Four Long Years

My readers of this (very infrequent) blog pretty much know me and know that I am not one to react emotionally and erratically to anything (Note: This is also a nice way of saying I have not found any new readers for my blog outside of my friends and family!). My opinions are measured and informed, and I tend not to get too excited or sure of my views easily. I am open to trying to understand nearly any perspective and to know where people are coming from. My positions on politics have changed quite a lot over the years, which helps me to understand and relate to a wide range of views, even many that I do not agree with at all at this point in my life.

It is important to keep that in mind as you read this: Ever since the election of 2016, I have been holding on to some degree of sadness and anger EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. I love the United States of America deeply and have seen the people of my country turn over the most powerful office to a man who embodies the very worst qualities of a leader. And not only have we elected this man, but a large portion of the country is willing to turn over their powers of judgment to him – to accept what he says, and what he believes, over and above any actual evidence.

To abandon the idea of holding him accountable for his actions, but instead to support him at all costs, and to push back on the very idea of challenging him. To support what is good for him even at the expense of what is good for us as individuals and as a country. To demonize those within our country who believe differently not as people with different opinions, but as the enemy, and to view our motives as destroying America. To celebrate a style of leadership that is not invested in solving problems facing the American people, but instead is focused on making you hate and fear those who do not support Donald Trump fully and unreservedly.

I could write pages upon pages spelling out the justifications for why it is incomprehensible to me that anyone can accept the multitude of ways in which he has advanced the corruption of our political processes and demonstrated his complete lack of fitness for the most powerful position in the country. I could get into detail about his financial and political corruption, his focus on dividing us rather than uniting us, his unwillingness to even try to be a leader for everyone in the country, his assaults on the rule of law and the foundations of our democracy.

But that is not what this post is about.

It is about the idea that all of the efforts I have put into understanding why people support him has led to one theme throughout – supporting Donald Trump means believing that those who hold different political views are enemies. That if your fellow Americans don’t support the positions of Donald Trump, that if we hold positions to the left of the political spectrum, that we are a genuine threat to America itself and must be stopped at all costs. That you should fear ANY liberal, no matter how the term is defined. Whether that liberal is a democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders, a BLM activist like Colin Kaepernick, a Never-Trump neo-conservative like Bill Kristol, a long-time establishment politician who has worked with Democrats and Republicans alike such as Joe Biden, a Fox News journalist who tries to play it down the middle like Chris Wallace, or even a one-time radical libertarian like me who now identifies as a progressive – we are all treated not as legitimate elements of our political system whose views deserve representation but as enemies of the state who must be repressed to save our country.

I am not arguing that the left is flawless, or that there are not plenty of valid criticisms against many in the media, the Democratic party, or those arguing in the public square against Donald Trump. I understand the preferences many have on policy and judges. I get that there are plenty of those in the media who have spent 4 years over-reacting to many events. I get that if there is a Biden administration, particularly with a Democratic majority in the Senate, it will likely pass laws that many people will not like. I understand why many people were so frustrated with a dysfunctional political system four years ago that they thought a non-traditional politician with a business background could be effective in solving problems. And I know that past leaders have not been paragons of selfless virtue.

But ultimately the picture has been clear for years – if you strip away all the noise, we have a president who relies on fear and division to distract us from his incompetence and corruption. As well as relying on the sheer volume of awful actions to convince people that it is all noise. And I don’t know how anyone can deny that at this point. I have been questioning and challenging my own views for years. At this point though, what I question most is what to make of a country in which so many people still support this man. I am not one to apply any broad generalizations against people based on who they support, and I know people who are kind and decent to the people in their lives who nevertheless support Donald Trump. But I don’t have any reasonable explanations for why this is the case. And it hurts to see America come to this point.

I am not totally sure why I am writing this post. It is not to change anyone’s mind, and I am sure it will bother some people without offering any suggestions on what to do about it. I know that there are so many reasons I did not even get into about why people do not like Donald Trump, particularly many who have been directly targeted by the actions of his administration, that it would be fair to wonder why those are not addressed. For 4 years I have been carrying this weight of seeing people sacrifice so many principles for a man who is not worthy of any of them, and I simply had to share how it is affecting me.

