This is not for kids

Canibus - Poet Laureate Infinity



Canibus is not for casual hip hop fans. This is amazing and like he says, never been done before. You'll never see Jeezy or 50 even attempt something like this, probably because they'd run out of rhymes for coke and gun.

Limbaugh may have a point

or, Why ethics in journalism is an oxymoron

The incident below happened over the past week. I decided it was best to allow some time between when it happened and blogging about it, so that I could hopefully get some perspective on the issue.

I did some freelance work for a local newspaper. One of the pieces I was assigned called for me to write an article and a sidebar on the journalism school at a local university. The main article was on how the J-school is preparing students for the future, while the sidebar discussed in 400 words why the J-school is dominated by females.

For both of these articles I interviewed a variety of students, both past and present, as well as the dean of the journalism school. These interviews took place between June 15-22 of this year. The article published on August 17.

Around noon on the day of publication, I received a call from my editor telling me one of my sources, the dean, had problems with some of the quotes I had attributed to her. Instantly I knew what this was in reference to.

Here are the quotes from the article in question:

“I’m sure there are a couple of reasons for this,” (The source) said. “It’s probably a right brain/left brain thing. That sounds sexist, but there’s some truth to it.”

and,

"Another reason is probably because the salaries aren’t great,” (she) said. “A lot of men are more concerned with making money.”

I knew these were the quotes in question because they were ballsy things to say. True, probably, but borderline sexist as well. However, these are accurate quotes. I know because I was in the interview. Of course, unfortunately for the source, the article was picked up by Romenesko at Poynter Online, a site for professional journalists. Afraid of flack she was sure to receive, the source immediately went into full damage-control mode and posted this comment everywhere she could:

"OMG! My own mother would chastise me if she thought I said these things. I hope readers of this story and my mother know I didn't say this stuff. When the freelancer asked me about the enrollment, this was a small part of the discussion, in which I said SOME people may say creativity has to do with right brain/left brain, but journalism engages the entire brain and while women are the majority of our enrollment, it could be more of a cyclical thing right now. Yes, salaries are low but I certainly never said men are more concerned about making money than being creative. On a more serious note, sexism has no place in journalism or journalism education. It's discouraging to me as a journalism educator to see the impression this story might leave with any readers."

Let's break this down line-by-line and I will offer my case that this source is being deceitful, and as such, hugely hypocritical in presuming to oversee the ethical education of journalists-to-be.

1. "OMG" - Really? OMG? This source is a woman in her 60s (or somewhere thereabouts). She has absolutely no business using youthful slang while attempting to establish credibility.

2. "My own mother would chastise me if she thought I said such things." - An appeal to emotion, this rhetorical fallacy encourages you to believe her because no one with a mother could have said such things. Too bad she really did.

3. "I hope readers of this story and my mother know I didn't say this stuff." - A not-so-subtle attack on the author's (my) credibility. Implies these quotes were all a figment of my imagination. Note she didn't say these were taken out of context, but rather she never said them at all. While I don't work for the New York Times or Washington Post, I am a legitimate journalist and these are very serious allegations indeed.

4. "When the freelancer asked me about the enrollment, this was a small part of the discussion" - Note how she refers to me as "the freelancer". Not "the writer" or "the reporter", but rather as "the freelancer". Another fallacy, this is a subtle ad hominem attack. By referring to me as a mere freelancer, she's attacked my very credibility again. Unfortunately for her, my experience and education have nothing to do with her sexist quotes.

5. "I said SOME people may say creativity has to do with right brain/left brain, but journalism engages the entire brain" - COMPLETELY FALSE. I was there, remember. There was no qualifier "some people". In fact, I doubt she can even recall the interview after nearly two months, so how can she so clearly recall that she said "some people may say"? I know how, because she's trying to cover her backside after the fact. I went home and checked my notes on both disputed quotes, and both are verbatim. That means, what the article says came directly from her mouth. In addition, I clearly remember that day and those quotes. When she made these quotes I remember thinking to myself, wow, that was ballsy. Most people would be afraid to make statements like that, even though they're probably true. I respected her for that at the time. I have an excellent memory, particularly verbal memory and like I said, I clearly remember that day.

6. "women are the majority of our enrollment, it could be more of a cyclical thing right now." - Finally some truth. I reported this as well in the article.

7. "Yes, salaries are low but I certainly never said men are more concerned about making money than being creative." - Another absolute falsehood. Please refer to number 5.

8. "On a more serious note, sexism has no place in journalism or journalism education. It's discouraging to me as a journalism educator to see the impression this story might leave with any readers." - And here comes the politics. Clearly one doesn't rise to such a lofty position as dean of a journalism school without learning to play the game. This is where she makes another appeal to emotion, this couldn't possibly have come from someone who is so strongly anti-sexist.

While I don't doubt that the source is not sexist, and indeed is probably unhappy with how she is represented, it was never my intention to create a controversial article. In fact, it was a intended to be a light, fluff piece that took on a bit of a life of it's own. But that's why I'm fired up. She's using her position and experience to discredit me, even though all I did was quote her accurately.

Observe, if you will, the vitriolic reaction the piece inspired. One of the commenters from Poynter, the cleverly named "Paige Turner" responded

"I'm glad to see she didn't say it, and sorry to see a purported journalist misquote the dean of the J-school."

Apparently, all it takes is for someone alleging to be the person in question to refute the article, and that's all the evidence needed for a supposed professional journalist to draw a conclusion. Additionally, for someone who's bio page lists ethics as a journalistic interest, Paige Turner has shown remarkably few in referring to me as a "purported journalist" without hearing the other side of the matter, which by the way, just so happens to be the truth.

Additionally, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the dean had set her journalism goons on me in a further attempt to discredit me. On the newspaper's web site, an anonymous poster (imagine that) attacks my credibility for an arcane grammatical error known as a dangling modifier. Now this is my mistake, I admit, but the fact remains that it made it through a copy editor and at least two other editors before it ever appeared in print. Why am I singled out so vehemently? Is it because I authored a piece in which your beloved dean looks bad?

Even worse, another commenter (also anonymous) named Bob_Keeshan, took it upon himself to find and analyze my professional web site. For no other reason than to be an asshole, he posted in response to the above comenter:

"I'm guessing you would be appalled to know that (the writer) is a freelancer whose personal website pitches his services as both an editor and writer of copy."

That is not even close to true. While I have done some editing work in the past, never in my life have I "pitched my services" as an editor. I'm not an editor, I'm a writer.

Secondly, why would you even post something like this? This was really bothering me, until it occurred to me: Bob_Keeshan is obviously so cuckolded and impotent in the real world that the only sense of power he can derive is from being the guy online that everyone hates. Trolls really are sad, pathetic people and I'm sure Bob is no different. I just wonder if the State of Kansas division of information systems and communications knows just how he's spending his time at work. See, I know how to use the internet too.

Of course the whole point of this long-winded diatribe is the fact that the source of this story is responsible for overseeing the education of the next generation of journalists. Completely lacking in ethics herself when it comes to covering her own backside, how is she supposed to instruct students on having the courage of their convictions when covering sensitive topics? It's disgusting really that someone who will lie so brazenly to protect her career and reputation has this responsibility.

Of course, had she merely responded to the article with a remark about comments being taken out of context, I would have been irritated, but not offended. Instead, she thought slandering me was the best option.

It's really no small wonder that the media industry as a whole is dying when these are the people responsible for the future.

Let the protesting commence

Michael Vick just got signed by the Philadelphia Eagles.


No doubt legions of vegans, PETA nut jobs, and just general assholes will be out in full force demonstrating at every Eagles game.

While I love dogs and strongly disapprove of dog-fighting, let the man live. He's paid his debt to society, served about a year-and-a-half prison time and lost millions of dollars defending himself. He's been punished. Now let him get back to his life.

Of course the who issue systematic of the penal system in this country. One reason the rate of recidivism is so high is because once you're labeled as an ex-con, it's really hard to find work. Look at the flack caught by Felony Franks, a hot dog stand in Chicago staffed by ex-cons. Why? Seriously, why wouldn't you want former criminals earning an honest living?

It all comes down to one basic fact, everyone, regardless of past mistakes they may have made, deserves the right to earn a living. Michael Vick is no different. But you can be sure the animal whacko brigade will be out in full force to boo him. Of course most of those people aren't firing on all cylinders in the first place.

An open letter to Eminem

Dear Eminem,

Please go away. Seriously, your schtick is getting tired. You’ve lost all touch with your fan base and what made you popular in the first place. And it’s time for you to call it a career.

When you first came out you were awesome. Your lyrics were clever and often laugh-out-loud funny. Your cadence was unique and I especially liked how you could make words that don’t really rhyme fit together. Plus you were filled with that post-adolescent rage that many of your fans were feeling. As a white kid, you spoke to us in ways that no mainstream rapper had before. You weren’t rapping about slangin’ crack or packin’ nines in a pimped out Impala. No, you were speaking about things we understood, directionless rage let loose at random against ex-girlfriends, mothers and anyone else who caught you on an off day. You rapped about feeling like a loser and taking drugs. Your fans could relate.

But now fame has gone to your head. Maybe you can’t rap about being broke anymore, but I guarantee you not many of your fans relate to your complaints about celebrity life. In fact, I can pinpoint the exact moment when I lost respect for you. It was on The Eminem Show, track number 8, “Say Goodbye to Hollywood”. About two-thirds through the song you rapped a lyric that completely disgusted me:

“It's like the boy in the bubble, who never could adapt, I'm trapped, if I could go back, I never woulda rapped”

Sorry Slim, but I’m not buying what you’re selling. You’re trying to convince hip hop fans everywhere that you would go back to being a minimum wage-earning high school-dropout unable to feed your daughter, than have paparazzi following you and people asking for your autograph. Please go fuck yourself. There are literally millions of people who would trade lives with you in an instant. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m sure it sucks to have virtually no privacy, but I’d be willing to bet the millions of dollars and hundreds of girls throwing themselves at you goes a long way to removing the sting.

Secondly, I’m tired of you beefing with rapping bums and non-rappers. This is actually what brought about this post, “The Warning” your song targeted at Mariah Carey. Now I’m no Mariah fan, but after all the cheap shots you’ve taken in videos at dozens of celebrities, you’re awfully thin-skinned about some veiled references in a song and a half-assed imitation of you in a video. But maybe she was asking for it. I don’t know the details like you do, maybe you were justified in reacting. However, let’s just chalk this up to the seemingly never-ending series of beefs you engage in with pop stars, all the while carefully avoiding anyone who is capable of verbally murking you. Seriously dude, you beefed with Moby. Moby? The guy’s a vegan for god’s sake. I’m pretty sure my grandma could beat him down.

In fact, the only beefs you’ve had with real rappers were with guys whose careers were pretty much over anyway. Sure, you went after Ja Rule after 50 had flushed and he was circling the bowl. Of course he still got in the most memorable jab of the whole beef. Then there was Benzino. Congratulations, you crushed a guy who has no business rapping in the first place. ICP sucks, everybody already knew that. You jumped into D12’s fight with Royce, which went virtually unnoticed by everybody not from Detroit. Jermaine Dupri is a producer who really shouldn’t rap, was that a real challenge?

Let's be honest, the only real MCs you’ve ever stepped to are Cage and Canibus, and you only took a few half-assed shots at them. In fact, I’d be willing to bet most of your fans don’t even know who they are. But you and I both know that if Canibus had really wanted to, he could have unleashed some of that “2nd Round Knockout” fury he dropped on LL. And sorry, but I doubt you would have been victorious.

Maybe you’re not scared to go after Jay-Z or Nas or somebody from Wu-Tang. But for a supposed battle rapper, you’ve made an entire career out of attacking pop stars. Is it because deep down you realize that’s what you’ve become? Is it a classic case of self-loathing? Because that’s what it looks like.

Basically, all you have become is a novelty, another has-been rapper living off of his past glories. For all the hype and anticipation surrounding your latest album, you really dropped the ball. In fact, I’d go so far as saying your first single “We Made You” is one of the worst songs of the year, trailing perhaps only Lady Gaga’s garbage music. But your legions of fans (most of whom probably also support Soulja Boy), snatched it right up. Congratulations, you sold a lot of records – so does Miley Cyrus. It doesn’t mean you’re making good music.

At this point I highly doubt you can reclaim the fire and energy you once had, so you’ve only got a couple of options: 1. Continue putting out garbage like Encore and Relapse; or 2. Retire and save what’s left of your legacy. I know which one I’m rooting for.

Sincerely,

BRTW

Time is on my side?

I'm fascinated by the idea of time. While my understanding of physics is slightly better than rudimentary (I've read Hawking's Brief History of Time), I love to think it. While I believe the mechanics of non-linear time, worm holes and time travel is beyond my limited mental capabilities, it's still something that truly interests me.

The first thing I love to consider is our view of time as a strictly linear, one-way street. This first really occurred to me when I read Slaughterhouse 5 many years ago. The aliens in the book have the ability to see in four dimensions, meaning they see past, present and future simultaneously (also like Dr. Manhattan in the Watchmen). What limits this in humans? The future depends upon causality, so I understand why we can't see that clearly, but the past, particularly past we have experienced should be firmly imprinted in our brains.

But often it's not. What did you have for dinner last Tuesday? Anyone? Unless you're one of those fortunate souls with an eidetic (photographic to you lay people) memory, you likely have no idea. Why is our brain structured like this, to view most insignificant past occurrences vaguely or not at all? Is it for efficiency purposes? If this is the case, why aren't people with photographic memories strongly deficient in another area? Where neuroscience and physics combine completely baffles me.

As for the future, we as 21st century humans are clearly intelligent enough to recognize causality, as clearly defined by Isaac Newton hundreds of years ago. As such, why don't we have a better idea of what will happen tomorrow? Television stations spend thousands of dollars on Doppler radar and other fancy equipment, and still can't guarantee with any degree of certainty whether it will rain tomorrow or not. Of course like most things, there are a huge amount of variables to be considered. What is truly mind blowing is to consider the variety of outcomes possible, depending on seemingly minor occurrences, i.e. the butterfly effect.

As the proverb states:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

But what if the nail hadn't been lost? The kingdom would have been saved. And perhaps it was in some alternate, parallel universe. This is where string theory comes in and things get fascinating.

The idea that everything, past, present and future, with every possible outcome, exist simultaneously, separated only by dimensional rifts is an exciting one, and has led to at least two popular television shows, Quantum Leap and Sliders. If you really believe this, then time doesn't really exist, it's merely a creation of man. Of course other animals obey time, birds know when to migrate south, grizzly bears when the salmon will be running, but no other creature on Earth is slave to the whims of the clock like we are.

Of course assuming time does exist, present is perhaps the most interesting of the three states of time. Why? Because present is too minute to measure, so small it almost doesn't exist. What I mean by this is in the milliseconds it takes you to read these words, the neurons to fire in your brain recognizing them, present is already past. Everything we see, feel or do, exists only in the past. The very near past, less than a second perhaps, but the past nonetheless. That means everyone of us, in fact everything we know, exists in the past. Our entire lives are reactionary, nothing more.

Like I said, I love to ponders the imponderable. Just what I'm kicking around in the old noggin this morning... :-)

Further proof hannity is a moron

I realize this happened quite a while ago, but I just found this on YouTube.



He obviously doesn't have the blatant agenda of the "liberal media", wasting time viciously attacking things like policies and positions. No,the real reason he hates Obama is his preference for "fancy" mustard.

(Almost) anything's better than what we've got now

You know it just occurred to me this morning, most (rational) people in this country realize that government run anything is a disaster. Simply look at the VA, DMV, hell even FDA, and everything is hugely complicated with miles of red tape to wade through before anything can get done.

With that said, why are so many of these same rational people pro-socialized medicine? It seems like there's only one clear answer: our politicians have been in the pocket of the healthcare lobbies so long, they've let our current system get so out of hand that socialized medicine seems like a valid option.

To me the entire problem is a philosophical one. For example, resident Fox idiot sean hannity routinely says our system is fine because no doctor will ever refuse to treat you due to the Hypocratic Oath. While this is true, what this rich moron is neglecting to consider is the fact that while they may treat you, without insurance you could easily end up deep in debt, spending the rest of your life paying it off. So basically, you get screwed for having the misfortune of getting sick while poor.

Any way you look at it, the way our medical system works is dangerously and fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately, we've waited so long and let things get so bad that any change seems like a good one. And while I'm cautiously pro- socialized medicine, I'm also reluctant to have the government running such an important service. But again, our current system is doesn't work, and that's a fact.

Interestingly this whole debate draws a strong parallel to Obama's election in the first place, that is, people were so disgusted with the direction the Bush II administration took the country that the knee-jerk reaction was to elect someone incredibly different from him.

In closing, if you're unhappy with Obama and his healthcare idea, you've really only got yourself to blame. If you had spoken up before when your people were running the system into the ground, we'd likely have a more centrist government, pushing a more centrist agenda right now.