About Me

Name: Marcy Muser
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Old Media Beginning to Get It?

Hugh has a very good post today on this Boston Globe article about Mitt Romney's progress in interacting with the "new media."  Hugh criticizes the author of the Globe article, Scott Helman, on several counts.  And while I believe Hugh's criticism is valid, it's easy to go overboard and ignore the surprising progress that's taking place. 

As recently as three years ago, very few people had any concept of the power of the blogosphere (I know - I was one of those who didn't!).  With the Kerry campaign and Rathergate came the explosion of the blogosphere onto the scene.  As Rathergate unfolded, it became obvious that the old media had no idea how many people were reading the blogs, nor of how quickly news could spread as a result.  Rathergate forced old media outlets into a recognition that something was happening out here that they had no idea existed. 

Over time, traditional reporters and politicians gradually figured out that the blogosphere had become increasingly powerful.  They went after it with both barrels blazing - criticizing, mocking, questioning its credibility, attempting to ignore it.  They tried everything they knew to get people to stop trusting the blogs and go back to trusting the "professional journalists."  Unfortunately, intelligent people realized that lawyers were likely to be more trustworthy about legal issues, doctors were likely to be more reliable about medical issues, and soldiers were likely to be more informed about military issues than any journalist could be about any of these things.  Rather than giving up our trust in the blogs, we learned to use them more intelligently; and the protests of journalists only made us more suspicious of them.

Then old media must have decided "If you can't lick 'em, join 'em," because they began to try to develop their own blogs.  This effort was destined to failure, since those blogs were generally written by the same "professional journalists" who were failing in the old media. 

And of course they are still producing articles like the one Hugh discussed with Joe Rago on his program a week or so ago - editorials trying to say that blogs are unreliable and will never measure up to "real" journalism - but articles and editorials unsupported by any kind of evidence, and easily contradicted by anyone who knows the blogosphere.

This article by Scott Helman, and perhaps a tiny handful of others written recently, actually attempts to take the blogs seriously.  It quotes from some (though as Hugh points out, not all) of its sources - even offering a couple of links in the online article, and it appears to recognize who some of the major players in the blogosphere are.  That's significant progress over the standard old media approach. 

While I agree with Hugh that Helman's article has a number of failings (primary among which in my opinion is its failure to acknowledge the author's real bias), it seems to me we must recognize and applaud the progress Helman has made here.  He is in fact dealing with conservative blog authors and readers as the generally intelligent, thoughtful, independent people we are, rather than as mere sheep following the dictates of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or some other secret leader.  He is actually getting some news from an important conservative blog source - something that until recently no reputable old media outlet would even have considered. 

It's fair to criticize Helman for places in which he still underestimates or misunderstands the blogosphere; but let's recognize the progress he has made and give him credit as well.  It is journalists like him who will lead the charge, if it's going to happen at all, for old media to actually survive.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hussein To Die Tonight?

 In an article posted at 9:11 pm ET, CNN reports that Saddam Hussein may be executed before 10 pm ET tonight.  The Muslim religious holiday of Eid Al-Adha begins at dawn Saturday (6 am Iraq time; 10 pm ET), and since Muslim law does not permit executions to be carried out during religious holidays, there has been speculation that Hussein will be executed before the holiday.  This was confirmed today when Appeals Judge Munir Haddad talked with the press.

With the execution of Saddam Hussein, America has reached perhaps the single most significant milestone of the Iraq war.  As long as Saddam was alive, his followers in the Baath party had a reason to fight; without him, one significant reason for their fighting will at least be removed, and much of their hope may fade as well.  In spite of his hope that he will become a martyr, Saddam's sentence of death by hanging is the sentence reserved in Iraq for common criminals; he will not get his firing squad to make him look heroic.

In addition, with Saddam's indictment, trial, conviction, sentencing, and execution all coming directly from the Iraqis themselves, the new Iraqi government has also reached a tremendous milestone.  Instead of the Americans trying and executing him, the Iraqis have elected a government that has functioned well enough to bring about this result.  Barring some unanticipated act of terrorism in just the right place at just the right time, the Iraqis have elected a provisional government, created and ratified a constitution, elected a new government, put into place judges and lawyers, held a highly publicized and potentially controversial trial, convicted several war criminals including their former dictator, imposed a sentence that in all likelihood prevents that dictator from becoming a martyr, and carried out that sentence.  In spite of the difficulties Iraq faces at this point in their fledgling democracy, surely this is a victory for both the Iraqi and the American people! 

