Target Centermass

Author: Gunner

  • The American Media Problem(s)

    There is certainly something amiss in the “American” mainstream media. Even at least one media insider, Carole Simpson, just might realize it.

    America, we’ve got a problem. Actually, two problems. One is the news media’s loss of credibility because some news organizations have reported stories that are wrong or fabricated. Their BAD.

    That contributes to the other problem: the public’s disdain for the news and the people who provide it. Too many Americans believe we are all too liberal and we slant the news. They think we deserve no respect.

    Do not go quietly into that good night of recognition, Carole. Go whining.

    Look at how reporters and camera people are portrayed on television and in the movies. It makes me crazy. Typically, we’re seen as a gang of pushing, shouting, obnoxious people, waving microphones and note pads, trying desperately to get a quote or a picture. The police, politicians, business leaders, and celebrities – in these fictional dramas – routinely refer to the press as “vultures.” Characters are always trying to hide things from the media. But you know what that means? They are really trying to hide it from you, from the public.

    Yeah, sure, you’re portrayed badly and we lose. How about you’re deservedly portrayed badly based on your general behaviour? How about we lose, not from your portrayal but from your behaviour?

    How about we get to the meat of your “epiphany” of sorts?

    But it doesn’t help our credibility at all when, in the space of a few months, two major news organizations have had to admit to the whole world that they screwed up. They reported stories that were wrong. They had to retract them and apologize.

    Most recently, Newsweek magazine had to retract a clause in a short story. The magazine said government investigators looking into interrogation abuses at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have confirmed that interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Koran down a toilet.

    An unnamed government source told Newsweek reporters this happened at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, where the detainees are mostly Muslims and those in charge are Americans. You should know that the Koran is to Muslims what the Bible is to Christians, or the Torah is to Jews. It is considered holy, and the word of God.

    The story about alleged American desecration of its holy book was too much for many in the Muslim world. Part of one sentence in a short story in a weekly newsmagazine was used to stir up riots in countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia. Sixteen people died.

    As silly kids we used to chant: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Maybe we need to rethink that little ditty.

    Newsweek’s words were deadly and further tarnished America’s image in the Middle East.

    Then there’s CBS News. Weeks before the 2004 election, Dan Rather reported on “60 Minutes II” that his news team had obtained documents proving President Bush got preferential treatment during the Vietnam War and did not fulfill his National Guard obligation.

    The story was attacked immediately. Rather repeatedly defended it as accurate, while his CBS bosses launched an internal investigation. The report was based on memos that some critics called forgeries, and kinder critics described as “impossible to authenticate.” CBS News was wrong. The result? It didn’t kill any people; it just killed the careers of Dan Rather and three highly respected veteran CBS producers.

    Trust me, there is no legitimate question they were forgeries.

    In her closing, it is evident that Carole Simpson really doesn’t get it.

    We believe it is our duty to the American people. Yet the distrust is out there and growing every year.

    A University of Connecticut poll found this month that 60 percent of Americans say the “media in general” do a fair or poor job reporting information accurately. Only 39 percent think the media do an excellent or good job. Twenty years ago, these ratings were much better. But 20 years ago there weren’t so many 24-hour news channels, news by Internet and cell phone, and independent bloggers, who can say anything they want without retribution.

    Every profession has some bad apples and they are usually found out and thrown out. They don’t spoil the whole barrel. Every news organization I know is trying harder than ever to regain credibility and public confidence.

    This country was founded by men who believed a free press was so important to democracy, they gave it protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    Just because once in a rare while some organization gets something wrong, the American public cannot just dismiss the news media altogether. While many avoid us when they don’t want to tell the truth, our job is to hang in there and dig it out sooner or later. But we need to get the truth out. Not for us. For you.

