I'm sorry I've played hooky from blogging, as it seems to have been a crazy, mixed up week to where I didn't post anything on my own blog. Someone actually asked what happened to me, somewhat worried. Well, life happened. You almost wish it had been the flu (which people seem to be getting around me left and right).
Seems like in this blog/Facebook/Twitter/Web site/e-mail/cell phone world of ours, we are demanded to communicate in five different directions at once. There were reports of President Obama's speech to the Congress being a focal point among members of Congress, who eagerly spent part of the time in the chamber Twittering others on their whereabouts, obviously to score points. (In the old days they only lined the aisle to be seen with the president. Now they can just sit in their seats and tell constituents by cell phone what the constituents can clearly see on TV.)
I guess as I try to sort out some things in my life -- and, no, it ain't all sorted out in my mind to yet -- I just didn't make time for some things. I also ignored by Bible study. I've missed that, too. However, until I see enough advertising for the radio show or income from other freelance work or **something** that can look truthfully long-term, then I will relax. I was happy with one job, one steady paycheck, health insurance, the whole ball of wax. Well, that has ended, at least for now. I'm either out of my comfort zone or out of my mind. Thankfully, I'm not out of money, as I am getting some of that, but changing the course of one's life after 27 years is not easy. It is especially difficult when you are changing course and the ocean that you were used to sailing is drying up around you, as evidenced by the sad collapse of the newspaper in Denver. We may see some big and small names vanish or shrink to yet. Reporter jobs are hard to come by in newspapers, and I am concerned the newspapers may be just as hard to come by in days down the road.
In my case, that means you try radio, which means you try selling ads for your own radio show, too. Most have been receptive to what I said, although the old days of making up your mind are gone. Now they have committees to go through. I've been referred to so many committees recently I feel like a constitution convention bill in the Alabama Legislature, passed on to be passed on until I pass on myself. I'm told I have a good product and to be patient on the economy. And every day I watch the stocks drop another 100 points. It's like betting on the Detroit Lions to win the Super Bowl by five touchdowns.
Then, there is freelancing. You write to magazines and you never hear back. You bid for work on Web sites like Elance, and a dozen people have already bid for projects...and some greedy person has underbid $100 and $200 offers with a $50 offer.
Oh, my. Selling cars sounds better, except that's not so hot these days. It's tough all around. I ordered pizza the other day, and the guy who brought it looked older than I was.
Anyway, I'll try to be a good boy and get back to blogging more in the next few days. I still won't be making any more money, but at least I know you're paying attention. Unless you're Twittering someone that you're reading my blog.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Quick Review: "Changling"
When I was a boy, I would watch the reruns of "Dragnet," leading me to think the Los Angeles Police Department was the most by-the-book, professional police department ever. The department would repay Jack Webb by lowering its flag at half-mast when he died. Yeah, they owed him big time, because history has now taught me that the department has had problems long before Rodney King.
Director Clint Eastwood cements his reputation further on this movie, now on DVD, by revisiting a sensational case that exposed how corrupt and above-the-law the department was in the 1920s. Angelina Jolie puts in a marvelous performance (as does everyone in this movie) as the real-life mother of a boy who went missing in 1928. When the police, eager for good publicity, announced they had found the boy, she was horrified to learn it was not her boy -- and even more horrified to find out the police not only wanted it behind them, but would stoop to playing mind games with her to pretend it was her boy and that the mother was crazy -- and I mean literally crazy. It is a story with so many twists and turns I don't dare reveal more, but it certainly is safe to say this was an historic case with major ramifications for the police department. It is a great movie that grips you with its story and holds you in suspense, tears and astonishment to the end, with every detail handled expertly.
In this day of Amber Alerts and media concentration, parents will be horrified to find out what happened to this mother and this child. One will be stunned how, in the United States of America, we can discover how authority, when too eager to get good publicity and easy rides at the risk of actually doing a good cop's job, can stoop to Gestapo-like tactics to get their way. It is a morality lesson for us all, and one every law enforcement agency, every military and every citizen's action group in these post-9/11 days should all but force their ranks to watch. Action in the sake of cleaning up society can soon spiral out of control be at the expense of a free society only wanting the basics done, such as finding a missing child. It happened in the "good ol' days" of 1928, in California, in an age of front porches and trust. Heaven help us what could happen today, and "Changeling" is our warning bell in the night.
