Burlington Coat Factory Riot
Shared via AddThis
It’s a crisp fall day as you are perusing the racks of a local Burlington Coat Factory. You notice a commotion and ask what is going on. Someone breathlessly tells you there is a woman in the store who has won the lottery and she is paying for everyone’s purchases up to $500. What is your reaction? Do you continue shopping and ignore the craziness? Or do you make a mad dash for the closest rack of clothes and grab everything? Things you may or may not need, shoes that aren’t even in your size, anything close enough for you to get your hands on.
I just can’t imagine what would go through someone’s mind that would make them start grabbing everything off the racks because some person they’ve never met says they will pay for it. Why isn’t the first thing you think about “umm…I’m gonna need a bank statement first”? I know I’m supposed to be railing against the crazy lady that came in and lied about winning the lottery, but frankly, that’s the obvious. Of course she’s a whack job, but what about customers who began stripping the store of all of its merchandise and then trashing the place when they were asked to pay for it? Or the ones who managed to make it out of the store with stolen goods? Some mental case you’ve never laid eyes on before tells you she’ll buy you stuff and when she doesn’t make good, you think you’re still owed the booty.
I’ve never understood the concept of looting and rioting. People would have you believe they are trying to make a point, but whatever message they are trying to send gets lost in the rubble. You can’t expect people to listen to you or champion your cause if you’ve just caused them thousands of dollars worth of damage.
As with most things, greed is the motivator here; it can turn upstanding citizens into criminals, from Wall Street down to Burlington Coat Factory. Not one of those customers thought they would be walking into that store getting their purchases for free (well, with the exception of a possible shoplifter or two), yet each one walked out feeling they had been robbed of something they deserved. In deplorability, this is a case where the effect far outweighed the cause. The woman was wrong for what she did, but the customers overshadowed her by a long shot. Her actions were to grab attention (possibly due to a mental condition); theirs displayed a true lack of character.
I don’t subscribe to the theory that no one is owed anything. I believe we all have basic human rights that we are owed; a roof over our heads, food on our table, and the ability to seek medical care are all things I think everyone should have, regardless of their economic condition. Nowhere on that list will you ever find discount coats.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Exxon, Pillar of the Community
Exxon Mobile appeals $150 million award
Jacksonville, MD is a town located in Baltimore County, about 20 miles NE of Baltimore. Jacksonville is populated with about 10,000 people and has a median income of approximately $100,000. The number of people who rent in this community is almost non-existent. People move to this town to put down roots, looking for a place to call home. And for many families that’s what they thought they found, until a grave error made by a major corporation changed all that.
In 2006, Exxon Mobil Corp contacted the Maryland Department of the Environment to inform them of a leak. This was no ordinary leak, though; this leak produced 15 feet of gas in just one well. This leak spilled about 4 tankers full of gas into the community’s ground water. This leak caused a mess that could take as long as 10 years before it is ever truly cleaned up. Exxon managed to allow this leak to go on for a 37-day period without investigating, even after the station had to receive extra shipments of product and some $2,000 worth of gas went unaccounted for each day. Obvious negligence on the part of Exxon caused this catastrophe, yet 3 years later, they still don’t want to take responsibility.
For many people, $150 million may seem like a lot of money. However, split between 89 families, the enormity of that amount dwindles. This was the total awarded to families affected by the oil leak that went undetected by an Exxon Mobil station for 5 weeks. For 5 weeks these families had 26,000 gallons of gas seeping into their lawns and ground water. For 5 weeks, their children were drinking tainted water. For 5 weeks, this service station wreaked havoc on people’s lives, havoc that will resonate for a lifetime. They will always have in the back of their minds the possibility that physical damage was done. When they have a headache, they will wonder. When their child complains of a stomach ache, their hearts may, for a brief moment, seize with fear. Each time they put a glass of drinking water to their lips, they’ll hesitate. And if they decide it’s too much to bear and they want to uproot, they may have to take a loss on the sale of their homes to do so.
