The New Reality of What We Are, What We Have, What We Can Do, How We Do It and What it Means

This section of the domain is about principles and their effect on events. The publication, usually in a print medium, of such things is journalism. Therefore, I am a journalist of some kind. Right (I guess that being a journalist and a web media mogul, the fact that I'm not a screaming commie really puts me out of line with the loopy left that dominates the sport)?

Journalism has changed over the last 20 years in two ways:

It is here that I wish to dwell. For one thing we who do this dirty deed haven't the resources of a failing institution like Thee New Yourk Times so we are a bit looser in form. Among things we self-proofread. Of all the kinds of proofreading, self-proofing is the least relaiable. I've gone back to read things that I've proofed 3 times and still find typographical errors (aka "typo's"), many of which would get by a spell check. In fact, I do jokes about them ("only the highest quality tyops, and at no extra charge to you, the reader"). Also, we live in the post Hunter Thompson age and the amount of sarcasm has been amped up like abou ten times. Beyond that, we are not as hoity-toity as the print media and therefore more rough-cut and homespun. We speak the vernacular. We also arne't as invested in the shi-shi stuff as the Beautiful People so we can speak our minds, not the politically correct pap that comes out of the cocktail parties, whine and brie klatches and editorial rooms of the failing print media. To use a Rome-ism: We have a take. it's fresh and it does not suck.

Many of us have lives outside of commentary. For instance, I run the Space Patrol website. This means two things. 1) We're amateurs, not as formally trained as the pros. The flip side of that is that we have to establish our credibility. I choose to do it by following the adage "Factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions". 2) We have lives outside the world of journalism. As such, if we are honest, our journals reflect one or more of these aspects. As the Space Patroller, I have an agenda that supersedes the politics and philosophy and relates to how persons should approach knowledge, ethics and politics as the means to the proper civilization for mankind and the activities therein. Now, as with all utopias, this civilization was a fictional creation (of almost 60 years ago). But as Aristotle said "Fiction is more important than history. History presents the world as it was. Fiction presents the world as it might and ought to be". In terms of dealing with "issues", the specific concretes of any fictional utopia are omitted and the essence, what makes it a utopia and therefore desireable, are emphasized. Thus, in the main site, you "Live the continuing adventure [of Space Patrol]" and get morphed into the idealized scinetific utopia of the United Planets of the Solar System. In RANDISM I discuss what will get us there [not the specifics but the type of civilization] and in The COCKPIT I demonstrate the use of these principles in the context of what is going on in the present. For example. 40 years ago, I understood that the proto-environmentalists (read hippies,aka druggies) were against what a proper civilization would be, preferring the retrograde lifestyle of a thirteenth century serf, which is still the goal of that movement but they won't tell you that, if the majority of them even know it. So they are on my "delenda est" list. as part of, and along with other Statists. The same with the hardcore religionists. I mena, do you really believe half of that gibberish? as Ayn Rand said in the late 1970's, "In the United States? in the Twentieth Centruy?". Also, I speak from a defferent perspective. In my discussion of Economics, you do not see any presentation of the nuts and bolts of economic thought. I use two disciplines: Psychology, my chief area of training and history, in which I have a Minor. These subsume and are presupposed by Economics. These explain such things as why a "market economy" is the only "answer". The question is not whether a market economy is the only answer to the prolbems, but it is whether you will have a free market economy or the distorted, unstable market economy that is the mixed or command economy. When I cite the built-in failures of fiat money, Regulationism and the Income Tax, it is not from an economic point of view, but from one that is centered on history (what did happen) and psychology (how behavior is governed in real life). Economics presupposes behavior and time. but behavior and time do not presuppose Economics. The same political processes that went on in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy went on in the Soviet Union and with the same results save that the Soviet Union recieved a lot of propping up by the West and would have gone under decades before it did if it were left to its own devices.

There are functional differences between us and print journalism. Where Rush and others have the "stack of stuff" which are printed copies of the materials from which they read as the introduction to the comentary. We go one better. We have link sourcing. I can present a a resource right now. I can use a YouTube performance to set the theme for a piece or provide evidence for the piece as I did in THE SMOKING GUN, which shows conclusively just who was responsible for the "crash of '08". and many of the sites to which I link belong to radio hosts whose credibility I regard as low to questioanble but whose webmasters are on the ball and link directly to the material in question, which speaks for itself. This lets us have the primary source right there for you to see instead of being selectively put in or in a tedious set of footnotes which nobody but scholars, the overly-curious or masochists actually reads. Source linking also lets me give you access to software and calculations right now. The impact of that, compared to previous means of sourcing is not just incremental, it's a whole 'nother smoke and, if you have a mind and are not being deliberately obtuse (the automated defense mechanism of choce by the college mistrained, the "minds" of which I find to be unfocused, ponderous and lethargically ridden by the process of "interpratation" of the obvious who not only "wouldn't say 'shit' if they had a mothful of it" but would problably not know what they had a mouth full of, that it was full or even that they have a mouth, having been trained to the highest level in the skills of evasion and blanking out at the age when they ought have been gaining experience in the real world; read "meathead"), can seal the deal right away. Along with the fact that we are not the hoity-toity fops and shi-shi limousine liberals that they are is why the print journalsits hate us; we can put the soruce right in front of you and they can't so we have the leg up and that goes up their anatomy and opens like an umbrella because they can't con you. Of course, the availability of this material "on demand" put s an added responsibility on us; if it's that easy to get then there is no excuse for not having it. or not giving access to it. This means we have to be sharper at the momemt and we also have to be able to choose the material that best makes the point. However, this, to me, is a journalist's dream come ture.

