THE TRUTH VERSUS TV NEWS: I’m not one of those conservative people who whine all day about liberal bias in the news media. Nor do I lose sleep about all the conservative talk shows on the radio today (although I regret it, because for me, radio was made for music and not for blather). But I am concerned about how the press sometimes twists a story around to make it seem more juicy than it really is (and thus sell more ads and maximize profits – ah yes, good old capitalism at work once again). Why is this a problem? Because most of us get our info about what’s happening in the world from the news media, and we expect that it’s pretty much the truth. But what if something other than the truth is coming through, so as to maximize profits?

I saw a clear example of this recently where I work. The local affiliate of a “big three” TV network ran a story on the evening news about a police incident where an unarmed 20 year old was shot and killed by a policeman at a fast food place. My employer, the local district attorney’s office, is in charge of conducting the investigation of that case. If warranted, we will refer the case to a grand jury as to decide whether homicide charges against the cop are appropriate. From what little I’ve heard, the case is tricky and time is needed to check out all possible leads. The guy who was shot and his friend (who was there) aren’t exactly model citizens; both have been in trouble, and one recently got out of prison.

Nevertheless, the local TV station decided to sic its investigative reporters on us and run a story about how we’re covering things up so as to let the cop get away with murder. Interestingly enough, the victim’s family is represented by a semi-famous activist lawyer who does a daily talk show on the radio affiliate of this station. So, by sensationalizing the case, the station can increase ad revenues on both the TV side and the radio side! Anyway, the TV reporter interviewed the main witness to the shooting (the victim’s friend), and got him to say that our office never contacted him. Ergo, we must be trying to cover the whole thing up to protect the police officer in question. Scandal uncovered!

Well, on the afternoon before that story was broadcast, the boss district attorney gave an interview to the TV station. She told them various things that were quoted verbatim on the news that night, i.e. about the medical examiner’s report, about the officer in question’s present status, and about when the case could be expected to go to the grand jury. She also told them that our Office had interviewed the main witness on the night of the shooting, and had a statement in writing that he signed that night. Hmmm, somehow the TV news people forgot to mention that inconvenient little fact. Why? Because it would blow their main piece of evidence against us to shreds.

The next day, the station ran a follow-up story. This time they did in fact mention that we had talked with the main witness – sort of. What the “news team” did was have their reporter ask an attorney from the activist lawyer’s office to comment on our claim. The reporter set the tone: “they say there was someone from the AG’s office there that night”. Oh yea, this is grilling, get-to-the-bottom investigative questioning at its best. Of course, the guy hits a soft pitch like this right out of the park: “WHO???? No prosecuting attorney has contacted the witness!!! Your station is doing much more than the DA’s Office in investigating this case!!!”

Gee, that makes sense if you don’t think about it. But guess what? My boss never said that a PROSECUTING ATTORNEY took the statement; we said that an INVESTIGATOR (a sworn police officer) took that statement — which is what investigators get paid to do. And we gave the TV station that fact in writing. But nevertheless, the impression that our Office is doing something evil was maintained, thanks to some shrewd news editing.

And just what can our Office do to help get the truth out to the public? Pretty much nothing. Back in the 50s and 60s, there was something called the federal fairness doctrine, whereby TV and radio stations were held to certain fairness standards. The federal law said that you could request air time to present your side of the story. If the issue was important enough, they had to give you some air time (even though it would probably be on Monday morning at 3 AM). But, good old Ronald Reagan and his friends at the FCC decided to ditch the fairness doctrine. So now the broadcast media can pretty much do what it wants with the facts, so long as it avoids Howard Stern language or Janet Jackson-style wardrobe failures.

So . . . . don’t believe everything you see or read on the news. The news media ain’t all that much different from a car dealership. Money talks, but as to TRUTH . . . . well, if the customer thinks he or she is happy, they they’ve done their job. Don’t let them. All news media is suspect, but the TV stuff is especially vulnerable to distortion. BOYCOTT FOR-PROFIT TV NEWS!!!

(And see ya, Dan R. What’s the frequency anyway, Kenneth?)

