Friday, April 28, 2006

THE TRAGEDY OF THE KOROSKO

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is best known for his Sherlock Holmes books, but he wrote many other books such as The Lost World which he preferred and considered better work. I highly recommend these other books, in particular the White Company and Sir Nigel, but one of these “forgotten” Doyle books is one called the Tragedy of the Korosko. Set in Egypt during the time of the Madhi (with his "dervishes" - Wahabbist muslim radicals) and the uprising against British rule, this is the tale of a cruise down the Nile to see historical sites that goes bad.

Early in The Tragedy of the Korosko is a discussion that takes place between some of the characters while still on the boat traveling south on the Nile. This discussion has eerie echoes today and I think it's a great read in addition to being very topical.

In the first two chapters there is a discussion of world politics between a Frenchman, two British men, and an American which show how although the world has changed much in just over a century, some things have not.

The Characters:

Mons. Fardet – “good natured but argumentative Frenchman, who held the most decided views as to the deep machinations of Great Britain and the illegality of her position in Egypt.”
John Headingly – “a New Englander, a graduate of Harvard, who was completing his education by a tour round the world.”
Colonel Cochrane – “was one of those officers whom the British Government, acting upon a large system of averages, declares at a certain age to be incapable of further service, and who demonstrate the worth of such a system by spending their declining years in exploring Morocco, or shooting lions in Somaliland.”
Cecil Brown – “was a young diplomatist from the Continental Embassy, a man slightly tainted with the Oxford manner, and erring upon the side of unnatural and inhuman refinement, but full of interesting talk and cultured thought.”

End of Chapter 1, Headingly and Fadet talk about the existence of Dervishes and the role of England in Egypt.

“Dervishes, Mister Headingly!” said he, speaking excellent English, but separating his syllables as a Frenchman will. “There are no Dervishes. They do not exist.”

“Why, I thought the woods were full of them,” said the American.
Monsieur Fardet glanced across to where the red core of Colonel Cochrane’s cigar was glowing through the darkness.

“You are an American, and you do not like the English,” he whispered. “It is perfectly comprehended upon the Continent that the Americans are opposed to the English.”

“Well,” said Headingly, with his slow deliberate manner, “I won’t say that we have not had our tiffs, and that there are some of our people – mostly of Irish stock – who are always mad with England; but the most of us have a kindly thought for the mother country. You see, they may be aggravating folk sometimes, but after all they are our own folk, and we can’t wipe that off the slate.”

“Eh bien!” said the Frenchman. “At least I can say to you what I could not without offence say to these others. And I repeat there are no Dervishes. They were an invention of Lord Cromer in the year 1885.”

“You don’t say!” cried Headingly

“It is well known in Paris, and has been exposed in La Patrie and other of our so well-informed papers.”

“But this is colossal,” said Headingly.”

“Do you mean to tell me, Monsieur Fardet, that the siege of Khartoum and the death of Gordon and the rest of it was just one great bluff?”

“I will not deny that there was an emeute, but it was local, you understand, and now long forgotten. Since then there has been profound peace in the Soudan.”

“But I have heard of raids, Monsieur Fardet, and I’ve read of battles, too, when the Arabs tried to invade Egypt. It was only two days ago that we passed Toski, where the dragoman said there had been a fight. Is that all bluff also?”

“Pah, my friend, you do not know the English. You look at them as you see them with their pipes and their contented faces, and you say, ‘Now these are good simple folk who will never hurt anyone.’ But all the time they are thinking and watching and planning. ‘Here is Egypt weak,’ they cry. ‘Allons!’ and down they swoop like a gull on a crust. ‘You have no right there,’ says the world. ‘Come out of it!’ But England has already begun to tidy everything, just like the good Miss Adams when she forces her way into the house of an Arab. ‘Come out,’ says the world. ‘Certainly,’ says England; ‘just one little minute until I have made everything nice and proper.’ So the world waits for a year or so, and then it says once again, ‘Come out.’ ‘Just wait a little,’ says England; ‘there is trouble at Khartoum, and when I have set that all right I shall be very glad to come out.’ So they wait until it is all over, and then again they say, ‘Come out.’ ‘How can I come out,’ says England, ‘when there are still raids and battles going on? If we were to leave Egypt would be run over.’ ‘But there are no raids,’ says the world. ‘Oh, are there not?’ says England, and then within a week sure enough the papers are full of some new raid of Dervishes. We are not all blind, Mister Headingly. We understand very well how such things can be done. A few Bedouins, a little backsheesh, some blank cartridges, and, behold-a raid!”

“Well, well,” said the American, “I’m glad to know the rights of this business, for it has often puzzled me. But what does England get out of it?”

“She gets the country, monsieur.”

“I see. You mean, for example, that there is a favourable tariff for British goods?”

“No, monsieur; it is the same for all.”

“Well then, she gives the contracts to Britishers?”

“Precisely, monsieur.”

“For example, the railroad that they are building through the country, the one that runs alongside the river, that would be a valuable contract for the British?”
Monsieur Fardet was an honest man, if an imaginative one.

“It is a French company, monsieur, which holds the railway contract,” said he.
The American was puzzled.

“They don’t seem to get much for their trouble,” said he. “Still, of course, there must be some indirect pull somewhere. For example, Egypt no doubt has to pay and keep all those red-coats in Cairo.”

“Egypt, monsieur! No, they are paid by England.”
Well, I suppose they know their own business best, but it seems to me to take a great deal of trouble, and to get mighty little in exchange. If they don’t mind keeping order and guarding the frontier, with a constant war against the Dervishes on their hands, I don’t know why anyone should object. I suppose no one denies that the prosperity of the country has increased enormously since they came. They tell me, also, that the poorer folks have justice, which they never had before.”

“What are they doing here at all?” cried the Frenchman, angrily. “Let them go back to their island. We cannot have them all over the world.”

“Well, certainly to us Americans who live in our own land it does seem strange how you European nations are for ever slopping over into some other country which was not meant for you. It’s easy for us to talk, of course, for we have still got room and to spare for all our people. When we start pushing each other over the edge we will have to start annexing also. But at present just here in North Africa there is Italy in Abyssinia, and England in Egypt, and France in Algiers---“

“France!” cried Monsieur Fardet. “Algiers belongs to France. You laugh monsieur. I have the honor to wish you a very good-night.” He rose from his seat, and walked off, rigid with outraged patriotism, to his cabin.


Chapter 2 - (excerpts)

The young American hesitated for a little, debating in his mind whether he should not go down and post up the daily record of his impressions which he kept for his home-staying sister. But the cigars of Colonel Cochrane and of Cecil Brown were still twinkling in the far corner of the deck, and the student was acquisitive in the search of information. He did not quite know how to lead up to the matter, but the Colonel very soon did it for him.

“Come on, Headingly,” said he, pushing a camp-stool in his direction. “This is the place for an antidote. I see that Fardet has been pouring politics into your ear.”

“I can always recognise the confidential stoop of his shoulders when he discusses la haute politique,” said the dandy diplomatist.

“But what a sacrilege upon a night like this! What a nocturne in blue and silver might be suggested by that moon rising above the desert. There is a movement in one of Mendelssohn’s songs which seems to embody it all, ---a sense of vastness, of repetition, the cry of the wind over an interminable expanse. The subtler emotions which cannot be translated into words are still to be hinted at by chords and harmonies.”

“It does seem more savage then ever tonight,” remarked the American. “It gives me the same feeling of pitiless force that the Atlantic does upon a cold, dark, winter day. Perhaps it is the knowledge that we are right there on the very edge of any kind of law or order. How far do you suppose we are from any Dervishes, Colonel Cochrane?”

“Well, on the Arabian side,” said the Colonel, “we have the Egyptian fortified camp of Sarras about forty miles to the south of us. Beyond that are sixty miles of very wild country before you would come to the Dervish post at Akasheh. On this other side, however, there is nothing between us and them.”

“Abousir is on this side, is it not?”

“Yes. That is why the excursion to the Abousir Rock has been forbidden for the last year. But things are quieter now.”

“What is to prevent them from coming down on that side?”

“Absolutely nothing,” said Cecil Brown in his listless voice.

“Nothing, except their fears. The coming, of course, would be absolutely simple. The difficulty would lie in the return. They might find it hard to get back if their camels were spent and the Halfa garrison with their beasts fresh got on their track. They know it as well as we do, and it has kept them from trying.”

“It isn’t safe to reckon upon a Dervish’s fears,” remarked Brown. “We must always bear in mind that they are not amenable to the same motives as other people. Many of them are anxious to meet death, and all of them are absolute, uncompromising believers in destiny. They exist as a reduction ad absurdum of all bigotry, ---a proof of how surely it leads towards blank barbarism.”

“You think these people are a real menace to Egypt?” asked the American. “There seems from what I have heard to be some difference of opinion about it. Monsieur Fardet, for example does not seem to think that the danger is a very pressing one.”

“I am not a rich man,” Colonel Cochrane answered, after a little pause, “but I am prepared to lay all I am worth that within three years of the British officers being withdrawn, the Dervishes would be upon the Mediterranean. Where would the civilization of Egypt be? Where would the hundreds of millions be which have been invested in this country? where the monuments which all nations look upon as most precious memorials of the past?”

“Come now, Colonel,” cried Headingly, laughing, “surely you don’t mean that they would shift the pyramids?”

“You cannot foretell what they would do. There is no iconoclast in the world like an extreme Mohammedan. Last time they overran this country they burned the Alexandrian library. You know that all representations of the human features are against the letter of the Koran. A statue is always an irreligious object in their eyes. What do these fellows care for the sentiment of Europe? The more they could offend it the more delighted they would be. Down would go the Sphinx, the Colossi, the Statues of Abou-Simbel, ---as the saints went down in England before Cromwell’s troopers.”

"Well now,” said Headingly, in his slow, thoughtful fashion, “suppose I grant you that the Dervishes could overrun Egypt, and suppose also that you English are holding them out, what I’m asking is, what reason have you for spending all these millions of dollars and the lives of so many of your men? What do you get out of it, more than France gets, or Germany, or any other country, that runs no risk and never lays out a cent?”

“There are a good many Englishmen who are asking themselves that question,” remarked Cecil Brown. “It’s my opinion that we have been the policemen of the world long enough. We policed the seas for pirates and slavers. Now we police the land for Dervishes and brigands and every sort of danger to civilisation. There is never a mad priest of a witch doctor, or a firebrand of any sort on this planet, who does not report his appearance by sniping at the nearest British officer. One tires of it at last. If a Kurd breaks loose in Asia Minor, the world wants o know why Great Britain does not keep him in order. If there is a military mutiny in Egypt, or a Jehad in the Soudan, it is still Great Britain who has to set it right. And all to an accompaniment of curses such as the policeman gets when he seizes a ruffian among his pals. We get hard knocks and no thanks, and why should we do it? Let Europe do its own dirty work.”

“Well,” said Colonel Cochrane, crossing his legs and leaning forward with the decision of a man who has definite opinions, “I don’t at all agree with you, Brown, and I think that to advocate such a course is to take a very limited view of our national duties. I think that behind national interests and diplomacy and all that there lies a great guiding force, --a Providence, in fact, --which is for ever getting the best out of each nation and using it for the good of the whole. When a nation ceases to respond, it is time that she went into hospital for a few centuries, like Spain or Greece, ---the virtue has gone out of her. A man or a nation is not here upon this earth merely to do what is pleasant and profitable. It is often called upon to carry out what is unpleasant and unprofitable; but if it is obviously right, it is mere shirking not to undertake it.”
Headingly nodded approvingly.

“Each has it’s own mission. Germany is predominant in abstract thought; France in literature, art, and grace. But we and you, --for the English-speakers are all in the same boat, however much the New York Sun may cream over it, --we and you have among our best men a higher conception of moral sense and public duty than is to be found in any other people. Now, these are the two qualities which are needed for directing a weaker race. You can’t help them by abstract thought or by graceful art, but only by that moral sense which will hold the scales of Justice even, and keep itself free from every taint of corruption. That is how we rule India. We came there by a kind of natural law, like air rushing into a vacuum. All over the world, against our direct interests and our deliberate intentions, we are drawn into he same thing. And it will happen to you also. The pressure of destiny will force you to administer the whole of America from Mexico to the Horn.”
Headingly whistled.

“Our Jingoes would be pleased to hear you, Colonel Cochrane,” said he. “They’d vote you into our senate and make you one of the Committee on Foreign Relations.”

“The world is small, and it grows smaller every day. It’s a single organic body, and one spot of gangrene is enough to vitiate the whole. There’s no room upon it for dishonest, tyrannical, irresponsible Governments. As long as they exist they will always be centres of trouble and of danger. But there are many races which appear to be so incapable of improvement that we can never hope to get a good Government out of them. What is to be done, then? The former device of Providence in such a case was extermination by some more virile stock. An Attila or a Tamerlane pruned off the weaker branch. Now, we have a more merciful substitution of rulers, or even of mere advice from a more advanced race. That is the case with the Central Asian Khanates and with the protected States of India. If the work has to be done, and if we are the best fitted for the work, then I think that it would be cowardice and a crime to shirk it.”

“But who is to decide whether it is a fitting case for your interference?” objected the American.

“A predatory country could grab every other land in the world upon such a pretext.”

“Events – inexorable, inevitable events – will decide it. Take this Egyptian business as an example. In 1881 there was nothing in this world further from the minds of our people than any interference with Egypt; and yet 1882 left us in possession of the country. There was never any choice in the chain of events. A massacre in the streets of Alexandria, and the mounting of guns to drive out our fleet – which was there, you understand, in fulfillment of solemn treaty obligations – led to the bombardment. The bombardment lead to the landing to save the city from destruction. The landing caused an extension of operations – and here we are, with the country upon our hands. At the time of trouble we begged and implored the French or any one else to come and help us set the thing to rights, but they all deserted us when there was work to be done, though they were ready to scold and to impede us now. When we tried to get out of it, up came this wild Dervish movement, and we had to sit tighter than ever. We never wanted the task; but now that is has come, we must put it through in a workmanlike manner. We’ve brought justice into the country, and purity of administration, and protection for the poor man. It has made more advance in the last twelve years than since the Moslem invasion in the seventh century. Except the pay of a couple of hundred men, who spend their money directly in the country, England has neither directly nor indirectly made a shilling out of it, and I don’t believe you will find in history a more successful and more disinterested bit of work.”


SAFE NEWS

One of the complaints that is sometimes leveled against the news media's coverage of events in Iraq is that they aren't going out and getting news, but are rather staying safe in hotels and bars and relying on contacts for their information. Iraq can be a dangerous place, and it may be understandable why someone might be reluctant to travel much, but at the same time when it is your job, that becomes a problem.

Q and O blog has a blog entry on this subject, responding to the Editor & Publisher article by Bruce Kesler entitled "Is the Media covering Iraq on the cheap?"
Journalists are reviled by many for alleged negativism and over-focus on bad news in Iraq. Or perhaps the problem is: Their employers are just trying to do it on the cheap. Ironically, the same media that criticizes the U.S. for sending too few troops to stabilize Iraq send too few reporters to cover much more than the dramatic bombings around Baghdad.
A pretty startling admission. And as many have suggested, most of those that do go concentrate in Baghdad. The result, as one reporter explained, is predictable:
If truth is journalism's goal, cheapness within journalism undermines it. Embedded reporter Paul McLeary wrote in Columbia Journalism Review not long ago, "In Iraq, the untold stories pile up, one by one by one," because "there just aren't enough of them [journalists] to give the conflict its due."
"Boring" and not "newsworthy" are excuses. "Dangerous" is why they're not covered. I wonder what Ernie Pyle would say to that if he were alive today?

McQ goes on to point out that the embedded reporter concept has been largely abandoned, at least in part due to the cost.

Commenters examined the article as well:
Perceived danger is important in the reluctance of reporters to get out and about. Most reporters in Iraq stay close to Baghdad, and that’s where the bloody news and contentious politics are, often staged for their coverage. Articles about boring days patrolling peacefully in other 15 provinces, or of Iraqis rebuilding, are not considered as newsworthy.
"Boring" and not "newsworthy" are excuses. "Dangerous" is why they’re not covered. I wonder what Ernie Pyle would say to that if he were alive today?
He’d probably say,
"Damn!"
Perceived dangers!? Patrolling peacefully in the other fifteen provinces!?
Hardly,
Journalists killed on Duty: 68
By Location:
• Anbar province (Fallujah, Ramadi): 4
• Nineveh province (Mosul): 11
• Baghdad province: 34
• Saleheddin province (Samara): 4
• Basrah province: 3
• Diyala province (Baqubah): 2
• Arbil province: 6
• Karbala province: 1
• Najaf province: 1
• Sulaymaniya province: 1
• Unclear: 1
Damn!
Say what you may of the mistakes made both militarily and politically in Iraq, but when all is said and done, it is my opinion the MSM’s coverage of the war will be found wanting as well. It has been much less than their finest hour.
Okay, then. It’s well known around here that you think the MSM is lacking. Tell us, McQ. What was their finest hour?
-by PogueMahone


It is evident that you are laboring under the quaint and outdated notion that "journalism" must be based on facts and reality. In todays virtual journalism, it has ben proven that a quality and cost-efficient journalistic product can be produced in the comfort of a television studio, and that although facts are a nice thing to have, they are not entirely necessary.
-timactual


Personally, I’m compelled to partially agree with Pogue. The total number of dead journalists does have a bearing on the perception of danger, regardless of nationality. After all, you won’t find me vacationing in the Sudan anytime soon, yet there have been almost zero US deaths there.

OTOH, 34 dead (non-Baghdad) out of (Pogue’s made-up number) 10,000 journalists is really not that dangerous. How many journalists died in the US between 2003-2006? Now, 34 dead journalists out of 50 (my made up number) that went into the countryside would be a large deterrent to any rational person. Of course, many of the things our soldiers do would be comsidered irrational, surely the journalists can face a relatively low-risk environment to get to the truth? Or are they simply interested in following their agenda?
-by Ken


Pogue, I’m not sure about your stat. From the web page you linked:
CPJ considers a journalist to be killed on duty if the person died as a result of a hostile action—such as reprisal for his or her work, or crossfire while carrying out a dangerous assignment.
The page goes on to say that 49 of the 68 dead journalists were Iraqi, but gives no details on how they died. It could be that they weren’t killed while patrolling, but rather at some other time. In short, the stat you quoted doesn’t show how US journalists are in a great deal of danger, or that journalists on patrol are in some great peril.
-by Steverino


And whilst I understand that the threat of death or mutilation IS a deterrent, still Pogue and others, I am CONSTANTLY informed by the MSM that they perform a VITAL duty for the US, presenting the news and informing us...

I guess it’s the hypocrisy that bothers me. Yes, Woodward and Bernstein are heroes, they saved us from something bad, and by extension so too are all journalists, EXCEPT when there’s a real chance of damage, they chicken out.

Being important, a savior, a spot-light, by definition, means RISK. Only, when the chance comes for them to actually BE these Information Age heroes, they wimp out. Sure they are all very brave, inside the US where there’s not much risk, but when they actually have to cover something that isn’t so safe, they quit. It’s like Martin Luther King, confronted with the very real risk of death he persevered, where many others, white and black quailed. That’s why he’s a HERO. If it were easy, we’d all do it.

I just want the MSM to own up to its feet of clay or to live up to its hype. Right now it just looks pitiful.
-by Joe

Huh!? So if, for the sake of argument, there are, or have been, ten thousand reporters in Iraq, and only 68 are dead, making it a minute 0.68% of the total…, tell me again how that make Iraq less dangerous?
42,636 people died in the US last year driving on the highways.

Good God, I put my life on the line every time I drive somewhere. Of course, there are 200 million citizens of driving age in the US so maybe the statistical danger is less than you would think from the raw number of deaths.

D’ya get my point, old man?
-by Mark A. Flacy

D’ya get my point, old man?
No, no. Make no mistake. I got the point. I just don’t understand why it’s relevant. Not all journalists venture outside of the green zone. So knowing the total number of journalists in Iraq is useless. What? You don’t think it’s dangerous there?
....how about so the American people can be informed and know what is going on?
Ah, yes, shark. The old conservative’s sense of entitlement. Look like there’s a market niche for ya’ shark. Why don’t you start a news organization? I’ll bet you can get many investors around here. Then you can parade right through the streets of Mosul and Baghdad telling us the TRUTH about what’s going on in Iraq. And I’ll bet you’ll be famous, what with your blindfolded face appearing on Al Jazeera. Then you could write a book about it. If of course you live through it.
Go on shark, what’s stopping you? Steverino, you too buddy. Your country needs you. Take off that chef’s apron and grab a pencil, ‘cause it’s off to Basra with you. What’s that you say? Oh… “family and children” I see. Never mind, we’ll send others in your stead.

