Does Scientific American have a ScienceBlogs problem?

Updated at bottom with addition information that, in my opinion, makes Scientific American look even worse.

A few months back, ScienceBlogs was in full revolt over Pepsi being asked, by SciBlogs' top brass, to sponsor a health blog. Well, what's up with SciAm having Chevy Volt sponsor a special section on electric cars?

Add in the fact that the stories linked off the online cover page of the special section are a mix of SciAm-reported stories and Chevy PR, and it really doesn't look good.

Also, not good? SciAm's stories all talk about "electric cars" when the Chevy Volt isn't. It's a hybrid, and Chevy has finally admitted that. In short, it's bad PR, bad journalism, and if we're counting tech as science, bad science, too.

And, no, it's not the deal that this was "sneaky" like the Pepsi/SciBlogs deal. Sorry, @BoraZ. (That said, depending on who in Scientific American's editorial hierarchy knew about this, and who didn't, and when, it may well be sneaky, for all I know.)

That wasn't the only thing wrong with the Pepsi issue at ScienceBlogs, although it was the first problem and the first-visible one. There was also the question about Pepsi, rather than, say, FiberOne, sponsoring a health-related blog.

So, in line with that, if Scientific American was going to sell itself out for sponsorship from an electric car, then why didn't it get an actual electric car, i.e., the Nissan Leaf, and not the Chevy Volt, which is a hybrid? Right there is an indication of how the "sponsorship" has affected the reporting.

Since the Volt isn't a pure electric ... I'd have to say this is a version of greenwash. It also, besides ethics, makes me wonder just how intelligent about auto tech some SciAm editors are.

I hadn't originally intended to name Bora, former ScienceBlogs blogger of "A Blog around the Clock" and now at Scientific American. BUT ... he just either doesn't get it, or is being defensive about Scientific American. An exchange of several Twitters over more than 24 hours leads me to believe that while it may be primarily the former, it could well be in part the latter.

If it is, Bora, you need to talk to other people at Scientific American rather than being defensive.

After all, you left SciBlogs in part over the Pepsi fiasco. I quote from your post about your leaving:

What is relevant is that a corporation paid to have a seat at the table with us. And that Seed made that happen.

What is relevant is that this event severely undermined the reputation of all of us. Who can trust anything we say in the future?

Even if you already know me and trust me, can people arriving here by random searches trust me? Once they look around the site and see that Pepsi has a blog here, why would they believe I am not exactly the same, some kind of shill for some kind of industry?

At the end, you said Seed's image is permanently damaged.

Well didn't Volt, in this case, also pay "to have a seat at the table"? Doesn't that affect SciAm's reputation?

Answers? Yes and yes.

Update, Dec. 28:/ Apparently, I've gotten a bit under Bora's skin, as he thinks I am just pot stirring. In his last Tweet on the subject though, he adds one more point that makes SciAm look even worse, in my book.
He notes that the special project from August! I usually don't read the mag stem-to-stern online or off, but for it to be still promoted 4 months later? And, after GM brass officially admitted the Volt is a hybrid, to STILL, with the side-by-side presentation and the content of the articles, to STILL leave standing the implication that SciAm believes the Volt is an electric car, not a hybrid, AND that Volt could buy such favorable coverage in general.

Also, Bora, this is NOT about "investigative journalism." I know, because, I've actually DONE investigative journalism.

And, do you really think knowing the difference between a hybrid-drive vehicle and a truly electric is "too geeky" for Scientific American?

Wowsa.

Methinks thee doth indeed protest too much. Talk to the hand, Bora, on this one. Better yet? Seriously? Talk to some Scientific American editorial management, as I said when I first wrote this post, before updating it.

And, if this is pot stirring, I take that as a compliment.

AND, per the "lifting up" of new media? Or new-type media venues? The medium is NOT the message, contra McLuhan. New media faces the same ethical responsibilities and issues as old media.

In this case, in fact, since this is an easy issue to address, even solve, online, it's arguably worse than in the pre-Internet age. If I'm going to be in for a pot-stirring penny, I'm in for a pot-stirring pound. My forthrightness in not swooning over new media is probably why Jay Rosens and others don't like what I say on the subject either.

UPdate, Oct. 3, 2011:  The Leaf is beating the sales pants off the Volt.

Baby Boomers face retirement bust

Laid off. Forced to take lower-paying jobs. Still holding mortgages, which may be underwater. Stocks and 401(k)s that tanked in the recession. Some serious stuff.

That and more that the newly-retiring start of the Baby Boomer aging wave is all listed here.

• Mortgage Debt. Nearly two in three people age 55 to 64 had a mortgage in 2007, with a median debt of $85,000.

