|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
Obama At House Republican Retreat In Baltimore: FU... AIG Loses Exec, Wins TARP Comp Ruling - Regulatory... Man v. Nature Spicy Predictable Consequences not why, but why not Tea Party Zombies Squishy Mice Pumpkin Star Trek Pumpkin Star Trek Follow Up Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
6.30.2005
Just a thought... You know what would be cool? An all manual digital slr for around $200-300. It doesn't have to be fancy. It can be fairly low resolution; three megapixels would be fine. There needs to be three versions, one each for old Nikon, Pentax and Canon manual focus lenses. It doesn't need to have an LCD screen or fancy menus, just a Compact Flash or SD card slot, a bright viewfinder, and a center weighted match needle meter. Why? Because creative focusing with an automatic point and shoot camera is just about pointless. To get that kind of focus control you have to invest in a thousand dollar D-SLR that you're going to be paranoid about breaking or losing. I want a digital that can take the place of my old K1000. Something that I can throw on the passenger seat of my car, or I can take with me as I walk around. Plus, there are such great lenses floating around now for manual camera systems at great prices. | I plan on watching the tour de france this year. And as I was clicking through the various websites I found myself wondering.. "I can't see live coverage without cable, and CBS is only offering weekly coverage.. that sucks!" A thought occurred to me. You know all those really horrible infomercials that they show from 2AM till 5AM? The premise is that nobody really watches TV at those hours. That's kinda true, but.. I think networks should look at themselves less as real time broadcasters and more like content providers. Now that more and more people have access to devices like TiVo or digital recorders I don't see why one of the networks can't start showing good content at those overnight hours on the premise that people will just record the shows for later viewing. They can embed the advertisements into the programming and just assume people will watch it later. It would be a great way to show "in between" content which is not good enough for prime time, but still valued by some viewers. Like... say the daily stages of the Tour de France, or better yet, football matches (aka soccer)? But then again I don't understand much of what passes for good TV these days. I mean, do we really all want to watch twenty different variations of the same crime scene drama? The only one that looks even remotely interesting is Numbers. Other than that they all follow the same formula, again and again. Same goes for those infomercials, you would think that the network willing to break from the herd would get 100% of late night viewers by showing something, anything, better than an infomercial. But no, night after night, straight down the dial, infomercials. Maybe they just assume that if you're up that late and watching TV you're probably watching cable anyways? | 6.29.2005
Apple - Trailers - Howl's Moving Castle HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE, PG (2:10 long) Fri (7/1)-Thur (7/7) -- 1:55, 4:35, 7:15, 9:55 At AMC this next week. | 6.27.2005
CNN.com - High court split on Ten Commandments - Jun 27, 2005: "O'Connor asked, 'If legislatures open their sessions, that the public can attend, with a prayer, why can't it allow monuments?' This is backwards. The real question is not, why can't we extend the use of religious prayers, images and symbolism in government, but why did we allow religion there in the first place? Its a bit like arguing that once one animal escapes from the zoo, why can't we let all the animals go free. We've been lax in enforcing the law, but that does not condone further negligence. She's either playing devil's advocate, or asking a really stupid question. In the Kentucky cases, two Kentucky counties tried to justify separately posting copies of the King James version of the Ten Commandments on the walls of their courthouses. By why at a courthouse? Why in public? These people can post religious images in their homes or on bumper stickers, just not on government property where they will project the image of religious preference towards followers of the Judeo-Christian faiths. These were privately donated displays of 11 frames of historical documents and symbols that they said helped form the basis of American law and government, including the Declaration of Independence. All but the Ten Commandments were secular in nature. I think this case is flimsy at best, considering the law codes that pre-date the Ten Commandments. I doubt that these people wanting to post the Ten Commnadments would be satisfied with a non-Biblical display of ancient laws. This, and the very simple fact that despite claims that our laws were inspired by Biblical teachings, we don't use the Ten Commandments as law here in the United States. Displaying religious symbols on public government property only serves one legitimate purpose; to impose a religious standard on citizenship, as a way of saying that we are a government "by and for one religious belief". Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said then that 'these are not simple messages, like 'In God We Trust,' ' on U.S. currency, she said. 