James Buchanan Blog

While driving the other day I heard a report on NH Public Radio saying that a group of Free Staters had gone to a playground in Manchester and picked up trash while carrying loaded handguns in holsters.

The point of the exercise was to use doing a public good to highlight the group’s desire to have everyone carry guns around in public and that it should be as welcome and natural a thing to do as anything else. The Free Staters are a group of libertarian minded folks that are trying to get enough members to move to the state in order to turn it into some sort of libertarian eden.

The problem with their logic, as it regards the guns and playgrounds, is that being naked is a perfectly natural state of being, but not something that people should do at a playground. It is not the appropriate context. It seems to me that if it isn’t illegal to carry a loaded gun in a playground and other public areas that it should be. The world is not so dangerous that we need to be prepared to shoot it out at a moment’s notice.

One of the most difficult aspects of being a writer, from my perspective, is the act and art of self promoting. It is something that I am not very good at as i don’t really have what I would describe as an extraverted personality. I am usually far happier to inhabit my own thoughts and to quietly observe the world or room around me rather than try and make some statement or garner attention.

There are, of course, exceptions to that, but the main problem in selling my book is trying to get it reviewed. Because it is considered to be self published by most review sites (even though it strictly isn’t) they won’t touch it. I truly think that if I could get a few people to give it a read that they would like it and that maybe I could interest some readers in buying the book.

I suppose I have to remember that publishing my short stories the way that I did was more to have a product with which to leverage off for future projects, but it would be nice the get just a little bit of attention for it.

Any ideas?

CS Lewis once described the night sky as it may have appeared to people in medieval times by writing that it “was tingling with anthropomorphic life, dancing, ceremonial, a festival not a machine.” This is to say that the sky and everything that it was supposed to contain was more about what the imagination could conjure as opposed to precisely defined processes and combinations of gases and processes and etc.

I came upon this today while reading NY Times columnist David Brooks’ latest piece. He and I stand on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but often see things with the same eye when it comes to how we should reason our way through difficult issues and consider what it means to have a political life when we must also balance it with every other role that we play in our lives. It is surprising that we each come to different conclusions, though perhaps they are merely shades of the same issue. For example, I fully support creation of transportable universal health coverage for all Americans (as a note, Barack Obama does not, which is one of the reasons I voted for Clinton in the NH primary), while Brooks believes that the government should stay as far away from healthcare as possible.

I suppose, though, that in this example there is a difference that merits consideration, which is that my opinion has been informed by my experience with cancer. If I was not as lucky as I was I would not have received the level of care that I did. I am deeply saddened and almost guilty at times when I think that there are people out there right now with cancers that they won’t diagnose in time to save their lives simply because these people cannot afford to pay out of pocket for even a visit to the doctor. The right would say that is how it should be. Sort of a social Darwinist attitude.

However, while Brooks takes an opposite opinion I believe that he sincerely would like to see all people covered and able to access health care. He just has a different vision for how to accomplish that. The problem is that if it is based on the ideal that the private market will sustain a system of employer provided health care he is sadly mistaken. Our current system is falling apart as costs and etc. are forcing many employers to cut benefits and lower the percentage of the premium they pay for their employees. This equals a cut in access to health care as well as a pay cut for most Americans (remember more than 45 million don’t have health coverage of any kind).

So I come back to CS Lewis and the idea that for those who came before us the night sky was a thing of great mystery, fantasy, speculation and beauty. I don’t think that we have lost a sense of its beauty, nor do I believe that the mystery of it has completely escaped us as it is more than enough to make my head spin when I consider the vastness of space and the idea that it is unending and limitless. And as I consider this concept of how to explain all of that area that surrounds our tiny planet I come to the idea that there must be some reason behind it. Or perhaps I hope that there is some reason behind it and what science is doing is merely figuring out the mechanics of its creation and function while leaving still the mystery as to the force behind its creation and continued movement and mystery. It is the idea that science does not seek to explain away god or whatever force could be at work, but that it merely seeks to explain the how while leaving the why up to philosophers and people with the ability to understand that religion as we understand it here on earth is generally the creation and legacy of long lost people. Did Jesus exist? Yes, but I do not believe he was the son of God. I see his life in the same context as that of Ghandi or Martin Luther King in that they are all people who were able to connect in some mysterious way and see something that others had not that led to a new understanding for how people should relate to each other even if we still have not yet completely put those lessons into practice. In the days of Jesus the means to venerate such a life was to turn the man into a deity. Nowadays we simply create a holiday as a means to perpetuate the memory of all that was good about the person even though as with all people they had their imperfections.

