Modern History

The Metro is terrible, and here's how it happened.

For people growing up in the 50s, I Love Lucy was the single way they learned about Cuba, however distorted the show presented it.

It's nice to hear people who don't care about politics talking about politics because it reminds me that there is more to life.

This is a story that will make you like Justin Bieber more.  It's still worth reading.

Responses:

1. The venom in those responses is excessive and excessively unhelpful.  This stuff makes you just want to disengage, so I'm glad she wrote that article.

2. As long as the government isn't spending taxpayer dollars, I'm all for that idea.

3. Theirs is a nice story, and it's a great concept for a restaurant.  We can check it out next week.

4. Do we know anyone who still lives in Los Angeles?  If not, I like the idea of going to Annandale from time to time.  We aren't usually disappointed.  And that quesadilla looks intriguing.

5. Other than the lack of chairs and the sponsorship by Urban Outfitters, it seems like a nice life.

6. You have to give the people what they want.

R2R:

1. Only if something truly terrible happens.

2. I think I'm slowly getting caught up. 

5. Curves probably still has a place in society, perhaps for the more fixed-mindset women out there.  In my view, the real downside is the potential for inequality arguments.  It costs a fair amount of money to participate in these classes.  As most reasonable fitness buffs note, it is entirely possible to be fit without spending hundreds of dollars a year on classes, memberships, etc., in much the same way that it is possible to eat healthily without spending thousands of dollars a month at Whole Foods or on boutique smoothie chains.  All that said, though, for as intense and crazy as my SoulCycle class was, and for as intense and insane as Cross Fit can sometimes be, it's all in service of a really good thing, which is affirmative dedication to physical health as both an aspiration and a way of life, rather than a chore.

R2R2R:

4. That makes sense.  The reason I missed it was that, from now on, I associate the whole privilege conversation with bad, annoying people, and I happen to like John Mulaney.

R2R2R2R:

1. As I said, I suspect that the media in China will report it, assuming of course that it does not go against whatever reporting norms are imposed by the Communist Party there.  Part of the reason I find it reasonable that such an event would not appear in a U.S. newspaper is that, in crappy countries (and for these purposes, China is a crappy country), disasters attributable to negligence or impoverished conditions are far more common, and the answers are not necessarily sensible to an outside audience (e.g. if 100 people died in a mine in the U.S., there would be in-depth media coverage, massive lawsuits, Congressional action, etc., in large part because we understand what our government and society will tolerate and, more specifically, we think we are too advanced for such accidents).  So from a media narrative perspective, it's a "dog bites man" story.  To be sure, the death of 100 people is certainly tragic, but the tragic nature of a story isn't why the media reports on it.

This all comes down to how you define news and the role of the media.  To me, news includes (or ought to include) information that is relevant to our daily lives (e.g. weather and traffic), interesting from a cultural or social perspective (e.g. movie and restaurant reviews, community developments), and, most importantly, informative in service of the objective of fostering an informed people capable of self-government under the Constitution.  On this last point, that would include developments in our respective local, state, and federal governments, as well as foreign developments that have an impact on our national interests (in a specific or general way).  To me, 100 people dying in a mine in China would not fall within any of these spheres, but the San Bernardino shooting does, even if you do not live in San Bernardino or surrounding areas, because it will likely inform how politicians create policies related to immigration, terrorism, foreign affairs, gun control, etc.  That does not diminish the (hypothetical) tragedy of the people who died in our (hypothetical) mine, but I have never viewed showing up in the newspaper as a sign of importance.

Of course, if you have a different view of the role of the media, that is completely reasonable (inasmuch as that view is reasonable), but I think we have to resist the temptation to interpret how the media (or any entity) does its job through our own subjective lens of how they should do it.  In other words, we have to resist the taking the conclusion that the media "doesn't care" about the (hypothetical) mine and concluding something nefarious or ulterior.

B