(no subject)
Aug. 4th, 2005 11:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
my_window_seatThank goodness for something else to focus on besides my personal failures.
The Battle Royale in the Ongoing Plea for Ethics in Journalism Continues.
Too bad I didn't use, oh, about a hundred less words than I did.
::headdesk::
=================================
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:43:38 -0400
From: "Slate Pressbox" <slate.pressbox@gmail.com>
To: "D." <*******@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Meth Article is Clever but Irrelevant
Ms. M****,
I'll ignore your sarcasm just this once.
Ask yourself, who created the meth mess that we have today. And what
measure would you have the govt take to eliminate meth.
Jack
=================================
And my ever-verbose response:
=================================
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 22:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: "D." <*******@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Meth Article is Clever but Irrelevant
To: "Slate Pressbox" <slate.pressbox@gmail.com>
> Ask yourself, who created the meth mess that we have
> today. And what
> measure would you have the govt take to eliminate
> meth.
My first reaction to your questions is that the 'meth
mess' isn't immediately attributable to anyone other
than the individuals who choose to make and take it,
and who influence others to do so as well.
However, I think that an economy that reduces the
individual's chance to make a living wage probably
doesn't help the situation, nor does the increasing
amount of hamstringing in the educational system - if
young people get the idea from looking around them
that their future holds little promise, how much
incentive is there for them to stay in school and
'just say no' in the first place, particularly if they
have parents who are already users or they live
surrounded by other peers and adults who are?
The thing is, I'm not waiting around for the
government to change all that. Asking me what the
government should do to 'eliminate meth' is probably
one of the silliest questions I've heard lately -
seriously, Prohibition, anyone? The government's job
isn't to legislate against human stupidity - it's to
protect individual rights and freedoms, up and until
an individual chooses to use their freedom to infringe
on the rights of another person to deny them of
theirs.
However, the government's job is also to care for the
needy and the helpless in society. The tradional view
of liberals is that this is done by stressing
individual responsibility and emphasizing the quality
of life of the individual in an effort to strengthen
society as a whole. The traditional view of
conservatism is that this same responsibility lies
with the community, and that individuals should
subsume a certain amount of their personal power to
officials that they deem worthy of the responsibility
that those in power have to society.
As I see it, neither of these views seems to be a
leading concern of the current administration. There
appears, to me, to be a hegemony of power and
influence concerned solely with its own interests, and
no real thought for those in society who are
struggling - with debt, with lack of education, and as
a by-product, with an increased need to find escapism
in drugs. The court system, which was meant to be
government's tool to provide objective standards by
which it used power, and force when necessary, to
preserve individual freedoms, is now a tangled mess of
precedent and judicial activism that those with
greater resources can use to their own advantage, and
which those without those resources are penalized by
without hope of receiving assistance in improving
themselves and having the opportunity to make ammends,
learn from their mistakes, and become functional and
contributing members to society in the future.
As I said before getting sidetracked, I'm not counting
on the government to solve the problem. I don't think
that that's a reasonable or rational approach. I do
believe in the necessity of continuing to *try*
however. I don't think that there's a permanent
solution, but neither do I think that that's a reason
to shrug and ignore it.
But I'm not waiting for an amorphous outside force -
the government - to come in and sweep it all up and
make it all right. I believe that, like the president
you fingered for having a benny-abuse issue, that I
should "ask not what my country should do for me, but
what I can do for my country." If that means simply
being aware of the problems, and combatting them in
the only way I know how - on a personal, individual
level - then that's what there is for me to do. I try
to help people when I can, in the ways that I can. I
try to help my friends and the families of my friends.
And I try to make other people aware, not just of
problems, but of what they can do to be
problem-solvers as well.
This is where I see the role of journalism as having
the opportunity to be a force for change. You, as a
reporter, have the opportunity to inform and instruct,
and with the resources and contacts available to you,
and an audience of intelligent readers, you have the
ability to affect society for good. Not just to stun
people with facts or lull them into a sense of false
security by pooh-poohing the 'scare-mongers' - though
I don't argue your justifiable issues with Newsweek -
but you can be a source of information and truth and
can open the windows in people's brains and suggest to
them ways in which they can be actual contributing
members of their society, not just benchwarmers
criticizing those out there in play.
Be critical, yes. Be truthful, and expose those who
are taking the lazy way out by just printing bleeding
leads. But is it so much to ask that you take one
further step - to be a part of the solution, rather
than just pointing out who isn't properly pointing out
the problem?
Honestly, I'm a Bear of Very Little Brain, and the
machinations of politics more often than not go right
over my head and into the bleachers. But I do think
that the media can do more than entertain or distract
people from dealing with issues on a personal level.
I think the media can be a leading influence on
government, by making those under it aware of what
they can do when it isn't functioning properly.
I don't suppose any of that is in your job
description. But neither is what I do in mine. But
my question for you would be, isn't it when we do a
nominal bit more than what's expected of us that we
really and truly make a difference?
