What's more insidious, though, is the way the tabloid's effects have spread to what should be respectable media, including the BBC. See the report on FREEDOM's site about a BBC reporter seduced by the dark side of "journalism":

http://www.freedommag.org/bbc/video_flash.html

What the hell was this guy thinking?

Oh, yeah, I guess that's the problem -- he wasn't.

There's a lot that could be said about it, but just as one item of interest, I came across an article about the application of communication principles to problems such as disasters, specifically by the Scientology Indonesia Relief Team.

I had a good friend do similar work after the tsunami of a couple of years ago and his experiences match what this article describes. The team he was with would go into a village that had been destroyed and they'd find the people there apathetic and barely able to take care of themselves. Within a week or so of application of assists technology (described in the article linked above), the entire tone of the village would change with people getting active and starting to rebuild their lives.

I don't want in any way to trivialize the heartache and tragedy of a child's murder, but it does highlight the oddball nature of the news media.

I don't even need to name all the pressing world and local issues that affect people on a daily basis -- we're all aware of them.

The fact that the news media grabs onto cases like this and turns them into sensational, quasi-freak shows speaks to the media's basic nature.

What we learn from their priorities and proclivities from this case should inform our evaluation of the value of the other data they spew.

In other words, at their best the information they provide should be suspect and understood in the context of their biases.

Don't get me wrong, a free press is vital and can serve as an agent of positive change and a protector of the rights of us all. We just need to bear in mind that they neither write nor speak gospel.

Obviously, children being hungry is a problem that should be addressed.

But what struck me is that an advocate made a statement that the "ideal solution" for kids not getting enough food would be a program to supply free lunches.

I'm not going to argue against providing kids free lunches -- that is certainly better than them going hungry and the attendant problems associated with trying to study when you're hungry (not to mention medical and other problems).

But is is obviously NOT an "ideal solution."

At best, it is a stop-gap measure and should be considered nothing more than a temporary bandaid put in place because political leaders and citizenry alike were not smart enough or forward-looking enough to avoid the problem in the first place.

The "ideal solution" is much more in the ballpark of the parents off drugs, educated, working productively at jobs and able to support their children so that feeding them is not even close to being a problem.

I just think we're going to get further if we correctly name the problem and the end result we're going for instead of talking about half-measures as if they are full-blown solutions.

It was done in 2004 so would be interesting to see if there are updates to it, but even standing alone, it was well worth the watch.

I'm going to guess that there were critics of the show when it came out who may attacked it as one-sided, though it did grant some successes to Rumsfeld.

But what rang true was the claim that traditional Army types were pushing for higher troop stengths prior to the Iraq war but that they were overruled.

One idiot (not sure who it was) was shown testifying that he couldn't possibly imagine that it would take more troops to sustain the peace after the Iraq government was toppled than it would take to do the toppling.

What???

I'm sorry, perhaps there is a benefit to hindsight, but that just seems absurd on the face of it. Of course it takes more strength to change the direction of an entire, large, heavily populated, highly suppressed country than it does to roll over an inferior army.

It had confused me how we could have possibly underestimated the effort required in Iraq as badly as we have. It made sense that trained military men would have known this -- in other words not everyone was blind to the situation.

I also found the information on the "Powell Doctrine" that developed after the Vietnam war pretty interesting. As summarized on the program, it sounds reasonable, makes sense and lined up with the bit of reading I've done about warfare (The Art of War).

The program made a pretty compelling argument that the Powell Doctrine was or is being unmocked which just seems dangerous.

In any case, I'd suggest catching the program or watching it online. Pretty interesting stuff.

We're at war, Americans are dying everyday, the Middle East is even less stable than usual, oil prices are way up, we're still recovering from Katrina, there's serious questions about the quality of the education our kids are getting, etc., etc. and the most important thing the Senate can think of to debate is what someone does with or to the Flag?

It's not that the flag doesn't have meaning; it does. But what is important are the virtues, principles and freedoms for which the flag stands. It is a symbol. Symbols don't have intrinsic importance themselves -- the things they stand for do.

In fact, I worry that when symbols become more important than the things they stand for, it is a confession that we've lost sight of the important things.

Who wants a symbol that is sacrosanct? That borders on magic or religion. There's nothing magical or religious about it.

Unfortunately, it's not hard to envision a day when America routinely violates the Bill of Rights yet punishes people for burning the flag because it is "holy."

Here's a hint to the Senate -- deal with the real virtues, bolster the ideals, uphold the freedoms, lead the world by example and action toward liberty and (surprise! surprise!), the flag will be respected. It will be honored and none but the radical fringe will desecrate it.

Focusing on the symbol rather than the values for which it stands is tantamount to a confession that the values have been lost.

I'm not taking a side in the case, my complaint had to do with the availability of efficient justice.

