790's,” Rather explained during this morning's press conference.

CBS News also confirmed that it had brought in ink experts who had examined the paint on the White House and confirmed that it appeared to confirm what the CBS obtained memos stated. While one of those experts has since claimed that he only was shown several paint swatches that he confirmed could be from Behr, a CBS spokeswoman said “We believed him the first time we talked to him.”

Rather, when questioned about a possible retraction, insisted no apology would be coming. “We have reported serious questions about the color of the White House. Instead of nitpicking about the documents we discovered, both the President and Martha Stewart should answer the serious questions it raises about our country's decorating taste. This story is true.”

---

CBS News Announces New Spokesman
NEW YORK (CBS News) — CBS News announced today that it had secured a contract with the one person best known around the world for telling only the truth to fill the position of chief spokesman for the news agency. Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf will begin next Monday after moving into a new residence in Manhattan.

al-Sahaf, who formerly used his special talents for management and clear, truthful communication to operate the Iraqi Information Ministry, said he was delighted at the new position. “There are no Republican infidels in CBS News. Never!” he responded to assertions that CBS News might be connected to the vast right wing conspiracy.

While not yet officially in his position, al-Sahaf, who is still residing in Baghdad, which he told CBS News was still free from President Bush's imperial army, sprang to action when someone asked about CBS News's plummeting viewership. “I blame CNN and Fox News - they are marketing for the Republicans!”

Very Quizzical

Which Office Moron Are You?

I'll smoke you a kipper, because you'll be back for breakfast. You're the cult television show quoting, user account deleting, soap loathing IT Manager.

Something in your childhood has made you the way you are. You've been hired to provide a service to everyone else in the office - you make the computers run, and you make them run well. You've streamlined everything; you've removed all the viruses and installed all the firewalls. The only trouble - the only hole in your veneer of digital perfection - is the way you laugh at everyone.

If someone doesn't know UNIX, you laugh at them. If they lose their password, they laugh at them. If they visit a website using Microsoft Internet Explorer and their computer succumbs to an Internet worm, you laugh. Then you take a swig of your Coke, and with another hearty chuckle tell all your friends on IRC about the idiots you have to deal with.

Maybe it makes you feel better about yourself, although let's face it, you don't need help in that department. You're great, you. Fantastic like burning cool. If only those luddite office fools would let you play Unreal Tournament in peace.

[Thanks to Christopher, who's blog doesn't look like itself at the moment.]

Wictory Wednesday

Busy

Today was the kind of day that everything you thought you had settled came unsettled. Nothing “bad,” just a lot of things that need to be done that I thought I already had taken care of. Alas, that means (as MeanDean likes to say), life trumped blogging again today.

I didn't even get a chance to look at some of the new comments I noticed where posted. sigh Never fear, I'll be back tomorrow… I hope.

Spam Past Expiration

Weird news of the day: Spam Has Turned 100 years old. Shall we wish it a happy birthday? Nah, I don't think so.

I'm hungry

I've been really hungry at night lately. I'm not sure why. I had a big BBQ dinner from Bandana's Barbecue tonight, but I'm getting in the mood for a nice, big snack. A piece of pie or pizza seems to beckon… I may just have to go get myself one or the other.

Shakespearean Backache?

I decided to get the complete works of Shakespeare on Amazon a few weeks back. I'll need them eventually for a Shakespeare class, and I thought it might come in handy in the mean time. I read the description, which seemed to indicate it was 2057 pages in two volumes. That sounded alright. It might be a bit of a bear to hall around, but the part about putting it in two volumes seemed like a good idea.

It pays to read descriptions carefully.

As it turns out, that was the description for the more expensive version of the Riverside Shakespeare, not the one I ordered. I had the Amazon box sitting on the couch for the last week, and finally decided to open it up today. When I opened it, I quickly realized that it was not in two volumes. This thing is a monster. It is nearly a foot tall and 2/3 of the same in width. It is the better part of three inches thick, and must weigh about the same as a Ford Explorer. Or perhaps a Hummer. And speaking of cars, this book would be an ideal way for the local junkyard to crush old cars — of course, not much would be left after the collision. Not much left of the car, I mean — the book would certainly survive.

I thought about sending it back and ordering the $20 more expensive version that divides things into two volumes, but I think I've thought better of it. This is just a book that won't be traveling with me. If I need to carry the bard's works around, I shall get a single play at a time from Dover Thrift Editions. At a buck fifty a piece, its hard to imagine a better deal than Dover's republications of classic works.

Speaking of which, I ordered one of those too. I decided I needed my own personal copy of one of my favorite works, Voltaire's Candide. That's truly a delightful satire that I was sad to say I did not possess a copy of. I do now. For $3.00 (including a $1.50 handling fee for Amazon to get it from Dover — I'm not sure what that was about), I now own my very own copy. If that isn't “the best of all possible worlds,” it certainly is close enough. I'm sure Dr. Pangloss would agree.