* Posted previously and I thought maybe it needed saying again...
I bet you're thinking, 'What???' Let's take a look at this like it might actually exist.
Name a television entertainment program with a blue collar male that is something other than a dolt, an "Archie Bunker." Or try to find one where such a character isn't based around sloth and irresponsibility. I can think of 2 programs, "Made In America" and "Dirty Jobs" both of which are "reality TV." Regarding sloth and irresponsibility, productivity has increased virtually every year for 20 years. Workers today are getting more done in a work day than in the "good ole days."
Here's some reality to go with TV mindlessness, over a 20yr period most blue collar job wages have remained static or declined. Yes, working harder and better and making less. In that same period corporate profits have increased over 700%. Working for the same employer for an extended period is increasingly unlikely. Blue collar jobs are relentlessly dangerous and harmful to health, lower income health problems are frequently blamed on poor lifestyle choices, the reality is that the nature of the work is frequently the base problem.
A large percentage of skilled blue collar workers require a 2 income household to keep a family of 4 above the poverty line. This is not about extra income to buy expensive toys, this is about reliably keeping a roof, food, and transportation and these people are one health problem from disaster, if they have health insurance (unlikely) they face deductibles nearing 1/2 year wages which is very nearly pointless to have.
Blue collar workers face increasing employment competition with illegal hires. This competition takes two forms, one is direct hiring competition and the other is wage depression. This competition is largely ignored in any debate regarding illegal workers. The divorce between blue collar workers and their fellow citizens is increasingly evident. Debates arise concerning product pricing at market and the legality of the employees producing the product, statements are made to the effect that produce prices would skyrocket if legal hiring were in place, which ignores the fundamental fact that labor is one of the smallest portions of a product's price at market and that the associated costs of illegal employment far exceed the savings of illegal hiring. The educated "progressive" elements commiserate with the plight of illegal aliens and ignore the steady depredation on legal blue collar families. Apparently the ignorant buffoons of TV land are unworthy of concern.
No doubt voting patterns have influenced this trend. There is an apparent disregard of their own economic interest by blue collar voters as they have trended Republican. While this conflict in interest is obvious, many of its roots are not. There has been no evident economic policy benefiting blue collar over the last 20 years and that period is not all Republican. It is not difficult to see blue collar workers regarding their economic best interests as a hopeless case and voting some other interest that feels close to home. When a person has very little, perceived assaults on the few things they do hold are taken very seriously. One of the side effects of the gun control debate was to tell the blue collar worker that he is too ignorant and too irresponsible and too criminally inclined to own a firearm. His "betters" disapproved of the gun owning lifestyle. Accurate? Possibly not, politically potent? You bet.
These people trade their time and their bodies for income, they work long hard hours and get little for it. Little pay, little respect. Many jobs that 30 years ago were held in high esteem are now little regarded. It is not as though the work has changed, it is the point of view that has changed. Maybe it's time to give it a re-think. Maybe it's time to look around and see the things produced with the hands and backs of your fellows and give some regard to their value, all those paper assets and banknotes are derived from those things.
Showing posts with label Bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bias. Show all posts
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Confluence Of Circumstances
The other day while riding my old scooter home from the west side of the state I reflected while going through a curve that a set of events coming together at the proper time would be the end of me, despite my best efforts. It is a bit easier to see this when you are essentially naked at 65 miles per hour and flesh mangling objects are hurtling past at not much more than arm's length. This fact applies to much more than motorcycling.
All through our lives circumstances come together and create a reality that is counter to our plans, for good or ill. We have plans and we have ideas and yet a confluence of circumstances will drive our lives. Many of the cultural wars erupt from denial of this piece of life reality. Whatever ideas you may have about your children, abortion, gayness, ad infinitum are not it, and yet abortion and gayness and all the rest arrive into people's lives daily. Almost everyone knows intellectually that things happen, unforeseen and unplanned. But that happens to other people, not me.