At the beginning of the trial, the defense attorney promised that his clients “want to make it right”. Yet, instead of Exxon Mobil Corp. stepping up and doing the right thing, they forced these families to muddle through the court systems and be awarded their justice through a jury. And even after a jury saw fit to give these families a little of what they deserve, Exxon is still planning to appeal. They have already asked the judge to lower the sum, and except for a few minor legal adjustments to the amount, the judge agreed with the jury. Yet, Exxon’s lawyer says he is disappointed. Disappointed? Let’s talk about disappointment. Disappointment is a major company allowing this to go to trial, a company who brought in $44 million in profit, a record for the corporation, in 2008, a year when many companies were struggling to keep their head above water. Allowing these families, who have already been through so much, to have to sit and listen to this mega company provide excuses for their lack of consideration for everyday people. The victims were forced to hear an email, written by an Exxon Mobil project manager, discounting their pain and suffering, referring to it as “just another notch in the tree of life”. During his closing remarks, the defense attorney further ridiculed the plaintiffs, calling the families’ fears, about potential health risks, unsubstantiated. Even though, the effects of a long-term presence of MTBE, a gasoline additive, are not fully understood.
Exxon is letting their true colors show, exposing them for the greedy corporation they are. For me, it seems only yesterday we were hearing how this company had to be forced to take responsibility for a far more major catastrophe in Alaska. In 20 years they still haven’t learned community conscientiousness. They still aren’t accepting responsibility for their actions. When will this company see that they can’t railroad the little people? They can’t brush their mistakes under the rug and pretend they didn’t happen. Their mistakes affect the community in which they are made and they need to step up and repair the damage, and not just the physical damage. They need to reach in where it really hurts, the pocketbook. They need to stand up and accept their punishment for these egregious errors. Only then will they have made it right.
Jacksonville, MD is a town located in Baltimore County, about 20 miles NE of Baltimore. Jacksonville is populated with about 10,000 people and has a median income of approximately $100,000. The number of people who rent in this community is almost non-existent. People move to this town to put down roots, looking for a place to call home. And for many families that’s what they thought they found, until a grave error made by a major corporation changed all that.
In 2006, Exxon Mobil Corp contacted the Maryland Department of the Environment to inform them of a leak. This was no ordinary leak, though; this leak produced 15 feet of gas in just one well. This leak spilled about 4 tankers full of gas into the community’s ground water. This leak caused a mess that could take as long as 10 years before it is ever truly cleaned up. Exxon managed to allow this leak to go on for a 37-day period without investigating, even after the station had to receive extra shipments of product and some $2,000 worth of gas went unaccounted for each day. Obvious negligence on the part of Exxon caused this catastrophe, yet 3 years later, they still don’t want to take responsibility.
For many people, $150 million may seem like a lot of money. However, split between 89 families, the enormity of that amount dwindles. This was the total awarded to families affected by the oil leak that went undetected by an Exxon Mobil station for 5 weeks. For 5 weeks these families had 26,000 gallons of gas seeping into their lawns and ground water. For 5 weeks, their children were drinking tainted water. For 5 weeks, this service station wreaked havoc on people’s lives, havoc that will resonate for a lifetime. They will always have in the back of their minds the possibility that physical damage was done. When they have a headache, they will wonder. When their child complains of a stomach ache, their hearts may, for a brief moment, seize with fear. Each time they put a glass of drinking water to their lips, they’ll hesitate. And if they decide it’s too much to bear and they want to uproot, they may have to take a loss on the sale of their homes to do so.
At the beginning of the trial, the defense attorney promised that his clients “want to make it right”. Yet, instead of Exxon Mobil Corp. stepping up and doing the right thing, they forced these families to muddle through the court systems and be awarded their justice through a jury. And even after a jury saw fit to give these families a little of what they deserve, Exxon is still planning to appeal. They have already asked the judge to lower the sum, and except for a few minor legal adjustments to the amount, the judge agreed with the jury. Yet, Exxon’s lawyer says he is disappointed. Disappointed? Let’s talk about disappointment. Disappointment is a major company allowing this to go to trial, a company who brought in $44 million in profit, a record for the corporation, in 2008, a year when many companies were struggling to keep their head above water. Allowing these families, who have already been through so much, to have to sit and listen to this mega company provide excuses for their lack of consideration for everyday people. The victims were forced to hear an email, written by an Exxon Mobil project manager, discounting their pain and suffering, referring to it as “just another notch in the tree of life”. During his closing remarks, the defense attorney further ridiculed the plaintiffs, calling the families’ fears, about potential health risks, unsubstantiated. Even though, the effects of a long-term presence of MTBE, a gasoline additive, are not fully understood.
