Remember back to when you recently bought something new and cool. Maybe an iPod or perhaps a new car. Did it suddenly start to seem like EVERYONE had one. I bought a Jeep Cherokee back in the mid-1990s and it seemed like I couldn't go a mile without seeing another one. That is the theory of "what you focus on expands."

The media is notorious for this. I recall a couple of years ago there was story after story of shark  attacks. You'd think that you were putting your life in grave danger by going to the beach for summer vacation. The ocean was infested by crazed, human-eating machines. The fact is, that shark attacks were not significantly different that year from any other year, but the media in trying to keep up with the other networks could not be outdone by another shark attack story in this all too "dangerous" time.

The media continues with this template. It is a spiraling, self-sustaining "news creation" phenomenon. The media sensationalizes an otherwise fairly innocuous event. Other media as well as news consumers react, thus causing the media to continue to provide even more evidence of the inherent dangers to all of us due to this type of event.

Iraq is no different. I suppose with the president's press conference and the pounding of the media by supporters of the war, the media is now in full reaction mode. This morning on Today was a perfect example of this as David Gregory goes to a correspondent in Iraq. Then follows a series of clips which include how dangerous it is and bomb explosions and gun shots in rapid succession. The correspondent helpfully adds at the end that "one (or some) Iraqi that he talked to said the Media is not showing how BAD it really is" suggesting that it is even worse than what our media represents.

I believe I even heard Gregory say in closing the segment that news reporting is often a rough draft of history suggesting, I think, that the media somehow shapes how that history is viewed. Or perhaps he could have meant that they are somehow accurately recording history. Frankly, that's a bit funny coming from the same media that reported 10,000 dead, rampant murders and rapes in the Superdome, poison water, etc. etc. from Katrina which all turned out to be, well, wrong. So much for that rough draft.

I have a really hard time believing it possible that it is worse in Iraq than the media portrays. However, I really don't believe that MSM reporting is an attempt at undermining the war or the administration. Of course there are plenty of obstacles in Iraq for providing accurate reporting (i.e. car bombs, the threat of kidnappings, etc.), but the biggest obstacle is the phenomenon of "what you focus on expands." I read A LOT of positive news stories out of Iraq (most are prefaced with, the statement "it's not ALL good, but...") from current and former soldiers on the ground, politicians on both sides of the aisle, as well as more conservative journalists. Why are there these opposing views? Because you see what you expect to see and it expands to the point of making an overall impression. Simple as that. Most MSM journalists are likely opposed to the war for a variety of reasons. Everything they see is in that context. Similarly, most soldiers support the mission and see events in that context.

Consider MSM reporting of local events. Just sifting through my mind recent news stories of local Atlanta interest here is what I remember:

• car jacking
• murder: 7 shots at point blank range
• race card in recent local election
• corruption charges for former Atlanta mayor

If I didn't live here, I'd think Atlanta was a HORRIBLE place to live. In fact, I recall getting my hair cut by this 20-something girl in a small town in Virginia a few years back. She knew that I lived in Atlanta and her first comment was "I hear it's a tough town". Hmmmm, how'd she get that idea? She probably thinks that we basically keep our doors locked, don't look anyone in the eye and stay in doors after dark. Why? Based on what the media considers news. It is news, it's just not the WHOLE STORY. Again, the same is true in Iraq. The template is the same. They don't report on the fact that life is somewhat normal for a lot of Iraqi's; that they go about their life as if everything is okay - this is just not news. And I don't fault them for that. If I fault them for anything, it is the fact that they don't seem to acknowledge that there is more to the story and almost suggesting that any good news means that the administration is "lying", "not based on reality".

So, then the polls come. Public opinion is clearly negative about the war. Many people think there is a civil war going on. Then the media continues to follow up on the "feelings" giving additional credence to how "America Feels." What's so funny is the media provides all sorts of negative (true and accurate but only part of the story) news which is the ONLY basis for peoples' "feelings" on Iraq and then they ask people what they think. Well what the hell do you think they think - you just told them. I am 100% confident that if events were the same, but the reporting was painting a positive, optimistic picture the polls would be exactly opposite.

