The Trenchcoat Mafia & Other Tall Tales

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing. Perhaps the most powerful lesson we could learn from the Columbine tragedy of 10 years ago, is how completely wrong the mass media can get a story. If you still think of Columbine as a cautionary tale on the dangers of violent video games or bullying and cliques, let it go. These are comforting fairy tales we tell ourselves to make sense of the senseless. It all seems so much more controllable, if we can identify the social mechanisms and change them. Don't get me wrong. I think anti-bullying programs in schools are a great idea, but nothing of the kind would have stopped Eric Harris, or his sidekick Dylan Klebold. Such is the conclusion of author Dave Cullen and of FBI investigators who scrutinized the evidence. Cullen's book, entitled simply Columbine, pubs this Wednesday. Cullen concluded that the killers weren't part of the Trench Coat Mafia, that they weren't bullied by other students and that they didn't target popular jocks, African-Americans or any other group. A school shooting wasn't their initial intent, he said. It turns out the reason for the Columbine massacre is as simple as it is troubling. Eric Harris was a psycopath. Dylan Klebold, the weaker personality, was a suicidally depressed kid who took on Eric Harris's ethos as his own. Together, they planned a spectacular event -- one that would have eclipsed the Oklahoma City bombing. Their bomb-making skills were inadequate and they failed to wipe out the entire school. But, their plan had little to do with personal grudges against individuals. They just wanted to kill as many people as they could. The killers, in fact, laughed at petty school shooters. They bragged about dwarfing the carnage of the Oklahoma City bombing and originally scheduled their bloody performance for its anniversary. Klebold boasted on video about inflicting "the most deaths in U.S. history." Columbine was intended not primarily as a shooting at all, but as a bombing on a massive scale. If they hadn't been so bad at wiring the timers, the propane bombs they set in the cafeteria would have wiped out 600 people. After those bombs went off, they planned to gun down fleeing survivors. An explosive third act would follow, when their cars, packed with still more bombs, would rip through still more crowds, presumably of survivors, rescue workers, and reporters. The climax would be captured on live television. It wasn't just "fame" they were after—Agent Fuselier bristles at that trivializing term—they were gunning for devastating infamy on the historical scale of an Attila the Hun. Their vision was to create a nightmare so devastating and apocalyptic that the entire world would shudder at their power. Harris and Klebold would have been dismayed that Columbine was dubbed the "worst school shooting in American history." They set their sights on eclipsing the world's greatest mass murderers, but the media never saw past the choice of venue. The school setting drove analysis in precisely the wrong direction. In his original article for Slate, Cullen debunked the litany of Columbine myths propagated by the media: 1. Targeting jocks, blacks, and Christians: There were no targets. Harris and Klebold just wanted body count, and they didn't care who died. They expected their bombs to do most of the killing, murdering everyone in the cafeteria, irrespective of clique or social standing. When the bombs failed, they shot indiscriminately, firing into open crowds and under tables without bothering to see who their victims were. They taunted jocks briefly in the library, but they taunted virtually everyone else there, too. 2. The Trench Coat Mafia: A small group of Columbine students did dub themselves the Trenchcoat Mafia, and they did have a feud with a band of jocks in 1999. But it was never a formal gang or club, and most of the members graduated nearly a year before the massacre. Harris and Klebold were never closely affiliated with the group and did not appear in the 1998 yearbook picture identifying the members. The TCM had little to do with Harris and Klebold and nothing to do with the massacre. The killers wore long coats in order to hide their weapons. 3. The Hit List: Eric Harris did create an enemies list, with a wide and sometimes comical assortment of personalities—students who pissed him off, girls who refused his dates, Tiger Woods. There's no indication that these were ever intended as targets. No one on the list was killed. 4. Christian Martyr Cassie Bernall: One of the killers allegedly asked student Cassie Bernall if she believed in God, then killed her when she said yes. Bernall became a revered figure among evangelical Christians. In fact, one of the killers posed the question to another girl, Valeen Schnurr, after she had already been shot. They had a short exchange, he reloaded, got distracted, and she crawled away to safety. 5. Marilyn Manson: Klebold and Harris hated Marilyn Manson. On his Web site, Harris said he loved, "Good, fast, hard, strong, pounding TECHNO!! Such as KMFDM, PRODIGY, ORBITAL, RAMMSTEIN, and such." 6. Escape to New York: Harris' journal does contain a passage about hijacking a plane and crashing it into New York City, but that appears to have been an early fantasy. He settled on a more practical scheme long before he and Klebold actually staged their massacre. By the time of the attack, they fully expected to die at the high school. They refer to their death routinely and explicitly in their writings and in their videos. 7. Outcasts: Perhaps the most pervasive myth is that Harris and Klebold were rejected outcasts. They were not captains of the football team, but they were far more accepted than many of their schoolmates. They hung out with a tight circle of close friends and partied regularly on the weekend with a wider crowd. Columbine is a cautionary tale. Just not for the reasons we were led to believe. It should serve as a reminder of how completely wrong the prevailing narrative can be, and how badly professional journalists can serve their audience, in their haste to tell us the story. “Columbine” is an excellent work of media criticism, showing how legends become truths through continual citation; a sensitive guide to the patterns of public grief, foreshadowing many of the same reactions to Sept. 11 (lawsuits, arguments about the memorial, voyeuristic bus tours); and, at the end of the day, a fine example of old-fashioned journalism.