    The problems currently facing the American mainstream media do not hang on a few errors. Rather, they hang on a mindset. That mindset is why the two errors that Ms. Simpson wrote about actually occurred. Those two stories could be rushed to print without adequate research just had to be true because they just made sense to the worldviews of the journalists involved, journalistic standards be damned. That is also shown in the media’s willingness to circle their wagons around Newsweek, augmenting their side of the controversy with story upon story of Quran abuse based solely upon allegations of detainees. Need I remind anyone that it wasn’t a detainee or a journalist that began the Abu Ghraib investigations but was, instead, the reporting of a wrong by a soldier? The words of a politically-motivated detainee have no reason to be automatically believed, but that apparently is the standard of proof so many of Ms. Simpson’s colleagues are willing to use in their publishing.

    The problem is not a desire to get the story out there, but rather what story the media wishes to get out there.

    Greyhawk at the Mudville Gazette points us to a Los Angeles Times piece whining about the difficulty of getting pictures of wounded and killed American soldiers into print. As expected, he addresses this story wonderfully, but I’d like to tie the disgusting piece into this post. Even within its whining hit piece, the Times shows strong anecdotal evidence of common Americans who question the media’s desire to flaunt Americans suffering during wartime.

    Publishing such photos grabs readers’ attention, but not always in ways that news executives like. When the Star-Ledger and several other papers ran the Babbitt photo in November, their editors were lashed by some readers — who called them cruel, insensitive, even unpatriotic.

    Deirdre Sargent, whose husband was deployed to Iraq, e-mailed editors of the News Tribune of Tacoma, Wash., that the photo left her “shaking and in tears for hours.” She added: “It was tacky, unprofessional and completely unnecessary.”

    Babbitt’s mother, Kathy Hernandez, expressed ambivalent sentiments. “That is not an image you want to see like that,” said Hernandez, still shedding tears of fury and sadness six months after her son’s death. “Your kid is lying like that and there is no way you can get there to help them.”

    I’m not advocating government intervention into our media.

    Not at freakin’ all.

    However, I am asking those at the Times and other members of the media to question themselves. Are you an American first, covering what is truly best for America? Are you sure, as America doesn’t seem to think so, judging by your declining readership. Are you being honest to your trade? Apparently not, judging by recent major gaffes. Are you covering a war-time situation in an honest manner, or are you letting your worldviews guide your publishing judgement against our military efforts? My guess is the latter, as you seem almost bloodthirsty to show American suffering but seem to lack a similar driving desire to portray progress. Please feel free to counter that guess with a study of the frequency of published photos of suffering American soldiers over any six-month period of World War II.

    Oh yeah, Ms. Simpson, you have no idea of the depths of the problems of the American media.

  • France’s Media Problem

    I’ve posted before that French approval of the European Union’s constitution is in jeopardy, though even a non vote will probably not stop the EU. The issue has spawned a controversy among the French about representation of the pending vote among its public media.

    The debate over the benefits and the drawbacks of the treaty has not only divided France, it has also bitterly split France’s journalists over the nature of their coverage.

    A group of journalists from French state TV and radio are so angered by what they see as one-sided propaganda campaign being broadcast on the airwaves on behalf of the government and the Yes campaign that they have set up an online petition, signed by more than 15,000 people since 1 May.

    They presented it to President Jacques Chirac, the heads of French TV and radio and to the director of the CSA French broadcasting standards authority, Dominique Baudis.

    “This is a grotesque situation,” says Jacques Cotta, a well-known TV correspondent for France 2 who is one of the leaders of the campaign for fair coverage in the lead-up to the referendum.

    “Publicly-owned media in France are broadcasting sheer propaganda to the public, and this absence of any pluralism or any attempt to represent and discuss the point of view of those who want to vote No to the Treaty is profoundly undemocratic”

    He and his colleague Jean-Marc Surcin, a documentary-maker for France 2, agree that French newspapers have been no different, with most overtly supporting the Yes campaign.

    However, it is the role of publicly-funded and publicly-accountable state broadcasters which angers them most.

