Overly Skeptical? A Slate article rants about people saying they distrust the media, but not their particular newspaper. "The larger point that the boneheads who so despise the media need to appreciate is that the mainstream American press is better than it's ever been. If you don't believe me, visit your local library and roll through a couple of miles of microfilm of the papers you're currently familiar with. By any comparison, today's press is more accurate, ethical, reliable, independent, transparent, and trustworthy than ever." I am one of those people who is very skeptical, and I would say I trust the sources I read more than others... because that is why I have chosen the sources I do read. Why would I waste my time reading a whole bunch of stuff from sources I don't trust? The nice thing is that I have lots of options, local, national international thanks to the internet. I am also really skeptical of the claim I cited above, that this is the most ethical, transparent, etc press... but I'd love to hear what you guys think.

Last year I had to read Charles Krauthammer for a class, and the more I read, the more I disagreed. But I was very surprised to read this: "Some of the president’s greatest supporters in the war on terror are shaking their heads in disbelief at his remarks. Charles Krauthammer, a neoconservative commentator, said the idea of teaching intelligent design — creationism’s “modern step-child” — was “insane”. “To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of a religious authority,” he wrote. “To impose it on the teaching of evolution is ridiculous.” Krauthammer's full article is in the current issue of Time. I can't believe it, but I highly recommend reading it.