I did a double-take when I saw this van today on the way to work. It seemed both clever and unkind. It left me wondering whether, and to what extent, it was over the line.
I wonder what blind people would think about this play on words. If they all said that they were OK with it, should that be the deciding factor?
Am I just being too PC?
I'm shaking my head at the terrible news coverage of Republican Joe Wilson's outburst during Barack Obama's health care speech last night. I'm not denying that Wilson's rude behavior is news, but look what's missing in prominent articles covering this story: Was Obama lying? It would seem that reporters should be asking whether Obama ever previously took a position on whether illegal aliens should be covered under what he proposes to be the new health care plan. Consider this AP article, which does what you expect. Wilson is rude; Wilson called the President a liar during a nationally broadcast session of Congress; the President looked stunned; Wilson was heavily criticized; John McCain is applauded for saying the obvious, that Wilson should apologize; Wilson does apologize; lots of head shaking; what will his behavior mean for Republicans? If I were teaching journalism school, I would tell my cub reporters to figure out whether Obama has ever promoted national health care coverage for illegal aliens. Then I would tell them to report on this central issue. If Obama has promoted health care coverage for illegal aliens, he was a liar. If he has never taken this position, then Joe Wilson is a liar. If Obama had previously taken the position that illegal aliens won't be covered, then Joe Wilson is a big fat despicable liar. If Joe Wilson turns out to be a liar, then his apology would need to go much further than it did; it would need to admit not only that he was rude but that he was the liar; he would need to admit that Obama never advocated health care coverage for illegal aliens. In any case, Wilson should be cross-examined like this by reporters: On what basis did you claim that Obama was lying? Show us your evidence. If Wilson has no evidence, he should admit that he had no evidence, and then he should add that he makes things up and that he is exactly the sort of mindless obstructionist to health care that shouldn't be part of the conversation because he is not an evidence-based being. Unfortunately, the media is once again running wild with the conflict of the moment, with the apology and all the head-shaking. Instead of covering the obvious issue that would put an end to the big sideshow, most news stories have side-stepped it. This issue of coverage for illegal immigrants is important for many people. It would be great for the illegal immigrants, of course, but it would also drive up the bill for all of those people who pay taxes (this would include many illegal immigrants). This is an important and contentious issue that needs to be addressed clearly. But when Joe Wilson shouts that Obama is a liar, the media can't even get to the point: Was Obama a liar? It is so damned difficult to keep the media focused on the actual terms of proposed health care reform. I do think shouting "Liar" at a President could be appropriate, even in Congress, if the President were lying about an important issue. It would be an extraordinary thing to do, but what if, for example, the President was lying to Congress that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that a war would be a cheap cake-walk when he knew these to be lies. In that case, I would think it would be appropriate for a dissenting member of Congress to stand up and call him a liar in order to spare the lives of several thousand American soldier, to prevent tens of thousands of soldiers from being maimed and to prevent the deaths, injuries and homelessness of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people. Too bad no member of Congress had the guts to stand up and break the silence in early 2003.
This is really a treat. Go to this link and see ten photos taken by the recently refurbished Hubble telescope, along with detailed commentary. The image below is one of the ten. It depicts the "Butterfly Nebula." The inset photo is of barred spiral galaxy NGC 6217.
Here's the description of the above photo, from NASA:
A dying star that was once about five times the mass of the Sun is at the center of this fury. It has ejected its envelope of gases and is now unleashing a stream of ultraviolet radiation that is making the cast-off material glow. NGC 6302 lies within our Milky Way galaxy, roughly 3,800 light-years away in the constellation Scorpius. The glowing gas is the star’s outer layers, expelled over about 2,200 years. The "butterfly" stretches for more than two light-years, which is about half the distance from the Sun to the nearest star, Alpha Centauri. The central star itself cannot be seen, because it is hidden within a doughnut-shaped ring of dust, which appears as a dark band pinching the nebula in the center.