    “These are broadcasters paid for by the public, and they should be reflecting both sides of the debate fairly,” Jean-Marc Surcin tells me.

    They were granted a lengthy meeting with Mr Baudis, in which the journalists pointed out that according to their figures, French TV and radio had given 71% of its time to the Yes campaigners, and devoted a mere 29% to the No campaign between 1 January and 31 March.

    Opponents have become embittered by the one-sided treatment of the debate by the government and the publicly-owned media.

    France’s best-known Eurosceptic MP, Philippe de Villiers, has warned his supporters that they face what he called an “incredible bludgeoning” by the political and media elite.

    “On the radio, in the newspapers, on the television channels, there is just one single editorial voice: in favour of the Yes,” Mr de Villiers told one rally.

    He brandished a copy of the draft constitution which has been posted to every single household in France, along with an explanatory leaflet. That leaflet, say No campaigners, is deeply biased in favour of the treaty.

    Mr de Villiers suspects a plot. “It’s unreadable, in tiny print, and that’s not an accident. People are going to say, ‘I can’t read this, I’ll just read the helpful synopsis’. It’s a trick worthy of Fidel Castro,” he claims.

    Interestingly, the story turns to how constitution opponents are succeeding to get their message out to some — blogs.

    So instead – with accusations of media bias springing up daily on all sides – the No campaigners are using the web as never before.

    This is the first major campaign in France in which the internet has become a key weapon, with bloggers and internet-users becoming the No campaign’s front-line troops – not just in terms of influencing public opinion but also in rallying the French public to attend its campaign events.

    The Socialist MP Jack Lang – spokesman for the left’s official Yes campaign – has already warned that his side is in danger of losing the “cyber-debate” because of the strength of the No campaign on the web.

    As I’ve pointed out before, a French “no” may mean little eventually to the EU, but all of the intrigue has made for interesting theater. Besides, any setback for Chirac that doesn’t harm us is a good thing.

  • White Farmers Reject Mugabe Plea to Return

    An interesting case of reaping what you sow.

    White farmers evicted by Robert Mugabe’s government have reacted with contempt to an offer that they should return to Zimbabwe to take part in “joint ventures” with those who brutalised them and stole their land.

    Gideon Gono, the governor of the country’s central bank, suggested the idea last Thursday as a possible solution to Zimbabwe’s economic crisis.

    Greg McMurray, a tobacco farmer who fled Zimbabwe in 2001 and is now a grinder at a factory in Wiltshire, said: “These are empty promises. We have had all the assurances before and then they just turn around and change their minds.

    “I had them coming into my garden and threatening my fiancée. Men with a bit of beer in their bellies told me, ‘We’ll come and burn you and your wife and your house’.

    “I would love to go back but the economy’s in ruins. The place is a shambles. So many professional people have left. It would need a new regime before most of us would think seriously about going back.”

    Actually, make it a case of not reaping what you failed to sow.

    During the evictions, some white farmers were murdered and many others were beaten and their families abused. The evictions prompted the collapse of the agriculture sector, the traditional engine of the economy.

    Those who took over the farms had no specialist knowledge – and most farmland now lies uncultivated. The machinery has been stolen, buildings have been plundered and the former workers are starving.

    Eddie Cross, the economics spokesman for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change – which was heavily defeated by the ruling Zanu-PF party in recent parliamentary elections that were widely condemned as being rigged – said that Mr Gono was desperate.

    As long as Mugabe reigns without major reforms, the white farmers are correct in declining their burden. Besides, Kipling was so nineteenth century.

  • Military to Look into Saddam Photos

    Saddam in his underwear. Chemical Ali in a bathrobe. Not appealing mental images, and certainly not pictures that should have reached publication.

    A British tabloid published more revealing photographs of Saddam Hussein in U.S. custody on Saturday, a day after it ran a front-page picture of the former Iraqi leader naked except for his underwear.

