Saying Goodbye to Walter Cronkite

Hi Everyone,

Well, I guess you're all aware of today's anniversary. 40 years ago today, a group of three men landed on the moon and took one giant leap for mankind. I've heard interviews with the Apollo astronauts now talking about how they looked back at the Earth and found it remarkable to see how small it looked in the dark void of space. They talk now about how fragile the Earth is now, how many problems are plaguing it now, and we all need to keep it safe. Very interesting, very heartening, too.

Anyway, today, I come to pay tribute to a man whom you've probably heard about by now. Walter Cronkite, who was a legendary CBS TV reporter from World War II to the 80's, died last week at age 92. His reporting, of course, came long before my time. However, given some of the facts about his reporting versus the reporting of today, it gives me a lot more respect for him. He got his start reporting in World War II alongside Edward R. Murrow (another man whose reporting we could use today).

During the Vietnam War, he offered commentary that no one would think of today. He told the country that Vietnam had become a stalemate which could result in a "cosmic disaster," in the form of a nuclear war. He reported that what the Government and the Pentagon had told the people was not true. Today, on the other hand, NBC's David Gregory dismissed allegations that the media didn't do enough to question the Government before Iraq, Gregory said that it "isn't the news media's job to question the Government." Um, Dave, it is your job. I'm aware that when someone dies, people tend to remember the best things about someone, exaggerate them, and ignore the rest (cough, Michael Jackson). However, hearing this made me like Cronkite sooo much.

Fellow journalists, professionals and amateurs like me, have voiced great reverence for the late Walter Cronkite. Katie Couric commented noted that when he was in the anchor chair, if he was critical of a policy, it was much harder for an administration to pass it. That is something to be admired. Imagine a journalist who highlighted elements of a policy that didn't work for people, and then the administration had to fix it. Oh, what a wonderful day that would be. But I've gotta get out of my daydream. So you see why I've got quite a bit of respect for the late Mr. Cronkite.

So what has changed since Cronkite left the anchor chair? Well, for one thing, the media is very corporate dominated today. All the major media outlets are owned by about five huge corporations (Time Warner, Viacomm, and a few others). They depend on access to politicians, corporate figures, celebrities and such for their ratings and salaries. So if they publish something those in power don't like, they could very easily have their career and status pulled out from under them. Our culture has become geared so much toward "infotainment." The news media gives things such an in-your-face, UFC type feel, instead of the serious, slightly uncomfortable analysis that Walter gave when he blew the lid off what was going on in Vietnam, or that Edward R. Murrow gave when he stopped Joseph McCarthy in his tracks.

The news today is at the mercy of some very rich and powerful folks, on whom they depend for their fortunes and fame. But the people have been complicit in this, tuning in time and time again. Perhaps people are drawn to this infotainment culture because it's easier to swallow. If the media had to question our government, question those powerful CEO's, and whoever, people might figure out some uncomfortable things about our culture. Maybe our way of life is costing us a lot more than we realize. Maybe some serious reforms are in order. This would be a very painful thing to discover, especially for people who profit a great deal from this way of life.

But I refuse to give up hope. If nothing else, there is always hope. Maybe someday soon, another Walter Cronkite will emerge, and will use his status and fame not solely for their good, but for the good of the world. Perhaps he (or she) could use the reporting they do to persuade those with power to keep on the right course. Maybe that person would be guided by the spirit of Walter, just as Luke Skywalker was guided by the spirit of Obi-Wan. The world awaits. Anyway, Walter, for what it's worth, the Daily Reeder salutes you!

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Time for REEDBACK! Edition 2

Hi Everyone,

You may remember that six months ago, I introduced a new segment called REEDBACK. I expected to use it a lot more often than I have, but since this is such a low traffic blog (I don't particuarly care how many people read it, to tell the truth), I only get about one or two comments per post. Most of those comments have not been enough to devote an entire post to a response. But in checking up on monday's post, I found four comments. The first two were quite lengthy, and were really parts of one comment. They were from someone called "laloyalist." So for the second time, on July 17, 2009, it is time again for...REEDBACK!