Exxon is letting their true colors show, exposing them for the greedy corporation they are. For me, it seems only yesterday we were hearing how this company had to be forced to take responsibility for a far more major catastrophe in Alaska. In 20 years they still haven’t learned community conscientiousness. They still aren’t accepting responsibility for their actions. When will this company see that they can’t railroad the little people? They can’t brush their mistakes under the rug and pretend they didn’t happen. Their mistakes affect the community in which they are made and they need to step up and repair the damage, and not just the physical damage. They need to reach in where it really hurts, the pocketbook. They need to stand up and accept their punishment for these egregious errors. Only then will they have made it right.
I'm watching you...
iWatch, Government Community Watch
A summit among big city police chiefs was held in Denver to discuss the specifics of a new program called iWATCH, an anti-terrorism community watch developed by the LAPD. The basis of this program is similar to that of a neighborhood watch, but on a much larger scale. The police are hoping that everyday citizens can help put the kibosh on terrorists by reporting suspicious behavior in areas such as government buildings, mass gatherings, schools and public transportation. They are asking citizens to look for unusual indicators such as smelling chemicals or fumes, someone wearing baggy clothing, or someone purchasing supplies or equipment that could be used in bombs. There are a total of 9 suspicious actions to look for and 12 places you should look. So basically, keep your eyes peeled for anyone doing anything, any time you are in public place.
Smelling chemicals and fumes is a regular occurrence on public transit and if I had to call every time I saw some teenager wearing clothes 14 times bigger than him, I’d start sending my cell phone bill to the government. And aren’t the only people who know what everyday items are used to make a bomb, the people who are making the bombs. I mean how many 70-year-old grandmas had to be told why their cold medicine could only be purchased after asking the pharmacist’s permission, presenting your ID and having your retina scanned by infrared? The only people who knew you could make meth with Sudafed were the people making meth. So with such broad indicators, how are we to determine who is a terrorist and who simply tends to run cool on a summer day? If we’re being honest, then we all know the answer. It will be the color of their skin, the accent in their voice, or the language they speak. Let’s face it, if I’m purchasing a large amount of conditioner, a cashier is going to assume I’m having a bad hair day. (This is just an example, of course, because I have no idea if you can make a bomb with conditioner.) People are not going to walk around all day checking whether people are emitting fumes; those who will participate in iWATCH, are those that will judge a terrorist suspect based on the criteria with which they are comfortable. And that certainly won’t be their size 42 pants.
The founders of this watch group claim they will educate callers who are reporting people based solely on their ethnicity or race. But will this prevent those people that have been reported from having their privacy invaded? Are you seriously telling me a person calling in a claim about an Arab-American at the court house, walking around in a winter coat in October, is not going to be investigated? We live in a racist society. Over the years the prejudice changes from minority to minority, but the foundation is still there. Fear those who look different. Fear those who look similar to others who have caused harm. And the only way to really know what we are looking for in the form of terrorists is to look to those who have terrorized before. America is full of imperfect citizens who make imperfect decisions. And as an American it is our right to make those decisions, but it is also our right not to be figuratively stripped searched based on the accusation of one of our imperfect brethren.
The police chiefs endorsing this program would have you believe it is your civic duty to protect our nation. But is it not also our civic duty to allow our fellow Americans to do as they wish when not harming others? When does civically responsible individual and nosy busybody collide? For years, police have set up tip lines to assist in solving crimes; but they are usually preceded by a release of information about the crime, a description of the suspect, the date, place, and time of the event, or even a description of the crime that was committed. iWATCH is being hailed as something similar to neighborhood watch groups, but those neighbors know what they are watching for, they know who doesn’t belong in their neighborhood. What is being asked of our citizens with this anti-terrorist watch is more along the lines of playing a game of I Spy. Give us some clues and send us to see if we spot anyone fitting that vague description. The possibility of guesses is endless. How can this possibly help prevent terrorism?
America is a fear based society and when anyone questions the propaganda being fed to us under the guise of keeping our country safe, we are told we live in a post-9/11 world. (Just as previous generations were told it’s a post-Pearl Harbor or post-Vietnam society.) When will that excuse no longer wash? When we will we realize that we can never make up for what happened that day? No matter how many “suspects” we turn in, no matter how many prisoners we torture, no matter how many neighbors’ homes we search, we can never make up for what happened on 9/11. Because that’s what iWATCH, and all of the other Patriot Act’esque operations, seems to be trying to do; relieve the guilt we feel over not being able to stop the Twin Towers from falling.