Director Clint Eastwood cements his reputation further on this movie, now on DVD, by revisiting a sensational case that exposed how corrupt and above-the-law the department was in the 1920s. Angelina Jolie puts in a marvelous performance (as does everyone in this movie) as the real-life mother of a boy who went missing in 1928. When the police, eager for good publicity, announced they had found the boy, she was horrified to learn it was not her boy -- and even more horrified to find out the police not only wanted it behind them, but would stoop to playing mind games with her to pretend it was her boy and that the mother was crazy -- and I mean literally crazy. It is a story with so many twists and turns I don't dare reveal more, but it certainly is safe to say this was an historic case with major ramifications for the police department. It is a great movie that grips you with its story and holds you in suspense, tears and astonishment to the end, with every detail handled expertly.
In this day of Amber Alerts and media concentration, parents will be horrified to find out what happened to this mother and this child. One will be stunned how, in the United States of America, we can discover how authority, when too eager to get good publicity and easy rides at the risk of actually doing a good cop's job, can stoop to Gestapo-like tactics to get their way. It is a morality lesson for us all, and one every law enforcement agency, every military and every citizen's action group in these post-9/11 days should all but force their ranks to watch. Action in the sake of cleaning up society can soon spiral out of control be at the expense of a free society only wanting the basics done, such as finding a missing child. It happened in the "good ol' days" of 1928, in California, in an age of front porches and trust. Heaven help us what could happen today, and "Changeling" is our warning bell in the night.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Friday's show: Parrish debate at BOE meeting
I've decided that because of the bitter school board debate over the hiring of teachers at Parrish High School, which occurred late Thursday afternoon, we will air a large portion of that debate on our show Friday, provided there are no technical glitches. We will still have Cordova Mayor Jack Scott as our guest, but the bulk of the first half of the show will be devoted to this debate, which got rather angry toward the end. This will air Friday, Feb. 20, at 2 p.m.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Quick Review: Time Magazine special on Lincoln
To mark President's Day and the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birthday, there are probably lots of thick books you can buy. But the neatest bargain I've seen recently is probably in your grocery store's magazine area. Time Magazine has put out one of its special paperback books, this one running 122 color pages and called, "Abraham Lincoln: An Illustrated History of His Life and Times," costing only $11.99. For someone who doesn't want to spend a month reading the subject, this edition is full of rare photos (Lincoln in a white suit, for example) and great illustrations, matched by some great research and writing that made me sit up and take notice. A number of facts come out, such as Lincoln's skills as a legislator (which were used with others to move the Illinois capital to Springfield and get a major state construction package, although the latter failed because of a national economic collapse). There are early insights into what may have formed his views on slavery and how his love life caused him to fall into two major depressions. It also explains how someone from Lincoln's background could become a lawyer without going to law school and just how well he became at the profession. And, forget all the movies you saw...he had a high squeaky voice. For the armchair historian on a budget, or for anyone wanting an photo/text source that makes Lincoln human and accessible, this is a great way to mark the occasion on a quick read. As a fan of these Time/Life special projects, this is also one of the best they've put out in quite some time.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Quick Review: "W."
To me an Oliver Stone film usually is a sign of trouble. I thought "Platoon" was great, but he crossed a terrible historical line with "J.F.K." in that it completely warped what are the more common historical findings of the 1963 Kennedy assassination, and an entire generation bought it. I haven't quite forgiven him to yet.
Needless to say, we all know "W." will not be a film the Bush family will want to screen for family gatherings. We know the liberal director will be making his jabs at the former president. Here we get to see the long-rumored family split between son and father which may have had an impact on how W. governs. We also see presidential discussions that show how the war was built on faulty evidence and visions of regional domination. It is not pretty. Surprised?
However, first, actor Josh Brolin's portrayal of George W. Bush is so on the mark that it is worth the price of a rental to see it. Second, Stone, perhaps maturing a bit, has admitted and says again on extras here that it may not be completely accurate, as some conversations had to be constructed, but it is what he feels may be a close representation of what Bush's life was like. He is quick to admit in the commentary and other materials when literary license has been taken for the sake of better storytelling (leaving out a number of advisers in meetings to par down the number of people, re-arranging time, etc).
