1 percent should not rule 99 percent

I think most of us agree that government is broken. At some point, probably a couple decades ago, politicians began caring more about themselves than us. And we, the voters, allowed it because life was generally OK for most of us for many years, particularly following the end of the Vietnam War and military draft. The civil rights protests went away. More and more kids were going to college. Retirees were enjoying their pensions.

But now a massive vortex has formed as the country has reached a point of division and dysfunction that we might not ever recover from. We're spinning out of control. There are no more pensions. Even Social Security is at risk.

We're at a juncture where individuals most hurt by the shenanigans of Constitution Avenue and Wall Street have exhausted all options to remain afloat, let alone thrive. Unless we unify, mobilize and get into the faces of bankers, senators and others who make up the approximately one percent of those getting rich on our pain, the lives of 99 percent of Americans will continue to spiral downward -- some slowly, some quickly depending on where you're at in the social-economic order.

While the one percent holds the power and privilege in this county, the 99 percent possess the numbers. However, if the majority continues to sit back and do nothing, or dilute and divide itself into mindless red and blue camps, then the one percent will continue to flourish at our expense.

We don't need a Tea Party, we need an informed Unity Party. We need for people to rally around groups like Occupy Together in order to send a message to those who have abused their powers that we aren't going to take it anymore. Regardless of political leanings, we as Americans should have one cause in common, and that is to stop being abused by those in power. We want our jobs back. We want a more level playing field. We don't want to make anymore sacrifices so that corporate titans can profit while we struggle to put food on the table. That isn't a political philosophy -- it's common decency. And everyone except the 1 percent should be for that.

It is the 99 percent that gives the 1 percent their power. We can also take it away if we stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated by various powerful factions that intentionally try to divide us.

Three years of unemployment and underemployment are taking an irreversible toll on the country as a whole. Roads are crumbling, families are splintering, stores are closing, tax rolls are dwindling. Eventually, the bridges that carry the trucks that bring products to market will collapse. And what will CEOs do then? Layoff more people? Is that how we're going to continue to handle this crisis, by firing capable workers? Is that really the best Corporate America and government can do to address a complex problem that they helped create?

Layoffs just make things worse for society, which in turn eats away at the economy and our national security. Yes, corporate profits have risen, but for how long and through what means? Eventually the recession will catch up to these job killers, who may then realize that gutting the workforce and sitting on their wealth might not have been such a good strategy. In fact, that tactic has fueled a dark super cell -- a storm on the horizon that is so ominous that it may threaten our way of life, our freedom.

There seems to be only one way out of this. We and our elected officials need to start working together. I mean really work together, not just give lip service about it. We need to put aside our philosophical differences, reject the lobbyists/special interests groups and hit the voting booths harder than ever in order to get rid of any politician who seems unwilling to compromise or unable to think outside of the box.

We need to work for and do business with responsible employers who protect and create jobs here in America. When a lawmaker trumpets a claim, they need to back it out with facts not partisan theory and manipulation. We need to verify that tax cuts for the wealthy help create jobs. If that claim can't be supported with hard data, then politicians need to let go of it and move on. And we, the voters, need to punish any politician who clings to any false statements or perpetuates economic myths. Those falsities are a distraction. They are delaying our finding real solutions for the 99 percent of us who don't have a pile of gold stashed away or more time to waste.

The cost of not working together is our destruction. Plain and simple. If you want to cling to your bumper sticker, red and blue mentality, do so at your own peril. But if you want to force our leaders to do something for us rather than against us, you have to abandon your preconceived notions about our two political parties. You must educate yourselves and realize that most politicians do not have our best interests at heart. You must join protesters marching in New York and form your own protests at your State Houses and corporate headquarters of the most offensive companies. You must write and call your representatives. Elect governors who can govern for the people and not just take money from special interest groups. Reject anyone and everyone who doesn't stand up for workers' rights, whether those workers are unionized or not.

