“Pondering the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.
Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Pondering the Pundits”.
Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt
Trevor Timm: First Thiel, now the Trumps: how billionaires threaten free speech
Less than 24 hours after Gawker.com was killed by billionaire Peter Thiel’s legal crusade against it, another billionaire couple – Donald and Melania Trump – is already using the same law firm Thiel did to threaten more media organizations into silence. And this time, it could have a direct effect on the presidential election.
The Guardian reported late on Monday night that Melania Trump’s lawyers have sent threatening letters and are considering filing lawsuits against a variety of media organizations – including the Daily Mail, Politico and the Week – for reporting on rumors of Melania Trump’s past, including her alleged immigration status when she came to the United States.
This is the quintessential example of the disturbing precedent Peter Thiel has just set by creating a blueprint for billionaires to destroy news organizations they do not like. He has shown that all they need is a little persistence. And in a media landscape that is increasingly dominated by the rich and powerful, that should give even Gawker’s most ardent critics pause.
Celine Grounder: I’m a doctor. The real issue isn’t Hillary Clinton’s health – it’s that she might win
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s health has been under scrutiny in recent weeks, not by medical professionals but by politicians and supposed pundits playing doctor on TV. Clinton’s personal physician, Dr Lisa Bardack, has repeatedly said: “Secretary Clinton is in excellent health and fit to serve as president of the United States.” Meanwhile, conspiracy theories about Clinton’s supposed ill health have gone viral. There’s no evidence these claims are true.
I’m a doctor. I don’t play at being a doctor. I don’t diagnose patients in the absence of unbiased, reliable information, such as performing a physical exam or reviewing tests. When I write or am interviewed on television or the radio, I’ll talk about what new research will mean for patients and the science behind the latest guidelines. I’ll explain why we’re seeing increasing rates of certain diseases and whether policies to combat them make sense. I don’t talk about individuals except to say what one might expect more generally with regard to a particular medical illness.
But the scientist in me understands that the real issue here isn’t Clinton’s health. Conspiracy theories signal fear; in this case, Trump’s realization that Clinton may well be the next president of the United States.
Janet Ritz: Donald Trump says ‘close the Clinton Foundation’, but its work is crucial
One of the latest firestorms of the social media-driven presidential race are calls for the Clinton Foundation to shut down due to – as yet unproven – conflicts of interest. But these calls, like Donald Trump’s demand on Monday that it close, are missing an essential point about the foundation’s work: if it disappeared, those helped by the work it supports could fall through the widening cracks of our unequal global society.
Worldwide, the foundation, which has raised over $2bn, employs more than 2,000 people and had a 2015 budget of over $223m, focuses on initiatives that cut the costs of Aids and malaria drugs, supply pediatric drugs for Aids and for diarrhea (a more important initiative than people may know), test and distribute mosquito nets, help women and girls become entrepreneurs, provide seeds and equipment to farmers, replant trees and, in the United States, partner businesses with local government to help create health and wellness initiatives.
What makes the foundation different from other charities is that, as a public foundation and not a private charity, they do the work themselves rather than funneling money to others, dividing their efforts between development, health access, health matters and climate change. The Clinton Foundation also implements programming for foundations that donate to them because they are able to do the work the other foundations don’t have the infrastructure or international influence to do themselves.
Chase Madar: The Real Crime Is What’s Not Done
The latest criminal charges of public officials in the contamination of the Flint, Mich., water supply seem righteous. After so much government ineptitude with such hideous consequences — tens of thousands of Flint residents poisoned; elevated blood lead levels in nearly 5 percent of the city’s children, many with possibly irreversible brain damage — surely these criminal charges will bring, at long last, justice for Flint.
Not really. Though these sorts of charges fulfill an emotional need for retribution and are of great benefit to district attorneys on the make, they are seldom more than a mediagenic booby prize. Prosecutorial responses fill the void left when health and safety regulations succumb to corporate and political pressure. [..]
doubt that they shine a helpful media spotlight on Michigan’s attorney general, Bill Schuette, a Republican with a widely reported eye on the governor’s mansion in 2018. Nothing in Mr. Schuette’s long career in politics indicates that he would try to resolve the infrastructural crisis of Flint and Michigan’s Flints-in-waiting with major public investment in infrastructure and a regulatory framework. That would take courage in today’s climate of neoliberal austerity. On the other hand, Mr. Schuette is brave enough to go after a handful of low-to-mid-level state officials.
The injustice of the Flint contamination and other safety disasters demand a meaningful response. Criminal law is not the right tool for the job.
Jon Grinspan: Why Donald Trump’s Election Observers Are a Bad Idea
When Donald J. Trump’s campaign recently began to enroll “election observers” to monitor the vote this November, the news media reacted with shocked surprise. Politico called the move “unprecedented in a presidential election,” and others predicted that it could lead to voter intimidation, or worse, at the polls.
But we don’t have to guess at what partisan election observers might look like. There’s a long history of such behavior at American elections, much of it quite ugly. At an 1859 election in Baltimore, “challengers” snatched ballots from voters, sparking citywide riots that left two dozen beaten, four stabbed and eight shot. The Baltimore Sun complained that many citizens considered such violence “ordinary incidents of a popular election.”
They were right: Intimidation and violence were a regular part of the electoral process. We’ve come a long way, for sure — but with angry partisanship and even political violence on the rise, it’s worth asking what happened, and how we can avoid the same thing today.
Recent Comments