One of the players' attorneys made a motion for a fast trial and noted that the player wouldn't be able to go to school until the issue was resolved. The prosecution said it didn't plan to take the case to trial until next year.

I think the defense lawyer has a point -- justice should be available quickly. To draw it out when the added time is not needed makes justice itself oppressive.

It is hard to imagine in a case like this that it would really have to take a year to gather data and prepare.

While it is hanging unresolved, the lives of the accused as well as the accuser are left in limbo. The door is left open for muddying the water through media and PR (and this case has certainly had enough media already). There is an increased possibility for witnesses to disappear, be influenced or simply forget important details.

I don't see that justice is served at all when it is drawn out unnecessarily.

This doesn't mean that justice should turn into a rush to throw a rope over the nearest sturdy branch, but when such issues can be decided quickly, they should be.

Efficient, fair and swift justice serves both the victim and the accused by getting to a resolution instead of leaving their lives unresolved for years.

I think the only ones benefiting from such delays are, as usual, the lawyers.

The first was about a jury that had asked for a dictionary to look up the definition of a word related to the case. The judge denied the request. As I recall, he said it was because juries aren't allowed to do their own research.

How absurd can you get?

If the jury doesn't understand a term, how are they supposed to make a decision related to it?

If I asked the judge whether I should invest in some degree shimmy hop and whether that would help me work faster, how could he possibly make a decision?

There's no issue of "doing research", it's simply a matter of whether the question is understandable.

You cannot make correct decisions about those things you don't understand -- and it is not possible to understand things when the words that are used are not understood.

Isn't that obvious?

btw, re-arrange "degree shimmy hop" and you get "high speed memory."

Interesting! With the term understood, it is actually possible to have judgment in relationship to an issue about which judgment was not previously possible.

The fact that the question is now understandable does NOT by itself mean the judge would be able to answer the question. He may or may not have sufficient data about the memory or the kind of work I do to make a judgment -- but he would now be in a position to have a chance of making a judgment.

Understanding may be a prerequisite to judgment but it is not by itself the same thing.

To deny the jury the prerequisite understanding is to essentially say "spin the wheel or throw a dart -- we're not interested in real judgment here, only arbitrariness."

I was kind of hoping the jury would come back and say "sorry, we can't make a decision about things we don't understand" and make it the judge's problem.

Though I'm fatter than I should be, the surface area involved was still only about 6 square feet.

Seems to me there was a significant amount of energy available in those 6 square feet during that relatively short period of time.

Another recent incident -- quite in addition to the horrendous tragedy Katrina was on a human level, it also represented a rather overwhelming outpouring of energy.

Another -- we're coming into thunderstorm season. Get ready for energy fireworks all around.

Still another -- our polar ice caps are beginning to melt, apparently because the planet is receiving too much energy.

Given the above it seems such a ridiculously false statement to talk about anything close to an "energy shortage" or "energy crisis" ? implying we don't have enough energy available.

Our problem, if anything, is just the opposite ? an energy super abundance.

I think there is an irony that we have, everyday, the same energy available to us that plants used millions of years ago to create the materials which we now dig out of the ground and burn in our cars.

There's something incredible silly about the fact that we seem to be able to only confront energy that was trapped millions of years ago instead of the same energy that pulsates around us all the time.

In fact, our search for energy sources seems to be regressing? we began with burning trees (pretty recent), moved to oil (not nearly so recent) and finally went all the way back to uranium (who knows how old!).

We seem much more comfortable looking through our past for energy instead of just looking around the world in which we live for the same stuff.

I think the public debate would be better served if we were honest about what we face ? an energy super abundance ? instead of making up problems that don't exist by talking about "energy shortages."

Perhaps it is just a cleverness shortage from which we really suffer.

I suppose it stems from the fact that military people when asked to solve a problem tend to come up with military solutions. Nothing unusual in that -- surgeons often come up with surgical solutions to illnesses.

Actually, it seems to me that the real competent military people would understand their area of expertise well enough to recognize when a problem does not require a military solution.

Ultimately, it seems to me that the solution to terrorism will not be military in nature.

Freedom, education, ethical and moral assistance and examples have a hope of winning against terrorism someday. No matter how sensational the effects of terrorists, I find I need to remind myself that they are in a minority. Only a relatively small percentage of any population is insane and criminal enough to engage in terrorism -- and likely those that do are often pushed on by an even smaller percentage of more extremely insane people. Does anyone have any doubt that Bin Laden, for example, is psychotically insane?

Again, it seems to me that the best long term defense against such is the happiness and freedom of everyone else ? something that will never be achieved through military action.

So, it seems to me that freedom, education, self-rule, etc. are the more important elements of an anti-terror strategy and ultimately should get the lion share of effort and investment.

d