My Review of David Holmgren’s ‘RetroSuburbia’

Trump began the day with an insane interview on Fox & Friends!

Late Night with Seth Meyers

April 26, 2018

Trump began the day with an insane interview on Fox & Friends, and it only got worse from there. Seth takes A Closer Look.

Bahahaha their faces say it all! https://m.facebook.com/story.php…

Trump Goes on Fox & Friends and Freaks Out About Michael Cohen: A Closer Look

Trump began the day with an insane interview on Fox & Friends, and it only got worse from there. Seth takes A Closer Look.

Posted by Late Night with Seth Meyers on Thursday, April 26, 2018

What “IF” Earth spun twice as fast?

What.If added a new episode on  Facebook Watch.
April 26, 2018

12-hour days, 730 days a year. Could you cope with that?

What If Earth Spun Twice as Fast

12-hour days, 730 days a year. Could you cope with that?

Posted by What.If on Thursday, April 26, 2018

Will Greed Be The EPA Leader’s Downfall?

Resilience

Will Greed Be The EPA Leader’s Downfall?

By Sarah Anderson, Orig. Pub. in Inquality.org    April 24, 2018

Environmentalists weren’t able to block the confirmation of Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator based on his horrendous record of climate change denial and plundering natural resources. But Pruitt’s growing corruption scandal has given them new hope.

Friends of the Earth has hung hundreds of posters around downtown Washington, D.C. — including in front of the Trump Hotel — mocking Pruitt for getting a deeply discounted deal on a condo he rented from the wife of a fossil fuel lobbyist.

“Luxury condo on Capitol Hill, $50 a night!!!” the posters advertise. “Live luxuriously for cheap — just like Scott!”

The posters’ fine print specifies: “special rate void if not a Trump administration official able to provide special favors. Property may be used to host GOP fundraisers.”

On the bottom of the posters are pull tabs listing the phone number for the EPA’s Office of Public Affairs.

In a more serious statement, Friends of the Earth accused Pruitt of “living in the lap of luxury, and all on the taxpayer’s dime.” On top of the condo scandal, they note that he has “wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on first class flights and other absurd luxuries, like a $43,000 soundproof phone booth or dragging his 20-person security detail with him on trips to Disneyland and the Rose Bowl.”

One scandal that’s generated headlines is a secretive trip Pruitt took to Morocco that cost taxpayers $40,000, which included the tab for two nights in high-end hotels in Paris. What’s gotten less attention is that Pruitt spent part of this trip working to set up export deals for U.S. gas companies — activities that are not at all part of his job as our nation’s top environment protector.

“The actual corruption going on here is even worse than the appearance of corruption,” said Basav Sen, Climate Justice project director at the Institute for Policy Studies. “If Pruitt goes down, it will probably be for his lesser crimes, but at least his ouster would set an example for others.”

The pressure on Pruitt is certainly mounting. On April 18, 39 Senators signed a resolution calling for Pruitt’s resignation — the largest number in history to call for the removal of a cabinet official. On the House side, 131 members signed a similar statement. While no Republicans were among the endorsers, several have also called for Pruitt’s ouster.

So far, President Donald Trump has been standing behind Pruitt, tweeting on April 7 that the embattled official was “doing a great job.”

Last September, the president didn’t show the same loyalty when it came to his Health and Human Services Secretary, Tom Price. After a controversy erupted over what some might consider a less serious spending scandal — his penchant for flying in private jets instead of commercial planes — Price was shown the door.

The EPA Administrator is ‘living in the lap of luxury, and all on the taxpayer’s dime.’

But, as Sen explains, “Tom Price is a run-of-the-mill ‘cut taxes’ type of conservative, whereas Pruitt represents the really hardline ideological right wing. And while Trump didn’t come out of that tradition, he seems to have decided that those are now his fellow travelers. Also, he’s feeling more under siege now than last year and so we may see a circling of the wagons in response to that pressure.”

Pruitt’s opponents are still ramping up pressure on the President. In addition to their guerrilla postering, Friends of the Earth joined with the Sierra Club, the NAACP, SEIU, and numerous other groups in running full-page ads calling for Pruitt to resign or be removed. The ads ran in Pruitt’s hometown newspaper, the Oklahoman, as well as two papers President Trump reportedly reads — the DC edition of the New York Times and the New York Post. The “Boot Pruitt” campaign has also run ads on Trump’s favorite TV show — Fox and Friends.