    The international Red Cross, which is responsible for monitoring prisoners of war and detainees, said the photographs violated Saddam’s right to privacy. The U.S. military condemned the publication and ordered an investigation of how the pictures were leaked to The Sun.

    Saturday’s pictures included one of Saddam seen through barbed wire wearing a white robe-like garment, and another of Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as “Chemical Ali,” in a bathrobe and holding a towel.

    […]

    The Sun said the photos were provided by a U.S. military official it did not identify who hoped their release would deal a blow to Iraq’s insurgency. Managing editor Graham Dudman told The Associated Press that the newspaper paid “a small sum” for the photos. He would not elaborate except to say it was more than 500 British pounds, which is about $900.

    The New York Post, which is also owned by Murdoch, also published the photos on Friday.

    The U.S. military in Baghdad said the publication of the photos violated U.S. military guidelines “and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals.”

    A spokesman, Staff Sgt. Don Dees, said the military would question the troops responsible for Saddam.

    Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said U.S. military officials in Iraq believe the photos are “dated”– perhaps more than one year old, although no specific date has been established.

    “This is something that should not have happened,” Whitman said.

    Whitman’s last sentiment is dead on, not only based on the treatment of prisoners but also for any possible international fallout.

    But what will the fallout be in the tinderbox that is Iraq and the Arab world? Apparently, decidedly mixed.

    The Islamic world yesterday was divided over the Saddam photos — some said the pathetic former dictator got what he deserved, while others thought the pictures were degrading.

    “Saddam Hussein and his regime were bloody and practiced mass killing against the people,” said Hawre Saliee, who, like many fellow Iraqi Kurds, despised the Saddam regime.

    “Whatever happens to Saddam, whether he is photographed naked or washing his clothes, it means nothing to me,” Saliee, 38, said.

    “That’s the least he deserves.”

    Some Iraqis — who gathered in coffee shops in Baghdad and elsewhere to see the photos on satellite TV — were offended to see their jailed former leader in his underwear.

    “This is an insult to show the former president in such a condition,” said Abu Barick, a 45-year-old Baghdad businessman.

    The public reaction appeared less hostile than to the publication of photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison — and certainly less violent than to Newsweek’s botched report that the Koran had been desecrated by U.S. prison guards in Cuba.

    The story goes on to look at reaction in the rest of the Arab lands.

    Ahmad Miski of the Arab American Chamber of Commerce said, “I think in places like Egypt and among the Palestinians where he was popular, people might take offense.

    “But in places like Iraq, Kuwait and Syria that suffered from the Ba’athists, I think people will be happy to see him like this,” he added.

    Barick, the Baghdad businessman, said Saddam was ancient history these days — and didn’t deserve this attention by the news media a year and a half after his capture.

    “Do they want to degrade the Iraqi people? Or they want to provoke their feelings?” he added.

    But Miski, of Syrian descent, still said, “I was happy to see him like that.”

    “We are used to seeing photographs of Saddam looking grand and powerful, smoking a big cigar while his people were starving and suffering,” he told The Post.

    “Now it’s time for Saddam to start to suffer. Its time for him to go before a court and face the justice of his people.”

    I find it interesting that issues involving Saddam can be as divisive to the Arabs as they can be here on the home front.

  • Sunnis Create New Political Front

    The very same Iraqi Sunnis who worked to keep their followers from participating in the January elections, thus shortchanging themselves in government representation, are now determined to re-enter Iraq politics.

    Sunni political, religious and tribal leaders came together Saturday to form a new political front intended to represent the disempowered Sunni minority in the process of drafting a new constitution and contesting the next round of elections in Iraq.

    More than 1,000 Sunnis crowded into the Engineering Club in Baghdad to declare the existence of the new front, formed under the auspices of three groups that led the Sunni boycott of January’s elections: the Association of Muslim Scholars, the Iraqi Islamic Party and the Sunni Endowment, another religious body.