Horseshit. Certainly men don't get pregnant, but someone in their life may and then the crapshoot starts. However that pregnancy occurred in planning, its happening alone is took quite a few factors coming together in rare confluence. Fortunately for the earth and humankind, conception isn't a foregone conclusion and from there it stays an iffy proposition, both physically and within the life situation of the mother and father. Pretending that one-size-fits-all is ludicrous and yet that is the debate.
People wind up gay. It happens and we all know it does because they exist. It isn't a part of anyone's plans to become a member of a despised minority. The fact that a majority of Americans don't despise them is small consolation in the face of the ones who do. Plans and ideas have nothing to do with it, a confluence of circumstances happened to someone and that's their life. We who were missed by it can't really understand but we don't have to in order to avoid actively making their lives miserable. It doesn't take an advanced degree in psychology to figure out that there are ways to avoid harming others, whether we understand them or not.
Pure stupid chance gave you a miss on having to deal with some issues and having to deal with others. It flatly doesn't matter if you were hit or missed by some confluence of circumstances, giving respect to those who were isn't a matter of having to experience their life. You don't get to be me and you don't have to live in my skin to be able to give me space to exist in relative happiness. It isn't about gods or books, or your personal experience in these areas, it is a matter of recognizing that life isn't predictable and has to be dealt with on its terms.
John Cole over at Balloon Juice pretty much nailed it with this line:
MYOB isn't all that hard and takes a heck of a lot less energy than making it your business to make someones life more difficult. If these kinds of things aren't for you, don't do them. The fact that John Doe is gay or Jane Smith needs an abortion is about them, not you. Gay marriage and the termination of pregnancy and a whole lot of things involve no one but those participating in or dealing with it. Rather than screw with people's lives who have no effect on yours, sit down and shut the hell up while you reflect on the narrow miss a confluence of circumstances gave you.
All through our lives circumstances come together and create a reality that is counter to our plans, for good or ill. We have plans and we have ideas and yet a confluence of circumstances will drive our lives. Many of the cultural wars erupt from denial of this piece of life reality. Whatever ideas you may have about your children, abortion, gayness, ad infinitum are not it, and yet abortion and gayness and all the rest arrive into people's lives daily. Almost everyone knows intellectually that things happen, unforeseen and unplanned. But that happens to other people, not me.
Horseshit. Certainly men don't get pregnant, but someone in their life may and then the crapshoot starts. However that pregnancy occurred in planning, its happening alone is took quite a few factors coming together in rare confluence. Fortunately for the earth and humankind, conception isn't a foregone conclusion and from there it stays an iffy proposition, both physically and within the life situation of the mother and father. Pretending that one-size-fits-all is ludicrous and yet that is the debate.
People wind up gay. It happens and we all know it does because they exist. It isn't a part of anyone's plans to become a member of a despised minority. The fact that a majority of Americans don't despise them is small consolation in the face of the ones who do. Plans and ideas have nothing to do with it, a confluence of circumstances happened to someone and that's their life. We who were missed by it can't really understand but we don't have to in order to avoid actively making their lives miserable. It doesn't take an advanced degree in psychology to figure out that there are ways to avoid harming others, whether we understand them or not.
Pure stupid chance gave you a miss on having to deal with some issues and having to deal with others. It flatly doesn't matter if you were hit or missed by some confluence of circumstances, giving respect to those who were isn't a matter of having to experience their life. You don't get to be me and you don't have to live in my skin to be able to give me space to exist in relative happiness. It isn't about gods or books, or your personal experience in these areas, it is a matter of recognizing that life isn't predictable and has to be dealt with on its terms.
John Cole over at Balloon Juice pretty much nailed it with this line:
What this country really needs right now is a serious case of mind your own damned business. We’ve turned into a nation of busybodies and scolds, and people just need to back off.