At this stage, the 99 percent being passive or uninformed will only make the 1 percent stronger. The 1 percent doesn't need either political party helping them. You must be willing to reinvent yourself, your views on politics and government, and not fall for the same tricks that have done nothing but weaken the 99 percent for a generation or two while right-wingers and centrists have ineffectively ruled the country. If that means swallowing a little pride and admitting your party is overrun by folks who say they are for the middle class but aren't, then open your eyes and vote them out. But at the same time, be cautious with who you're voting in. Make sure they are qualified, honest, sincere and intelligent. Examine their records and make sure they understand history. Don't elect anyone based on your emotions or their empty promises.

Look around your neighborhoods, your offices and see who is doing well and who isn't. Dig beneath the surface and don't just assume that someone who lost their job or house must have done something wrong. If you do that, you're sealing your own faith. Your pink slip will come.

Statistics show that if you're a white male over 50 years old, and get laid off, there is an increasing chance that you will never work again regardless of your credentials. Age discrimination is running rampant, which is another thing the system is supposed to prevent but doesn't because we don't do a damn thing to make sure employers aren't operating outside of the law. Apathy is killing us.

I am outraged whenever I hear politicians talking about raising the retirement age. Who exactly is going to hire or keep a 70-year-old employee these days? It sounds fine to say we're living longer than ever and need to save money on Social Security by delaying benefits, but does anyone ever think about enforcing age discrimination laws so that we can work into our senior years? Simply raising the retirement age without putting some teeth into discrimination laws is a recipe for disaster in a job market that openly excludes experienced workers. I've read a lot of job ads in the last three years, and it always astonishes me how employers aren't shy about their not wanting to give anyone over 50 a chance to even apply, let alone interview. It's a tragedy for mid-career professionals and for less experienced workers who could learn from the seasoned pros. In addition, current job seekers do not need a whole new wave of people to compete with.

Recently, I've heard some Republicans want to make job training mandatory for anyone who receives unemployment benefits. Sounds good on the surface, but surface solutions are often flawed. The real agenda of these Republicans has more to do with throwing the vulnerable overboard than it does guiding them back into employment.

Unemployment benefits are just that -- benefits earned by once-employed people. You don't qualify for them if you didn't work. So the premise that unemployment is some sort of handout is completely wrong in most instances, particularly during this recession. In addition to that, many people who get laid off have years of experience and a wide range of skills. A few months of additional training aren't going to make them anymore employable. It's another illusion promoted by intellectually challenged morons who want to place the blame on the victims of this horrible economy rather than on the culprits. Heck, in many cases it was their vast experience (and larger paychecks) that got good people canned in the first place -- usually older workers.

I resent any statement that implies that all unemployed or underemployed people must have a shortage of skills. In fact, in certain cases, unemployed people from certain professions probably have more skills, education and ethics than those who remain employed. Companies throughout this recession have been letting go of the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

While adding tools to one's toolbox isn't a bad idea in a struggling job market, it should not be mandated as a condition to receive what laid-off workers are rightfully owed. In a day and age where companies don't even have the decency to provide severance, unemployment benefits must be paid as long as those receiving the benefits can prove they are searching for work. Unemployment benefits not only help individuals, but they have been proven to boost the economy.

Why have we all -- outside of those current protesters in New York and previously Wisconsin -- become so apathetic about blatant injustice? Social, economic and institutional injustice is reaching epidemic levels. Have we somehow collectively accepted that we can't fight city hall anymore? Are we willing to voluntarily march off a cliff, clinging to our stale political beliefs right until the end, while the one percent gathers more riches and power? We should be outraged by the one percent who are picking our bones clean, practically robbing our gold fillings from our graves. Where are these people acquiring their nerve and authority to make up the rules as they go?

