: Cool number: “More than 1,000 of Sun
by Jeff Jarvis
New FCC, same as the old FCC
: Kevin Martin is to be appointed the new chairman of the FCC. It won’t improve. It likely will get even worse. More later…
White male blogger III
: Getaloadathis: Now Juan Cole, Prof. Eeyore (yes, I’ve changed his nickname… do you all like that one better?), has decided to depart from his usual role of spreading dark clouds of gloom over Iraq and the Middle East, to comment on Steven Levy’s gross generalization about white males and the blogosphere and my entertainingly overwritten response.
Even I was suprised with Cole’s take. I shouldn’t have been. But get this:
Jeff Jarvis, the Republican in Democrat Clothing, replies that there is nothing wrong with being a white male.
Of course not. But white male Americans, at least, disproportionately voted for Bush, supported the Iraq war, favor racial profiling, favor tax cuts for the wealthy, favor capital punishment, oppose gay marriage, etc. Of course they are diverse, too, but their statistical center of gravity skews right in American terms, which means Pretty Far Right in the terms of the rest of the world. If they dominate a medium of news and information, it won’t give a balanced view of the world.
Don’t you love it? If you’re white male, in Cole’s view, you’re more likely to be Republican and that means you’re more likely to be a bad guy.
This is the logic of an academic?
This is the respect for fact of an academic?
Well, professor, I’m not Republican, no matter what you and your pals say; I do not support racial profiling, tax cuts for the wealthy, or capital punishment and I favor gay marriage. Oh, yes, and I also supported the Iraq war. And, of course, that’s the problem. Cole is a one-issue man.
And, professor, note that you are making gross generalizations based on gender and sex. Larry Summers got in some hot water for that, don’t you know. You might want to be careful trafficking in racial and sexual stereotypes.
As much as I’d love to, I don’t have time to dive into the rest; I may later after I go off to my secret meeting of the White Male Power Bloggers Association. So dive in yourself. Bring some popcorn. It’s a good show.
Let’s not give them any ideas…
: I’m all for transparency and sharing information.
But I’m still pretty damned hinky about sharing it with terrorists.
The NY Times today has a story on a report about terrorist scenarios that goes into detail about what weapon could kill how many where. The report was meant to scare security officials; that’s fine. It ended up on a web site accidentally; well, that happens. But now it’s on the front page of The Times with a handy-dandy terror graphic.
Was it really necessary to go into that level of detail? Was it helpful? Could it be harmful?