A DEVIL OF A TIME: I just read an article about a new college course that the Vatican offers to Roman Catholic priests regarding exorcism and the devil. The Roman Pontifical Academy recently set up this course in response to the big “devil problem” they’re having over in Italy. A lot of kids have been tuning in to “Satanism” there lately. This new interest in Beelzebub supposedly encouraged the stabbing death of a 19 year old girl in Italy a few years ago. The accused are all members of a metal band called “The Beasts of Satan”, and they allegedly believed the girl to have been the next Virgin Mary.

Hello, what millennium is this? Have we zoomed back to 1005 AD? Have we traded the legacy of the Enlightenment for a return to the Dark Ages? I agree that Satan worship amidst the young isn’t a good thing, especially if it leads the metal-gothic crowd to start acting out their bizarre fantasies. But I mostly blame the Catholic Church for keeping the idea of Satan alive and well for all these centuries.

When, may I ask, is the “BIG C” church going to grow up? Pope John Paul II still gives sermons denouncing the devil as “a cosmic liar and murderer”. But it’s clear that the Church also lies and maybe even murders (e.g., through its regressive policies regarding AIDS prevention, and through its homophobic attitudes). So, can you really blame a disturbed kid who sees hypocrisy under the cross and thus runs to what the Church deems to be its polar opposite?

Not that things here in the good old USA are all that peachy either. Our recent presidential election showed that old-time religion is alive and well, and that plenty of people toy with the notion of trading our rights and our individual freedoms for a righteous kingdom. OK, folks, so Locke and Rousseau and Jefferson and the rest of the Enlightenment crowd didn’t bring us Heaven on Earth. Sure, the ideals of science and rationality don’t fulfill every human need; there’s still a dark and mysterious corner of the mind and the soul that needs to be reckoned with. There’s still a deep need for art, for prayer, for song, and for a pathway to the eternal.

But at least the Enlightenment (when truly enlightened) offers a way to acknowledge and explore those needs in a respectful and civilized fashion. The Catholic Church, along with its fundamentalist imitators, never made peace with the Enlightenment (which admittedly inspired the very shabby treatment of religious types in the 18th Century, e.g. during the French Revolution). Today, the Lord Jesus people finally have the philosophes and the libertines on the ropes, only to find that the Church’s own worst nightmares have arisen in their place. Hey, the followers of Freud were able to show that in the end, a nightmare is just a dream. What happens when the Freudians are gone and the Satanic nightmares become real once more? Can all the exorcists in the world make you sleep well at night?

I’m still looking for a magnetic bow for my car that says “SAVE THE ENLIGHTEMENT”. As with democracy, the Enlightenment is a faulty ideal; but the others are so much worse.

Education and the 2004 Election:

What do these numbers tell us? Well, Bush had solid support amidst the great wide swath of voters who earned high school degrees and have zero to four years of college. Kerry found his support at the extremes; voters without high school degrees broke slightly for him, and people with post-graduate educations were fairly enthusiastic supporters.

My guess is that the drop-out crowd knows that they’re not appreciated by today’s economy, and hoped that the Democrats might show them some mercy. The post graduate crowd, by contrast, shouldn’t have much to worry about. They have the luxury to vote according to their progressive and idealistic beliefs. The great middle class, by contrast, believes they’re still in the game, but it’s a struggle. They can still make it on their own — maybe even make it big. But they live in constant fear of losing their good life due to a bad break; e.g., a corporate merger causes layoffs, their job is outsourced to India, they get hit with uninsured health costs, etc. They could either look at the government as their friend, a force to protect them from the extreme uncertainties of our modern techno-society; or they can see it as an enemy, something that drags them down with high taxes that go to support the unworthy.

The 2004 election results indicate that they generally take the enemy viewpoint. Yea, there is a “values gap” in America involving religion, marriage and property; the southern states and the land-locked states (red America) believe these things to be sacred, while northern states with shorelines (blue America) usually take a more nuanced and tolerant approach. But this values gap also extends to government. The blues and the post-grad people see government as necessary for a better life and a better world, even if they don’t always love it. The red folk seem to want government “off their backs”. They appear to think that America and its economy are rolling along just fine, if a bit unpredictably, and that they could deal with the unpredictability if they didn’t have to pay taxes.

