Our incredibly fickle media turns all of its spotlights on Michael Jackson

Check out the home page of MSNBC tonight (click on the thumbnail below). Do you see ANYTHING about the crisis in Iran? Instead we are presented with endless drivel about Michael Jackson, who was an extremely talented entertainer many years ago. But I suppose that there is nothing interesting going on in Iran. And nothing much else going on anywhere else either, apparently. For all you can tell by looking at the MSNBC homepage, the problems in Iran have been entirely resolved. Or maybe the problem is that MSNBC doesn't have anybody on the ground in Iran, and when a tree falls in the forest where there aren't any mainstream media reporters, the tree didn't really fall at all. Even though sustained coverage of Iran is potentially a lifeline for the brave Iranian men and women who are standing up to their government, which apparently stole their national election. And BTW, had we elected John McCain and had he gotten his way to bomb Iran, would our media have tried to present an accurate viewpoint of these young heroes? Or would we have merely seen a reply of the Iraq invasion, lots of videos of bombs being dropped and missiles being launched? msnbc-no-iran MSNBC is merely doing what the rest of the commercial news sites are doing. ALL of the commercial news sites have decided that Michael Jackson is far more important than . . . well . . . everything else combined. See the thumbnails below to see the home pages of CNN and ABC. What do these news priorities say about our commercial news businesses, and what do they say about us as commercial news consumers? I'd suggest that this fickle coverage suggests that the commercial media doesn't take its job seriously. Not at all. cnn-not-much-iran abc-barely-mentions-iran Absolute insanity.

Continue ReadingOur incredibly fickle media turns all of its spotlights on Michael Jackson

It’s 2009

The June 8, 2009 edition of Missouri Lawyers Weekly (not available online) reports that only 1 out of the 17 current judges sitting on the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals are women. Her name is Diana Murphy and she was appointed by a Republican. All nine of the appointments to the 8th Circuit since 1994 (when Murphy was appointed) have been men. Each of these appointments is made by the President of the United States. To put this in context, 47% of the people receiving law degrees in 2007 have been women. Another note: Of the 179 total judges sitting on the 11 U.S. Courts of Appeals, 26% of them (47) are women.

Continue ReadingIt’s 2009

Why should scientists shun Templeton Foundation?

I've wondered why so many respected scientists participate in Templeton Foundation activities. One reason is money, but not all lovers of science acquiesce, as indicated on Richard Dawkins' site. For example:

I hope you will understand that this is by no means directed at you personally, but I don't engage in Templeton-associated matters. I cannot agree with the Templeton Foundation's project of trying to make religion respectable by conflating it with science; this is like mixing astrology with astronomy or voodoo with medical research, and I disapprove of Templeton's use of its great wealth to bribe compliance with this project. Templeton is to all intents and purposes a propaganda organisation for religious outlooks; it should honestly say so and equally honestly devote its money to prop up the antique superstitions it favours, and not pretend that questions of religion are of the same kind and on the same level as those of science.

Anthony Grayling

Here's one more excerpt from a letter to Edwin Cartlidge of the Templeton Foundation, this one by Daniel Dennett:

If you had said that you were studying the views of scientists, philosophers and, say, choreographers on this topic, I would at least be curious about what expertise choreographers could bring to it. If you had said scientists, philosophers, and astrologers, I would not even have replied to your invitation. The only reason I am replying is to let you know that I disapprove of the Templeton Foundation’s attempt to tie theologians to the coat tails of scientists and philosophers who actually do have expertise on this topic.

Continue ReadingWhy should scientists shun Templeton Foundation?

How and why to repeal Don’t ask, Don’t tell.

How and why should we repeal Don't ask, Don't tell? Everything you need to know is here, in this presentation by Lawrence J. Korb, Sean Duggan, and Laura Conley of the Center for American Progress. Here's the pdf. Here are some of the facts worth considering:

More than 32,500 gay and lesbian service men and women have been discharged from military service since 1980.

This policy may have cost the U.S. government up to $1.3 billion since 1980.

“No reputable or peer-reviewed study has ever shown that allowing service by openly gay personnel will compromise military effectiveness.”17

Twenty-four countries allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military. None of these have reported “any determent to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality,” according to the Palm Center, and “in the more than three decades since an overseas force first allowed gay men and lesbians to serve openly, no study has ever documented any detriment to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality in foreign armed services.”

Even the British, whose military structure and deployment patterns are most similar to ours—and who fiercely resisted allowing gays to serve in the military—were forced to do so by the European Court

What is step ONE for ending the deplorable status quo? "Issue an Executive Order banning further dismissals on the basis of DADT and send a legislative proposal on DADT repeal to Congress." We're waiting, Mr. Obama.

Continue ReadingHow and why to repeal Don’t ask, Don’t tell.

Why was Jeff Gannon (Jeff Guckert) spending so much time at the Bush White House?

Back in 2005, I was intrigued when the story broke that a fake reporter supposedly named "Jeff Gannon" somehow got access for White House press briefings. His real name turned out to be Jeff Guckert, and he had no credentials as a reporter. He didn't even qualify for a press pass. Really strange stuff. Actually, the story got much much stranger:

Investigative bloggers at Daily Kos and AmericaBlog.org discovered that Guckert owned male escort sites, and was himself a male prostitute.

I just ran across this 2005 Raw Story piece that goes into a lot more detail about Guckert/Gannon. Not only did he not belong at the White House at all, but it turns out that he was almost always there.

[D]ocuments obtained by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal Guckert had remarkable access to the White House . . . Guckert made more than 200 appearances at the White House during his two-year tenure with the fledging conservative websites GOPUSA and Talon News, attending 155 of 196 White House press briefings. He had little to no previous journalism experience, previously worked as a male escort, and was refused a congressional press pass.

If you read this Raw Story story, you'll be amazed at the many anomalies regarding Gluckert's White House visits. According to the linked Wikipedia and Raw Story articles:

The Secret Service Records appear to show that he checked in, but never checked out on many occasions, and visited the White House on several days during which no press conference or other press events were held.

You'll see all of the data regarding Gluckert's many visits at Raw Story. I don't remember this story (of the extent of Gluckert's White House access) ever getting covered by the mainstream media. I'll end with a question. It seems as though a huge percentage of gay bashers are conflicted closet gays. It was also clear that there were a LOT of gay-bashers in the Bush White House. To connect the dots, it would appear from Gluckert's real profession and his extensive White House access that he was visiting the White House to provide sexual services to someone who also spent a lot of time at the White House. So who was it that Gluckert was spending so much time with at the White House. Which of the Bush Administration anti-gay bigots was spending so much time with Gluckert? And one more question: Whenever a politician takes a strong anti-gay stand, shouldn't we immediately and automatically remove them from political office and require them to go to therapy so that they can work out their conflictedness regarding their sexual attractions toward members of the same sex?

Continue ReadingWhy was Jeff Gannon (Jeff Guckert) spending so much time at the Bush White House?