If you're fresh out of college, and unable to find a job, it's going to be impossible to pay back your school loans, let alone begin your quest for the "American Dream." We have always sold that dream in order to create peace and tranquility among the masses and to drive the economy. It's worked for a long time because people were able to climb the social ladder, buy a car, put food on the table and pay into the system through taxation. That just isn't the case anymore. There is no ladder to climb anymore. Young adults are getting out of college and moving in with their parents nowadays. If you don't work, you can't pay taxes, which in turn causes more economic and societal woes for everyone.

Some are seeing a connection between our disillusioned young, educated people and the youths in Egypt who recently became so disenchanted with a government that wasn't working for them that they took to the streets in full revolutionary mode.

Can that happen here?

I don't see why not. Maybe it has already started.

Chronic institutional unfairness alters social norms regardless of nationality. You want to see class warfare, wait another few years. You won't be able to go the ATM without getting mugged by someone who once paid taxes and lived a three-room rambler with a white picket fence, but is now starving on the streets because politicians couldn't put aside their differences in order to address a national crisis. Wait a few more years and things could be considerably worse. At that point, who do we blame? The politicians or the people who elected them without doing their homework?

Close-minded voters who rely only on talk radio to help them decide on a which candidate to cast a ballot for are worse than people who don't vote at all. Recent Republican primaries are driven by some of the most ill-informed people on the planet and are taking away our options in general elections. I'd like to get back to having two viable candidates to choose from in a general election. I'd like to return to the days when Corporate American didn't control our politicians and where crazies didn't make it beyond their local homeowner association boards in the political world.

We have reached the point where if we don't compromise and find lasting solutions, we will fall and fall hard. The despair, the poverty, the lack of hope will eat at the inner core of America and reduce us to a nation of have and have-nots, with the have-nots eventually rising up to create chaos that even the rich won't be able to shelter themselves from. Perhaps this is why some wealthy folks are finally coming out and pleading to have their taxes raised. Yes, raised. They can and want to help the economy, realizing that if they don't take on a fairer share of the load, they might end up with nothing, like the 50somethings, who were once vibrant, middle-class contributors to society but who are now living in their cars all across this nation. Yet, there are some leaders in Washington who ignore the pleas of the moral rich in favor of the still-greedy rich. They won't raise taxes.

It is time to shut out the extremists and the selfish and work together. The media can play a role in this by not giving any airtime to all the usual suspects who do nothing but promote themselves. We need smart, sincere people on the front pages of our newspapers. People willing and able to make a difference, not manipulators of media who flirt with their short-sighted followers through bus tours and book signings. These people are a cancer. They are not patriots. At best, they are distractions. And we can't afford anymore distractions. Time is running out.

For some victims of the last three years, it's already too late. But there are millions more who could be saved from a very bad ending if politicians, business owners and others can simply redirect their energy to rebuilding the middle class rather than tearing it down though obstructionism and partisan inaction. Politicians can't create jobs, but they can create an environment more conducive to combating joblessness. In that regard, both Republicans and Democrats have failed us miserably.

Jobs, not "Obamacare" or debt reduction or anything else, must be the central focus of Washington. Every time I hear a smoke-and-mirrors politician utter the word "Obamacare," I know they aren't serious about job creation and I won't vote for them. If you're unemployed or want to remain employable for the next decade or two, I would recommend you do the same -- vote out anyone who seems distracted by lesser issues or who doesn't back up their jobs rhetoric with action. Real action. Not speeches, not phony bills that are dead on arrival. I want to see a look of authenticity and truthfulness on the faces of our leaders in Congress. I want to feel a sense of getting along with the opposing party. Please, no more posturing.

I would like to see entire debates dedicated to one subject -- job creation. I don't need to hear anything more about fences along borders, in-state tuition for the children of illegal aliens or English as an official language. I don't need for politicians to sneak in their pet projects or warped values in the name of job creation. I want to see members of both political parties roll up their sleeves and get back to the job of getting us to work.

