Why liberals are condescending

In my latest for the Guardian, I find myself agreeing with Gerard Alexander’s essay in the Washington Post that liberals are condescending. But it’s hard not to be when many on the other side reject evolution, think global warming is a hoax and believe President Obama was not born in the United States.

More on the difference gene

Last week I wrote about a new, cheap test that will tell prospective parents whether their children are at risk of having one of 100 or so different genetic conditions, including two forms of dwarfism.

Today I expand on that theme in the Guardian, arguing that such screening is tied to our conflicted feelings about difference.

Thoughts on the state of Obama

Long after the forgettable rhetoric of the State of the Union address has been duly forgotten, voters may remember two things: a combative, self-confident president and a sour, negative opposition party. If President Obama is to stage a political comeback, it may well have begun last night.

Or so I argue in the Guardian.

Lessons for Obama and the Democrats

Attorney General Martha Coakley’s deficiencies as a Senate candidate don’t really explain the magnitude of what swept over her and the Democratic Party on Tuesday. Yes, Republican victor Scott Brown ran a vastly superior campaign, but that doesn’t explain it either.

Instead, what we saw was an outpouring of populist anger. And after a year of futile attempts to reach out to Republicans with compromised bills to stimulate the economy and reform health care, President Obama finds himself on the wrong side of that anger. The lesson he and Democrats need to learn is to embrace the anger rather than trying to defuse it. Otherwise, he’ll end up like Bill Clinton in 1994.

Or so I argue in the Guardian.

Photo (cc) by Mark Sardella and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

The Senate race and the media

In my latest for the Guardian, I argue that the national attention being paid to the Massachusetts Senate race has more to do with a simplistic media narrative — and one outlying poll — than it does with Republican candidate Scott Brown’s actual chances of winning.

Not quite the apocalypse after all

In my latest for the Guardian, I write that the Great Newspaper Meltdown of 2009, though certainly bad enough, didn’t quite live up to its advance billing.

Why? Corporate debt made newspapers look sicker than they really were; there is (alas) still room for further newsroom cuts; and publishers are finally getting smart about innovative ways to extract money from readers and advertisers.

Who said it?

I’m looking for some help with my Guardian column this week. Recently someone said that, even after recent budget cuts, the Washington Post newsroom was still bigger than it was during Watergate. Who said it? Got a link?

I’d also love to see any link you’ve got on the theme that the great Media Meltdown of 2009 turned out to be not as bad as some had predicted, especially with respect to newspaper closings.