'The Ten Commandments are a powerful statement of the covenant God made with his people.'" In Indonesia last January the Mayor of a suburb of Jakarta tried to impose Muslim dress codes on all public employees saying that "Muslim dress reflects the municipality’s devout image.” Even if Indonesia is a secular state and Islam is only one of five officially-recognized religions, in recent years some local councils have started imposing Islamic dress and behavior codes to increase their image and popularity.. Familiar story, different country, different religion. The best path is clear in this instance, we shouldn't allow government display of any religious symbols but at the same time we should be vigorous in defending an individual's right to express his own religious preference. Just because we've allowed things to go on under the radar for years due to a lack of political fortitude, does not mean we should continue to turn a blind eye. Rehnquist: "... The determinative factor here, however, is that 40 years passed in which the monument's presence, legally speaking, went unchallenged. And the public visiting the capitol grounds is more likely to have considered the religious aspect of the tablets' message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage." Cop out. My only fear is that should he retire, we might end up with a real hack (Scalia) as Chief Justice. Scalia: Scalia cited "the interest of the overwhelming majority of religious believers in being able to give God thanks and supplication as a people, and with respect to our national endeavors." Absurd! |  There is a moth flying around, getting near the computer monitor, which is about the only light left in the room. I used to be able to catch the moths as they flew around. I would clap my hands and then check my palms for "moth dust". Their wings have a powdery substance on them, like graphite, or real fine flour. But lately I've been having trouble catching them. They've gotten faster, or craftier. I suspect it may be because of the traps. One of the traps sits on the top of the refrigerator. Its a triangular shaped tunnel made of thin cardboard. The insides are coated with a sticky substance that traps the moths and kills them... somehow. But it might only be the slow moths, the ones that I'd been clapping to death easily. So now, only the fastest, most stealthy moths remain. Ones that I can no longer best with my slow clapping technique. Its gone now, perhaps eating a shirt or hopefully getting a little too close to a burning candle. I like a few new bands... Architecture in Helsinki (links to Sven, a blog, who has a couple of songs available) and.. Okkervil River I have a pet peeve, and tell me if I'm wrong here. But, I have to wonder why people don't take the time to input tag information into their MP3 files? Some sites that offer free sample downloads don't even put their artists and song title in the filename. You end up with a file named 100023645.mp3 that, if you're not careful about renaming could get lost on your computer as "some song, by some group". I'm not a marketing genius, but I have to assume that if you're making songs available for free download that you might want to make it easy for that person to remember who you are, the title of your song, and even which album they might want to buy if they decide they like what they hear. So no more: brucesong_partofhetitle.mp3 with no tag information! | 6.25.2005
KOTV - The News on 6 - Two Downtown Tulsa Churches Expanding Their Parking Spaces: "Trinity Episcopal started demolition this week on the Tulsa Auto Hotel at 6th and Cincinnati. It will make room for a parking lot and new church entrance. " Surface parking = death of downtown. I have pretty strong opinions on the matter of parking lots. I can't stand the idea that every building should be a mile from the road with a huge flat, hot parking lot out front. Its a failure of imagination that we do this, and its just pure laziness that we can't find a more elegant solution. Its because of the availability of space that we take it for granted. The easiest solution, wasting resources and making downtown even more difficult for people to navigate with anything other than a car, is not the best solution. It will turn downtown into suburbia. Flat, hot, ugly and bland. | 6.24.2005
Crooks and Liars Sometimes I think it would almost be worth having cable just to see the Daily Show. Here you can watch a clip as Colbert interviews some new Republicans; porn stars. | Wow, I saw this on Streak's Blog, who writes about the right wing from a moderate Christian's point of view. Remember that email from the GOP that said that "Democrats are singularly focused on obstruction and over-the-top rhetoric"? Well, here is a GOPper, John Hostettler, on the floor of the House: “The long war on Christianity in America continues today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. It continues unabated with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual suspects, the Democrats.” Is that "over-the-top"? Democrats want to "eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage"? There is a "war on Christianity" being waged by Christians themselves? This is where I always try to post up a link to Adherents.com, which lists out the religious affiliations of our representatives in the House and Senate Even if you include the Quaker (Rush Holt of (D)New Jersey), and the Unitarian (Kent Conrad (D) North Dakota) in with the Jews (all eleven in the House are Democrats) as the non-Christians you still have over 92% Christian representation in the House. What are we to assume from John Hostettler's remarks? Any other options I might have missed? | 6.23.2005