Everything depends on employment. Everything, including our health, the environment and our defense. We can't protect whales or feed starving children if there is no money going to organizations that do good works. This is not the time for Democrats and Republicans to come out of White House meetings with nasty comments about the other guy or to drone on about why they don't believe in science.. This is a time for unity and a sense of urgency. We have no time left to listen to Tea Party fantasies or to cater to a do-nothing establishment. We must stand together in our demand for jobs. We must turn up the volume in a variety of ways if we want to be a democracy and create a fair and optimistic nation.

Read more about the 99 percent.

Rescue America from Wall Street.

New Yorkers' send wrong message

Republican Bob Turner's special election win in Anthony Weiner's old Congressional district in New York is about as stunning an upset as it gets in modern politics.

This is a Brooklyn/Queens district that has voted Democratic since the 1920s.

This is a district that, according to poll numbers just a few months ago, did not want Weiner to resign over the Twitter scandal.

This is New York City.

I understand as well as anyone that people are upset about a number of things in this country. The unemployment situation is getting worse and remains the overwhelming top concern for anyone who isn't in Congress.

While the data shows joblessness leveling out at around a dismal 9 percent in the past year, there are very few people left who don't think that number is at least double that when you factor in the folks who gave up looking for work or are severely underemployed. In some parts of the country and in some demographics, the unemployment rate is estimated to be over 30 percent. And the layoffs keep coming, as seen in a recent announcement by Bank of America.

In order to maintain some faith in voters, I have to believe the upset in New York isn't about Democrats or Republicans. It's about rejecting whomever is or has been in power. Of course, that isn't how Republicans will take it, which in turn will empower them to become even worse obstructionists in the coming months.

New Yorkers sent the wrong message by electing Turner. They decided to bite their nose to spite their face.

It appears the tailspin we've be in since Republicans have adopted Tea Party negotiating principles just got worse. Barring a sudden shift to reason and cooperation in Washington, 2012 isn't likely to bring any hope to an increasingly pessimistic society or the millions of people trying to survive as they look for work.

OMG moment at GOP debate

Texas. Gov. Rick Perry criticized a border fence as being unrealistic during Monday night's GOP debate. Instead of a fence or wall, he suggested more boots on the ground and high-tech solutions to reduce illegal immigration.

And here's a shocker. I basically agree with him.

"The idea that you're going to build a wall from Brownsville to El Paso and go left for another 800 miles to Tijuana is just not reality," said Perry.

He's right. A border fence is nothing more than an emotional response to illegal immigration. It's red meat for Tea Party people and other far right-wing fanatics. It's not a real solution.

Fences make some people feel better but rarely do they work. A ladder or tunnel would easily defeat the purpose of a costly and unguarded fence. In addition, a massive fence along the entire border with Mexico is an environmental nightmare for animals needing to migrate.

Even more border police and aerial patrols aren't enough to address the illegal immigration problem, but they are a start. Preventing undocumented people from entering the U.S., regardless of whether they are coming from the south or flying into JFK, requires smarter immigration policies and some societal changes. That's another blog item for another day.

Perry also talked about how providing in-state tuition for illegal aliens who want to better themselves by going to college was something he supported in Texas. He said the alternatives, which may include illegal immigrants not contributing to society, was far worse.

Again, I concur, although this too is a complex issue with no single solution.

Of course, through all of this, Michelle Bachmann's head nearly exploded, which in my view elevated Perry. Bachmann, the Tea Party favorite, was giving the audience what they wanted. And what they wanted was what they always want -- mean-spirited, shallow remarks that show zero vision and would set us back 200 years if implemented. Remember, these are the same people who applauded the number of executions in Texas at the last debate.

For one night, and probably one night only, Perry had moments of sounding rational. I guess that's not hard to do when Bachmann is sharing the stage.

Still, this group of Republicans is awful. Patti Davis, the daughter of Ronald Reagan, is going around to different media outlets blasting these GOP candidates for aligning themselves with her father. She points to what she saw as compassion in her father and says there is no evidence that modern-day Republicans possess an ounce of empathy for anyone. That perception is once again looking like reality as the GOP is lined up to shoot down President Obama's jobs bill, mostly because the bill raises money by eliminating certain deductions for the extremely wealthy -- the people they insist are job creators, even though there is no data to support that.