Perhaps we should try a different approach, though, because this one feels very “been there, done that”. iWATCH is a wash from the start; from one side of the mouth they are saying, look for terrorists, but from the other they are saying terrorists could be anyone, anywhere, looking anyway. Asking the citizens of our nation to spend their time looking for terrorists suspects who may or may not exist in their general vicinity, is like asking a 2-year-old to spot the difference between a cookie and a low-fat, low-calorie, gluten free alternative. We don’t know what we are looking for and the vague description, given by those who comprehend what they are looking for, serves as little more than a false security blanket that we are helping to serve and protect, when really, we’re probably just turning in an innocent bystander. As with many far reaching programs, this one is doomed to fail, or at least be a long and arduous process that lends to few, if any, real leads. Have we learned nothing from our “No Fly” list?
A summit among big city police chiefs was held in Denver to discuss the specifics of a new program called iWATCH, an anti-terrorism community watch developed by the LAPD. The basis of this program is similar to that of a neighborhood watch, but on a much larger scale. The police are hoping that everyday citizens can help put the kibosh on terrorists by reporting suspicious behavior in areas such as government buildings, mass gatherings, schools and public transportation. They are asking citizens to look for unusual indicators such as smelling chemicals or fumes, someone wearing baggy clothing, or someone purchasing supplies or equipment that could be used in bombs. There are a total of 9 suspicious actions to look for and 12 places you should look. So basically, keep your eyes peeled for anyone doing anything, any time you are in public place.
Smelling chemicals and fumes is a regular occurrence on public transit and if I had to call every time I saw some teenager wearing clothes 14 times bigger than him, I’d start sending my cell phone bill to the government. And aren’t the only people who know what everyday items are used to make a bomb, the people who are making the bombs. I mean how many 70-year-old grandmas had to be told why their cold medicine could only be purchased after asking the pharmacist’s permission, presenting your ID and having your retina scanned by infrared? The only people who knew you could make meth with Sudafed were the people making meth. So with such broad indicators, how are we to determine who is a terrorist and who simply tends to run cool on a summer day? If we’re being honest, then we all know the answer. It will be the color of their skin, the accent in their voice, or the language they speak. Let’s face it, if I’m purchasing a large amount of conditioner, a cashier is going to assume I’m having a bad hair day. (This is just an example, of course, because I have no idea if you can make a bomb with conditioner.) People are not going to walk around all day checking whether people are emitting fumes; those who will participate in iWATCH, are those that will judge a terrorist suspect based on the criteria with which they are comfortable. And that certainly won’t be their size 42 pants.
The founders of this watch group claim they will educate callers who are reporting people based solely on their ethnicity or race. But will this prevent those people that have been reported from having their privacy invaded? Are you seriously telling me a person calling in a claim about an Arab-American at the court house, walking around in a winter coat in October, is not going to be investigated? We live in a racist society. Over the years the prejudice changes from minority to minority, but the foundation is still there. Fear those who look different. Fear those who look similar to others who have caused harm. And the only way to really know what we are looking for in the form of terrorists is to look to those who have terrorized before. America is full of imperfect citizens who make imperfect decisions. And as an American it is our right to make those decisions, but it is also our right not to be figuratively stripped searched based on the accusation of one of our imperfect brethren.
The police chiefs endorsing this program would have you believe it is your civic duty to protect our nation. But is it not also our civic duty to allow our fellow Americans to do as they wish when not harming others? When does civically responsible individual and nosy busybody collide? For years, police have set up tip lines to assist in solving crimes; but they are usually preceded by a release of information about the crime, a description of the suspect, the date, place, and time of the event, or even a description of the crime that was committed. iWATCH is being hailed as something similar to neighborhood watch groups, but those neighbors know what they are watching for, they know who doesn’t belong in their neighborhood. What is being asked of our citizens with this anti-terrorist watch is more along the lines of playing a game of I Spy. Give us some clues and send us to see if we spot anyone fitting that vague description. The possibility of guesses is endless. How can this possibly help prevent terrorism?