The death of Saddam Hussein is a triumph for freedom and democracy.  It is long overdue.  Let us hope and pray that it in fact does happen before 10 pm ET tonight, and that as a result we are one step closer to peace.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Excuses

With deepest apologies to my faithful readers, I think I may finally be back to blogging again.  A combination of long-term personal and family illness, the Christmas holiday, and our incredible Colorado weather have conspired to keep me away from my blog for far too long.  But I am feeling better, as are my family members; we have made it through Christmas, and it appears the latest Colorado blizzard didn't amount to nearly what was promised - so hopefully I'm back. 

If you have stuck with me through this exceptionally quiet period, thank you!  I trust the next few weeks will demonstrate that your faith in my return was well founded.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Anti-Intelligent Design Judge Cheated?

 In a fascinating report released today by the Discovery Institute, David DeWolf and John West document the truth that Judge John E. Jones, the Pennsylvania judge who one year ago declared unconstitutional the reading of a statement about intelligent design in public school science classrooms, in fact copied the vast majority of his decision directly from an ACLU brief.  When his decision was released, it was praised as an impressive display of judicial reasoning, based on careful research and analysis.

Unfortunately for the judge, further analysis of his decision has established conclusively that almost everything he said about whether intelligent design is science was copied from information provided him by the ACLU.  Here is what the "Executive Summary" of DeWolf and West's report says:

        In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word 
        section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually 
        verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and 
        Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a 
        month before his ruling.
Judge Jones even copied several 
        clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. The finding 
        that most of Judge Jones’ analysis of intelligent design was 
        apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity 
        seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones’ examination 
        of the scientific validity of intelligent design.

There is much more to the report, which you can read by clicking on the link above.  But the point is clear:  the "masterful" reasoning displayed by Judge Jones was copied, almost word-for-word, from the ACLU's opinion.  So much for independent thinking!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Religion for a Captive Audience"

Today's Breakpoint program, hosted by Mark Earley, highlights the article run by  the New York Times on Sunday, entitled Religion For A Captive Audience, Paid For By Taxes.  Catchy, isn't it?  It's a review of the Prison Fellowship program called "Innerchange Freedom Initiative," which tries to reduce recidivism and improve the chances for inmates to actually succeed when they get out of jail.  The problem is that the IFI, as Prison Fellowship calls it, accomplishes its purposes by explaining to inmates that they are sinners, and by sharing the gospel with them.  The program is funded 60% by Prison Fellowship, and 40% by the state of Iowa (state funding is used only for the non-sectarian and non-religious aspects of the program).

A judge in Iowa, where the IFI program is best developed, recently ruled the program unconstitutional, saying essentially that it gave incentives to inmates to become Christians.  Not only did the judge declare it unconstitutional, but he ordered that Prison Fellowship has to repay the state for all the money it has received for IFI.  This is an unprecedented ruling.   The New York Times, based on the above-mentioned article, apparently agrees with the judge's ruling.

Not only that, the article makes it quite clear that this kind of lawsuit, trying to prevent religious organizations from working in the prisons, and prisons from establishing successful programs to reduce recidivism if they have any kind of religious basis, is increasing.

        A government-financed religious education program at 
        a county jail in Fort Worth was struck down by the Texas 
        Supreme Court
more than five years ago, and more 
        lawsuits are pending. Corrections Corporation was 
        among those sued last year by the Freedom From 
        Religion Foundation, which is challenging a Christian 
        residential program
at a women’s prison in Grant, N.M. 
        The foundation has also sued the federal Bureau of Prisons 
        over its faith-based rehabilitation programs. And 
        Americans United, the Iowa plaintiff, and the American 
        Civil Liberties Union have sued a job-training program run 
        by a religious group
at the Bradford County Jail near Troy, Pa.

What is terribly disappointing about this is the fact that these programs have already been proven to reduce recidivism drastically.  A University of Pennsylvania study of a similar program run by Prison Fellowship in Texas documented that instead of the two-thirds re-arrest rate expected from a regular prison, that program had a 17% re-arrest rate and only an 8% re-incarceration rate after two years.  That is amazing success!  And yet our courts, and organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United, are more interested in the fact that the programs promote religion than in how successful they are.

Organizations such as Prison Fellowship need our prayers and our support.  We need to do all we can to ensure that our friends and neighbors realize the truth:  that these programs actually work.  The national news media is determined to keep that truth from getting out; that's why the New York Times reporter doesn't seem to think that information is important enough to include in its 4-page article.  But if we do a good job publicizing it, we can help counteract the impact of the media - and perhaps help rescue hundreds of prisoners who desperately need help.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Truth About Retreat in Iraq

This morning Mary Katherine Ham's post  makes an excellent point about retreat in Iraq.  Call it what you will - withdrawal, retreat, cut-and-run, standing down - nevertheless any form of leaving Iraq without finishing the job is LOSING.  It is willingly walking away from a situation we are capable of winning, surrendering to al Qaeda in order to avoid the unpleasant reality of what it might take to win.  Key paragraph:

        This is my take on the ISG report. I got ticked this week when a 
        bunch of preening politicians and pundits tried to project honor 
        and bravery on the plan for losing-- losing slowly, "responsibly," 
        diplomatically, but losing-- in Iraq.