The lack of compassion and patriotism in these Republicans should disqualify them from ever aligning themselves with any past Republican president because the GOP has simply decayed into something that is so unsavory that even Reagan would condemn them. If Perry was trying to distance himself from that perception on Monday night, well, he has a long way to go, but I am not holding my breath.

A voice of reason on the right

“I’d love to get everybody to take a pledge to take no more pledges.”

- Jon Huntsman, GOP candidate for president.

That was the best line of the GOP debate this week. Unfortunately, it way too reasonable for Tea Party reactionaries and other fringe right wingers, many who reside in the current Congress.

If more Republicans felt like Huntsman, we would have avoided the entire debt ceiling debacle. We'd also have more intelligent and productive debates on other pressing issues that require compromise and adult conversations.

No-tax pledges taken by most Republicans, which is what Huntsman was referring to, are simply idiotic. And any politician who handcuffs themselves by taking similar pledges isn't doing his or her job. We pay these politicians to analyze and vote on each issue independently. To use their own minds and to listen to our needs. We don't pay them to limit their abilities to negotiate by taking parochial pledges, the kind of pledge one takes in order to gain membership into a tree house club at 8 years old or to get into fanatical, narrow-minded cults as adults.

Extraordinarily difficult times demand that we move away from pledges made to people and organizations who no one elected. That's right, I am not even going to mention G.N. or his group by name because I don't one one single hit on my blog to come from anyone searching those names. He already gets way too much media attention. I don't want to be part of the problem.

Another anniversary, another threat

Whenever I see a headline similar to this one (left), all kinds of questions and an increasing amount of cynicism come to mind.

Ever since the 9/11 attacks, potential threats of terrorism have been a part of our lives, particularly on key days -- Christmas, anniversary dates, big event days, etc. Yet, these stories about possible attacks are almost always vague, which makes me wonder why the information is released by the government in the first place.

What are we in the public supposed to do to remain on guard against a "specific" threat that we know nothing about? At least this time two cities, Washington and New York, are named as the apparent targets, but that still doesn't give me much to go on.

Let's face it, most Americans are oblivious to what is going on in their own neighborhoods these days. Expecting people to look for vague clues of possible attacks just isn't realistic, particularly when the government and the media have cried wolf every other month over the last decade.

Frankly, if we want to remain relatively safe and healthy, most of us would be better served to pay more attention to our driving and what we eat than to worry about another 9/11-style attack on U.S. soil. There are people in government charged with keeping us safe. They need to do their jobs and we all need to control what we can to make ourselves and our communities safer -- not from global terrorism -- but from distracted drivers, random crime and environmental dangers. We need to pay more attention to our kids and less attention to reports about things we as private citizens can't do much about. We need to be more observant about the stuff we have some power to influence by electing competent, intelligent people who will work for us, not against us.

As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, I hope that our government officials are doing their jobs to prevent any attacks this weekend or in the future. While I refuse to hide inside my house because of vague warnings, I do recognize that the job of keeping America safe from lunatics isn't an easy one.

Just the facts, please

I watched the Republican debate last night. As painful as it is to listen to folks who I fundamentally disagree with, I always find it valuable to examine what the other side is saying just to make sure my perceptions aren't being tainted by the commentators who I tend to be more aligned with. This is why I occasionally tune into Fox News.

I had to laugh at how many times the candidates said they would do this or that on their "first day" in the White House. Those are just blatant lies that anyone with a middle school education would know aren't true or even possible. Newly elected presidents get sworn in and go dancing on their first day. That's it. They don't sign off on legislation. With the way our government works, they don't even have the power to do what they say they would do on day one or day 300.

Here are some other statements that the Republican candidates made last night that are distortions of the truth or totally fabricated lies.

