The role of Journalist

Disclaimer: I am neither an educator nor a journalist.


I've been thinking about the relationship between journalism and education. At first glance, there is none, but… for the majority of Americans, formal education ends upon attainment of either a high school or college diploma. And for most part, any addition 'schooling' is vocation specific training. This means that aside from independent pursuit of further knowledge, the primary source of information, as it would equate in the slightest way to education, would be news consumption. It's been made clear from two published studies that an individual's primary source of news has a significant effect on their understanding of current events. I want to know if this extends to analytical thinking skills: is there a relationship between an individual's primary source of news and their ability to analyze information?

Here are 2 examples of news stories with great teaching/learning potential:

(1) The National Rifle Association (NRA) has interpreted the Obama administration's 'gun' policy to be that the lack of laws restricting gun means more gun restrictions.

This completely violates the principle of cause and effect when A is the cause and B is the effect: if A happens, then B results and if A does not happen, then B is absent

The NRA is arguing that if A does not happen, then B results, where A is restrictive gun laws and B is greater gun restrictions. As the robot character in Lost in Space would say "this does not compute."


(2) The intense arguments offered by John McCain and Lindsey Graham to discredit Susan Rice for her misleading public comments on the events leading up to the deaths of American diplomats in Libya violate simple equivalency equations.

if
top level political figure A makes misleading remarks = person A should be barred from political advancement

then,
top level political figure B makes misleading remarks = person B should have been barred from political advancement.

The players are obvious: A = Susan Rice, B = Condoleezza Rice.


…To paraphrase Jon Stewart:

if
person A makes misleading remarks on national television = irresponsible

then,
person B making misleading remarks on national television = irresponsible
and
person C making misleading remarks on national television = irresponsible

now fill in the blanks…
person A = Susan Rice
person B = John McCain
person C = Lindsey Graham


Anecdotally, it would easy to presuppose a difference based on pre-2012-election attacks on Nate Silver's statistical analysis of public opinion polls and the active rejection of 'the reality based universe'. But as much of what passes for journalism is more accurately deemed stenography, the question remains open. We can only hope that should such a study be conducted, its results be used to improve the state and quality of modern journalism.

Conservative world view

Disclaimer: I am not a social scientist.

Modern conservatives have a strangely inverted conception of how the universe is organized. On one hand, they advocate a moral high ground by making essentially humanitarian arguments based their Christian faith in Jesus Christ and the Almighty. On the other hand, they closely adhere to the principle of corporate indifference by arguing for policies as the 'cost of doing business'. What's odd is that they off by 180 degrees.

conservative view:
- corporations are indifferent
- God is a humanist and a humanitarian

Of course this completely ignores the fact that corporations are completely artificial (human made) institutions. Their entire existence, the rules and laws under which they are created, regulated and operate are completely devised by humans; so by definition, they are human enterprises subject to human imposed limits. And natural events and disasters are attributed to a humanitarian Almighty as 'Acts of God' which are, in reality, governed by laws of physics which are both immutable and indifferent.

reality:
- corporations have humanitarian potential
- 'Acts of God' are determined by indifferent laws of physics

In many ways, modern conservatives are to be pitied. They have so little faith in the humanity of humans that we humans are deigned incapable of designing humanitarian corporations. They are so fearful of the evolution of the environment and western thought and culture that they cling ferociously to the remnants of a two millennium old cult. The challenge to progressives is to advance a progressive agenda while gently and tenderly nurturing a reality based world view across the entire political spectrum in the face of the fiery rhetoric of the conservative media.

Is it possible to investment ethically?

That is, not profit off of business practices that I don't agree with. This has been an issue that's troubled me for some time. How to identify and promote profitable organizations whose dealings are consistent with my ethics. Something along the line of green investing and fair trade organizations but with a broader scope. I would like to find companies which, among other practices, have fair labor policies both internationally and domestically, good environmental concerns and engaged with their local communities. This list doesn't apply to a large majority of companies listed on stock markets.

I've also wished that I had more control over what the federal government spends my 'borrowed' social security payments on. Given the option, I would invest/spend in green and biomedical research, some infrastructure and foreign aid but I would not support weapons or weapons research.

