The fall of the mainstream media?

I'm not sure if you've taken note of this, but the bloggers are taking over.

There was a time when blogs were used for commentary on stories that had appeared in that days paper or on the TV news. Now TV, radio and the newspapers are being scooped regularly by the blogging community.

Over the past week, I can't count the number of stories I've heard that have started with "according to (fill in the blank) dot com ..." And I've read more than a handful of stories in WNY's leading newspaper, the Buffalo News, that have referenced topics I had read the day before ... or a couple days before ... on my favorite WNY media clearinghouse, WNYMedia.net.

WNYMedia.net is a sort of media co-op, giving a venue to several writers (including myself) to post their thoughts, analysis, and news scoops. It's a sort of one-stop shop for WNY blog thoughts. It lists four people on staff and 11 contributors. But there's even more than that.

I subscribe to a lot of blogs. Fifty or so. About half of them are from WNY. Most of them are updated daily. Even the mainstream folks have taken to using blogs to get the word out. Ironically, I use my talk shows to promote my blog ... and my blog to promote my talk shows.

There was a day, of course, when newspapers were the only game in town. Then came radio. And newspapers feared that radio would be their demise. But they survived. Then came TV. And newspapers are radio feared it would be their demise. But they survived. Then came the internet. And everyone's worried that it will be their demise.

And it might just be.

After all, the internet offers newspapers via blogs. It offers radio via podcasts and web streams. And TV via YouTube. It is everything the mainstream media offers ... but instantly ... and usually for free. Oh, and now, it's earlier, too.

Before I was a talk show host, I was a reporter. There was a piece of trash web site that would often steal information right from our paper ... and print it as though it was their own. Occasionally, they would get some information online before I got it in print. Oh, man, that was infuriating.

Imagine if your your job is to gather information and distribute it to the world. You work 40 hours each week with this sole goal. And then someone who has no training scoops you ... and for the mere joy of it. He's not even getting paid! Infuriating.

Of course, the honorable thing to do is to attribute the web site for scooping the story.

A few weeks ago, the Associated Press put the blogging world on notice: Don't use our stuff without paying for it. See, some unscrupulous bloggers would pick up AP stories and run them on their sites ... sans attribution.

But that seems to work both ways. Mainstream media has taken information from local blogs and run with it ... sans attribution.

And now ... they're on notice.

Worst president ever?

We have a way of romanticizing history. It is, afterall, written by winners, baby.

But what happens when you find out that the history you learned for years, reading in elementary, middle school, high school and even college text books only told half the story ... on someone you were told was the best president ever.

And what if the other half of the story made you think that he might have been ... the worst president ever?

I'm talking, of course, about our 16th president, Abraham Lincoln.

Interestingly, this is my second column on the misconceptions of Honest Abe. My first column about him dealing with the rumors of his sexuality, which linger to this day.

Lincoln, of course, wasn't all bad. He did free the slaves ... and made those funky stovepipe hats all the rage. But there's something about martyrdom that seems to wipe the slate clean of all his not-so-innocent transgressions.

Our history books teach us that Lincoln ran for office repeatedly, losing over and over. He opposed slavery and won the presidency. The south hated him and seceeded. We had a civil war to bring them back into the fold. The north won and everything was clear sailing after that.

Our history books leave out a lot of details. And fudge some facts.

Here's some facts you may have missed:

• Not only was Lincoln despised in the south, he didn't campaign in the south at all ... and was completely absent from the ballot in nine southern states. He recieved less than 40 percent of the votes nationwide. The other 60 percent being split by three other candidates.
• Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment. It would have given Constitutional protection to slavery in any state in which it already existed.
• The Emancipation Proclaimation did not free the slaves in all states. It only freed the slaves in non-Union states. In other words, only slaves being held in Confederate states.
• Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the war.
• Lincoln spent money without congressional authorization, acting as though the executive branch were a monarchy, unchecked by the other two branches of government.
  
• Lincoln imprisoned 18,000 "confederate sympatizers" without due process. They never got a trial.