A Labor Day message

Being optimistic about job growth nowadays is just about impossible. Almost 17 million jobs would be needed to bring the unemployment rate down to 5 percent. That's not likely to happen anytime soon, which is a sobering prospect to ponder.

However, if you are a person who is looking for work, remember, you don't need 17 million jobs to be created. You just need one employer willing to provide you with one opportunity. Talent, strong work ethics and the ability to adapt quickly are still valued by smart, worthy employers.

If you are lucky enough to get a job interview, realize that employers do not have to settle for just one or two of the aforementioned traits. The competition is fierce and a sharp portfolio or well-tailored suit alone won't do the trick. Bring your integrity, your experience and confidence to the table. Ask intelligent, thoughtful questions that show you can think outside of the box but still be respectful of certain workplace traditions. Don't be afraid to show some personality, but don't raise any red flags with it either. If you're older, target employers or industries known to value experienced workers. Seasoned professionals shouldn't waste their time on companies only looking to cut corners by hiring unqualified, inexperienced and cheap labor. It will frustrate you to no end.

On this Labor Day, I extend my best wishes to all of those former workers looking, hoping and praying to get back in the game. I hope part-timers can go full-time soon. I hope college graduates will be given a chance to use what they invested a lot of time and money to learn. I hope mid-career professionals who are bagging groceries to get by can find work that is more suitable to their talents. And I hope the elderly who are still able and in need of work will be permitted to do so with some sense of dignity and job security.

We're all in this together. Millions of us. Some have lost jobs already. Some are under constant fear of being laid off.

There are many flag-waving, gun-toting politicians who say they are focused on jobs and country, but their records and agendas tell a very different story. It's a story worth following.

On this Labor Day, we in the middle class should commit ourselves to getting rid of the false patriots and self-serving nuts who are driving us off a cliff. We may never get 17 million jobs back, but we can turn off the Rush Limbaugh show and think for ourselves. We can elect officials who are in our corner and finally put to rest this myth that if we keep catering to the wealthy that somehow that will create jobs.

Political feud sinks to a new low

Politicians in Washington are now arguing about when the President of the United States can address Congress.

Unbelievable.

Not only does the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, continue to disrespect Barack Obama the man, he is now disrespecting the office, and one could even argue he's trashing the country with his latest obstructionist behavior.

Democrats hated George W. Bush, but they didn't try to tear down the entire executive branch. For the good of the country, certain traditions were respected despite major political differences, even while Bush was attacking countries that didn't attack us and neglecting an economy that was in a free fall. For some reason, Republicans haven't been able to show that same respect for this president. Wonder why?

Despite the garbage spun by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Tea Party lunatics, Obama isn't a particularly radical president as far as presidents go. He's actually fairly moderate -- much more so than liberals wanted. In some ways, he's more Republican than Ronald Reagan was. So why the hate from the right? Hate that has made Republicans so insanely petty that one has to wonder what's in the filtered water at their country clubs.

The president wanted to give an address about jobs on Sept. 7 -- something we've been waiting three years to hear. However, Republicans didn't want their candidates' debate (scheduled for the same night) to be overshadowed by something as "trivial" as a major jobs address from the leader of the free world. The debate is one of many and will be filled with nothing but idiotic rhetoric from a field of candidates so weak that they make most fair-minded, thinking human beings cringe just to hear the nonsense that flows from their mouths.

Sure, Obama's jobs speech is way overdue and could turn into a campaign moment, but that's the privilege we give to sitting presidents. We give them the benefit of the doubt in hopes that what they are proposing is a real solution to what ails us. Or at least that was the perk given to every president prior to this one.

Well, Obama relented and moved his speech to Sept. 8. Again, this is just stunning that a president has to back down from a handful of fringe nuts in Congress over something as routine as scheduling a talk to the nation about our No. 1 problem.

