Proud of New Jersey

It's nice to be proud of New Jersey. It doesn't happen often, but it happened recently when the legislature voted to allow medical marijuana and now-former Gov. Jon Corzine signed it into law. There are a lot of laws it would be nice to have in this state and even more laws that we have it would be nice not to have, but if any laws had to come into being in the new decade, I figure the medical marijuana law was the best. It's personal with me. I watched my grandmother go blind from glaucoma, then my aunt go nearly blind and my mother have vision problems. If marijuana has a chance of helping people with glaucoma (and I have heard plenty of anecdotal evidence it does) it outweighs every ridiculous argument against legalizing its medical use. Never mind the potential to help people with nausea from chemo or weight loss from AIDS or MS. And, the arguments are ridiculous. All medicines are drugs or poisons in some form and opiates are legal for medical use and not for street use when marijuana is far less threatening. And the argument was never a legitimate argument that marijuana is dangerous or a gateway drug. It was an argument by the large paper companies who didn't want competition from hemp products. Hemp is such a marvelous plant and its use would be an economic boon. But the big paper companies don't want to hear that, so they produce "reefer madness" mythology. Well, congratulations to the New Jersey state legislature and the outgoing Gov. Jon Corzine for ignoring the spurious protests of robber barons and allowing an important medicine to be used.

Two things not to discuss: religion and politics

In the ancient days when I was a recent college graduate teaching at a parish parochial school, I observed the intersection of religion and politics at the most basic level. On the days of the township council meeting, if I looked up at the classroom windows in the afternoon, I would see the deputy mayor leave his car and walk to the rectory for a meeting with the parish priest. In many municipalities in northern New Jersey, very little went on at council meetings that wasn't signed off on by the parish priest. These were communities settled by Italian immigrants who came to work the mines. Everybody was Roman Catholic and therefore the parish priest controlled the town. It worked very well until some pesky Protestants moved into town. Seems very simple when you consider the religious conflicts today.

See You in the Funny Pages

Cartoons, whether the comic strips or editorial cartoons, have a unique role in the newspaper. They offer opinion, like editorials and columns, but quickly and often with humor. They also reinforce the newspaper's role as the first draft of history. In cartoons, the style, colors used and subject matter all reflect the era in which they are written. Even though many of the characters never age -- like Alexander and Cookie Bumsted -- others are examples of their era. Many comic strips are thinly disguised editorial commentary, most notably "Doonesbury" and "Mutts." Regardless of where political cartoons run, they elicit responses from the readers. Sometimes, laughter, sometimes annoyance. Rarely real anger. At least in the U.S. where most people take it with a grain of salt. Unlike in Denmark where cartoons allegedly poking fun at Mohammad resulted in a murder. Makes you thankful for free speech over here, doesn't it?

The Perfect Blog for a Sunday

I remember once an ACLU-type remarking to a colleague that, while he knew we had to be objective, he was sure Dave agreed with his position on this matter because "all journalists are atheists." "Really?" Dave replied. "I'm Episcopalian." I'm not sure why many people, like this ACLU-type, are so sure reporters are unbelievers. Sure, we are skeptical and cynical about the people we cover. Jesus was pretty skeptical about the leaders of the Pharisees, too. I do know journalists who are atheists. I also know plenty who are observant Jews, Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant. No, fundamentalist Christians are not attracted to the profession. They are not raised to question, which is what we do for a living. It would be an uncomfortable shift, I'm sure. But lumping us all together with non-believers is just plain wrong.

The Age of Incivility

It's like I wasn't looking for a minute and suddenly the world fell into a pit of incivility. I was brought up with manners. Some of the gestures must seem quaint now. Men stood up when a woman entered a room, pulled out her chair, stepped ahead to open a door. Some women may have felt they were being patronized, but most probably considered themselves respected. And, in turn, women leaned over to unlock the drivers' door -- remember how Chaz Palmenteri told Lilo Brancato that was how to tell if a girl was worth it. How do you tell now. I can remember not being able to use a gift until I wrote the giver a thank-you note. This makes me wonder if many people today were raised by wolverines. Celebrities celebrate their lack of manners -- that twit who interrupted an award presentation to say the young lady didn't deserve it -- he didn't have a mother. And the Congressman who called the President a liar -- he was obviously raised by a wild tundra creature. But worse, people pay attention to these people. They keep bringing up the uncivil things they do. As if they deserved notice. They don't. These people deserve to be ignored. Maybe we should start 2010 by celebrating civility again.

Sarcasm, Just Another Service We Offer

I read a column recently in which the author noted journalists don't deliberately make people angry. We ask people to think and very often that makes them angry. Which is a shame. Thinking should be something all people do routinely. They shouldn't be afraid of it. Readers shouldn't expect to receive their news watered down. News isn't polenta, it's not supposed to be bland. It's supposed to contain the facts regardless of who looks foolish. We don't make people look bad. They do a very good job of that for themselves. Like Joe Friday from the old Dragnet, we deal in "just the facts." The "commentators," mainly right-wing talk show hosts, spoon feed their babble to their listeners and the listeners start to believe they should be spoon fed all the time. They should grow up already. Read objective articles, read commentators from both sides. Read more than listen, actually. And if they get angry, it should be for a reason.

Profession? Craft? Calling?

Is journalism a profession? We call ourselves professional journalists when we join the Society of Professional Journalists. But, professionals are licensed and one of the most important things the Founding Fathers did was to reject the British notion of licensing the press. Well, they rejected a lot of British notions, but that was a biggie. We are not licensed. We cannot be licensed and do our jobs, so we are not professionals. I prefer to think of journalism as a craft. It is learned far more on the job than in a classroom. When I started, in the early Woodward and Bernstein days, most of us didn't even have degrees in journalism. My editor was a French teacher by training. I'm certified in English/Secondary Education. I never once considered that a handicap or felt I knew less than someone with a J degree. They didn't learn about covering planning boards or taking photos of bodies dead an undetermined length of time any more than I did. So, it's a craft. But, it's also a calling. Sort of like the Holy Church without the Holy Orders. You don't do it for the money (like that's a surprise). You do it because you think you can make a difference. So, don't call us professionals.