Evolving social priorities?

The current (2012) presidential campaign got me thinking about economic principles and the goals of these principles. Bill Clinton did a good job in summarizing the politically palatable aims of the Mitt Romney compared to Barack Obama: "you're on your own" compared to "we're all in this together." I would actually argue that the Obama administration has not lived up to the goal of "we're all in this together" but that has been well stated elsewhere and I see no need to reiterate.

I want to focus on the implied aims of the 2 proclamations "you're on your own" and "we're all in this together" and to take it a little further. To my mind, the "you're on your own" policy was in effect for the majority of (human) historical record and well illustrated in pre-enlightenment Europe where first persons to realize an opportunity were able to acquire maximum amount of resources and retain them through multiple generations. The "we're all in this together" policy is perhaps most apparent in the modern Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden with modest income inequality and generous social safety nets.

So to summarize:
pre- enlightenment = grab and hoard as many resources as possible
post-enlightenment = some communal sharing of resources

So the questions this brings to mind is where would further social evolution take the economies of the western world? …
Could it be (a) each to their potential; (b) each to their ability; (c) each to their happiness or (d) each to their will.

Additionally…
- How might such goal(s) be achieved?
- At what cost can they be achieved?
- What would such societies look like?


This all presupposing that climate change does not result in a retrograding of western culture.

The debts of the 1%

Disclaimer: I am neither an economist nor an expert on tax policy.

Prior to the initiation of the Occupy Wall Street protests, leaders of the Republican party fervently argued that ‘America is broke’ and because of this, this nation needs to undertake austerity measures along the lines of reducing social welfare programs and placing limits on Social Security and Medicare outlays.  I would argue that this country isn’t broke. We have an accounting disparity… the G.W.Bush administration borrowed the excess taxes collected by the social security administration to fund enormous loans to the wealthy and corporations in the form of tax cuts.  Well the country is now in need and calling in the debt… it’s time for the wealthy and corporations to repay their loan and pay more taxes!

Living without god

Disclaimer: I am not a theologian.

I’ve never been much of a follower nor had a strong need to join a church and the evangelical Christian born again movement has completely repulsed me from any such inclination. This is due to a major contradiction in what is commonly understood about the Christian God and Jesus Christ. Contrast an omnipotent, all knowing and infinity compassionate God to a God who restricts entry to heaven to those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior, regardless of personal behavior. The former predates, negates and likely supersedes the latter which, to my mind, would argue live a moral life and trust the afterlife to the compassion of God.  Therefore, faith in God does not preclude an afterlife.

Biscuit/scone recipe with variations

A favorite with many whom I've fed over the past decade. The basic recipe is from Julia Child's Julia’s Kitchen Wisdom.  I've made it hundreds of times with many variations inspired by notes and recipes by Elizabeth David, Laurie Colwin and Kim Boyce. This is a very forgiving recipe… I've varied the ratio of flour, liquid and fat by as much as 25% and have gotten very good results. The original recipe is below with variations following the instructions.

2 cups flour: 1 1/2 cups all purpose + 1/2 cup cake or 2 cups pastry

1 2/3 tablespoon baking powder

3/4 teaspoon salt

1 tablespoon sugar: granulated

3/4 cup: shortening

1 cup liquid: milk

Sift together flour, baking powder, salt and sugar.

In a large bowl, work shortening into flour until rough meal (do this by cutting with knives or rubbing with fingers). Add milk and with a spatula, fold milk into the flour mix until combined but take care to not overwork the resulting dough. Turn mixture out onto a floured surface and pat out (or roll with a rolling pin) dough to about 1/2 inch thick (sprinkle top with flour if too sticky). Fold into thirds like a letter and repeat.  Pat/roll out to about 3/4 inch thick.  Cut 2 1/2 inch biscuits with a cookie cutter. Press together dough remnants, pat out, fold once and cut as above. Space 1 inch apart on a greased and flour baking sheet and bake at 425 degrees for 15-20 minutes until lightly browned.