So as I write and consider all of the mystery of the world and the universe I see that with the great amount of ugliness that exists, there is also the great possibility for beauty. The last few weeks have shown me some beauty as I am very much in love with a dear woman, but it has also shown some ugliness and I need to continue to seek the beauty. It still exists in great measure in the night sky as well as in Lesleigh’s eyes, but also perhaps in my own backyard…

I am what I would describe as a relative fan of Salon.com. At one time they were a wonderful online magazine that among other things produced some of the best travel writing ever (as proof check out http://www.amazon.com/Wanderlust-Real-Life-Tales-Adventure-Romance/dp/0679783636). However, while they are still a good read and have some interesting writing and coverage they have lost a lot of quality over the years.

I do on occassion like to add my voice to the comments section after some of the postings. In particular, War Room and Glenn Greenwald’s blog for Salon. Though, Greenwald, who wrote fairly successful book that is a polemic about the failures of George Bush, can be rather strident and clouded when it comes to accurately perceiving certain issues.

Anyway, I responded to a blog piece he wrote criticizing NY Times columnist david Brooks for defending certain questions asked during the recent debate between Obama and Clinton (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/18/brooks/index.html). What Brooks was saying, which was one small point of a larger argument he was making, is that voters do want to identify with candidates on a personal level and so they look for clues as to who a person is. I agreed with that statement. Voters select candidates for a huge variety of reasons and one of them, not the most important I think, but certainly one of them is if they can identify with the candidate in a cultural/personal way.

Here’s what I posted:

“The debates…

Were a travesty and a missed opportunity to put some meat in the race.

However, Brooks is right in what he is saying. Voters do want to identify with a candidate and look for clues as to what they are like. The problem is that this is one very small aspect of what goes on in people’s minds. They also want good policies and low taxes, or at least the feeling that their taxes are paying for things they believe in, and they want to see their hard work and the collective hard work of the country come to some benefit such as improved access to health coverage.

Therefore, where Brooks is wrong is in ascribing far too much importance to identity and not enough to competency and policy.”

Well, Greenwald responded by writing:

“James65

However, Brooks is right in what he is saying. Voters do want to identify with a candidate and look for clues as to what they are like.

Do you have any proof for that?

Also, Brooks isn’t just making a claim about what might influence voters’ decisions. He’s using that claim to defend media coverage choices.

I’m sure you can find some voters who think it’s relevant what kind of sex the candidates have. So if television networks followed the candidates around and filmed them having sex with their spouses, and then broadcast it and asked them about it in debates, would you accept the same rationale — “hey, you can’t blame journalists for covering this and talking about it a lot. Voters might consider it relevant.”

And here is my response the Greenwald:

“First: open your eyes and look at what people have posted yesterday and every day before about what they think of the two candidates. They are all making assessments based on a wide range of criteria from policy points to whether or not they can identify with the candidate on any personal level. In fact, there is a post just before your response to mine where the person says they identify more with Obama because he wasn’t immediately good at bowling a seemed a little uncomfortable. Further, any politicdal scientist will tell you (I have a degree in political science) that there are nearly as many reasons why someone will vote for a particular candidate as there are people who vote.

Second: To merely respond with “Do you have proof for that,” feels more like a shool yard taunt than an actual substantive point or argument to rebut what I was saying. I could go through every point you have made throughout your career and ask the same and make you cite everything you argue like I was proofing your doctoral thesis. And you did the same thing to another person on this thread.