Ironically, Lincoln's greatest credited "accomplishment" is actually the thing which I believe to be his greatest error. It's often stated that "Lincoln brought this country together."

You may wonder how I could possibly oppose such a great feat. The semantics of it make it sound American as apple pie, right? Let's try it in a different direction. "Lincoln consolidated the states under one federal directive." Doesn't sound as pretty that way, does it?

It's often stated that prior to the Civil War, people used the third person plural when referring to this nation: "The United States are ..." After the Civil War, that reference became third person singular: "The United States is ..." In other words, we went from being 36 indiviual "states" ... to one collective "nation."

Power had flowed upward ... from the people ... to their states ... to the federal government. Now the reverse is true. The federal government tells the states ... and their people what to do. It's almost as though in one fell-swoop we went from being a Republic ... to a totalitarian government.

By further explaination, Lincoln killed the 10th Amendment. I say often that the 10th Amendment is the "forgotten Amendment." it was forgotten in the mid 1860's ... when Lincoln was forcing the southern states to conform to northern ideals.

Please don't misconstrue this as some Confederate propaganda. I can't imagine anything worse than the concept of one human being "owning" another. But what we've got now is the federal government owning us all ... and we've got Lincoln to thank for it.

Casino foes could better spend their time

Over the course of the past couple weeks ... and years, we've seen people from Western New York come out of the woodwork to try to thwart the efforts of the Seneca Nation of Indians to open casinos in Niagara Falls and Buffalo.

They oppose blight. They oppose gambling. They oppose addiction. But mainly, it would seem to me, they oppose progress.

For every study and statistic I've seen showing that legalized casinos are the downfall of any community they're in, I've seen a corresponding study and statistic stating exactly the opposite.

Although I've read several quotes from attorney Joel Rose and heard him on the radio numerous times saying that his organization, Citizens Against Casino Gambling, opposes a new casino being built in Buffalo (and even the makeshift one open there now), I've never fully understood WHY they oppose it.

A visit to their website didn't help much. Frankly, it seems to be the same old tired "facts" and stats. Casinos are a blight. Gambling an addiction. And they suck money from the community. Blah, blah, blah. According to one post, the Seneca Niagara Casino and Seneca Allegheny Casino cost Western New Yorkers $300 million in gambling losses in 2004.

Were it any other industry generating $300 million in sales, it would be heralded as a victory for the area, but because it's casino gambling, it's derided as being akin to satanism.

Personally, I view casino gambling as a form of entertainment. Every so often, I'll go to the Seneca Niagara Casino ... or even one of the Canadian casinos ... and drop $20 into the slot machines. That's my limit. $20.

I understand that other people aren't as frugal as I am ... and some people spend more than they can afford to at the casino. But those people spend more than they can afford to on everything. They spend too much going out to eat. They spend too much going to the movies. They spend too much on junk food. And yet, I don't hear Joel Rose complaining about the movie, restaurant or grocery industries.

And were there not an option in Niagara Falls and Allegheny for those same folks to go gamble at, I believe a very compelling argument could be made that they'd still be losing money at the casino ... just not the local ones contributing to the local economy. They'd be losing their money in Canada.

Or, worse yet, on the lottery.

If Citizens Against Casino Gambling really wanted to help people who can ill-afford to lose money gambling, they'd fight against the biggest gambling entity in the area: the New York State Lottery.

According to the state lottery commission, New Yorkers spent $7.9 billion on the lottery in 2007. Of that, $3.9 billion was paid out (or promised) in prizes, $2.5 billion was spent on education, and over $1 billion was spent on operating costs. Assuming "winnings" and "education" aren't losses, that puts the statewide lottery loss at over $1 billion in 2007. My math says that's more than the $300 million "lost" to casino gambling in WNY.

But I haven't heard a peep from Joel Rose on the state lottery. So it would seem to me that it's the "Casino" part of Citizens Against Casino Gambling that his group really opposes. The "Gambling" part must be fine.

The new gold ...

Seems everyone this days is giving gas away as part of a promotional package. Buy a car, get free gas. Buy a boat. Get free gas. Buy a burrito, get gas. Well ... kind of.