It’s obvious that many of you feel that journalists are cheap, lazy, bias, and cowards to boot. And it takes a special kind of courage to say that, you know… the kind of courage that only comes with a keyboard and mouse.
-by PogueMahone


The old conservative’s sense of entitlement


LOL it’s s sense of entitlement to expect journalists to report relevant facts, something which is their (self-styled) JOB DESCRIPTION?? Wow...
Go on shark, what’s stopping you? Steverino, you too buddy. Your country needs you. Take off that chef’s apron and grab a pencil, ‘cause it’s off to Basra with you. What’s that you say? Oh… “family and children” I see. Never mind, we’ll send others in your stead
I don’t get it...is this a pathetic takeoff on the "chickenhawk" canard? Is that really the best you can do? TSK TSK, such a craven tactic, but I guess it’s to be expected from such as you. Hey, the MSM can cover the war any way they want but they misrepresent. They’re the ones who make all the noise about their noble profession, how they write the "first draft of history", how they chronicle the truth for the public blah blah blah. But they don’t act up to their hype. So either go traverse through a damn minefield to get to a new school in Mosul or stay at the green zone hotel, rely on former Baathist fixers and inteperters and staged news events from the insurgents- but in that case drop the bullsh*t misrepresentation of what they’re doing and be honest for once.
-by Shark
Ultimately, it is a reporter's job to gather news, and in many places that is a dangerous proposition - whether in Cambodia in the 1970's covering the Killing Fields, or in Detroit covering gang violence, or in Iraq covering the rebuilding of a nation. It was once considered a mark of bravery, courage, and honor to get into the danger and cover a story, but in Iraq it appears that the story is not so interesting to the reporters and too expensive to deal with properly for the media.

Quote of the day

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams

Comment Type #9

GUEST BLOG

The Guest Blog is a comment in which someone writes their own extended essays and long form post on the topic, often with careful research, links, and data as if they were writing their own blog. This kind of comment can be very informative and interesting, or it can be very long, dry, and even incomprehensible. Each type is the work that could have been done on one's own blog, but was instead done on another person's. Usually someone who does this either has no blog and is using the comments section of another blog to substitute.

Sometimes the writer has their own blog and is doing a rough draft of a later entry - or a cut and paste of their work on someone else's blog. Sometimes this is done without intending to, the work might have started as a short comment that grew and expanded. This comment might end up the basis of a blog article later.

These kinds of guest blogs can be acceptable and even beneficial to the community and the blogger because they draw interest, inform, and stimulate discussion. There is a kind of guest blog that is less welcome, however. There are posts that are long, detailed, and often have links or even extensive quotes from articles. In fact, they often consist of little more than an entire article cut from another website and pasted into the comment section. Often this is included with little more than a single line of introduction or even a taunt by the commenter.

Quoting part of an article and providing a link is acceptable internet etiquette and does not violate copyright laws. In fact, the writer will usually welcome the publicity and the links that it may generate. However, printing an entire opinion piece or article, especially a very long one, is quite unwelcome and annoying, not to mention a violation of copyright law. This kind of post, especially if it is done more than once, will tend to be skipped outright by readers and often commented on negatively. Whatever purpose beyond mere trolling it was meant to accomplish, it is a failure in.

In most cases, if you find yourself typing yet another magnum opus full of facts and data and links, you might want to consider creating your own blog - it's easy and fast with sites such as Blogger (which Word around the Net is hosted by) or Typepad. Then you can link your essays with a pertinent excerpt, and save space on the comment section, and time for you. Blogs such as the Guardian Watchblog came from exactly this kind of experience. Now when CavalierX wants to make a point he's written on before, he can just link his blog article.

Comment sections are for your input, ideas, and thoughts. Extended posts are acceptable and even welcome if they have good content or further the discussion and benefit the visitor to a given blog. But if you make it a habit to post extensively on someone else's blog, think about making your own and saving them bandwidth. If you post nonsense or huge articles, just think again.


Thursday, April 27, 2006

FREEDOM FROM SPEECH

While we in the United States are relatively free of the direct effects of riots and controversy regarding the Danish Muhammad Cartoons, Norway was very near ground zero and is struggling to deal with it's Muslim population like the rest of Europe. Bjørn Stærk has a blog from Norway which thankfully is primarily in English, and he examines the meaning and consequences of Free Speech in an essay entitled Believe what you say, Say what you believe. Here are some exerpts:

Vebjørn Selbekk, the Norwegian editor who printed Muhammed caricatures in January, has apologized for offending Norway's Muslims. The Swedish government has encouraged a web host provider to shut down a web site with similar pictures. Are we losing our freedom of speech?

The moment you ask that question, expecting a yes or no answer, you're off on the wrong track, the track where speech rights can be measured in a single number, and cultural disaster is always just a small increase or decrease away. Before you know it you'll be writing one of those tedious essays about how "we" have "forgotten" some value or principle or other, (decency, courage, rationality), and how you can't imagine how we'll ever pull out of this one.

The answer, in any case, is "it depends".

It's not a good answer, but that's the fault of a poor question. A more important lesson we can take with us from this is that it is a poor strategy to defend speech rights by saying things we do not believe.
...
True freedom of speech is related to democracy: By giving up my claim to absolute political power, I protect myself from oppression. In the same way, by giving up the right to impose my views on others, I ensure my right to express them. This is a subtle and paradoxical idea, which is why it is poorly understood, even among supposed defenders of democracy and speech.

Another lesson we should take from this is that speaking your mind has a price, and always will. Speech is free as in software, not as in beer. To learn the price of speech it is not enough to consider the law, you need to look at social pressure, the threat of being ridiculed and ignored and told you're a dangerous idiot if you say the wrong things. The law may allow you to claim that the Earth is flat, but if you believed such a thing, would you state it openly? Would you blog about it and send the link to your friends?
...
Just as there is more than one price for speech, people differ in their willingness to pay that price. Some will gladly embrace trite and inoffensive ideas so that they can be liked, others don't mind what the law or other people think. We should not blame this on the price alone, or say that if only there was no price then we could have freedom of speech. Being silent about your beliefs is a choice you make. The price varies, from very high in a tyranny to low or medium in a free society, but the choice of paying it remains yours.

There will always be a price for saying what someone do not want to hear, but the bright side of this is that just as the price never goes away, neither does the choice. If you are willing to be disliked and ridiculed, if you're willing to risk your job and your reputation, if you're willing to go to prison, then you will always be able to speak freely. If in addition you're willing to risk your life, (it'll end anyway), then you will be unbreakable.

So, have we lost our freedom of speech? Depends on what you're willing to pay for it. The price has increased a bit, but if you didn't think it too high before you probably still don't. Insist on your freedom, ignore censorship laws, social pressure and corporate pressure, and say what you believe. Then you'll have freedom of speech no matter what. And by ignoring the price of speech yourself, you may help lower it for those pitiable many who think any price is too high.

The commenters at his site had these insights:

As some readers of this blog may know (Well, Bjørn knows), I used to run a BBS back in the '90s. It was called "Arcade's BBS". Freedom of speech was strongly supported - and the few limits I imposed were on direct personal attacks, plus spamming.

We had the usual revisionists and other crazies posting their views. The revisionists were fun. I invited them to debate it. At first their arguments were quite difficult to reject (due to me not having heard them before) - but after using some lexicons and using maths to calculate ppm for Zyklon-B's lethality and so forth .. it was easy to disprove them. Then we discovered nizkor - and it was even more fun discussing with them.

My idea back then was quite simple. The only way to get to openly and freely discuss something - is to allow all views.

According to various news reports, muslims are frustrated about the european censorship when it comes to holocaust denial. Bwah! Just avoid discussing it in france and germany and they should be perfectly safe (I think?). Don't expect mainstream press though. The entire case for holocaust denial is ridiculous. "The Leuchter Report" has been debunked so well that it's laughable that anyones believes in it.

Now onto the case in point. The cartoons. Personally I'm willing to offend for freedom of speech. I've been on stands with Hedningesamfunnet on Karl Johan in the late 90's, making fun of christianity. It was quite obviously not as fun as earlier - as fewer people were enraged.

I think it's time to pull another stunt. We should start baiting both christians and muslims on stands. They should get shoved into their faces what their religions actually say. We should show the contradictions between Shi'a and Sunni variants. We should show them how the so called "hadith's" contradict how muslim practice their faiths. We should show them the double-morale of the muslim world.

And hey - we should show them that this is what we've already done to christianity.
-by Rune Kristian Viken


As you say, we should not provoke just for the sake of provoking. Still, we should support laws that allow equal rights to all opinions, even the ones we don't agree with. Pragmatically, how would you go about selling the case for full freedom of speech in Norway?
-by OEK

"Here's the deal: unless you know the price of offensiveness, and are willing to pay it, you should stay away from the front lines."

Well, in a real society where information is imperfect, this seems to me to be a pretty high bar to have to clear. This certainly hasn't been true in the US for quite some time; and, IMHO, ought not to be. It is well established in the US - and, btw; It is understood in the US that free speech rights must be secured in the most broadly understood sense. Free speech means nothing unless it is secured on behalf on even the most craven, thoughtless, base, venal and irrational. It cannot be the case that every time someone would like to opine that it potentially takes on the dimensions of some moral crusade. I think you have a very unhealthy society if the most ordinary among us feels compelled to continuously self censor what occurs to them.
-by Mark, Bellevue


Bjørn: As a dutchman, I'm trying to figure out where Pim Fortuyn, Ayaan Hirsch Ali or Theo van Gogh fit in in your line of thinking.

"There are some people we can rely on to hold the line, who will not give in to guilt or pressure. They're the ones who genuinely believe the stupid, offensive things they say. There are some people we can rely on to hold the line, who will not give in to guilt or pressure. They're the ones who genuinely believe the stupid, offensive things they say. Racists, Holocaust deniers, Islamists."

"Leaving the job of being truly offensive to the idiots is also a better way to promote freedom of speech."

We Dutch people were depending on Fortuyn, Hirsch Ali and van Gogh to hold the line (or in Ali's case, are), so I guess they fit in nicely amongst Racists, Holocaust deniers, Islamists and the very stupid.

Then comes the whole thing about the price of free speech, which baffles me too. Fair enough that there is a price to pay as in 'free software' (nice one) and I agree that there are many shades of gray. But, it's getting very clear that there are pitch dark blacks, too. Do you really want to say that 'it all depends' when people get killed because they made a film that offended some people? Is this a price we should even consider paying? The price has increased A BIT, indeed.

There is a limit to the responsibility one has for ones actions. Causing an effect does not necessary makes one responsible for that effect. If a girl with nice legs is wearing a mini-skirt, she should expect to turn some heads, she can, however, not be held responsible for the actions of some maniac that rapes her. Or does that all depends on the price she is willing to pay for wearing mini-skirts? Or maybe she's to blame because she should not, as OEK put's it, "provoke just for the sake of provoking"?
-by Taco


The proof that there should be no censorship is the Muslim view of Europe's laws on Holocaust denial. In the light of the defense of the cartoons they now view the countries that have made holocaust denial illegal as hypocritical. I think they are right.

I realized these Holocaust denial laws were a slippery slope when they were passed; I just wasn't sure how it would play out. Now I know that they will become the wedge for more censorship of ideas at the behest of offended groups. What's the answer? Repeal the censorship laws, develop a thick skin and be prepared to defend your ideas using the same free speech tools they are attacked with. Mockery of extreme ideas is also a great antidote to their widespread dissemination and acceptance. Just don't burn and butcher. Adherence to that lowers the bar so that people don't have to be as afraid to speak their minds, however poorly thought out their ideas/motivations may be.
-by Graham, Woodinville


Bjorn:

"In fact, unless you're willing to defend the speech rights of Holocaust deniers and Islamists, you have not understood freedom of speech."

Holocaust Deniers disqust me and Islamists even more so, but once you start denying the right of some to speak and not others then the rights of ALL are denied.

For me the free speech line is crossed not when someone says, "I hate them", it is, "I hate them, now lets go and kill them."

Bjorn, I will still take exeption to your use of the word Islamophobe, however. Out of a strange coincidence, Robert Spencer at jihadwatch.org had an interesting take on the use of the word today....be sure to scroll up if you are interested in reading it.
-by Zoe E USA


I think people need to keep in mind the difference between law and manners. In a free society, just because you are allowed to do something doesn't mean that you SHOULD do it. But by the same token, living in a free society also means that there are going to be rude and heedless people, which means that the rest of us just have to put up with it.

What gets my goat is that certain people want to impose their views on the rest of us, whether or not we subscribe to them. I would like to think I am a decent enough person not to deliberately insult someone else's deeply held beliefs, but that's an issue of my being polite and considerate. The other person doens't have the right to force me to do things his way.

With regard to the ex-Christian's comment: living in America, my instinct regarding freedom of speech is that prohibitions on any kind of speech (other than direct incitement to violence) are anathema - freedom of speech means nothing if it doesn't include freedom to say things that are disgusting to many people. So if it was up to me (which it isn't), I'd get rid of the European laws against denying the Holocaust. If people want to say stupid and hateful things, they have a right to say it, peacefully. But ex-Christian, that also means I have the right (should I so choose, which I don't) to say bad things about Muslims, Mohammad, abu-Bakr or anyone else - and you would have to put up with it just as I would have to put up with people denying the Holocaust or praising Hitler.

Although I don't think the laws against Holocaust denial are wise, I do understand the reason many European countries have them - Europe has a pretty sordid thousand-year history of murdering Jews, which ended in the Holocaust. With that sort of history I understand the perceived need to be vigilant against action that could lead to a repeat. And there is a pedagogical aspect of the Holocaust, too: it stands as an object lesson as to what happens when people - any people, not just Jews - are hated for their ethnic background. But I am still of the view that on balance it's better to let people say what they want, and subject their views to criticism or ridicule, than to suppress them. After all, discrediting Holocaust deniers is far more effective when their statements are disproved in open discourse than when their statements are never disproved at all because they are prohibited from making them.

Finally, ex-Christian, are you prepared to denounce the unbelievably disgusting anti-Jewish hatred that is regularly fomented in the Arab and Muslim press? If you're not, don't call other people hypocrites.
-by Stuart, New York


Ah, but WILL the European Muslims accept your argument? The behavior of the mobs in the streets seems to refute that. And their behavior is getting results, by intimidating the Europeans from exercising their free speech rights. If you're too cowed to say something, you're no longer free.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: Is is possible for the traditional European societies to co-exist with the Muslim immigrant societies that are growing rapidly in their midst? I've made the cuckoo's egg analogy before, where the cuckoo bird lays its eggs in another bird's nest and lets the other species of bird raise the cuckoo chicks, which then kick the parent birds' real chicks out of the nest to die.

And if something really IS dangerous, than fear of it is not a "phobia," it's completely rational.
-by Clyde



ALTERNATE FUELS

Popular Mechanics is becoming one of the most reliable, useful sources for information and mythbusting on the internet. I've long been skeptical of peoples' reliance on sites like Snopes although their information is typically accurate. But Popular Mechanics is a long-time, proven and reliable source for information since the 1930's. Their website has had two previous invaluable articles:

Debunking the Myths of 9/11
Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina

Now they have done an informative article on alternate fuels called How far can you drive on a bushel of corn?
In the lab, many gasoline alternatives look good. Out on the road, automotive engineers have a lot of work to do, and energy companies have new infrastructure to build, before very many people can drive off into a petroleum-free future. And, there's the issue of money. Too often, discussions of alternative energy take place in an alternative universe where prices do not matter.

For this special report, PM crunched the numbers on the actual costs and performance of each major alternative fuel. Before we can debate national energy policy--or even decide which petroleum substitutes might make sense for our personal vehicles--we need to know how these things stack up in the real world.
Ace of Spades Headquarters examines the article and notes that

While it seems, superficially, to be a sober analysis, it doesn't mention the costs associated with creating each type of fuel, or compare the energy-cost of creating the fuel to the cost of producing petroleum feul. I mean, if it takes 200 BTU's of electricity to produce 100 BTU's worth of ethanol, umm, we still have to produce that electricity in the first place, right?

It mentions the energy investment for some "fuels," like electricity, which is a fuel but not a source of energy; it's just a form of energy created by consuming some other source. But it doesn't detail the energy investment associated with all of them. At least not in a detailed or rigorous way.

Commenters had this to say:
The problem with alcohols is they have lower energy density than ordinary gas...you gotta carry more of it to do the same amount of work.
-by Purple Avenger


I'm excited about fuels synthesized from bio-mass, like giblets and dead stuff. I hope there's a no-questions-asked policy, or at least late-night drop-off.
-by Spongeworthy


This kind of misses the point a little. If ethanol can provide a means of reducing the need for foreign liquids than why not do it- even if it means subsidizing it.
AND
How efficient it is as a fuel depends on the analysis. One analysis (Pimentel) assumes fermentation as the only method, assumes only fossil fuels for harvest (as opposed to biodiesel) and includes the energy needed to make tractors.
There are other methods.
-by DrJohn


Ethanol, like hydrogen, is just an energy storage and transport mechanism. Even if it took more energy to make alcohol than it delivers, it could still be a good bet IF the energy used to make it was cheap enough, or at least, cheaper than oil or gas. Nukes anyone?

Tob
-by Toby928


It's true that solar energy would contribute to the energy input for creating ethanol, but (as mentioned by someone else earlier) there are other energy sinks in the process as well: The energy cost for watering, fertilizing, hoeing, reaping, sowing -- all that farmer stuff that adds into the cost as well. It probably offsets the gain you get from adding in sunlight.
-by petronius

"It probably offsets the gain you get from adding in sunlight."

Its possible or maybe not, the point is to use less shekels from my pocket. Effiencies don't matter if the final cost is lower and the supply more even and dependable. I can't get a nuclear power plant to fit under my hood but I could run my car on ethanol produced with nuclear power. Storage and transport mechanism, thats all.

Just sayin'
Tob
-by Toby928


The big magic trick is cellulastic ethanol, which is just now coming on line in a number of research plants here and in Canada.

Essentially, we now have genetically-tinkered-with yeasts that produce a series of enzymes that can break cellulose down into glucose. From Glucose, the familiar fermentation process can make ethanol.

We have butttloads of cellulose available to us, in the form of cornstalks, cotton, grasses, hay; you name it. Being able to turn _that_ into fuel (rather than the parts of the plant we might otherwise eat or feed to livestock) changes the ethanol playing field considerably.
-by leoncaruthers


Don't leave Biiodiesel out of the discussion alltogether. I know that ethanol has been getting a lot of the headlines for a few decades now, but biodiesel is so easy to make that you can make it yourself in a blender out of used (or fresh) vegtable oil and draino, and put it straight into your diesel car with no mods.

The major drawback from folks who do this regularly is that it is more temperature sensitive than diesel (which is very tem sensitive compared to gasoline), and needs heated lines and tanks in some climates. Vegtable oil is cheap to grow and cheap to extract. We currently throw away millions of gallons of it per year into land fills, and even more oil-producing plants go un-converted in the first place.

The process is about 80% efficient, and the byproduct (the 20% that doesn't convert) is glycerine laced with methane, which many of us know as Serno. It makes a great fuel for heating or for cooking your bio-diesel in the first place.

One other caveat, diesel engines started on either diesel or biodiesel can be switched over to run on straight vegtable oil without any conversion (but still need the heated hose and tank). This would remove the most expensive step out of the process. And don't think of the comodity cost based on the 32 oz packaging you see at the store either. Indistrial quantities of veggie oil can be had a LOT cheaper. There are farms in Germany and England where biodiesel was pioneered where they dedicate a percentage of land to oil production to run their equipment. Rape seed is reportedly the most prolific producer per acre, but corn and other crops make oil too.
-by Scot


Another quick thought about cellulostic ethanol: Many of the sources of this potential fuel are currently being used to minimize soil erosion on farmland. Cornstalks are left on the surface of the harvested field to help keep fall & spring rains from washing more soil into the Gulf of Mexico. If we harvest all these materials, we degrade our future ability to produce crops on that land.

Some people think that this material's just laying around waiting to be harvested. If you're talking about things like switchgrass grown specifically for power generation, then it may be true, but no-cost byproducts of farming are not as available as you might think.

Besides, from what I've heard, the technology for producing cellulostic ethanol is more promised than proven at this point. It's not quite cold fusion in a jar, but it's not anything that will be available soon, even if everything goes perfectly in the research.
-by Russ from Winterset

I was thinking about this yesterday. What if the President announced a sort of open Manhattan Project on fuel efficient vehicles that people would actually want?

What if the challenge was- "build a V8 that puts out 250 hp, runs on multiple fuels, and gets 40mpg?

"Build it, and we'll buy the patent for $10 Billion."
-by Barry


COMMENTS BLEG

This is a small blog with not many readers, although I hope it is growing as the weeks go by. Word Around the Net has only been in existence about three weeks, but I'd like to check here in my first month the diversity of readers or at least visitors that come by. If you browse by here and see what is said today, please leave a comment with your location (state or country) - it can be just your location and nothing else if you wish, but just drop a short note so we can see how many places readers to even such a small blog as this come from!

Quote of the day

"It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. ... Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things, which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. ... Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-Patrick Henry

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

MONKEY RIGHTS! (and apes)

Spanish Socialists have decided that because humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, 97.7% with gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans, that apes and monkeys ought to have legal protection. The plan is to introduce a bill in the UN Congress of Deputies:
The party will announce its Great Ape Project at a press conference tomorrow. An organization with the same name is seeking a UN declaration on simian rights which would defend ape interests "the same as those of minors and the mentally handicapped of our species."
The English language side of Barcepundit blog (for which I am grateful, having very little skill in Spanish) covers the story:

Maybe their plan is to give them voting rights, so they're reaching to their base...

To be fair, Environment minister said that this was not mean to actually give monkeys actual human rights, though the deputies sponsoring this, during the presentation in Parliament (link in Spanish), said that they pursued the concept of person to be expanded to big apes in danger of extintion (gorillas, chimpanzees) in order to protect them.