This is the debate that America needs to have right now. Government — to be or not to be. If it is to be, then just how much? Why have a government? What good can it do? What bad side effects does it have? What does it cost? Is it worth the cost? In the past, philosophers justified the downsides of government thru the theory of social contract; we put on the yoke of laws and taxes in exchange for order and predictability (with certain protection mechanisms to avoid abuse of power, e.g. voting, constitutions and separations of power). Have things changed so much in our high-tech, interconnected world as to make that idea irrelevant? Can we all get in synch with each other without a king and a police force and a tax collector and a department of [fill in the blank] to boss us around? Can we do “long term best interest” by ourselves? Issue in focus: do we need government to support us once we can’t work (traditional Social Security), or should we keep the tax money and invest it ourselves (the new Bush proposal)?

The average American seems to think we don’t have much need for government (or at least not as much government). The most educated and the worst off seem to disagree. For now, let’s forget about biscotti versus blueberry pie with lard crust, and NASCAR versus the Sunday New York Times. Let’s even put the abortion and gay marriage stuff aside. Let’s go back to the drawing board regarding the institution of government. Let the red folk think about how they benefit from roads, schools, unemployment benefits, police protection, care for the injured and elderly, flood relief, farm insurance, etc.; then let them ponder where these things would come from without government.

At the same time, let the blue folk be honest about how government sometimes irks them, e.g. lavish subsidies for rich agri-business owners and military contractors. What is government doing that modern conditions no longer require? And what modern conditions require new forms of government involvement? How much government inefficiency and unfairness is inevitable, and how much can we tolerate? How can we encourage greater citizen trust and empowerment in government in today’s world? It’s a discussion worth having — a discussion that should interest high school drop-outs, PhDs, and everyone in between.

Some notes from an article entitled “Massless Media” in the February, 2005 Atlantic: America is getting “niched”. Back in the very old days of the 50s and early 60s, we suburbanites pretty much watched the same TV shows, bought the same cars, listened to the same music, went to see the same movies, read the same books, had the same kind of furniture, etc. However, in our modern economy, with all of its technology and innovations, the range of consumer choices set before us has greatly expanded. Thus, we’re now encouraged to have differing, individualized tastes. A top marketing guy at McDonalds was quoted as saying that “we’ve had a change from ‘I want to be normal’ to ‘I want to be special’”.

OK then, is Mickey D’s gonna expand its menu as to offer some real choices, like maybe healthy meals made from fresh, local ingredients? There certainly is a niche of people (including myself) who would like to see that. But don’t hold your breath. What the Mickey D guy wants to do is to use advertising to make you feel special; he’s not talking about actually changing the product. And, I suspect, most of the other “specializing” of America is also just a surface phenomenon. Beneath the skin, most people in middle America are still pretty much the same. They all want their SUVs, McMansions and McDonalds, whether or not they can afford the first two.

A few lines later, the author of that article asks, “what is blogging if not a celebration of the self?” Hmmm. I suppose that a lot of blogs are awfully self-indulgent. And even the more though-oriented bloggers (like yours truly) have our “hey look at me” moments. But a lot of blogs are actually oriented toward ideas, same as the article where that quote came from. Even more blogs focus on a specific interest or hobby. So no, I don’t agree that blogging reflects a growing narcissism in America. Bloggers are definitely another “niche market”, but I think we blog mainly to share stuff with others, and not to show off. I think that bloggers contribute to, instead of take away from, the notion of “community” in a digital world.

Oh, one more thing about the February Atlantic (aside from that scary cover and the scary story by Richard Clarke about the future of terrorism in America). There’s a really good fiction story that exemplifies what eternal studentdom is all about (“Lost in the Meritocracy” by Walter Kirn, on page 142). The guy in the story is a brilliant anti-student, but in the end he sees the light. Sort of like a religious conversion. “I no longer cared about advancement. I wanted to lose myself. I wanted to read. I wanted to find out what others thought.” Ah, I love stories with happy endings.

WAITIN’ FOR THE END OF THE WORLD: Remember that tune from Elvis Costello? Remember Elvis Costello? OK, so I’m showing my age.

Nonetheless, I thought of that song the other day after listening to some CD lectures about Jesus. The Historical Jesus, that is. If you’ve been reading my web log, you know that I’m a sucker for those “Great Courses” from the Teaching Company. (No, this is not a paid ad!! Being an eternal student, I just happen to like them!) Since I have a deep interest in the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth, the course about The Historical Jesus was a must for me. It’s by Prof. Bart Ehrman, a scholar who is trying to give John Crossnan a run for the money in terms of public popularity.