Most astounding is a supplementary DVD-ROM segment that you use on your computer to get articles and book quotes to back up incidents depicted in the movie, and there are a number of them. Stone has obviously read up well on his subject, and I have to admit to hearing about some of these incidents myself. I've never seen a movie on DVD that has been backed up with footnotes and sources like this, and I have to admit it is most refreshing. Movies and true history shall never completely meet thanks to the problem of storytelling or prejudices. Even though Stone once went so over the line that even I couldn't ignore it, he seems to set a standard here that would be refreshing if followed by other directors of historical films. Moreover, the reading in these articles even without the film are interesting, such as depictions of Bush's youthful arrests and his near-fight with his father.
Finally, Stone appears to have mellowed somewhat. Sure, he notes that he doesn't not agree with the Bush policies -- and gets in a few jabs on the commentary at Reagan and, of course, mentions Vietnam in passing, showing some of the old anger still there. Still, Oliver notes Bush as a personality is likeable and seems to like Laura Bush's influence on the man. He notes Bush did overcome problems and finally proved a success in his father's eyes in the form of a campaign advisor, and you can't help but be happy for him, even with the Willie Horton ads thrown in for emphasis.
Stone does not seem to doubt that Bush had some type of spiritual awakening and reformed himself on booze and other youthful problems. He seems to admire that. He even admires other Christians he has met, even though he did not appear to be a convert to private pleadings. But he tries to give some respect to those moments, although he seems bewildered by the president's constant praying at staff meetings. (Granted, though, that is unusual as a custom.)
Stone finds Bush somewhat a problem in general, one not really qualified, scarred emotionally, unable to empathize with others. Then again, you do seem to take some joy when Bush gives comeuppance to Vice President Dick Chaney and others who served the president poorly at times or who wanted to be in charge. Stone thinks others, such as Collin Powell, deserve some blame, according to his commentary. Bush is not really an evil man in Stone's hands, as he is one who was not equipped to be in place, becoming a victim of a final, belated success which unraveled into a failure of policy.
"W." will always be seen as a hit at Bush by a liberal director, but if the history books confirm many of these details...and, I fear, they may...then we may see this in the future as quite a record of a Shakespearean tragedy gone awry on the world stage. Only time will tell. For his part, Stone has done his best to give us an early peak at history and to back up his story. No matter how it ends, though, we know it ends in tragedy, for the man depicted has made his mark in history. It is a sad story, and any historical redemption, Harry Truman-style, may be very late in coming, indeed.
Needless to say, we all know "W." will not be a film the Bush family will want to screen for family gatherings. We know the liberal director will be making his jabs at the former president. Here we get to see the long-rumored family split between son and father which may have had an impact on how W. governs. We also see presidential discussions that show how the war was built on faulty evidence and visions of regional domination. It is not pretty. Surprised?
However, first, actor Josh Brolin's portrayal of George W. Bush is so on the mark that it is worth the price of a rental to see it. Second, Stone, perhaps maturing a bit, has admitted and says again on extras here that it may not be completely accurate, as some conversations had to be constructed, but it is what he feels may be a close representation of what Bush's life was like. He is quick to admit in the commentary and other materials when literary license has been taken for the sake of better storytelling (leaving out a number of advisers in meetings to par down the number of people, re-arranging time, etc).
Most astounding is a supplementary DVD-ROM segment that you use on your computer to get articles and book quotes to back up incidents depicted in the movie, and there are a number of them. Stone has obviously read up well on his subject, and I have to admit to hearing about some of these incidents myself. I've never seen a movie on DVD that has been backed up with footnotes and sources like this, and I have to admit it is most refreshing. Movies and true history shall never completely meet thanks to the problem of storytelling or prejudices. Even though Stone once went so over the line that even I couldn't ignore it, he seems to set a standard here that would be refreshing if followed by other directors of historical films. Moreover, the reading in these articles even without the film are interesting, such as depictions of Bush's youthful arrests and his near-fight with his father.
Finally, Stone appears to have mellowed somewhat. Sure, he notes that he doesn't not agree with the Bush policies -- and gets in a few jabs on the commentary at Reagan and, of course, mentions Vietnam in passing, showing some of the old anger still there. Still, Oliver notes Bush as a personality is likeable and seems to like Laura Bush's influence on the man. He notes Bush did overcome problems and finally proved a success in his father's eyes in the form of a campaign advisor, and you can't help but be happy for him, even with the Willie Horton ads thrown in for emphasis.
Stone does not seem to doubt that Bush had some type of spiritual awakening and reformed himself on booze and other youthful problems. He seems to admire that. He even admires other Christians he has met, even though he did not appear to be a convert to private pleadings. But he tries to give some respect to those moments, although he seems bewildered by the president's constant praying at staff meetings. (Granted, though, that is unusual as a custom.)