Like so many powerful and destructive men before him, it could be Pruitt’s personal greed — rather than the damage he’s inflicted on the world — that ultimately will be his downfall.

Wells Fargo got off scot-free

Let the Revolution Begin. Peacefully of Course. shared a video.

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders — US Senator for Vermont

April 25, 2018

The Trump tax cuts are rewarding Wells Fargo—the bank that defrauded millions of customers last year—with $3.7 billion. How does that make sense?

Wells Fargo Got Off Scot-Free

The Trump tax cuts are rewarding Wells Fargo—the bank that defrauded millions of customers last year—with $3.7 billion. How does that make sense?

Posted by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Wednesday, April 25, 2018

What if plastic was never invented?

What.If added a new episode on  Facebook Watch.
April 25, 2018

Only we humans make waste that nature can’t digest.

What If Plastic Was Never Invented?

Only we humans make waste that nature can’t digest.

Posted by What.If on Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Lawmakers seek investigation into Scott Pruitt’s friend with no toxic site cleanup experience

ThinkProgress

Lawmakers seek investigation into Scott Pruitt’s friend with no toxic site cleanup experience

Albert Kelly was banned from banking soon after taking over as the EPA’s top Superfund official.

Mike Hand     April 25, 2018

Two Democratic house members have called for an investigation into superfund adviser Albert Kelly, who the FDIC banned for life from banking. Credit: C-Span/Screenshot.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt selected an old friend to oversee the nation’s toxic waste cleanup program. The friend, Albert Kelly, had no experience in environmental regulation, although he had invested in fossil fuel companies responsible for toxic waste that led to the designation of official Superfund sites.

Two lawmakers are now calling on the EPA’s internal watchdog to investigate why Pruitt’s friend was hired to serve as his top adviser for the agency’s Superfund program. They want to find out if Kelly — a former banker who was banned from the profession — was properly vetted before getting appointed to his high-level position and whether Kelly has violated federal rules since joining the EPA.

Reps. Don Beyer and Gerry Connolly, both Democrats from Virginia, sent a letter to the EPA’s Office of Inspector General on Tuesday requesting the investigation. Pruitt appointed Kelly in April 2017 to oversee the nation’s Superfund program.

Beyer and Connolly want the inspector general to find out whether Kelly disclosed to the EPA and the Office of Personnel Management that, when he was hired by Pruitt in April 2017, he was also under investigation by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) for possibly violating banking laws and regulations that contributed to significant losses for his bank .

The lawmakers also believe Kelly did not have the necessary qualifications to serve as Pruitt’s Superfund adviser. In the letter, Beyer and Connolly said there are “still-unexplained red flags” about Kelly that they believe the inspector general’s office should examine.

“At the time of his appointment by Administrator Pruitt, Mr. Kelly’s resume showed no qualification related to environmental regulation nor to the oversight of a government agency,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter. “Mr. Kelly’s only apparent connections to environmental regulation were his investments in companies deemed by the EPA to be responsible for the creation of Superfund sites and his longstanding friendship and financial relationship with Administrator Pruitt.”

EPA official blew off scheduled meeting with toxic Appalachian coal town

In recent weeks, Kelly has been working with Pruitt to help him survive allegations of ethics violations and corruption. In early April, Kelly failed to show up at a scheduled meeting with residents of a West Virginia town contaminated by toxic chemicals — Kelly stayed behind in Washington to help Pruitt deal with the fallout from the barrage of controversies.

Instead, Kelly sent his top assistant, Nick Falvo, to Minden, West Virginia, to hear from residents about why they believe the town should be placed on the Superfund program’s priorities list. Falvo told residents that Kelly would come back to visit Minden himself “once the storm in D.C. clears up,” referring to scandal-plagued Pruitt.