• Social Security. Nearly 3 out of 4 people file to claim Social Security benefits as soon as they're eligible at age 62. That locks them in at a much lower amount than they would get if they waited.

The monthly checks are about 25 percent less if you retire at 62 instead of full retirement age, which is 66 for those born from 1943 to 1954. If you wait until 70, your check can be 75 to 80 percent more than at 62. So, a boomer who claimed a $1,200 monthly benefit in 2008 at age 62 could have received about $2,000 by holding off until 70.

• Medical Costs. Health care expenses are soaring, and the availability of retiree benefits is declining.

"People cannot fathom how much money will be needed to simply cover out-of-pocket medical care costs," says Mitchell of the University of Pennsylvania.

A 55-year-old man with typical drug expenses needs to have about $187,000 just to cover future medical costs. That's if he wants to be 90 percent certain to have enough money to supplement Medicare coverage in retirement, the EBRI said. Because of greater longevity, a 65-year-old woman would need even more to cover her health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket health expenses: an estimated $213,000.

• Employment. Boomers both need and want to work longer than previous generations. But unemployment is near 10 percent, and many have lost their jobs.

First, how much of this is the boomers' fault? I'd say a fair amount, beyond the obvious of boomers, as one admitted in the story, not saving enough, at least in a certain subsegment of boomers who thought they could "have it all."

How many boomers actually believed the pre-phrase-invention "ownership society" of how great 401s would be? How many one-time 1960s radicals willingly voted for Reagan? Or more? Of course, many of the people "selling" the ownership society under Shrub were also boomers.

How many have been unrealistic about the whole aging and self-discipline processes? How many still are?

A LOT:

Many seem to view their plight through rose-colored granny glasses. An AARP survey last month of boomers turning 65 next year found that they worry no more about money than they did at age 60 — before the recession or the collapse of home prices. But in an acknowledgment of reality, 40 percent said they plan to work "until I drop."

As someone technically a boomer by demographics, but really more a Gen-Xer in more ways, by outlook on life (except not so politically conservative as the average Xer) I don't feel a lot of sympathy for the average retiring boomer, in the abstract.

I don't want to be too harsh, but it gets back to that "have it all" phrase, even more than rose-colored glasses in general. And, not just "have it all," but have it all relatively effortlessly.

A rewarding motherhood AND a full-time career relatively effortlessly? That idea was started by boomers.

The former hippies who voted for Reagan and probably believed they could effortlessly have it all of getting rich yet holding on to at least a few 60s values?

(I won't even ask about how many boomers opposed Vietnam but supported Grenada or Panama.)

Or, to get past stereotyping boomers, how many of the rose-colored glasses wearers have been Republicans for years, and, like Reagan, have never stopped searching for the magical pony amidst all the crap? Too bad the story didn't do a breakout on attitudes.

There's several other issues at stake, too. Two of the biggies are American exceptionalism followed by American historical amnesia, including about our own history, let alone world history.

There was a time before the boomers were born when America had bad problems with income inequality. And now, those times have returned. Boomers apparently didn't learn that this was a possibility.

At the same time, the post-WWII era of massive American economic dominance was an anomaly, NOT a Teilhard-like Omega Point of the exceptionality of America, city on a hill. And, starting with Vietnam (remember that, Boomers?) most American military involvement, for better and often not for better, have been predicated in part on American exceptionalism.

Finally, what does the future hold for following cohorts? To answer that, first, some demarcations.

The Baby Boom has traditionally been considered to run 1946-1964. Why the Census and others use 1964 as the end point, I don't know. (The peak birth year of the boom was 1958.)

I'm going to take 1961 as the cutoff. Either Kennedy or Nixon would have been the first president born in the 20th century, so, it's a good sociological break.

But, I will NOT start GenX there. Instead, I propose a Transitionals mini-generation running 1961-1969. This cutoff point still leaves this cohort old enough to at least vaguely remember the end of Vietnam and the end of Ford, if not of Nixon. It also leaves even the young end old enough to be in junior high school by the time Reagan was elected and in adulthood by the time he was gone. In short, less affected by Reaganism than actual GenXers. I base this not just on me, but anecdotal experience of friends my age. (Personally, I can't identify with the increased materialism or the increased conservativism, on average, of true GenXers.)

I run GenX at 1969-1985. That leaves even the youngest entering high school by the time of 9/11. And, I run Millennials from 1985 to 2003, tentatively, using the Iraq war as a break point. The degree to which American politics has changed since then correlates to that.

Libertarianism - teens still needing to grow up? Trotskyists?

Christopher Beam has a generally good (albeit badly flawed in two ways, see below) overview of where today's libertarians in the U.S. stand, from individual Libertarian rebel types through Paul pere and fils and on to the Free State Project in New Hampshire, and, above all, what might be the Libertarian ground zero of the Cato Institute and Liberty magazine.