Anyway, people aren't interesting in money, jewelery, or even gold. Diamonds aren't a girls best friend any more. Give 'em gas.

Even the Florida lottery has added gasoline to their list of prizes.

A lottery spokesperson said, “Once a week for the next two months, the second-prize winner in the latest lottery promotion, Summer Cash, will win free gasoline for life. And some people think that is a better deal than the game’s first prize, a quarter of a million dollars. ”

Actually, they'll be getting a $100 gas card every other week for the remainder of their life. That's $50 free dollars in gas a week. Or just over 10 gallons. Not that grand of a prize, really. Especially since later this year it will be just under 10 gallons ... and will likely quickly diminish.

Funny thing is, people don't notice that the value of the prize isn't nearly as good as the first place prize ... the quarter million dollars. They just hear free gas and go gaga.

The price of gasoline, of course, makes up a little bit of the price of just about everything; the food we eat, the stuff we buy ... and of course the places we go.

But keep in mind, it's only a portion of the cost of those things.

With the price of gas at $4.20 a gallon, and assuming, 20 miles per gallon, it's 21 cents a mile. Or $101.01 to get from my home in Lockport to my favorite vacation destination, Washington, DC. Round trip makes it $200 (give or take).

Two years ago, it would have only been $100 for gas for the same trip.

Of course, while on vacation, you'd spend a bunch of money on a hotel, tourist attractions, trinkets, etc. Let's say $1,000.

So add the gas in, and you've got a $1,200 vacation. As opposed to what would have been an $1,100 vacation if gas were $2.10.

Are you really going to skip your vacation over $100?

We need to stop treating gas as though it were gold. Otherwise, it might end up at $1,000 an ounce. And then we really couldn't afford to go anywhere.

Patriotism as decoration ...

Some candidates wear their patriotism on their sleeve ... or their lapel, to be more accurate. Whether or not they love their country is determined by whether or not they have a flag pinned to their jacket.

Some candidates parade their patriotism around as if it were required by the Constitution. Or as if it were a contest to see who loves America more.

Sometimes I wonder why the race for the presidency often turns into a fight over which candidate loves the country more ... or which candidate hates it more. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard some talking head ask, "Why does Barack Obama hate America?" Of course the question assumes that Barack Obama hates America. It's kind of like the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" There's not good way to answer it.

Sen. John McCain has positioned himself as a God-fearing, America-loving veteran, whose record of patriotism could not be questioned. After all, he was a prisoner of war. And that brings with it some assumptions, too. The assumption being that since John McCain was a prisoner of war - and just as importantly, that he was a veteran of war - that he must love this great republic of ours more than some guy whose name rhymes with Osama.

Interesting that four years ago, the same assumptions did not hold true. Democrats figured that nominating John Kerry - a veteran of Viet Nam himself - would give them the patriotic edge over George W. Bush, who not only did not serve ... he disappeared during 'Nam. That edge never held true because of the trump card that Democrats didn't figure on: Republicans are automatically more patriotic than Democrats (at least according to talk radio).

In fact, while George W. Bush's record of non-service seemed okay with the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh ... John Kerry's documented service was was questioned by the same types ... with a lot of help from a group of professional reputational hitmen, "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth."

It was so successful, that the term "Swiftboat" was immediately added to the American lexicon, defined as "successfully lie about someone or something."

At the time, John McCain spoke out against the "Swiftboat" group. Now, he's hired one of them to work on his own campaign. Hmm.

Meanwhile, Gen. Wesley Clark - an Obama supporter - said "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Of course, the GOP and McCain himself were all upset by the comment, demanding a retraction or apology from Clark. You can't, after all, question a war hero.

Funny, the Republican party always comes up with these strange rules: You can't question the president in the time of war. You can't say anything negative about America outside her borders. You can't tell the truth about their nominee if it puts him in a bad light. Etc ...

How long until they start calling Wesley Clark. How long until I hear, "Why does Wesley Clark hate America?"

Not long, I'd guess. After all, he can't be patriotic, he only spent 34 years in the Army.