The Sins of the Past

It has re-ignited a debate about how much we should hold public figures accountable for mistakes in their youth, as we have all done things we are not proud of. But these discussions generally don’t focus on two critical points – what the response reveals about someone’s present character, and how these “harmless mistakes” impact others.

The story of the week right now (people need anything to forget the latest Super Bowl) is Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s med school yearbook photos that show a picture of one man in blackface next to another in a KKK hood. It has re-ignited a debate about how much we should hold public figures accountable for mistakes in their youth, as we have all done things we are not proud of. But these discussions generally don’t focus on two critical points – what the response reveals about someone’s present character, and how these “harmless mistakes” impact others.

On the first point, we are so used to the scripted, anodyne apology that we may even come to think of it as if there is no other choice. But how we respond to past transgressions says so much more about our character, and these scripted apologies say only “I don’t much care about the impact my mistake had, I only care that people perceive that I have changed”.  Sometimes we complain that people shouldn’t have to apologize for events repeatedly, but that usually ignores the fact that the initial apology was a non-apology cloaked in humble language.

To get an apology right is to show a person has grown and changed and to address and prioritize those hurt by the action over one’s self. For a good example of this, read this link:

http://time.com/5100019/dan-harmon-megan-ganz-sexual-harassment-apology/

How often do you see that kind of vulnerability and honesty in an apology? Can you imagine if this type of apology were the norm rather than “I am sorry for any pain that was caused by my actions”? Don’t you think that someone who can apologize with this specificity and openness is the kind who has shown they deserve to be forgiven and that it is okay to move on from their transgressions?

Let’s contract Harmon’s apology with a reminder about Gov. Northam’s response.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ralph-northams-medical-school-yearbook-page-shows-men-dressed-in-blackface-kkk-robe

And here I am only sharing the initial apology, rather than getting into how he backtracked the next day. When you consider alternatives to how he could have handled this, does that really even look like an apology? Can’t you imagine ways in which he could have truly dealt with the issue as an opportunity for growth? And to be clear, this post is not about Northam specifically, he just serves as a very useful and fresh illustration of a broader trend in society.

Now you might acknowledge that there are more genuine apologies but think that it doesn’t matter – why must we re-litigate all mistakes of the past and not just move on? This is where my second major point comes in, as far as the impact to others. Again, Northam’s case is instructive here. Let’s just look at two different groups of people to illustrate the point.

Consider if you were a black medical student at Eastern Virginia Medical School in 1984. You open your yearbook, flip through the pages, and see staring at you a white man in blackface next to another man in a KKK costume. While norms were certainly different in 1984 and it is hard to project current sensitivities onto the past, there is no question that the Klan was a symbol of hatred to black people at that time. To see that image endorsed by your school and that your classmates considered it an amusing joke could easily linger in your consciousness and tell you that you don’t belong. And now to see people brushing it aside as youthful indiscretions would reinforce that point.

Now flip ahead 35 years, and picture yourself as a black resident of Virginia today. You see your Governor’s yearbook page with these images. What would you think about you representation? Would you have confidence that black people are respected under this administration? Wouldn’t you consider it critical that the man leading your state show a genuine understanding of why that image is hurtful to you and to show without any doubt that he recognizes the pain it can cause and that he has unequivocally moved on from the person he was to allow that?

This circles right back around to the first point and the importance of the present-day reaction. Again, we can use the Dan Harmon apology for contrast. Harmon recognized the hurt he had caused this woman and his reaction to his past being brought up was to address that hurt directly. The object of that hurt then gained some measure of relief from having her experience validated. Northam has not done this, which makes him pretty typical of any public figure called out for any kind of misbehavior. And while we are here debating concepts like statutes of limitations on bad behavior, real people are left being ignored and treated as if they don’t matter, and that all that counts is allowing this powerful man to move on from his behavior without consequences.

But truly, if the only consequence is having to honestly reckon with the pain you have caused someone, are we asking too much?

Race to the Bottom

If you could get a deal that would guarantee that one of the two major US political parties could fully dominate politics within 10-20 years and have a permanent majority, locking out the other, but you wouldn’t know in advance if it would be the Republicans or Democrats, would you take it?

That feels like a way to look at our current situation. I see a constant rise in energy from both sides in thinking that the other side cannot govern at any cost. This leads to more extreme behaviors and a vicious cycle of reactions on both sides. Where does this lead? Right now I have a hard time seeing a path back from the brink and that neither side will be happy until the other is completely subjugated.