Third: The quote you take Brooks to task for is but one small part of a broader argument he makes as to whether Obama is looking like a brand new type of politicain or a traditional liberal. I am not buying into his argument because I think in his heart that Obama is unique. In part because he is from a new and younger generation (mine as Obama and I are only a few years apart in age) that has a lot to say that is very different from the older generations that make up the majority of the government. Therefore, I identify with Obama on a cultural/social level that has to do with nothing more than being part of the same generation. Does that mean it is all I am considering? Of course not. I would vote for a right wing candidate simply because they are my age. I identify with Obama for a number of reasons and one of them is because of cultural-like clues I have seen in him as he campaigns.

Fourth: Your “sex” analogy is childish. I abhore that kind of coverage, but I do think that talking about “who” a candidate is is part of what I could describe as a portfolio of journalistic coverage. Look at profiles run by every publication from the New Yorker on down–they all look at candidates in human terms and describe what these people are like.

Fifth: Don’t take what I am saying here as condoning the debate and the questions put forward. I have been very critical of it and would not defend it. It was stupid and infantile. However, Brooks does make a good point that there is room in a debate and in political coverage to learn more about “who” a candidate is as well as the ways they interpret various issues and what they believe are good and proper solutions.”

I sent Greenwald an email with my response. It’ll be interesting to see how he responds.

While reading the New York Times headlines and stories that get sent to my email each morning I hit upon another issue that I think the media must address as a whole. In general it cuts to the whole of issue of whether reporters should be fair or balanced (Fox News’ motto withstanding, you cannot be simultaneously fair and balanced as the two terms describe two different theories of reporting).

Essentially, what I saw was a story by Michael Cooper and Larry Rohter in which they say that McCain’s critics are charging that his assertions with regard to Iraq and Al Qaeda oversimplify what is in reality a very complex situation in Iraq (.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1208611473-RUlJHuBaqmjpSQcji3tw1A)

What struck me about the above is that it is observable fact that the situation in Iraq is far more complicated than merely using the shorthand Al Qaeda to describe the enemy in Iraq. This should not even be up for debate–the fact of the matter is that in Iraq the US has unleashed a truly unmaneagable and multifaceted fight that is based on multiple and competeing identities, issues and interests. Simply saying the enemy is Al Qaeda is dishonest and John McCain should be labeled as such when he so dishonorably over simplifies the situation.

So why does the media continue to refuse to commit to established and observable fact and dishonestly lay out the complexities of Iraq as a partician debate within the US? This question is even more troubling when one watches the coverage of Britney Spears or whatever the cultural issue of the day happens to be, because the media will lay any one of a number of labels on people without giving a second thought as to whether what they are saying is true or not.

It is a given that the reporters following Spears and those following McCain are of two different breeds, but getting back to yesterday’s post they all went through essentially the same journalism programs, albeit at different schools (or maybe not; perhaps Columbia has a corner on the market). Why is one so willing to issue a statement based on what they believe they have perceived and the other is so unwilling to commit to a fact that has been thoroughly established and vetted beyond a reasonable doubt?

Courage? Incompetence? Bias? Stupidity? Perhaps some combination?

This reminds me of when I was a reporter here in New Hampshire and I was working on a story that touched on global warming. I wrote the story assuming that global warming is a well defined fact, which it is and was at the time. The year before I wrote that story more than 2,000 of the world’s top climate scientists met and unanimously said that global warming exists and human actions are contributing to it. Beyond that is a world of scientific fact supporting that conclusion. And I would add that the only “scientists” disputing global warming and human effect were those hired and paid by organizations of fossil fuel producing companies.

Despite the overwhelming evidence (observable fact) of global warming I still had to argue with my editor that global warming is indeed fact. He felt that the science was incomplete. So he wanted me to frame the story as on one side there are supporters of the theory and detractors of the theory and each side carried equal weight when in fact they didn’t.