Here is what laloyalist wrote:

The first part:

"This area has been the subject of a good deal of thought on my part, so I'm going to weigh in. I spent a long time as a religious (more specifically, Christian) person. To me, it was just something people did. And though I was religious, I eventually began to come by all the things people traditionally receive from religion (moral code, purpose, joy, etc) from other means. Once I realized this, I eventually shed my religion. Yet I did not do this out of any "anger", it was simply a decision that I made as the product of involved thought.I consider myself primarily a Secularist, since I'm not intrested so much in the existence of deities or supernatural entities as their signifigance, which I feel is secondary to human reason and emotion. However, I'm not opposed to religion insofar as it is an excersize of people's freedom to believe what they want; moreover, I feel that the majority of the time a person's belief about the physical nature of the universe is a fact as mundane as his/her hair color. But some religions aren't simply views of the physical nature of the universe, but also doctrines which seek to negate any views - and any persons - which hold them not only as true but absolutely and irrevocably trumping everything else, period. From the reign of Constantine to the Enlightenment, Christianity was one of those religions. At it's core, it remains about repressing free thought; Christians are told in the Bible that the most important thing they can do is not promote human well-being but to believe in a deity. It is for this that, while I fully support your right to feel the way you do, and as a former believer can understand the impetus to feel that way, I also think that a "Christian only" outlook on things implicitly negates others' ability live a good life through other religions, or no religion. As someone who not only treasures freedom of thought, but employs it as my primary source of personal joy, it saddens me that a movement which at its core stifles one's very thought patterns has gained such popularity.Of course, anyone who is critical of Christianity immediately sets himself up to be counterattacked as an enemy of all the good things in the Bible - as a side note, many religions include a body of noble beliefs which religionists claim are inextricably linked to scriptural nastiness and effectively serve to deflect all criticism of that religion. However, I contend that all that is good, noble, or wonderful about religion can be validaded by secular means. Conversely, all that is intolerant, mean-spirited, and destructive in a religion can only be accepted if that religion is granted special treatment in the first place.With regard to religion in politics, Wallis claims (and as best as I can tell you agree) that "The liberal side has made a mistake in ignoring the fact that the teachings of Jesus are what give movements for justice and peace the most strength, and turn to a purely secular vision." If by the "teachings of Jesus" Wallis is refering to the Christian religion, that can be factually proven as incorrect. There is of course the Hindu satyagraha movement of Gandhi, and the prominent women's suffrage advocate Matilda Joslyn Gage was nonreligious. But if Wallis is referring to such teachings as Matthew 5:44, "Love your enemy", I would argue that that is powerful but for a secular reason; a society based on human rights, in which even your enemies are treated with dignity, is our higest calling as humans seeking a better existence.So basically, I disagree with Wallis on many of his points. I particularly am a bit saddened by the final passage about the young agnostic; like so many other exchanges it lays on a heavy implication that the default position of all agnostics, atheists and secularists are against human goodness. Too often we hear either "he's religious and a good person" or "he's an agnostic, but still a good person". Why can't it be "he's agnostic AND a good person"?"

The second part:

"Conclusion:However, I do support Wallis insofar as his message promotes the advancement of human rights and well-being. That's something you don't have to be either religious or secular to support. Now if only we could get good old Jim to acknowledge that."

First of all, the decision to commit to a religious tradition is a deeply personal one. This is a decision everyone must come to on their own. Laloyalist says at the top that he received everything religion traditionally promises (moral code, purpose, joy, so on) without religion. Good for you, laloyalist. However you arrive at those things is fine. However, even in this age, religion does give some people those things. It is important to recognize that religion and spirituality can and does still serve a purpose. If there was nothing of Truth, nothing of existential value, in religious traditions, they would have been confined to the trash can of history long ago.

He goes on to say that how a person believes the universe was created is no more relevant than their hair color. This is not entirely true. For one thing, your hair color probably won't influence how you think about the world, how you treat others. This is so because, as laloyalist later notes, religion encompasses not only the creation and trajectory of the universe (hence the famous Darwinist-Creationist conflict here in the US), but also ways that people should conduct their lives, sometimes for the better, other times for the worse.

Laloyalist goes on to argue that religion stifles free thought and is all about repressing it by making its followers believe that the highest good lies in believing in a deity. I am painfully aware that too many times in the past, and still today, religious doctrine has been used by power-hungry leaders to stifle any criticism of them, elicit vast financial and cultural influence from their followers, and justify dehumanizing and even endorsing violence against those they feel threatened by. This is what made me, for most of my recent life, skeptical of organized religion, as I pointed out in the post.