Then, we have politicians (Murtha on Meet the Press this past weekend for example) saying that Bush's rhetoric is not going to "FIX" the war. "Nothing he says changes what is happening." I disagree completely. The war is NOTHING BUT RHETORIC. It is being lost by the media and thus in the minds of the people. The war on the ground has been won. Sure it continues to be dangerous, but we are following the plan of making the Iraqis ready to handle security themselves before we slowly and quietly reduce troop levels over the next several years. At some point, the Iraqis will be in complete control of their fate and they will have the responsibility to make it a success or failure all on their own with no one to blame but themselves. Our ability to get to that point in part depends on the administration's willingness to stand against a media onslaught which is driving public opinion (rightly or wrongly) against the war. Even though much of what the media suggested would happen before we went to war was wrong, and after every successful election and positive political development, the media still looks at this as if it was a failure and the sad fact is that no matter how successful Iraq might become, the media and hence the public may well feel that it was a failure for years to come in spite of any inconvenient facts.

The bottom line for me is that we, as news consumers, cannot rely on MSM sound bite news to understand what is going on in Iraq and make an informed decision. It's a disservice to yourself and to our country to do so. If want to take a passionate stand, get the whole story first.

Well, I didn't quite make my weekend training goals, but close enough and the best training weekend I've had in frankly a few years.

Saturday: 50 miles on the bike. I was planning on trying to focus on taking it easy expecting a 17mph pace. After about 1:20 I wasn't feeling that great and was considering shortening the ride slightly so I checked my mileage and pace for the first time: 24 miles and 18.8mph. Now I know why I was tired, I had been riding a little harder than I should have. So, I turned at 25 miles and retraced my steps back home. It was a bit windy and my course is a little hilly, but I maintained the 18.8 pace back and finished in roughly 2:40. Legs a little tight and achy, but not too bad - although I'm now worried about running the next morning.

Sunday: Meet my training partner for the first time in weeks - we've been training "together" through email updates. Because of my leg issues, he had moved ahead of me, but then he took the last 2 weeks off for job related stuff and as part of that drank a little more alcohol than usual. So, we started off slow and stopped frequently and in the end only ran 10. I could've probably pressed on, but rain drops started coming, he was stopping and I'd had a long weekend already. Wuss.

So, got the rest of the day ahead. Taking the kids to the YMCA for a little swimming later while the wife paints (our walls, not art). Softball practice after that - if it's not raining and then probably some low key family time - some basketball on TV and the rest of our FDR dvd (more on that later).

Two weeks until Mountain Muscle Mania ride. I think I'll make it, but not much more.

Ride On!

Justice Ginsburg recently gave a speech in South Africa and in part supported the notion that using foreign courts and international law in their deliberations is both useful and right. Her general argument comes down to her belief that it is right to do so to learn and apply rules of basic fairness between those that govern and the governed.

Well, that is a COMPLETE LOAD OF BULL CRAP!

Sorry for that little indulgence of yelling. I feel better now. Okay, why is it crap?

1. What foreign law do you refer to? Obviously, she would not accept just any foreign law - like the Islamic Sharia laws that bars women from driving in Saudi Arabia, etc., etc.. So, clearly, she means those laws which support her position.
2. Fairness? My kids won't be spouting profound sayings attributed to their dad when they grow up, but they make recall the 10 times a damn day that I remind them that FAIR is a bullshit word that ought to be stricken from the English language. First, it is about FREEDOM and the RULE of LAW which is about as "fair" as it's gonna get. For the rest of us, we must wallow about in the mire of life which dishes out fairness unfairly. When it comes to reviewing a case with the constitution as the rule of law, the point is to apply it consistently. It is NOT about being "fair" in terms of the consequences of the outcome.
3. If you give the justices the ability to apply their preferences by using foreign law or any other justification, then the constitution is no longer useful and we have tyranny at the hands of 9 justices. Their job is constrained by the constitution and the U.S. case law based on the constitution over the last 200 years and that is ALL. Period.

