Burnettiquette

In Memory Of...

Today being Sept. 11th, makes it an obligation to write something about the evil terrorist attacks - conducted under the guise of religious fervor and cleansing the earth - on New York City, Washington D.C., and inadvertently Pennsylvania, seven years ago.

But I can't bring myself to write five or 10 paragraphs about how we, the American people, will overcome.

No doubt we will overcome. I mean, we've already proven we're resilient. Our economy bounced back...for a time. Our national spirit, that American attitude, that swagger that foreigners speak of - some nicely, some not so much - when trying to characterize us, came back with a vengeance.

New, defiant construction is well under way for the Freedom Tower, the replacement for the World Trade Center towers that were felled by cowards steering hijacked planes. BTW, if you follow the link and watch the video, which counts down backwards, the info on the Freedom Tower starts at the 1 minute 4 second mark.

All in all, I'd say we've done a relatively good job behaving in a way that honors the memories of those folks killed by terrorists on 9/11/01.

If I had just one wish though it would be that the brave troops who've done their duty in Iraq and maintained their mission, even at those times when the mission seemed a little unclear, be allowed to take a long break, catch their breath, and then be sent to join their fellow troops in Osama bin Laden's neighborhood so that we can finally do what the honchos in Washington promised on 9/11 - catch him!

We have sent men to the moon and had them walk on the surface, and photographed the event. We have placed in outer space a telescope so powerful in the Hubble that it has been able to see the outer reaches of our galaxy and the outskirts of the next, at least when we remember to leave the lens cap off. We have captured serial killers who left no DNA evidence and therefore, in the most literal sense of the word "hidden," were perfectly hidden...before we tracked them down. We boast of having the greatest intelligence agencies on earth. We have satellites in the sky armed with cameras that can zoom in on a pinhead, human or metal, from dozens of miles above the earth. And yet we can't find one man in a mountain range.

History has shown us that during the Vietnam War, one of the biggest criticisms of the politicians giving the orders - publicly or behind the scenes - to our military commanders was that those politicians instigated what some call our loss of that war by hamstringing the troops and not letting them fight fire with fire, so to speak.

Osama bin Laden already spit his fire.

I hope that whoever becomes the next President of the United States realizes that in order to flame him up in return, we have to take the fight to him.

That's the funny thing about a duel. The two opponents can't be in two different locations. They have to be facing one another.

So with that said, catch and crush bin Laden, and we'll never need another 9/11 tribute speech...or column, or blog post. Sure, we'll make those speeches and write those columns and posts out of respect to the dead. But The act of following through on the promise to get bin Laden, the man who started this whole mess, will speak louder than any words.

Achieving Blogging Zen

For several weeks now I have been drifting in and out of journalist-blogger coma.

I've barely posted anything to my blog. And I won't lie and tell you that I've really wanted to but just haven't had time. Sure, there've been busy stretches. I do have stories to report and write, after all. But if my heart had been 100% in it I could've found time to blog.

At any rate, I haven't been able to figure out my ailment till now.

Politics.

That's the answer. I've been trying to swim against a tidal wave.

You know it's election season. I know it's election season. We know that in election season many serious news consumers - those serious enough to visit news organizations' Web sites - are all about the all-politics-all-the-time coverage. And I'm not mad at 'em. When I'm on a break at work, I'm trawling the Web for political news. When I'm at home these days the TV is on some cable news channel, where pundits are talking politics. It's addictive. And in its shadow the other stuff, the less urgent stuff, isn't quite as interesting to some people.

But when you're a journalist and blogger with a niche and something that isn't your usual topic takes over the print pages, and airwaves and the Web, your instinct is to sometimes continue to push your niche in its "normal" form. I don't know what to tell you. It's a stubborn pride thing for me, maybe.

Yes, I've written the occasional blog entry on politics, but sometimes it has been a forced effort. If I can make an analogy, there have been times when I've written about politics that I felt as awkward as the celebrity who hears (often from people like me, ironically) that no wants to know his political opinions and that he should just shut up, get rich, score hot dates, and do what he does best - act, or sing, or wrestle a bear, or juggle flaming bowling pins, or ride a unicycle, or something.

I mean, I'm a features writer. I do things like trends in popular culture and lifestyles, and consumer behaviors, right? Who am I to tread on the territory of the all-political-all-the-time? Don't answer. That's just me thinking out loud.

But I'm done fighting it. Until we have a new president-elect in November, until all the votes are counted - including the few thousand cast by Americans living overseas that will inevitably get lost in the mail, I'm gonna try to find a political angle to at least half my blog posts each week.

I'm gonna try to view features angles like Chris Rock views Robitussin: good for everything that ails ya.

Want to talk about how a politician's views on family mesh with his or her own family? Rub some 'tussin on it We can do that. Want to debate whether or not a politician's religious beliefs can shape his character but not influence his policy decisions? Rub some 'tussin on it We can do that.

Now if you'll pardon me, I have to go work on the new addition to my beat: youth and religion in politics....seriously.

Hurricanes and what not

Morning folks. I'm alive. I've just been on storm duty the past few days.

It is true that Hurricane Ike has spared Florida, but if you're familiar with South Florida, then you know we are just a stone's throw from the Caribbean. So there is a ton of news pouring out of Cuba, and Haiti, and Turks and Caicos, to name a few.

This is likely my last day on storm duty. I should be back to my regularly scheduled programming tomorrow.

Peace and Hair Grease,

JB

Family Politics - More Questions

OK, I tried to leave this one alone, but I can't. So fire away if you have to, but keep in mind I'm not writing from a partisan slant.