Protein Wisdom picks up the story with a note that humans and mice share 99% of the same DNA as well.

Will the UN go along? Most likely. After all, issuing such a declaration is a lot easier than dealing with, say, African genocides or Iranian nukes. And every official UN declaration—no matter how silly—is followed by brie, bread, and wine. So it’s a win-win!

Commenters could not resist:
Oh God. So many jokes. Where do I begin? Does this mean Spanish monkies will be allowed to vote and collect welfare? Will they be subject to Spanish law like humans? If so, I bet they’re gonna have to change the laws about masturbating in public (though other countries might not).
-by Chairman Me


Although I find it highly unlikely, I hope with every fiber of my being that the UN seriously backs this. A good portion of the world, including the US, still has faith in the effectiveness of the UN, and see it as the only legitimate arbiter for international conflicts. Things like this will continue to chip away at that belief, even with ridiculous leftists. Or am I giving them too much credit? Also, can you imagine the South Park episode on this?
-by srl

Hee, hee.

This is up over at Ace’s. [Ace of Spades Headquarters]

ARMED Sierra Leonean police are hunting up to 20 chimpanzees which killed a local taxi driver and injured three American visitors after they broke out of a wildlife sanctuary.

The Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary in forested hills outside the Sierra Leonean capital Freetown, where the incident happened, has been closed since Sunday’s attack by the screaming and excited apes, which mobbed and mauled the four men.

So maybe the Spanish are on to something.
-by rls

My goodness Chairman Me, if Apes of Spanish descent or citizenship are subject to laws, the prisons would become overrun with them. It would be like a zoo! Obviously, their minority status would have to afford them some mitigating rights. It goes without saying that the acceptable lexicon would need some polishing at the very least. Fecal flinging, public sex, excessive masturbation, and violence are long-established elements of their culture. Could we truly demand that they shed these critical behaviors that define their culture, simply to conform to our preconceived notions of how simians should behave? I know what knuckle-dragging neocons would say. Wait, that’s hate speech. You can’t say knuckle-dragging anymore. Afterall, since we’ve stolen all their land, they were never given a choice to join civilization. It was forced on them!

I propose a month should be set aside to celebrate our Solidarity with Ape-Peoples. Thoughts?
-by srl


I propose a month should be set aside to celebrate our Solidarity with Ape-Peoples. Thoughts?

Only one:

Get your damn hands off of me, you damn dirty ape!!
-by alppuccino


“Animals are clearly not machines, but neither are they slightly diminished human beings. Intellectual understanding is not found in any degree in any animal but man. The human capacity to understand the what and the why of things is unique in the animal kingdom. With respect to this faculty, man is different in kind from animals, not in degree. The difference between apes and other animals is one of degree, since they possess the same kinds of powers to a greater or less extent. But a greater gap separates man from ape than that which separates any two other natural creatures. (Augros, Robert [philosopher] & Stanciu, George [physicist], “The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature”, New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.82).
-by lsr


I’ll take the UN’s interest in this subject seriously after they accept the proposition that Israelis and Jews have human rights.

On the other hand, if Jews are sons of apes and pigs, then conferring human rights on apes may achieve these unintended consequences.

t/w “movement,” as in “look at that ape flinging its movement”
-by Atilla (Pillage Idiot)

The PSOE’s justification is that humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, 97.7% with gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans.

Hmmm, I wonder the percentage is for human fetuses. Well, and humans as well. But then this is Spain and not under Holland’s euntanasia laws. Yet.
-by ken

These special rights for Primates are really just a way to continue discrimination against Dolphins.
-by eakawie


I just hope this turns out more like Troy McClure’s high-spirited Stop The Planet of The Apes, I Want to Get Off, and less like that downer of a movie it was based on.
-by Percy Dovetonsils


59 WAYS TO LOSE YOUR IMMATURITY

Esquire magazine has an article entitled 59 Things a Man Should Never Do Past 30. Some are difficult to support (never buy fireworks, put less than 10 dollars gas in the tank, or go to a Pink Floyd laser light show at the planetarium?) But most are a good sign you need a hefty dose of maturity. Commenters from a variety of boards chimed in with other possible things to avoid:

From Right Wing Sparkle:
Say "two points" every time he throws something in the trash

Well of course.

You're supposed to say "he shoots he SCORES"!
-by Dave in Texas


Use a wallet that is fastened with Velcro.

LOL

I didn't check out the original list, but I didn't see in your list:

Wear a PONYTAIL! (or long hair for that matter)

the most stupid looking thing for a guy

equal to (white) guys who now shave their heads

also equal to the cretinous looking thin little goatee

or Elvis type side-burns
-by alessandra


You try NOT air drumming to "Won't Get Fooled Again"!
-by Gordon


I'd also add the air drumming is acceptible to Phil Collin's "In the Air Tonight"

Also forgot to add to the list:

Wear pants that hang low enough for your underwear to show

Refer to your friends as your "peeps" or anyone as "dawg"
-by PMain


Oh, and please, Over 30's......

No more number "3" decals and little Chevy and/or Ford boys wizzing on the opponents logo, stuck to the back of yer pickup truck window.

No more DocMarten-type shoes with dress pants or business suits.


I'm guilty of a lot of them.

I mean, right away:

Coin his own nickname.

Front and center; first entry on the list. Not a good sign.

I would think wearing your baseball cap on backwards would have been on the list.
-by Roc Ingersol

22. Wear Disney-themed neckties.
31. End a conversation with "later skater.

I've never heard #31 in my life. Is that sentence purposely designed to incite violence? Any male who does either of these, no matter what age, deserves to have his ass kicked.
-by Steve_in_hb


Firework!!!! I will never, ever give up my 1/2 sticks 1/4 sticks. I don't make my own "destructive devices" all the time anymore. Now, if your talking sparkles and sh*t, I agree. Nothing makes traffic more bearable on a motorcycle than a frokbag full of m-80's.
-by Hutch1200

Ace, you are in big trouble. most of those things go contrary to the AOS Lifestyle.

Almost 20 years ago, Esquire ran a list of the 99 things a man should do before he turns 30. As we neared that magical age, we chanced to have a party where large quantities of alcohol were involved. Someone got a copy of that issue and we proceeded to spend the evening going through list telling sordid tales of a misspent youth.

Man, I miss that.
-by Steve L.


"Scenes from an Italian Restaurant" came out in 1977, and probably hasn't been played on a non-oldies station since 1979. So I'm guessing that no one under thirty has ever heard that song. I'm also willing to bet that no one over thirty has compared themselves to that song in 20 years. And when was the last time anyone saw a hackey sack?

There was also a conspicuous absence of any mention of videogames, fantasy sports, text messaging, or internet message boards on that list. Which leads me to believe the list was either written in 1985, or written by someone whose only connection with modern culture is through the small bits of his grandkids' conversations that he picks up between naps.

Other items that were included but didn't make the final edits:

60) Do a Mork from Ork impression.
61) Wear shoelaces in your Vans.
62) Forget to set your VCR to record Riptide.
63) Bet against the Kansas City Royals.
64) The headspin.
65) Wear long shorts.
66) Have a favorite Whammy on Press Your Luck.
67) Argue over which is better: Goliath or Knight Rider.
-by The Comish (sic)

As blogs pick this up, the comments sections will expand and be updated.

Now someone needs to do a list of things women shouldn't do. Like wear a half shirt that says "princess" or "flirty." Or get a "Tramp Stamp" tattoo at the base of the spine.


Comment Type #8

GRAMMAR POLICE

A Grammar Police post is one that ignores the points someone makes and focuses on their spelling, punctuation, or grammar. The purpose of the post is to correct or demean rather than respond or contribute, and typically is insulting in the place of response.

Even the most skilled, careful speller and linguist in the world will make mistakes, mis-type, and put words in the wrong sequence. Few people have a flawless grasp of their language and will make grammatical errors that can make a sentence less easy to understand and read. In some cases, someone is in such a hurry they don't look carefully and respond to get it out there as fast as possible in passion or a desire to be the first to say something. All of these are reasons that a post might be misspelled or have terrible grammar.

As far as possible, we all ought to have better spelling and grammar, especially someone like me who writes for a living and has been speaking English for over 40 years. At the same time, we all make mistakes and are all flawed, fallible human beings. In addition, some people who read and post on comment and message boards are not English-speaking people (or native to the language in question) and do not know enough of the language to spell or form sentences properly. In this case, I consider them brave to attempt the post and more learned than I, because I'd be hard pressed to even form a unique sentence in the language I studied most in school after all these years.

Attacking someone for their poor spelling is a form of Ad Hominem fallacy, in which you ignore the argument (or point) being made and focus on something irrelevant to the discussion. If someone spells a word wrong or gets a date mixed up (such as 1798 instead of 1978), or dangles a participle, it may be awkward to read, but it does not cause you physical harm. In almost every case it is best to let it go. There are some grammatical or spelling errors that cause people grief, however. For example, I consistently misspelled the word desperate on a blog comment section until finally a school teacher there could take it no longer and corrected me. That's fine, in my case I'd much rather know, and she otherwise agreed with what I had to say.

There is an exception to this general rule, however. Some people deliberately spell words differently as part of a sad effort to be k3wl or fit into a clique of their age group. See how that word was spelled? That's a derivation of the word "cool" which in it's self is slang. Younger people, especially using cell phone text messaging and chatting online have come up with a whole jargon of words. Instead of being alternate uses of words that become slang, these are alternate spellings of words already in use. Sometimes numbers are used for letters - in this case "3" is used in place of "e" and the entire word "cool" is spelled as if pronounced by a valley girl "kewl." "Pwn" is used in place of "own" - to dominate, humiliate, or embarrass. For a time, putting -z0r on the end of words was popular, an obscure computer programming reference.

This kind of jargon not only is difficult to even read if you're not familiar with it, and indicates a greater allegiance to trend and peer pressure than in communicating your point and making it lucid. Further, such spelling is pointless in that it often is at least as difficult to type or even longer than the original word. The excuse "its faster to type 'AEAP' than 'as early as possible" or 'CMIIW' than 'correct me if I'm wrong'" is valid on a microscopic keypad used on cell phones, but on a computer it is simple sloth. By the time you're done explaining what the acronym means, you've typed longer than if you had simply used the normal phrase.

For more on this kind of abbreviation used for text messaging, Webopedia has a list of some currently in use. The urban dictionary has an extensive list of alternate spellings and more recent slang (which, as has always been the case is constantly in flux).

We always ought to spell as carefully as possible - many blogs even have a spell checker as part of the comment section, and it is simple enough to take advantage of one if you are on a computer (and obviously you are to post comments on a blog). I use one regularly to check these blog entries, hoping to cut down on spelling errors. By using the best grammar you can and proper spelling, people will tend to take your point more seriously - fair or not - and your ideas will carry more merit and respectability.

If someone misspells, give them the benefit of the doubt, unless it is truly egregious and they ought to know better - such as a person posing as a college professor of English Literature who cannot spell or use proper grammar. As far as you know, the person who can't seem to string a sentence together well is 6 years old or from Indonesia and speaks more languages than you own books.

Quote of the day

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
-Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish Jurist and Historian, Professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

SCHIAVO REDUX?

In a case that brings to mind the Terri Schiavo tragedy just last year, there is another woman who is in a hospital being kept alive and some of the medical authorities desire her to be "allowed to die." John Hawkins at Right Wing News brought the story to light:

Yesterday, as I was perusing the Democratic Underground, I ran across a very troubling story. I'm reposting it here, so that you can read it just as I did last night (The phone numbers presently are x'd out, although you can read them in the original post)...
The hospital ethics committee met the day before yesterday and concluded that Andrea's treatment (respirator and dialysis) should be discontinued. We have ten days to move her from that hospital or they will "pull the plug" and let Andrea die. Andrea, until a few days ago, when the physicians decided to increase her pain medication and anesthetize her into unconsciousness, was fully able to make her own medical decisions and had decided that she wanted life saving treatment until she dies naturally. We have learned that this is part of the process, when hospitals decided to declare the "medical futility" of continueing treatment for a patient. But, this is not a Terry Schiavo case; not anything like it. Andrea, when she is not medicated into unconsciousness (and even when she is, and the medication has worn off to some degree) is aware and cognizant. She has suffered no brain damage to the parts of her brain responsible for thought and reason, or speech. She has only suffered loss of some motor control. The reason that the physician gave to medicate her so much is that she is suffering from intractable pain in the sacral region (in other words, she has a bedsore that causes her pain). This is not reason enough, in our books, and we are trying, as we speak, to get Andrea's medication lowered so that she can speak to us.

After reading this, I called Melanie Childers and talked with her about this case.

She told me that her sister recently had surgery for a heart condition. After surgery, she developed an infection and that's why she's so weak and needs a respirator to breathe. Again, her sister is not brain dead, she can speak, and she does not want the hospital to let her die.

Moreover, disturbingly, according to Ms. Childers there is a doctor at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital who has examined her sister and said that he thinks she has a chance to recover. Imagine that, folks -- being sick, having the odds against you, but wanting to fight for your life -- and having the hospital that's treating you cut you off at the knees when you're at your most vulnerable.

John goes on to say

If what Melanie Childers has told me is correct, we've got a situation where a hospital that claims to provide "ethical, compassionate and quality care" is pulling a woman's respirator and dialysis against her wishes and the wishes of her family after a doctor at their facility has said she might be able to recover. That doesn't sound very "ethical" or "compassionate" to me and maybe if the word gets out about it, it might make a difference.

Whether this story is accurate or we have all the information or not, it has stirred a great deal of interest in the blogosphere and commenters discussed euthanasia and other topics:

One might hope that those on the left will listen to this woman's plight and learn from it. It is a shame that they sometimes only listen when the voice is from what they perceive is from their side, but this is the kind of thing that might make some of them rethink Terry Schiavo's situation and hopefully will influence their opinion the next time it happens.

To Andrea Clarke, I would say that I hope everything turns out all right; that the hospital will provide care and that her sister will survive. I support the fight for life and believe it to be the most fundamental right, greater than anything else, and it, like all other rights, is fully deserved until a person denies someone else that right. Good luck with the protest and keep fighting alongside your sister for life.
-by CR UVa

The controversial portion of the law in question, the Texas Advance Directives Act of 1999:

§ 166.046. PROCEDURE IF NOT EFFECTUATING A DIRECTIVE OR
TREATMENT DECISION. (e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection(g).
Yet subsection (d) states that if either the "attending physician, the patient, or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the individual" doesn't agree with the hospital review panel's decision, the physician should transfer the patient to another doctor or medical facility that is willing to provide care. So my question would be: Why wasn't this woman transferred? Childers' explanation really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
-by Maledicta


One thing is missing from this entire story. What is the hospital's rationale for pulling the plug? Ms. Childers says simply, "The hospital ethics committee met the day before yesterday and concluded that Andrea's treatment (respirator and dialysis) should be discontinued." Why?
-by CavalierX


I'm familiar with St Lukes. My father died there in 1989. Well, he didn't actually die there. No, they let him come home - and then he died about 2 hours later.

There was talk of a lawsuit but nothing ever came of it - I was just a kid at the time so I wasn't really aware of all the details. In any case, there were grumblings among my family that my dad's insurance was about to run out and that's why they kicked him out. St Lukes has the reputation for being part of one of the best hospital systems in the WORLD. It is where the heart transplant was invented.

But something is seriously wrong over there.
-by RightThinkingGirl


As in the Terry Schiavo case, I am very troubled by this rash and rushed action by the medical professionals of this hospital. Law and ethics may be on their side, but by all accounts according to this poster this is a Human life that is not FOR CERTAIN brain dead.

In fact, is sounds as if the hospital just gave up on a Human life that can be saved.

Very disturbing.

-------

I DO NOT PLAY POLITICS WHEN IT COMES TO THIS! Obviously this young woman did not know what to do, where to go, and in desperation she reached out to whoever she could to help. Be it us, or the Democratic Underground or whoever, this is clearly a Human Being, on behalf of an innocent Human Being unable to defend herself, begging for help! Clearly, her options are very limited, and I will totally rip to shreads anyone, ANYONE, that thinks this should be treated as a political issue up for debate.
-by Corporate_Cabana

"Like Terry's parents, she doesn't want her loved one sentenced to death for financial and convenience reasons. That is completely logical, and I don't see the reason to distance herself from that case."
The reason is that Terri Schiavo is dead. I'm sure she wants to avoid people looking at the case and thinking "here we go again" and expecting the same outcome.

I'm not familiar with this case or Texas law so I'd reserve judgement, but if it is as Melanie Childers explains it, the law appears to be a blatant violation of the patient's due process rights.

But are we starting to see why euthenasia just might be a bad idea? Maybe??
-by Mike_M

I'd like to humbly point out that much of what this woman says is what Terri's parents said.
-by Christopher_Taylor

Since she's thusfar the exclusive source for information on her sister's plight, that poses something of a problem.
According to the comments in the DU thread (I had to hold my nose, reading a few of them), her story was on the local news in Houston.

Probably the reason we haven't heard more is the family is apparently not as media-savvy as some of the ones you see every day on the news. Andrea Clark isn't the first like this, and she won't be the last--as long as there are medical "ethicists" and others around deciding whose life is or isn't worth living.

“Misery can only be removed from the world by painless extermination of the miserable.”

—a Nazi writer quoted by Robert J. Lifton in The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide
-by Bamapachyderm

I guess when the shoe is on their foot,they see things a little differently.
I know a lot of liberals who claim that the people who are against abortion, stem cell research, and/or euthenasia would sing a different tune if someone they knew had an unwanted pregnancy, crippling disease, and/or terminal illness. They often cite people like Nancy Reagan and the late wife of Christopher Reeve. Not to seem disrespectful, but I like to call people like this fair-weather moralists. They hold a moral position until it affects them personally, then they change it. Well sorry everybody, but that's not how morality works. You don't get to change your position because it's convenient and still expect to maintain credibility.

(And for the record, my father died of Lou Gehrig's disease. Something that could potentially be cured one day by stem cell research. So don't anyone try and pull that "you'd support it if only it touched someone you knew" bullsh*t with me.)
-by MightySamurai


Okay, I can't stand this anymore. First, we have tried facilities offering every conceivable level of care. She is on a respirator and getting dialysis. There are some nursing homes that offer respirator care and no dialsysis and vice versa. The long term acute care facilities see that the hospital says she is "futile" and say they can't take her because they are there to rehabilitate and send patients to a lower continuum of care. Other hospitals rely on the "futility" diagnosis. A provider won't take a patient just on the say so of the family--they talk to the hospital. The hospital believes she is futile. It's a catch-22.

The law sets ethics committees up as quasi-judicial entities that have no other oversight. There is no effective or fast way to dispute the decision of "futility".

The law provides only 10 days to find another place and to go to court to request more time. In court, you have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a reasonable expectation of transfer. So for ten days you try to transfer or get evidence that somebody will take her.

I will have to challenge the entire law--that is a huge undertaking and ten days is not enough time to do it in.

And, yes, they will pull the plug on the 10th day.

One other clarification, the family slept in the parking garage for prior ethics committee meeting regarding a care issue. My point to John is that it is ridiculous to have a comittee making such momentous decisions refusing to meet during regular business hours.
-by JerriLynnWard


Not again! The facts appear one sided until the hospital has permission to release their side of the medical story. Death is never friendly, fair or something to look forward too. From the story on the page at 2400 EST, it sounds like Ms Clarke doesn't want to die but we aren't sure that her body can accommodate those wishes. The really hard question is, how long should the medical community keep a body alive? Forever? Someone has to make the hard decision about life and death when there is no real hope for life. Sadly, it is about cost! There are only so many resources available and you can only manage those resources so far to help so many people. So someone has to make the horrible decision for cutting off life support when there is no chance for a medical cure. Do you control pain when the body starts to wear down -- which typically means the person sleeps the final few days of their life?

If the medical staff in the hospital believes that they have done all they can to save her life, it may just be the answer the family is afraid to accept. As for the one doctor that claims he can save her...I guess if I didn't want to face the fact that I was going to soon die, then I would hang on his every word too. Another sad story about losing someone who is loved. Hopefully Ms Clarke and the family has someone there offering them some spiritual support. Maybe the Clarke family will let the hospital release the medical information that is needed to make a sound Editorial on this issue.
-by Redfish


I think there is a strong chance that this whole story is a hoax, designed to embarass George Bush and continue the relentless march to impeach him. The sister reporting the case is reported to be in California, while she is also reported to be at a protest which occurred on Saturday. She reports all the press is at the protest on Saturday, but there are zero press reports on the case. The "pull the plug" law, which they say was signed by George Bush is simply a law on advance directives (medical powers of attorney and DNR orders). They say they have no lawyer but there is a lawyer, suddenly. While there are numerous posts on the case at the DU site, there are no left wing blogs which have picked up the story. In short, if this is true it is a terrible thing, but I think there is an equal chance it is all made up. Either way, it's troubling, but try a little Googling, and you will see what I mean. I would proceed with a little caution.
-by publia


Writing as somebody who is on the "left" politically, the ONLY reason most DUers and others on that side of the spectrum sided with the despicable, lying Michael Schiavo is because of who was most visible backing the Schindlers.