This is not an example of bias as I know this editor to be a good and decent person who wants to do right by the environment, but is more a point that displays the intense internal debate within journalism as to whether to be fair (state that global warming is a fact, but acknowledge that there are a handful of fossil fuel industry representatives that dispute it) or balanced (both pro and con get equal footing in the story even though this isn’t the case in reality).

It also strikes to the notion of impartiality. When you read websites dedicated to left wing readers and those dedicated to right wing readers the overwhelming amount of digital ink being spilled is to attempt to support an argument that the media is biased to either the left or the right. And generally this comes from very notable people who unfortunately don’t really have any experience working as a journalist or are simply obsessed with their own particualr point of view (O’Reilly and Olbermann). The problem is that as a thinking and intellectual human it is impossible to research and write on a topic and not have some form of opinion (this could even be that each side has merits to its argument). That is what learning is all about–researching facts and arguments to develop an understanding of a subject.

So we have the question of whether to be fair or balanced and the issue of bias and how much of their kimono a reporter should open to the reader.

I fall down on the side that being fair is more correct than being balanced and how much a reporter should expose to the reader depends upon the context. A hard news story should be devoid as possible of the writer’s opinion, but it should not avoid labeling facts as facts (i.e. Iraq is more complicated than just being about Al Qaeda and global warming is proven fact). But reporters should be allowed to write analysis pieces where they display an understanding of a subject and expose some opinion. To assume that reporters should keep what they think a strict secret denies a rusimentary fact of human [sychology–we all think and develop ideas and perspectives.

Whewre I believe that the media has gone wrong strikes to what i wrote about yesterday. Large, national media outlets tend to only hire reporters from certain spaces and a journalism degree is only one piece of what a reporter needs in order to be able to do a good job. Because so many reporters have a rudimentary understanding of American political and legal theory they are unable to understand process and the reasons and methods that underly those processes.

A prime example is reporting on the second amendment. Most (90 percent or more) reporters believe that the meaning of the right to bear arms is an established fact that it relates to individuals as opposed to state militias. The fact of the matter is that for the last 70 years the right to bear arms has been primarily based on the right of states to maintain malitias while a balance has been struck to allow some gun control with private ownership. This may change as the Supreme Court is reexamining the issue (pray they make gun laws in the US look like those in places where everyone has an Uzi or an AK 47), but the fact of the matter is that nearly all of the reporting that has been done with relation to gun laws ignores established legal precedent set long ago and makes an incorrect assumption.

I am not writing the above to dive head first into the gun fray (please save the emails), but to make the point that because reporters don’t have the proper training and expertise they are unable to accurately report on a number of issues. My biggest frustration has been watching coverage of the New Hampshire pesidential primary and having the media ascribe the outcome to Hillary Clonton crying. That’s bullshit. Ask yourself, would I change my vote from Barack Obama, or vote for any candidate for that matter, because Hillary Clinton shed a tear? No, of course not. The reasons why the polling data was wrong and why Clinton won in NH ar far more complex than that, but without a better understanding of politics and the NH polity, a reporter is going to go with the easy answer–she cried.

It all comes down to competence.

Before I get going, for full disclosure I should say that I have always wanted to work for a major newspaper or news magazine covering politics. The problem is that there is no way for me to land such a job because I simply don’t have the right degree or connections.

 That doesn’t mean that I couldn’t do the job. I have gone toe to toe with george Bush when he was at the height of his powers and have interviewed and written about many of the top tier of politicians in America. I have won awards for my work and been praised for my ability to understand complex and complicated issues as well as nuanced viewpoints and etc.

One of the reasons I have been able to succeed at this level is that I have had a life long fascination not just with electoral politics, but also with policy, which led me to be a political science major in college. What I have focused on is not so much following the horse race as the media reports it, but being able to identify what the key characteristics are of any debate and understanding how they will likely play out as a policy debate or election unfolds. I stay away from sideshow bullshit such as the flap over Obama’s preacher and bitter comments as well as the ridiculous amount of right wing funded and propagated crap about Hillary Clinton.

