On this Veterans Day

Take time today to pause, praise, and pray for those who’ve served our country. Veterans Day began after the “war to end all wars” – WWI – and is commemorated differently on both sides of the Atlantic, as Alexander Watson explains in today’s NY Times:

For Americans, Veterans Day celebrates the survivors of all the nation’s
20th and 21st century wars. In France and Britain, by contrast, the mood is
altogether more somber. In these countries, it is the dead who, since 1919, have
been the focus of the ceremonies.

Canadian Lt. Col. John McCrae wrote “In Flanders Fields“, one of the most famous poems about the war, with its reference to poppies, the flower that symbolizes the remebrance of those who’ve served:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the dead.
Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Return of the Column of the Day

One of the most important demographics in this year’s election was the college-educated voter. In Sunday’s NY Times, Nicholas Kristof contemplates a smarter America (or at least one that appreciated intellectualism) now that Barack Obama is our president-elect:

Mr. Obama, unlike most politicians near a microphone, exults in complexity. He doesn’t condescend or oversimplify nearly as much as politicians often do, and he speaks in paragraphs rather than sound bites. Global Language Monitor, which follows linguistic issues, reports that in the final debate, Mr. Obama spoke at a ninth-grade reading level, while John McCain spoke at a seventh-grade level.

How you doin?

The NY Times checks our collective state of mind this Election Day. Two of the most common words (across party lines) used to describe how we’re feeling: hopeful and anxious.

NY Times endorses Obama

For those who cling to calling the MSM and the NY Times part of the “elite liberal media” (hello, Fox News), this will come as no surprise: the NY Times editorial board has endorsed Barack Obama for President. To those of us who’ve followed the Times throughout the campaign, it represents a change in the paper’s position. They backed Hillary Clinton and John McCain in the New York primaries, and McCain has, up until a few weeks ago, a strong relationship with the paper of record. 

From the endorsement:

(L)eading America forward, will require strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand. . . Mr. Obama has those qualities in abundance.

 

Conflict of Interest?

Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert questions how NY Times op-ed columnists David Brooks and William Kristol can remain pundits in good standing if they’re also in the business of advising presidential candidates:

For instance, I cannot imagine discovering that liberal columnist Paul Krugman had been secretly advising the Obama campaign and worked diligently to make sure Sen. Joe Biden was picked as the Democratic running mate, the way Kristol reportedly did with McCain. And I can’t picture the Times’ Frank Rich writing column after column about Sen. Joe Biden’s VP run and then showing up at a New York City media event to reveal grave misgivings about Biden; misgivings the columnist had never articulated before, the way Brooks did with Palin.

Bottom line: Do Kristol and Brooks understand the basic tenets of opinion journalism?

Dying to Write: The Obituary

Interesting Q & A with the NY Times’ obit writer, Bruce Weber. Not a bad writing gig, really.

"Ruthless Pragmatism"

That’s how a former student of Barack Obama describes a potential Obama presidency. The NY Times examines how Obama’s teaching at the University of Chicago is a glimpse of what might be next January:

Tom Hynes, who took racism and the law in 1996, agrees that Obama’s openness and the seminar discussions he encouraged were highly unusual. “That class was a catalyst to examine biases you might have developed throughout your own life,” said Hynes, who now works in finance. “Obama had a way of getting you to think and talk about issues people generally don’t like to think and talk about.”

Is ‘Obsession’ freedom of speech?

In the most basic sense of the First Amendment, the “Obsession” DVD inserted as an advertisement in many swing state newspapers last Sunday (including The Grand Rapids Press), is an example of Freedom of Speech. And that’s the excuse many newspaper editors relied on to justify its being sandwiched between Meijer and Best Buy inserts. 

Paid advertisements aren’t the best example of freedom of speech. How, for example, could someone with an opposing view of the DVD have a chance to express those ideas without having to shell out thousands of dollars? The best most newspapers offer is a Letters to the Editor section, and those letters are often limited to 250 words or less. Not quite the same as a 60-minute DVD.

Some papers had the chance to run the ad, but didn’t. The editor of the Greensboro (NC) News & Record explained their decision this way:

“I asked our publisher about it. He said it was divisive and plays on people’s fears and served no educational purpose. The revenue it would have brought in was not a motivator.”

I’ve watched “Obesssion”, because if there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s people who criticize something without having seen/read/heard it. In my opinion, it is a thinly-veiled attempt to paint the Muslim faith with an ugly broad brush. The writers try to qualify their presentation on Islamic extremists by briefly mentioning that not all Muslims feel the same way. But there is next to no attempt to elaborate on what Islam is about (or any mention that there is a history of Christian extremists). As a film, it is poorly produced. As an argument, it is extremely one-sided and filled with appeals to emotion. That’s not an argument. That’s propaganda. And I can’t fathom why a reputable newspaper – whether the GR Press or NY Times – would accept advertising revenue to run it. 

In the Seventh Year – Column of the Day

Roger Cohen kicks it Old Testament-style in this commentary on the seven years since 9/11. Thou shalt read it, and be enlightened.

The Return of the Column of the Day

Today’s choice: Gail Collins of the NY Times. And the key quote:

Palin, whose state is more pork-laden than a barbecue stand, actually turned against the bridge project because she thought Washington might make Alaskans build it themselves. If she ever agrees to talk to a reporter, the interviewer should ask Palin whether she thinks a state that is extremely wealthy from oil and gas revenue should not be forswearing federal aid entirely so that less fortunate places can have more.

Really, a governor who puts her country first might think about that.