In other words, it was a matter of defeating the Jeb Bushes, the Randall Terrys, and the Tom DeLays of the world. They couldn't have cared less about Terri or the horrific precedent her court-ordered death set.

At bottom, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the Schiavo and Clarke cases, and both show just how twisted the bioethics movement is. It's nothing more than the old-fashioned eugenics given a shiny new coat of paint.
-by Susan Nunes


This is a direct consequence of the Schiavo case.

If people didn't see this coming, they've been blind blind blind.

RWR
-by RightWingRockerUSA


I'm going to play Devils Advocate here:

Do we really want to take the decision-making process away from the doctors and give it to family members with little knowledge of medicine?

I definitely sympathize with Clarke and I think that the "ethicists" are usually unethical. But it seems like it is getting to a point where people don't want to trust the professional advice of doctors anymore and they'd rather just do what they want. This seems dangerous given that most people have no knowledge of the basic structures of DNA or cells, let alone major organs.

If we let this continue, won't that open up the hospitals and doctors to more lawsuits?
-by RepublicanPig1

Do we really want to take the decision-making process away from the doctors and give it to family members with little knowledge of medicine?

This is not "shall we use Anthropraxin or methindelonol for this infection" this is "shall we kill this woman to save bed space and money."

Incidentally, to whatever extent those invented words correspond with actual medicine is entirely due to coincidence.
-by Christopher_Taylor


I went thru this with my husband who had diabetes complications. He died 5 years ago. You have no idea how many lies are told by the doctors and the insurance people unless you have been through it. The chaplain and a doctor or two will only hint at what is going on, and families are generally left stumbling in the dark with no one to turn to for help. These Critical Care Committees are set up in many hospitals. From what I learned, most who are to die this way just pass away if family members are not visiting and watching carefully what is going on, asking questions, being at the bedside.

And it just doesn't happen to the poor. I have a professional woman friend who lives in New Jersey. Several years ago she came down with a difficult condition that required a blood product, probably expensive. She had full insurance. The hospital gave her 48 hours to live and told her family to fly in as the product was not available. Fortunately she had a brother and a son-in-law who were doctors. They knew what was going on and told the hospital that if they found the product would the hospital allow her to be transferred. The hospital couldn't say no. She was transferred, is in full recovery and back at work, flying all around the country for her job.

I have another friend who worked in a professional capacity with nursing homes. He said planned deaths are a regular thing. A lawyer friend told me that insurance companies set up seminars telling medical staff how to prepare a family for planned deaths.

Check out Holland to see what will happen here in the US. Their euthanasia system is several years ahead of what is happening in the US.
-by Zuukie1


I want to share one more thing. My Brother is the CEO and VP of a prominent Medical University in this country and he makes over a million dollars a year. He travels to Europe five times a year, spends weekends at Hilton Head and has put four children through college to earn master's. His children all work for the two top accounting firms in the world. Yes, world. Prior to this my brother worked in hospitals around the county. He is 55 years old.

AM I jealous of my brother, NO, but I think his profession is criminal. He will tell you that Andrea is better off dead, as well, as Terri Schiavo.

He makes a lot of money to back up what he says. This is not the brother I grew up with.
-by InAHeartBeat

The Texas Rainmaker blog has contact information if you want to find out more or get more involved. The commenters at that site also had a few thoughts:

There has to be more to the story. Patients’ lives are not in the hands of hospital ethic committees even in Texas. We have heard from the sister. What does the 23-year old son, BTW the one with real authority over medical decisions, say? This sounds to me like the Terri Schiavo case — with family members fighting and the hospital caught in the middle.
-by nk


I concur with nk in wanting to know what the son has to say. I would also like to see what the hospital has to say, which can be had if the son provides a release for the hospital to speak publicly on the case. I’d also be interested in knowing if the lawyer, Jerri Ward, has a report from the hospital which she can shared in lieu of the time delay with a release for the hospital.

BTW, is Ms. Ward working for the son or the person who has guardianship, if it is not the son?

I have great sympathy for Melanie Childers’ situation and understand her emotional state well. The faster all the information comes out the faster a unified voice will coalesce with reason and argument on its side.
-by Dusty

The Whizbang blog is reporting on the story as well, and Kim Priestap had this to say:

As I've said a number of times before, medical bioethicist is simply code for death squad. Andrea needs help. If you live in the Houston area and can help, get Melanie's phone number on the original post and contact her. Her sister's life matters.

Commenters at that blog responded:

medical bioethicist is simply code for death squad

Gawd, YOU SAID IT. I've been saying it too. Talk about false advertising!
It's not ethics, it's EUGENICS.
-by Beth


Blunt but related questions:

1) Who is paying the medical bills and what do they think?

2) Are scarce resources being utilized for this "futile" treatment, denying someone else needing non-futile treatment, or not?

3) If medical insurance is involved, what kind and has it reached its max?

Yes, after further research it appears the woman is covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and her family believes it it pressure from the insurance company on the hospital that is causing the plug to be pulled, per posts at DU. It is not clear if she has reached the maximum coverage of the BCBS policy, but it appears not.

It is not clear to me whether ICU beds are at a premium and this is being considered triage or not. But I doubt it.

I think I asked the right questions.
-by Epador


The fact that President Bush signed the Texas Futile Care bill into law in 1999 is being repeated by lefty blogs over all over the internet as proof of Bush's "hypocrisy" and "inconsistency." This has been making the rounds since the Terri Schiavo case. I was unaware of this and it gave me pause, because it does make Bush's positions seem inconsistent. Why would he do this, given his stated pro-life beliefs? How does signing Futile Care into law square with this statement:

"In cases like [Terri Schiavo], where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life."

I have done some digging and it turns out that the Lefty spin appears to be a LIE BY OMISSION. Bush had previously vetoed a version of the bill, PUSHED BY THE LEGISLATURE and signed a second, compromise version of the bill only after additional patient safeguards had been added. As bad as the law is, sometimes governors are forced to face political realities and sign things they would rather not. This seems to be the case here.

I was only able to find this out by extensive digging. If anyone in Texas or elsewhere has more information on the political realities of how this bill came into law, I would very much appreciate it if you would enlighten us further [or contact me directly]. We need to shed a little light on the Democrat spin.

Dana:

I was not referring to Terri Schiavo, but the Darwinist worldview and the pro-death positions of the Left in general. Where do you think "Futile Care Theory" comes from? If does not come from the right, I can assure you. Look up the "bioethics" teachings of such people as Joseph Fletcher.
-by JeffBlogworthy
Just for reference, there is an article that details the law that President Bush signed while Governor of Texas and what it means on National Review Online.

*UPDATE: This comment was left on Right Wing News by someone who claims to be the sister of the woman in question:

I am Andrea Clark's sister and I'd like to address SOME of the comments here. First of all, her last name is CLARK. No e. (No one is spelling my name correctly either--but oh well) Second, to any of you who think it is a hoax, I am shaking with rage! You are out of line suggesting such a thing! What a sick thing to suggest of a family that is struggling to keep their sister alive. Shame on you!

Third, I have set up a page for Andrea to receive email messages from people through the hospital. I didn't know this was possible until I was visiting Andrea this afternoon and a volunteer brought a printed copy of an email from a lady named Jane Adams in Wisconsin. Jane, if you are reading this, I want you to know that I read your email to Andrea and your words meant very much to both of us.

You know, when you're in a fight like this, you've got all your guards up. You're ready to fight fire with fire and you don't mind knocking heads to protect your loved one. But when you get a loving reminder of the gentleness and compassion of other people, it goes straight to your heart and you remember for a moment that you are much more than a warrior for a cause or your loved one.

Thank you, Jane for allowing me to feel that part of my humanity--your words meant more than you know.

Finally, if any of you want to leave your thoughts for Andrea, you can access Andrea's page by visiting carepages.com and clicking on the "visit a CarePage" button. You have to register, but it's free, of course. All you need is a valid email address. Andrea's
CarePage is named AndreaClarkLives.com NO E!
Lanore Dixon
-by Lanore

UNDOING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

In National Review Online, Tara Ross writes about an attempt to make an end run around the Electoral College:
Opponents of the Electoral College have conjured up yet another scheme by which they hope to undermine America’s unique system of electing presidents. If they are successful, the Electoral College could essentially be eliminated at the behest of a handful of states, without the bother of a constitutional amendment.

This latest anti-Electoral College effort, the Campaign for the National Popular Vote, was announced on February 23. Five states are currently considering the NPV plan: Illinois, Colorado, Missouri, California, and Louisiana. The Colorado state senate acted on the bill quickly, approving it on April 14.

If enacted, the NPV bill would create an interstate compact among consenting states. Each participating state would agree to allocate its entire slate of electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact would go into effect when states representing 270 electoral votes (enough to win the presidency) have agreed to the compact. The eleven most populous states have 271 electoral votes among them, and could thus make this change on their own. If one populous state failed to enact the plan, it could easily be replaced by a handful of medium-sized states.

Blogger Texas Rainmaker wrote about this in article Tired of Losing, Democrats Trying to Change the Rules:

The man that dreamed up the concept, and founded National Popular Vote Inc. is John Koza, a professor at Stanford and a staunch Democrat supporter. He’s donated almost a million dollars to Democrats and Democrat causes since 1990. The President of the organization is Barry Fadem, who supported John Kerry in 2004.

And the liberal MSM is right there in the mix, pushing this measure. The New York Times endorsed it, so did the Chicago Sun Times, the Denver Post, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, U.S. News & World Reports and more.

It’s obvious why Democrat supporters and their allies in MSM would push such a measure. They can’t win an election under the procedure that’s been in place for over 200 years. It’s another attempt to make the United States of America look less like the U.S.A.

Jeff at Protein Wisdom responds:

Like many illiberal movements (here, circumventing the Constitutional Amendment process by playing on the populist impulses of those uninformed about the electoral college and hoping to cobble together a coalition that makes the amendment process moot), proponents rely on high-minded soundbites and easy-to-remember slogans, hoping that such bumpersticker argumentation will be an effective substitute for real debate and an actual airing of the issues.

When a system that has served us well for over 200 years is challenged by a motivated political group looking to circumvent the amendment process and the considered thoughts of our founders, we should all be wary.

And the commenters on his site took this idea to task:
Wouldn’t work anyway because the States can’t bind the votes of the electors...nobody can.
-by noah

Ooh, I love their sense of irony. Take away the electoral college… without a national vote… Brilliant… Wish I’d thought of it to be honest.
-by OHNOES

So, in 2004 California would have been obliged to award its 55 electoral college votes to Bush even though Kerry won the state and even if Kerry had managed to eke out an electoral college victory. Right. Why California would even consider such a scheme is beyond me. Pre-1988 notwithstanding, California is a reliably Democratic state, run by Democrats for the benefit of Democrats. This trend is likely to continue well into the foreseeable future. The idea that the Democratic candidate would win the national popular vote and not California’s is laughable. And I thought Colorado was considering proportional allocation of its electoral votes. When did it switch over to this crazy plan?

The only people who advocate end runs around the Constitution or a judiciary that behaves like a legislature are those who can’t get their candidates elected or their agendas advanced legislatively. Pay them no heed.

And other commenters are quite right about the electors.
-by Kyda Sylvester


I agree Jeff, this sort of thing is shocking, but I think that it’s primary purpose is that it will inevitably lead to a host of constitutional challenges, and will effectively allow the courts to choose the president.

Basically, it gives the side that loses a mulligan. If they win the popular vote, but not the electoral vote, they insist on enforcement of the compact. If they win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote, they (i.e. even the people who proposed and supported this plan) can challenge it. Under the specific plan, state legislators could decide up until July 20 of election year whether their state is “in or out” of the pact.

The constitutional amendment process has the distinct advantage that when the rules change, they change everywhere at the same time. This idea would result in their being two different electoral systems in effect at the same time (in different states).

Given that ratification of this end-run around the Constitution in even one state would be bad, I think the Colorado lower-house and governor are the best targets for a “high profile campaign”.

I note that the Left already tried something similar to steal Colorado’s electoral votes with Amendment 36 in 2004. The main reason Amendment 36 failed was that Colorado Democrats, who originally supported the idea and hoped to steal a handful of electoral votes from Bush, began to believe that Kerry might actually win the state outright, and withdrew their support.

We can look forward to electoral and legal gamesmanship on much wider scale if states start adopting this plan.
-by LagunaDave


This point is made in the articles above, but isn’t spelled out clearly enough perhaps. The electoral college provides one enormous benefit which should not so lightly be tossed away.

Namely, a presidential candidate gains no additional benefit if he carries 50.5% of a state or 90% of a state. As such, once he’s happy with his polling numbers in a given state, it’s worth his while to move on to another state. Other states have other priorities, thus forcing presidential candidates to gravitate towards more moderate views.

So my message to the actus’s of the world: if you think George Bush is an extremist, then go ahead and abolish the electoral college. You ain’t seen nuthin yet.

There’s a second factor: home court advantage will become even more important. Since candidates typically carry a disproportionate number of the voters from their home state, it will behoove both parties to run candidates who are only from the most populous states.

Were it not for the electoral college, Bill Clinton never would have been the Democratic nominee in 1992, let alone the winner of the election.

Are you people so sure you want to abolish this system? There’s a peculiar notion, completely irrational and unsupported by facts, that the electoral college favors republicans. This notion came about because George Bush beat Al Gore without winning the popular vote.

The fact that John Kerry was only one state away from returning the favor never crosses their minds.
-by Beck

What would the courts do? Enforce this compact? How? sounds like it would be hard to get standing or a cause of action.

I can’t believe someone who is supposedly an attorney wrote that.

Q: How did Al Gore get SCOFLA to rewrite the state’s election laws for him after the fact in the 2000 election?
A: He (through his lawyers) asked them.

There was no real question or ambiguity about what the existing law mandated, but Gore et al. didn’t like the result, so they asked the courts to change the law, and the they did.

Anyone can “get standing” with a result-oriented court that is sympathetically inclined to grant it.
-by LagunaDave


[quote of above comment deleted]
Same thing happend with New Jersey’s supreme court to replace Toricelli with Lautenberg on the ballot too close to the election. The law was clear and unambiguous. The court said it didn’t matter, and the Democrats openly mocked Republicans for asking for the law to be followed.
-by JohnAnnArbor


It takes something like this to realize just how dense the left can be when it comes to history and the Constitution. the Electoral College was established not just to protect little states from big states, but to protect rural populations from urban ones. It’s easy to see why the left would support such a measure--their biggest constituencies are in large cities--but this has as much chance of being implemented on the national level as Saddam does of being leader of Iraq again. The argument that “not all of the states gain equal attention” is a poor reason to implement voting laws similar to the one person, one vote concept--instead of smaller or traditionally REpub and Dem states being ignored, all of the attention would be focused on gaining favor with urban areas, ensuring that rural voters become effectively disenfranchised. And this is supposed to be fair?

Not too mention the whole thing could backfire on the Dems. Did they even bother to see the voting patterns by county in the last election? It certainly didn’t favor them. The only reason Dems have ANY clout on the national level is because most of their base lives in large urban areas where population is naturally bigger. The fact that 3 rural representatives outweighs 1 urban one doesn’t seem to cross their mind.

TW: shot. As in, The person who came up with this idea should be shot.
-by Chris


One of the most easily understandable arguments for the Electoral College that I’ve seen goes like this:

The 2002 World Series featured Anaheim vs. San Francisco, and was the last one to go 7 games.

The individual game scores were as follows:

1: SF 4, Anaheim 3
2: Anaheim 11, SF 10
3: Anaheim 10, SF 4
4: SF 4, Anaheim 3
5: SF 16, Anaheim 4
6: Anaheim 6, SF 5
7: Anaheim 4, SF 1

Thus, Anaheim won the Series 4-3.

Now add up scores of the individual games:

SF: 44 runs
Anaheim: 41 runs

So San Francisco lost the Series, despite scoring more runs overall. In particular, they won one very lopsided game by 12 runs, but (under the best-of-seven format) that was worth no more than either of Anaheim’s one-run wins in Games 2 and 6. So, was the World Series format “unfair” to the Giants? Most would laugh at the idea.

Just as the World Series is based on who wins the most games, rather than who scores the most total runs, the Electoral College prevents lopsided outcomes in a few states from determining the overall winner. It is not enough to “run up the score” in contests where you already have the advantage; you have to win a (population-weighted) series of contests across the whole country, and moreover, the contests which matter most are the closely-fought ones at the margins, which has a moderating effect on the platforms of the candidates, who must attempt to appeal to as broad a constituency as possible.
-by LagunaDave


I don’t think this idea is even constitutional:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
[Article 1, Section 10 US Constitution]
Unless Congress has approved this deal, I doubt it will fly.
-by Robert Prather

This strategy stinks because it is so obvious that they’ll never get an amendment through, so they’ve opted for stealth techniques.

Again, I think the real point is not even to get the compact passed, but to create another avenue for overturning lost elections.

It’s sort of ironic that up until the weekend before the 2000 election, when the Democrats sprung their October surprise, there were quite plausible scenarios in which Bush would have won the popular vote, while Gore won the electoral college. In fact, until the poll trends shifted in the wake of the DUI dirty trick, it was considered Gore’s best chance to pull out the election…

Another reason why the popular vote is a bad idea is that it means that fraud anywhere in the country (especially in states that are completely controlled by one side) is much more likely to change the outcome of the election nationwide.

Suppose (say) Milwaukee, Chicago or Philadelphia (all Democratic strongholds rife with vote fraud) all announce totals that are inflated by hundreds of thousands of votes in favor of the Democrats (in 2004, the “Democratic” mayor of Milwaukee requested 938,000 ballots for his city, which had only 382,000 registered voters!). This fraud would have to be investigated by the very local and state officials who perpetrated it, and who, by construction, completely control the apparatus of government in their area.
-by LagunaDave


Any X-File character!

They could go back to their last name: The Confederacy.

That’s a pretty good one, but it would still be deceptive because the Confederacy was democratic. cheese

Robert Prather, that was a great catch. I don’t even recall reading that clause. So to make this fly they now have to subvert two parts of the Constitution. So you got that Democrats? If you want to ditch the Electoral College, amend the Constitution properly. Please.

When I was in my twenties I used to think that the Electoral College was an anachronism needing to be eliminated too. But as I got older I became more and more cognizant of the fact that I wasn’t as smart as the 200 years-worth of Americans that came before me, so I never really thought about it again until the 2000 election. It was only then that I realized just how important it really was. Had it not been for the Electoral College, we wouldn’t have had one Florida in 2000, we’d have had fifty Floridas. Like LagunaDave says above, any city of any size could change the outcome of a close election under a national popular vote system. I don’t mean to sound hysterical, but I can easily envision the end of the republic resulting from that situation. Under a national popular vote system, If the 2000 election ever would have been settled at all, we would probably only just be figuring it out around now.

Shortly after the 2004 election George Will wrote a great column about just how close most of the Presidential elections of the last 50 years really were. In each one he described how 10,000 votes here and 40,000 votes there could have turned around relatively large blocs of electors and changed the outcome of the election. The truth is, the Electoral College has performed a great service for us over the generations by making most of our Presidential elections appear less close and therefore more decisive than they actually were, making it easier for all of us to accept the results and move on.

yours/
peter.
-by Peter Jackson

The truth is, the Electoral College system protects smaller states by making each one more important than they would be by a general vote count. By reducing the relative difference in size of each state, Electoral Colleges force presidential candidates to campaign in and care about more states than the top 5-8 most populated ones. Removing this system would not only have all the detrimental effects listed above (especially by LagunaDave) but would give Presidential Candidates no reason to come west of the Mississippi except a short trip to Texas and California.

There was a time when I was opposed to the electoral college system but as I grow and learn, I understand the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the importance of such a buffer between the popular vote and the most powerful job in the world.


REMEMBER ANZAC DAY!

Gallipoli LandingANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) Day is the day every year that commemorates the landing of the ANZACs at Gallipoli. There is a very sad movie that tells this story with Mel Gibson in it, I recommend it. ANZAC day is very important and meaningful to Aussies and Kiwis (New Zealanders) who remember the sacrifice and honor, the dignity and the spirit with which these young men met their end.



The Australian Government has a Culture and Recreation site which carries more details about this tale:

As part of the larger British Empire contingent the ANZACs were brought in from training in Egypt to participate. The ANZACs comprised the 1st Australian Division and the composite New Zealand and Australian Division. On 25 April 1915, the ANZACs landed on the Gallipoli Peninsula. Instead of finding the flat beach they expected, they found they had been landed at an incorrect position and faced steep cliffs and constant barrages of enemy fire and shelling. Around 20,000 soldiers landed on the beach over the next two days to face a well organised, well armed, large Turkish force determined to defend their country - and led by Mustafa Kemal, who later became Atatürk, the leader of modern Turkey. Thousands of Australian and New Zealand men died in the hours and days that followed the landing at that beach. The beach would eventually come to be known as Anzac Cove. What followed the landing at Gallipoli is a story of courage and endurance, of death, and despair, of poor leadership from London, and unsuccessful strategies. The ANZACs and the Turks dug in - literally - digging kilometres of trenches, and pinned down each other's forces with sniper fire and shelling. Pinned down with their backs to the water the ANZACs were unable to make much headway against the home-country force.

The Gallipoli campaign was an enormous failure, a failure bought at the cost of an enormous number of lives, and the failure led to the resignation of senior politicians in London. Thousands of Australian and New Zealand soldiers had died, and thousands of other Allied troops from France and Britain also died.

