Media Smorgasbord: Now with less fat

In my post this week "Repeat After Us," I mentioned the likelihood that very few Americans check out the English version of al Jazeera. For those of you who are a bit curious, may I make a few suggestions? These articles are hard to come by on the American media stage, as of today:

Cuba signs human rights accords
Soldiering on after Putin
Denmark to oppose Sudan debt relief
Israel warns of Gazan "Holocaust"

These are some incredible news stories. Within days of Fidel Castro stepping down, the nation agreed to sign these important human rights accords set forth by the UN General Assembly back in 1966 (!), which Cuba previously held that if signed, they would be "cede [ing] to pressure from the US."

Who among us knew Russia was having elections?! I sure didn't. I was flabbergasted when I found Putin was on his way out to make way for a new President. The man was just voted Person of the Year by TIME magazine and has been said to restore some confidence back into Russia as being "more important."

Supporting Sudan debt relief, and the other problems associated with the displacement of refugees there, is about as hip a cause as you can support: All the American celebrities are doing it. So how can Denmark refuse to help these people? Well, it comes down the Muslim community decrying Denmark's publishing of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad: the country's president asked the Muslim world to boycott Danish goods.

Finally, there's that word again: Holocaust. Because Palestine has been firing rockets into Israel, the country threatens that Palestine is bringing a Holocaust (Hebrew: "shoah") upon themselves. Israel threatens "all [their] might" to defend themselves. Who can point me to Palestine's almighty military that will meet Israel's army if they invade? Not one of you can, because there isn't one. If you're interested in reading a bit of one person's perspective on Palestine and some history thereof, please visit this blog.

Gleaning our news from only American outlets is like overloading your diet on only carbohydrates or sugars: It's unhealthy for you. You need a balance of protein, amino acids, calcium and vitamins to round out your healthy news diet. I think most of us are much too bloated on Britney and Democrats for our own good.

Leap Year D.U.H.

Either CNN is having a slow news day, or they just are too lazy to make a decent headline that doesn't shove down our throats what we already are dreading. C'mon, it's Friday! Give us an incentive to click on those links.

Bush: We're in a slowdown
Bush on $4 gas: I hadn't heard that (this was the headline on the front page of CNN.com yesterday)

I don't know how clearer it can get: we KNOW the economy's in trouble. I don't bat an eye when I pay $3.50 a gallon for gas. My parents sigh heavily every time they look at their portfolio. But instead of publishing this kind of gloom and doom for the masses, how about reading this instead?

Glenn Beck: Don't follow the herd on economy

When it comes to American news outlets, I find that you have to wade through the muck before getting to the good stuff. Enjoy and happy Friday/Leap Year, folks!

Repeat After Us

When I first changed the name of this blog to rumi∞nation, I knew that the niche I wanted to settle my writing self in - one that will constantly be populated by new information and one, ironically, populated also by me, the media - was going to be a journey I'd started long ago, sitting in a college classroom in Erie, PA, exploring what we call language.

What is language, exactly? In the most basest of terms, it is merely an organized uttering of sounds from our vocal cords, or a series of dots and lines bent on the page. But then throw in culture, birthplace, geographical location, accent, and several other variables, and we find that these uttered sounds are both a constant and variable in themselves, the way our parents teach us how to understand those sounds and what they mean, even attaching the visual cue of language with those dots and lines, and making it a cohesive way of understanding, and communicating with, other humans. Yet while language is what binds the human race together, so it also forces us apart, in ways such that the utterances of Arabic are vastly different from those of Mandarin or, if you're from the part of the world I hail from, you'd know that language used by folks in Erie and Pittsburgh set themselves apart from the rest of the Northeast US.

(I understand that there are many other ways of communication with other humans, including nonvisual cues and sign languages, secret handshakes and even Morse code, but my interest is in that of what American media uses, chiefly written and spoken language, that I would like to address here today. As you can see, the concept of language is incredibly complicated, and one that I have only started to explore on my own beginning with my college years. This will not be the last time I return to this subject, so please bear with me as we scratch the surface together.)