I also ignore the ranting and bloviating pundits on both sides of the political spectrum, which could be summed as O’Reilly and Olberman. Both men are more interested in floating their own egos than they are providing an accurate, unbiased and nuanced discussion of policy and politics.

I also have no time for anyone that doesn’t place a lot of credence and attention on process. Political process is as important as political outcome and will do more to drive a debate and the result than any of the sideshow baloney that so many journalists seem to feed on. For example, if journalists had paid as much attention to the processes that led up to the war and who was involved in those processes and how they were playing out and the focus and information brought to bear, which includes information that could have been easily gleaned from outside sources such as the UN weapons inspectors, then the American public would not have been deluded into thinking that war with Iraq was a smart strategy in the war against Al Qaeda, they would not have been fooled into thinking that Bush et al would be competent (the question as to proper prior planning would have easily been answered and understood), and the American people would not have been so completely convinced that invading and occupying a Middle Eastern country is an easy thing to do that would pay for itself. A mere discussion of the logistics involved likely would have been enough to convince people of the cost and demonstrate the foolishness of the concept. I would also add that a full understanding of process and why it is necessary would evoke a deeper understanding of the true meaning and importance of the concept “separation of powers,” which is the single most important element of our constitution (freedom of speech and no religious test for office rank fairly high as well).

However, the media does not understand this. They do not have the expertise, willingness, grasp of nuance to really be able to effectively report on politics and political events. The media used to (see Turner Catledge’s biography titled “My Life and the Times” at: http://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Times-Turner-Catledge/dp/B000O5YCT6/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208525642&sr=1-5). The media understood its watchdog role (of course there were a great many exceptions, but now the exceptions have become the rule) and did what was necessary to report the news and what was happening.

 At any rate, enough of my rant. We could and need to do so much better.

Therefore, my first suggestion, which is more just a motto, is to learn that good journalism schools don’t necessarily produce good journalists. Take a look at some of the finest journalists of the past fifty or sixty years and one would find that many of them are the products of state schools or small colleges than universities. However, today many of the people holding top jobs have the patina of having gone to some big name J school.

This raises two issues — the first is that for most of the people who find a love for journalism and see a need to go out and learn and report and tell stories and who want to do all of the things a journalist should, they come from families and places where they see the world as it truly is. They learn first hand what it means to struggle or live the average life and want to bring that voice to the national discussion through journalism. However, these people don’t have the material means to attend or likely even get into the top J schools where the elites seem to so often taken from. This also means that a great many of the people setting the national dialogue have no idea what it means to actually go out and work with their hands and backs and to have to come home each day exhausted from their efforts with too small a paycheck and too many obligations to their families than they can competently do. They also don’t truly get the concept of a wage slave or what a lack of portable and universal health coverage does to diminish the ability of people to reach their fullest potential in life.

Again, looking at past greats in journalism they went to small schools, generally came from blue collar backgrounds and worked for local newspapers learning their craft and then as they moved forward working nearly as apprentices to very talented journalists that understand the complexity and nuance of the subjects they cover.

The second thing I would add is that journalists take journalims classes, which teach them the rules of journalism and to memorize the AP style book and etc., but they don’t learn a specialty. Learning how to be a journalist should not be an end, but the beginning of a broader pearning process where the individual selects what it is they want to become an expert in and cover. I have seen many times journalists covering national political events with no understanding or training in policy and politics.

So, it seems to me that by focusing more on talent and life experience and providing a method (apprenticeship for example) for journalists to learn and understand what they are covering we could do so much better than the current drudge we are dealing with where infotainment rules and talent is measured by ridiculous standards such as “I broke the story that so and so did some meaningless little thing.” Journalist should take pride by saying “I helped my readers better understand the complexity of the healthcare debate or that Iraq had nothing to do with 911″ and so on.

I am a member of a website called the Colon Club (www.colonclub.com), which does a number of wonderful things for those who have experienced colorectal cancer. Perhaps, though, the most important part of this site is the message board that has been set up for people to create their own topics and receive comments, advice, good wishes and so on.