Irony, Thy Name is National Enquirer

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing. I've always had a healthy disrespect for tabloids. In fact, throughout my college years, when I was ensconced in my studies of media and journalism, I considered the term "tabloid journalism" an oxymoron. Boy, is my face red. But, not so red as is the Gray Lady's, I should think. She's now playing catch up on news her editors did not think "fit to print." Scandal has turned Mr. Edwards into a pathetic has-been. It's had much the same effect on the news bosses at the mainstream media, who used to be the gatekeepers for all things fit to print. When the Enquirer broke the story months ago – while Mr. Edwards was still in the race – they treated it like poison ivy. “Classically not a Times-like story,” sniffed Craig Whitney, the standards editor of The New York Times. This was the same paper, you may recall, that recently ran an innuendo-laden story on John McCain and his friendship with an attractive lobbyist a decade or so ago. No wonder critics accuse the MSM of double standards – one for Democrats, and another for Republicans. Indeed, the Enquirer turned up its nose at McCain non-story. It would seem, wisely so. This and other revelations from The New Republic -- they, of the Stephen Glass debacle. That The National Enquirer is burying the bona fide press corps in the sack, is shaping up to be the story of the year. Normally, in the pitched tabloid battle for exclusives, losing a competitive bombshell like the McCain scandal would send Perel into fits. Not this time. Five Enquirer reporters had spent more than a month in 2007 chasing down the same rumors but failed to uncover any documentary evidence. "I wouldn't have run that piece, there was nothing in it," Perel told me recently about the Times story, which received widespread criticism when it ran. "It was filled with innuendo. . . . When you're done reading it, you're like, there's no there there." My first intimation that the Enquirer might just be a force to reckoned with came while I was watching a documentary on the O.J. Simpson trial. (No. It did not come during the actual trial; a story which became so burdensome, day after day, that I extended great effort to tune it out.) But, I was somewhat taken aback to hear more legitimate reporters speak in respectful terms about the quality reporting the Enquirer did on O.J. While other reporters were beating minutiae to death, the Enquirer was willing to get dirty, and in doing so, kept breaking the big stories. They became the go to source during that scandal. In fact, the barbarians have been at the gates ever since the O. J. Simpson trial, which turned out to be a cultural and racial event of immense significance. The MSM couldn't bear to dumpster-dive into the lurid details, even as an insatiable public gobbled them up. That was when they began to lose their grip on deciding what is news. With the explosion of the blogosphere, their power is gone for good. It seems that while many of the major media brokers are busy chasing headlines, Enquirer reporters are chasing actual stories. I speak not of the kinds of stories they do, but of the way they do their reporting. Like it or not they are doing actual investigative journalism -- something the TNR piece makes clear -- while far too many so-called reporters are writing stories from press releases and proving to be knee-pad wearing whores for the same unreliable sources, again and again. New York Times "Reporter" Judith Miller photo: Kevin Wolf AP Nowhere has the whoredom of mainstream press been more evident than with the media circus over VP selection. Massive resources have been allocated for reporters to camp out on lawns and whip themselves, and, sadly, the public, into a frenzy over something that we were all going to find out anyway. Why is it so important to get a story first, when no one, but no one, will give a shit two weeks from now who "broke" the "Biden is the VP pick" story? The only thing mildly interesting in this woeful display has been watching some bloggers and reporters step on their cranks, in their haste to "get it first." What is more important? Getting it first, or getting it right? Perhaps the paper of record will be able to reestablish its cred with the newest investigation into John Edwards's smarminess. This they will do by retracing some of the source material for their successful reportage into Eliot Spitzer's smarminess. I hope it pans out for their sake, if not for Elizabeth Edwards's.

Fair, Balanced, All Edwards, All the Time

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing. Now I would be the last person to say that the Edwards affair is not news. In fact, I've pretty consistently argued that it is news. But this is positively surreal. I think my favorite part is where Erbe is explaining the political and national security implications of the Russia/Georgia war, as they show endless video of John and Elizabeth Edwards and Rielle Hunter.

Andrea Mitchell: McCain Ad "Factually Wrong"

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing. Andrea Mitchell committed a random act of journalism, yesterday, when she set the record straight on McCain's scurrilous attack ad. Mitchell would be in a position to know, since she was there. In appearances on MSNBC, including "Hardball," she debunked McCain's claims that Obama cancelled his visit with wounded troops because he couldn't bring cameras. From the transcript (all emphases mine): MITCHELL: ... And the other thing is, did he make a bad call in deciding not to go to Ramstein? He had every right to go to Ramstein... BARNICLE: To visit the... MITCHELL: ... to visit the troops in Landstuhl. He had already been to visit the troops in Iraq without cameras, without an entourage. And he got, I think—his people, rather, got so backed off by warnings from the Pentagon, now, be please careful, and don‘t bring your military aide, because he‘s now a political aide. The Pentagon was way too aggressive probably in that. And they got so nervous, oh, well, this is going to look political, and they were damned if they did or damned if they didn‘t. They... (CROSSTALK) MITCHELL: Let me just finish one—just one point. FINEMAN: I‘m sorry. (CROSSTALK) MITCHELL: There was never any intention—let me be absolutely clear about this. The press was never going to go. The entourage was never going to go. There was never an intention to make this political. But by tacking it on to the tail end of a political—the political leg of the trip, they opened themselves up, they feared, to the criticism. And, if they had gone, they would have been criticized. And not going, they were criticized. And the McCain commercial on this subject is completely wrong, factually wrong. BARNICLE: Well, let‘s watch the commercial. And tell us where it‘s wrong. . . . MITCHELL: Well, first of all, the picture, the image that they use of him playing basketball is with the troops shot by a—an Army cameraman. That was DOD footage that the—the Pentagon shot of him in Kuwait shooting hoops—and a three-pointer, I might add. BARNICLE: Yes. Swish. MITCHELL: So, when he went to see the injured troops in the Green Zone, he did not bring a camera. There was no Pentagon camera. He did not even confirm to those of us covering by—covering that he had gone. I had to find out that he had gone through other sources, military sources. I mean, the fact is that he was never planning to take the press corps. The press corps was going to be on the tarmac, locked up on the airplane while he went off by himself. The only issue was whether he could bring a political aide, who was a retired military—retired Air Force general... There is more on The Huffington Post, including a video of another Mitchell appearance and a "Countdown" segment discussing the perception/reality gap on McCain's "support" of the troops. Here are some highlights: OLBERMANN: In falsely accusing Senator Obama of ditching U.S. troops in Germany because of press restrictions, the latest McCain campaign ad made an even more outlandish claim, quote, “John McCain is always there for our troops.” Our fourth story on the COUNTDOWN: Except when he isn‘t. As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid noted in mid-2007, McCain only showed up for four of the past 14 Senate votes on Iraq. So far this year, he shown up for none, not even the resolution honoring the sacrifice made by the fallen. And looking at just part of McCain‘s record of supporting the troops since the war in Iraq began, April 2003, he tabled the motion to provide over $1 billion of National Guard and Reserve equipment. October 2003, he tabled an amendment to provide an additional $322 million for safety equipment for U.S. troops in Iraq. March 2004, he voted against eliminating abusive tax loopholes that would have increased veterans‘ medical care by $1.8 billion. March 2006, he voted against closing corporate tax loopholes that would have increased veteran medical services by $1.5 billion. April 2006, he voted against providing an extra $430 million for veteran outpatient care. May 2006, he voted against $20 million for veteran health care facilities. March 2007, he didn‘t bother on a resolution to start redeploying troops from Iraq by March 2008. September 2007, he voted against Senator Webb‘s amendment that would specify minimum rest periods for troops in-between deployments; and in May 2008, he first spoke out against Senator Webb‘s G.I. bill and then didn‘t bother to show up to vote on it. But none of that stopped him from accepting President Bush‘s praise when the bill ultimately passed. Joining me now: our own Rachel Maddow, the host of “Rachel Maddow Show” on Air America Radio. . . . MADDOW: ... I think, they‘ve been waiting to count on so far, the idea that if you to squint and don‘t focus too much, the fact that he is a veteran can sort of substitute for the idea that he has done right by veterans as a politician, that he‘s done right by veterans and by the troops as a senator. But the fact is, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, they gave John McCain a “D” for his voting record; they gave Barack Obama a “B-plus.” Disabled Americans Veterans gave John McCain just a 20 percent voting record; they gave Barack Obama an 80 percent voting record. There‘s a difference between being a veteran and supporting veterans as a politician. He‘s just counting on people not being able to tell the difference.