I don’t want this future. As much as I personally have plenty of concerns about the modern Republican party, I have no interest in seeing an unchecked Democratic majority dominating our politics either (and yes, I do understand that we are a long, long way from that reality now). And none of my Republican readers should want to see the Democratic party crushed and for right-wing leaders to have no counter-balance from the other side.

But right now all of the incentives are to dig in deeper and go after each other harder. Politicians are not rewarded for working with the other side and compromising. Voters get energized by politicians who fight for what they believe in, not for trying to lead and bring people together. News organizations make money (and therefore sustain themselves) when they stoke conflict and make everything into a national emergency. Fewer and fewer of us engage with sources that make us think and challenge ourselves rather than making us feel better about ourselves or worse about our opponents.

The view that we are in civil war-like conditions and that we should lean into it is present from both sides. Here are just two examples I came across within one day last month.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/10/06/decisive-political-victory-is-the-only-way-to-end-this-cold-civil-war/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court.html

So what do we do about this? Let’s start with what I am NOT suggesting. I am not advocating that individuals should stand down and stop fighting for what they believe in. I am not blindly calling for more ‘civility’. Everything about the way our politics and media ecosystem currently functions rewards extremism. Backing down allows those with power to further cement their power. And I am also not saying that we should treat all views equally and assume that some vague place in the middle between all positions should be respected and that both sides are always equally to blame for divisions in our society.

My views and anyone else’s on the causes of these divisions and who is ‘right’ on the big issues of our time is irrelevant to what I am getting at here. It matters, but it is not the only thing that matters. The reality that there are major schisms in our society and that we have to deal with them head-on. Dismissing the tens of millions of people who disagree with us on any number of important issues doesn’t make them go away, and writing them off as [pick one: stupid, mean, racist, ignorant, apathetic, hypocritical, intolerant, etc.] doesn’t change the reality of the existence of those beliefs.

We have to find ways to engage and to not see those we disagree with as the enemy. Part of that is not supporting politicians who treat policy disagreements as signs of bad faith. Part of it is also recognizing that our own beliefs are grounded in assumptions that are often not shared by others and that there is value in questioning and understanding those assumptions. We are all Americans with different experiences driving different value systems that cause us to see the world differently. We may not come to agreement on the right way forward for the country, but if we can’t even start from the point of view that we are all trying to do what is right then destructive forms of conflict will only increase.

Hypothetical confirmation process

I have a simple query for anyone who is unhappy with the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process (meaning everyone who is paying attention to it). The catch is that the question is different depending on what you are most unhappy about.

IF you believe the process has been mostly unfair to Kavanaugh – imagine that Ford’s accusation is 100% true and that it happened exactly as she described it. What would you propose would have been the right course of action to get to the bottom of the allegation?

IF you the believe the process has been mostly unfair to Ford (and/or Ramirez and Swetnick as well) – imagine that Kavanaugh is completely innocent and none of these allegations are remotely true. What would you propose would have been the right course to handle false allegations?

I’d love to hear from my readers before I share my own response. Plus, I am still thinking about my own response! And hopefully the responses can set aside the politics of the situation. If it helps for either side, imagine that Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy is more like that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and see if that changes your thinking at all.

Confirmation craziness

And my blog returns after a long absence! The spirit of the blog remains as it was before – an opportunity to discuss politics from different points of view with an emphasis on respecting the people in the discussion regardless of their views. I have been playing with ideas on the direction I want to take it going forward and plan to get back to sharing regularly.

Today I jump back in with the story that has been consuming me – partially for some time, and extensively today. The post I had been hoping to write before the Kavanaugh-Ford hearing is now rendered basically irrelevant. After watching most of Ford’s testimony, parts of Kavanaugh’s, and following on Twitter and various news sites throughout the day I have much to say and it is not nearly as charitable to all parties as it would have been yesterday.

I must begin with Christine Blasey Ford. She has earned a tremendous amount of respect from me. I couldn’t help thinking as I watched this that this could be any woman I know who was going about her life and then found that a traumatic event from her past was suddenly relevant to a highly-charged national issue. She has bravely faced the issue head-on while enduring incomprehensible vitriol from those who don’t like what she is bringing up. Her story fits everything I would expect of a credible allegation and I can’t imagine anyone who could watch her testimony and see a political motivation in what she has done.