The American media, as you have all seen, has used a curious way of manipulating language. I truly believe that, with a First Amendment-protected media, one must not take it all at face value, and understanding that what constitutes "news" in my parents' generation is not the same as it is today. It's a curious phenomenon when I visit my in-laws, when we all sit down and watch the 6 o'clock news in the evening. I realized that since I got married, I didn't watch the news anymore; I went online to get it. I subscribed to the local paper just to get the comics and the movie listings, one of those "just in case" situations, and even then I only got the Sunday paper. With the newspapers and news anchors giving me the information, I found that their choice of language (and, therefore, the news) was not something I was fond of.

My nitpicking of this not only found me to start looking at other sources of news other than the American media, but to also realize that I didn't like a news anchor choosing the words for me. Although I worked for the school newspaper in college, I realized that I was given the utterly huge responsibility of choosing the words to tell a story to the rest of the campus, and that their words to describe it were probably vastly different from mine (notwithstanding the fact that I was bound to AP-type rules and a relatively airtight filter of words I was not allowed to use, as well as keeping the reading to a 5th-grade level.)

Coming from this angle, of one person who has both experienced the media language from outside and within, I took much exception with this blog entry by a certain Mr. Jack Cafferty of CNN, who seemed quite on the offensive when he found out that Senator Clinton had thrown a swipe at the media, even accusing her of "whining" about the questions delivered on some of her more recent debates. He says: "It's a tactic as old as politics: things aren't going well, blame the media."

Oh, Jack. If only you knew the influence your words have on some people in this country. Sir, you seem to come from a line of thought that you are reporting "just the facts, ma'am." I beg to differ. While the American media is perhaps not directly responsible for Clinton's seemingly downward spiral in this election, you fail to recognize that too many people take your word as unerring fact, even when you willingly write a blog entry that is not based in cold, hard, number-calculating fact. I heartily disagree with your quickness to separate yourself from the huge influence, good or not, on anyone's campaign. What do you and your media cronies choose to report about Senator Clinton? Let's see: CNN has been quick to report any time Clinton sheds a tear or lashes an angry word. Do you wonder if you or your superiors are making this news because, alas, she is merely a woman and her emotions are fair game to the media? Ah, but now look what words I have put into your mouth!

Let's try a different angle, readers: How many of you have taken a gander at the English language version of al Jazeera online? How many of you just gasped right now for me publishing that in this blog? Al Jazeera is not the enemy, folks; you should check it out sometime. BBC is a pretty interesting read, but there's nothing like reading some of the things that our Muslim counterparts are checking out on their own media outlets.

I will admit that I do not publish much from non-American news outlets, but then again, my reading audience is interested in popular media, and a good percentage of them are American. But the byline of this blog states what I am trying to do by calling attention and shedding a much less favorable light on American media: an attempt to discover common sense we lost by exploring popular media. I believe that most of the general American public has lost some of their common sense by swallowing a lot of what is fed to us through the media outlets without so much as a morsel of a question mark with it. I'm not attacking when we report on the number of casualties abroad, for instance; it's folks like Jack Cafferty that, while he does echo some of my sentiments about a broad range of subjects, also perpetrate the myth that the American media indemnifies itself from the influence it has on those constantly in its spotlight. This is the language we are trained to understand, but truly, it's not the only one that we have the capability to understand; there are more out there. Many, many more.

So, Mr. Cafferty, you have more influence than you realize, but this is not wholly a compliment to you or your American media chums. While your contribution is most intriguing, understand that if CNN were ignored during Super Tuesday, I predict there would have been a struggle, albeit a successful one, to figure out the language on our own. After all, if this is truly a free media, that means we have the power to create, write, and speak our own media, correct? Could it be that the media is only what we, the American people, can make it? I believe it has the potential to be much more malleable that you or I realize.

Best of the Best of the Best?