Now, with my cryptic disclaimer out of the way, I just have another rhetorical question for you: If the agreed upon, unwritten rule in political news coverage is to leave politicians' families out of the equation, is that agreement broken when a politician introduces his own family to the media?

Don't get mad. Think about it. If I'm running for office and I tell you to not ask questions about my wife, but later I take her on the talk show circuit or sit her down for interviews, so she can tell some TV correspondent or a reporter with a Cheshire cat grin that I'm wonderful and that I'm down to earth, am I not opening her up to further scrutiny?

Barack Obama issued those types of warnings relatively early in his campaign: leave my family alone. Later he and his wife and daughters sat for an interview with one of those TV entertainment news shows - Entertainment Tonight or something like that.

Of course his kids are too young for any sort of hardcore scrutiny. I mean they couldn't possibly get into any sort of drama at their ages that might raise concerns about their dad's political positions. But Michelle Obama is grown. What if the media decided to comb over her career, hobbies, habits, all around behavior, and so on? Would you have a problem with that?

Think hard.

Moving on to Gov. Palin, she has rightfully told the media to leave her family out of any scrutiny of her policies or positions. Buuuuuuut, she has willingly conducted interviews to talk about her son with Down Syndrome, and her son who is serving in the military.

Five kids. Two are OK to talk about. Three are not. Is the media supposed to agree to the condition that they can only ask about the baby and the soldier? Or is the unwritten agreement broken?

Or, is there a way to ask questions about family - so as to tell the public who they are - without using the family as political fodder in the process?

Back in the day, when Joe Biden's daughter was arrested during a booze-filled bar outing, the Biden family issued a statement that it was a private family matter. And it pretty much fizzled. Then again, when that incident happened, Biden wasn't running for office as part of a presidential ticket.

Just questions, my friends, nothing more, nothing less.

Politics, Palin, Pregnancy

Let's get this part out of the way, right away: The fact that Republican Veep candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's 17-year-old kid is pregnant does not make the kid a fair topic of partisan political discussion or debate.

But I'm not partisan!

Still, while I often have beef with select broadcast pundits for having no shame in their underhanded personal attacks and their use of half truths as weapons, I believe in credit where it's due. And since the news broke about the Palin daughter's pregnancy I haven't heard or heard of one TV pundit who has gone after the girl.

All that being said, I believe there's a little confusion on facts vs. issues.

The pregnancy is a matter of fact. The girl is a minor. That's a matter of fact. The girl is not running for office. That's a matter of fact. The girl intends to keep the baby. That intention is a matter of fact. The girl's decision is in keeping with her family's public pro-life stance. None of those facts needs to be debated or publicly pondered. They are what they are.

But there are related issues that are fair game, and I'm waiting to see if the pundits address those issues in any detail.

For example, there are premarital sex by minors and unsafe sex. I agree with all sides that Palin's daughter is not a political pinball. However, her situation cast in the shadow of her mother's staunch position that the only good sex education is abstinence education, makes that position fair game for debate.

If you've read this blog before, you know my pops is a pastor, who is pro-life. You know that I attended a parochial high school, where we didn't get sex ed. You don't necessarily know that my school, while significantly smaller in size than nearby public schools, experienced several high profile pregnancies during my tenure. I was friends with the parties involved. To a man...and woman, they all said after the fact that in the moment they weren't thinking about anything but the act of sex itself, and getting it right.

So I'm not advocating over-the-top sex ed. In fact, I'm not advocating sex ed at all. If you want your kid to have it, make sure he is in a school where he'll get it. If you don't want your kid to have it, don't let him take the classes. But make sure you teach him about humans and sex at home. I say humans and sex, 'cause that birds and bees nonsense has to stop. I've never learned anything about how to have sex, or have safe sex from fowl or insects.

Anyway, I don't see any problem with the pundits asking whether or not some form of sex ed might have led to the introduction of condoms into the sex life of Palin's daughter and the daughter's boyfriend, and possibly have prevented the pregnancy.

It's not a knock on the kid. It's a question about a policy Palin supports for other American kids, kids who aren't hers.

And hopefully, if the question is raised, Palin's supporters will demand to see evidence that learning about condoms in school compels more teenagers to use them. Don't harp to me that there is data proving it. For every kid who answers sex life surveys in school, there are two or three more who either lie on those surveys or choose not to answer 'em. Let's not forget the wisdom of Mark Twain when it comes to statistics: On the sliding scale of fibbing, there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics!"

Frankly, if I had not been such a combo jock/dork/debate club geek/barbershop quartet member/?, I might have had a legitimate shot at sex before age 17. And if I'd had such a shot, I can't guarantee you I'd have remembered a condom in the heat of the moment. I mean I kept them in my car way back then, in the unlikely event that I'd get to use them before becoming a legal adult. But even straight A students can forget things in the heat of the moment....not that I was a straight A student, in no-sex ed or any other subject.

Last and least, since the balance and fairness of media coverage always seems to leach into political debates these days, if Barack Obama's eldest daughter was a few years older and it came out that she was pregnant by a high school boyfriend, would the media react the same way, or would Obama be taken to task for preaching the "gospel" of personal responsibility while his own daughter was engaging in unsafe sex? Would the race baiters come out and argue that Obama's family was contributing to the high rate of black children born to single mothers?

On a related note, Obama's running mate Sen. Joe Biden has been classified by both partisans and non-partisan "analysts" as a socially liberal politician. If one of his youngest sons had impregnated a girl in high school, would Biden be taken to task now for letting having let his liberal ways cloud his parental judgment and hinder him from keeping his household under control?

As always, don't get mad. I'm just asking questions!

Your opinion, please?