I haven’t seen Ehrman on TV yet (although I have seen Prof. Crossnan interviewed on various documentaries about Jesus and First Century Palestine, e.g. From Jesus to Christ; then there’s Prof. Paula Fredriksen, who I think gets on these shows mostly because she’s a babe). However, it probably won’t be long before Ehrman faces the camera, as he has a number of books that you can now find at the local Barnes & Noble. His magnus opus would be Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium, published in 1999.

Well anyway, Ehrman’s big idea is this: the main, primary, numero uno thing about Jesus is that he was an apocalypticist. Jesus definitely believed that the world as he knew it was coming to an end. He really thought that the day of reckoning was imminent. He wasn’t making any plans for retirement. He was totally serious in what he said in the Bible about God coming into the world and establishing His Kingdom on Earth, gathering forth the elect to live in a real living Paradise while casting the evil ones into some kind of fiery realm. Jesus was totally convinced that his disciples and followers were going to live to see it. He wasn’t just saying that to get attention, or referring to some cosmic after-life event or something that might happen thousands of years in the future, or what you might experience during meditation. Jesus actually figured that the mighty, haughty Romans and the corrupt Jews who ran the Temple Establishment of his day had finally gotten God’s dander up beyond the boiling point, and it was up to him to sound the alarm.

I’ve read quite a number of books about the various viewpoints that different scholars have about Jesus. Some say he was a liberation theologist, some say he was a proto-feminist, some paint him as an anti-establishment hippie, others say he was a Buddha-like spiritual wise man. I myself pictured Jesus as a religious reformer who wanted to universalize Judaism and turn the struggle for the Promised Land into a quest for inner peace. As Ehrman says, we all would like to believe that Jesus was thinking of us and our modern world. But no, sez Ehrman, actually he wasn’t. He was doing something that we’d now throw you in an institution for . . . . i.e., going around telling people to repent, for the Day of Judgement is near!

I hate to say it, but Ehrman makes an awfully good case about that. His theory seems to snugly fit around the factual and conceptual structure that surrounds what is known about Jesus and the world he lived in. Ehrman seems to explain a lot more things than most of the other pop scholars do. He puts a trunk load of things into perspective and gives you a whole rash of “ah-ha!” moments.

Well, I’m not finished with the lectures yet, but I’m already thinking that I may have to change my web site article about Jesus. I may have to see Jesus in a somewhat different light. Not that the apocalypse stuff makes Jesus totally irrelevant to us. But it does limit just how seriously we should take some of his words (and also justifies the fact that we never really took his words all that seriously anyway). I mean, if God is not gonna be taking charge of things next week, then maybe you can’t just give all you own to the poor. If Jesus and his followers really did believe that the time had come, then doing radical stuff like that wasn’t so crazy or difficult for them. But if the world is gonna just keep schleping on pretty much the same as it always has, then maybe we shouldn’t feel so guilty about not living up to Jesus’ lofty ideals. Those ideals have made a lot of people feel guilt over the past 20 centuries, including myself. But if Jesus really thought that it was only a matter of months until Utopia arrived, then maybe we’ve been too hard on ourselves.

The thing that gets me is, how did so many people in ancient Palestine come to literally accept and believe in what Jesus was saying about the upcoming Parousia? We know that it wasn’t just Jesus and his followers. The idea of apocalypse was in the air throughout Jesus’ ministry, and had been for some time. There were other prophets of the apocalypse in the region, both before and after Jesus – John the Baptist was one, but then there was also Theudius, and the Egyptian, and probably lots of others who were never mentioned on a written scroll that survived to the modern era. And then of course, there was the Essene community at Qumran. They were expecting an apocalypse big time; but unlike John and Jesus they just huddled together in the desert and didn’t go around preaching about it. How did such an idea, which today we’d call “wishful thinking”, come to be accepted as fact by so many people?