On the justices in general, some would say that Bush's push towards a "theocracy" in part is fueled by nominating conservative judges. Roberts and Alito may be conservative, but they are NOT religious zealots. Further, conservative in the sense of the supreme court does not necessarily mean "prudish." For me anyway, I hope it means that they will stick to what the constitution says instead of making stuff up - which is Scalia's position.

The bottom line is if it is not in the constitution, then it is NOT unconstitutional - and then the states get to decide for themselves which brings government closer to the people. The fact that the Supreme Court has consistently overstepped that bound by including just about every conceivable concept into "interstate commerce", "equal protection" or other clause, has only served to make the Federal Government more powerful and the people less powerful.

is anything but. I would have to guess that the fastest growth in where people get their news these days has to be those outlets which give people what they want to hear: "right-wing" radio programs, funny "news" programs and of course Blogs. The OLD media is dying a slow death. Newspaper circulation is down. The BIG 3 networks are losing not only their share, but the people's confidence as an unbiased news source.

Certainly the MSM has been evolving over the last decade or two realizing that it is as much about ratings as it is about "real" news. And I believe, with the advent and growth of right-wing, conservative outlets, the MSM has gotten increasingly sensationalistic and openly partisan to their detriment. Frankly, there is going to be a place for news that can be trusted as NOT taking sides, giving both sides of a story their due and puting news in its proper context.

Anyway, I turn on the Today show while getting ready this morning and within 5 minutes, the BS starts flowing. Ann Curry (sp?) has a segment with some financial guy and the first thing she says is "PEOPLE are worried about inflation" and "a JUMP in consumer prices" with a graphic of a big, green (hey, it is St. Patty's day) arrow with a 0.1% rise in the CPI.

First, I can't stand the way the media and politicians invoke the word "PEOPLE" as if they represent even close to any majority of the people. I cringe when Ted Kennedy talks about how it's his job to do BLAH, BLAH for the "American People" 'cuz the "American People" want to know. Well, sorry Ted and Ann, you know not what you are saying. Who really gives a flip about inflation? I would say that people care about the price of gas. People worry about Paris Hilton and what she's wearing. But people do not, by and large, give a flip about inflation. Especially, low inflation.

Second, it's hard for me, knowing basic math, to consider 0.1% a JUMP in inflation. Annualized, that means a 1.2% increase. If you recall the days of real inflation, 1.2% is normal and expected. So a 0.1% rise in 1 month is frankly BORING.

Anyway, I don't consider this bias. I consider this their way of making the news more interesting. But they have gotten into the business of creating news and creating worry for people to bolster their otherwise BORING news cycles. Now they'll probably run a poll and people who saw the 2 minutes of sound bites will go "gee, I guess I should be worrying about inflation". And the polls will show 50%+ of Americans are worrying about inflation even though there is really little to worry about. Inflation is kind of like a "good" problem to have - as we say in my business sometimes. If that is what the MSM wants us to worry about, that means the economy is humming along just fine.

I'm sure I'll see plenty of retorts on blogs now about putting that CPI index in context and that is why I don't bother with the MSM. Now I go to a blog where I get the one-side of the MSM and the rebuttal from the blogger - both sides for the price of one.

Old media, RIP.

I'm smokin'!!!

Well, I'm no Lance Armstrong, but for me I was smokin' this morning. Here are my morning ride stats:

• Miles: 13.1
• Avg MPH: 18.1
• Time: 43:31

That's not my fastest, but it is getting faster and easier in big chunks so I really feel like I'm exiting the first turn and headed towards the second. Now for some perspective (keep in mind commuting is slower because I ride in higher traffic areas with lots of stop lights and stop signs to deal with):

• 20.x - my average on training rides of 20 or fewer miles
• 19.x - my average on training rides of 20 to 50 or so miles
• 23.0 - my fastest official race average (13.5 miles in a triathlon)
• 30+ - Lance on rides of over 100 miles so long as it's not up the side of a mountain.
• 50+ - I've hit that speed a few times on some really steep downhills - YAAAAHOOOOO!

That's the good news. Unfortunately, my running is still coming into the first corner. I ran over lunch yesterday with Mrs. Hoodo and I'm just not feeling that good. Bummer - but it'll come.