        There's nothing to smile about. There's nothing "passionate" and "bold" 
        about running away from a job before it is finished, and in doing so leading 
         the men and women of the armed services, who did not volunteer to lose, 
        into failure. If you're gonna back that plan, fine, but don't pretend it's tough 
        and brave. Doing so does a disservice to those who have actually been 
        tough and brave in fighting the enemy without backing down.

She goes on to quote Tim Russert about a soldier he knows who is leaving for Iraq.  It's a great article, and not too long.  I encourage you to take the time to read it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Iraq Study Group Report

Because the Iraq Study Group report is 96 pages long - and because my priority right now is raising my children - I'm not planning to read the report or to comment extensively on it.  There are excellent discussions of the report by Hugh Hewitt here and by Dean Barnett here.  It seems quite clear that the ISG did not really engage the issues, nor consider the reality of our enemies.  They make the assumption that everyone around Iraq wants what is best for Iraq, which in the case of Iran and Syria is a questionable if not ludicrous assumption.

Take the time to read Hugh's and Dean's comments.  They provide a great summary of the issues for those of us who really can't make it a priority to study the entire report.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Teaching Children to Think

             When you want to teach children to think, you begin by 
          treating them seriously when they are little, giving them 
          responsibilities, talking to them candidly, providing privacy 
          and solitude for them, and making them readers and thinkers 
          of significant thoughts from the beginning. That's if you want 
          to teach them to think.
                                                        --Bertrand Russell

What a great quote!  And how rarely this happens in formal education these days.  Take a look at Russell's advice here on how to teach children to think:

1)  Treat them seriously when they are little.  How well do we do this in our society today?  Take a look at the toys, books, and movies that are marketed to preschoolers and early elementary kids:  Sesame Street, Cinderella, Barbie (even beautiful ballets with a story to them have to be modified to make them somehow more "age-appropriate").  How many of them are "serious"?  Most are what Charlotte Mason called "twaddle" - pointlessly entertaining fluff - and our kids know it, and turn off their brains.

2)  Giving them responsibilities.  How many kids these days have chores?  How many are entrusted with responsibilities that actually perform a needed function in our families?  I have recently been challenged to start thinking carefully about how much my 10-year-old can really do to contribute to the family, and to increase her responsibilities to fit her maturity.

3)  Talking to them candidly.  This is a very difficult thing to do in our busy societies, and yet it's critical if we are to teach our children to really think.  Kids need time - time just "being" together, time to let conversations develop and relationships build - before they can trust their deepest feelings even to their parents.  It can't be done in a rush, grabbing 20 minutes in the car between school and swim practice.  If for no other reason than this, homeschooling is well worth the time and effort; the hours spent together discussing everything under the sun are irreplaceable.

4)  Providing privacy and solitude for them.  How many schoolkids actually get "privacy and solitude"?  When they spend all day surrounded by 25 or 30 other kids, turn around and go to sports or piano lessons, do homework and go to bed, only to do the same thing all over again the next day, when do they have TIME to learn to think?  Kids need long periods of uncommitted time, hours when they can choose what they do and what they think about.  Video games won't give them this; neither will TV.  They need relative quiet and places they can be alone, whether outside in the yard on a nice summer day or inside on a beanbag chair or flung across the bed.

5)  Making them readers and thinkers of significant thoughts from the beginning.  Kids need to learn to read well, but they can begin thinking "significant thoughts" even before they can read well if someone will take the time to read aloud to them - real, significant books that are more than "fluff."  Books like Doctor Dolittle, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, and Charlotte's Web can be read to 5- and 6-year-olds.  Older elementary students can engage thought-provoking stories like Johnny Tremain, The Hobbit, and Around the World in 80 Days.  Junior highers and high-schoolers can read stories that really require significant thought, like Oliver Twist, Robinson Crusoe, and Pride and Prejudice.

It will take real effort for parents today to raise children who know how to think.  Our busy schedules; TV; video games; the "twaddle" that passes for children's toys, books, movies and music; and our own selfishness combine to make raising thinking children extraordinarily difficult.  But it is possible, and the rewards are well worth it:  children who know how to think, to analyze, to develop their own opinions and to stand for what they believe in. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »