The link in the previous post goes to a current Penguin edition, but I’m reading the copy I bought and read 40 years ago (but have since mostly forgotten).
Currently reading: In Patagonia by Bruce Chatwin 📚
In my experience — and I do have some experience with this phenomenon — when a journalistic outlet responds to criticism by saying “We stand by our story,” that always means that (a) they know they have been caught red-handed in either dishonesty or incompetence, (b) they cannot stage a proper defense of their work, but (c) they are unwilling to confess their shortcomings.
Whaddya mean that’s not a word? It’s my gamer handle!
DHH argues that European nations should pursue digital sovereignty. I think this is right. So far the idea of a global internet has meant primarily an American internet, and I believe (a) it would be good for other nations to declare their independence from the American tech behemoths, and (b) it would be good for my country to be reminded that we cannot dictate technological and moral terms to the rest of the world.
I like having a corkboard.
common ground and its enemies
From the More in Common report on the History Wars:
[M]ore than twice as many Democrats agree that all students should learn about how the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution advanced freedom and equality than Republicans think (92 percent versus 45 percent). Similarly, about twice as many Democrats believe students should not be made to feel guilty or personally responsible for the errors of prior generations than Republicans think (83 percent versus 43 percent). […]
[T]he proportion of Republicans who agree Americans have a responsibility to learn from our past is three times more than Democrats perceive it to be (93 percent versus 35 percent). Similarly, more than twice as many Republicans think schools should teach our shared national history as well as the history of specific groups such as Black, Hispanic and Native Americans than Democrats think Republicans believe (72 percent versus 30 percent).
Similarly, a while back I wrote that we don’t disagree as much about free speech as most people believe we do.
One of my most vital convictions is summed up in this post: “Wondering how to decide what to read? Here’s a simple but effective heuristic to cut down the choices significantly. Ask yourself one question: Does this writer make bank when we hate one another? And if the answer is yes, don’t read that writer.” Americans have these wildly distorted views of people whom they perceive to be their political enemies because so many journalists and talking heads enrich themselves through stoking hatred. Those people should be utterly shunned.
Currently listening ♫