This doesn’t inherently mean the allegation is true. Indeed, after a morning where the Twitterverse indicated that Republicans were not feeling good about things, Brett Kavanaugh came out swinging. And I agree with the popular assessment from left and right that his anger at what he and his family went through is genuine. I certainly feel awful for his wife and daughters and what they have endured. And it seemed that he and the committee turned the tide for the Republican side and rallied support back in his favor.

He certainly addressed the substance of the allegations to the extent that he can. But rather than parsing which of their accounts of the details is more believable, let’s keep a few things in mind.

  • Motivation
    • If you follow the chain of events that led to Ford being in that seat, her motivations seem to pretty genuinely be about sharing information she felt needed to be shared. I can’t make any sense of her coming forward as she did for other reasons. If anyone reading this can provide an alternate interpretation consistent with her words and actions I’d be interested in hearing it.
    •  Kavanaugh on the other hand is a man close to reaching the professional pinnacle for a judge who finds himself on the defensive about an old allegation. The motivations to deny the allegation are many. Again, that doesn’t mean he is lying or that her version is accurate, but it is a factor in any assessment.
    • And being upset at your reputation being ruined doesn’t make you innocent of the allegations. Indeed, most of the men who have faced consequences for their sexual misconduct continue to express indignation at the attacks on their character even when the evidence is overwhelming. So I fail to see how his deep and genuine anger at what has happened over the past 2 weeks has any bearing on an assessment of his guilt or innocence.
  • Evidence
    • I continually am reading that there is no corroboration for her claims. Sen. Bob Corker said he is a yes vote because she didn’t present any evidence to back her statement. Let that sink in for a moment – the alleged victim of an assault is the one responsible for providing evidence to support her memories and personal experience?
    • Yes, many years have passed and that creates a lesser likelihood of verifying information. And yes, the Judiciary Committee has conducted an investigation, and this not a criminal proceeding. But if it was important for Ford and Kavanaugh to have a chance to speak directly and to be cross-examined, why aren’t the other potential witnesses as well? Why aren’t their stories being probed more deeply than by a partisan committee? And once again, I’ll ask any readers for answers if anyone can provide a justification for why Mark Judge wasn’t called. The only explanations that I can come up with are either purely political or because the committee doesn’t care to get to the truth.
  •  Timing
    • Building on the last point, I can understand a senator at this point agonizing over whether to reject Kavanaugh based on the degree of evidence received (I don’t agree, but I can at least understand the argument). I can’t understand the justification that further exploration should not be done before a vote. It seems to me that and FBI investigation is the right path, but I am certainly open to any other objective and thorough process that would attempt to probe deeper into the details with others who may have information.
    • So what is the reason for avoiding this if not purely political? The handling of the Merrick Garland nomination made it clear that the Senate does not view a Supreme Court seat remaining open for some time is a problem. Yet in this case Sen. Mitch McConnell is committed to ‘plowing right through’.
  • Smear campaign
    • This seems to be real defense – this whole thing is some plot orchestrated by the Democrats to get him. Now, setting aside for a moment the politics of the situation, what this argument really does is dismiss Ford (and Ramirez and Swetnick) as irrelevant to the question of their own traumatic experiences. How can you square this argument with what these women have claimed? If the argument is that they are flat-out lying as part of a Democratic conspiracy, an investigation needs to get to the bottom of that conspiracy. What exactly is the case being made if not that? I need help here understanding it. And Sen. Lindsay Graham is definitely not the person who is going to make that clear.
    • This is a separate question from whether the Democrats have behaved honorably throughout this confirmation process and in how Dr. Ford’s name became public. I’ll just say this – the federal judiciary has been becoming an increasingly partisan battleground over the years, likely tracing back to the Bork confirmation hearings from my read of the history. The treatment of Merrick Garland brought things to a boiling point. Both Republicans and Democrats have made clear that having the right to appoint judges is one of the ultimate acts of politics today and things are only going to get worse from both sides. This has major implications for the health of our democracy that go well beyond the scope of this post.
  • Relevance
    • Kavanaugh continually emphasized that this allegation was dropped on him, that he worked his butt off to get where he is, that people say things in a high school yearbook that don’t mean much, that previous investigations of him found nothing, that he has many positive references. Let’s be clear – those things have nothing at all to do with whether or not he did indeed assault her. Nothing.
    • The fact that he has left no wiggle room in his denial means that the question of how much to care about the behavior of a 17 year old boy in the judgment of a 53 year old man is also irrelevant. If he did indeed commit this assault, even if he does not remember it at all (my personal opinion is that this is the most likely scenario), it is absolutely disqualifying that he would so forcefully deny it.