    The move, at a time of growing tension between Shiites and Sunnis, gives rise to hope that the disgruntled and factionalized Sunni community may yet be able to find an avenue through which to reach an accommodation with the Shiite-dominated government, despite an increase in sectarian killings that has threatened to plunge the country deeper into violence.

    The move gives rise to hope? Not really, as the group’s initial foray into politics is to immediately place a demand for the resignation of a member of the new government. This doesn’t seem to be a very cooperative political group that is being founded.

    But tensions were evident at the meeting, with Sunni leaders angrily blaming the new Iraqi government for the slayings of a number of Sunni religious leaders in recent days, including a prominent cleric who was allegedly detained by Iraqi police before his body was found dumped nearby earlier this week, showing signs that he had been tortured.

    […]

    The new group called for the resignation of the new interior minister, Bayan Jabr, who has been accused by Sunnis of allowing the Shiite Badr Brigade militia to operate alongside Iraqi security forces.

    Jabr, addressing his first news conference, said only the elected National Assembly has the right to call for his resignation. “People who failed to get one seat in parliament cannot demand such a thing,” he said.

    He did not dispute, however, that his ministry has been cooperating with the Badr Movement, saying he has used them as a source of information on the insurgency. “We have a policy of cooperating with all political movements. We are ready to receive information even from the devil,” he said.

    I cannot speak with any authority about either the role and behavior of the the Badr militias or the actions of the interior minister, but I can at least say that I appreciate the man’s attitude.

    Sunnis attending the conference said they are determined now to join the political process and recover their lost political role by participating in the next election, scheduled for December after a new constitution has been drafted.

    “There will be a wide participation by Sunnis in the next elections for sure, and especially if the new constitution fulfills Iraqis’ demands and aspirations,” said Ahmed Abdul Ghafour al-Samarraei, a leading cleric with the Association of Muslim Scholars. “We have resolved to enter the political field.”

    This is the only part of the story that actually holds forth any hope, though other Sunnis have already made it quite apparent that they missed the boat in January. Greater Sunni participation in December is something that should be expected. Given that, does this group bring more clout to the Sunnis or further fracture them on the political front?

    Promises by the new government to include Sunnis in the political process have so far fallen short of Sunni expectations. Under pressure from the U.S. administration, efforts are under way to include Sunnis in the process of writing a new constitution, which has not yet started despite an August deadline for completing the document.

    One problem, Shiite officials say, is that the Sunnis themselves are divided over who represents them, making it difficult to determine which Sunnis to include in the process.

    Another group formed specifically to negotiate on behalf of Sunnis, the National Dialogue Council, was excluded from the formation of the new Sunni front, calling into question the prospects that the new front will solve the problem.

    “This will make divisions between the Sunnis because we already have the National Dialogue Council, which contains more than 45 parties,” said Sheik Ali al-Mash Hadani, a spokesman for the council. “So what is the purpose of this new group?”

  • Across the Wall from Newsweek’s Riots

    Firepower 5 was there, watching an Newsweek’s apology on FoxNews as the murderous riots played out in the world around him.

    I watched the video that Fox was running while they concurrently talked about the story. “That’s Ghazni!” said the Operations Officer of the unit that is stationed here. Sure enough, it was Ghazni City, just over the wall from where we were sitting. Rocks were being thrown at policemen and Afghani troops who were answering with automatic weapons fire. Cars were in flames and buildings were being looted.

    “We [Newsweek] regret that we got any part of our story wrong…”.

    “That’s Rocky!” excalimed the Operations Officer. General Rahkim (sp) was the Chief of Police in Gahzni. On the television, his image staggered forward a few paces, began to fall, and was caught by two of his policemen. “They brought him in yesterday,” the Ops officer told me “the bullet went traight through him, back to chest. The medics managed to save him.”

    “…and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence…”

    Go read the whole thing. His post is titled “Privileges and Responsibilities” and he does address how those apply to the matter.

