Nunc Scio
Monday, October 31, 2005
Signs of the Apocolypse #45674
Here's an uplifting article about a couple of thirteen-year old, twin SCARY NEO-NAZI POPSTARS.
Awwww. They even have a song about Rudolph Hess. Holy sweet mother of murgatroid.
I mean, you need a license to buy a gun, but they'll let anyone have kids. ¶ 4:00 p.m. 2 comments
Here's an uplifting article about a couple of thirteen-year old, twin SCARY NEO-NAZI POPSTARS.
Awwww. They even have a song about Rudolph Hess. Holy sweet mother of murgatroid.
I mean, you need a license to buy a gun, but they'll let anyone have kids. ¶ 4:00 p.m. 2 comments
Sometimes, Politics makes me want to drown myself.
Yeah...like daytimes and nighttimes.
So, here's what I have to look forward to this week/month/lifetime:
1. In the United States, fundamentalist christians will get into a shrill screaming argument with noisy liberals over the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Alito. The majority of Americans will, I'm sure, sigh softly to themselves and wonder where their government went.
2. In Canada, two crotchety liberal patriarchs will sling mud at each other with the Conservative (read: non-entity) party will dance around and try desperately to get on a train to electability. Bad news, boys. The train just went of the rails in Chatham. Meanwhile, the majority of Canadians will, I'm sure, sigh softly to themselves and wonder where their government went.
Good grief. I'm getting rather tired of the same old dog and pony show, on both sides of the 49th. Ah well. Perhaps it is always darkest before dawn, and a new era of vision-laden issue-based politics is right around the corner. Hmmmm. And while I'm dreaming, I'd like a learjet. ¶ 2:37 p.m. 1 comments
So, here's what I have to look forward to this week/month/lifetime:
1. In the United States, fundamentalist christians will get into a shrill screaming argument with noisy liberals over the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Alito. The majority of Americans will, I'm sure, sigh softly to themselves and wonder where their government went.
2. In Canada, two crotchety liberal patriarchs will sling mud at each other with the Conservative (read: non-entity) party will dance around and try desperately to get on a train to electability. Bad news, boys. The train just went of the rails in Chatham. Meanwhile, the majority of Canadians will, I'm sure, sigh softly to themselves and wonder where their government went.
Good grief. I'm getting rather tired of the same old dog and pony show, on both sides of the 49th. Ah well. Perhaps it is always darkest before dawn, and a new era of vision-laden issue-based politics is right around the corner. Hmmmm. And while I'm dreaming, I'd like a learjet. ¶ 2:37 p.m. 1 comments
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Miss Run Amok and the Health of American Journalism
I sure wouldn't want to be working at the New York Times right now.
Journalists attacking journalists, editors attacking journalists, journalists haplessly defending their slipshod work. Not the best office environment.
But as the right licks its lips at another NYT controversey, and critics herald the fall of this venerable journalistic institution, a more important point has been largely missed. Namely, the NYT troubles are exactly what journalism needs.
What's really happening here? A newspaper is addressing its failures in a totally public and open way. Accountability, anyone? There are no closed doors here. All the messy questions of journalistic integrity are being dragged in front of the world, and I can't help but think the NYT is better for it. Academics, politicians and citizens too rarely consider that the news media are more than just aggregates of watchdogs, gadflies and storytellers. They are an institution unto themselves, one with profound implications for the health of our democracies.
In other words, news media needs to be public, transparent, accountable and- dare I say it- democratic. As citizens, we need to scrutinize our media. And the editors, journalists and assorted other newsworkers must be willing to challenge their own organizations to ensure the health of our public sphere. And while Judith Miller's ignominous fall from grace (well-deserved and a long time coming) may sound like the dull splat of a newsroom imploding, it might just be the noise of journalism stepping out of its idealized past and into a new maturity.
Hmmm. On second thought, maybe the NYT is the place to be after all. ¶ 8:30 a.m. 0 comments
Journalists attacking journalists, editors attacking journalists, journalists haplessly defending their slipshod work. Not the best office environment.
But as the right licks its lips at another NYT controversey, and critics herald the fall of this venerable journalistic institution, a more important point has been largely missed. Namely, the NYT troubles are exactly what journalism needs.
What's really happening here? A newspaper is addressing its failures in a totally public and open way. Accountability, anyone? There are no closed doors here. All the messy questions of journalistic integrity are being dragged in front of the world, and I can't help but think the NYT is better for it. Academics, politicians and citizens too rarely consider that the news media are more than just aggregates of watchdogs, gadflies and storytellers. They are an institution unto themselves, one with profound implications for the health of our democracies.
In other words, news media needs to be public, transparent, accountable and- dare I say it- democratic. As citizens, we need to scrutinize our media. And the editors, journalists and assorted other newsworkers must be willing to challenge their own organizations to ensure the health of our public sphere. And while Judith Miller's ignominous fall from grace (well-deserved and a long time coming) may sound like the dull splat of a newsroom imploding, it might just be the noise of journalism stepping out of its idealized past and into a new maturity.
Hmmm. On second thought, maybe the NYT is the place to be after all. ¶ 8:30 a.m. 0 comments
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Lewis Libby Revealed!
Looks like Karl Rove isn't the only one shooting off his mouth about Valerie Plame.
Yes, Lewis Libby was indentified yesterday as Judith Miller's confidential source on Plame's CIA role.
This demonstrates two things:
1) Bush-era Republicans are spiteful jerks.
2) The notion that this was just a 'mistake' by Karl Rove is quickly becoming totally false. We're starting to look at a bit of a conspiracy here. You know what they say: one is a fluke, two is a trend, and three is a pattern. We need one more Bushie to come forward in this case, and I'd say you've got a pretty airtight conspiracy charge.
I know what I want for Christmas.... ¶ 6:11 a.m. 1 comments
Yes, Lewis Libby was indentified yesterday as Judith Miller's confidential source on Plame's CIA role.
This demonstrates two things:
1) Bush-era Republicans are spiteful jerks.
2) The notion that this was just a 'mistake' by Karl Rove is quickly becoming totally false. We're starting to look at a bit of a conspiracy here. You know what they say: one is a fluke, two is a trend, and three is a pattern. We need one more Bushie to come forward in this case, and I'd say you've got a pretty airtight conspiracy charge.
I know what I want for Christmas.... ¶ 6:11 a.m. 1 comments