This was why Jim Wallis's book resonates so strongly with me. Because I feel that, for all its flaws, the Christian tradition does have some truth to it, and I wished, for the longest time, that someone would use this tradition to build others up, rather than justify tearing them down. It was very heartening to get reminded that there are Christians who care about issues like poverty, environmental stewardship, and war and peace. Any religious or spiritual tradition that can seriously be called a guide in life, in my view, must address these larger issues as well as the personal ones.

The loyalist (let's call him that from now on) then states that anyone who dares criticize Christianity sets himself up to be the enemy of all that is pure and good in the religion. This is not entirely true. It is a sad fact that some are still suspicious of those who profess nonbelief, ore even simlpe uncertainty. However, this book also addresses fundamentalism within Christianity, and Wallis mentions that he had someone who didn't agree with him theologically, as the loyalist does not, but nonetheless knew that the way Wallis sought to put his faith into action was right. Hopefully the loyalist may come to a similar conclusion.

Next, the loyalist argues that all that religion offers can be arrived at secularly, but all the intolerances, bigotries, flaws in religion, would not happen had religion not achieved such a high place in society. This is a mistake, I believe, that many nonreligious, or nondeist, if you prefer, people make. They dismiss all good that religion can accomplish by stating that people would do it anyway, but any bad that occurs in the name of religion or a spiritual tradition, that couldn't have happened without religion. It seems to me that any attitude could be justified and empowered by religion, good or bad. To assume that it is entirely either good or bad would be a mistake. Those in religion and out of religion alike must not assume that their traditions are always good, but strive to make them better, to answer the questions I believe we all have and the need we all have to make our world more just.

The next paragraph talks about how Christianity isn't the only religion that has powered movements for social justice, since Gandhi was a Hindu, I think, and one of the Sufferagette leaders was nonreligious. Wallis never claims in the book that Christianity is the only way. What he argues in the book, and what I would argue (what I am arguing) is that religion (Christianity in this context, but doubtless others, as well) can be used to wage powerful campaigns for justice, peace and healing. When such movements have selfless religious and spiritual roots, they are made all the more powerful. The unfortunate tone I detected in that paragraph is that it seems the loyalist is more interested in shooting down theological arguments than listening to what Mr. Wallis is really after.

Lastly, the second, and concluding, part of the loyalist's comment stated that he agreed with Mr. Wallis's mission to promote human rights and well-being. There I believe the loyalist is correct. Then he writes "Now if only we could get good old Jim to acknowledge that." But I believe he does. When Mr. Wallis talks about needing more religion rather than more secularism, he isnt talking about people who demand that creation be taught in school, that the ten commandments be on display out front of every school, and that everybody, on pain of death, say "Merry Christmas." He is talking about the decency that guides us to be just and kind in our dealings, as many biblical passages implore us to do. This is what I believe God and the religious traditions should speak to. Now, if only we could get the loyalist to acknowledge that. I kid the loyalist, with love. But seriously, I hope that comes across. That's why I liked the book so much.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

iSotomayor es lo Mejor!

Hi Everyone,

So, this whole post is just about that statement in the title. I still don't know how to do the upside down exclamation mark that the Spanish language uses, so I used the lower-case "i" to create the effect seen above. The hearings to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court began this week. By this point, you've all seen or heard Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) or Jeff Sessions (R-AL) make fools of themselves by basically giving Sotomayor all their attitude. Perhaps it's because Sen. Graham is mad because he's a dude named Lindsey.

I discussed Sotomayor with you in a post last month. Not much in the way of new revelations about Sotomayor has surfaced since. She did sprain her ankle a few weeks ago, while catching a plane to Washington in LaGuardia Airport. So she has had to attend her confirmation hearings in a cast. Imagine having to deal with these Senators backtalking you while recovering from an ankle sprain. She must be tough. According to Lindsey Graham, too tough. He talked about lawyers who supposedly said she was a "bully," but aren't judges supposed to ask challenging questions of lawyers? People claim that she'd be some sort of radical, but her record shows no indication of this. She usually went along with the majority of her colleagues. She's just the kind of even-handed, judicial, but nevertheless empathetic (remember, empathy is good), Justice the Supreme Court could use. So, let me repeat the Spanish phrase (which may or may not be phrased correctly) I proclaimed above: iSotomayor es lo mejor!