 The other interesting aspect of this site is that it is composed of people of all ages. Cancer in general, but colorectal cancers in particular have long thought to be an older person’s cancer with relatively few young people contracting this disease. It may be true that the majority of people with this type of cancer are older as that seems to be the case with very many cancers, but it is not exclusively true. This cancer does occur in people of all ages including those in their twenties and thirties, which is what makes it such a dangerous disease. There rarely are any symptoms until it is too late and doctors don’t recomend regular colonoscopies and other screening tests (fecal blood and etc.) until people are 50 or older. Therefore, if you are under 50 the chance that you will notice any symptoms or receive any kind of routine screening are very remote.

Because there is such a variety of people and ages (male and female without regard to gender) that are affected by this disease the Colon Club is a very good place for anyone to go and learn more about this cancer. For the most part the website is a place of hope and help that I have found rather beneficial after going through a year of treatment for a rectal tumor that was found after I noticed some anal bleeding and then had a colonoscopy.

Today, though, there was a posting from a husband whose wife has stage IV (terminal) colon cancer. The last line drugs have stopped working at keeping the cancer at bay, chemo is no longer an option and she is slowly dying if this horrible disease. He describes the constant sounds of her struggle to live and struggle against the very intense pain that people experience in the latter stages of cancer. It is a very moving post as was the comments of others wishing him well and that his wife would find her peace soon.

I can’t imagine that his post hasn’t had a ripple-like effect through the community that resides their. While it is primarily cancer patients there are also a lot of caregivers who use the post as a sounding board and place to gather information to better help the one in their life that is going through this. To all of these people this man and his wife are going through what we all fear most and have worked so hard and been through, and continue to go through so much to prevent. Hearing of his pain and feeling it come through in his words is a truth that we all have to confront, but it is a painful one that can alternatively make us feel lucky that today, right now I am not going through that, and then invoke that deep fear that there is no guarantee that in a year or two or four that won’t be my mother or soon-to-be wife posting her deep pain on that very same message board.

I should add that i think there is universal agreement among those of us who have and are going through cancer that what scares us the most is not so much the thought of death itself, after all it is something that will come to all of us sooner or later (hopefully later), but that we would be leaving the people whom we love so dearly and depend on us. I am an irreplaceable person in my children’s lives and the mere thought of them having to make their way in the world without me and then with limited contact to my family (my ex-wife and her family with the exception of her sister are a challenge to say the least) is more than I can take. Throughout treatment and now when I consider the fragility of my life and how lucky I am to be here and writing and cancer for (for now at least) I can’t help but experience some very intense emotions as it relates to my children and the effect my life has on their growth and development.

At any rate, today has been yet another experience of deep sadness and hope. I am so truly sorry that the man who wrote the post this morning has to go through this experience and that his wife must suffer so before being released from this world and her pain.

Hello to whatever lost souls may have found their way to my blog. With millions of them up and about and everywhere I can’t imagine that anyone would seek my humble musings on life, writing and etc. intentionally. That said, I do hoe that since you are here you may find something interesting to read about and perhaps share a few comments with me.

 What to write about…

I suppose for the first entry I would choose to write about writing. Yesterday at Salon.com, a relatively good website that used to be very good, published a piece yesterday by Catherine Price providing a few hints for freelance writers seeking to find some sanity in the lonely professiona that we have chosen. I suppose I wouldn’t say that I am necessarily lonely, though at the moment I am lonely for a bit more work. Rather I enjoy what I do very much and am very proud that I am able to earn my living this way even if it does provide a few challenges such as at tax time. This year was not kind to me.

At any rate, the Salon story I thought was a very good lesson in the basics of what you need to know to be a freelance writer with the two key points being it is important to get out and exercise regularly as well as find health insurance for yourself even if you feel healthy. As a cancer survivor this latter point is has been burned into my consciousness because if I had not had good health insurance and disability insurance I may not have survived my cancer. In full disclosure I should add that I am slightly more than a year past treatment, but so far so good.

So that is it for today as I have quite a bit of work to tend to. Sorry to bore, but with luck this will be a relatively active blog.