Ultimately, what are we to make of all of this? I am still processing it all (and being very ready for sleep doesn’t help matters!) and don’t have great answers. There are definitely serious questions about the degree of escalating partisanship in this country and this event will leave deep scars on our democracy for a long time to come. And we can hardly afford a greater divide than we already have.

Brett Kavanaugh had the chance to handle this differently. His response could have been focused on Dr. Ford and acknowledging what she has gone through and being willing to provide space for the truth to come out while respecting her experience. He and others claim to value her and what she has gone through, but the escalating rhetoric treats her as a pawn in a Democratic game rather than as independent human being with agency and the ability to make her own choices and deal with her own life. He did not have to admit to doing anything that he does not remember doing to do this, but simply to acknowledge that getting to truth of what happened to her that night would have been worth the delay that a thorough investigation would have created. This could have turned this into an opportunity for healing some of our divisions.

But to me this is really about women and anyone who is marginalized in various ways in our society. The clear message being sent here by plowing through with Kavanaugh’s confirmation is that this country does not give a shit about what Dr. Ford experienced as a scared 15 year old girl and the impact on the rest of her life, and in trying to make that right. And by extension, that the experiences of any women are irrelevant in the face of forces that are deemed more important – the right to appoint a judge who believes what you believe, or the suffering a powerful man faces when his name is dragged through the mud to face consequences for his behavior, the political value in confirming a judge before the midterms and the new session, and so many more. That is nothing new in our country as know that the concerns of the powerful dwarf those of the less powerful, but it is time we acknowledge the many ways this plays out and all commit to doing something about it.

   

 

Let’s focus on the President

The media circus around Donald Trump has made it hard to separate hype from reality. There are 3 core questions that I see as central to any president, and 2 of them are fundamental for a leader in any position. More than just seeing yes or no answers, I would like to understand the reasoning people have behind their answers.

  • Do you find him to be trustworthy and to possess integrity?
  • Does he bring the competencies and skills as a leader that the office requires?
  • Does he respect those democratic institutions and processes that have served this country throughout our history?

Why I marched

Democracy is not just about having elections. Fledgling democracies around the world continually demonstrate this. There are a number of institutions and practices required to support and sustain a democracy in the long run. When a nation forgets this, they pay a heavy price.

I attended the Denver Women’s March today at the Capitol. Estimates ranging from 100,000 – 250,000 attendees speak to the energy that assembled downtown. I nearly came to tears on a few occasions at the passion and devotion to the greatness of our country that came through from my companions. This was a shared experience similar to attending a transcendent concert, but it touched on deeper emotions than even those that the Boss can evoke from the stage.

The most common and powerful chant I heard at the rally was “What does democracy look like? THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!”. And I came to a more powerful realization than I have ever had before of how important protest is among the practices that sustain a democracy.

We just lived through what is the certainly the most contentious national election in my lifetime, one that fundamentally divided people on a level I have never seen. But while this divide roughly adhered to party lines and had many basic disagreements about liberal vs. conservative, that is not at all what this election was truly about to many of us.

Donald Trump had many chances throughout his campaign to show basic human decency. But he consistently took the low road. He stoked fear and resentment of others to build support for himself. He blatantly lied at a level I have never seen from a politician, with no shame when caught in a lie. He showed that he cares most about himself, even while portraying his election as returning the government to the people. He has shown a contempt for even the most basic responsibilities of ethics in government, only a short time after promising to drain the swamp. He attacked the institutions and practices of democracy whenever they were inconvenient for him or dealt a blow to his ego.

My response is to use one of those most important of our democratic practices to say that these are not my values. To stand up with my fellow Americans and say that we believe our country is better than this. To say to those who disagree with me that I don’t hate you for disagreeing. But that if we are going to live in this society together, I need you to understand that I see the election of such an awful man and leader as an American tragedy.