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

"Foxy" MSNBC Anchor Catches The Reeder's Eye

Hi Everyone,

Hope you liked that joke I started out with. That was pretty much the reason I chose the word "foxy." Anyway, today we're gonna have a little change of pace. Instead of the serious, heavy issues I usually discuss, I'll talk about a more light experience I had recently.Before I get down to business here, let me set out some background. My dad knows that I've seen a fair amount of clips from news outlets like MSNBC on youtube, since this is where I get most of what I know from. My dad mentioned to someone he worked with that I had watched MSNBC, and the guy had told him that "MSNBC is where all the stone cold foxes are." At first I didn't know what he meant. Who could he be talking about? The only female I knew of on MSNBC was Rachel Maddow, and she's nice, but not exactly a "stone cold fox."

Then I came across this video:




By the way, today presents us with another milestone; this is the first video I have posted on this blog.

The woman's name is Contessa Brewer. This segment had to do with the Palin-Letterman flap about a month ago. In it, LA area talk show host and Palin sycophant extraordinaire John Ziegler came on to extoll Palin's virtues and talk about how horrible Letterman was. In all fairness, Letterman did go too far, but the whole thing was made into more than it really was. However, that's beside the point of this post. The point is that in the interview, the guy was unbelievably smug. He probably couldn't have gone five seconds without being a condescending ass. He even started out by saying "Well, it's great to be here on the official network of Barack Obama."

Contessa took him to school, though. When the guy tried to politicize Letterman's bad jokes about Palin, Contessa pointed out that she, too, as I'm sure many women of all political varieties have, endured those kinds of tasteless remarks. Later on in the interview, Ziegler accused the MSNBC network of having "no class" somehow. If they really didn't have class, they wouldn't have let him come on the show. Then Contessa finally didn't put up with his snide, almost contemptuous attitude, saying goodbye to him, and then when he offered further condescension, she just said "Cut the mic, please." Hmmm, "Cut the mic, please?" Wow, showing courtesy even when she's offended. That's probably being nicer and showing more class than they would on a certain network I could name.

So then I knew what that guy was talking about. There is at least one woman on MSNBC who you could call a "stone cold fox," if you wanted (personally, I don't think that term works because it sounds like you're saying they're "cold" meaning nasty or mean-spirited). But not only is this woman, Contessa Brewer (Quite a name, isn't it. When's the last time you came across someone named Contessa) very pretty visually, but she's very bright, she's got journalistic integrity, and evidently, she also knows how to deal with smug fools who think they're all that. Pretty much all the best traits in a woman, don't you think? Anyway, Contessa, if you ever end up in Long Beach, CA, feel free to come on down to the Reeder's place, and you'll be welcome here. See ya guys!

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Listen To Mr. Obama In His Own Words

Hi everyone,

Really quickly, I'd like to share something with you. It came to my attention that President Barack Obama penned an editorial in Sunday's Washington Post. I don't subscribe to the Washington Post (LA Times all the way!), so I was only able to track down the text of the editorial today. I knew that he had penned a few editorials before; I had read one of them in the LA Times. I have both of the books he wrote; I particularly liked The Audacity of Hope, and I am currently reading Dreams From My Father. So I read the thing from Sunday, and it sounded like something he'd say. It seems he contributed personally to some of his speeches, so it wouldn't suprise me if he personally had a hand in writing it.

Here is the full text of the editorial. Enjoy!

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

A Good Reed for EVERYONE

Hi Everyone,

Well, I'm not Oprah and I'm not about to start a book club, but I've got a good read here that I thought you would like to hear about. It was one of those books that, you know, it comes along, you read it, and you feel like it's talking to you. This was one of those books for me, and I felt I had to share it with you. It has to do with politics, social matters, and religion (three things very close to my heart). The book is called God's Politics: Why the Right gets it wrong and the Left doesn't get it. You might have heard of the author. His name is Jim Wallis. He founded Sojourners, a publication and network for religious-minded folk who care about justice and peace, both personally and globally. This is how I feel, and if you're reading this, I hope you do too.

This appeals to what I think religion should be about. One reason I have been skeptical of religion recently is political. The idea of religious politics I came of age with was the dominance of the Religious Right. I came to believe that most christianity and religion at large was ruled by anti-gay people who were opposed to abortion in any and all circumstances, but who are deafeningly silent on the growing disenfranchisement of the poor, degradation of the environment, our most valuable resource, and think nothing of starting senseless wars. This perception, along with the rise of fundamentalism, soured me on organized religion. I came to view religion in politics as being a problem, a pathway to widespread violence and authoritarianism. I came to view religion more as deadening, dehumanizing dogma rather than revitalizing, empowering spirit.