An Anzac commemorative location has been built at Gallipoli in conjunction with the New Zealand government and with the approval of the Turkish government.

This seems like something the Australians would rather forget, doesn't it? But instead they have made heroes and a solemn memory of the heroic failure, as fits Australian history well. Senior Lecturer in History at the University of New England Dr Frank Bongiorno notes:

Australians are particularly inclined to make heroes of noble failures, such as the defeated Eureka rebels, the suicidal Jolly Swagman in 'Waltzing Matilda', and Ned Kelly.

Here, from the Australian website are some useful facts about ANZAC day:
  • ANZAC is an abbreviation for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps.
  • AIF is an abbreviation for Australian Imperial Force.
  • April 25, Anzac Day, was the day the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps landed on the Gallipoli Peninsula in 1915.
  • The first dawn service on an ANZAC Day was in 1923.
  • The ANZACS were on the Gallipoli Peninsula for only 8 months, around 8,000 of them died there.
  • There is no town called 'Gallipoli'. It is the name of an area. Visitors to Gallipoli usually stay at nearby towns - like Ecubeat.
  • The ANZACs were all volunteers.
  • The Gallipoli Peninsula is very near the famous ancient city of Troy.
There are no longer any living survivors of that infamous blunder by the British generals.

Commenters on Australian Blogger Tim Blair's site had this to say:
Here’s to the memory of those who served Australia. God bless.
-The_Real_JeffS


This was a complete disaster, the wrong beach was selected to land on and the slopes were too steep to climb, the Turkish army mowed the troops down with machine guns from the tops, like chickens to the slaughter.
The Kiwi soldiers didnt stand a chance.
It is definately a sad day for New Zealand for the WW1 soldiers
-by IainMorrison2

We honour the courage of the fallen and their legacy on this day iainmorrison and generally have the grace and good manners to leave the analysis (and historical revisionism) to another day.
-by Crusader rabbit


I just got back from the Dawn Service in Martin Place in Sydney. Biggest crowd I’ve seen so far at the event. The only visible additions were Kim Beazley, who was apparently in Sydney at the time, a seriously mean TAG-EAST SAS soldier in the dignitary section, and a fairly visible security detail, packing, in slightly ill-fitting suits (they appeared to be for the event itself rather than CPP for any particular dignitary). Also good to see the TS Sydney Navy Cadets at the event.

Special mention today for Peter Kent, WWII veteran, 83, served on the Bathurst-Class Corvettes as an ASDIC operator but got roped into operating one of the Oerlikon 20mm guns on deck at one stage - he still turns up every Saturday at ANZAC rifle range and still joins in on weekly service style rifle shooting matches. I just hope I have his spirit when I reach his age.

All in all, a very moving ceremony this morning.
-by Ausdiplomad


Je me souviens
(I remember), the motto of Quebec.

That’s all that is required. Duty does not require gratitude (no offence Crusader Rabbit)-duty is what must be done.

Robert E. Lee said that duty is the sublimest word in the English language “you cannot do more, you should not expect to do less”.

Their duty was to fight on that day, our duty is to remember them with honor.

One of the reasons that I so despise multiculturalism is because it seeks to induce us to remember the past only with guilt. But we have achieved so much due largely to the sacrifices of brave men. I am proud and humbled by their example.
-by 91B30


#1 Kyda Sylvester,
It was not just this day, but the tenacity with which the ANZACS clawed their way ashore, set up defensive trenches under withering fire, and clung on there for months in hellish conditions, long after there was any chance of a victory.
Even the defending Turks were admirers.

All this in their very first exposure to war in nearly every case.
The equivalent to the Marines storming the most difficult D-Day beaches.

In reality, if a British naval Admiral hadn’t earlier refused to pursue and destroy fleeing enemy ships defending the area, the failed Gallipoli Campaign would not have been necessary.
-by Barrie


Interesting article by D. D. McNicoll in The Australian about the French force at Gallipoli which had 9800 killed. He notes that “most of the French troops were black tribesmen recruited mainly from the French west African colony of Senegal.”

Also worth noting that the Zion Mule Corps at Gallipoli was the forerunner of the Israel Defence Forces.

Also, check out the photograph of the Turkish guard of hnour on the front page of The Australian (25/4). It brings to life the words of President Ataturk on the Turkish memorial at ANZAC Cove:

"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives… You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace.

“There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side now here in this country of ours… you, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace.

“After having lost their lives on this land. They have become our sons as well."
-by Geoffrey MG


It’s worth pointing out that while the Dardanelles campaign is remembered, correctly, as unsuccessful, Turkish casualties were almost double the allied casualties. And it’s not certain that casualties would have been any better had the ANZACs landed at the correct beach. Anzac Cove, while open and exposed, was neverthless lightly defended, and the move to capture the cove and the cliffs overlooking it was one of the few successful aspects of the campaign.
-Jim Geones


#31 I’ll do that very thing, Crusader Rabbit! It’s been said that every man has two countries - his own and France. I don’t know who authored that howler, but my own sense is that every American (of the Right Wing Death Beast variety, anyway) looks wistfully at Australia and/or NZ as his home away from home.
-by paco

This simply makes me think back to when there was a time when great men tried great things at high personal cost and the response was not contempt, fault-finding, and undercutting the effort at home, but rather honor, respect, and reverence for their efforts, failed or successful. Either way, I'm with paco. For those who drink, hoist one for the lads of ANZAC.



Quote of the day

"Is not the fanaticism of your irreligion more absurd and dangerous than the fanaticism of superstition? Begin by tolerating the faith of your fathers. You talk of nothing but tolerance, and never was a sect more intolerant."
-Voltaire

Monday, April 24, 2006

McCARTHY (not Charlie)

On Saturday, April 22nd of 2006, a story broke regarding a CIA employee being fired for leaking classified information to the press:
"The officer has acknowledged unauthorized discussions with the media and the unauthorized sharing of classified information," said CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano. "That is a violation of the secrecy agreement that everyone signs as a condition of employment with the CIA."
The identity of the employee was unknown at first, and over the weekend, information and details rapidly were discovered as to who this person was, what their position was, what they did, and more. As the story unfolded, we were gifted with a classic example of how comments and commenters affect the news and blogging in a powerful, positive way.

Ace of Spades Headquarters has been all over this story like cheap perfume on a 7th grade girl at her first dance, and here is where we take up the process of commenting. Ace started with this entry:

It may be that [the leaker] gave Dana Priest the leak about black prisons. The tipster, DB, says that, but the article doesn't; maybe he heard a televised report update.

A commenter almost immediately began to add more information as the story developed:

Fred Barnes [executive editor of the Weekly Standard] said the CIA leaker is a "she"
-by Chicago Station

Soon the Identity of the leaker was known to be Mary McCarthy, as noted by a commenter on the Confederate Yankee blog herself a blogger:
The leaker was Mary McCarthy who worked for the unit in the CIA designated to investigate leaks. The leak was about the secret prisons, which Dana Millbank won a Pulitzer for this week, and the European press reported today could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nice going Dana
-by Jane

Information on Mary McCarthy began to become available. Her final position in the CIA is said to have been final position at the CIA, she was assigned to its Office of Inspector General, and as information was uncovered, it included data detailing her political affiliation and sympathies from the legally required FEC campaign contribution disclosures:

Here is some political contribution information for a Mary McCarthy who is a "U.S. Government/analyst" from Bethesda:
http://www.fecinfo.com

McCarthy, Mary
11/1/2002 $200.00
Bethesda, MD 20817
U.S. Government/cival servant [Contribution]
ANDREASEN FOR CONGRESS (Dem)

McCarthy, Mary
10/29/2004 $500.00
Bethesda, MD 20817
US Government/analyst [Contribution]
DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Mccarthy, Mary O
3/14/2004 $2,000.00
Bethesda, MD 20817
U.S. Government/Analyst [Contribution]
JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC

I am sure its purely a coincidence- like falling and gravity.
-by tyrtle

Ace included this information in a following article entitled CIA Leaker Identified: Mary McCarthy in which he also noted that McCarthy admitted that she had leaked the information:

Does it matter she's a big-money donor to Kerry and the Democrats?

Well, let's ask the question the opposite way. If she was caught leaking secret information that damaged a Clinton Administration, and was a big donor to Jeb Bush and the Ohio State Republicans, do you think the MSM would note that in passing?

Commenters continued to add to the information:

Note this entry:

MCCARTHY, MARY
BETHESDA,MD 20817

US GOVERNMENT/ANALYST

10/29/2004

$500

DNC Services Corp
-by Allah


Favorite quotes so far:

1. "Sources said the CIA believes McCarthy had more than a dozen unauthorized contacts with Priest. Information about subjects other than the prisons may have been leaked as well.

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the firing." [MSNBC]

2. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who chairs the Senate intelligence panel, welcomed the CIA's actions. In a statement, he said leaks had "hindered our efforts in the war against al Qaeda," although he did not say how. [Washington Post]
-by Chicago Station

Ace continued with More McCarthy: Berger Crony, Clinton Appointee, Witness At 9/11 Commission showing the connections between McCarthy and various public officials. He posted an expert of McCarthy's testimony at the 9/11 Commission, prompting this comment:
After reading your quote of McCarthy's 9/11 testimony, I found this part of Dana Priest's article very interesing.

Most of the facilities were built and are maintained with congressionally appropriated funds, but the White House has refused to allow the CIA to brief anyone except the chairman and vice chairman of the House and Senate intelligence committees on the program's generalities.

Almost sounds like it was written by the same person.

And this one gives the "justification" for the leak

Since [2001], the arrangement has been increasingly debated within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the legality, morality and practicality of holding even unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps for the duration of their lives.

My question is, if someone gives you highly classified information in great detail and all you do is basically transcibe it, why is that worthy of any kind of prize? A monkey with a typewriter could do that.
-by JackStraw


The Captain is wondering "if the story on CIA detention centers might not have been a sting operation to unmask leakers at Langley. The possibility comes up because on the same day that the CIA terminated Mary McCarthy for her communications to the press, the New York Times reports that European investigators cannot find any evidence that the detention centers ever existed."

Read on. This is serious cloak and dagger stuff.
-by Maryjo
Ace included this in his post Did Mary McCarthy Send Joe Wilson To Niger? where he notes:

Plame suggested his name; but a higher-up at the CIA actually sent him.

Who?

Now, McCarthy has links to general-turned-Rumsfeld-resignation-demander Anthony Zinni. And Sandy Berger. And, of course, Richard Clarke.

Would you believe she was also on the NSC during the same period, and with the same portfolio (Africa), as... JOE F'N' WILSON?

It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see the vague outlines of a conspiracy here. We have a lot of like-minded people with the motive, means, and opportunity to subvert the democratically-elected foreign-policy official of this country when he dares to disrespect their superior enlightened liberal ideas.

I found this list from a commenter at Just One Minute showing McCarthy with such illuminaries as Dana Priest and Seymour Hersh.

Busy little bees.
-by Stormy70


In my opinion, here is the key to this whole mess. There is a war going on between the Open source intelligence community led by Richard David STEELE Vivas and the CIA. Just peruse the OSS website and look at all the vile toward Cheney, the DNI, and the CIA. The intelligence contractors want to shut down the CIA and have the US Government outsource intelligence to them. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Not to these people. And they are shilling hard for Mary McCarthy right about now. After all, she's one of them. And she was a great source for leaks.
-by Lurking Lizard

This is only the tip of the iceberg. It is likely both Dick The Turban Durbin and Jay Rockefelller will be asked to take a polygraph. Read the related articles at

Strata Sphere Blog

Mac's Mind Blog

This is a must read. Judge their accuracy yourself.
-by Mark McGilvray

The New York Times put out an article on the McCarthy leak story the next day (April 25th) entitled Colleagues Say CIA Analyst Played By the Rules and in this article were parts that caught the eye of some commenters:

Was this a NYT editorial?

It must be an editorial because...

[Mary McCarthy] had grown increasingly disenchanted with the often harsh and extra-legal methods adopted by the Bush administration for handling Al Qaeda prisoners and felt she had no alternative except to go to the press.

the way the writer it, it doesn't appear to be a quote from McCarthy. Instead, it reads like an opinion piece from an apologist to spin this story against Bush.

(Well, duh, Bart.)

Yeah, I know. But writing that McCarthy was "disenchanted" is one thing; writing "often harsh" and "extra-legal" is another.

The wirter is stating it as a fact that the Bush administration is harsh and extra-legal.
-by Bart

what's interesting in part where they defend her for her disagreeing about Sudan/bombing the chemical factory intelligence is that she later changed her tune and signed on.

The report of the 9/11 Commission notes that the National Security staff reviewed the intelligence in April 2000 and concluded that the CIA's assessment of its intelligence on bin Laden and al-Shifa had been valid; the memo to Clinton on this was cosigned by Richard Clarke and Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director for intelligence programs, who opposed the bombing of al-Shifa in 1998. The report also notes that in their testimony before the commission, Al Gore, Sandy Berger, George Tenet, and Richard Clarke all stood by the decision to bomb al-Shifa.
-by Brad

Several Commenters noted that the New York Times article left off an important aspect of this woman's alleged "professional behavior:"

Why not mention the oath, NYT? Reprint it, even. Mention that, the duties of her office, and any other obligations she had to be SECRET about thing as a member of the CIA.

Ends don't justify means. If you can't keep your oath, don't take the job. Go fight evil at Home Depot.
-rd [quoted in part]

This story continues to unfold, and there are many places which are keeping tabs on the various pieces of information that are coming out about the crime this woman committed and the ties to other officials, other actions, and other crimes in the past. These are some useful places to check back on for roundups of blog information and good updates:

Ace of Spades Headquarters, Starting with this roundup
Danegerous Blog
Reil World View


And as the story unfolds, commenters will continue to bring attention to new details, update stories, and assist the bloggers in their work!

*UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens has this to say about the entire affair and how it would be handled were the media being consistent:

Well! In that case the remedy is clear. A special counsel must be appointed forthwith, to discover whether the CIA has been manipulating the media. All civil servants and all reporters with knowledge must be urged to comply, and to produce their notes or see the inside of a jail. No effort must be spared to discover the leaker. This is, after all, the line sternly proposed by the New York Times and many other media outlets in the matter of the blessed Joseph Wilson and his martyred CIA spouse, Valerie Plame.

I have a sense that this is not the media line that will be taken in the case of McCarthy, any more than it was the line taken when James Risen and others disclosed the domestic wiretapping being conducted by the NSA.

Comment Type #7

OFF TOPIC

An off-topic comment is one that is not about the topic of the original message (on a message board) or the original blog entry (on a blog). Such a post is sometimes met with opposition due to the way it can distract from the original point and discussion. This is a classic Troll technique, to post something to deflect attention away from the original point so that it is ignored and not discussed.

However, an off-topic post is not always disliked or improper. Some comment sections get so long they lose the point or have thoroughly discussed a topic and can use a break. Some posts are actually designed for discussion and have no topic at all. And sometimes an off-topic post can be so much fun it is accepted as part of the discussion.

EXAMPLE:
On the 5th of April, 2006 an interesting mathematical occurrence happened early in the morning at two minutes and three seconds after 1:00 A.M. in the morning. The time date was

01:02:03 04/05/06.

This happens once a century, and of course, next year the clock will tick by 02:03:04 05/06/07 but that's the fun you get in the early years of the century. I posted about this on Right Wing News, and a few commenters followed up with some fun:
Hey Chris 6 hour 6 minutes and 6 seconds later it was. 04/05/06 07:08:09.
by mr2trucker


Does this mean that Armageddon will happen on 6:06:06 06/06/06?
Also, will Armageddon occur on Eastern, Central or Universal time?
by Kingfisher


"Also, will Armageddon occur on Eastern, Central or Universal time?"


Gotta be Pacific Standard Time, the beast dwells in Los Angeles and all that ;)
by Christopher_Taylor


"Also, will Armageddon occur on Eastern, Central or Universal time?"

It will be a rolling Armageddon. Kinda like the millenium celebration. All you guys out in California will get to see the other time zones devoured in chaos and flames before it's your turn.
by Mike_M
This sort of post doesn't add much to the discussion at hand, but can be fun and entertaining for readers as it gives a break from arguments and other common features, as well as just being something to make you smile or at least think a bit. A small amount of off topic posting or such commenting done in the right areas adds some spice to any message board. Just don't over do it.

Quote of the day

"I have said enough to put the Anglo-English character into its true light. It is the result (and this should be constantly present to mind) of two distinct elements, which in other places have been in frequent hostility, but which in America have been admirably incorporated and combined with one another. I refer to the spirit of Religion and the spirit of Liberty.

Liberty regards religion as its companion in all its battles and triumphs, -as the cradle of its infancy and the divine source of its claims. It considers religion as the safeguard of morality, morality as the best security of law, and the surest pledge of the duration of freedom."
-Alexis DeTocqueville

Saturday, April 22, 2006

OILY POLITICS

gas pump political cartoonPAIN AT THE PUMP
One of the most burning questions of today is why are gas prices so high, and further what can be done about them? Frustration over this effect even seems to be affecting the Presidential Approval polls (see below). So what can be done?

So first, what causes the price of fuel to be so high lately? A Federal Trade Commission study on fuel costs and demand has some useful information on how gas prices work and why. They start with an example of an event in Phoenix, Arizona:
In August 2003, the FTC staff observed anomalous retail gasoline prices in Phoenix, Arizona. At the beginning of August 2003, the average price of gasoline in Phoenix was $1.52 per gallon. By the third week of August, however, it had peaked at $2.11 per gallon. Over the next few weeks, the price dropped, falling to $1.80 per gallon by the end of September. The price spike was caused by a pipeline rupture on July 30, and the failure of temporary repairs, which had reduced the volume of gasoline supplies to Phoenix by 30% from August 8 through August 23. Arizona has no refineries. It obtains gasoline primarily through two pipelines, one traveling from west Texas and the other from the West Coast. The rupture closed the portion of the Texas line between Tucson and Phoenix.

To obtain additional supply, Phoenix gas stations had to pay higher prices to West Coast refineries than West Coast gas stations were paying. West Coast refineries responded by selling more of their supplies to the Phoenix market. Phoenix consumers did not respond to significantly increased gasoline prices with substantial reductions in the amount of gasoline they purchased. In theory, to prevent a gasoline price hike, Phoenix consumers could have reduced their gasoline purchases by 30%.

Oil RefineryREFINERIES AND YOU
We see two effects here. First, while an accident such as a gas line rupture will affect prices, the fact that there have been no new Oil Refineries built in the United States since 1976 is causing the price of gasoline to raise more than a shortage normally would. While the US population has risen from just over 200 million to almost 300 million, the ability to supply fuel to these numbers has not increased to match this demand. According to reports, gasoline use has increased by 25% or more since the last oil refinery was built. Further, the number of domestic refineries is declining. In 1980, there were more than 300 U.S. refineries. At the end of 2003, there were 149, roughly a 50 percent decrease. The Reason Foundation reports that:
The nation's 149 existing refineries have been running at maximum capacity trying to meet record demand and, as a result, not only do we import oil, we actually have to import 10 percent of our daily gasoline from refineries overseas.
Consider the example of Arizona Clean Fuels, which has been trying to build a small refinery outside Yuma for almost 10 years. It took five years just to get air-quality permits. Now they hope to be operational in 2010, 15 years after they started the project.
The biggest problem faced in the need for new refineries is the BANANA attitude: "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything" that has replaced the Not In My Back Yard effecet. Instead of not wanting the loud, ugly, stinky thing built nearby my house, the movement is to not have them built anywhere. The article by Anne Applebaum is about windmill power plants, but it can be applied to nuclear or any new major construction. Today I doubt the federal highway system would be politically feasible.

But there's more reason than that. Ann Parker notes that
Experts also say fewer refineries give the oil companies a huge advantage: They stand to make a lot more money when supplies are limited, so, even if people wanted more refineries, companies don't have a lot of incentive to build more. In the first quarter, industry giant Exxon/Mobil saw its profits from refining operations jump 38.8 percent. Refining profits at Conoco/Phillips grew 19.2 percent in the first quarter.
Oil companies have little reason to address the shortage because not only do regulations and running costs make refineries of limited profit (see this article by CorpWatch for more information), but the shortage actually is making the profits for these companies significantly larger. Which brings us to point two.

YOU AND REFINERIES
Second, consumers have the power to affect gas prices but choose not to by and large. While we can complain at the government to do something to fix our woes, the primary problem is that we need to take charge of our own problems and do what we can at least while we ask for government to do it's part. The FTC report goes on:
At some point, gasoline prices can become high enough that consumers will make
substantial reductions in their gasoline purchases. How much prices need to increase depends on how easily consumers can adopt substitutes for gasoline – such as taking public transportation. Empirical studies indicate that consumers do not easily find substitutes for gasoline, and that prices must increase significantly to cause even a relatively small decrease in the quantity of gasoline consumers want. In the short run, a gasoline price increase of 10 percent would reduce consumer demand by just 2 percent, according to these studies. This suggests that gasoline prices in Phoenix would have had to increase by a large amount to reduce the quantity of consumers’ purchases by 30 percent, the amount of lost supply.
In short, if Arizona drivers had reduced their purchase and use of gasoline, then the prices would not have risen by as much. Modern car purchases tend toward heavier, less fuel efficient models such as SUVs, which while safer and a roomier ride for larger Americans and their families, also requires a greater amount of fuel to reach a given destination. Concerns for safety in smaller, more fuel efficient cars are valid, but to complain about the price of fuel while not taking logical personal steps to avoid those costs is irrational.
Stretch SUVIn the United States, we live in a nation that is over 3000 miles across, and a trip of 50 miles or more to work and home is not unusual in some cities, such as Los Angeles. Shipping goods across the states can be a matter of days rather than hours in smaller countries, so there is a limited amount that much gasoline use can be reduced by. Mass transit and carpooling makes some of this easier, and is used by large numbers, but again there is a limit at which people can realistically reduce their fuel consumption.

