I recently watched this talk given by David Simon on the future of journalism. Surprisingly, he said that the blogger will not replace the professional journalist. In other words the unpaid, citizen journalist will not exist or, if it does, will not replace beat reporting. I think Simon is very much correct. I have friends and family who are in the journalism career and despite the problems it currently faces, I don't believe that its going away.
    Just so we're clear on terms, a citizen journalist in this article is someone who reports on a story as an activist, they aren't paid by a newspaper and likely aren't paid at all.
    Journalism is a craft. Its all about bringing the context and details of the goings on in our world to a medium of readers. I would hesitate to see a free car repairman or electrician. Wouldn't you? In fact, I would argue that you get better context in the written form of journalism than you often do in the thirty second soundbite you get on nightly news for local events. Journalists are paid to do what they do and I believe they should be. Typically, when people bemoan liberal or conservative media, what they're really complaining about is the commentary, not the actual news. I know this because I hear complaints from both political ideologies based on what column is in print and which political figure is being skewered for a scandal that varies on a daily basis.
     Honestly, for a trained journalist, its hard to put your opinion in the story. Its actually not possible to do so on a beat since really all a reporter should be writing is what is going on, who said what, and putting it in a way that people understand the event. I have yet to actually meet the blogger who will sit at the budget committee meeting, who will sift through the court records and actually sort out who did what.
     Its good to have people paid to ask hard questions and speak truth to power. Really that is what good journalism does. When there is voter-fraud or corruption, how many of us will really keep digging and digging to find the truth? In many cases, you'd have to give up your day job, pay for the travel and other expenses. Journalists, good journalists, already do this. So I don't believe in citizen-journalists.
    Just so I don't anger everyone on xanga, like Mr. Simon also reiterated, the internet and blogs are great for commentary, reviews, and criticism. But who really needs to be paid for that?

I just hopped on an outside blog about hate crime legislation. It was saying "we need more of it. Hate crime legislation is good and protects people. It forces cops to their jobs." It also cited a case where an all-white jury made an undesirable verdict in the eyes of this blogger. I'm also kind of confused as to why it always seemsto be an all-white jury cited for reasons we need this? Other races aren't capable of hate or bad jury verdicts? Mixed groups aren't capable of bias?
First off, I think we already consider hate in our legal process. Its called a motive. When investigations into crimes occur, motives are examined and even talked about at trials. Hate is a motive, not an additional offense.
Although, I'm against hate crime legislation, I'm not in favor of hate crimes. I'm just for an equal and fair justice system. If someone beats a another person to the point where they are eating out of a tube for the rest of their lives, why should the fact that the crime was motivated by race instead of the fact the criminal stole their wallet mean there be a harsher penalty? It just doesn't seem to make any sense to say that victims of crimes that are not motivated by hate are less important by giving their perpetrators lesser sentences. It seriously distorts the idea of equal protection under the law.
I'm not even going to go into the whole discussion of what constitutes hate speech, but this at least gives probably the best reasons I can come up with in under a few minutes of why we need no hate crime legislation, not more.

     It started with work calling me at 7:30, asking if I could come in on my day off. Begrudgingly, I obliged because I am poor like that. I got there and things were fine for the first few hours. Then she came in. The ornery customer. She and one of the managers had a bit of a disagreement. She came over later saying my boss was... well not nice things and she added on top of that hopes of her imminent demise.
     The day pretty much went downhill from there. I get to do it all over again bright and early tomorrow. At least it wasn't a close/open shift. I hate those. I would go into more detail of why this was such a horrible day, but its a little more personal than I wish to be here so just take my word for it with the above statement as potential evidence.

A few years back, I was privileged to do some mentoring. While I can't say I'm able to do this anymore because I have put my time elsewhere, I have some pointers if anyone out there is considering it:

1. Don't do it if there isn't a need. Some kids, contrary to what you might think, have good parents and a good head on their shoulders. I actually turned down a request for mentoring because one young person thought it was just me having fun with another youth. That's not exactly how it works.

2. Talk to the parents. I'm not talking about parental consent, that's a given. I'm talking about asking them where they think their kid is at when it comes to school and socializing. Parents know this stuff.

