Thursday, June 06, 2002

DaveNet Let's say you have a dog. You like your dog. Your dog seems to like you. You take it for walks, you feed it, you're good to your dog. One day, your dog decides that instead of waiting for you to come home and walk him, he's just going to shit in your shoe. He's not pissed at you, he just decides to not wait any longer. You get home, you're none too pleased with the shit in your shoe. Maybe you don't get rid of the dog but you're not pleased. If it continues to happen, maybe then you get rid of the dog. Most people have dogs for the benefit that having the dog gives them. They don't have dogs to serve a greater, higher purpose. Dogs make them happy.

I think most employers have employees for what the employees give them. Journalism is no different. Granted, journalists are supposed to keep the rest of us informed. But take a look at what most people read or watch. It's not The Register. Most people like Temptation Island and Jerry Springer. It's not fair to ask all journalists, whether they're your friend or not, to be a martyr. Carry your own cross and wear your own crown but some of us like to get paid.

It seems pretty cool to be a martyr but martyrs never seem to be very happy if you ask me. Granted, toeing the line is maybe not what to shoot for but extremism makes for unhappiness. I've got friends who are marytrs and they aren't ever happy. They pretend like they're happy but they aren't.

Seems to me that there's a middle ground. Outing your friend for his self-preservationistic (i just made that word up) actions seems a little harsh. I don't know how long I've been reading scripting.com and DaveNet but it's been a little while. I enjoy it. It's good stuff. But he's a martyr if I've ever seen one. And one thing about martyrs is that they aren't happy with non-martyrs. They don't understand why we all don't want to change the world.
11:30:54 PM  permalink  What do you think?  []  trackback []


Scripting Talking with a British friend a few minutes ago, he told me of a recent story, where US President George Bush asked Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the President of Brazil, if there were blacks in Brazil. He was quickly set straight by Condoleeza Rice. "Brazil probably has more blacks than the USA. Some say it's the Country with the most blacks outside Africa," she said. The story appeared in Der Spiegel, and quite a few weblogs, but appears to have not been carried by US publications. Why? 

I'm interested in the news, but what really is cool to me is that Dave is always talking to people.  How does this work?  I hardly ever talk to anyone outside of work or my small circle of friends.  Mostly, this is by choice but I did try to send emails out not long ago to re-establish contact with people but to no avail.  I don't spend enough time trying to learn from other people.  I probably don't spend enough time trying to learn in general. 

As for the news, I wonder as well why US publications didn't pick up on this.  I wonder if Bush doesn't wake up every day and go "Wow, I'm still President.  It wasn't a dream."  I'm from Texas and this guy is an embarassment as far as I'm concerned.  He seems completely clueless.  Cheney would be a relief, at least as far as a politician is concerned. 

It seems to me that Bush has to be the most lost guy in Washington, and that's saying something.  Oh well, hopefully only 1 more year.  Like father, like son.


7:50:49 PM  permalink  What do you think?  []  trackback []

Went 4 miles in 34 again last night though this time it was in the heat which has to stand for something.  Not in the shape I'd like to be in but as in all things, in due time. 

 


7:44:59 PM  permalink  What do you think?  []  trackback []