Is "Sunday Morning Apartheid" really gone?

Is "Sunday Morning Apartheid" gone? Is there still a very clear division, an exclusion of blacks to a large degree on Sunday Morning Talk shows? Is America still a nation involved in " Sunday Morning Apartheid" or is Felicia Lee at New York Times right when she wrote, "Like the Candidates, TV’s Political Pundits Show Signs of Diversity? In 2006, the National Urban League released a report showing how racially segregated the Sunday morning talk shows are. According to their report, more than 60% of all of the broadcasts of the Sunday morning talk shows had no black guests on them at all. And 80% of the roundtables had no black participants. Now in the NY Times article Felicia Lee notes, The historic and long-running presidential campaigns of Senator Barack ObamaHillary Rodham Clinton have injected issues of race and gender into politics as never before. With campaign coverage center stage on the cable channels, producers and critics are again assessing the diversity among pundits, who talk (and talk) about things like Mr. Obama’s pastor, the Hispanic vote, Iraq and the economy. and Senator In the article Felicia notes, "Both MSNBC and CNN this election season have given new prominence to a handful of contributing commentators from varied backgrounds and perspectives: blacks, Hispanics and women." Felicia's article also points out, "Whether such moves signal real progress in diversifying the punditocracy or merely reflect the needs of a particular news cycle is the question, some media experts say." Here are some other key points in the NY Times article: 1. The most prominent positions on television remain overwhelmingly with those who are white and male, and some critics note how striking that non-inclusion can seem during this election year. 2. Whatever progress has been made with contributors and commentators as of late, the cable networks have a long way to go before they look like the American people,” said Karl Frisch, the spokesman for Media Matters for America, a liberal television watchdog group. He added that white men were the hosts of all the major Sunday morning talk shows, the major prime-time cable news programs and — except for Katie Couric, a relative newcomer — the network evening news broadcasts. 3. Diversity is not just good journalism but also good business, Ms. Ciara and others said. Generally Felicia Lee's article is on point. And you know this African American Political Pundit is in agreement with Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, who points out in the article that cable programs relied more and more on people who can analyze campaign developments, rather than just report them. So television needs more pundits and more kinds of pundits." AAPP: It's great to see and hear, as the article points out, the 2008 lineup at CNN which also includes Alex Castellanos, a Cuban-born Republican strategist, and Leslie Sanchez, a Mexican-American Republican strategist who has also appeared on Fox News. It's also great to see and hear Donna Brazile, journalist and radio host Roland S. Martin; Amy Holmes, a conservative strategist and a former senior speechwriter for Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, the former Senate majority leader; and Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist, Obama supporter and veteran press spokesman. The other networks are making, let us call it "attempts." As I read the article I wondered when are the Sunday Morning Talk Shows and other Political Talk Shows going to desegregate and include black political bloggers as pundits on these talk shows? Then I had to be honest with myself, the networks are scared to place black political bloggers on the networks. Why? One word "Fear." We all know black political and social commentary bloggers like The Field Negro, Electronic Village, Jack & Jill Politics, Pams House Blend, Prometheus 6, The Super Spade, Black Agenda Report, Eddie Griffin (BASG), Exodus Mentality, Francis L. Holland Blog, Mirror on America, Anderson at Large, Skeptical Brotha this African American Political Pundit and many others would also bring a fresh perspective that America is unaccustomed to hearing in the mainstream media. Network Executives may be fearful that America is so unaccustomed to hearing honest political commentary and analysis that the black bloggers noted above and other black bloggers like Back Yard Beacon, Black Political Thought, AfroNetizen, Black Women In Europe, AfroSpear Think Tank, Black Perspective, Black Smythe, Dallas South Blog, Mrs. Grapevine, Republic of T, What About Our Daughters?, Wichita NAACP Blog, Charcoal Ink, Bygbaby's Mind Spill, A Political Season and yes this African American Political Pundit would be to much for America to handle. Well, Network TV executives and producers who may be reading this post, your wrong. There is no need to fear. By the way, you may want to consider following in the footsteps of the good folks at NPR's News and Notes, Bloggers Roundtable hosted by Farai Chideya. They have been providing bloggers from across America the opportunity to have a conversation with the American people. Farai Chideya and the folks at NPR are accustomed to providing honest political commentary and analysis that the black bloggers bring to America through The Bloggers Roundtable program. OK now getting back to the question, Is "Sunday Morning Apartheid" gone? Answer: Not when the most prominent positions on television remain overwhelmingly with those who are white and male. Not when a critical part of the "new media" is left out of the conversation - black bloggers. It's looking just a tad different on America's airwaves. As far as this African American Political Pundit is concerned, but It could be a lot better. Then again who cares about black faces, for black faces sake. Are the current group of black faces saying what needs to be said? Well, this African American Political Pundit has the hook up. I have my own BlogTalkRadio program and I love being a regular contributor to NPR's Bloggers Roundtable.