MYOB isn't all that hard and takes a heck of a lot less energy than making it your business to make someones life more difficult. If these kinds of things aren't for you, don't do them. The fact that John Doe is gay or Jane Smith needs an abortion is about them, not you. Gay marriage and the termination of pregnancy and a whole lot of things involve no one but those participating in or dealing with it. Rather than screw with people's lives who have no effect on yours, sit down and shut the hell up while you reflect on the narrow miss a confluence of circumstances gave you.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Soldiers, No Fags
Nope, I won't apologize for the ugly word, if you want to talk about "don't ask, don't tell," and the military you either can play nice and get absolutely no where or you can put things in the terms they're really about. It is not a soft issue, it is an issue of military unit cohesion and discipline. That's what they say, anyhow. Somehow it seems a bit more like politics than unit security. There is a bond in military service, along with other dangerous occupations, that bond develops through shared risk and shared values, not sex. There are informal rules of behavior within any such organization which cannot be violated without risk, but these rules are known to all members and seldom violated.
The military has fired 58 Arab language specialists for being gay. It is really difficult to understand how their gayness balances against our national security needs for Arabic speakers. It apparently also mystifies Rep. Marty Meehan who has sent Rep Ike Skelton of the Armed Services Committee a letter signed by 40 members asking the committee to hold hearings regarding the linguists.
There is something much more offensive in the policy than the word used to illustrate it, there is a concept that the sexual orientation of a citizen affects their ability, capacity, or moral fitness to serve their nation. Their nation. It is not an issue of "us" versus "them," it is an issue of the United States of America against all comers, our nation. This is just plain stupidity and rank bigotry.
The military has fired 58 Arab language specialists for being gay. It is really difficult to understand how their gayness balances against our national security needs for Arabic speakers. It apparently also mystifies Rep. Marty Meehan who has sent Rep Ike Skelton of the Armed Services Committee a letter signed by 40 members asking the committee to hold hearings regarding the linguists.
There is something much more offensive in the policy than the word used to illustrate it, there is a concept that the sexual orientation of a citizen affects their ability, capacity, or moral fitness to serve their nation. Their nation. It is not an issue of "us" versus "them," it is an issue of the United States of America against all comers, our nation. This is just plain stupidity and rank bigotry.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Zumbo and the New York Times
I don't expect the NYT to get much right on guns, gun owners, and the 2nd Amendment, but I would about half expect them to get journalism a bit better. The NYT has had its own problems with journalists and fired them. They get this much almost right,
"He of all people should have known that “ban” is the mother of all fighting words to gun zealots."
Zealots is an unfortunate word, pretty loaded and dismissive, for people who care about a right that is enumerated second in the BOR. You begin to get a feeling about where this is coming from, but what the Times is ignoring is that first part of the sentence about him knowing and the journalistic aspect of his statement,
“Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist,” he wrote, “but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity.” He added: “To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods.”
The statement is not only inflammatory it is basically inaccurate. I have to wonder how long the NYT would keep a journalist around who publicly advocated the suppression of publication of news critical of government and used false information and analogies to present it.
"One or two say that instead of cementing their reputations for reflexively enshrining gun ownership above everything, they might have asked Mr. Zumbo what he was talking about. They might even have had a healthy debate. But they shot first."
So, the NYT would like to have a nice healthy debate about their right to publish on the basis of a false and inflammatory piece by one of their own? The NYT fires people for this kind of story. But that's about the news, not guns, thus sacrosanct. I did notice that a previous Editorial put a great deal of emphasis on governmental infringements of liberty and justice.
"He of all people should have known that “ban” is the mother of all fighting words to gun zealots."
Zealots is an unfortunate word, pretty loaded and dismissive, for people who care about a right that is enumerated second in the BOR. You begin to get a feeling about where this is coming from, but what the Times is ignoring is that first part of the sentence about him knowing and the journalistic aspect of his statement,
“Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist,” he wrote, “but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity.” He added: “To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods.”
The statement is not only inflammatory it is basically inaccurate. I have to wonder how long the NYT would keep a journalist around who publicly advocated the suppression of publication of news critical of government and used false information and analogies to present it.
"One or two say that instead of cementing their reputations for reflexively enshrining gun ownership above everything, they might have asked Mr. Zumbo what he was talking about. They might even have had a healthy debate. But they shot first."