The Peter-Pannish teens might well apply to the Free State Project types. (Maybe even a bit to Rand Paul!) And, to the individualistic rebels.

That said, it's arguable, at least, that a place like Cato, or similar ones that are even more hardcore, are Trotskyist in spirit. Witness the "purges" of folks like Will Wilkerson. And, especially among Randians, there's a history of Trotskyist purges, starting with her own background from Old Russia, running through her own personal purge of Nathaniel Branden, and going on from there.

That said, the article's got a couple of BIG flaws, too.

First, Mr. Beam, civil libertarians are NOT the same as economic libertarians, let alone bigger "movement" libertarians. And, not all economic libertarians, even, follow Straus/Mises/Hayek, let alone Rand.

I have no idea why he threw in the observation and "lumping in" of civil libertarians on the first page of the story. Maybe as a "hook" of some sort? But, places like the ACLU and CCR have plenty of good old-fashioned economic liberals who also proudly identify as civil libertarians, but have no truck for the people he profiles in the article.

Second, and even worse, on the last page? Mr. Beam? The Constitution is not, and was not, a "libertarian" document.

Marty Peretz - bigot, Zionist nut, more.

NYMag has a good, but occasionally flawed in-depth profile on the man who has gotten ever more extreme in his Zionism, even while dissing not only all Arabs but claiming even upper-income blacks don't go to classical concerts or museums.

His fixed-idea nuttery on Israel? Here's how wrong he is:

"Obama has committed himself to a contiguous Palestine: Gaza and the West Bank. That means a discontiguous Israel.”

That said, Benjamin Wallace-Wells "fluffs" TNR as a magazine with the claim that, since he's taken it over, he's generally kept its politics well to the left of his own.

HUH?

It's neolib dreck, if it's that liberal, on general politics.

More specifically, can we talk about Andrew Sullivan's "Bell Curve issue"? Oy.

Douthat gets out teh bipartisan stupid

Ross Douthat is back to his junior David Brooks worst, spinning imaginary story lines that just aren't true. The newest entry? His lauding the bipartisanship of the lame-duck Congress.

First is the backstory that the midterm elections killed a "liberal fantasy." What's liberal about Obamacare, a sellout to private insurers? Answer: Zero. Other than Obamacare, what major item on his agenda could you call liberal? Cap-and-trade rather than straight-up carbon taxes were going to be a sellout to certain lines of big business. Obama's worse than Bush on civil liberties.

So, this "liberal fantasy" was actually a wet dream of the semi-nutbar Douthat and the full-nutbar GOP.

Now, the "bipartisanship"? A good majority of the GOP voted against cloture on the New START treaty. A still-strong majority voted against the treaty itself. The DREAM Act was NOT, contra Ross, killed by bipartisanship, unless a curmudgeon, GOP-in-drag Democrat like Ben Nelson counts as "bipartisan."

The "bipartisan" tax deal? Only "bipartisan" because Democrats have no balls. If that's part of how we define "bipartisan," well, stand by for plenty more.

I give the UK coalition six more months

To speak British-style, the Lib Dems have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tories on the massive budget cuts in the service sectors and elsewhere in government.

But, Prime Minister David Cameron has yet to deliver to Nick Clegg on the electoral reform that was the Lib Dems price for joining coalition.

I give Cameron six months to deliver that. Why that long? I'm guessing that if it doesn't come by then, Lib Dems will sack Clegg as party leader. And, any promise he made to Cameron to see through the coalition for the full five years will not be binding on his successor.

Even now, the Guardian notes that support for the coalition, primarily within the Lib Dems but also from Conservatives, is falling sharply:

The latest Guardian/ICM poll finds that after six months of Conservative-LibDem rule just 43% think coalition government was the right decision for Britain while 47% now disagree. In May, in answer to a slightly differently worded question, 59% backed the coalition while 32% disagreed with the decision to form it.

Among LibDem voters, support is 50-50.

Meanwhile, Labour's Ed Miliband waits in the wings:

Asked about the party leaders, only 12% thought Nick Clegg's prospects would improve in 2011, against 47% who think he will have a worse year. For David Cameron, 23% think 2011 will be better and 36% worse. Only Ed Miliband can look forward to a happier new year. While 27% think the coming year will be worse for him than the one before, 29% think it will be better – the only net positive score on all the issues asked in the survey.

And, so, Labour hopes to peel off dissatisfied Lib Dem voters.

At the same time, Lib Dem and Tory ministers in government seem to be having more distance developing. (Speaking to a media roundtable where you as a politician think you're off the record and the media thinks you're not doesn't help!)