America is a fear based society and when anyone questions the propaganda being fed to us under the guise of keeping our country safe, we are told we live in a post-9/11 world. (Just as previous generations were told it’s a post-Pearl Harbor or post-Vietnam society.) When will that excuse no longer wash? When we will we realize that we can never make up for what happened that day? No matter how many “suspects” we turn in, no matter how many prisoners we torture, no matter how many neighbors’ homes we search, we can never make up for what happened on 9/11. Because that’s what iWATCH, and all of the other Patriot Act’esque operations, seems to be trying to do; relieve the guilt we feel over not being able to stop the Twin Towers from falling.
Perhaps we should try a different approach, though, because this one feels very “been there, done that”. iWATCH is a wash from the start; from one side of the mouth they are saying, look for terrorists, but from the other they are saying terrorists could be anyone, anywhere, looking anyway. Asking the citizens of our nation to spend their time looking for terrorists suspects who may or may not exist in their general vicinity, is like asking a 2-year-old to spot the difference between a cookie and a low-fat, low-calorie, gluten free alternative. We don’t know what we are looking for and the vague description, given by those who comprehend what they are looking for, serves as little more than a false security blanket that we are helping to serve and protect, when really, we’re probably just turning in an innocent bystander. As with many far reaching programs, this one is doomed to fail, or at least be a long and arduous process that lends to few, if any, real leads. Have we learned nothing from our “No Fly” list?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Kane Hoax
William Taylor was standing at the corner of a busy intersection in Tyson’s Corner holding a sign that read, “I cheated. This is my punishment.” As cars whizzed by, they honked, they yelled, some practiced sign language, and the buzz began to spread through the area. Local radio and TV stations sent crews to get a quote from the adulterer. Soon, the story was picked up by national news organizations and by 6PM, it was on every station’s website and ran on many evening broadcasts. Taylor began receiving calls from Today and GMA. He spoke with The Kane Show on DC’s Hot 99.5 radio station.
On Wednesday, September 02, 2009, after allegedly being accosted by a local reporter, Kane, from The Kane Show, admitted the entire story was made up and “William Taylor” was actually an intern for the radio station. Kane explained that the idea had come to him about 6 months prior, after hearing about a mother who made her son wear a sign admitting to bad grades and smoking marijuana. The ruse, according to the radio DJ, was meant to expose the lack of research and truth in a lot of news stories. He said he decided to execute the plot last week because of the death of Ted Kennedy. The timing was meant to prove the ability of a fluff story to supersede that of a true news story.
Perhaps the point of the deception is a valid one; but, really, was Kane’s hoax an attempt to bring to light a lack of journalistic integrity or was it meant to feed his seemingly insatiable ego? As with many of his segments, Kane came across as self-righteous when revealing his hoax, lecturing on the need for journalists to check their facts and use truth in reporting. Though, in the same hour in which he addressed his moral “experiment”, he also trivialized the truly heinous hazing at a Colorado State University sorority, commenting that eating cat food is “not that bad”. And when a caller admitted that his frat brothers were asked by their sister sorority to color the parts of pledges’ bodies that they didn’t like, Kane responded such an act is “not going to hurt you”. I guess having previously dismissed his journalistic responsibility, saying simply, “I’m not a journalist”, releases him from any accountability in encouraging degrading behavior that can lead to serious emotional distress. The hypocrisy of lecturing others on principled reporting while claiming his liabilities are nil, because his show is for entertainment, seems to be lost on him.
I have listened to Kane for many years, having been in Florida during his tenure at 93.3FLZ, and for the most part he comes across as an arrogant individual who admits to his faults only as they benefit his ratings. I’ve heard him defend asking a spouse to flirt with your boss to get a raise, but condemn a woman for making pornographic tapes with her long-time boyfriend. He’s punished his wife for keeping old love letters from an ex-fiancé by reading the letters on air, but has admitted to looking up ex-girlfriends on the internet. He was enraged at Ashlee Simpson’s rebuttal to claims she was drunk during an interview with his show, claims that cast him in an unflattering light, yet defended the ‘right’ of his co-host to accost a woman who was smoking a cigarette while wearing a Live Strong bracelet. He claims to be pressing for more journalistic accuracy, but has a Celebrity Dirt segment on the half hour that regurgitates mostly fabricated stories regarding celebrities. (Sarah manages to quote from the National Enquirer without even a hint of sarcasm in her voice.) Kane is a walking contradiction and far from being in a position to dub himself a moral compass.
Maybe I’m completely off base, maybe Kane’s only motives were those of a concerned party, but to me this practical joke seemed to feed Kane’s ego more than teach a lesson to the unethical news journalists. From the conception of the plan to the news storm that ensued to his dramatic admission that the story was bogus, Kane seemed to relish more in his ability to dupe everyone than in the principle he was supposedly trying to convey.