Kelly has also been criticized for his fossil fuel investments. He has held as much as $75,000 in financial stakes in several fossil fuel companies, including investments in Phillips 66, according to a financial disclosure report. The EPA deemed Phillips 66 responsible for contaminating Bayou Verdine in 2010, which is located in the Calcasieu estuary in Lake Charles, Louisiana. And more recently, in 2016 Phillips 66 was among a group of companies forced to pay to clean up the Portland Harbor Superfund site — a process which is expected to take 30 years.

And previously, Kelly headed SpiritBank which is based in Pruitt’s hometown of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Last year, though, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) reached a settlement with Kelly over alleged wrongdoing. The FDIC issued an order in July 2017 that banned Kelly from the banking industry for life for violating federal banking laws.

“Despite such severe action from a federal financial institution, Mr. Kelly now oversees a landmark environmental program with a budget of $1 billion,” Beyer and Connolly wrote in their letter to the EPA’s inspector general.

Rep. Don Beyer: One of the worst parts of Scott Pruitt’s scandal-ridden tenure at the EPA is the way he has brought in staff from industry – or simply friends without qualifications – to oversee career EPA workers dedicated to environmental protection. One of them is named Albert Kelly.

The congressmen urged the inspector general to investigate Kelly’s “fitness to manage the EPA Superfund program and whether his appointment followed appropriate procedures, given the serious findings and disciplinary action by the FDIC.”

While Kelly served as president, CEO and chairman of the family-owned SpiritBank, the bank provided Pruitt with four loans in 2003 and 2004, totaling nearly $1 million. As longtime friends, Kelly helped Pruitt get financing for a mortgage and to buy a minor league baseball team.

Last May, Pruitt returned the favor to Kelly with an announcement that he would be appointing the former banker to head a new Superfund task force, The Intercept reported in December. The task force looked into reprioritizing and streamlining procedures for remediating more than 1,300 Superfund sites.

Two people who helped Scott Pruitt buy an Oklahoma City house now hold top jobs at the EPA

The task force in June 2017 issued a nearly three dozen-page report containing 42 recommendations, all of which Pruitt immediately adopted, according to the Associated Press.

Beyer and Connolly want the inspector general to investigate whether Kelly violated EPA policy by failing to document the meetings of the Superfund Task Force and to properly record its activities.

The creation and retention of records related to the task force and providing the public with access to the records is required under the Federal Records Act and the EPA’s Records Management Policy.

“Transparency and public accountability on such matters have been recurring problems for Administrator Pruitt’s team, and in this case may have included the violation of regulations or even federal law,” the lawmakers wrote.

Help protect the planet!

Help protect the planet with a $100 investment.

Investors have moved trillions of dollars into green and sustainable investing.

Help protect the planet with a $100 investment.

Posted by Aspiration on Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Investors have moved trillions of dollars into green and sustainable investing. Are you missing out with your dirty fuel investments?
Join thousands of new Aspiration investors.  Learn More
ASPIRATION.COM/REDWOOD

We need an economy that works for all of us, and not just a privileged few.

Social Security Works shared a video.

We need an economy that works for all of us, and not just a privileged few.

America is splitting between rich and poor

We need an economy that works for all of us, and not just a privileged few.

Posted by act.tv on Tuesday, April 24, 2018

To Prevent My Cancer From Returning, I Was Advised to Eat More Beans. No One Ever Mentioned Booze.

Mother Jones

To Prevent My Cancer From Returning, I Was Advised to Eat More Beans. No One Ever Mentioned Booze.

“One of the reasons that doctors don’t like to talk about it is that doctors like to drink.”

Mother Jones      April 20, 2018

Mother Jones; Getty Images

Alcohol can cause cancer. That’s the takeaway from Mother Jones senior reporter Stephanie Mencimer’s blockbuster piece that weaves together her own breast cancer diagnosis and the disturbing history of the alcohol industry downplaying the carcinogenic effects of drinking. For Bite podcast, host Kiera Butler caught up with Stephanie to talk about drinking during her teen years in Utah, how the liquor industry courts women, and why doctors still aren’t warning patients about the dangers of booze.

Mother Jones: How did you discover the link between drinking and cancer?