Pity the Citizens of South Carolina

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeIn past elections, only those poor souls in Iowa and New Hampshire were abused at the hands of a media circus, but now it has spread to South Carolina. South Carolinians are getting tired of the way the media is trying to shape the election. Kathey E. Adams [...] said when traveling and watching reports about her state, "I was horrified by what I saw." She deplored reports that focused on black voters, saying "It's a new South. What do they think, we're in hoop skirts?" As for her choice in Saturday's primary, Adams said she will "probably" supporting Clinton. She had been a Joe Biden supporter before leaning toward Clinton. She said was "disappointed" by the exchange between Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama during the debate Monday. She said she is considering former Sen. John Edwards because she agreed he was "the only adult in the sandbox." The coverage I have seen has not been kind to SC - cataloging it as a backwards state, podunk, etc. Folks, South Carolina makes BMWs! Yes the South is a living dichotomy. New South vs Old South. Klan vs. Progress. I wonder if they will vote for Edwards just out of spite? Besides he is actually a local.

master debate

cross-posted at skippy and a veritable cornucopia of other community blogs. it's refreshing that several democratic candidates have pledged to boycott the fox noise debate next september. not only has john "crossing over" edwards vowed to avoid it, but also barak "to the future" obama and hillary "not necessarily the sopranos" clinton, as well. one reason (well, the only reason, actually: e.g., fox's bias; but one example of that reason) was fox's insistance that obama studied muslim extremism as a 6 year old child, without anything to back up such an assertion. so at least some dems show some spine and refuse to attend the congressional black caucus institute-sponsored debate on fox noise next fall. but some in the multi-millionaire media just can't see the logic in this. scott collins, writing in the latimes, says the dems should just buck up and show up: so it needs to be said: the democrats are dead wrong not to debate on fox news. and it's hypocritical for the supposedly nonpartisan media to stand by and do nothing while a tv network — even one with an obvious rightward tilt whose fairness and balance deserve every bit of the scrutiny they're getting — is trashed by mega-million-dollar political campaigns in the heat of a white house primary battle. when politicians, one of whom may very well be the next president of the united states, start using their platforms to lob missiles at news-gathering organizations they don't like, it's hard to see how that's much different than president nixon's infamous "enemies list." well, here's the difference, scott: nixon's list were people whose careers he, as president, wanted destroyed...boycotting fox news is a representation of the free market system. if candidates thinks they won't get a fair shake from somebody, and that somebody has been proven to be biased and subjective, why should those candidates validate that somebody as fair and objective? let's start calling them as we see them, shall we? fox is unfair and unbalanced. think progress points out (as does c&l) that last night on hannity and colmes, both hannity and guest annthrax coulter did another one of their famous hit jobs on obama: coulter remarked, “anyone named b. hussein obama should not use the words ‘hijack’ and ‘religion’ in the same sentence.” host sean hannity added that obama’s remarks were part of a “black separatist agenda.” the timing was not lost on us, so we wrote a letter to the latimes: sirs and madams: it is deliciously ironic that the same day the l.a. times presents scott collins chastizing the democrats for boycotting presidential debates on fox news, ann coulter and sean hannity make the democrats' case for them. on the hannity & colmes show on june 25, coulter accused sen. barak obama once again of being a terrorist, while sean hannity accused him of having a "black separatist agenda." and yet scott collins would have the democratic candidates overlook such slurs and bigoted vitriol and lend credence to fox news as an "objective" journalistic organ. scott collins' premise is completely wrong. fox news is not a "news-gathering organization" that just happens to tilt one way or the other. it is a platform for right wing innuendo, smears and agenda that just happens to report a news item now and then. we would hope that the entire democratic party would refrain from appearing on that very subjective channel.