After the revelation, Kane commented on Twitter, “MEDIA: ur getting it ALL wrong. if it was publicity, I'd have my name on it. YOU made it a story by not checking your facts. Don't blame me”, but it’s hard to believe such a thing when he had his hand in it the entire time. He didn’t send his intern to the busy intersection and then sit back and watch how it played out. He promoted the story. He posted about it on Facebook and Twitter, interviewed the “adulterer” and “wife” on his morning show, and timed the big reveal, purportedly to thwart harassment by a reporter, to serendipitously cause The Kane Show to be splashed across the internet.
Kane is a good radio DJ. He markets himself well and keeps his show fresh and interesting, a prime example being this story. He reels his listeners in with current events that get them fired up. (On more than one occasion I have spent an hour in the car, yelling at my radio.) He tells just enough about his life to make the audience feel as if they know him. He, Samy, and Sarah have an easy connection, one that leaves you thinking you’ve been involved in a 4-way conversation, rather than having been a mere listener within the masses. As a morning show host, he gets the job done. As a beacon of integrity, however, he is sorely lacking.
If Kane does not wish to be categorized as a journalist, then he should stick to what he does best, reciting other journalists’ stories on air, giving away concert tickets, and playing music. Leave the ethical checks and balances to those who have a leg to stand on.
On Wednesday, September 02, 2009, after allegedly being accosted by a local reporter, Kane, from The Kane Show, admitted the entire story was made up and “William Taylor” was actually an intern for the radio station. Kane explained that the idea had come to him about 6 months prior, after hearing about a mother who made her son wear a sign admitting to bad grades and smoking marijuana. The ruse, according to the radio DJ, was meant to expose the lack of research and truth in a lot of news stories. He said he decided to execute the plot last week because of the death of Ted Kennedy. The timing was meant to prove the ability of a fluff story to supersede that of a true news story.
Perhaps the point of the deception is a valid one; but, really, was Kane’s hoax an attempt to bring to light a lack of journalistic integrity or was it meant to feed his seemingly insatiable ego? As with many of his segments, Kane came across as self-righteous when revealing his hoax, lecturing on the need for journalists to check their facts and use truth in reporting. Though, in the same hour in which he addressed his moral “experiment”, he also trivialized the truly heinous hazing at a Colorado State University sorority, commenting that eating cat food is “not that bad”. And when a caller admitted that his frat brothers were asked by their sister sorority to color the parts of pledges’ bodies that they didn’t like, Kane responded such an act is “not going to hurt you”. I guess having previously dismissed his journalistic responsibility, saying simply, “I’m not a journalist”, releases him from any accountability in encouraging degrading behavior that can lead to serious emotional distress. The hypocrisy of lecturing others on principled reporting while claiming his liabilities are nil, because his show is for entertainment, seems to be lost on him.
I have listened to Kane for many years, having been in Florida during his tenure at 93.3FLZ, and for the most part he comes across as an arrogant individual who admits to his faults only as they benefit his ratings. I’ve heard him defend asking a spouse to flirt with your boss to get a raise, but condemn a woman for making pornographic tapes with her long-time boyfriend. He’s punished his wife for keeping old love letters from an ex-fiancé by reading the letters on air, but has admitted to looking up ex-girlfriends on the internet. He was enraged at Ashlee Simpson’s rebuttal to claims she was drunk during an interview with his show, claims that cast him in an unflattering light, yet defended the ‘right’ of his co-host to accost a woman who was smoking a cigarette while wearing a Live Strong bracelet. He claims to be pressing for more journalistic accuracy, but has a Celebrity Dirt segment on the half hour that regurgitates mostly fabricated stories regarding celebrities. (Sarah manages to quote from the National Enquirer without even a hint of sarcasm in her voice.) Kane is a walking contradiction and far from being in a position to dub himself a moral compass.
Maybe I’m completely off base, maybe Kane’s only motives were those of a concerned party, but to me this practical joke seemed to feed Kane’s ego more than teach a lesson to the unethical news journalists. From the conception of the plan to the news storm that ensued to his dramatic admission that the story was bogus, Kane seemed to relish more in his ability to dupe everyone than in the principle he was supposedly trying to convey.