Even if it's just for 15 minutes, we all like to have some sort of claim to fame. We like to talk about what famous people we've met and if we've ever been on TV. We like to talk about how far we've traveled and show off the beautiful/handsome person we married when we attend our 10-year high school reunions. Receiving that acceptance letter to college or a new job is even a demonstrate in fame, knowing that someone actually wants you for your accomplishments and thinks you're important enough to recruit to the organization.

But is there such a thing as us feeling too proud of ourselves? Can we take it too far? Let me show you an example: Forbes.com has named the 10 most lustful cities in America. Here, you can also see the other cities that top the list of the rest of the deadly sins: gluttony, avarice, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.

Interestingly enough, I've lived in or near several cities who top out some of these. Rochester and Buffalo NY tied for 10th place in the lust category, based on condom sales in those areas. San Francisco and San Jose topped out avarice and pride, ranking in the top three in both categories. I certainly don't call myself native to these areas, but when I think about Rochester NY beating out such "sexy" places as L.A. and NYC, I have to laugh. Does that mean we just protect ourselves better from STDs? It begs the question of how they gathered this information and came up with the results, and how they correlated those results with its Deadly Sin label. I mean, it's probably easy enough to come up with the average per capita income per person to correlate to "greedy" cities, and average BMI in a city to correlate to the "fattest," but envy based on how many cars are stolen?

Moreover, I find it also interesting that this was one of the most read articles on Forbes.com. It's like a weird way of people figuring out how they fit into the deadly sin superlatives. Who can forget those yearbook photos of smiling seniors rounding out who's most talented or most likely to succeed? Can you imagine your city being named the most envious or slothful, complete with a picture of the city's skyline?

You see it everywhere, though - your hometown probably has some sort of claim to fame or is home to the "World's Largest [fill in the blank]." Rochester is famed for its lilac collection and lilac festival every spring. San Jose was the pride and joy of the dot-com boom, and still boasts as headquarters to nearly everything that's in vogue with technology. San Francisco, well, aren't the bridges iconic enough around the world? My hometown, Erie, boasts itself as once the home of former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge and close to the hometown of Sharon Stone, and depends on its tourism of its state park, Presque Isle, as a beach getaway and part of the fascinating Great Lakes ecosystem.

Even though we are all different in DNA, we are all still human. Even though our cities brought up different celebrities, they still have a mayor and a City Council and favorite hangout downtown. Even though snowflakes are all different in their crystal shape, they're still all made out of frozen water. A lot of American media is based on the fact that there's lots of things going on that makes people or cities different from one another. When it comes to associations of the famous, the impressive, or just plain different, can we settle with being both different and the same? Does it defeat the purpose of how we look at what is newsworthy now? Can I arm myself with this new information about these sinful cities I've lived in, and boast the facts to strangers and acquaintances for their interest and approval?

We spend our lives trying to be different and yet fit in at the same time. We set ourselves apart from others in a job interview by outlining selected accomplishments, yet yearn to be part of a work force that works for the same board of directors. I attended college with many other students who yearned to be part of the Penn State family, but made sure I involved myself in different clubs and activities to set my accomplishments far apart from those students who would eventually become my professional rivals after graduation. So when it comes to figuring out if we've lived in a city that boasts itself as the most lustful, does that mean we're trying to associate with a group of citizens who can boast the same thing, or set us apart from the rest of the country vying for the same boasting rights? Perhaps it's a dichotomy that the U.S. media will always use to its advantage.

Saturday D.U.H.

Woman says being dead ruins life

"Baby... you ain't kidding." -Bill (Kill Bill Vol. 2)

A Guilty Pleasure

Most of the celeb gossip sites online remind me of the days in high school when kids would try to out-do each other's insults of the class [dork/jock/insert favorable stereotype here], inevitably droning on with more and more heartless drivel to see how many snickers they can get out of their audience. And I'm not talking about the Perez Hilton types of gossips who worship the own ground they walk on; it's the ones who probably loathe Perez Hilton and all others with the surname "Hilton."