To whatever extent we can, we all have a responsibility to do so. But the government also has a responsibility to do what it can, as do the companies that buy, refine, and distribute gasoline.

THE BUSINESS OF AMERICA...Money!!
In order to address the cost of gasoline, the consumer must be more wise and thrifty, thus pressuring oil companies to lower prices - or at least not raise them as much. Further, business must recognize it's responsibility to consumers and the economy at large when factoring it's profits. Capitalism is a very fine thing as an economic system, but if it is not combined with a moral populace, then it breeds the worst kind of greed, abuse, and crushing cruelty to buyers and employees. Oil Companies are legally free to make whatever profit they desire in their business endeavors, and in a capitalist economic system they are encouraged to do so. But they are morally obliged to be responsible and careful about how their profits affect the human beings involved in the exchange.

DE GUBMINT
But what can government do? As always, the first thing to remember is that government should not step beyond the boundaries the United States Constitution constrains it to. No government program or effort should be one that exceeds the power that government is limited to by their constitutions, both federal and state. The government also has a responsibility to recognize that fuel prices are a national concern because of how greatly they affect not only consumers directly but the economy at large.

When gas prices go up, that not only affects your cost when you fill your tank, but the cost of shipping the goods you buy at each store because the tanks of those ships, trucks, and trains must be filled as well. Further, because all of this is more expensive to everyone, prices raise in other areas not directly related to transported goods, and wages must raise to meet the demands of every day life - or jobs must be cut, and possibly businesses closed. This ripple effect impacts the entire national economy. And when the US economy is effected, so is the rest of the world.

The President and both chambers of Congress have their duties in this, and while there are other critical topics that need to be addressed (illegal immigration, terrorism, balanced budget, etc), here is my solution:

Presidential SealHAIL TO THE CHEIF
The President should go on TV tomorrow and gave a speech laid out a plan to deal with high gas prices.

1) Push to have more refineries built. President Bush recently signed a new energy bill that tries to make it easier to build new oil refineries, especially in areas with high unemployment – where the new jobs would likely be welcome. This should be announced along with a call to and pressure on states to expedite the work.

2) Pressure congress to establish a single national standard for different blends of gasoline, instead of each state establishing their own. The General Accounting Office did a study of the effects of states mandating their own gasoline blends, and found that at least 45 different kinds of gasoline were in use in 2004. Part of this cost is because of a clause in the 1990 Clean Air Act which requires areas which have over a certain level of pollution to use a given kind of blend. This blend alone costs 4-8 cents more than conventional gasoline, according to the Federal Trade Commission. Not every refinery is able to produce each kind of blend, which bottlenecks the process. Further complicating matters is the fact that oil pipelines cannot carry more than one blend at a time, and to avoid contamination must clean the line before pumping the new blend. Reducing the number of blends to a national standard rather than individual state choices would result in a reduction in all these costs.

Gas Pie Chart3) Announce an investigation into price-fixing across the nation for gasoline, an effect most people see every day gas is raised in price almost uniformly across an entire city at the same time. While retailers are free to raise and lower prices as they see fit, and many or all may do so at the same time by roughly the same amount, this happens every time gas prices change, at the same hour, and while this may not be due to mutual agreement, an investigation would be useful to examine this effect. Guy Cramer has written an article examining the way gas prices change over the US and Canada, including an analysis of how gas prices fluctuate over each week.

4) Announce an investigation into the forces that cause gas to raise the hour some disaster or war that clearly will not impact gas prices for months. While this is said to be caused by the system of speculation and purchasing now in place, an investigation into ways to ease the size of reaction and how much disasters actually affect gas prices would be useful. Events like Hurricane Katrina or the Exxon Valdez wreck immediately affect the price at the pump, while their real effects on gas supplies and costs - if any - are not felt for weeks or months. Part of this is due to market forces, but an investigation into whether it all is caused by this and action by congress could be useful and informative.

ANWR5) Call for oil exploration and drilling in ANWR immediately. The Senate has passed funding for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but it is up to the House to pass their version and then the budget worked out between both chambers. When this was attempted last time, 2005, The legislation died in a conference committee of House and Senate negotiators trying to iron out the differences between the two bills. This time it should be pressed through and the president can lean on congress both publicly and privately to work this out.

6) Call for a reduction in the Federal Gas tax, along with an appeal to governors to reduce gas prices. Gasoline taxes per gallon account for over 18 cents at the federal level, plus additional taxes if the area is too polluted (again due to the Clean Air Act) plus as much as 35 cents at the state level (in Hawaii. The national average is 23.6 cents per gallon). If consumers don't like high gas prices, here's an easy place to reduce them that the government can undertake immediately. Since everyone agrees that government spends too much money in any case (although there's some argument in which areas), it can do without as much money.

7) Call for an examination of all present oil industry regulations to determine if they are accomplishing what they are intended to do and if they are causing more harm economically and to the consumer than they are intended to benefit them. Some regulations are beneficial and required because with humans although we call for morality, often people are not, and in modern society the traditional structures and pressures for moral behavior have been eased or often eliminated.

Exxon Logo8) Announce that CEOs and executives of gas companies will be called into President Bush's office for a talk about responsibility to consumers and the nation's economy. This is likely to accomplish little, but at the very least they should be chastised for the absurdly gigantic "retirement packages" such as Exxon CEO and Chairman Lee Raymond who retired to the tune of $69.7 million in compensation and a $98 million pension. Having congress and the president pressure these men might make them more cautious and thoughtful about their spending and bonus packages. While I recognize that the CEO is a tough job that requires significant skill and personal ability, there is a human limit to how much this is actually worth. When people are upset about gas prices already, this kind of egregious misuse of profits does not help anyone's mood.

9) Announce that he is instructing the state department to pressure OPEC to lower prices. OPEC is waging a subtle war against the US in anger against our presence in the middle east. Remember that members of OPEC include sworn enemies of the US such as Iran, Lybia, and Venezuela, and they use what influence they have to raise prices and hurt America and thus the rest of the world.

This is a simple set of goals the president could set out clearly and repeatedly to the American people and congress, tangible and easy to grasp plans to push toward and inform the public with. Several of them appear to be impossible to achieve such as lowering taxes.

An interesting study that is moving around the blogosphere now is a comparison between President Bush's approval numbers and the price of gasoline. This chart shows a remarkable concurrence between the President's approval ratings and the average price of gas (note: up is lower cost in this chart to more clearly show the effect).

Popularity and Gas Price comparison
Now, without more data and a more careful study, it is not possible to know if this is coincidence (occurred at the same time) or causality (one happened because of the other) but it would not surprise me if the general public became more surly and unhappy with the president when their pocketbook is most impacted. Remember the cost of gasoline is not merely felt at the pump, but at the store from goods that had to be driven around and at home where heating costs can be driven by heating fuel costs. While it is irrational to condemn President Bush for how much it costs you to fill your car (and coincidentally negates the "blood for oil" cry by some in the past), consumers tend to judge the President by how their wallet feels rather than by more rational criteria if past elections are any indication.

The steps outlined above for the President to take would likely give him a big boost in approval rating, but it also would be a solid and real plan for dealing with gas prices that does not involve unconstitutional regulation or control over private business and offers real benefit to consumers.

In the final analysis, however, we all have a part to play in this, and the first steps for each of us is easy: drive less, drive cheaper, and use a more fuel efficient car or public transportation when you can.

*UPDATE significantly expanded and annotated the original post.
**UPDATE Economic Liberty, a well-educated and eloquent Libertarian suggested that points 4, 7, and 8 are at least the first steps toward greater socialism and government control of business that he believes should be left as free as possible:
I am for laws that enforce contract, protect property and punish fraud, as I have said. However, it isn't corruption to charge a high price. Government has no right to decide what is a high price. People decide that. That is the basis for a free market, not a controlled market.
He went on to express his concern that any sort of investigation into price gouging or price fixing would result in price controls, which worked so very well for President Carter in the late 1970's, resulting in the joy of gas lines:
1. Do you understand how in order to go after "price gougers," you will need to find the "reasonable" price?

2. Do you recognize that once you have found the "reasonable" price, everyone charging more would be gouging, and hence that "reasonable" price is now your price cap?

3. Do you recognize that most economists and history agree that price caps are bad and cause shortages - lines - and discourage new investments, creating long term cost and supply problems?

4. Do you recognize that the problem with price caps in e.g. the oil industry is exactly the same problem that occurs with the minimum wage (a price floor) and with public industries such as universal health care (where prices are also fixed by government) and in general anywhere that government strong-arms the market?

5. Do you also think that government should set wages, costs for healthcare and provide the poor with housing, vehicles, food, clothing and all of the other important things that all people need and which greedy businessmen might over-charge for?
Now while I share his concern about government controls over prices - which have proven to be a miserable failure over and over - and I agree that it is generally a Bad Thing for government to be too greatly involved in private enterprise and business, I am not quite as libertarian as EL.

I agree that most business should be left unmolested, market forces will deal with prices in most cases. Non critical business such as burger stands, shoe stores, limousine drivers, yacht builders, and so forth are fine without much government attention at all, outside of taxation. But businesses critical to the economy of the nation and the people that live there fall into a different sort of category to me.

I also agree that if you set a price that is "acceptible" to the government, this is little more than price controls - and as I've mentioned, this is bad, even for Big Oil©. But that's not what I think needs to happen to prevent price gouging. If a critical business, which by all definitions oil is in the United States (and the rest of the civilized world at present) charges so much that it is destructive to the economy and people at an eggregious level, the government has a responsibility to step in.

Government has a very limited role - I tend to be very Lockeian in this - and that role is to protect its citizens, punish the wicked, and promote good. Part of protecting the citizenry (or subjects, if you are in a monarchy), requires the government to protect from greed, graft, corruption, and excessive profitmongering. I'm not talking about 3 dollars a gallon for gas, I mean like 15 dollars a gallon because they know they have everyone over an oil barrel.

Another poster on Right Wing News where we discussed this, MrMeaner mentioned somethign that happened in his home state:
Now, it is true that some local establishments are quick to take advantage of a bad situation,but a state AG should exercise his athority to take action against a business that would operate that way.( I can think of a local example,during a 2 week power outage after an ice storm. Our state AG prosecuted the hell out of a couple of dealers operating on generators who tripled the price per gallon).
I would propose that instead of EL's "acceptible" level, there is instead a high "unacceptible" cost that a critical service or commodity can be priced at, far above what a rational businessman is likely to raise it to - but somewhere a truly unethical gouger might, as in MrMeaner's example. The idea is not to set price controls, but to set a legal limit at which a business has crossed the line between private enterprise and effective theft.

Having the gas execs come in and get a talking to by the President is primarily a PR maneuver, it would give people a better feeling that their government is aware of the problem and is doing something about it. But the most useful area that could be looked at are the way crude oil is brokered and bought. The system is much like any other commodities purchasing, with buyers speculating on the future cost of a product. Here, Economic Liberty has given a helpful quote:
"Not only may there be malfeasance, but there also might be a way to do it better that controls the wild swings in prices and absorbs the effects of emergencies and disasters."
-FDR, referring to the stock market, having just come out of the crash in 1929
Now, with President Roosevelt, this usually meant "socialism, and how!" but that does not need to be the answer. It is a foolish assumption that we're doing everything as efficiently and properly as possible, that we cannot do better and that no new ideas or systems would be superior to what we do now in oil purchasing. I'd like to see a better way that smooths out the sudden jumps in gas prices that events like Hurricane Katrina or war causes.

Again, MrMeaner provides insight better than I put it originally in #4, above:
First of all, you can get there without govt. oversite, I believe. It could be something as simple as changing the type of private operational investment into something a little more mid-term.
Maybe you could gradually ease investments toward a CD-type scenerio, and away from the daily markets.That would allow for continued private investment, but would limit the effect of the daily dose of gloom and doom, and should stop the daily swing of pump prices,while giving the investor time to reflect on whether the indicators are hyped-up or real....I guess.
This is what I was pointing at, some mechanism, some manner of making the system work better without government controlling the whole process. Because despite our disagreements, EL and I agree that the government is in general poor at doing nearly everything.

***UPDATE: An excellent analysis with useful graphs can be found here showing the price and fluctuations of crude oil over the years. Looking at this you can see the effect war, different presidents (and their policies), and other global events have had on oil prices.

Friday, April 21, 2006

NEW FEATURE!

I have managed to crib some java scripting from a helpful fellow Pastor Shaun's blog on how to hide text. It's a neat trick that works well for ginormous posts such as the kind I often have, and the blogger format squeezes text down to make it even longer. I'm still working out the bugs (all posts have a "show more" option, even when there's nothing more to show) so if anyone can help me with the way to fix that, I'd much appreciate it.

Hopefully my clog is easier to read and more pleasing to the eye now!

THE ELDERS LOBBY?

Because of how much it has been overused, or just plain used as a bludgeon to beat anyone who dared question any Jewish activity, I hesitate to use the word Anti-Semitic very often. But there is a real and growing problem of that old monster in our world returning to the surface after being long shamed into hiding.

Volokh Conspiracy has a blog article about an opinion piece in the New York Times by Tony Judt. In the article about a report by Harvard professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Judt claims that:
Prominent Israeli leaders ... pressed very hard for the invasion of Iraq.
Volokh is puzzled by this statement, and asks some questions:

Is there any evidence that this is true? Certainly, Israelis of just about every ideological stripe were happy to have Saddam taken out, given that, among other things, he financed suicide murderers, and had launched missles at Israel in 1990. But that's very different from suggesting that Israeli leaders lobbied the Bush Administration to invade Iraq. Israeli leaders can't even persuade Secretary of State Rice that it needs to keep the crossing between Israel and Gaza closed for security reasons; why would they bother trying to lobby the Bush Administration on an Iraq invasion (especially when any leak of such pressure would make it much more difficult for the Administration to invade Iraq?)

Judt has a lot more to say about the Walt-Mearsheimer paper, much of it foolish, but I'm getting tired of the topic; how much more "ink" must we waste on a screed so poorly done that even Noam Chomsky disavows it? But here's a critique from a Ha'aretz columnist, who notes that quoting the most left-wing sources in a left-wing Israeli newspaper does not exactly constitute a fair sampling of Israeli opinion.

Commenters had this to say:

and don't forget that Tony Judt called for the destruction of Israel and its replacement by a bi-national Arab-Jewish state in an article in the New York Review of Books. Leon Weiseltier of the New Republic called the idea "genocidal liberalism." Interesting choice for the Times's op-ed page to publish Judt's thoughts on this subject.
-by laurence rothenberg


I don't know whether it is or not. But what's more important is that it's absolutely irrelevant. Offering any credence whatsoever to the flagrantly agenda-driven authors of "The Lobby" - or any "scholarly article," for that matter - is pretty foolish, isn't it?

But even more important is I'm sure you're highly critical of Chomsky - yet you're willing to use his opinion when it's convenient as a means of saying, "Hey, look! Even Chomsky doesn't fully agree!"

Which strikes me as highly disingenuous, and even dishonest. Either Chomsky is credible, or he's not, in which case it's damning for you to use him period.
-by Tamara


I find Chomsky's article pretty much unreadable. I think his point is that the Lobby exists in the same conspiratorial sense as in M-W, and it is evil in the same sense, and all the existing criticisms of M-W have been evil and conformist and are essentially part of the Lobby. Chomsky's problem with M-W appears to be that in exaggerating the power of the Lobby over the U.S. government and industry (the Corporations), M-W are in effect minimizing the evil of the U.S.
-by LTEC

A pretty well-supported and persuasive critique of the [M-W] thesis can be found at

http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2006_04_12.htm
-by frankcross

NEVER ROB A BRUCE

Tim Blair reports how a pair of fools tried to rob an Australian Pub. In what one commenter calls the Pulitzer Prize for Delightful Understatement (tip of the hat to Baby M), the news story says

Once the locals had finished subduing the youth, nobody needed to guard him until the police arrived.

Other commenters had this to say:

The gunman is described by police as being slim, about 175 centimetres tall, with olive skin, and wearing a white hooded top, which obscured his face, blue jeans and white sneakers.

Green or black?
-by Texas Bob


I think an incident like this should be called an example of “Flight 93 Syndrome”.
-by Rinardman


Dumb bastards shouldn’t have picked Ladies’ Night…
-by Richard McEnroe

Ha ha! Reminds me of the ‘porn king’ who got robbed awhile back, and went after the little thieves. He beat the crap out of them- using bolt cutters on one, then dumped them at a police station and left his details.

More stories like this and robbers will start to learn…
-by Anthony27


Its a good news story until we hear that police have just charged the locals for assault.
-Mike.A.


BUT WHO DOES?

As an example of the kind of comedic value of posting under different names, I offer you this thread from Ace of Spades Headquarters. Ace posted on the Hiltzik story:

By the way... I guess it's time to tell you morons-- you're all made-up, fictitious "readers" and "commenters" that I invented because I was tired of having lower traffic than Oliver Willis.

I feel kind of silly about it, and embarrassed, except that there's no one reading this but me, and my three thousand fake internet personas.

Did you morons really think there were so many other super-geeky pro-war sex-starved conservative perverts out there, the sort of people who need clarification as to which version of the acronym "RPG" you mean?

Sorry to break it to you. You're all fake.

And away went the commenters:

I am retracting this post even as I write it. Let's just say this never happened.
-by Pistolero


I... I'm imaginary? But... but... then... WHY?! WHY WAS I PROGRAMMED TO FEEL PAIN?!
-by Cautiously Pessimistic


I'm not real? Ace made me up?

Man, what would Descartes say?
-by Hal


Ace, my mind is going…I can feel it.

Daisy, Daisy give me your…



-by Glenn


So I'm not real? That's just great. All my memories will now be lost, like tears in the rain. Time to die.
-by Russ from Winterset


Russ,
It's too bad we won't live! But then again, who does?
-By Sean M.
At this point, the comments, as they do on occasion, fell into what could be called Sock Puppet posts, but instead are simply people using names for comedic effect:

It's too bad we won't live! But then again, who does?

Then we're stupid and we'll die!
-by Priss


I'm not real? Ace made me up?
Man, what would Descartes say?

I say grow some stones, nancy boy!
-by Rene Descartes


Wow. I, Al, invented the internet. And Ace invented me.
And Allah is in his heaven [pbuh].
The perfect holy trinity. I am Ace, and He are us.
We is everywhere and in all things.
pwned!
-by Al Gore


I don't think Hiltzik has done anything wrong.

He is a professional and you are all douchebags!

Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!
-By Mikekoshi

There's nothing deep and singificant to see here, folks. Just some fun with comments.



Comment Type #6

THE SOCK PUPPET

Recent events on the internet have pushed this up the list before I planned to get to it, but it is relevant and timely.

The Sock Puppet is a term that was coined over a decade ago on Usenet message boards. A Sock Puppet comment is when someone creates a new name or even an entire account on a message board or comment section for the sole purpose of agreeing with previous comments or defending himself. Sometimes this is done by commenters who want to bring attention to what they've said, or to push a message to the top of the list (some message boards scroll down as new messages are posted, and jump to the top again when new comments are made on an old topic). Sometimes it is done to defend or approve of something they have said before in the past.

There is a distinction here between joke posts and a Sock Puppet post. Sometimes people will, as is often done on the Ace of Spades Headquarters for instance, post with a different name for comedic effect. This is distinct from the Sock Puppet comment because it is not meant to be serious or deceptive, and is not used for personal gain beyond amusement.

EXAMPLE:
The Los Angeles Times has the Golden State Blog which is run by a fellow with the Myzlplkian name of Michael Hyltzik. Pulitzer Prize winner Michael Hyltzik has apparently been using alternate accounts and names to post on message boards and blogs - including his own - to promote or defend his ideas and comments on the Golden State Blog. He especially has had a recent feud with another blog , Patterico's Pontifications, with both blogs arguing over various issues and debating each other. Patterico takes up the story:

In an early post on his L.A. Times-sponsored Golden State blog, Times columnist Michael Hiltzik was criticized by a couple of commenters calling themselves “Chad” and “Booker.” These commenters left juvenile comments mocking Hiltzik for explaining blogs to his readers. A commenter named “Mikekoshi” rose to Hiltzik’s defense, scolding the commenters for criticizing Hiltzik’s column:
To Chad and Booker:

Nice way to uphold the inclusiveness of the web--by ridiculing an attempt to introduce any of its features to people who may yet be behind the curve. So you knew about blogging, or the web, or some other new technology before someone else? Big whoop. Here's news: Some people undoubtedly knew about blogs before you did. And they probably considered you to be a pathetic newbie.
-by Mikekoshi
“Mikekoshi” has defended Hiltzik before. For example, in April 2004, L.A. Observed’s Kevin Roderick posted an item about one of Hiltzik’s Golden State columns. In comments to that post, someone named David Poland posted a comment critical of Hiltzik, wondering: “who is whispering in Hiltzik’s ear and what are their motives?” Commenter “Mikekoshi” left a comment ridiculing Poland, asking: “Where has Mr. Poland been the last three years?” In a later comment, Mikekoshi echoed the point made in Hiltzik’s column: that Reuters, The New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal had fallen for a ploy by Kirk Kerkorian to artificially inflate the value of MGM stock.