Stephanie Mencimer: I was diagnosed with lobular invasive carcinoma in April last year, and it came as a bit of a shock. I don’t think anyone gets cancer and thinks, “Yeah, I saw that coming.” Being a journalist, I thought, “Well, I wonder why this is happening to me.” It wasn’t because I was angry or bitter or anything, but I was just curious to know where I fit in the bigger picture. What are the risk factors for this disease that I now have? I started just Googling, of course, and I looked at all the risk factors. I went down the list, and the biggest risk factor was age. The average age of a breast cancer diagnosis is 62.

There are more than 100 studies over several decades that all come to the same conclusion that alcohol contributes to breast cancer.

That was a lot older than I was at the time. I didn’t think that was my risk factor. Taking hormone replacement therapy after menopause was also a big one, and I hadn’t hit menopause yet and had never taken those drugs. As I went through the list, there were a couple other things in there, like how early you start your period as a kid and how late you got to menopause and all that stuff. Then there was this one that really stuck out, and it was alcohol consumption.

I had no idea that alcohol was something that contributed to breast cancer. I was interested to know why I didn’t know. It wasn’t so much that I thought, “Oh, this has to be it. This is what caused my cancer.” I just wanted to know why I never found out about it until I got cancer and how is that possible. That’s what set me on the course of this research.

MJ: I think it’s really important to point out that the story that you wrote is not a health trends story. We’re so used to hearing, “Coffee is good for you. Now it’s bad for you. Eggs are bad for you. Now they’re good for you.” This is actually a case where there’s this really robust body of research over years and years that shows unequivocal results. What does the science say about the correlation between drinking and cancer right now?

SM: As you said, the science is really clear. There are more than 100 studies over [several decades] that all come to the same conclusion that alcohol contributes to breast cancer. It’s the most common cancer among women except for [skin] cancer. Alcohol contributes to about 15 percent of those [cases]. In real numbers, that’s quite a few, about 35,000 cases in a year.

There is a pretty clear biological mechanism for why alcohol is carcinogenic. It really does some pretty serious damage to the DNA in your cells, especially in places like your mouth where it can work with enzymes there to really mess up the cells and the DNA in your mouth and your esophagus. Then for breast cancer, there is a double whammy. Alcohol raises estrogen levels in the body, and estrogen weirdly enough is kind of carcinogenic. It causes the cells in your breast tissue to reproduce or replicate faster. That creates more opportunities for tumors to develop.

MJ: Your particular history of drinking got you thinking even more about this.

It was like, “Let’s mix a bunch of awful stuff from our parents’ liquor cabinets, whatever we can get ahold of, and pour it in, call it a Slurpee, and drink it with a straw.”

SM: I had my first beer when I was 13. Which is kind of weird because I grew up in Utah where people are known for not drinking. But I wasn’t Mormon, and the culture around being a non-Mormon in Utah involved lots of alcohol. The person who gave me my first beer was actually my dad. We were out pheasant hunting. I remember it really vividly, getting in the car, and it was cold outside. He was like, “Here, have a Mickey’s Big Mouth.” That was kind of the attitude that people had toward alcohol around me from a pretty young age. I can’t say that I continued to drink a lot of beer at 13, but by the time I was 15, in high school, we were drinking a lot.

Maybe everybody’s like that, but I think that we were trying as this non-Mormon group of kids to not be like the missionaries in Utah. We really pounded stuff, and it wasn’t really like the kind of social drinking that you do when you’re older. It was like, “Let’s mix a bunch of awful stuff from our parents’ liquor cabinets, whatever we can get a hold of, and pour it in, call it a Slurpee, and drink it with a straw.” That set off my years of drinking. I don’t know if I ever drank quite as much as I did when I was in high school when I was an adult. I thought about that when I got cancer and discovered that alcohol was a carcinogen and thought, “Wow, I’ve been exposed to this substance for a really long time.”

MJ: It sounds like from your piece that for women and breast cancer, that early drinking period is particularly important and particularly detrimental.

SM: Breast tissue doesn’t fully mature until a woman gets pregnant. You have a lot of cells that reproduce pretty quickly and robustly for those years, however long it is. If you never get pregnant, that in itself is a risk for breast cancer. There’s some evidence that suggests that it’s because those breast cells never mature fully, and it makes them really vulnerable to carcinogens.