Well OK, it was a pre-scientific era, when myth and magic were the main events. Life was very different then. And so, I guess, were the minds of people. Does this mean that Jesus is totally irrelevant to modern times as a moral and spiritual guide? No, of course not. Even if Jesus had died for a mistaken cause, the fact remains that he died out of love for his people. He gave up what may have been a relatively comfortable life as a village craftsman for an uncertain and ultimately fatal mission to save people from doom once the Son of Man appeared in the clouds. He did what he did out of love and passion. I don’t think that even the most skeptical of academians and rationalists (like myself) can ever take that away from Jesus.

CRAWLIN’ FROM THE WRECKAGE: I usually don’t share the daily events of my life on this blog, because they ain’t all that interesting. I prefer to tell you about the book or the article that I’m reading, rather than describe how I’m sitting in my living room doing some reading. But once in a great while, something happens in my life that merits mention.

Last Sunday afternoon, something like that happened. I’d like to tell you that I fell in love with the woman of my dreams or that I found the path to world peace. But I’m afraid that just wasn’t in the cards last Sunday. Nope, instead it was a 20 year old woman behind the wheel of a Mitsubishi sports car and a patch of snow and ice that caused her to crash into my car. Yea, I’ve finally been in a serious car accident. My car was totaled.

And me? Well, I walked away from it. (Little Ms. G also walked away from her skidding Mitsubishi, although she complained of some dizziness.) But now I’m faced with an assortment of big hassles, like buying another car and trying to keep the insurance company from pinning part of the blame on me (thus increasing my rates). And it’s definitely a financial setback; a 6 year old car like mine isn’t worth much in an insurance settlement. Had it lived, it might have worked for another 6 years. (Oh sure, theoretically I could use the settlement and buy an equivalent 6 year old car; but in the real world, there are no equivalents. You buy an old car and you don’t know what you’re getting, other than someone else’s problems. At least with your own junker, you know what to expect.)

But mostly I’m just plain sad about losing the car. I’m one of those guys who gets emotionally involved with his car. To see it just taken away in a split second like that is rather traumatic.

How was it, you ask, i.e. the moment of impact? Well, actually it wasn’t all that bad. It wasn’t any worse than being yelled at by your boss. At first I really didn’t think that all that much damage had been done. But the next day, when I went to clean the car out at the towing place, I saw what really happened. Glass was broken, metal was twisted, wires and switch boxes were hanging out of the hood, and the front end was just totally mashed in. I could hardly believe it. And then I had a thought . . . . it looked as though my car had died so that I could live. It absorbed the energy of the impact so that I could walk away with nothing much more than a bruised knee. And that made me feel even sadder.

Another Sunday memory: after the cop came and made out his report, little Ms. G got out her cell phone and called up her parents, who came to get her in their SUV. The best I could do was to convince the cop to give me a ride to the town border (although in the end, he took me to within a few blocks of my apartment). Yea, being in your 50’s means no more mommy and daddy to call when you screw up. You’re on your own buddy, out in the cold (and it was quite cold that day, in the mid-20s).

Oh well. At least I was a gentleman. I didn’t yell at little Ms. G or threaten to sue her. And just for the record, she did apologize (not that that’s gonna get me anything more from the insurance company). So, I can be proud of maintaining and encouraging civility in the midst of very uncivilized circumstances. Hopefully, Ms. G will learn how to control a skid and grow up to be a good wife and mother, and will someday teach her kids the value of civilized behavior. Well, I can dream, can’t I???

But too bad about the car (a Chevy Prizm). It had some quirks, but it was generally a good car. I’ll miss it. I would hum a few bars from Neil Young’s “Long May You Run” in tribute, but that baby’s running days are over. All I can say now is “rust in peace”.

BLOG FOR ADAM: I used to work with a young guy named Adam. Adam was a construction guy thru and thru. He did his time out in the cold swinging hammers and saws and paint buckets and all that stuff, and was mostly a foreman by the time I met him. Adam was a leader of men — construction men, real men. I was the grant writer for a non-profit group that had a lot of low-income housing, and Adam kept the properties from falling apart. Even though I wasn’t quite as much of a “real man” as Adam and his cronies, we still got along pretty well.

Adam was quite outgoing and had a lot of interesting things to say about the construction trades and the world in general. One interesting Adamism was that you could never trust a contractor whose name started with “Garden State”; e.g., Garden State Excavation, Garden State Tile and Marble, Garden State Heating and Cooling, Garden State Whatever. I’m not sure what his logic was there, but the day went faster when Adam was around, sharing his pearls of construction wisdom.