This month's issue of The Atlantic includes a detailed and thoughtful article by Mark Bowden, "The Story Behind the Story." For 25 years, Bowden worked as a reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Using the media frenzy over Sonia Sotomayor's isolated phrase "wise Latina" as his case study, Bowden keenly describes what has happened to journalism before our very eyes. Not that it was obvious while it was happening, which brings to mind George Orwell's: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." And just look what is now in front of our noses:
With journalists being laid off in droves, ideologues have stepped forward to provide the “reporting” that feeds the 24-hour news cycle. The collapse of journalism means that the quest for information has been superseded by the quest for ammunition . . . The reporting we saw on TV and on the Internet that day was the work not of journalists, but of political hit men. . . . This process—political activists supplying material for TV news broadcasts—is not new, of course. It has largely replaced the work of on-the-scene reporters during political campaigns, which have become, in a sense, perpetual. The once-quadrennial clashes between parties over the White House are now simply the way our national business is conducted. In our exhausting 24/7 news cycle, demand for timely information and analysis is greater than ever. With journalists being laid off in droves, savvy political operatives have stepped eagerly into the breach. What’s most troubling is not that TV-news producers mistake their work for journalism, which is bad enough, but that young people drawn to journalism increasingly see no distinction between disinterested reporting and hit-jobbery.All you need to join the modern fray is a laptop and an internet connection. Not that Bowden is dissing the idea of citizen journalists. Far from it, bloggers of all stripes have often kept the mainstream media honest. Nonetheless, we now live in an era where it is easy for an idealogue to pose as a journalist in his or her spare time, Bowden is proposing that journalism has morphed into post-journalism, an enterprise where balanced truth-seeking is not a prerequisite. Rather the enterprise of post-journalism usually like a sport and, quite often, it is war:
The truth is something that emerges from the cauldron of debate. No, not the truth: victory, because winning is way more important than being right. Power is the highest achievement. There is nothing new about this. But we never used to mistake it for journalism. Today it is rapidly replacing journalism, leading us toward a world where all information is spun, and where all “news” is unapologetically propaganda.
The search for conflict certainly makes economic sense. Conflict screams for our attention and, of course, it sells ads. What's more interesting: A) Jack and Jill take a walk or B) Jack and Jill have an argument? What's more compelling, batting practice or a real ballgame. What's more compelling: peaceful protests, or protests involving rock-throwing and teargas? We are, all of us, addicted to conflict pornography. We no longer see much need to listen to people who disagree with us, not when its socially acceptable to villainize them. As Bowden comments, "The other side is no longer the honorable opposition, maybe partly right; but rather always wrong, stupid, criminal, even downright evil." And again, bringing down one's opponent, especially while one is filled with Nietzschean ressentiment, feels fun. What does Bowden propose as a solution? It's not looking good:Unless someone quickly finds a way to make disinterested reporting pay, to compensate the modern equivalent of the ink-stained wretch (the carpal-tunnel curmudgeon?), the Web may yet bury [press critic A. J.] Liebling’s cherished profession. Who, after all, is willing to work for free?
While reading Bowden's article I kept thinking that the same thing that has infected journalism has spread to politics. Yes, politics has always been contentious. But now our political system is so wrought with anger and accusations (and corruption) that it seem absolutely incapable of dealing with any major problem. I suspect that the causal arrow points from journalism to politics on this--that if we could somehow mute the fake journalists, our politicians might be better able to calm down and work better with each other. Total speculation, I know, and I'm not optimistic about seeing the sad state of journalism improve.Where is the world's biggest active volcano? Under Yellowstone Park in Wyoming. I had no idea. National Geographic's August 2009 issue offers some staggering statistics and eye-popping graphics. The biggest eruption of Yellowstone (2.1 MYA) ejected enough material to bury the entire state of California under 20 feet of debris. And consider this:
The last three super-eruptions have been in Yellowstone itself. The most recent, 640,000 years ago, was a thousand times the size of the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980, which killed 57 people in Washington. But numbers do not capture the full scope of the mayhem. Scientists calculate that the pillar of ash from the Yellowstone explosion rose some 100,000 feet, leaving a layer of debris across the West all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. Pyroclastic flows—dense, lethal fogs of ash, rocks, and gas, superheated to 1,470 degrees Fahrenheit—rolled across the landscape in towering gray clouds. The clouds filled entire valleys with hundreds of feet of material so hot and heavy that it welded itself like asphalt across the once verdant landscape. And this wasn't even Yellowstone's most violent moment. An eruption 2.1 million years ago was more than twice as strong, leaving a hole in the ground the size of Rhode Island.The big question for most of us is when and when this monster will once again explode. We're not sure:
The odds of a full, caldera-forming eruption—a cataclysm that could kill untold thousands of people and plunge the Earth into a volcanic winter—are anyone's guess; it could happen in our lifetimes, or 100,000 years or more from now, or perhaps never.