So, the NYT would like to have a nice healthy debate about their right to publish on the basis of a false and inflammatory piece by one of their own? The NYT fires people for this kind of story. But that's about the news, not guns, thus sacrosanct. I did notice that a previous Editorial put a great deal of emphasis on governmental infringements of liberty and justice.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Racist or Something 24
I've never watched this show. I've never watched it because I don't care to have Fox trying to scare me with fiction when I've got all this reality going on. Reality that's almost completely divorced from this show's premise.
CNN has an article up from AP about a Muslim organization, Council on American-Islamic Relations, that is quite upset with Fox and 24 for their depiction of terrorists who, this time, happen to be Muslims. I won't bother you with the show's disclaimers about using other groups, this is a thriller show with various villainous groups trying to do, I gather, very bad things to Americans. Oddly enough, the complaint isn't that the show is sensationalist crap built on tragedy and horror for the benefit of profiteering war mongers, no, the problem is that the villains are identifiable. Keeeerrriiiiipes....
No, I'm real far from being a PC sort of guy in this kind of thing, I value people by their behavior - first their actions and then their speech - so trying to get my knickers in a wad because the villains in a piece of fiction happen to belong to a group pretty similar to ones actually dedicated to harming the US is plain stupid. Fiction about gangs tends to have Hispanics followed by Blacks as the gang members, prison fiction tends to have large minority representation, oddly enough reflective of demographics. It is pointless to turn around and tell me how peaceful a religion Islam is, there are Hispanic and Black surgeons also, so what?
If these CAIR folks are serious about this, rather than fund raising, they should be actively kicking BushCo's butt. This fear and paranoia is a direct outcome of those people. OK, Fox is a piece of work for trying to capitalize on it, but what exactly were Hill Street Blues, Homicide, et al all about? I didn't notice that the influential movie Mississippi Burning had Black KKK'ers, seemed to be a bunch of white guys. Hey, anybody notice that the Democratic Party of Oregon has a Gun Owners Caucus despite the knuckle dragging GOP'ers image of firearm owners by some "liberals." You know what, there are knuckle dragging GOP gunowners and they're fair game.
Here's the point, if you belong to a group that has some bad actors it's pretty disingenuous to act as though having them portrayed as bad actors is bigoted. If you're afraid to go to the store, it's about something a heck of a lot more insidious than a TV show, like a government based on hate and fear.
CNN has an article up from AP about a Muslim organization, Council on American-Islamic Relations, that is quite upset with Fox and 24 for their depiction of terrorists who, this time, happen to be Muslims. I won't bother you with the show's disclaimers about using other groups, this is a thriller show with various villainous groups trying to do, I gather, very bad things to Americans. Oddly enough, the complaint isn't that the show is sensationalist crap built on tragedy and horror for the benefit of profiteering war mongers, no, the problem is that the villains are identifiable. Keeeerrriiiiipes....
No, I'm real far from being a PC sort of guy in this kind of thing, I value people by their behavior - first their actions and then their speech - so trying to get my knickers in a wad because the villains in a piece of fiction happen to belong to a group pretty similar to ones actually dedicated to harming the US is plain stupid. Fiction about gangs tends to have Hispanics followed by Blacks as the gang members, prison fiction tends to have large minority representation, oddly enough reflective of demographics. It is pointless to turn around and tell me how peaceful a religion Islam is, there are Hispanic and Black surgeons also, so what?
If these CAIR folks are serious about this, rather than fund raising, they should be actively kicking BushCo's butt. This fear and paranoia is a direct outcome of those people. OK, Fox is a piece of work for trying to capitalize on it, but what exactly were Hill Street Blues, Homicide, et al all about? I didn't notice that the influential movie Mississippi Burning had Black KKK'ers, seemed to be a bunch of white guys. Hey, anybody notice that the Democratic Party of Oregon has a Gun Owners Caucus despite the knuckle dragging GOP'ers image of firearm owners by some "liberals." You know what, there are knuckle dragging GOP gunowners and they're fair game.