That is not to say that I don't use print material. Read WELL WHOOP DI DOO I used material from 1971. Contrary to the limited minds of the Millenials, there was a world before the Web. Would it surprise you to know that the overwhelming majority of history pre-dates the Internet? and they acutually wrote and read thihngs? Well, some of those thihngs relate to what I'm talking about. So I use them. You will also note that I give you access to the saftware by which you can do the caluclations for yourself.

We still have the same problems associated with the same standards as the others. The questions of "who? what? where? and how?" are the bases of journalism. The problems come in with how we present the answers in the medium that we use. Before broadcasting you had one way to do it. read the sorcue material, interpret it, choose the parts that have what you need, organize it, write it up and publish it. You looked up the data, wrote outlines, first and second drafts and finally the text, find a publisher and get it done. Broadcasting presented sound and later sight of news events and interviews. You still had to hump your buns to get the work done and find an outlet. Now I do the same things. However, I have access to print and audio/video. I can get it without even opening my back door. Does "Google" do it for you? and if I need it, my SPACE PATROL POWER CONSOLE (try it, you'll like it; and you can have it, too) has resources that are 2di4: I should know becuase I put them there and I tell you how to make it better for your uses and back it up with other stuff. so I've got that knocked. I can self-publish as long as I have access to the Web but I don't have the services of professional proofreaders, typesetters, editors and the like. I have to do it all and know the variables that run things.

And that's the name of that tune so that'w what I do and how I do it.

This has effects outside the field of journalism. I am working on a Space-O-juke project called "Yearbooks" that takes a certain period, like late '59, plays the music while letting you view images from and read about things from that time, which lets you experience them like a native. All of which lets me present to you a world as it was never presented and the understanding and enjoyment of which one had to read libraries of books and have a wicked good imagination. Now all you have to do is experience it and understand how it worked and fit together. I also wrote for the ezine VINTAGE KEYS for the span of its existence and hope that it comes back.

What you have here are 3 kinds of "journal"s. IN FOCUS articles tend to be over-arching in subject matter, Indeed. One that was writtine in 2005 references the your 2010. The Blog which is named FLIGHT LOG is written on the spur of the moment or more likely, of the day. FROM THE COCKPIT is the monthly column and can be of any lenght but is usually shorter than IN FOCUS and longer thant the blog entries. FROM THE COCKPIT also has an archive and a NOTES section. Add to that the links to sites that cover the same ground. I wouldn't mind finding a way to make it a more participatory site if I could. However the totality that is SpacePatrol.US is quite participatory.

Now what does this mean? Well it means that the mainstream journalists, both print and TV have been screaming like stuck pigs. Usually railing about the lack of fact-checking, despite the fact that Rush opens his commentary with readings from his "stack of stuff" which are assembled from mainstream print and clips from things like Meet the Press. While the New York Times (needing help from a Third World loan shark to stay afloat), Washington Post and Boston Globe have been riddled with plagiarism and just-made-it-up scandals and Bernie Goldberg has been rocking them with first-hand accounts of biased journalism. Needless to say, the mainstream has been hemmoraging reader/viewership in favor of web journalists. And the old farts of the industry don't get it either. To see the way they fawn over Barack Obama, one would think that he and the Democrats won a landslide victory instead of th modest 5 or 6 points. And the Republicans ran only a third-rate campaign and candidate (hell, even I preferred Obama) and having saddled themselves with things like the Iraq War and a bad economy, that should have went down to a stunning defeat the crash and burn of which should have been detectible from Alpha Centari (at least). Well, when you've traded your 'adversarial journaism" on which you prided yourself for decades for "We have to help Obama be a better president", What do; or can; you expect but to get bitchlapped across the continent? You could help Obama by being honest and saying "Remember, thou art only a man" and not feeding him the same crap you've been feeding us for the last 40 years. They're too blind and senile to see and realize what's going on, with too bad a case of sinuses to even smell the coffee and too corpulant and arthritic to drag themselves out of the tank so all they can do is clack and sqawk like the blubbery aquatic creatures that they are. Well, that's not gonna help. *Not Too Friggin' Bright