 I used to really love playing with Hot Wheels. I'd go over my friend Gary's house, begging my mom for an hour to go play, and we would carve out roads in the dirt and create places for the cars to go. I enjoyed how the shape of the ground would dictate the road's shape and direction, curving over a "hill", around a weed, or dropping down through a "valley". The purpose seemed to be nothing more than connecting the flat spots with twisting roads. It never even occured to me to collect my Hot Wheels. Collecting is what we do when we stop playing with things. A shaded patch of dirt and grass under a tree has no place or time. | Got this from the GOP. I'm on their mailing list. Unfortunately, today's Democrat Party is not the one your parents knew. Instead, today's Democrats are singularly focused on obstruction and over-the-top rhetoric, adding nothing to raise the level of discourse and address the concerns of Americans. Whereas we simply engage in unhelpful hyperbole!!! You'd really have to be a true believer to not see the irony here. Their example of "over-the-top" rhetoric? Dean saying that Republicans are mostly white Christians. Silly me, I thought that was true? Whew, teach me to read the news before reading my email! Now, I see why the GOP is launching its "Democrats are over-the-top" offensive. It seems that in a true "best offense is best defense" style politics, the GOP is trying to blow smoke to cover for Rove, who said that liberals "saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Which is simply untrue. But heck, why not make it into just another pissing contest. After all, we've just wasted a bunch of time passing a resolution to call for an amendment to ban flag burning.. .. as if that's our most pressing concern? But it does serve a purpose. It makes for good pissing. If someone calls you a hypocrit, call them a traitor! | Cynicism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Despite the negative portrayal of cynics, some would argue that such people simply "refuse to look through rosy-tinted spectacles" and do not fear to demolish popular beliefs no matter how sacred society considers such alleged misconceptions. Cynics themselves tend to take this view, regarding themselves as enlightened free thinkers, and their critics as deluded social pretenders who "bury their heads in the sand". However, an excess of cynicism in an individual can cause social or psychological difficulties when cynics see themselves as depersonalised and self-serving inhabitants of a meaningless, fictitious, and shallow world. Yup, pretty much describes me, especially today. | 6.22.2005
Can you be cynical and happy at the same time? The two states seem at odds with each other. Just how can you assume the worst about everything and still see the good in the world? Its possible, but not if you remain cynical about everything all the time. I often say that I wouldn't be so cynical if it didn't work so well. I think that's true. People that aren't cynical might never see the absurdity that pervades our lives. And its that absurdity that can make you happy at unexpected times. Humans are one of the few, if not maybe the only, creatures capable of self analysis. And quite frankly, I think that scares the shit out of us. We're always looking for a purpose, and a reason, always asking 'Why?" Last night I was outside throwing the ball for Sasha. I have to do this in order to burn off all that energy she has. I kept throwing the ball to the same spot in the backyard. She didn't seem to mind at all that the ball went to the same place every time. At no point did she stop midway and realize the futility of retreaving the ball yet one more time. She just kept going. Dogs work on instinct and so do we. But the difference is, that while we let our instincts shape our behavior, we also have the capacity to step back, if only just a little, and ask why. Sometimes we don't like the answers so much. But you have to learn to accept that sometimes the answer you get, while not desirable, fits into the general scheme of "how things really work". That's where cynicism comes into play, it allows you to see the negative, accept it, and work it into the equation. Otherwise, you throw out useful observations. Having a better understanding of why people act the way they do can be extremely frustrating and sometimes it can be surprising, but for the most part you feel gratified. | How to blog: Method 1: Click on Google News, find an article that seems interesting and slightly quirky. Pull out a good quote, add a snarky, clever, or ironic comment and repeat this process ten times a day. Method 2: Lick your finger, stick it in the air to test the prevailing winds, write out an extended post with clever language and links to twenty other similar blogs; make fun of a few celebrities, a few politicians and stupid people in general. Repeat three or four times a week. | 6.21.2005
"How thoughtful of you!" "That was a very considerate thing you did!" Both phrases are complements and both of the complimentary words are rooted in thinking. It's a good thing to think about how people might feel, how some action might hurt someone, or how doing something might be beneficial to another. | 6.19.2005
