About Huffington Post

I get much of my news from Huffington Post. It has been an excellent source for Wall Street corruption, even if those good links come at the price of also getting a steady diet of woo "medicine" and Hollywood gossip. All in all, though, Huffpo has been a steady provider of valuable information. Let me back up: Arianna Huffington has also offered some excellent advice, such as her campaign that we should all get a lot more sleep. When I first heard today's news that AOL has bought the Huffington Post, I was disappointed. That was my honest gut feeling. It immediately occurred to me that AOL will now insist that Huffpo needs to produce significantly more revenue at the expense of progressive commentary. I suspect that that there will be new political pressures to hold back stories inconvenient to the bottom line. Thus I'm not celebrating. But I also know that Arianna Huffington has long been interested in cranking out serious investigative journalism, and I know that it takes money to do this well. I'm still not celebrating. I'm apprehensive. According to John Nichols of The Nation, though, it is not necessarily time to mourn.

If, with AOL’s resources, she is able to hire more, if she and her team are able to produce more serious content and if they can identify some of those “different ways to save investigative journalism,” it is possible to imagine that the AOL–Huffington Post deal could mark a turning point in the debate about the future of journalism. That’s a lot of “ifs…”
The bottom line, then, is that time will tell . . .

Continue ReadingAbout Huffington Post

Because Sometimes Things Are Forgotten That Shouldn’t Be

This is a completely personal anecdote, so take it for what it's worth. This is about a defining moment for me in my education as an egalitarian. Equality is something we talk about, we assume to be the case for everyone, and never really question. Here, it's the air we breathe. It's not true. We are not all equal. And in spite of our all our lip service to the idea of equality under the law or the equality of opportunity, we all know, if we're honest, that we're still trying to get to that level. Probably it's a function of how well we think our lives are at any given moment. "If I'm doing all right, there's no problem. What are those people over there complaining about? I don't see anything wrong with my life." Well. This is about gender equality. It's one of the most under-considered things in our present world. I saw a PBS special last week about early television and on it Angie Dickinson was talking about her series Police Woman. Breakthrough television. It had been the first dramatic tv show since the mid-60s to be headed by a female in prime time. It was shortly before Charlie's Angels and a decade after both Honey West and The Girl From U.N.C.L.E. During the interview, Dickinson commented that the feminists had been angry with her because she hadn't used the show as a statement for the cause. She defended herself by declaring that she was feminine not a feminist---as if being a feminist were somehow a bad thing, a dirty word, a slur. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingBecause Sometimes Things Are Forgotten That Shouldn’t Be

Confronting climate cranks

Mark Hertsgaard at The Nation is offering some reasons for stepping up and confronting climate denialists:

"You want specifics? By the time she is my age, [my daughter] Chiara may well not have enough water to drink here in California, because much of the Sierra Nevada snowpack will have melted. Children in today's Washington, DC, are likely to witness in the course of their lifetimes sea level rise combine with stronger storm surges to regularly ring the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials with moats and submerge half of the National Mall. By 2050 the record heat that made the summer of 2010 so wicked will become the new normal in New York City and much of the East Coast. Overseas, the impacts will be punishing as well, especially for the poor. In Bangladesh, sea level rise is already making the soil and water in southern coastal regions too salty to produce decent yields of rice, the staple crop for hundreds of years. Meanwhile, the inexorability of sea level rise ensures that many such low-lying areas worldwide will have to be evacuated, unleashing vast streams of climate change refugees. Military experts warn that this will pose not only humanitarian challenges but recurring threats to peace if the refugees attempt to cross national borders."
An important step in the process is to avoid referring to climate cranks as "skeptics."
Don't rely on our media to rise to the occasion. The protocol of mainstream news coverage leads Washington journalists to refer to these people as climate skeptics. They're not skeptics. They're cranks. True skepticism is invaluable to the scientific method, but an honest skeptic can be persuaded by facts, if they are sound. The cranks are impervious to facts, at least facts that contradict their wacky worldview. When virtually every national science academy in the developed world, including our own, and every major scientific organization (e.g., the American Geophysical Union, the American Physics Society) has affirmed that climate change is real and extremely dangerous, only a crank continues to insist that it's all a left-wing plot.

Continue ReadingConfronting climate cranks

Taking back the Constitution

In the February 7, 2011 edition of The Nation, Garrett Epps argues that the political right is trying to steal the United States Constitution "in plain sight," and that it's time to take it back because it belongs to all of us. His article is titled "Stealing the Constitution: Inside the right's campaign to hijack our country's founding text--and how to fight back." Epps argues that it's time to counteract the "poisonous rubbish" that the far right's self-appointed constitutional "experts" are teaching well-meaning citizens. One of those "experts" of the far right is United States Supreme Court Justice Antonio Scalia, who has just agreed to serve as a faculty member for Michele Bachmann's new "Constitutional School" for new members of Congress. How has the political right been able to successfully portray itself to be the only party that can meaningfully define the Constitution? One big reason is that legitimate constitutional scholars are unwilling to step into the fray in a public way. Instead,

Scholars from top schools hold forth with polysyllabic series of hermeneutics that ordinary citizens can't fathom. Meanwhile, conservatives don't hesitate to speak directly to the public-and, often, to dumb down the Constitution. They purvey a simple method: anyone who doesn't support the far right version of the Constitution is at best unpatriotic, at worst a traitor.

[More . . .]

Continue ReadingTaking back the Constitution