Kerfuffle

Even the conservative editorial page of the Wall Street Journal makes a solid case for gay marriage equality

I'm not usually a fan of the opinions expressed in the Wall Street Journal.  Its  conservative voice is often at odds with the progressive agenda to which I subscribe.  But not always.

Yesterday, in a surprising show of support, the WSJ carried about as well-articulated and direct an argument for gay marriage equality as any I have come across.  Some of the writer's key passages are worth highlighting:

The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two love-struck heterosexuals contemplating marriage to decide against it because gays and lesbians also have the right to marry; it is equally hard to envision a couple whose marriage is troubled basing the decision of whether to divorce on whether their gay neighbors are married or living in a domestic partnership.
:::
...the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters. It is also a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination. It is precisely where a minority's basic human rights are abridged that our Constitution's promise of due process and equal protection is most vital.
:::
Several states -- including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- have individually repealed their bans on same-sex marriage as inconsistent with a decent respect for human rights and a rational view of the communal value of marriage for all individuals. But basic constitutional rights cannot depend on the willingness of the electorate in any given state to end discrimination. If we were prepared to consign minority rights to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution.
:::
There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law.

The opinion was authored by David Bois, who with Ted Olson has brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex.

There will always be people who will not escape their own narrow-mindedness, find homosexuality abhorrent, and be steadfastly against gay marriage equality.  If you look hard enough, especially in rural and southern areas, and among people of lesser education, you can still find people who show visible disgust and disdain for interracial couples.  Things don't change overnight.  But they do change. 

As people become more informed, think more for themselves, and are exposed to the world beyond stereotypes, eventually gay marriage will be as common and acceptable an institution as traditional marriage.  I just hope it is in my lifetime.

[Thanks to my good friend Dan for the link to the piece.]

"And that's the way it is." Walter Cronkite, the most trusted man in America, dead at 92

Walter Cronkite died today.  He was 92.

President Obama put it rather well in his statement this evening...

For decades, Walter Cronkite was the most trusted voice in America. His rich baritone reached millions of living rooms every night, and in an industry of icons, Walter set the standard by which all others have been judged.

He was there through wars and riots, marches and milestones, calmly telling us what we needed to know. And through it all, he never lost the integrity he gained growing up in the heartland.

But Walter was always more than just an anchor. He was someone we could trust to guide us through the most important issues of the day; a voice of certainty in an uncertain world. He was family. He invited us to believe in him, and he never let us down. This country has lost an icon and a dear friend, and he will be truly missed.

In a related story, serious journalism in television news died about 20 years ago.

Godspeed, Walter Cronkite.

Marcy Wheeler calls a blowjob a blowjob on MSNBC. And she does so while making a pretty good point about why we need to investigate Cheney and the DOJ's facilitation of certain equally indelicate matters... like torture

This pretty much speaks for itself...

And the quick apologies at the end apparently speak for Marcie Wheeler, who had this (and more) to say on her blog afterwords...

At some point, though, we as a country have to be willing and able to weigh what the Village did in the late 90s against the massive illegality of the Bush White House and, finally, realize there are more important things than a blow job, and we need to take those more important things at least as seriously as that magic blow job that captivated the press for so long under Clinton. 

I don't know whether my efforts today helped or hurt those efforts. Next time I'll just repeat, endlessly, torture torture torture. It'll probably cause the same kind of outrage.

Offensive?  The phrase "blow job?"  Gimme a fuckin' break.  DOJ maneuvers leading to illegal torture... orchestrated by Darth Cheney in the shadows... now that's offensive.

Can the utility of Twitter be explained in 140 characters or less? Sure. It's all about the information push.

Zits, by Jerry Scott and Jim Borgman (5.25.2009)

My 82-year-old father asked me the other day what Twitter is.  He'd heard of it, but since he still uses a typewriter and has never had an interest in either getting a computer or using the Internet, he knew nothing more than the name.  I tried to explain it to him and finally told him that I'd show him some time when we were together and I could demonstrate it rather than try to deal with telephone-delivered abstractions.

One thing I did tell him was that it seems to actually be a dual-use platform.  (Which meant I had to explain what I meant by "platform," which was another few minutes of confusion.)  Essentially, I told him, it was either for status (still another thing that needed explaining) or for the transmission of news and/or information through brief introductions or comments along with a link.  (A link!  He knew that one!)

I was reminded of this conversation last night when I saw a few tweets from Jesse Russell (@calistan), proprietor of Dane101.  JR had picked up on the various tweets coming out of the Pacific Rim and advanced via BNONews, a Twitter-driven news service, regarding North Korea's apparent withdrawal from the armistice than ended the Korean War back in 1953.  As he posted on Dane101...

The news first came across the wire thanks to BNONews which reported around 10:45 p.m. CST "NORTH KOREA CALLS SOUTH KOREAN DECISION TO JOIN ANTI-PROLIFERATION PROGRAM A DECLARATION OF WAR."

In addition to passing along the news that North Korea was, again, proving how messed up they are, JR was also making the astute observation that most of the early news on this subject was to be found on Twitter.  He pointed out, accurately, that the major US news sites were being scooped by Twitter feeds...

Reports are flooding in via various news sources, specifically the Twittersphere, that North Korea may have ended the '53 armistice that brought the Korean War to a hot standstill. Dane101 is bringing you this news at this late hour because we've searched various news sites, including the New York Times, MSNBC (now has a report - 12:06 a.m. CST), CNN, and FOX (now has report - 11:50 p.m. CST), and don't currently see any reports. We figured the least we could to is try to piece some of the information together so we aren't all in the dark. Please note the question mark in the post title as we await specific details that will verify an end to the armistice.

Dane101 updated the story over the period of maybe an hour, linking who had the story and, of perhaps more significance, noting who did not have the story.  This sent me scurrying to check sites like the Australian News Service, the media in places like Malaysia and Singapore, as well as domestic mainstays like the AP, CBS News and others.  Meanwhile,  diarist Larry Madill was doing the same thing over at Daily Kos.

This is the kind of example I like to show people when I try to explain the value of Twitter.  This platform has the ability to push news out faster than anything else.  The concept of retweeting other posts makes Twitter a viral news ticker on steroids.  But it only works, in my view, it the tweet carries a link to something more.  Often that means a link to a news story or a blog post... which of course will have even more links.  The tweet as information catalyst, if I may characterize it that way, is what makes the thing valuable.

That gets me to one of the downsides of the 140 character bulletin board:  the empty comment.  I saw one yesterday from a fellow UWW student:

Supreme Court Pick = HORRIBLE

Care to elaborate?  Can't do it in 140 words?  That's what shortened URLs are for.  It would have been so much better to have included a link that expanded upon that one-word opinion, added a little context or otherwise advanced the thought.  This could have come from any number of news, blog or other sources.  To be sure, the empty comment could stand alone, but that leaves it in Twitter limbo as neither a status update nor a transfer of meaningful information.

So much better to have done something like this (from someone who does this a lot):

Sam Alito on empathy and judging - wonder why nobody objected to this: http://tinyurl.com/outnm4

This tweet pushes information while it also makes an initial comment.  It's a catalyst for further exploration and, perhaps, a little intellectual interactivity.  Therein lies the utility of Twitter.  And in utility, there is value.  Well, to the end user, there is.  I'm still not sure how the thing can make money.  But that's not my problem.

As old media (i.e. newspapers) cut staff and/or fail altogether, new media (i.e. online news sites) move to fill the void

When the Huffington Post was launched in May of 2005, it was primarily a news aggregator and source of liberal commentary.  As it developed, HuffPo found itself at the center of controversy at the hands of exemplary journalists like Bill O'Reilly, but fortunately not only survived but grew its audience and its quality of content.

Over time, HuffPo developed into more than just a repackager of links and loose collection of commentaries.  The site staffed up with reporters and editors, polished the appearance and presentation of the site, and becamean online newspaper... for lack of a better term.  Like newspapers, it joined up with the Associated Press, gained credentialed access to major news events, and built an impressive list of columnists. 

Sites like HuffPo continue to rely on traditional news sources in part for core content and reporting... for which, of course, the news sites get nothing other than the obligatory links and source credit.  Most often the most solid investigative reporting comes from newspapers... the very medium sites like the Huffington Post seem to most closely resemble.  Unfortunately, the very newspapers that are doing the heavy lifting when it comes to reporting -- providing online news sites and blogs with solid sourced material -- are failing.  In the last few months, venerable papers like the Rocky Mountain News in Denver have folded, while others like the Seattle Post-Intelligencer have moved their operations to online-only editions.  The Ann Arbor News will shut down in July, but plans to relaunch as a web product before year-end.  My local afternoon newspaper, Madison's Capital Times made the move almost a year ago to an online-only product.  The Christian Science Monitor is heading that way next month.

Newspapers that remain are cutting editorial staff right and left.  The same is true for most broadcast news operations, especially in the national television and radio networks.  Someone is going to have to pick up the slack.  That's why I find the Associated Press article (via the Washington Times) by David Bauder very interesting...

NEW YORK (AP) - The Huffington Post said Sunday that it will bankroll a group of investigative journalists, directing them at first to look at stories about the nation's economy.

The popular blog is collaborating with The Atlantic Philanthropies and other donors to launch the Huffington Post Investigative Fund with an initial budget of $1.75 million. That should be enough for 10 staff journalists who will primarily coordinate stories with freelancers, said Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post.

Work that the journalists produce will be available for any publication or Web site to use at the same time it is posted on The Huffington Post, she said.

This is a rather significant investment, but it is also very encouraging.  It stands to reason that this is where the future of investigative journalism is headed.  In the past few years, online news sources have distinguished themselves as much more than just overgrown blogs.  The current administration has taken note, with President Obama calling on reporters from the Huffington Post and Politico in recent prime time news conferences.  The president recognizes journalism's brave new frontier.

Cool.  Very cool.