The State | 06/19/2005 | U.S. lacked plan for post-Saddam Iraq: "A July 21, 2002, paper written for top government officials preparing to meet with Blair said: “The U.S. government’s military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.”" umm, yeah, and then there's this: “He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.” Ah hell, when in Rome? All hail Ceasar! 1,700 dead and 13,000 injured so Bush can brag around the family dinner table? | Its so hard to watch John McCain, a smart man who has every right to yell and scream at the leaders of the Republican party for their abject stupidity, but when asked to do so, sighs heavily and dribbles out the party line in a slow mumble. He has every right to be angry for the Rove smear leveled against him in the 2000 primaries. The "Support Our Troops" GOP has personally attacked not just one (McCain) but two (Kerry) war veterans to get Bush (coward) into the White House. And people still have this misguided notion that these people have any scruples? Any time the man tries to act on his own conscience he gets attacked by his own party. Any time he goes on TV and defends the corrupt policies of Bush he loses the respect of all clear-thinking people. | For some, lack of health insurance is costly: South Florida Sun-Sentinel: "The federal government weighed in last month by freeing up $1 billion to pay hospitals and doctors who provide emergency care to undocumented immigrants. This money, with $8.7 million for Florida, is separate from emergency Medicaid, which pays for emergency care for the uninsured." The private health/insurance markets are already shifting the burden of caring for the least profitable to the federal government anyways, so why don't we just make it official, say, "Screw these moneygrubbing mofos" and save ourselves a load of cash and do it the right way? Oh yeah, I forgot, that would be unAmerican, where we heavily subsidize the private market, discriminate against the poor, and get the least bang for our buck than anyone else. But I'm sure someone out there is making a killing from the suffering of others, and what could be more American than that? | 6.18.2005
I think bird's legs (legs that are on birds) are funny. The other day as I watched this little bird scamper across the Reasor's parking lot I started laughing. I'm not sure if this behavior was a sign of mental illness, like humming in public, but there is something inherently funny about an animal running around on two little toothpicks. They serve little purpose other than to keep the bird from falling down when its not flying. They're landing gear that folds up when not in use. I'm only talking about little birds; sparrows, robins, finches etc.. and not raptors, whose legs are dangerous weapons used to rip apart small furry animals. Those aren't so funny. | 6.17.2005
Eschaton: The "Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus" "Rep. Waters said: 'The Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus is a newly formed effort whose sole purpose is to be the main agitators in the movement to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Our efforts will include the coordination of activities and legislation designed to achieve our goal of returning our troops home. Through floor statements, press conferences, TV and radio appearances and other actions, we will provide leadership for the American Public who has been waiting too long for our collective voices against the war.' Sure, its way too late to say "We never should have gone in to Iraq in the first place". But now that we're in Iraq, we're stuck in a lose-lose situation that we do not have the leadership to deal with, and for that, I will be eternally miffed at those who were cheeleaders for this war out of some perverse desire to bomb brown people in revenge for 9-11. But I'm of two minds when it comes to just pulling our soldiers out. Only because I feel that we've taken responsibility for the country by creating a vacuum of power. We went in there and deposed the government, disbanded the army and inserted ourselves as the sole governing power. If we leave, we might instigate a power struggle that could lead to a nasty civil war, as various factions take up arms and battle for the prize; an oil rich country. Its a gamble, the Iranians might get involved, the Kurds might decide to secede, the Bathists might return (or they might get slaughtered by a new government), or the country could just descend into a long term civil war with various groups all trying to kill each other. I'm not even remotely qualified to predict what might happen. For that I would turn to people who know the dynamics of the country. On the other hand though, I realize that pulling the U.S. out of Iraq would delegitimize some of the power of the insurgents, who are, no doubt, using the presence of foriegn troops on their home soil as recruiting material and as justification for their actions. Without that excuse they might lose what support (or tolerance) they have from the Iraqi people, who might, once rid of Saddam and given an opportunity to create a government of their own choice, form a compromise government that would allow everyone to just go about the business of going about their lives once again. Its a coin toss from how I see things, but so is staying in Iraq. I would feel bad if we just pulled out without making some effort to get things moving in the right direction. Unfortunately we have an administration in power that I have no faith will do right by the people of Iraq. Their own self-interested goals preclude that possibility. I'm even more sad that we passed on a chance to replace this president with one that might have given us a chance to solve this mess with some dignity intact. But, I have to remind myself, the past is the past. Let's think about how we might get out of this mess, even with Bush in office. | 6.16.2005
