Media "Fire" Storm

In Washington DC a fire at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House sent the press corp running for their cameras and microphones. I happened to be home and had the gleeful pleasure of flipping from news channel to news channel to see how each reviewed the incident. Here are my final standings:

1) Best eye candy - FOX NEWS: They had a close-up that showed the flames inside the office and seemed to be working the hardest to get the "best" pictures.

2) Worst initial response - MSNBC: Wide angles only, No specific facts, and the 1st channel to provide a history lesson of the building when the real story is the FIRE!

3) Most Factual - CNN: While MSNBC and FOX NEWS lamented the damage to the EEOB and had on-air "talent" making wild a** guesses as to the cause of the fire, CNN was smart enough to call DCFD and get an On-Air interview with the FD's Public Information Officer who was more than happy to tell CNN everything he knew (reported electrical fire, no injuries, full evacuation of building, 2 alarm call with apparatus being deployed on all sides of the location).

So, this little exercise in Journalism 101 leaves me with following observations. First, it is accepted by emergency response groups worldwide that during a time of crisis or emergency an organization shows its true colors and during that time will revert to their most basic principles of operation. It is true for law enforcement and fire departments just as it is true for the news media. Therefore, this incident shows me:

1- If I want great images and lots of eye candy with little substance I will watch FOX NEWS

2- If I want a history lesson and a round table discussion of the nuances of Washington DC architecture instead of fire coverage I will watch MSNBC

3- If I want good images that show the problem/issue/event coupled with factual information from a reliable source I will watch CNN.

How's that for Fair and Balanced!

We Wish You A Redneck Christmas....

A picture truly is worth a thousand words.....

What more can I say, have a very Merry (Rednecky) Christmas!

Who Says Drugs Are A Victimless Crime?

For years I have heard many people say, "Why criminalize drug use, your only wasting our tax money on an endless, useless campaign." They claim that drug use is a "choice" made by consenting adults and that the government has no business in their personal lives. They argue against the idea of "gateway drugs", (a drug that, once tried and used, makes a person much more likely to abuse other, more potent drugs) and claim it is all just anti-drug propaganda. Finally, they claim that drug use is a "victimless crime" as the person using the drugs is doing so by choice and no-one else is being harmed. Some even suggest legalization of drugs and open retail sale of currently illegal drugs.

Recently however, I encountered a case that in one instance destroys any and all of these contentions by the pro-drug populace. A middle aged woman who has been using cocaine for over a year now has in that time totally destroyed her life. Like most drug users I encounter this woman has had her share of personal problems which in one way or another led to her seeking the escape and comfort of getting high. She knows getting high won't solve her problems - it just makes her not feel pressured and strained by them. In short it makes her not give a sh** about her problems. Unfortunately, her use of marijuana (a gateway drug) no longer gave her the escape she so desperately sought, so she tried cocaine. That worked at first but it too didn't last and she progressed to the perceived faster and better high of crack cocaine. As a result of her inability to cope with life's normal stresses, the same stresses you and I endure every day, she lost her driver's license for failing to pay traffic fines, she lost her job because she would always call out sick or just not show up, and then the moment that brought her to my attention...

One recent afternoon this woman, with a suspended driver's license, was stopped by a deputy for yet another traffic violation. During the course of the traffic stop the deputy found both crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia in the car and on the woman's person. She was arrested and transported to the local district office for processing and transfer to the jail. As she was processed the woman was asked several times, on different occasions, if she needed or wanted to call anyone. Additionally, she repeatedly complained about the unfinished McDonalds meal she had to leave in her car.

Approximately four hours after her arrest the district office got a call from the local elementary school. The principal asked if a deputy could attempt to contact the mother of a child who had been left at school and not picked up at dismissal. The principal was concerned because the child had sat quietly, waiting for her mom, for over three hours. Deputies were immediately able to locate this wayward mother because she was in the booking room under arrest.

That's right, this "consenting adult" made a "choice" to use drugs and get high. She then chose to drive her car WHILE HIGH and was on her way, via McDonalds, to pick up her daughter at school when she was stopped and arrested. This woman was so out of it due to her drug use that she was more concerned about the uneaten Big Mac than about the safety, welfare, and protection of her own child. For the record, the arresting officer told me this woman asked about the burger "a bunch" of times but never once asked if we could check on her daughter, call the school, oe even call a relative to go get her daughter, not once! How's that for a victimless crime!