Researchers had data from women who were exposed to radiation from the nuclear bomb in Nagasaki. Women who had been under the age of 20 who were exposed to radiation had way more breast cancer than women who were over 40. The researchers deduced that this was a vulnerable time for breast tissue for women. If you start drinking when you’re quite young before you’ve had children and doing a lot of it, actually, it can cause benign breast disease first, which I don’t think people really realize. Anyone who’s ever had to deal with a mammogram that involves dense breast tissue, well, alcohol can make that happen. Even though you don’t have cancer, it can still make it harder for mammograms to do their job to pick up on the tumors. It works in a whole bunch of insidious ways for younger women that I think is really powerful.

MJ: The most disturbing piece of this is that you found that the alcohol industry is actually working hard to downplay this science. Can you tell me a little more about that?

Instead of talking about the risks that come along with alcohol, they have really pushed hard to market alcohol as a health product.

SM: Instead of talking about the risks that come along with alcohol, they have really pushed hard to market alcohol as a health product, which is kind of ironic. It’s a really audacious marketing strategy to take something that kills almost 90,000 people a year, and that includes cancer but like also car crashes and accidents and things like that, to take that and say, “Hey, this is actually something you should drink every day because it’s good for you, and it might protect you from heart disease or from dementia.”

MJ: And they’ve actually tried really hard to get women into drinking more.

SM: Per capita alcohol consumption in the United States peaked in about 1981 or 1982. The industry then really got hammered because there were a lot of drunk driving tests that came along with that. Public health people pushed back and passed a bunch of laws to enforce underage drinking laws, to raise the legal drinking limit to 21. There was a lot of fetal alcohol syndrome work back then in the ’80s, and it was pretty effective so that by the mid-’90s, per capita alcohol consumption in the US had really plummeted. I think by like ’97, you can see it’s a real dip. People really just weren’t drinking as much at that point.

There’s just more of a culture of drinking, I think, for men than there was for women. The industry looked at all that and was like, “Wow, here’s a growth market.”

The industry was trying to figure out what to do about it, because they were losing money. They’re not selling as many products, and so I think that what happened is they looked at the data. Historically, women have always drunk a lot less than men. We metabolize it differently. It affects us more. There’s just more of a culture of drinking, I think, for men than there was for women. The industry looked at all that and was like, “Wow, here’s a growth market.” They set about to really push drinking on women. They came up with products for them, special types of like alcopops, sweetened malt beverages. Because women, I guess historically, don’t like the taste of beer. They created these things they marketed to young women.

It was quite a concerted effort to get women to drink more like men, and it worked. Today, [teen] girls are more likely to drink than the boys are, and that’s true of college students, too.

MJ: You have this whole part of your story where you talk about when you were diagnosed, you were sent to go meet with a nutritionist who was going to give you this anti-cancer diet.

SM: That was one of the more depressing moments of my cancer treatment, when I learned all the things that I was supposed to do to keep it from coming back. This very nice nutritionist gave me a list of things that I should do and not do; I needed a spreadsheet to really keep track of it all. I was supposed to eat cruciferous vegetables four to five times a week. I was supposed to have tofu or some sort of natural soy three times a week. She wanted me to eat 30 grams of fiber a day, which is almost impossible to do even if you’re eating a lot of lettuce because it’s a really high number, so she said, “Beans, you have to eat all these beans in order to hit that target.”

After an hour of this conversation about all the ways I should modify my diet to fight cancer, not once did she ever bring up alcohol. I talked to an oncology researcher who said, “That’s really funny because there’s a lot more data about why you shouldn’t drink alcohol than there is about eating tofu or broccoli as part of your anti-cancer diet.”

MJ: How do we compare in the United States to other countries when it comes to how much people know about this connection between alcohol and cancer?

SM: Other countries are actually doing quite a bit more than we are. One of the most interesting things I’ve found was that when the tobacco wars were really heating up, there was money that went into campaigns to do counter-advertising to combat the tobacco industry’s marketing, especially toward young people. There were ads about smoking, like the Marlboro man coughing and dying of cancer and those sorts of things, and ads that showed what smoking really did to people to make it look less sexy to counter what the tobacco industry was doing.