variations…

flour: use up to 1 1/2 cups barley or oat flour; try white whole wheat flour (available from King Author); add 1 heaping tablespoons of raw wheat germ. I still need to try adding 1-2 tablespoons almond meal.

baking powder: the amount Julia Child recommends is a bit on the high side; I use one heaping tablespoon for a double recipe.

sugar: for a sweeter biscuit, add up to 1/3 cup sugar; can use brown sugar and other less refined sugars and although I have not tried more fluid sugars such as honey or maple syrup, there's no reason they should not work (see below for more information). I prefer to eat my biscuits with honey so I don't add it to the dough.

shortening: can replace with butter or combined with some portion of cream cheese.

liquid: this is where the greatest variation can occur… I have used many combinations of the following: water, soy milk, almond milk, cow's milk of all fat levels, yogurt, buttermilk, cream (any fluid dairy product I might have; a great way to use up leftovers), homemade marmalade, homemade raspberry jam, eggs and apricot puree*. Just vary the amount of liquid to achieve the proper dough consistency.  When marmalade or jam is used, take care to not add too much sugar. Honey and/or maple syrup can be incorporated into the dough as part of the liquid component also. I once used some leftover sweetened cream cheese/whip cream topping (great for fruit tart base or dessert topping)… yummy!

Note: To make scones, add 1/4-1/3 cup sugar and replace some of the liquid with 2 lightly beaten eggs. Other additives: 1/2 cup dried fruit (raisins, dried cranberries; dried kumquats are my favorite); mini-chocolate chips; 1/2 tablespoon grated orange/lemon zest.

Apricot puree* can be made by placing ~4-6 oz. dried unsulphured apricots into a oven safe crock. Add water to cover and cover crock. Bake at low temperature (~300 degrees) for 1-2 hours. When cool enough to handle, mash with spoon for apricot puree.

Biscuits can be served with honey, jam/marmalade or used for strawberry shortcake (or other fresh fruit shortcake). A new one for me is flavored cream cheese [beat 8 oz cream cheese with homemade kumquat/orange/Clementine marmalade to taste (start with 2-3 heaping tablespoons)].

Shortcake… mix 2-4 cups of cut up fruit with a squeeze of lemon juice (or a spoonful of balsamic vinegar) and a few tablespoons of sugar. Rest at room temperature for about 30 minutes to extract the juice. Spoon fruit mix over split the biscuits and top with sweetened whipped cream (or try sweetened cream cheese/whip cream).

post script… Making these biscuits is how I learned to make pie dough. When first started, I would use the flour mix to generously coat the (cold) shortening or butter as I held it in one hand while cutting it with a butter knife in the other hand. I would continue this until the little coated balls of butter were the size of peas. Over time, it became faster to cut the butter into larger chunks and rubbing it into the flour by hand. To make pie dough, find a good recipe and handle the ingredients as described, chill dough, roll and fit to pie dish.

A Constitution wiki?

Disclaimer: I have no expert knowledge of the Constitution; in fact, I’ve never read the Constitution in full.  Nor do I have any web development skills.

A number of people in the news media and some running for public office have called for the dismantling of Social Security, individual mandate in healthcare and various departments of the Executive branch of the U.S. government by arguing they are unconstitutional.  As I am ignorant of such matters, a Constitution wiki might come in handy…

Link the specific text(s) of the Constitution to page(s) which lists the agencies and departments which have been established on the basis of said text.  Perhaps further enhancement may link the information pages to the actual agency website.  It would also be informative to link Supreme Court decisions to the text of the Constitution with a summary of the cases and a brief discussion of their implications (along the lines of a Nina Totenberg perhaps?).

This would be a wonderful learning and teaching tool.

It could also be expanded to the state constitutions.

Something similar could also be applied to pending legislation in Congress.  This has the advantage of using crowd sourcing to decipher deliberately abstruse legislation.  This could result in much better governance in that power is constrained not only by other branches of government but by all citizens.

All posts…

The subject(s) of these postings are mine and mine alone.  They may not be unique but these are my words and thoughts (unless otherwise attributed).