Given a choice between listening to Michelle Bachmann drone on about subjects she knows nothing about or listening to whatever glimmer of hope the president might offer to the unemployed, I will tune into the latter, probably like most Americans. The Republicans knew that and successfully blocked it in an unprecedented and disrespectful manner, similar to the debt ceiling fiasco that they created and that led to our credit rating being downgraded for the first time in our history.

Despite pleas from the public for politicians to work together, it seems the GOP refuses to listen and is picking fights over the silliest issues that are leading us into total paralysis and worse. These are fights that were never fights before. Fights that only bring me to one conclusion about these renegade, unpatriotic Republicans. Destroying a black president is more important than saving a country. That's not playing the race card, it's just calling a duck a duck.

Damage done by Irene coverage

Media hype was at a fever pitch last week. It would be easy to blame an uncooperative Hurricane Irene or the forecasters who misread the storm, but once again the fault lies within the newsrooms and corporate offices of America, particularly on the East Coast -- the center of the universe for big media.

While the storm certainly created some nasty weather and flooding, it didn't warrant the closing down of New York City more than 24 hours ahead of the first drop of rain. Imagine the damage that did to the local economy.

By the time the storm reached Washington, it was barely a Category 1. Damage where I live, about 20 miles west of D.C. and over 100 miles away from the Atlantic Ocean, was practically non-existent. Didn't even need to reset a single blinking clock in my house. I know others are suffering without power, but with the way the media was warning us, you would have thought the entire electrical grid was going to collapse.

While I can forgive forecasters for erring on the side of caution, I am not so understanding of media outlets that produced around-the-clock coverage of a storm that was clearly, even to a layman's eyes, no Katrina in strength or in the angle of approach. It lost steam as it traveled up the coast, partially over land that zapped its energy long before it hit NYC.

Politicians were falling all over each other to appear like they were the most-concerned public officials, offering tough-love warnings into any TV camera they could find. But in this case, was all that tough love genuine, or were they using the storm to gain much-needed points in this increasingly combative political environment?

I was particularly bothered by the panic in New York. When I was growing up in and around the Big Apple, New Yorkers prided themselves on being tough and not reacting to every storm like it was the end of the world. Yes, unlike people in Washington, we went to school or work when it snowed. We knew how to drive in the rain and didn't freak out whenever storm clouds gathered. We didn't cancel Woodstock because it rained for three days. We laughed at the rest of the country that seemed soft.

But this is a different time, even for New Yorkers. This is an era of media hype that is driven by news organizations' struggle to survive. This is an era where politicians are desperate for more favorable poll numbers and where lawyers are lined up to sue any state or municipality that appears negligent in preparing citizens for an attack by Mother Nature.

I have written about media hype several times in this blog. I believe the lack of seasoned journalists in newsrooms is contributing to the loss of perspective in how the news of the day is played. Ultimately, this will hurt readership or viewership, but the empty suits don't see it that way right now. They pretend to be long-range thinkers, but their vision is often clouded by falling profits. The corporate types that run big media are not making news decisions based on anything other than money. Many of them have never worked in a newsroom in their lives. They often come from the business side or advertising ranks of TV or print journalism. That was all fine and well when newspapers and evening news broadcasts had big profit margins and the suits didn't interfere in editorial operations.

Then came the recession.

When I was a young reporter and editor, I always had to make a strong case to get a story on the front page. Inevitably, there was a veteran news and/or managing editor who acted as gatekeepers. Truly big stories with proper attribution, facts and significance to the general public went out front, lesser stories went inside. It was the editor's call, not mine, not the circulation director's or even the publisher's. Period. Regardless of my whining, it was their choice where my story was played, and I respected that and learned a great deal about news judgment from their decision-making process. We didn't ignore less important stories. We just didn't waste a lot of time or prominent newsprint on them.

We didn't panic the public just to sell newspapers, and we certainly didn't buy into what politicians or so-called "experts" were telling us if it couldn't be backed up with relevant facts that checked out. But the gatekeepers are mostly gone now -- retired, laid off or dead -- and the rules of the game have changed. Now it's all about quantity versus quality. More news delivered faster trumps a objectivity and accuracy in the minds of the business leaders running news organizations.