After the revelation, Kane commented on Twitter, “MEDIA: ur getting it ALL wrong. if it was publicity, I'd have my name on it. YOU made it a story by not checking your facts. Don't blame me”, but it’s hard to believe such a thing when he had his hand in it the entire time. He didn’t send his intern to the busy intersection and then sit back and watch how it played out. He promoted the story. He posted about it on Facebook and Twitter, interviewed the “adulterer” and “wife” on his morning show, and timed the big reveal, purportedly to thwart harassment by a reporter, to serendipitously cause The Kane Show to be splashed across the internet.
Kane is a good radio DJ. He markets himself well and keeps his show fresh and interesting, a prime example being this story. He reels his listeners in with current events that get them fired up. (On more than one occasion I have spent an hour in the car, yelling at my radio.) He tells just enough about his life to make the audience feel as if they know him. He, Samy, and Sarah have an easy connection, one that leaves you thinking you’ve been involved in a 4-way conversation, rather than having been a mere listener within the masses. As a morning show host, he gets the job done. As a beacon of integrity, however, he is sorely lacking.
If Kane does not wish to be categorized as a journalist, then he should stick to what he does best, reciting other journalists’ stories on air, giving away concert tickets, and playing music. Leave the ethical checks and balances to those who have a leg to stand on.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
A Little To The Left...
In recent weeks of the health care debate, much attention has been given to the town hall meetings turned screaming matches. In theory, these meetings would explain the intricate details of a jargon-filled bill that most Congress members are having trouble deciphering (I don’t even think Schoolhouse Rock would want to tackle this one), but in practice they have become little more than a partisan debate over which side’s ideals are more un-American. The fiascos are a chance for one side to convince the other why they are wrong. With each side standing up and asking preposterous questions of the other (Do you really believe the Health Care bill is a communist plot?) and nutcases attempting to disrupt the entire event with their in-your-face tactics ranging from screaming over Senators to bringing a weapon to the affair, these meetings serve as satirical fodder for newspaper columnist and late night hosts, but have managed to accomplish little else. And in the end, most Americans on both sides of the aisles, see it going to the way-side with little changed, as was done with the Health Care Reform bill of President Clinton’s time. We all have the same hopes and prayers at the end of the day, that we and our loved ones will go to our graves having lived such healthy lives that we will never really be affected by Health Care Reform, or the lack thereof. It seems are ideals for accomplishing the unpleasant task of caring for our ailing and sick fellow Americans are so different, however, that we can’t even manage to be in the same room with someone that won’t be brought around to our side of the argument.
But are our ideas really that different? In the end, don’t we all want good doctors, with reasonable costs, that won’t turn us away because we would have to file for bankruptcy once we finished paying for our procedures (if we paid at all)? That’s what I hear, at least, from people on the right to the left to those who like nothing more than to have something to discuss around their dinner tables. So why has finding a solution to a common problem become a passion-filled, fear-inducing, shout fest that has no hope of considering either side, let alone coming to an amicable end?
I’m reminded of a tactic my mother used to keep things fair in our house. Being raised with 3 siblings gives you a perspective on fair that most people don’t have until well into their 20’s, fair doesn’t really exist at all. But in an effort to delay my knowledge of this fact, my mother would allow one of us to split what we were fighting over (usually a candy bar) and the other would be get to choose their side first. And while splitting everything evenly isn’t always the best course of action in adult matters, the sentiment is still the same; represent each side and each side will feel represented.
“I’m not saying Health Care doesn’t need reform, but this isn’t the way.” Or so I hear from any random person on the street who doesn’t agree with my belief about the Health Care system. So, what is the way? That seems to be the million dollar question that our town hall meetings have yet to answer. And with the exception of a close friend who filled several boxes of comments on my Facebook, no one person has seemed to be able to articulate this for me, either.
The true issue of this debate isn’t that we don’t agree, but rather that we can’t manage to come together as mature individuals with a common goal (better health care) and brain storm a solution. I’m sure the highly intelligent, opinionated men that became our founding fathers had their disagreements, as well. But they managed to hammer out a couple of life-altering documents in their time. Hopefully, we can do the same.
Imagine what we would come up with if the screaming subsided, the name-calling ceased, the dramatic, look-at-me tactics were set aside and everyone just listened. Maybe you would hear something you never thought of before. And maybe, just maybe, it would be coming from the opposite side of the aisle. That debate may just produce some results, a little from the left, a little from the right, some from the middle. And then, we might just have ourselves a Health Care Reform bill that has a little bit of hope to reform health care.