All Sarcasm Aside,
~D~
The Battle Royale in the Ongoing Plea for Ethics in Journalism Continues.
Too bad I didn't use, oh, about a hundred less words than I did.
::headdesk::
=================================
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:43:38 -0400
From: "Slate Pressbox" <slate.pressbox@gmail.com>
To: "D." <*******@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Meth Article is Clever but Irrelevant
Ms. M****,
I'll ignore your sarcasm just this once.
Ask yourself, who created the meth mess that we have today. And what
measure would you have the govt take to eliminate meth.
Jack
=================================
And my ever-verbose response:
=================================
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 22:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: "D." <*******@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Meth Article is Clever but Irrelevant
To: "Slate Pressbox" <slate.pressbox@gmail.com>
> Ask yourself, who created the meth mess that we have
> today. And what
> measure would you have the govt take to eliminate
> meth.
My first reaction to your questions is that the 'meth
mess' isn't immediately attributable to anyone other
than the individuals who choose to make and take it,
and who influence others to do so as well.
However, I think that an economy that reduces the
individual's chance to make a living wage probably
doesn't help the situation, nor does the increasing
amount of hamstringing in the educational system - if
young people get the idea from looking around them
that their future holds little promise, how much
incentive is there for them to stay in school and
'just say no' in the first place, particularly if they
have parents who are already users or they live
surrounded by other peers and adults who are?
The thing is, I'm not waiting around for the
government to change all that. Asking me what the
government should do to 'eliminate meth' is probably
one of the silliest questions I've heard lately -
seriously, Prohibition, anyone? The government's job
isn't to legislate against human stupidity - it's to
protect individual rights and freedoms, up and until
an individual chooses to use their freedom to infringe
on the rights of another person to deny them of
theirs.
However, the government's job is also to care for the
needy and the helpless in society. The tradional view
of liberals is that this is done by stressing
individual responsibility and emphasizing the quality
of life of the individual in an effort to strengthen
society as a whole. The traditional view of
conservatism is that this same responsibility lies
with the community, and that individuals should
subsume a certain amount of their personal power to
officials that they deem worthy of the responsibility
that those in power have to society.
As I see it, neither of these views seems to be a
leading concern of the current administration. There
appears, to me, to be a hegemony of power and
influence concerned solely with its own interests, and
no real thought for those in society who are
struggling - with debt, with lack of education, and as
a by-product, with an increased need to find escapism
in drugs. The court system, which was meant to be
government's tool to provide objective standards by
which it used power, and force when necessary, to
preserve individual freedoms, is now a tangled mess of
precedent and judicial activism that those with
greater resources can use to their own advantage, and
which those without those resources are penalized by
without hope of receiving assistance in improving
themselves and having the opportunity to make ammends,
learn from their mistakes, and become functional and
contributing members to society in the future.
As I said before getting sidetracked, I'm not counting
on the government to solve the problem. I don't think
that that's a reasonable or rational approach. I do
believe in the necessity of continuing to *try*
however. I don't think that there's a permanent
solution, but neither do I think that that's a reason
to shrug and ignore it.
But I'm not waiting for an amorphous outside force -
the government - to come in and sweep it all up and
make it all right. I believe that, like the president
you fingered for having a benny-abuse issue, that I
should "ask not what my country should do for me, but
what I can do for my country." If that means simply
being aware of the problems, and combatting them in
the only way I know how - on a personal, individual
level - then that's what there is for me to do. I try
to help people when I can, in the ways that I can. I
try to help my friends and the families of my friends.
And I try to make other people aware, not just of
problems, but of what they can do to be
problem-solvers as well.
This is where I see the role of journalism as having
the opportunity to be a force for change. You, as a
reporter, have the opportunity to inform and instruct,
and with the resources and contacts available to you,
and an audience of intelligent readers, you have the
ability to affect society for good. Not just to stun
people with facts or lull them into a sense of false
security by pooh-poohing the 'scare-mongers' - though
I don't argue your justifiable issues with Newsweek -
but you can be a source of information and truth and
can open the windows in people's brains and suggest to
them ways in which they can be actual contributing
members of their society, not just benchwarmers
criticizing those out there in play.
Be critical, yes. Be truthful, and expose those who
are taking the lazy way out by just printing bleeding
leads. But is it so much to ask that you take one
further step - to be a part of the solution, rather
than just pointing out who isn't properly pointing out
the problem?
Honestly, I'm a Bear of Very Little Brain, and the
machinations of politics more often than not go right
over my head and into the bleachers. But I do think
that the media can do more than entertain or distract
people from dealing with issues on a personal level.
I think the media can be a leading influence on
government, by making those under it aware of what
they can do when it isn't functioning properly.
I don't suppose any of that is in your job
description. But neither is what I do in mine. But
my question for you would be, isn't it when we do a
nominal bit more than what's expected of us that we
really and truly make a difference?
All Sarcasm Aside,
~D~