Easy Part: Using our vastly superior military, outfitted with the latest and greatest in technology to defeat the small and under-equipped military of a small Middle Eastern country. Hard Part: Stabilizing that country after the invasion and preventing everything from melting down into chaos. (The conversation leading up to the conflict, in spirit.) Pro-Invasion: "We can defeat them!" Anti-Invasion: "Sure, but should we, and what do we do after that?" Pro: "Who cares, they attacked us, we should smack 'em around a bit!" Anti: "But it wasn't Iraqis that attacked us." Pro: "Eh, they're all the same over there, brown and Muslim. Saddam's a brutal tyrant that needs to be taught a lesson!" Anti: "We need to get more support or we'll be bogged down there for years." Pro: "No we won't!" Its amazing how a columnist will use a phrase like "Put more boots on the ground" rather than "Send more kids off to get injured or die." I love the language we avoid. So much gets reintepreted once you start using phrases like "War on Terror" instead of "The invasion and occupation of Iraq". Phrases like "War on Terror" are ridiculous and shouldn't be taken seriously. They serve no other purpose than to mislead, and anyone that puts forth such deceptive language does so to hide their motives and intent. Terror is an emotion. We can have a strategy to prevent "terrorism", which is a tactic, but we can't fight a war against terrorism, and you can't fight a war to defeat "terror". The very idea is absurd. But, politicians do love the word "war". So, right now we are in the midst of trying to accomplish the hard part in Iraq, which we denied would even be a problem. Its a bit like jumping out of an airplane and planning for the landing on the way down, convinced that the problem would just magically solve itself. But there weren't any rose petals to cushion our landing. So now we fight "insurgents", people who feel so strongly about our invasion that they wish to kill our soldiers. In the new version of the story, killing them will defeat "terror". Merely suggesting that some of these people might have a legitimate beef is considered beyond the pale. After all, "September 11th". "Changed everything". Oddly enough, the very same people that argued that this very thing (long term occupation and chaos in Iraq) would not happen, are now trying to deflect the blame onto the media. The fact that we had no plans to deal with the hard part following the invasion is irrelavant because pointing this fact out is the real cause for "our defeat". Draft Young Republicans! | 6.12.2005
Building Iraq's Army: Mission Improbable: "Almost to a man, the soldiers said they joined for the money -- a relatively munificent $300 to $400 a month. The military and police forces offered some of the few job opportunities in town. Even then, the soldiers were irate: They wanted more time off, air-conditioned quarters like their American counterparts and, most important, respect. Most frustrating, they said, was the two- or three-hour wait to be searched at the base's gate when they returned from leave. There's only so much people will do for money. American soldiers believe that they are defending their country, and that, is a purpose worth sacrificing their lives for. Whereas it seems that the Iraqi soldiers are being asked to put their lives on the line for the "American Project", whose purpose is still unclear. They need to believe that in the end, after all is said and done, that they will have control over their own country, or else there is no good reason to stay commited, to fight, and to die. Belief is a powerful motivating force. Right now, if the Iraqis believed in the U.S. mission to bring democracy to their country, they would fight even under the most hostile conditions, and they would have support from their own people. But the continuing lack of honesty and principle coming from the White House is undermining their own stated goals. Here in the states there is a bias towards believing in our own good intentions. This is not true elsewhere. Here, when the president says that he wants freedom, some people take his word for it. Where there is no underlying credibility, people look at our actions as proof of our intentions. Its not what we say, but what we do, that marks the path of our intentions. | 6.08.2005
6.06.2005
KOTV - The News on 6 - Creation Controversy At The Tulsa Zoo: "The Tulsa Parks Board, which oversees the zoo, takes up the controversy at a meeting Tuesday. It will vote on whether or not to allow a display on the biblical view of creation." ... and they just keep pushing a little more. | 6.03.2005
I've felt for a long time that much of the political battle in this country will be centered around language. The relative triumph of what Eisenhower called a "splinter group" of "Texas oil millionaires" can be attributed to their success at redefining the conventional wisdom of the day in such a way that it moves the entire public discourse. As much as journalists like to feel that their jobs are to reveal the truth of the world through their reporting, and doing so with an unbiased eye, the link between the journalistic world and commercial world is corrupting. Any newspaper that relies on advertising sales to exist must keep an eye on maintaning readers. All other things being equal, newpapers can do so by providing people with good reporting. People will read good stories and valid information if they exist in a vacuum of