But sometimes I come along some humor that is well-appreciated and written with a bit of care - dare I say nearly high-brow humor? - shining some truth on an otherwise ironic and painfully obvious situation. To wit: Click Here. (In order to avoid any copyright infringement on my part, you'll have to read the blog post at the site, since it includes a picture.)

Gossip blogs aren't known for their high-brow humor; how many nicknames can you come up for Paris Hilton? I've read so many, and none of them are safe for a family blog like this. I think the cleanest one I've read ever is Parasite Hilton. Now that's saying something.

Ballot Power

War time is never a good time for any people. If you think back to World War II, there were very few good things about it - sure, the economy remained buoyant because of the working female class while their husbands fought against all sorts of Axis evil forces. But remember how thousands upon thousands died? Remember Pearl Harbor? You didn't have to be alive; strikes against U.S. soil have notoriously been swiftly returned with brute force. There's death, there's finger pointing, there's arguments and, most of all, plenty of anger.

This country is seeing a lot of anger right now: Anger about the war, anger about subprime mortgages, anger about the sinking economy, anger about gas prices. Yet when I read articles like this, I find that anger (when incorrectly used) becomes a dangerous motivator that will, essentially, bite you in the ass.

You know, I was never a fan of the California left, even when the Governator was elected and re-elected. He's a great governor, don't get me wrong; but there really is a thing as flying too far left for my own comfort. Here, in Berkeley, the City Council has taken it upon themselves to pass a measure urging the U.S. Marines office downtown to vacate their offices. They urge locals to nonviolently protest these offices of "uninvited and nonwelcome intruders." The protesters who took up City Council's invitation claim that the military has given fake promises to our youth promising money, education and jobs, and have not capitalized on that promise. Further, they allege that the military is merely recruiting people to go die in the senseless war in Iraq.

In Charlotte York's first husband's words: All righty. You want the military to leave your city? Then watch as the conservative right swings back: the Semper Fi Act of 2008 has been introduced, and if it passes, it stipulates that because of Berkeley City Council's measure, they will rescind more than $2 million from Berkeley and transfer it to the Marine Corps.

Of course, neither side is backing down. A spokesperson for the Corps recruiting branch issued a statement that there's no way they're leaving, especially when folks are merely exercising their First Amendment rights. The protesters argue they're not going to give up until they pack up and leave, and one goes as far to say "We are the civilian population; we control the military. We the people have to take back control of our military."

Ok, look. This is true; we would not be a free country if we did not have control over our military. But we don't tell our folks where to go in times of war - our President does. That's the way we control our military, by electing their Commander in Chief. We the people have control over a lot of things in our country, but it's only because WE ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE for those in office, not because we ourselves determine the law. We elect people to represent our feelings about these kinds of things; that's the only control we have. If they're so incensed with the war, they should be using their time to research which candidate they're electing to Pennsylvania Avenue in 2008. The ballot is the true power that the American people have. They should not be driving a small constituent of protesters asking the Marines to leave their city.

Further, I would like to see what would happen if someone voluntarily rescinded their right to military protection. I sleep in a warm bed at night because my government, no matter what dingbats we claim them to be, still protects our home land. I don't sleep, eat, walk, work or blog in fear because I wonder if my government will come take me away if I say something wrong against them. I can have as many or few babies I darn well please. I can leave my house with or without a head covering; it's my choice. I can choose to go to a church or mosque or not even believe in a God, because no government official is going to care what otherworldly things I do or do not believe in.

Yes. There are a lot of things I can and cannot do because of our elected officials; ergo, our military. That'll be the day if I ever dismiss that kind of protection.

February D.U.H.

Hovering parents need to step back at college time
Don't try to invest like the pros
Hamilton saddened by abuse (what, is he supposed to be happy?)
United to start charging for second bag (this just makes me mad)
Jamie Lynn ready to run away from Lynne