    It’s a bit surreal watching this occur in a country where the freedom of speech is newly re-discovered. Even when it turned violent, it was a more honest and above board exhibition of free speech than what I saw in Newsweek.

  • Busy Day, Slow Night

    Not much else tonight, folks. For some reason, either nothing is grabbing me or my heart just ain’t in it. I will leave you with a few things I’ve pondered.

    Army: Soldiers Did Mock Executions

    Some will argue that this is evidence of the barbaric nature of our military. I would argue otherwise — it is evidence that the military, even on items outside the public eye at the time, is investigating and prosecuting as needed. I would also question whether the media would’ve made similar demands in the days back when we had an American media instead of a global one. And yet, even then, the military investigated and prosecuted.


    The Press Closes Ranks

    James Taranto looks at the media fallout of the Newsweek-Quran debacle. I particularly like this gem:

    Allow us to answer the question: Yes, in our opinion, the press should produce more stories–many more than it does–about how great the American military is. When it does so, it should adhere as rigorously to the facts as we expect it to do when it produces stories that make the military look bad.

    Was Darth Vader Born Bad?

    Much has been made over the subtle political statements that can be dug up in Star Wars RotS. Fine, there’s hints. I’ll even admit I notice such things, whether they cast a major pall over my enjoyment or just a minor shadow. Still, in this one, who cares?

    And who especially cares about a Nature vs. Nurture examination of the evil of Darth Vader?!! How silly is this crap?

    Born into slavery on the desert planet Tatooine, Anakin was a mama’s boy raised in a single-parent home never knowing who his father was. Identified by the Jedi as the next big thing, Force-wise, Anakin is whisked away to grow up under the tutelage of such galactic godfathers as Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Mace Windu.

    Cry me a freakin’ river. The dude may have started out as a candy-ass, but he choked people … to death … with his mind, man. Besides, that was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. If y’all don’t have this case hammered out on a nature/nurture basis, you ain’t ever going to nail Vader down headcase-wise.

    Oh yeah, did I mention it’s fiction?

  • Reality Web: Military Idol

    You make the call.

    In this corner … the Brits (hat tip to the Mudville Gazette).

    Up against them … the Norwegians (hat tip to Blackfive).

    My opinion: while the Brits have the strong point of unit cohesiveness, kudos and my vote to the Norwegians for the stunt work boy-band mockery.

    My further opinion: the military is 99.99% hurry-up-and-wait. This is what happens when access to video technology is added to the “wait” portion.

  • Trump Calls for New Twin Towers

    For once, listen to The Donald.

    Standing in the lobby of his Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, the developer turned TV star on Wednesday presented a model of his own envisioned towers, reflecting the original shape of the skyscrapers that fell Sept. 11, 2001.

    The towers he advocates would be 111 stories tall — one floor taller than the lost towers.

    Plans for the site, to be dominated by a 1,776-foot Freedom Tower, have been stalled lately because of security concerns, though Gov. George Pataki assured New Yorkers last week that the project was not losing momentum.

    “Failure to rebuild is not an option,” the Republican governor said in a speech in downtown Manhattan.

    But Trump had little use for the futuristic, angular Freedom Tower mode.

    The plan “looks like a junkyard, a series of broken-down angles that don’t match each other. And we have to live with this for hundreds of years?” he said. “It is the worst pile of crap architecture I’ve ever seen in my life.”

    While beautiful in and of itself and obviously quite an architectural challenge, the Freedom Tower has some important problems. I have to side with Trump here — the tower, as currently conceived, would be a disturbance on the NYC skyline. By that, I think it would be beyond Alia on the abomination scale (reference pointed specifically at Phil — back at ya, pal).

    However, Trump said he was leaving it up to developer Larry Silverstein, who owns the lease on the World Trade Center site, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land, to execute the design first introduced last year by engineer Ken Gardner.

