CSotD: Perspectives
Skip to comments
Nick Anderson draws a parallel I certainly thought of, when I heard people were being evacuated from their homes on the slopes of Kilaeua, but my views on the matter have moderated a bit.
A large part of that came after I read this explainer from the Atlantic, which not only goes into some fascinating detail on the volcano but on the relationship between Pele and the Hawaiians. It's very much worth your time.
The article notes the distinction between "Hawaiians" — the indigenous native people — and "residents of Hawaii" — anyone who lives in the islands — but didn't note who was putting housing developments on Kilauea. It did, however, make it clear that Hawaiians have a relationship with Pele that makes it okay for her to reclaim her fire from time to time.
It reminded me of an interview I did with a geologist after a tsunami that followed the 2004 one in the Indian Ocean by a few months.
He told me that, on one particular island, the more modern middleclass and up had built rigid concrete block homes that withstood the frequent tropical storms that blew away more traditional wooden homes, but then crumbled in the earthquake preceding a tsunami while the traditional huts simply swayed and remained intact.
Those more traditional-living people wondered why the gods were angry with the rich folks.
Obviously, Hawaiians are more 21st Century than that, but the cultural attitude remains and, according to the Atlantic article, they accept what's going on with equanimity as part of living in Hawaii on a much deeper level than people who live in river valleys accept being flooded from time to time.
Another factor is that, while Kilauea is the most active volcano in the world, that article explains, it's drawing off a different blend of minerals than continental volcanoes and is less likely to explode than simply to dribble lava out its seams.
That lowers the foolishness factor considerably, though, admittedly, rebuilding in the wake of a geologic shift in where those seams surface was probably a lot easier two or three hundred years ago.
This, however, is indeed dumb
Jack Ohman riffs on the president's most recent attack on the press, in which he appeared, at first, to once more be under the impression that journalism is a licensed profession, and then seemed to somewhat back off and simply declare that he would deny White House access to media outlets that did not shower him with praise.
Which then drew a couple of cartoons along the lines of this Mike Luckovich gag.
Historians like to point out that we've had many presidents who did not get along with the press, including Jefferson, who is often quoted on his support for a free and contentious press but didn't favor it so much once he was its main target.
However, Jefferson did disassemble John Adams' Alien & Sedition Act, and presidents since those first years of the Republic have accepted the rough relationship between watchers and watched.
Here's the difference: Even the presidents who rose as war heroes rather than politicians had earned their advancement in a rational system with rules and certain well-defined restrictions.
This is the first time we've elected a con man who gained prominence by defrauding competitors through non-disclosure, loopholes and outright deception.
Sophia McClennen, who was a presenter at the Satire Symposium, has written a thoughtful piece for Salon that uses the symposium as a jumping off point to argue that Trump has a genuine inability to tell jokes from serious statements, and perhaps "fact" from "opinion," at least in a legal sense.
If he likes it, it’s legit. If he doesn't, it's fake. This is why he keeps threatening to sue the “fake” news outlets that print anything critical of him.
And I will say that, while his unmoored, solipsistic perspective gives satirists a lot to work with, it's problematic for those tasked with straight coverage.
And it's nothing new. Mrs. Thatcher's husband Denis boiled media relations down to a simple bit of advice decades ago: "'Avoid telling them to sod off. It makes them cross.''
As a reporter, I rarely had trouble providing fair coverage to someone with whose policies and opinions I differed, but I will admit that it was often challenging to be fair and neutral when covering someone who was just an asshole, intent on making my job harder by refusing to provide access and information.
I'll even confess that, a few months after an athletic director blatantly, needlessly lied to my face in an interview, I ran across something the university's football program had done that, gosh, I was kinda sure was probably a recruiting violation.
So, since I didn't know anyone local who would give me an honest answer, I called an old classmate and asked him.
At the NCAA.
Watch your back, Donnie.
On a related topic, Paul Berge has an excellent reminiscence about the new president of the NRA, told through a combination of memories and his old cartoons on the subject.
I'm particularly struck by his treatment of Reagan, who has often been cited as a watershed figure in the slide to a divided America, with Nixon having launched but not perfected the effort.
Berge depicts Reagan as half-perpetrator, half-pawn, and I think that's a reasonable take.
But, whatever Reagan's role, Oliver North really signaled the modern era: A convicted lawbreaker acting against our proclaimed values and policies was raised to hero status, and, from then on, America no longer had a set of agreed-upon standards.
Berge recaptures a critical moment that I suspect few people are really aware of, particularly those who were too young to follow politics then.
I remember it well, and there's much in here that I'd forgotten.
Jeff Stahler on the State of the Union.
There's such a thing as being too smart for the room, and this one's gonna fly over a lot of heads.
That's okay.
Finally:
Comments 1
Comments are closed.