Stone finds Bush somewhat a problem in general, one not really qualified, scarred emotionally, unable to empathize with others. Then again, you do seem to take some joy when Bush gives comeuppance to Vice President Dick Chaney and others who served the president poorly at times or who wanted to be in charge. Stone thinks others, such as Collin Powell, deserve some blame, according to his commentary. Bush is not really an evil man in Stone's hands, as he is one who was not equipped to be in place, becoming a victim of a final, belated success which unraveled into a failure of policy.
"W." will always be seen as a hit at Bush by a liberal director, but if the history books confirm many of these details...and, I fear, they may...then we may see this in the future as quite a record of a Shakespearean tragedy gone awry on the world stage. Only time will tell. For his part, Stone has done his best to give us an early peak at history and to back up his story. No matter how it ends, though, we know it ends in tragedy, for the man depicted has made his mark in history. It is a sad story, and any historical redemption, Harry Truman-style, may be very late in coming, indeed.
This week's Talk of the Town, Feb. 16-20
This week's shows have been reshuffled a little. Monday we will still have Paul Kennedy to tell us about the community garden proposal and his work at the Walker Area Community Foundaton. Congressman Robert Aderholt, who was coming on Monday for a segment, will now be on Tuesday's show, joining Cordova Police Chief Kenneth Bobo. Wednesday we will Jennifer Williams Smith talk about the "Dream Time" non-competitive baseball team and Lora Courington will discuss her work at the Walker County office of the American Red Cross. David Jones will appear concerning the Capstone Rural Medical Clinic in Parrish on Thursday, and Cordova Mayor Jack Scott will appear on Friday to discuss developments in the city. The schedule is subject to change.
Talk of the Town, which includes news summaries and breaking news, is heard Monday through Friday at 2 p.m. on WJLX, 1240 AM, in Jasper, Alabama. Remember you can now hear a live stream of the broadcast anywhere at www.walkercountyradio.com, or you can download the show for up to a week afterward. The show should be ready within an hour after the broadcast. You can pass along news or comments in a call or text to 205-522-2986 or e-mail me at byedhowell@aol.com or byedhowell@yahoo.com. I would appreciate to know if you are hearing the broadcast and what we can do to make it better. We also are asking for commercial support of the show and welcome anyone who would like to take out commercial time on it.
Talk of the Town, which includes news summaries and breaking news, is heard Monday through Friday at 2 p.m. on WJLX, 1240 AM, in Jasper, Alabama. Remember you can now hear a live stream of the broadcast anywhere at www.walkercountyradio.com, or you can download the show for up to a week afterward. The show should be ready within an hour after the broadcast. You can pass along news or comments in a call or text to 205-522-2986 or e-mail me at byedhowell@aol.com or byedhowell@yahoo.com. I would appreciate to know if you are hearing the broadcast and what we can do to make it better. We also are asking for commercial support of the show and welcome anyone who would like to take out commercial time on it.
A matter of ethics
Somehow the word "ethics" and Alabama government have not gone well together in recent years. We have had a number of situations that gave given pause to state and local residents. We've had questions about a county commissioner and a mayor to go before the Ethics Commission. We've had one legislator, a state legislator who was House majority leader, who had contracts with two state community colleges for work that became a spark for statewide debate. That is not to mention all of the other allegations concerning legislators over the past couple of years. We have had governors on both sides of the aisle to be tangled by ethics, losing their jobs in the process.
Some will argue fine points over certain cases, and that's fine. The individual cases are not what I am concerned about. I am concerned about a lingering pattern of problems in a state where the good ol' boy system continues to get the best of us. We know there are problems. How many and how much of it relates to Walker County, well, who knows? The fact is, this is going on statewide at such a clip that it is bound to happen here sooner or latter, if it hasn't already happened, and something has got to be done about it.
Gov. Bob Riley stepped forward this year to make ethics reform a big part of his legislative platform. Elsewhere on his Web site, he mentions that "in Alabama, a lobbyist can spend up to $91,000 per year on a single legislator without being required to report it. That’s $250 a day that special interests are able to spend entertaining officials without the public’s knowledge. Also, under current law, those who lobby the executive branch for state grants or contracts are not required to register with the Ethics Commission."
He mentioned his proposal in his State of the State address:
"It gives citizens a clearer picture of the money being spent to influence public policy and public officials," Riley said. "No longer will there be unlimited wining and dining by the special interests. This reform ends that. And it requires full disclosure of everything spent by lobbyists on elected officials.
"It ensures that all potential conflicts of interests are also fully disclosed. Public officials will have to divulge any ownership they have in, or contracts with, an entity that receives any state funds. It also requires this same level of disclosure for their spouses. The Ethics Commission will – for the first time – have subpoena power to carry out its mission. And an attorney general or district attorney will be given a reasonable amount of time to either prosecute an ethics case or decline it."
According to the Birmingham News, Alabama is the only state with an ethics agency that does not have the power to subpoena.
Of course, this may fall on deaf ears again. Stars may literally have to fall on Alabama before reform can come. The Birmingham News noted in an editorial Sunday that Alabama is one of only six states left in the union that have not passed ethics reform in the past four years. As usual, we are gearing up to be last.
Moreover, legislators did not rush across town to an ethics seminar available to all legislators one day last week in Montgomery. Even though they were in town, the governor had made an issue of state ethics, the two-year college system had its share of state headlines and the event was arranged not to conflict with legislative duties, only one out of five state legislators showed up.
Appropriately, the seminar took place the day that state Rep. Sue Schmitz saw her retrial start on federal fraud charges.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so cynical. There was good news in that a House committee did approve giving the subpoena power, the first time a legislative committee has done that. Perhaps we should have hope, but passing a committee is still small potatoes compared to getting it through the House and the Senate in general.
Citizens should demand action on the bills. They should demand that legislators, many of whom have been dragged through the mud themselves, pass these bills as a means of bringing reform to our state. Legislators should be lining up to bring these types of reform.
I should be hopeful. I am not. Let's all hope I'm proven wrong.
Some will argue fine points over certain cases, and that's fine. The individual cases are not what I am concerned about. I am concerned about a lingering pattern of problems in a state where the good ol' boy system continues to get the best of us. We know there are problems. How many and how much of it relates to Walker County, well, who knows? The fact is, this is going on statewide at such a clip that it is bound to happen here sooner or latter, if it hasn't already happened, and something has got to be done about it.
Gov. Bob Riley stepped forward this year to make ethics reform a big part of his legislative platform. Elsewhere on his Web site, he mentions that "in Alabama, a lobbyist can spend up to $91,000 per year on a single legislator without being required to report it. That’s $250 a day that special interests are able to spend entertaining officials without the public’s knowledge. Also, under current law, those who lobby the executive branch for state grants or contracts are not required to register with the Ethics Commission."
He mentioned his proposal in his State of the State address:
"It gives citizens a clearer picture of the money being spent to influence public policy and public officials," Riley said. "No longer will there be unlimited wining and dining by the special interests. This reform ends that. And it requires full disclosure of everything spent by lobbyists on elected officials.
"It ensures that all potential conflicts of interests are also fully disclosed. Public officials will have to divulge any ownership they have in, or contracts with, an entity that receives any state funds. It also requires this same level of disclosure for their spouses. The Ethics Commission will – for the first time – have subpoena power to carry out its mission. And an attorney general or district attorney will be given a reasonable amount of time to either prosecute an ethics case or decline it."
According to the Birmingham News, Alabama is the only state with an ethics agency that does not have the power to subpoena.
Of course, this may fall on deaf ears again. Stars may literally have to fall on Alabama before reform can come. The Birmingham News noted in an editorial Sunday that Alabama is one of only six states left in the union that have not passed ethics reform in the past four years. As usual, we are gearing up to be last.
Moreover, legislators did not rush across town to an ethics seminar available to all legislators one day last week in Montgomery. Even though they were in town, the governor had made an issue of state ethics, the two-year college system had its share of state headlines and the event was arranged not to conflict with legislative duties, only one out of five state legislators showed up.
Appropriately, the seminar took place the day that state Rep. Sue Schmitz saw her retrial start on federal fraud charges.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so cynical. There was good news in that a House committee did approve giving the subpoena power, the first time a legislative committee has done that. Perhaps we should have hope, but passing a committee is still small potatoes compared to getting it through the House and the Senate in general.
Citizens should demand action on the bills. They should demand that legislators, many of whom have been dragged through the mud themselves, pass these bills as a means of bringing reform to our state. Legislators should be lining up to bring these types of reform.
I should be hopeful. I am not. Let's all hope I'm proven wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)