Muzak

Years ago, the rock ‘n’ roll guitarist/ radio DJ/ NRA pimp Ted Nugent announced that he was planning on buying the company that owns Muzak. Why? So he could destroy it. “After being tortured in my dentist’s office, waiting in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles or having that damned noise oozing out of a telephone while the bitch puts me on hold, I’ve had enough,” he explained. But he was unsuccessful. When I first heard this, even though I initially dismissed it as a stupid publicity stunt, I was sorry he didn’t succeed. “Better luck next time, Ted,” I thought to myself. But now, I’m not so sure. Surprisingly, considering Mr. Nugent’s right-wing opinions of everything from abortion rights, affirmative action and gun control, this was one of the few times where I found myself in complete agreement with something he said. Muzak has always hugely annoyed me throughout the years because I thought it was a dishonest perversion of a musician’s original vision; a simple-minded shortcut for lazy idiots who preferred skimming through a Cliff’s Notes pamphlet than reading the real thing to avoid struggling with all those sinister words. It’s like choosing to eat baby food instead of steak, or doing the nasty with a blow-up doll. So imagine my surprise when I discovered that I actually missed listening to Musak. Don’t get me wrong: listening to a gooey, coma-inducing version of “Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds” feels like somebody is pouring a gallon of maple syrup into my ears. But it’s preferable to the equivalent of an used car salesman trying to sell me something. Even at its worst, Muzak gave you a few minutes of pleasure, reminding you of a favorite song you forgotten. In spite of yourself, you (almost) enjoyed it. Now, unfortunately, instead of a pleasant memory, you get a sales pitch. And that’s what you’re hearing in place of Muzak these days. Instead of phony music, you’re hearing and seeing omnipresent liars trying to sell you cell phones, magazine subscriptions, car insurance, free samples of Viagra or whatever and it’s not just annoying, it’s incredibly intrusive. What’s made it worse is you’re trapped because while you’re waiting to wash your clothes, buy your groceries or get your car fixed, there’s a television yelling at you. And it isn’t just television anymore. How many times have you’ve been tortured by pop-ups and Spam while sitting at the PC? Going to the movies, instead of trailers you’re seeing commercials that you can’t shut off with your TV remote. If Nugent picked up his cell phone today, he wouldn’t hear that “damned noise”. He’d hear a robotic voice telling him about a great new long distance plan. This is a big media genie that doesn’t want to go back into the bottle and I don’t know what we can do about it. Lately, I keeping thinking about a scene in the science-fiction movie Minority Report where corporate intrusion into our lives had gotten so bad, even Tom Cruise’s box of breakfast cereal tried to sell him something. Doesn’t seem like a fantasy anymore, does it? Before, just to get some peace and quiet, you needed a portable CD player. Now, you need a sensory deprivation tank. Maybe we’ll be safe for a little while before we inevitably become a vast herd of obedient Neos with sockets in the back of our necks plugged into the global version of Wal-Mart. Ted, I think you and me owe Muzak an apology.