    “I only have the power of persuasion,” Trump said. “It’s a very simple power, but sometimes it can be very strong.”

    Speaking for Silverstein, Howard Rubenstein said Trump was a friend, but “Silverstein’s only concern right now is designing a safe and spectacular Freedom Tower in keeping with the well-established master plan for the site.”

    All well understood and reasonable. Is this really The Donald?

    Though it would be taller than the twin towers, the Freedom Tower would have much of its top one-third given over to airy latticework and a spire emitting light into the night. Only around 70 floors would be usable office space.

    Trump described the existing design as “essentially a skeleton” at the top. “If we rebuild the World Trade Center in the form of a skeleton, the terrorists win.”

    Agreed in general but, man, is the “if blah-blah then the terrorists win” argument ever going to end? Dennis Miller put forth a solid counter to this argument back in his stand-up days in the ’80s. Speaking of terrorists, he spoke in favor of an eye for an eye. To the “that means the terrorists have won” argument, he agreed but pointed out, in his own distinct delivery, that there would be less of them at the trophy ceremony. I’m pretty cool with that result.

    Trump also left room for an alternative to his plan, if tenants can’t be found for the new towers. “If for some reason, it can’t be built, because there is a possibility that people do not want to be in any of the buildings on the site, then what we should do is … build a great memorial park,” he said.

    Man, what a depressing park that would be.

    Confederate Yankee feels the way I do about rebuilding the towers, and argues it much more eloquently than I have bothered to do.

    Only one profile deserves to occupy the hallowed ground in lower Manhattan. No substitute, no matter how impressive, could ever be appropriate for all that was won and lost that day.

    Go give it a read in full.

  • Five Things I Don’t Get

    Yikes! Hammertime of Team Hammer’s Musings has tagged me with a meme. In a way I’m honored. In another way, I’m annoyed, as I remember how difficult it was coming up with interview questions for him on a previous meme. He made the most of my poor questions, so I owe him. Memes can truly be as frustrating as fun; nevertheless, I’ll go with the flow and see how this one works.

    List five things that people in your circle of friends or peer group are wild about, but you can’t really understand the fuss over.

    1) Charmed — This is my girlfriend’s favorite television show … by a freakin’ mile. Many a time its scheduling has had to be taken into account during our social planning. I’ll admit she’s quite willing to record but I know she’d rather watch the broadcast. I’ve caught maybe ten minutes — nice eye candy but quite the silly, trite yawner. As the old saying goes, there’s no accounting for tastes. That, and she willingly puts up with me. Yup, she’s a keeper. Besides, sooner or later Charmed will go bye-bye.

    2) Reality TV — Survivor and its ilk have nothing to do with reality or entertainment. A fad that can’t fade fast enough.

    3) The designated hitter — This is probably the result of moving to an American League area after growing up in cities on the senior circuit landscape. Call me a purist, but I prefer the idea of all nine playing the same game at the plate and in the field. I prefer the strategy required with juggling the line-up for a pitching change. I despise the fact that the DH has now spread like a plague to practically every level of the game, be it minor league, college or high school.

    4) Atkins/ South Beach — First, the diet: nothing tragic, but how about eating reasonably and exercising? Second, the dieters: do y’all have to treat it like a new-found religion? The time-tested zealots can be particularly condescending and annoying.

    5) Starbucks — Bad coffee. Bad prices, pompous employees, pathetically elitist menu and, oh yeah, bad coffee. One should be able to order coffee by saying a size, preferably in English, and uttering the word coffee instead of some eight-syllable mumbo-jumbo. One should then receive a cup of joe that does not taste burned. One should then hand the employee of the establishment a buck or two. One should definately then receive change. That is all that Starbucks is not.

    I now get to tag five people to do this meme themselves. Participation should be viewed as purely voluntary. How about…

    Eric
    Phil
    JohnL
    Raven
    and any other volunteer.