3. Schoolwork, schoolwork. Some kids just need a different atmosphere than home to do homework. Allow them that and an extra pair of eyes on their work. The library is an excellent alternative.

4. Teach them something they can't learn at home. Mentors who work with single-parent homes will often find a lot of things the mentee can't learn because an absent parent, in theory, was going to teach it to them. For example, teaching a kid a little about putting on makeup for a girl or learning how to shave for a guy. If they're a little older, they might even ask for driving lessons, agree to help with that at your own risk.

5. Meet their friends. You can learn a lot by how they interact with different kids. You can also tell quite quickly who is using what substances and perhaps encourage meeting new friends.

6. Allow for mistakes. You're not their moral conscience. Sometimes you get lucky enough to play that role. Like parents, the role of the mentor isn't forever. In fact, its typically shorter. They need to learn some things on their own. You don't have to make sure they're homework is all 100% correct all the time.

7. Know when to stop mentoring. I'm not saying mentors should cut all ties. I certainly haven't, but the communication is a lot less frequent since I've moved. Both of you need to move on eventually. The goal of mentoring is maturing and allowing for a youth to become more independent and better at decisions. Eventually, that means leaving you behind.

    I live in a rather "gray area." Being a 20-something in a land of the graying and the oxygen-tank-breathing is something of a unique experience. I respect old people. I like them and their stories of what their life was like when they were my age. One of the most interesting people I ever met was a couple who ran a veterinary clinic and the husband was actually the oldest veterinarian in the state. Hearing his story of how he gave up part of his practice after a heart attack and how he says that he'd be nowhere without his wife and their cute banter back and forth after a compliment made me think being old wasn't so bad.
    That hasn't been my only experience. While I understand that some of us "young whippersnappers" have a bit of a reputation for being loud, obnoxious, and disrespectful, its created a bit of a backlash. Where I live there are hardly enough 20 year olds to fill a bar. That's not just a problem for my social life either. For several years now, people who are retiring age have held onto their jobs because they've been healthy thanks to improved live-expectancy, needed the money, or both. That puts some of us younger folk at a bit of a disadvantage and it also keeps the town from bringing in new, younger blood. These people are going to retire eventually, in fact we're already talking of a "retirement bubble," though I'm rather sick of these bubble analogies.
     Let me illustrate this lack of respect for the young: at a community meeting about bringing more affordable housing to the area there was a lot of negativity towards the plan. I find there to be much hypocrisy there because the easiest thing to build here is a house for 600k or a McMansion, but if you try building affordable housing thats cheaper than the status quo, people start whining. Their taxes will go up and they'll have to expand the size of the schools.  I could fill a whole blog entry with a list of the "not in my backyard" excuses.
     Most of the older people I know are nice, I think I've made it clear, but it seems that the nicer you are, the quieter you are compared to the disrespectful. I remember a particular loudmouth who said anyone who makes less than 28 grand a year should just move out of town. That wasn't just a shot at wage, but age because a lot of us just out of college dont' make anywhere near that after calculating for college loans.
     The first place I called when looking for a place to rent when moving out here actually refused to lease the place to me. I couldn't tell if it was because I was from the midwest or because I was young. I have a sneaking suspicion that it was a little of both. In fact he said "no" right after we told him how old we were; the definition of ageism.
     Imagine a town where there was no one young, energetic and willing to work at that dunkin' donuts. Or replace the gal who is retiring from drivng the ambulance, running the local medical practice, or being the bank teller. A few of these jobs I know for certain make less than 28 a year. So when Mr. Not in My Backyard calls for an ambulance because he's old and some part of his body is giving out; which happens as we get older. I wonder if he'll have second thoughts if there is no one replacing that ambulance driver I mentioned earlier? We all like to think we're irreplaceable, but I think we can all agree that this is only true for so long. Eventually we need to be replaced. Its the nature of things. That fear of replacement might be what drives certain animals to eat their young, but humans don't do that (those of us that aren't coo-koo) we just yell at them.
     I acknowledge that we young'ns don't always appreciate all the previous generations do for us and act like we're entitled. Entitlement works both ways though, old folks. You need us. If not now, someday. You need to respect us in this regard. Most of you do, but there are enough of you that don't to make me want to write this.