Tag Archives: Andrew Sullivan

Re: The Daily Show, Post-Bush

Andrew Sullivan chimes in on the future of the Daily Show in a post-Bush era. Apparently, some people don’t think it can survive – that they simply can’t or won’t take on an Obama presidency.

I think this grossely misunderstands what the Daily Show is about and who it targets.

My sense is that politicians are not the target of the Daily Show. It’s the media.

Jon Steward didn’t go an plead with the DNC and RNC to pressure their politicians to be nicer to one another or to behave differently, he went on CrossFire and berated the hacks and pundits. My sense is that it is the Media – with its inane low quality, unidimensional and uncritical reporting – that is the real target of the Daily Show. Politicians (plus celebrities, and whoever else is unfortunate to get in the way) are simply the topic they use to launch these attacks.

Consequently, I don’t think the Daily Show is going anywhere. While the discourse coming out of the White House is probably about to get a whole lot more nuanced and interesting those reporting on the activities of the White House are probably going to be just as inane tomorrow as they were yesterday. Jon’s target is no less juicy. More importantly, I think there are enough people who don’t trust the MSM that an audience will be guaranteed…

Bush-Cheney and the Global Puke

Andrew Sullivan pretty much sums up what were all feeling about Bush, Cheney, the election and our collective hopes for America if Obama wins:

The more I think about it the more this election day feels like one giant collective, global puke. That Bush-Cheney thing never quite settled with us, did it? We’ll feel a lot better but a lot more tired once the last heave is over.


science and neo-progressivism

Those who enjoyed mine and Taylor’s piece on neo-progressives may remember that we claimed both the original progressive and the neo-progressive movements were founded on the pursuit of a few core values:

The rise of industrial capitalism during the 19th century led to a series of tense societal changes. These included the emergence of an urban working class, increasing inequality and the new possibility of total war. In response, three generations of pragmatically driven “progressives” emerged. Opposing both the socialist left and the laissez-faire right, they championed values such as equality of opportunity, meritocracy, government transparency and empirical inquiry.

Andrew Sullivan seems to agree with science/evidence based approaches as being one of them – although the post’s title suggests he doesn’t want to credit earlier progressives with adopting science as well. Andrew’s comments spring from the fact that the science magazine Seed has endorsed Obama:

Science is a way of governing, not just something to be governed. Science offers a methodology and philosophy rooted in evidence, kept in check by persistent inquiry, and bounded by the constraints of a self-critical and rigorous method. Science is a lens through which we can and should visualize and solve complex problems, organize government and multilateral bodies, establish international alliances, inspire national pride, restore positive feelings about America around the globe, embolden democracy, and ultimately, lead the world. More than anything, what this lens offers the next administration is a limitless capacity to handle all that comes its way, no matter how complex or unanticipated.

Sen. Obama’s embrace of transparency and evidence-based decision-making, his intelligence and curiosity echo this new way of looking at the world

This is a battle the original progressives won – it is a sad statement that we are fighting it again. But we will win, again. It does help that we’ve got people like Hitchens on our side and that they are willing to remind us that the GOP really is waging a war on science. The republicans really have which left not only the neo-progressives behind, but also conservative minded progressives (yes, they exist). It’s going to be a tough, ugly, conservative rump that is left.

Friday laughs – Dulles doesn't strike and Graphs are funny

So a few weeks ago I blogged from Dulles International Airport where I’d missed my connection and transformed at four flight 36 hour journey into a four flight 42 hour journey.

This week Forbes published  the list of the 100 worst most time consuming airports and shockingly, Dulles does not make the top 10 (although it does squeak in at 15). Two things I’d like to point out though:

First, why does the list start at 100 and work its way down as opposed to starting at 1 (which should be the most time consuming) and work its way to 100 (least time consuming)? This feels all counter-intuitive and topsy turvey. I don’t think Forbes’ list of the 100 most wealthy people starts AT 100 and works its way down to the least wealthy (relatively speaking, of course) person being number 1. Just checked, it doesn’t.

Dulles Lunar BusesSecond, I challenge the survey’s methodology. My gripe about Dulles definitely isn’t covered – that being that at Dulles the only way to get from terminal to terminal is on these weird lunar buses (see photo to right). It makes getting around unpredictable and SLOW – especially when landing from an international flight. But poor infrastructure doesn’t factor in on the survey… so I believe Dulles isn’t getting the bad rap it deserves.

BTW I’m due back in DC on the 8th of July and am fortunately flying into Reagon National (DCA).

Oh, and Andrew Sullivan over at the Daily Dish got me on to this site that geeks will find hilarious. A few of my favourites:

New York Times tears down its walled garden

Serendipity! Taylor and I just submitted a op-ed piece in reaction to Kathy English’s Toronto Star Editorial Journalism is Job 1 – As Always in which we question her vision of the Star’s role within an online enabled community.

One of the main thrusts of our piece is that it is not enough for newspapers to move their content online – they have to integrate with the online community they are a member of.

Not 24 hours has passed since we’ve submitted it (no word as of yet if the Star will run it) and the NYT has announced it is tearing down its firewall. No more exclusive, pay to view online content.

I’d make a comment but Andrew Sullivan has already done it justice (h/t to Taylor for passing along the link).

I do have one question though… what does the Globe and Mail know that the New York Times doesn’t?