In England, and also in Australia, some of the cancer groups there have started doing the same thing around alcohol. They’ve run some ads where there’s a great one where they have a guy drinking a beer, and in the bottom of the glass is a tumor. It shows him sipping away at this glass, and the narrator goes on about why alcohol causes cancer, and then the guy swallows the tumor. His little kids are running around in the background.

Here in the United States, cancer groups actually join up with the alcohol industry to raise money. I found a whole bunch of places, like at Georgetown Hospital here in D.C. They have a wine and women fundraiser for their Lombardi Cancer Center. Breast cancer especially—a lot of the charities raise money through craft brew events or wine events. That’s not happening so much overseas. Other countries are doing things that will help prevent cancer by reducing alcohol consumption, like really basic stuff like raising taxes on booze, which in the United States, not only have we not raised alcohol taxes in a really long time—in the tax bill this year, they just slashed them even further. Our alcohol taxes now are lower than they were in the 1950s.

Our alcohol taxes now are lower than they were in the 1950s.

MJ: What does the science say about men’s drinking and their cancer risk?

SM: Men don’t get off the hook on this one. Alcohol for men causes more than 50 percent of all mouth and lip and throat and esophageal cancer. It causes 16 percent of all colon cancer in men, and that’s the big one because there are a lot of colon cancers. Men don’t get breast cancer like women do, and because it’s hormone related, it’s not really such an issue for them, but it’s still a problem. Esophageal cancer isn’t that common, but it’s pretty astonishing that 50 to 55 percent of all those cancers are caused by drinking. I really don’t think people appreciate that, and it’s especially true for men.

MJ: One thing that as I talk about your piece with my friends and my colleagues, we can’t shake this chilling feeling that for many of us, the damage has already been done. For me, for example, I’m 38. I had my baby right before I turned 36, at which point I had been drinking alcohol since college. Even if I quit drinking right now, would it even have any effect on my cancer risk?

SM: There is good news on that front. It’s like smoking. If you quit, your risk starts to go down. There hasn’t been as much research on this, and I imagine this would be some place that people are going to start digging into now that it’s so clear that alcohol causes cancer. Your risk will definitely go down. If you figure that things like breast cancer don’t start to show up in people a lot of times till you’re 70 years old, that gives you another 30-some years of drinking that could still give you cancer.

I don’t think that anyone is really recommending prohibition or don’t drink at all, but the government recommendations and sober scientists, they’ll say, “If you don’t drink, don’t start, but if you do drink, you should stick to the guidelines,” which say that if you have only one drink a day or less, that you’re probably going to be fine. I think that we don’t all just live to prevent cancer. I don’t want to be a total killjoy. One drink a day probably isn’t going to make your life that much shorter, but don’t have seven drinks on Saturday. I think that if people stayed within that guideline, they’d be in pretty good shape. They’d certainly be better off than they are now.

MJ: Right. One of your sources was somebody who talks to college kids about the risks of binge drinking, and she observed that she would talk to these kids, and then she would see them going out that same night and getting wasted. It seems we need to change how we’re talking to our kids about it from a much earlier age.

One of the reasons that doctors don’t like to talk about it is that doctors like to drink. There are quite a few wine companies that are owned by doctors.

SM: I think a big part of that is going to be up to the medical profession because in my experience, even going through cancer treatment—and I see my oncologist every three months—they just never talk about alcohol. Part of that is because the industry has really targeted doctors with the message that alcohol can reduce heart attacks. They distribute studies to doctors to make sure they see all that stuff about red wine, but the doctors really haven’t gotten the message that alcohol is carcinogenic.

Especially for young women, it’s such a big deal. I think that the American Society of Oncologists is trying to remedy this problem because they did a study about how few people really understand the risk of alcohol and cancer. They put out a paper saying, “Here’s all the evidence. Here’s why we need to talk to our patients about this.” They also said that one of the reasons that doctors don’t like to talk about it is that doctors like to drink. There are quite a few wine companies that are owned by doctors.

People will listen to their doctors, even if you’re a teenager or a college student. If your doctor says, “Look, this is going to give you breast cancer if you don’t cut way back,” I think that people are not stupid. They will take that into consideration and make some changes.

FACT:

Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn’t fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jonesplease join us with a tax-deductible donation so we can keep on doing the type of journalism that 2018 demands.