I’ve made Adam sound like the stereotypical lug. But in fact, Adam came from a rich family and had a college degree. He could be tasteful and classy when he wanted to be. And he was high tech; he taught me how to use the web, how to use search engines, how to use FTP, etc. Adam was both a stereotype and a stereotype breaker. But aren’t we all these days.

And then there was this guy Rudy, another construction guy I remember from the non-profit. Rudy was an older guy, but he also broke the mold a bit (and sometimes, he and Adam almost broke each other’s heads). But that’s another story for another day.

ONE LAST THING: If you like old TV show theme songs, here’s a page where you can download some free (albeit low quality) mp3’s from classic shows. www.melaman2.com/tvshows/mp3/. I don’t guarantee that it’s legal; you’re on your own in that regard. But the selection is quite good. I especially liked the theme from the Green Hornet, a jazzy trumpet version of “Flight of the Bumblebee” by Al Hirt. I don’t recall what an episode of the Green Hornet was like (I was drawn more to the Man From Uncle), but I clearly remember that dynamic song at the start of the show. I didn’t see the Kill Bill movies (too dark for me), but I read somewhere that they used “Flight of the Green Hornet” for one scene. Yea, nice to know that a cool song from 1967 can still be considered cool today. (I mean, back in 1967, which I remember only too well, a song from 1930 could definitely NOT be considered cool — or was it just that the recording equipment was so crappy back then?).

KOJAK: GREEK MYTHOLOGY. Back in the mid-1970s, I was a big fan of Kojak, a cop show on CBS. Not that I was a big cop show fan, nor was I a big Telly Savalas fan. But there was something about the character that Mr. Savalas portrayed, i.e. Theo Kojak. If you don’t recall the show, or wasn’t even born at the time, Kojak was a fictional New York Police lieutenant assigned to the Manhattan South district. Kojak was far from a “Dirty Harry” kind of cop, but he wasn’t exactly by-the-book either. His former partner, Frank McNeil, knew how to play Department politics, and thus became Captain of Investigations and Kojak’s boss. Obviously, Kojak wasn’t into political correctness. He was on a mission to get the bad guys and help the good people, even when the Department got in the way.

That was the true charm of Kojak. The NYPD was not portrayed as totally evil, but you were made aware of the political maneuvering and the occasional corruption of its members. I’ve read that a lot of real cops thought Kojak was one of the most realistic cop shows ever. Sometimes, Lieutenant Kojak’s biggest foil was the internal friction of working with his supervisors and co-workers. And yet, he never gave in to it. He approached each murder or robbery with the same “do or die” attitude. It wasn’t just his job. It was his life. Theo Kojak was portrayed as a middle-aged bachelor, assumedly without kids. Although he dated women (so as to keep the gay faction from claiming him) and knew how to have a good time, there really wasn’t anything else in his life but the Force. And there he made his stand. Everything else probably went wrong for him, but this he would do right. He would go after the bad guys, not just enough to make it to retirement, but enough to make a difference in the world.

It must have been a tough role for Telly Savalas, portraying a noble loser who never gave in. And yet, he did it beautifully. Sure, his gruff coolness, his lollipops and his “who loves ya baby” attitude masked the usual pallor that losers carry. And on most nights, Kojak got his man, although not without some ironies. But ultimately, Kojak was a Greek myth, the Sisyphus who kept rolling the rock up the mountain even if it would come right down again. On one episode, I remember him lecturing a cop gone bad, “yea, it’s a tough job, but ya gotta keep trying”. Ah, the noble irony, the fire that can’t be extinguished, the last man at his post on the night the world ended.

These days, I work for an urban law enforcement agency, though not in a very exciting role. I’m not at all like Kojak. But still, I face many of the same depressing realities that were admitted to in that show. And yes, it does get to me some days. Perhaps I need to do what the ancient Greeks did. Perhaps I need to turn to a myth. The Kojak myth.

(It’s just too darn bad that you can’t find old episodes being played anywhere, not even here in the NY area where the myth was born. And no, NYPD Blue is not a good substitute. Dennis Franz as Andy Sipowitz could never recreate the spirit of Lieutenant Theo Kojak. Just not Greek enough.)