“Mikekoshi” has commented on various blogs over the past two or three years, including L.A. Observed, Brad DeLong, Washington Monthly — and most recently, at Hiltzik’s blog, and at my own blog. Mikekoshi and Hiltzik appear to get along quite well. In comments on his blog, Hiltzik has praised Mikekoshi’s arguments. For his part, Mikekoshi has lobbed rude insults at folks known to be disliked by Hiltzik, such as Cathy Seipp, Hugh Hewitt, and myself. Mikekoshi is also a fan of the Los Angeles Times, and often rushes to defend the paper when I attack it in posts on my blog — his comments dripping with venom and inaccuracies alike.

If Mikekoshi sounds a lot like Michael Hiltzik, that’s no coincidence. Because “Mikekoshi” is, in fact, Michael Hiltzik.

Since 2004, Patterico points out, Hiltzik has been posting Sock Puppet comments with several different accounts. Hiltzik has responded that this is, in fact, true, but that posting anonymously on the internet is no new thing, and if everyone who posted anonymously on the internet was drummed out, there would be few left. While this is factually accurate, it is beside the point.

A Sock Puppet is disliked not because it is anonymous, that is rather common. It is disliked because it is deliberately deceptive. Posting as someone else to support one's own arguments and pat one's self on the back is not considered very honest and has the air of desperation and sad need for attention about it. A Sock Puppet is a sad, weak way of making a point, as if one's argument is not sufficiently potent and convincing that you need to add a few add a few fake "hear hear's" and "he's right, you know" like the Monty Python Mr Hilter sketch.

Posting as Ludwig Van Beethoven to make a joke about hearing modern music is one thing, posting as someone else for self aggrandizement or agreement is just pathetic. Don't make Sock Puppets.

*UPDATE: Rebuilt entire post after errors in reformatting to allow expanded posts.


Quote of the day

"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppressive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people."
-George Washington

Thursday, April 20, 2006

HOME ON THE NET

Blogger and columnist Michelle Malkin recently published an entry that gave the names and address of an organization at the University of California at Santa Clara. It all started with her post about USSC students and members of Students Against War (SAW) bragging that they'd successfully chased Military recruiters off the campus. From there Mrs Malkin posted about the topic once more, including contact information she obtained from the SAW press release (since edited).

In response, Michelle Malkin received yet another flood of hateful mail (this is not new for her, as she has shown in the past), and the SAW students got their share of hate mail. Obviously, both are wrong and repulsive to any decent human being. The event has escalated, with attempts to publish Michelle Malkin's home address and phone number, along with that of her family. Most recently, Indymedia has posted addresses of conservative bloggers and pundits, as Vodkapundit notes in You'll Have To Do Better Than That:

Those caring souls at Indmedia are trying to intimidate bloggers they don't like - including me. Do I feel threatened? No, not really.

But I sure feel sorry for that other Stephen Green who lives in Rancho Cucamonga, California. I wonder how many idiots will show up on his lawn this weekend, and if his town has a (ahem) liberal "Make My Day" law.

Also according to Indymedia, my Denver buddy Jeff Goldstein lives somewhere in Montana. You'd think they could at least get the state right. Here's a hint, fellas: Jeff and I both live in Colorado. I guess all those Red States look alike to them.

Commenters pointed out that the errors don't stop there:

This has to be a joke. Jonah Golberg lives in an Atlanta suburb? Only if he left D.C. and I missed it. And why would Thomas Sowell pretend to live in California if his address is in South Carolina?

In fact, of all of the people whose general location I know, every one seems wrong.
-by Sarophes


Here's another one - Glenn Reynolds lives in Knoxville, not Nashville.

My god. I just realized. It's brilliant. This is a Rovian PLANT! He'll get protesters to show up at the wrong houses, get media attention on the idiots who show up at the wrong houses and make the entire "progressive" movement appear like a bunch of clueless disorganized jerks who couldn't organize a way to pour water out of a boot with instructions printed upside down on the back of the heel.
-by jb


Can anybody verify that a single one of those is correct? Some are at least in the right states, right? It's got to be a joke.
-by chaika

Some have speculated this was a joke, as many of the addresses are apparently of auto and body shops in various parts of the country. Whatever it is, it's amazingly inaccurate!

*UPDATE: This does appear to be a grand hoax, but on who and by who is unclear. The problem of auto body shops and addresses was first brought up by commenters, such as this one on Vodkapundit:

In case no one else has noticed, all of the addresses are for auto shops of one sort or another.

If there is a point to that particular selection, I don't really see it. Unless...just maybe...the poster is a mole for the horse-drawn carriage industry. That must be it, an undercover agent employed by Jim & Becky's Horse & Carriage Service, Inc.(obviously a Halliburton subsidiary) is trying to use misdirected protestors to create a thorn in the side of the auto parts industry. Genius!!
-by Nick Bourbaki at April 20, 2006 01:24 PM

Which goes to show, often it's the commenters on a site that update, correct, and clarify topics which bloggers then go on to update and expand on later.


BASEBALL IS ABOUT STATS

The Baseball Crank is a stats madman, crunching numbers in true baseball fan style. He has an interesting analysis of pitchers, showing the excellence of Pedro Martinez.

David Pinto quotes an amazing fact from the NY Daily News: the Mets' five-game lead is "the largest lead in a division in major-league history after 12 games." Not clear if that includes leads before the advent of divisional play in 1969, although I did a quick check here and couldn't find any bigger than 4.5 games.

Pedro's 200th win also gives him a career record of 200-84, 116 games over .500. Where would that leave him all time, if he either retired tomorrow or pitched .500 ball the rest of his career?

The post then displays a chart showing the top 24 pitchers with wins greater than a .500 record (an equal number of wins and losses earned in games they pitched), starting with the great Cy Young, who has 195 more pitches than it would take for him to break even.

Commenters gave us more statistical information:

Pedro is also over .700 in win percentage making him 3rd all-time although Al Spalding (#1) pitched in the 1870s (going 55-5 in 1875, nice year) and Spud Chandler (#2) was only 109-43 and padded that with a 46-13 record in 1941-43.

Since leaving the Dodgers and Expos he is 135-45 (.750) which is pretty much absurd. Essentially since 1998 if he is pitching against any team but the Yankees he wins 80% of the time.
...

Not to go on ad infinitum about Pedro but I did get to watch him pitch when he just decimated guys and was the sickest pitcher anyone had ever seen. To know he can still mow guys when he is 75% of what he used to be tells you what 100% used to look like. Check out this career:

He is #1 in ERA+ 12% ahead of #2 Lefty Grove (166 to 148). He is #3 in WHIP. There are no active pitchers in the top 30, only Juan Marichal is vaguely recent in the top 20 and there are only 6 other current ptichers in the top 100. He is #3 in hits/9 innings behind Ryan and Koufax. He is #3 in k/9 innings behind Randy Johnson and Kerry Wood. He is #2 in K/BB ratio behind a guy who pitched from 1874-1884. He is 14th on the all-time K list and will go over 3,000 Ks midway through this year. If you didn't know who he was by stats alone you would assume he pitched in the dead ball era.

Met fans, he is not what he once was but you should go to Shea and enjoy a day when he pitches. It is not like other days.
-by Jim

Having witnessed the Pedro era I like to think of him as my generation's Sandy Koufax. He will not end up atop career leaderboards (exceptions possibly being winning % and ERA+), but he was dominant in an era of big hitters and magical to watch compete.

Does anyone think that BBHOF voters might start to factor in the effect of steroids as a positive for starting pitchers? I think it would be highly dumb to penalize hitters and not reward pitchers. The juiced hitters altered both their stats and the stats of pitchers they faced.
-by Son of Brock Landers


A REPORTER'S TALE

Over at Patterico's Pontifications Evan Maxwell has been writing an extended article about his experiences working at the Los Angeles Times. The article, A Reporter's Tale, is in three parts:

Part One
Part Two
Part Three

Evan Maxwell left the paper in 1984, but he gives a useful glimpse into the changes that occurred over the years while he worked at the paper. The final part of his work ends with these paragraphs:

The last thirty years of newspapering has been difficult. I was indoctrinated with the theology of objectivity, a hangover from the 50s and early 60s, and I still think journalists owe it to their subjects and their readers to be fair. But objectivity has been supplanted by several other schools of thought, all of them more openly political. Journalists are still reluctant to admit it, but they play the role of advocate more freely than they ever used to.

And the orthodox journalists have, in Hegelian irony, generated their own antithesis in the medium we are now enjoying together, the Blogosphere. In blogs, former colleagues like Kevin Roderick and Ken Reich have found satisfying and profitable ways to spend their engery. My old colleague and nemisis, Bob Scheer, who was ousted last year in the last wave of editorial downsizing, has discovered that he doesn’t need the loudspeaker of The Times to get his point across. I don’t need Otis Chandler’s printing presses to publish my point of view.

And Patterico, whose electrons I have so profligately used here, may be as powerful in his way as are the folks who stayed behind at The Times to man the burning ramparts of MSM.

Commenters lamented what has happened at the paper in the years since Mr Maxwell left:

What a great perspective piece! The kind that should get published in the Sunday Magazine (as if). I think many of us who grew up in awe of The Newspaper (the 1970s NYT in my case) do wonder about how to put the many glaring flaws of today’s papers in perspective. Their we’re the Phone Company and we don’t care–we don’t have to! attitude is both obnoxious and quaint in the age of distributed media. Was there really a Golden Age, or has it always been much like today, except that we had no way of knowing? A little of both, I guess.
-by AMac

This is interesting. You paint a picture of a newspaper that drifted a certain way because of organizational politics and a general left or latino focus, and your final perception is that although regrettable there is nothing sinister about it.

I know it has been some years since you left, but it seems that the LA Times became something quite a bit more partisan and malignant since then. There are many examples, but I think the most obvious was their overt attempt to get Cruz Bustamante elected Governor. I awoke on “Dirty Trick Thursday” before the recall election wondering what story the Democrat’s minions were going to come up with that day. DTTh is a well known phenomenon to anyone who follows politics - when an unscrupulous party who is losing unleashes his worst trick, especially unfounded allegations of scandal or criminal behavior against his opponent. The opponent then spends the weekend before the Tuesday election scrambling to try to answer charges he doesn’t understand, and has no idea what his opponent has to back up. It’s all negative for the victim, and it typically results in several percentage points deducted from his vote if it’s done right.

So anyway I was on my way to work, and I immediately heard on the radio that the LA Times was reporting that Schwarzenneger had supposedly groped a bunch of women. They were all suing him, etc and had these great graphic stories. And it was all orchestrated by the LA Times. I already pretty much knew what the LA Times was, but this was the most blatant proof anyone could ask for - that they are nothing but a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. I decided to cancel my subscription that day and have never gone back.

So whatever happened to all those women? Where are the lawsuits - did they have any merit or was the LAT simply acting as an arm of the Democrats? WTH? This is a serious newspaper?
-by William Wilson


To be fair, Schwarzenegger’s response to those groping charges was not to completely deny them, but to apologize. It used to be the Letters to the Editor section was the only way to voice any outrage, and the paper was in total control of those letters. Few openly insulting or offensive letters are put in there. Why would they ever publish a letter showing how clueless they are? The blogs blow a huge hole in that control.
-by Wesson

Great piece. It confirms my own beliefs about the fall of journalism. I, too, was an inky wretch who fell in love with newspapers in high school and didn’t want to do anything but work for one. I did work for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for 10 years and discovered many of the same sorts of political battles in the newsroom. My favorite was when the powers that be decided that handicapped people would be called “disabled” and normal people would be called “nondisabled.” This tickled my husband (who had cerebral palsy) because he could finally tell me I wasn’t normal. :P

What Maxwell writes about journalism as it is practiced today is dead on. I, too, thought the job of a journalist was to be objective, but in today’s world, j-school students have to read Chomsky’s dreadful “Manufacturing Consent” and are taught that they are supposed to tell the readers what to think.
-by Sharon


I was saddened by your piece, Evan, but not surprised, really, by your admitting newspapering is now more political than ever. I was a newspaperman for over 25 years and the longer I worked the more uncomfortable I became with the turning from “objectivity” to partisan reporting. Fact is, I was never taught in j-school that the news media were instruments to be used for change. My old instructors simply said, “Report what you see, let the people decide, it’s as simple as that.” I honored that and probably because I did I was eased out the door (at a twice-weekly newspaper, no less). I thought the big boys never faced that although the longer I am away from the newsroom the more I realize I was right about the hearty fleeing from objectivity to activism. The news media have lost something in the mad scramble to be liked and respected and feared. I fear it is everything.
-by Rich Barrett


THE WALL OF SEPARATION

The Junk Yard Blog has a brief entry about a recent Howard Dean statement:

Howard Dean on religion and politics:

The religious community has to decide whether they want to be tax exempt or involved in politics.

The Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton had no comment.

Commenters couldn't resist a few jabs:
Ya know, I thought the Dems were lame until I read that piece from CSM that Bryan linked. Howard Dean really got me going when he said, “one of our slogans is probably going to end up being ‘tough and smart.’ Because what the Republicans have done is tough and not very smart.”

Tough AND Smart? Man. Where do they come up with this stuff? No wonder Dean is the brainiac of the Dem/lib movement. Conservatives don’t stand a chance against this kind of intellectual firepower. Whoa boy. We are now officially in trouble.

Of course when he prefaced that statement with ‘one of our slogans is PROBABLY going to end up being…’ I realized that they not only haven’t formulated a strategy, but can’t even decide on their ‘Slogan’. In that spirit one of my slogans may end up being ‘you Democrats have bad breath’ or ‘you Democrats haven’t ever gotten to second base with the American people.’

Tough and smart. The brilliance of that is breath taking. How can the American people resist?
-by Jimbo


My first thought also (Jackson, Sharpton et al). I guess this means we will not be treated to a candidate like John Kerry preaching from a black Baptist pulpit about the evil Republicans mixing religion and politics. It is to laugh. But I don’t because I know the liberal media will ignore the hypocrisy as smoothly as they ignored Kerry’s anti-veteran slanders as soon as he “reported for duty”. I really have no respect anymore for the profession of journalism. The majority are political whores.
-by Mikem


Hehe. when I hear “One of our slogans will probably be Tough and Smart…” all I can think of is “Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…Our TWO weapons are fear, and surprise. And ruthless efficiency.…I’ll come in again”

Monty Python wrote the Demo platform over 20 years ago… It was funnier then.
-by Navyspyll

Quote of the day

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their county; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered yet we have this consolation with us, the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value."
-Thomas Paine

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Comment Type #5

THE RANT

The Rant comment is one that is little more than an extended, enraged sequence of statements usually filled with obscenities and slurs. A form of the Complaint comment, Rants are more strident and passionate. Where a complaint lays out problems and often solutions, the Rant is simply venting one's anger and frustration online in what is often barely coherent. Some comedians such as Dennis Miller have made a career of ranting, but on message boards it has less comedic value.

Sometimes, a blog is built around the very idea of ranting; The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller and Democratic Underground are examples of this kind of site. Some message boards have specific areas set aside for ranting and raving and carrying on, in which it is not only expected, but typical to post such a thing.

There are times when a rant is to be expected. For instance, in the days after 9/11 or the subsequent terror attacks in Madrid or London, impassioned, enraged venting and desperate cries for vengeance and dire proclamations are not surprising or unreasonable.

However, on normal blogs a rant carries little value to the site. Often these will jar discussion, interrupt the flow of conversation, and bring any rational discourse to a screeching halt as the rant is picked apart piece by piece and examined as if it was offered to be a logical essay. A Rant should be taken for what it is: a declaration of impassioned emotion, - venting of one's spleen, as it were - and no more.

There are some commenters for whom the rant appears to be their only form of expression, every post ends up a rant, or within a few posts will descend into one. This kind of poster can be amusing but also disruptive and even so deranged as to be unwelcome. For regular commenters and readers, this kind of repeated posting might be so undesirable to make some people actually leave.

Everyone has bad days or times when they need to cut loose, but for the sake of the blogger and everyone reading, try to get it out of your system before you open up a comment section or message board.

CARRYING LACROSS

One of the bigger stories across the blogosphere is about a stripper that has accused three members of the Duke University Lacrosse team of raping and abusing her at a party. The story has taken on national exposure and has been examined and commented on to an extraordinary degree for one that has yet to even score any indictments.

Thus far, the case looks weak for the DA, who is running for reelection in a matter of weeks. Many have speculated that the man is interested less in the merits of the case than in how the press will help his profile with voters. If so, this may actually backfire, given some information that has been uncovered as the case unfolds.

LaShawn Barber's Corner has been covering this carefully for some time now. LaShawn started her first entry with these words:

The “Duke Rape” case has been salaciously splashed all over the news. Although black-on-white rape is much more common than white-on-black rape, there’s something about the idea of a white man raping a black woman that brings out the retro speeches about slavery, white privilege, patriarchy, and the usual revisionist tirades.

If this woman (who is no lady, as someone referred to her) was actually raped, I hope the perpetrators are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But I was suspicious when I first heard about the incident. Knowing that blacks would believe the woman’s story before the relevant facts emerged, I avoided blogging about it until now.

Let’s travel back in time. You may recall that in 1987, a 15-year-old black girl named Tawana Brawley claimed that six white men, three of them police officers, abducted her, raped her, covered her with feces, and wrote racial epithets on her body. People were righteously horrified and made their views known. This was the case that made Al Sharpton infamous, as he and others rallied to the poor child’s defense. The whole thing became a media sensation. Black celebrities joined the crusade, and any white person who didn’t buy the girl’s shaky and unlikely story was immediately branded a racist.

Over the course of three blog entries, commenters have had this to say:

I remember the Tawana Brawley case quite well, but I think that was a relatively unique event. Tawana was “victimized” by the demogogary of Sharpton (although Tawana did initiate the lie).

While I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn’t automatically assume that the alleged rape “victim” is telling the truth, I am left to wonder why, exactly, a woman would claim to be raped if she wasn’t. Especially since the revelation would necessarily result in it becoming known about her occupation as a stripper.

Finally, I call upon La Shawn to finish her sentence: “No one deserves to be violated, of course, but if you’re taking off your clothes and gyrating in front of a group of drunk men…”

I don’t know what La Shawn is trying to say, but the inference is that she should have (at the very least) expected it. If that’s La Shawn’s implication, I strongly disagree. Every day, in strip clubs and parties across the country, hundreds of women take off their clothes and gyrate in from of drunk men, and the result almost never ends in rape. I’m sorry, but if a rape actually occurred, then the men were sober enough to know right from wrong.
-by Kman

[LaShawn responded to this comment] Sober or drunk, if they raped the stripper, they’re accountable. I would never profess otherwise and haven’t done so in this post. - Admin

>>Every day, in strip clubs and parties across the country, hundreds of women take off their clothes and gyrate in from of drunk men, and the result almost never ends in rape>>

And those clubs have security to prevent such things from happening. I doubt that there was any security at this particular party.

Personally, I’m waiting to hear more evidence. Why one stripper raped, and not the other? On the other hand, broken fingernails and breakage indicates a struggle did actually happen. DNA is important, not so much for identification but apparently the LaCrosse team members say there was _no_ sex - DNA would prove that false. The photos say she had bruises before she was supposedly attacked, but even if that’s true it doesn’t prove that she _wasn’t_ raped.

>>… the inference is that she {the stripper}should have (at the very least) expected it.>>

There’s no justification for rape, but women who don’t recognize that putting themselves in situations that are physically dangerous are behaving stupidly. Every occupation has job risks - policemen put themselves in dangerous situations and sometimes get killed or hurt. Strippers putting themselves in unprotected situations are unwise - they shouldn’t be surprised if they get attacked. It’s a job risk. If you play with fire, sooner or later you’ll get burned. That doesn’t make it “right” - it’s just a fact of life.
-by SueK


I have noticed something when it comes to rape and liberals:

1. They seem to love it when it happens interracially. It seems to give them an almost giddness not that it has happened, but a new cause celeb. They’ve run out of things about the war and President Bush to harp on. They now have something new and tangible that the White man has done to us.

2. Liberals such as Michael Eric Dyson et.al. like the idea of a White man raping a Black woman so because it shows how White men have never changed, and to also show the world in a twisted sort of way how desirable Black women are. Just pay attention to their rhetoric.

3. People such as the afforementioned and his ilk, are having a field day showing she’s just like every other woman, yet she was given a bad break in life that is why she had to start dancing. She’s a mother and college student. They it with such reverence, but never stop to think that had she been a married college student with children she wouldn’t have to dance. To paraphrase Chris Rock It’s a lie that strippers are stripping for tuition.