Here's the point, if you belong to a group that has some bad actors it's pretty disingenuous to act as though having them portrayed as bad actors is bigoted. If you're afraid to go to the store, it's about something a heck of a lot more insidious than a TV show, like a government based on hate and fear.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
A Biased Media
My last post provoked some thinking and much of what's been going on for the last few years just sort of piled on for the ride. I do think there is medial bias and I think it goes deeper than is commonly acknowleged. I'm also not sure the topic is broken up into realistic segments.
I think there are different types of media bias that occur for different reasons. The foremost bias right now seems to be political Party bias. In this one we see some of the big issues, corporatization of media, constriction of ownership, governmental interference, governmental favors. Corporate media has problems with the other corporate owned elements and additionally with corporate advertisers. Constricted ownership means a restriction of voices and neglect of local or regional perspective. Government threats are obvious enough, but favors granted are less so, Fox is an excellent example of a favor owed.
There are deeper biases, these are sociological and economic. The background of reporters and editors matters. The ability to clearly see issues in their various facets is to a great extent driven by experience. This is not to say that it is necessary to be, for example, gay to report on a story that has implications for the gay community, but it is important to have a solid background on that community, to know what the implications are actually are. This backgrounding is important, I have read in major stories some of the most profoundly ignorant statements made regarding firearms, the authors and editors had no evident knowledge of a firearm beyond, "it goes bang." The obvious problem is that factually inaccurate information is bruited as "news." The factual inaccuracies are bad enough, but there is additionally the lack of understanding of gun owners, the people - a varied lot - not a simple demographic or statistic. There is a blindness to vast segments of society, these are people who live very different lives than the reporters and editors and there is a divorcement in experience and perspective which leads to important pieces of the news picture being missed or ignored.
When a news story regarding the vandalism of some logging trucks runs, a reporter with little understanding of small business can easily neglect the aspect of the story involving the total ruin of a logger's business which devalues the actual crime committed, it becomes on par with sitting down in a road. A lifetime's work destroyed and hard working honest employees out of work is a real consequence that needs public awareness. This little article can scarcely touch on these aspects, but hopefully spark some thinking and critical news watching.
I doubt that it is possible to avoid all such instances of bias or ignorance, but it certainly is possible to attempt to minimize them. This requires an acknowlegement of ignorance and a willingness to do something about it, I'm afraid there's an arrogance that precludes it.
I think there are different types of media bias that occur for different reasons. The foremost bias right now seems to be political Party bias. In this one we see some of the big issues, corporatization of media, constriction of ownership, governmental interference, governmental favors. Corporate media has problems with the other corporate owned elements and additionally with corporate advertisers. Constricted ownership means a restriction of voices and neglect of local or regional perspective. Government threats are obvious enough, but favors granted are less so, Fox is an excellent example of a favor owed.
There are deeper biases, these are sociological and economic. The background of reporters and editors matters. The ability to clearly see issues in their various facets is to a great extent driven by experience. This is not to say that it is necessary to be, for example, gay to report on a story that has implications for the gay community, but it is important to have a solid background on that community, to know what the implications are actually are. This backgrounding is important, I have read in major stories some of the most profoundly ignorant statements made regarding firearms, the authors and editors had no evident knowledge of a firearm beyond, "it goes bang." The obvious problem is that factually inaccurate information is bruited as "news." The factual inaccuracies are bad enough, but there is additionally the lack of understanding of gun owners, the people - a varied lot - not a simple demographic or statistic. There is a blindness to vast segments of society, these are people who live very different lives than the reporters and editors and there is a divorcement in experience and perspective which leads to important pieces of the news picture being missed or ignored.
When a news story regarding the vandalism of some logging trucks runs, a reporter with little understanding of small business can easily neglect the aspect of the story involving the total ruin of a logger's business which devalues the actual crime committed, it becomes on par with sitting down in a road. A lifetime's work destroyed and hard working honest employees out of work is a real consequence that needs public awareness. This little article can scarcely touch on these aspects, but hopefully spark some thinking and critical news watching.
I doubt that it is possible to avoid all such instances of bias or ignorance, but it certainly is possible to attempt to minimize them. This requires an acknowlegement of ignorance and a willingness to do something about it, I'm afraid there's an arrogance that precludes it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)