God's Politics was published in 2005, when George W. Bush and the Religious Right had a firm hold on the US Government. It is sort of dated, but its message still rings true. Wallis has written since, and I caught a little bit of his new book, which debuted since the election of Obama and the change in the power structure in DC. Power can corrupt anyone, even those with high-minded and noble motives. So this is just as important now as it was four years ago, and will continue to be important four years from now, and four years after that.

Wallis contends that the most powerful movements for justice and peace have been rooted in religious, spiritual, and moral ideas. A short list: Wallis sites the anti slavery movement of the 19th century and the civil rights movement a century later as the greatest examples. He talks about Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu as examples for what we can accomplish in our country and in the world. Wallis talked, at one point, about the Berrigan brothers, two Catholic priests who campaigned against the Vietnam War, and then continued to campaign against nuclear weapons.

In fact, it turns out Wallis had a plan in mind for how to avoid the Iraq War. He devoted an entire chapter (Chapter 4: Protest is Good; Alternatives are Better) to a strategy to avoid war, and how he attempted to execute it in the run up to the Iraq War in early 2003. It turns out that Wallis and other prominent religious leaders came up with a six-point plan (read the entire plan here) to remove Saddam Hussein from power, eliminate the WMD's and improve the life of the Iraqi people. According to him, he and the others presented the plan to the British government, British Prime Minister Tony Blair himself, and to the State Department. Apparently, it did gain some traction at the time, but I guess we know now who was listening to it and who didn't.

In the book, Wallis also addresses a chief concern of mine when it comes to religion: fundamentalism. In the following chapter, Wallis addresses the rise of the Religious Right in the '80's and '90's. He commented on the fact that the movement, with Jerry Falwell at its helm, gained political power through the Reagan White House. Wallis notes that because the Religious Right's leaders sought political power right away, it became more about keeping their power for them, rather than about bringing to pass whatever beneficial goals it may have had.

He then notes how the Civil Rights movement in the '50's and '60's, with Martin Luther King at its helm, sought to effect change without political power. Eventually, through its appeal to people of lower status, but of sound moral and religious convictions, the movement gained political traction, and the Johnson White House took bold steps in proposing, then signing, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was not corrupted by its political ambitions, and therefore it was able to accomplish good and justice.

Why I stated that this book was for everyone is because it was subtitled Why the Right gets it wrong and the Left doesn't get it. Wallis's message is meant to challenge both the right and left side of the political spectrum. Wallis says that this is the purpose of religion in politics. The premise is that the right, the conservative side, has made a mistake in co opting religion only to impose personal morality on everyone and ignoring, or going against, the larger responsibility we have to each other, that Jesus stressed in His teachings.

The left, the liberal side, has made a mistake in ignoring the fact that the teachings of Jesus are what give movements for justice and peace the most strength, and turn to a purely secular vision which denies any role for religion in the public sphere. Because it is equally supportive and critical of both sides, and it seeks justice and peace for all, it seems to me like it could gain some broad support. If someone delivered a message of unity and peace like this, in a world riddled with division and war, they could find themselves with a broad base of support. Could it be that Barack Obama read this book, too? It seems that Wallis had known Obama even before he debuted on the national scene.

Wallis even talks about a signing he did in Denver, where he was approached by a kid who was an agnostic. The talk that Wallis gave appealed even to the kid who, like me, was uncertain of the premise of God, but was moved by what Mr. Wallis had to say. I have to close by saying that this book has really spoken to me about what religion can and should be in our lives. What Wallis talks about here has begun to make even me feel that maybe there is something to that Christian tradition. Something that makes it real, that makes it worth pursuing. This way of speaking not just to personal responsibility, but responsibility to each other, has tremendous power, power that can repair this country and this world. Great read, Mr. Wallis.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

What Will You Be Doing for the Fourth of July?

Hi Everyone,

Now it's time for me to ask you that question. Tomorrow I won't be doing much. I will be hanging out with my family, as I usually am on weekends, and a friend of my Dad's will be coming down with his family to visit. Later on, tomorrow night, we'll probably watch the fireworks. Now it's your turn to tell me what you will be doing tomorrow (or what you will have done, if you're late in responding). No words can do justice to what tomorrow's anniversary represents, so while you enjoy yourself this fourth of july, doing whatever, think of the risk those men took so that the world may be better off for us. I urge you all to keep that in mind tomorrow.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.