conventional wisdom. We've learned from the new art/science of marketing and advertising that repetition can create consensus. You cannot simply pay people to believe in something, but you can pay people to say that they believe in something. If you give those people a prominant forum and you carefully control the public discrourse, you can create the appearance of a growing consensus around an issue. When this process is limited to commercial arenas, the results, far from being benign, are less dangerous than they would be in the political realm. There might be a consensus among car buyers that SUV vehicles are "safer" when the evidence seems to suggest, that while SUV may be safer in certain types of crashes, they might actually be less safe in other circumstances, including the risk to other vehicles on the road. The results of this consensus are harmful, but not likely to threaten the foundation of a society. Working with the general public in the area of sales I've seen first hand the effects that created consensus can have. People have to work with the best available information they can access. In a world where the amount of information we need seems to grow on a daily basis we have to take shortcuts in our decision-making process. It is no longer possible to spend the necessary amount of time researching each decision we make. It would simply take too long. We find that we rely more and more on "experts" who are responsible for distilling the information down into usable chunks that we can understand. What we've seen is the growth of the "expert creation" business. Experts are no longer simply people we seek out to condense complex issues down to their core elements, they are now people paid to promote specific idealogical agendas by virtue of their "credentials". (This, you will realize, is why its become so important for "conservatives" to pry open the doors of academia with complaints of discrimination. Universities have traditionally been the road to credibility as an expert, ironically, through their pursuit of good old fashioned liberal education and research. Goose, golden egg all over again.) We judge the value of the expert by whether what they are saying "feels right" to us. Which is why framing has become the buzzword in political circles. Much of the message creation process involves finding the "words that work". Frank Luntz, in his playbook for the GOP, explains it in his own words: The best way to communicate values is to use words and phrases that no Coke-drinking, apple-pie eating American could disagree with. Family, Freedom, Opportunity, Responsibility, Community. These are the true American values, and they should be used as part of a larger personal message. Its less important that the policies actually promote these core values as it is that they appear to do so. Thus we get increased logging disguised as "Healthy Forests" and more pollution proclaimed as "Clear Skies". While I may personally feel that each and every person has a responsibility to spend a reasonable amount of time informing themselves about their political decisions I cannot realistically assume that all people feel as I do. I can see when other priorities, namely self-preservation, might be a more pressing concern. I can understand how the political debate might be swayed by a chorus of well-funded and prominately placed voices. A new consensus can be created out of the transimission of a marketed set of ideas, catered to appeal to a genuine emotional need. More importantly we have to be aware of how this shift in conventional wisdom affects the general quality of information that is made available to the rest of us. Newspapers need, by virtue of their advertising to follow their consumers wherever they might go. In an environment where the consensus is being guided by entities outside of their realm, they have no choice but to be led. Witness the words of the "Credibility Report (PDF)" issued by the New York Times: The public editor found that the overall tone of our coverage of gay marriage, as one example, “approaches cheerleading.” By consistently framing the issue as a civil rights matter -- gays fighting for the right to be treated like everyone else -- we failed to convey how disturbing the issue is in many corners of American social, cultural and religious The NYTimes is admitting that the consensus on the Gay Marriage issue is shifting towards the side of religious discrimination and that they will have to tailor their coverage to reflect this fact. You will notice, if you read the report, no langauge that apologizes for "cheerleading" the invasion of Iraq, a time in which the newspaper was in line with mainstream consensus. Gays are, in fact, fighting to be treated like everyone else. That this is "disurturbing" to some people seems irrelavent of the facts, unless you consider that people who are "disturbed" might stop reading your newspaper. Too often we label whole groups from a perspective that uncritically accepts a stereotype or unfairly marginalizes them. As one reporter put it, words like moderate or centrist “inevitably incorporate a judgment about which views are sensible and which are extreme.” We often apply “religious fundamentalists,” another loaded term, to political activists who would describe themselves as Christian conservatives. ... As a self described Lover of Freedom, I personally find the loaded terms "liberal", "environmentalist" and "educated", offensive. | 6.02.2005
|
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
