Will anyone be thanking you this year?

It's just a few days out from my personal favorite holiday of the year...Thanksgiving. Beyond the cooking, the eating, the re-eating of left overs, and all the holiday cheer that makes this day so much fun, Thanksgiving to me is a humbling annual reminder of how fortunate an individual I am and how privileged an existence I lead.

Too often we become blinded by the quest of something greater than we already possess, and in the process lose sight of what extraordinary things we have in the present. Stress over getting to that "next phase" in our lives where we will have a better job, a better car, a better house, or more money, takes precedent over any chance we have at finding peace with our current place in life and simply soaking in the moments we'll never get back.

The truly important things in life are almost always taken for granted. The relationships we have with family and friends are just as fragile as our bank accounts and our careers, but are almost never given as much attention and care. It's hard to fathom, but there are many places and instances in the world, some even right here in our own country, where the simple luxury of having family and friends around is not afforded.

Because I do not wait each day for a family member to return from a war zone with his or her life, because I do not wake up each morning knowing that a loved one is dying of a terminal illness but cannot afford treatment, because I do not start each day wondering how and if I am going to eat today, because I don't worry on my way to class if a car bomb is going to kill me or someone I care about, because I do not have to trek through miles of terrain without shoes to get water for myself, because I not only have the freedom to be an opinionated woman but also have the luxury of sharing my political and religious beliefs with the world on this blog without repercussions; I am thankful.

With such a limited world view, we as Americans, especially living in privileged neighborhoods, aren't reminded daily of the atrocities occurring all over the world, and even those occurring in our backyards. We could never begin to understand the plight that so many live through each day whether it be homelessness, hunger, abuse, illness, discrimination, or war. This is the reality for billions of people, and yet we will go on living our lives worried about which designer handbag or car we will buy with our next pay check.

Let me be clear that I am in no way exempting myself from any of these observations or accusations. In fact, I am often ashamed of how little I contribute to help the many injustices of the world. I am especially humbled and also motivated by those who not only have identified a way to make a difference, but have made it their life's work to do so.

The CNN annual Heroes award show is a wonderful look at how an individual's compassion and dedication can make such a positive difference on the world. It's also a grounding reminder of how little so many of us do on a daily and even yearly basis to positively affect another's life besides our own. The taping of CNN's award show airs on Thanksgiving night, it's a great show...I actually volunteered at the media table last year passing out will-call tickets and got to stay and see the live show. If you can't watch the show, or even DVR it, check out some of the Heroes' stories online...I promise you will be inspired. (side note: watching the clips online means you don't get to see the wonderful Anderson Cooper host the award show.)

And in addition to considering what you yourself have to be thankful for as you indulge in your Thanksgiving feast, also ask yourself: who will be thankful for you?

The News Stays PC, and for Good Reason

The media is once again under fire, this time for its coverage of the Ft. Hood tragedy. In an article about the media's coverage of the event, Pew Research wrote:

And in certain parts of the media landscape last week, most notably some talk shows, the failure to pre-empt the Hasan attack took on ideological or cultural overtones.

Conservative radio talk host Pat Gray, subbing for Glenn Beck last week, declared that “the only reason they didn’t [act against Hasan before the shooting] is political correctness. They’re worried about offending Muslims.”

Similar sentiments were heard on Bill O’Reilly’s November 12 Fox News show when analyst Bernard Goldberg attacked the media’s coverage of the case. “Every rational person in the entire country knows that Hasan shot up the place because he’s a Muslim terrorist,” Goldberg declared. But many journalists have tiptoed around the terror issue, he added, “because they don’t want to offend Muslims.”

This is obviously a sensitive and tricky issue for journalists. The media was more or less damned if they did and damned if they didn’t with this story. Because they were cautious and took time to speculate Hasan’s ties with radical Islamists, they are being slammed for not reporting aggressively enough and being too “politically correct”. But in my opinion, if they would have jumped to early conclusions that Hasan was a Muslim terrorist and it turned out that he was not, that would have been even worse. Reporting something that is factually incorrect is always damaging to a news organization, but because of the especially sensitive nature of the accusation, it had the potential to be even more disastrous if not carefully investigated.

What was known from the beginning, was that Hasan was by definition a terrorist simply from the act he committed, regardless of his political or religious motives. I don’t think there was anything wrong with being cautious about those motives before they were solidly confirmed. Whether he was an American terrorist or a Muslim terrorist or any kind of terrorist, he was still a terrorist who went on a murdering spree. The need to attach some kind of religious association with that terrible act of crime, doesn’t make the situation any more or less tragic.

Being politically correct can sometimes be annoying in the journalism world, but it is so crucial to maintaining credibility and respect from all viewers. Reporting controversial facts as they exist and are known is one thing, but making early accusations that have not been proven and include a supposition of crimes motivated by race, gender, religion, etc. could potentially ostracize an entire demographic from your newscast. Maintaining objectivity is key to responsible reporting.

