- Posts tagged News
- Explore News on posterous
HuffPost's Problem With the iPad: Aggregator Beware!
I love-love-love the Huffington Post. It has become my second favorite source of online news (behind one of the best-kept secrets in America, The Week). When they upgraded their iPad app recently, I downloaded it to give it a try. Earlier versions of the app had been...sort of ok but not exciting.
The new version is much better. I like it a lot. But it continues to suffer from one problem HuffPost can't help because by its very nature as a content aggregator, it is stuck with stupid decisions made by its sources. This means that very often a video re-published by HuffPost ends up a blank spot on my iPad. A quick random sample this morning suggests that less than 20% of the videos they share are usable on iOS. Which makes me wonder about whether their sources are ignoring HTML5 or using some proprietary player-required format in a misguided effort to protect their IP.
Whichever it is, the whole thing makes HuffPost much less enjoyable on the iPad. Which in turn dramatically limits the number of hours I spend on the site each week.
Reality Shows Are NOT News Dammit!
I was on the verge of incensed this morning by headlines in two of my primary online news sources touting the winner of the reality show "X-Factor."
In what universe is the outcome of a TV show news? I don't see headlines announcing today's Jeopardy winner (though a long-running champ did get some perhaps deserved national attention a few years ago), or who's divorcing whom on a popular soap opera or how last night's case on The Good Wife came out for the lead actress. That's because none of those is real. None of those is an actual "event". Nothing actually happened.
And the reality shows are the same. Yet, news media seem to be blinded to the truth of what they're doing -- acting as touts for shows under the guise of news -- to the extent that they have even spent time and energy trying to find out the outcome before it appears on the show, as if such a "news scoop" gave them some cred.
Have they NO shame? Where is Walter Cronkite when you really need him?
Theology Should Not Be an Electoral Issue
According to this recent Associated Press story, the American public -- at least in substantial numbers -- appears to be ready to use a candidate's theology in their decision-making about acceptable candidates in elections. This is a dangerous step.
It is one thing to want to know whether a candidate is religious or not; that is a general observation about the basis for his or her moral compass and general bearing. But when we start questioning theological positions -- i.e., specific beliefs about specific doctrinal subjects -- we go too far. The Constitution in Article VI, Section 3, unequivocally states:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. (Emphasis added)
In 1961 when John F. Kennedy ran for President, he had to overcome widespread concern that he would, as President, submit to Papal authority as a Roman Catholic when it came to matters of State. He was able to reassure the public that he would be a citizen first and a Catholic second. But in today's highly charged religious climate, that's not good enough. Candidates are being challenged on their individual theological positions on issues like the nature of Jesus Christ, their relationship with him, their beliefs about Biblical inerrancy, and other such issues that have nothing at all to do either with moral compass or with fitness for office.
In 2008, I was among many who questioned whether a Mormon could make the same promise as a Roman Catholic could make, based on my own personal experience in the Mormon faith and its concerted efforts to force me to follow political dictates and policies. I was wrong to draw that conclusion and I have since recanted. But because I made that mistake, I think I understand the reason many people believe that it is important to know more than is perhaps necessary or healthy about a given candidate's religious beliefs. We can't afford to allow this to become a standard in American electoral politics.
(BTW, I promised several months ago to avoid commenting on politics in my blog. I don't think this post violates that promise because it's not so much about partisan politics as it is about process. But it's OK with me if you see me as having violated that agreement.)
Yet More Agreement: The Drug War is an Abysmal Failure. Let's End It Now
In an op-ed piece in yesterday's New York Times, former President and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Jimmy Carter reaffirmed his strong opposition to America continuing its present failed War on Drugs, a war that began 40 years ago yesterday.
Building his argument around a report issued by the Global Commission on Drug Policy earlier this month, Carter provides persuasive data to demonstrate the futility and counter-productivity of the War on Drugs. None of his statistics is particularly new or startling. But I did find this comparison interesting. In the generation following Carter leaving office in 1980, U.S. prison population ballooned from 500,000 to 2.3 million. As prisons eat up more and more of state budgets, other, more socially productive and, if you will, "profitable" undertakings such as education (particularly higher ed) take the brunt of the cutbacks needed to sustain the unsustainable.
To borrow a campaign slogan used by Barry Goldwater when he ran for President, "In your heart, you know he's right." It seems so much easier and more effective in the short term to lock up people who have done no real harm to anyone else, whose punishment is far worse for them than the results of continuing to use drugs might well have been. At least it puts them somewhere you and I don't have to look at them. But it is bad policy. Economically, socially, legally, and morally bad policy.
And there's no real justification for maintaining it. You can bet your bottom dollar that if any of these drugs that are perceived as causing such problems as to be allowed to disrupt totally our social contract were patented by one of the Big Pharma companies, the laws would favor their sale, and they'd probably get a handful of government subsidies in the bargain.
The Drug War: Let's call the whole thing off, eh?
What Constitutes "Closure" and Is It Useful?
One of the strangest ideas I've encountered in my many years on this planet is that of "closure." We hear and read about it all the time, usually in connection with a crime and with the apprehension, trial and punishment of the crime's perpetrator. Families are often characterized as wanting or needing closure before they can move on with their lives after the loss of a loved one.
Information about the "need for closure" that I've been able to glean from online sources indicates that the concept is pretty fuzzy psychologically even though there is an instrument called a Need for Closure Survey (NFCS) psychologists can use to characterize those who feel a strong need for closure and other aspects of their beliefs. (It turns out, e.g., that there is a fairly strong correlation between NFCS scores and political beliefs with conservatism and the need for closure aligning nicely.) But everyone agrees that, "[t]he need for closure varies across individuals, situations, and cultures." Which is another way of saying, it's not very meaningful or scientific or particularly measurable, actually.
But my concern is that the idea of closure is often used as a pretext for overzealous prosecution and for punishing beyond what would seem to "fit the crime" (another weird phrase for me to encounter).
In a story today, the police in Santa Barbara, CA, are using closure as a reason (excuse?) to dig up an old highway construction site where a seven-year-old girl's body may be buried. I can see the need for that kind of police work, but in this case the crime was committed more than 50 years ago, the most likely suspect and the girl's parents are all dead, and her sister, now 62, has left the area. But a police spokesman insisted that pursuing this possible lead is important because ""We would like to have some closure and know what happened." Note that in that sentence, the "We" is the police, i.e., the government, i.e., allegedly, the citizens. Really? Is this worth spending time and money on? Particularly when governments are being hit with major cutbacks? What new crimes will go undetected or be allowed to be committed while law enforcement people and money are being spent trying to find a 50-year-old skeleton?
Information about the "need for closure" that I've been able to glean from online sources indicates that the concept is pretty fuzzy psychologically even though there is an instrument called a Need for Closure Survey (NFCS) psychologists can use to characterize those who feel a strong need for closure and other aspects of their beliefs. (It turns out, e.g., that there is a fairly strong correlation between NFCS scores and political beliefs with conservatism and the need for closure aligning nicely.) But everyone agrees that, "[t]he need for closure varies across individuals, situations, and cultures." Which is another way of saying, it's not very meaningful or scientific or particularly measurable, actually.
But my concern is that the idea of closure is often used as a pretext for overzealous prosecution and for punishing beyond what would seem to "fit the crime" (another weird phrase for me to encounter).
In a story today, the police in Santa Barbara, CA, are using closure as a reason (excuse?) to dig up an old highway construction site where a seven-year-old girl's body may be buried. I can see the need for that kind of police work, but in this case the crime was committed more than 50 years ago, the most likely suspect and the girl's parents are all dead, and her sister, now 62, has left the area. But a police spokesman insisted that pursuing this possible lead is important because ""We would like to have some closure and know what happened." Note that in that sentence, the "We" is the police, i.e., the government, i.e., allegedly, the citizens. Really? Is this worth spending time and money on? Particularly when governments are being hit with major cutbacks? What new crimes will go undetected or be allowed to be committed while law enforcement people and money are being spent trying to find a 50-year-old skeleton?
I don't get it. But I'm certainly not saying that fact should be substituted for the judgment of experts when it comes to the "need for closure" in any given situation or family. I am, however, suggesting that closure is not a good reason by itself to conduct cold case investigations of this nature.
I've Added News Coverage to my Blog World
I've just added a new blog to my Posterous arsenal, which now boasts nine of my own blogs and one blog I share with my business partner. The new blog (linked on the left as with all the others) will give me a place to comment on current events and news items I run across.
I will, however, astutely continue to avoid U.S. politics. One of my favorite topics in the news is how the news folks do news, so expect the occasional outburst on that raw topic!
You can subscribe just to the News blog or you can sub to the main blog and get all my posts on all topics. Either way, I appreciate your followership!