And that while I understand that alignment on policy positions and hope in a new approach to solving our problems may put many in a position to give him more latitude than I will, it hurts me to see that so many people are unwilling to hold him accountable at all when he attacks the very core of our democracy and the humanity of so many of us.

This is no longer about the choice of Clinton vs. Trump. That debate is now in the past and I want to look at what we can and should do now. I will give him the benefit of the doubt when he earns it, but I will not look the other way when he opposes the core values of our country, and I will not brush away the terrible behavior he has exhibited already and the harm it has caused. I will listen to those of you who disagree with my assessment of Trump and will try to understand why you are not as troubled by him as I am. And I will expect empathy in return, and for anyone who wants to earn my respect to avoid name calling and to try to understand why others hold different views rather than rushing to judgment.

 

 

 

The Obama legacy

Time for some open-ended feedback from my readers. I understand that there is a lot of anger out there about the Obama presidency, but I must say that I don’t get it. I can understand disagreement with much of what he has done, but I can’t wrap my head around how so many people are so passionately opposed to him. This also ties in to the idea that I have seen often that he has represented a hard left turn in our national politics, and that is also something that does not make any sense to me. So for those of you who feel that way about him and his administration, please share your thoughts on why you feel that way and we will see if we can have a healthy discussion on where our country stands on the eve of the Trump administration.

 

Black Lives Matter

My latest post is much shorter and oriented towards questions, to leave more emphasis on your responses. And to whomever is reading this, yes I mean YOU! I want to know what you think. Of course, my views can still be discerned to some degree through my questions, and I will gladly share more of my own perspective in response to any comments. Free free to pick and choose the questions for your response. They are meant only as a guide.

  • How does opportunity for black people compare to opportunities for white people in the USA now?
  • Have we achieved the goal of a color-blind society, in particular thinking of areas such as education, policing, housing, and employment?
  • Do we do a good job of treating people on their own merits rather than judging them by the worst behaviors of people who share characteristics with them? Does that play out equally for people of different races?
  • What are appropriate forms of protest to effectively draw attention to the societal inequalities that still exist?

Turn on the News – or not

If there’s one thing that I can’t explain
Is why the world has to have so much pain
With all the ways of communicating
We can’t get in touch with who we’re hating

…With all this uptight pushing and shoving
Keeps us away from who we’re loving (loving)

Grant Hart, Husker Du, “Turn on the News”, from Zen Arcade

Where do you get your news? How do you check the reliability of the information you are getting? What do you do to ensure you are getting varied perspectives? I’d like to know how you deal with this challenge as our options have changed substantially in recent years and the answers to these questions have a major impact on how we perceive the world around us. And please share specific sources that others may not know about that will help round out our perspectives. I know that while my own sources come from left and right, they definitely lean left and I could use more variety.

My process has evolved and keeps changing. My goals right now are to better support quality journalism in this era of free news, and to more deeply engage alternative viewpoints. Here are the key points of how I deal with the news.

  • No tv news! It is far too sensationalized.
  • Google News is my first option – it presents a wide range of varied sources with up to the minute content on any issue along with both straight reporting and editorials.
  • I try to take any story I read the first time with a grain of salt until I have read the same story from a different perspective
  • My goal is to get editorial content from many sources, including highly biased ones from both sides along with more centrist views.
  • I have been using Facebook more to follow specific sources and see what my friends are posting. I am not paying for any of these at the moment, although I have in the past. My top sources include:
    • The Atlantic
    • Vox
    • The Economist
    • The American Conservative
    • The Washington Post
    • The New York Times
    • The Wall Street Journal
    • Fox News
    • The New Yorker
    • Comedic news shows (Daily Show, Last Week Tonight, Full Frontal)
    • Democracy Now!
    • Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi in particular
  • New ones I am trying out include:
    • The Claremont Institute
    • Mother Jones
    • Dan Rather
    • George Will
    • Glenn Beck
    • Shaun King
  • The mainstream media takes a lot of heat and is of course flawed, but the alternative sources that have been cropping up much more extensively also introduce a host of problems. I think it is important to use both mainstream and alternative sources. Alternative sources certainly at times break news you won’t find elsewhere
  • I don’t typically turn to fact-checking sites, particularly if I can find agreement on facts from different sides, but I also find them extremely useful at times. Whether or not one agrees with their conclusions, they have usually done the research and provide primary sources to check out for yourself.