Do as I say

Most university students can tell you that academia has a problem with conservative researchers in social psychology. Despite countless studies showing how hiring diverse groups of thinkers leads to more quality research, hiring trends in academia still favor white liberal researchers. I always thought it would be funny to preface every major science paper from major universities with the adjectives "the mostly white liberal authors" somewhere in the abstract, the way news organizations describe tea party rallies. Mentioning the race and politically affiliation of citizens involved has a way of discrediting the whole effort in a backhanded sort of way. It is nice to see a New York Times Op-Ed contributor link recognizing the problem involved with long term academic papers coming out of groups that act and think alike. It is an honest assessment of why it needs to change if not how. The private sector could certainly be accused of this as well; how much diversity of ideas are there among day traders or cattle ranchers? The problem is most Americans are well aware of how 'un-equal' and 'un-diverse' our society is, it might be all we know. Almost every day brings a news story regarding another industry caught red-handed mistreating an economic, religious or ethnic minority. How do we know so much about American injustice? Academia told us so.

Libertarians and Drugs

I heard a conversation recently between two self-professed libertarians who were discussing drugs and society. Both believed that all drugs should be legal to undercut the brutal trade that allows gangs to run poor neighborhoods like an empire. Through ruthless gun battles over territory and commerce, these urban soldiers bring violence, death and mayhem to cities and suburban areas due to the illegality of drugs. The thinking among libertarians (not all of them) goes something like this: by treating drugs like any other product or service the trafficking becomes legal and puts gang members used to operating in the black market out of business. Questions remain though as to why they would be out of business rather than just making a cheaper illegal drug? I have strong objections to legalizing something that causes so much misery and destruction in lives and puts a strain on communities around the country through the cost of drug rehab programs, shelters for homeless addicts and wastes overall human potential. I used to think I was a libertarian; I would call myself that if you asked me but when the drug question is brought up I object. There is a real lack of concern for human lives at the core of some libertarian ideas, it pains me to say. Liberty is fundamental for citizens in free societies but many bad actors use 'liberty' as a licence to spread addiction and dependence. I haven't found a good argument for allowing a drug culture to take root where none currently exists. Over the next couple of weeks I'll post counterpoints (from my view) to some of the main theories that support legalizing drugs in America.

Dan Rather and 'truthiness'

‘Truth’ the new movie about the events that led to the firing of 3 CBS news producers was responsible for Dan Rather suing Leslie Moonves and co. The best line about the film is from CBS; “It’s astounding how little truth there is in ‘Truth”. To rehash just a bit, Dan Rather left CBS news shortly after the 60 Minutes report ran showing a supposed letter from President Bush's service record in the Texas Air National Guard as less-than-stellar. The letter was revealed as a fake and the producer, Mary Mapes, was promptly fired.  Reading through the piece intently, I kept waiting for the sentence, or paragraph, or smoking gun statement from anyone connected to original report the Mapes’ crew from CBS ran in 2004 that would convince us they got screwed. In other words, tell us how the network mistreated you by ignoring a legitimate story based on sound research and reliable sources, that isn't too difficult is it? Here is a line from Dan Rather:

 "We reported a true story," he says. "There wasn't any doubt then, and there is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind now, the story was true." link

But if the story can't be corroborated by a legitimate source it essentially didn't happen. The source he had, The Hollywood Reporter points this out, lied about where he got the documents. This is something most journalists, especially a seasoned reporter, should understand how to shore up before going to broadcast with. The pressure of getting the big scoop and exposing some covered lie turning around the election is huge for newscasters and their crews. Think of the high esteem Woodward and Bernstein are held in. Rather is bitter for two reasons. CBS didn't back him up sufficiently after the tsunami of criticism over the amateur nature of the report. For someone who reported from conflict zones since the early seventies and won a Peabody award, the on-air ego crushing apology was too much. Secondly, ending the way it did with Rather suing CBS over the matter ensured that his credibility would be forever tarnished. Ironically the lawsuit was an attempt, in my opinion, to salvage some of that shine that had dulled on the anchorman's stellar legacy. If he could show some culpability on the part of the network or show some hidden effort full of political motives for the spiking of his story, he could regain standing.  It is sad how seemingly little regard for the facts this new film has though. I haven't seen it yet so I'll hold back criticism until then. The comments by some of the actors suggest it will be sloppier than the actual story it's trying to tell. Robert Redford, who plays Dan, tells the Hollywood Reporter the story is worth "going after" because the Bush administration "...tried to discredit the journalist."1 Rather and Mapes forced the hand of the network by doing shoddy work and thereby discredited themselves.  

Part of me is sympathetic to the claim the CBS is too cozy with the president and that their access depends on it. Sheryl Atkinson certainly knows what it is like to work for months and a story and have it killed over objections from ‘higher authorities’. She also quit working for CBS stating similar complaints. Dan Rather was a professional and a highly respected anchor who did great work while he was with CBS and nothing should affect it. My favorite memory of Dan Rather /was the humanity he showed on the Late Show with David Letterman shortly after the 9/11 attacks. He broke down crying on multiple occasions when retelling how residents in the World Trade towers leaped to their death rather than burn alive. It was the first time for me that I realized journalists are often deeply moved by events and stories they expose. He showed me that for all the death and suffering he had reported on, 9/11 was personal because it happened on our soil. Dan Rather is mostly guilty of being asleep at the wheel while reporting on the Texas National Guard Story. Someone with so much experience should have known better.