The age of tabloid journalism and 24-hour news channels changed the profession even before the recession hit. Everything became "breaking news" even if it wasn't fresh or particularly significant. Now, with the web, it's all about speed and flash, which is why typos are so abundant online.

A Category 1 hurricane isn't anything to take lightly, particularly if you are in the path of it, but it isn't worthy of the coverage Irene received. Ditto on the East Coast earthquake last week. If the media continues to hype these kinds of stories, one has to wonder what news coverage will look like if we experience a real catastrophe.

As the media chases the low-hanging fruit and eye candy (I can't look at another TV reporter standing in the rain with a microphone or a toppled gas station canopy), more significant stories and investigative pieces are being overlooked. Budget cutbacks and layoffs have gutted newsrooms and practically done away with watchdog journalism. The checks and balances that existed in most newsrooms are pretty much gone. The game is now to bombard viewers and readers with trivial information, air the same video footage over and over, and dial up a fancy Flash graphic or two in order to drive web traffic.

This is what for-profit journalism has become during bad economic times. This is, in part, the reason we got the non-stop garbage coverage of a relatively weak hurricane. It wasn't just that the media hyped the coverage, it also gave us nonsensical tips about how to pass the time if the power goes out in our homes or what to do if a tree falls on our cars. It was just ridiculous fluff. But it probably kept people tuned in.

As reporters stand outside in the middle of a storm preaching to us how dangerous it would be not to listen to their warnings (does something seem odd about that that you?) they are not digging through documents in city hall or chasing down tips about corruption in government. While they show close-ups of some fallen bricks after a minor earthquake, they neglect to do the type of journalism that can improve society.

I came out of the post-Watergate era, when people went into journalism in order to make a positive difference, expose injustice and inform the public in a manner that wasn't influenced by dollars. Heck, just talking to someone from our own advertising department was taboo back in the day. The newsroom was separate from all revenue departments for a reason.

I wasn't interested in sensationalizing rain. I was more driven to expose the truth about corruption on the board of education. I wanted to shine a light on problems like homelessness and animal abuse. I sought out the underdogs in society and tried to bring their stories to the front page. I tried to entertain people with columns, features and sports stories. For me, it wasn't about what the executive offices wanted. It was about what I thought our readership wanted or needed to know. If I and everyone else in the newsroom did our jobs, circulation would increase. But that wasn't our primary goal or only focus.

So what I am seeing now in the mainstream media sickens me because I know that without the mass media fighting the good fight, it will be much easier for crooks to hide and for an already apathetic public to stick its head into the sand even deeper. The media resources spent on the quake and Irene last week did not serve journalism or the public very well. Perhaps TV ratings and news website traffic spiked, but what was really accomplished other than creating hysteria at the grocery stores and panic from ailing seniors in New York being transferred from hospitals in preparation for storm surge that never came. In fact, as the media continues to cry wolf in order to boost profits, I wonder if the public will become dangerously skeptical about future storms with much more merit than Irene.

My first real earthquake

I was sitting on the ground floor of my office building in Reston, Va., today when the earthquake hit. Even though I had never experienced a significant earthquake, I figured within seconds that what was shaking the building had to be a quake. Nothing else I could think of would move a large building in that manner. Fearing the above floors might pancake down, I left my office quickly and stood outside on the edge of the parking lot with coworkers. By then, it was over.

Despite it being a weird and somewhat frightful experience, it wasn't nearly as bad as the media and those being interviewed are portraying. And I was just an hour's drive from the epicenter, so the intensity was about as strong as anywhere. The D.C.-metro area tends to overreact to everything from minor snow storms to quarterback controversies.

Today's quake was more interesting than scary, not that I'd want to experience that on a regular basis. I found it strangely reassuring that the earth still reminds us every once in a while that we aren't the masters of the universe.

• Click here for a humorous look at the "devastation."