**Published 09/23/09 in Eldersburg Advocate
But are our ideas really that different? In the end, don’t we all want good doctors, with reasonable costs, that won’t turn us away because we would have to file for bankruptcy once we finished paying for our procedures (if we paid at all)? That’s what I hear, at least, from people on the right to the left to those who like nothing more than to have something to discuss around their dinner tables. So why has finding a solution to a common problem become a passion-filled, fear-inducing, shout fest that has no hope of considering either side, let alone coming to an amicable end?
I’m reminded of a tactic my mother used to keep things fair in our house. Being raised with 3 siblings gives you a perspective on fair that most people don’t have until well into their 20’s, fair doesn’t really exist at all. But in an effort to delay my knowledge of this fact, my mother would allow one of us to split what we were fighting over (usually a candy bar) and the other would be get to choose their side first. And while splitting everything evenly isn’t always the best course of action in adult matters, the sentiment is still the same; represent each side and each side will feel represented.
“I’m not saying Health Care doesn’t need reform, but this isn’t the way.” Or so I hear from any random person on the street who doesn’t agree with my belief about the Health Care system. So, what is the way? That seems to be the million dollar question that our town hall meetings have yet to answer. And with the exception of a close friend who filled several boxes of comments on my Facebook, no one person has seemed to be able to articulate this for me, either.
The true issue of this debate isn’t that we don’t agree, but rather that we can’t manage to come together as mature individuals with a common goal (better health care) and brain storm a solution. I’m sure the highly intelligent, opinionated men that became our founding fathers had their disagreements, as well. But they managed to hammer out a couple of life-altering documents in their time. Hopefully, we can do the same.
Imagine what we would come up with if the screaming subsided, the name-calling ceased, the dramatic, look-at-me tactics were set aside and everyone just listened. Maybe you would hear something you never thought of before. And maybe, just maybe, it would be coming from the opposite side of the aisle. That debate may just produce some results, a little from the left, a little from the right, some from the middle. And then, we might just have ourselves a Health Care Reform bill that has a little bit of hope to reform health care.
**Published 09/23/09 in Eldersburg Advocate
Sunday, December 14, 2008
A news story I found today on AOL was about a former professional baseball player who owes upwards of $725,000 in back child support. The story goes on to explain that this person (I refuse to call him a man) bought a South Pacific island and lived there for 8 years with his current wife to avoid paying child support. He was finally returned to the US when his passport expired. This story is bad enough. A person doesn't want to pay $5000 a month in child support, which seems like a lot of money until you find out he purchased an island and a 21-room resort. But in the comments after the story, you find this:
dominguezfiv 12:28:26 PM Dec 14 2008
Think,think,think! Regardless of what the father made monetarily, it was temporary.The amount of $5000 per month, which the chidren would have never spent, would surely make the wife ample in funds to spend on herself. I am sure the $5000 was court mandated. The result of which was his leaving. If the court had, with his agreement, found an amount which he agrred was reasonable, his children would have seen his father all along, and he would not have been cornered. Additionally, the children, would have prefered to have a father all along and some support, say $1000 per month, than to have neither. Some court decisions, cause more damage than benefits to the children that are beign protected. What is needed is to improve situations and not worsen them. I am sure the mother was very happy at the court decision. Could she forsee the final results? They both lost. Not to mention the children.
I, on many occasions, have found numerous people I disagree with in the comments section of AOL. However, I never thought there would be even one person who thought this guy wasn't a bastard, and then that. The man bought an island and hid from his kids to avoid paying $5000 a month in child support. And this is the courts' and mother's fault? This guy's post is the very reason so many people don't have personal responsibility. Regardless of whether he agreed or disagreed with the amount, a MAN would have stayed behind and supported his children. A MAN would have wanted to be near his children, no amount of money would have changed that. Instead he ran off and left his kids high and dry. Regardless of whether you think a child is worth $5000 a month has nothing to do with it. If he truly couldn't afford the payments, he could have gone back to court a year later and proven that. Instead he is a coward, low-life, dead-beat dad, who has been living a life of luxury. He deserves every punishment he gets. He and the commenter are why the world is full of fatherless children. They make excuses for dead-beat dads so they feel justified in their actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