War Is Not a Game

Teenagers and young adults all across the world couldn’t wait to get their hands on the sixth installment of the Call of Duty video game series last week. Modern Warfare 2 had an unprecedented debut, shattering records for both gaming and motion picture releases. Now hundreds of millions of gamers are playing the most realistic-looking warfare video game to date. While the game, like its predecessors, may look like the real thing, it couldn’t be any further from it. The most troublesomely misleading difference between the two is the game’s power switch: a button that may be able to bring your character back to life, but will never be able to reverse the fates of the millions of American soldiers and countless civilians whose lives have been ended or changed forever as the result of war.

First-person shooter games like Modern Warfare 2 imitate the experience of killing opponents, and in the process, reduce the reality of murder down to a gunfire sound effect and a virtual explosion of blood that drips down the screen. These effects, coupled with thematic story lines and cutting edge graphics, suck players into a game that portrays war as both thrilling and fun. The game belittles the cruelty, inhumanities, and injustices of warfare, creating a jaded perception of what war is really like.

The entertainment world as a whole has long been guilty of sensationalizing the glory of military combat and killing as a dignified and admirable national duty. The interactive nature of video games though, takes the excitement of the action to another level by putting the responsibility of the outcome in the hands of the media consumer. Killing then becomes a game that must be won, and the gamer becomes comfortable and confident with his or her part in it.

While the games have varying age requirements for purchase that range from 15 years to 17 years, it can be assumed that much younger children are also experiencing these warfare simulations. Many groups have spoken out against violent games like the Call of Duty series, with concerns that repeated exposure to this kind of content over an extended period of time could be even more difficult for impressionable children and teens to distinguish as a false-reality.

Modern Warfare 2 has sparked a renewed sense of alarm among these critics. It’s the first of its kind to take players through a realistic terrorist attack at an airport (including the killing of innocent civilians), an element that’s been dubbed the “most emotionally disturbing scene yet built into interactive entertainment” (Seth Schiesel, New York Times). Such a distinction makes me wonder at what point in time so called “entertainment” crosses the line from entertaining to unnecessary.

Not only do these games desensitize millions to the horror that is real war and terrorism, but they also build up an undue amount of hype about militaristic operations. One cannot help but notice the propagandistic similarities between popular war video games and the military recruiting ads themselves. They each glamorize a job that involves killing, living in unthinkable conditions, and risking one’s life on a regular basis.

The Call of Duty series also paints an incomplete picture that stops short of any kind of reality soldiers may face during or after they serve. For those who do make it out alive, many will experience some kind of physical or mental illnesses, joblessness, homelessness, and undoubtedly the painful daily reminders of what they witnessed and what they themselves took part in. These are the kinds of permanent, life-altering consequences of warfare that aren’t evoked by video games.

And for those who eventually choose to trade in their game controllers for real weapons, one can only hope that they can differentiate the fragility of their own life and the lives of others, from the dispensability of the video game characters on the screen.

California, Up a Creek, Without a Paddle...or a Rower

Almost 37,000,000 people in the state of California, and currently there are NO Democrats to speak of in the official running for the 2010 Gubernatorial race. Where is everyone? Why is no one stepping up to the plate?

In case you haven't heard, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom withdrew his candidacy because his poll numbers against the other (still unofficial) candidate, Jerry Brown, weren't looking great, and with a new baby he just didn't have the time...what a disappointment.

For those of us Democrats who were putting all our eggs in the Newsom basket, we are now left with but one candidate option for the primaries. Attorney General and former California Governor Jerry Brown will be our only choice... if he lives to see the day. At 71 years old, this guy is certainly qualified to be Governor, just like he was in 1974 and in 1978. But qualified isn't going to cut it this time around for California. The current sate of crisis California is in needs more than an arthritic old-timer, ready to come back for a Homecoming game and hit a few balls. We need a new MVP. Someone who can inspire the same kind of hope and sense of political efficacy that Obama did on the national level. Where is our promise of "change" California?

Certainly, there are other candidates. The GOP pool boasts a few of them...all more or less the same person. Extremely rich, privileged politicians hailing from Silicon Valley. They all promise to remove government at every turn and return the state to it's people. It sounds good, sure, but is this what California needs? Tell the unemployed, the starving, the homeless, the sick, and the poor (who no doubt collectively make up a significant portion of the state), "Don't worry, we'll get rid of the big bad government and then you can fend for yourself!" They seem to be campaigning with a 'if it's broken, don't fix it, get rid of it' attitude. Could these billionaires, willing to spend a small fortune of their own personal wealth on their campaigns, be any more out of touch with the people of California?

So here we are. A year from this week exactly, California, our great Blue state, will head to the polls to cast a vote. A vote that will be more like picking the least worst candidate than picking the best. A vote that will likely beg a series of questions in my mind that go a little something like, "Where are all the California politicians? Was there really no one else who would bite the bullet for the sake of our collective future? The future of one of the most progressive, nationally-influential states in America? A state with one of the largest economies in the world? Where is everyone? Can we not find anyone to replace the Governator? No movie stars even?"

Seriously? If I was old enough, I would run for Governor. Shoot.