4. Liberals never decry the intraracial rapes that happen everyday. The kind of rapes that usually happen by someone that is known. It is hardly ever spoken about or it is explained away as a symptom of racism or slavery. (Racism, Slavery)?
-by Veronica


Why does everyone refer to this woman as a Stripper or Exotic Dancer? She was an “Escort” who stripped and danced exotically. An Escort is a prostitute, this is a well know fact. However, not all strippers or exotic dancers are escorts/prostitutes. As an “escort” the likelihood of pre-existing bruises, cuts and sexual wounds from earlier in the evening or prior day engagements increases significantly.
-by Slurpie


Like another poster mentioned, alluding to the case at the University of Colorado. After a football program was disgraced, and AD fired, a coach embarrassed and eventually forced out, a president ousted……nobody in the media remembers to mention:

*summary judgment ruling against one accuser
*the dismissed with prejudice ruling against two of the accusers
*the the DNA proof against another false accuser that claimed it was ‘2 big black men’ that supposedly raped her…so they ‘must have been football players’
*the Katie Knida fiasco “I won’t say who did it but you just have to believe me”
*and the balance of the accusers were simply called in on anonymous tip line.
*the smearing of one football player whose name was plastered in the papers that wasn’t even at the party
*Not one charge
*civil cases dismissed
-by JasonM

There has been one encouraging sign to come out of this incident. There has been an agreeable lack (so far) of widespread pompous “civil rights” posturing about how this proves that white men want to rape black women in order to to keep them living in fear and submission.

Frankly I had expected a tsunami of such garbage, but I have not seen it materialize yet.
-by Mwalimu Daudi


Good Blog you have La Shawn! I noticed it at Tom Bevan’s Real Clear Politics, though I had seen another day or so of your stuff from a link I’ve now forgotten….about 3 months ago.

I am retaining an open mind on this, while offer some observations and questions:

1. As a white college educated jock, I’ve attended parties where strippers were “part of the show”. Mostly white strippers, but I can say that a good-looking, non-skanky Asian or black stripper was hardly an unwelcome sight. I do note we had GFs at a few of those parties that were not batchelor stag parties. I believe that if you extend the statistics to the whole male population, a majority have been at stags or been in a strip club. Which better not make them all evil victimizers and criminals! Despite what “men are evil” feminists claim. Now, at private parties I attended, the hired strippers were always accompanied by a bodyguard/driver from the agency that helped check the situation out, laid out the ground rules (no touching, no abusive language, tipping method, no drugs - or they’re out. Who holds the money, and what sex acts the stripper might do on the side for what rate to the best man, etc. ) I find the lack of driver/bodyguard, lack of ground rules unusual.

2. If a stripper had shown up too drugged up or drunk to perform, a refund and a stoppage of the contracted performance is in order. We had to do that at two parties I remember, and at one, the drunk stripper told she wouldn’t get paid because she was unfit to work became belligerant and began hitting people before the driver tossed her in a car..though the driver did negotiate something for time and trouble though he agreed not full fee because that would be a rip-off. It was confrontational.

3. Although race became so big in this one, I see the PC story that women are victims, men are predators as the initial mindset the accuser, as in the Kobe case, presumed to be telling the truth by those who believe in the PC mental meme. And race and class privilege not driving the assumption that the side possessing penises must be guilty. Because stuff happens, or could happen - whether you believe the woman or the guys - anytime you toss sexual themes, booze, and young people into the same small space. Regardless of race and class.

4. I believe that false accusations that profoundly affect innocent accused lives should be treated as criminal acts. A false accusation for a major felony like murder, rape, grand theft, child molestation should be a major felony itself. Anyone planting evidence should be prosecuted for a felony. And their faces plastered everywhere as liars. Just an minor misdemeanor & restitution penalty isn’t enough in many cases where you are talking about lives and reputations ruined, jail time unjustly served, and tremendous legal costs for the accuser’s victim. And many of the false accusers lack the money to pay.

5. If there was rape and many not involved covered it up, they should be given jail under conspiracy laws.
-by Chris Ford

The Judge, a former Durham County DA, took the unusal step of sealing two indictments. The Judge was appointed in 1994 and won re-election. His term does not expire until 2010. He went to UNC law school and was a helicopter pilot in Veitnam. This means he will not be running for re-election and will probably retire in 2010. He has NO pressure from any election. I figure he is in his late 50’s early 60’s. As a former DA in Durham, he is aware of the pressure on the current DA, and how weak this case is. My thought is that he will keep the indictments sealed until after the election, May 2nd. It has been stated my one attorney in Durham that this is the first sealed indictment he had seen in Durham in 45 years. Very unusal. At that time, the current DA will probably not be the DA. At any rate, cooler heads will prevail after the election. Duke gets out of class on May 6th. I believe the judge could hear a motion for dismissal from the Boy’s defense team, when the indictments are served, and dismiss the case immediately. I will check on that.

All in all this is probably the best out come of the situation for now. The boys need to study for exams.
-by Kemperman

What I am wondering is what is the DA basing these indictments on? He had better have something we have not seen or he is in violation of North Carolina’s version of Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1 (you cannot bring meritless charges) and 3.3 (you cannot misrepresent evidence) and could easily be disbarred (as should happen if he has abused the public trust in such a manner).

No matter what, by disrupting the course of justice with his antics, the DA has disgraced himself and his oath of office and must go.
-by Jalrin

The DA had no obligation to present any exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. He could have presented only the following: (1) the alleged victim’s testimony that she was raped and her identification of her attackers and (2) the hospital nurse’s testimony that the alleged victim’s injuries were consistent with rape. These facts would be sufficient for an indictment, which is all the Nifong needs for his re-election campaign.

At trial, however, the jury will have the following exculpatory and impeachment evidence to consider: (1) the absence of any DNA match, (2) photographs of the alleged victim showing bruises before the alleged attack, (3) various inconsistencies in her story, and (4) evidence of the alleged victim’s bad character for honesty and truthfulness (i.e., her prior criminal record). It is highly unlikely in my opinion as a lawyer for the past 25 years that based on this evidence a jury would find guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only way that Nifong can get a conviction here is if one or more of the boys in the house testifies in support of the alleged victim’s story. Will that happen? Who knows.
-by DBL


CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND?

The No Child Left Behind act was passed with great fanfare in 2001, and among its provisions was the ability for parents to be free to change schools if the one their child is at does not measure up to some basic academic standards. There have been rumors of teachers assisting students and taking tests in their place, but the most recent report is of schools not counting some students.

Nearly 2 million children whose scores aren't counted when it comes to meeting the [No Child Left Behind] law's requirement that schools track how students of different races perform on standardized tests. The AP found that states are helping public schools escape potential penalties by skirting that requirement. And minorities - who historically haven't fared as well as whites in testing - make up the vast majority of students whose scores are excluded.

Several blogs had articles on this story, from different perspectives, with comments from each blog examining and expanding on each blog's post:


Here's one more way many public schools lie by juggling stats
-World Magazine Blog

Thank you, World Mag, for another in a long line of stories that explore how dedicated, passionate teachers are making a positive impact in kids' lives. It's sort of like how the MSM reports so reliably on the good news coming out of Iraq.
-by Stephan Tilson

As I understand this, the scores of all the kids count toward the overall school score. In addition to a school being required to pass as a whole, groups of students by various classes (race, income, etal) also have to pass.

So the scores of kids in smallish groups do count toward the overall score.

However, the law was designed to exclude classifications for which there aren't many kids. If there's only one hispanic kid, it'd be silly to ask how the group of hispanic kids are doing at the school.

So this exclusion isn't a loophole; it's exactly how the law was supposed to work.

Just because you don't like a particular feature of a law doesn't mean it's a loophole.
-by jpe

While it true that minority students do have poorer grades and score lower on tests as a group, upper class and upper middle class minority students that have two parent households, go to better schools with less distractions and have the good character attributes necessary to gain the required skills - these disparities disappear to insignificance.

I can't really comment on the 'insignificant minority' rule since we don't have the individual school data at hand, AP has identified 2 Million students left behind. The operable word is 'No' child left behind not 2 million insignificant statistically left behind.

AP is on to to something. Individual schools decide who gets left out the stats but they add up to very big numbers.
-llama

The biggest predictor is social class, rather than race itself. Unfortunately, the black culture has been taken over by hip-hop which, too often, glorifies actual violence, not just nihilism. Many whites like it, too, but the question's been asked: why do more whites than blacks understand that there's a time to listen or sing rap or hip-hop and a time to hit the books?
I mean, fifty years ago, Elvis Presley, Marlon Brando, and James Dean weren't exactly promoting education, either. However, they weren't saying that studying hard was "acting white" and thereby suspect. OTOH, they weren't promoting drive-by shootings either.
I don't believe that blacks are biologically inferior to whites. I do believe that black culture has degenerated into an anti-education mode. This is certainly different from the past when blacks risked their lives to integrate the neighborhood schools. Middle class aspirations and attitudes are race-neutral.
What's needed is for responsible blacks of all ages to counter the hip-hop culture which can overwhelm any individual family's best effort to counter it. As it is, if black parents want a better education and a safer enviornment for their kids, they must move to a white neighborhood. Unfortunately, whites still flee at the sight of them. Maybe not as quickly or as violently as before, but they still do. This opens the way for the less desireable elements to come in. Intermarriage may eventually change that perception.
However, too many blacks (tho by no means all)bring that dysfunctional culture with them. They certainly do no favor to those blacks who are serious about bettering their lot.
As I said, Zug, it's less about race than culture. Until more influential blacks join Bill Cosby and pressure the black community to shape up, blacks will continue to lag behind whites in all of life.
Cosby's right: the dirty laundry comes out of school at 2:45 pm and terrorizes the surrounding community. The rest of us see it on the news reports of crimes whose perps, more often than not, are black. Any wonder why middle-class blacks flee and whites flee them?
I myself live, shop, attend church, and send my son to school in an area with a fair number of blacks, both immigrant and native born. We've always gotten along fine with our black neighbors, as well as the whites and Asians. Many work hard to suceed and make this a better place to live. It doesn't help them, or the rest of us, to have others who throw trash on the streets or worse.
I've said too many goodbyes to longtime white neighbors who would just as soon avoid this. And who are sick of trying to support community institutions that blacks won't pull their weight to do so. I've seen whites withdraw, increasingly uneasy in their own neighborhoods. Eventually, another For Sale sign, another goodbye. For all the talk about diversity, the melting pot, and intermarriage, I wonder just how long it will take before blacks and whites will live alongside each other just as other ethnic groups do. And yet, as I say, Cosby's right. Too bad other prominent blacks aren't backing him up.
-Fran Froelich

Answer: Does it matter?

With government schools, it all comes down to the black-white academic achievement gap, and don’t let anyone try to convince you otherwise.
-LaShawn Barber's Corner

It is my understanding that these children are not going uncounted. All kids are counted in the summary descriptive statistics. However if a minority population is too small (below 20 or 30) you don’t have a sufficient population to form accurate descriptive statistics. Those populations are not required to have their own minority descriptive statistics.

It is also a very good thing that they are aggregating at the district level if they can’t do so at the school level. It is an obvious solution to reduce this trend as much as possible.
-by Jeff the Baptist
[LaShawn incoroporated this information into her article upon being reminded of this information by this comment]

Funny that no one seems to fret about the achievement gaps between white kids and kids of Asian ancestry, with the Asians, I gather, usually coming out on top. The “solution” of places such as Berkeley is to put a cap on the number of Asians admitted so there won’t be “too many” of them. Now THAT is discrimination.
-by Dave in Montana

“When there aren’t enough students to make up an individual group at the school level without compromising the identity of the student (s), districts become accountable for these students”.

So is “student privacy” more important than achievement gaps?

Most ‘achievement gaps” are biased by a small group of low achievers. If these “low achievers” are spread out into the population, and NOT identified individually, they are “lost in the statistics” which then give a false impression that everything is OK. Shameful.

Low achievement is low achievement, however it is measured or hidden from view.

The real losers are the low achieving students, who won’t even know if if they are not individualy identified and if their parents know the school is really not that good.
-by Frank Zaviska

I grew up in Mon.t county, MD and I’m raising 2 young boys in DC. I just looked at the reading report card for DC schools 1998-2005 for 8th graders. the 12th grade data wasn’t online. I was struck by the DC public school officials “good news” that you linked to: that the black/white performance gap had narrowed. in the case of the 8th graders in the 1998-2006 timeframe, half of gap narrowing was by a decrease in performance by those not eligibile for subsidized food (direct race tracking was not available). Since reading performance did not significanlty change in this timeframe but the gap narrowed, what are we to attribute this to? Is it just as much a sign of flight among the better off people from the public school system, an influx of non-native speakers, a diversion of resources from the better performing schools to the stragglers? Whatever, it is, I can’t see how focusing on the “gap” is cause for joy if the average performer gets no better. the message seems to be: if we can’t raise the lower end, and least we can hinder or scare off the top end!!! hip, hip, hurray!!

as fo montgomery cty- giving up on the gifted and talented program, or whatever it’s called these days would be a real loss to the school system.
-by not a lax fan

States aren't counting minorities' test scores, reports the AP in a story that's sure to be misunderstood.

Under No Child Left Behind, all students must be tested in third through eighth grade and once in high school; everybody's scores are counted. Schools also have to report scores by category -- race, ethnicity, poverty, English fluency -- unless there are too few students to be statistically significant.
-Joanne Jacobs Blog

Groups don't succeed or fail. Individuals do. The exception is when a certain group (which may or may not be ethnic) has a culture that discourages or even persecutes the seeking of knowledge.
-by Indigo Warrior


Sorry, but 52 is a really small number. One person represents 2 percent of the sample.

Personally, I think that they should report the results but not get dissed on them. On the other hand, perhaps they should just define the confidence level and move on.
-by Twill00


Quote of the day

"Out of every hundred new ideas ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man, however brilliant or well-informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his society, for those are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history."
-Will and Ariel Durant

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

COMMENTS ADVICE

Although it is an old post (from 2004), this essay by John Hawkins of Right Wing News is a useful article on a comment section for a blog. Right Wing News is one of the most successful bloggers in the "business" who works full time at his blog, gets interviews from writers and politicians, and is mentioned by network news and talk show hosts. This blog entry is full of good advice, and anyone starting a blog should take a look:

Right Wing News has more than 3700 registered members [he estimates it over 9000 these days] and it's not the least bit unusual for posts here to crack 100+ comments. So, I've had more than a little bit of experience running a comments section for my readers. With that in mind, here are some tips I have for bloggers running their own comments sections...

-- Should you have a comment section on your blog? Well, other than in a few isolated cases, I'm not sure that comment sections really add all that much to a blog's popularity. However, I do think the immediate feedback enables you to better anticipate how people will respond to what you write. To me, that's the primary advantage of having a comment section...>

I'll be writing more on what comments do for blogs generally, but this is something useful for a blogger to read and consider for their own efforts. Read the Whole Thing.


CLASS ACTION FRAUD

Although the case is not very exciting nor noteworthy, the reactions by commenters to this lawsuit is telling. Western Digital, makers of Hard Drives such as the one likely in the computer you read this by, were sued because the amount of storage they listed on the drive was not exactly what the amount of storage on the drive actually added up to. Like many of these lawsuits, the benefit for the people actually affected by the bad faith or malfeasance is little to nothing, while the lawyers involved earn large sums of money. Overlawyered, your internet source for frivolous lawsuits and legal highjinks has the story:

Two readers have written in to call attention to the terms of a settlement by Western Digital of a class action over the disparity between the announced size of its hard drives and the amount that is usable (settlement notice/FAQs). Reader Bill Evans says the settlement will "affect only aftermarket drives, class members to get $7.50 for each drive [however, note below in Ted's comment] and will be able to download backup software. Lawyers get $485,000 plus $15,000 for expenses."

Comments, including one that this blog article references first:

Some months ago I bought a Western Digital hard drive. I now see that a class action suit was brought against WD, claiming that they misrepresented their drive capacities. What was the remedy? They offered me software – EMC Dantz Retrospect Express version 7.0 for Windows users and version 6.1 for Mac users – for which I have no use or interest. I have much better backup software that I've already purchased. Plus, it has been reported in various locations on the network to be incompatible with Microsoft Windows .NET 2.0 framework, a common component in many recent software programs.

There are no other remedies. Either I take the software, which has very little commercial value and none to me personally, or I write a letter to the court, voicing my concerns above, that will immediately be trampled by both plaintiff and defense attorneys, who both want the settlement to go through because the settlement essentially costs WD very little (useless software that they OEM anyway), and the plaintiff attorneys get their percentage of the settlement. As usual, the plaintiff attorneys make huge sums of money, and the actual victims get nothing of any particular value.

P.S. Just to be clear, I don't feel like I've been harmed in any way, nor do I feel entitled to any settlement. I knew ahead of time exactly the game they play. All drive manufacturers have played the game, and this is just a way for an attorney to make a lot of money over nothing. If it were my preference, I'd rather the judge throw the entire suit out and sanction the lawyers for a frivolous lawsuit, but I know that would never happen, and frankly, there are some people out there who don't know the difference between 1 GB and 1 billion bytes, to whom there is a claim of (very slight) harm.
-Mickey Ferguson


Mickey's analysis of the settlement is perfect - the vast majority of those supposedly being represented gain NOTHING.

And his PS points to something even worse: the entire supposed cause is STANDARD PRACTICE. That is, th number of bytes in a GB is not standardized anywhere, and 80 "GB" hard drives from EVERY company will be a lot closer to 80,000,000,000 bytes than 85,899,345,920 bytes. This has been industry standard for over 20 years, yet it wasn't worth the cost of defending, much less the possibility of finding a jury too stupid to make a rational choice.

The more I know about a case, the more wrong I find it to be. To put it another way, I begin to wonder if cases I don't see anything wrong with are just areas where my technical knowledge is lacking.
-by Deoxy

Walter: the settlement does not provide any cash for unnamed class members, just the software.

If there are five members of the class who wish to challenge this settlement on the grounds that (1) this class action never should have been brought; (2) that the class attorneys do not represent the best interests of the class because their primary interest is in obtaining extortionate attorney fees; and (3) settlement is not in the best interest of the class, because class members will lose money from the likelihood of future extortionate class action litigation encouraged by profitable results in this case, I will be happy to challenge the settlement on those grounds, with any attorney fees and expenses to be awarded by the court.
-by Ted


A DIFFERENT "24"

In the 2004 election, one of the most controversial and noteworthy election stories was the Gubernatorial election in Washington State. The vote was close, but after several recounts, Christine Gregoire was certified as the Governor by the Secretary of State Dean Logan, a win by a slim 129 votes. However, there have been several court cases and a great deal of uproar over the election results, so much so that even in the liberal Democrat bastion of King County, almost 2/3rds of those polled wanted a do-over, an entirely new election and vote count.

Blogger Stephan Sharkansky at the Sound Politics blog has been studying the information for all this time. His most recent digging has uncovered the fact that there were at least 179 fraudulent votes in the election:

I've been slogging through the King County voter registration transaction logs that Deanron finally released this month, more than six months after I requested them.

Among the things I've discovered -- up to 24 more people credited with voting twice in November 2004 than I had earlier reported. All of these were voters who were registered more than once and where King County actually eliminated the duplicate registration. I reported a number of these cases last month, and the new transaction log contains yet more information. The total number of possible double votes in King County in November 2004 is now up to 178. Sadly, it's a little late to do much with this information other than to castigate Deanron for failing to prevent the double votes and for failing to disclose this information in a timely fashion. A spreadsheet with the newly discovered doubly-credited voters is here (Caveats in the footnote 1). Moreover, I now have a clearer picture of the magnitude of the duplicate registration problem and how King County (mis)handled it --

1 I stop short of accusing any of these individuals of voting twice. It's possible that the double credit may be attributable to Elections office clerical errors, or mistaken or fraudulent voting by a third party on behalf of the named voter. Also, it appears that a few of the pairs of names on the list are sufficiently different that they might represent two different people. However, these are pairs of voter registrations that King County identified as duplicate, and merged one of the registrations with the other. If these are not truly duplicate registrations, then King County merged the records in error. My original query produced a few such cases where two records appear to have been merged in error and later corrected. I removed from the list such cases that were clearly corrected after being merged in error.

Commenters from the Seattle Area had their say:


It's pretty clear that with the sum total of problems in 2004, the outcome of the election was not definite. Many will always wonder what would have happened if Dean Logan had prevented double voters, improperly registered voters, invalid provisionals fed into accuvote machines, dead voters, felon voters, etc. from voting in 2004. Would Chris Gregoire be governor today?

Not that there won't always be probelms with elections, but certainly, Dean Logan could have done much better about immediately addressing, and he absolutely could have been more forthcoming about these issues.

To me Dean Logan is the OJ of government.
-by Jeff B.


129 votes is what Gregoire claimed victory over....There have been many more than 129 examples of fraud in the November 2004 election - proven by Stefan..This most recent find of double voters put's his fraud voter count at 174...

I agree with Elaine though, these are just the simple forms of vote fraud...I feel there are thousands of fraudulent ballots where a more sophisticated method was used..just waiting to be found. They are probably right in front of our faces...
-Deborah

My biggest problem is that after they found these 'questionable' voters and it threw the election in doubt, King County hid the results of their investigation.

If it had been a Republican administration and the new results may have thrown the election to a Democrat, the Repubican would not have hidden the results, but would have cooperated with the judicial branch of government.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the corruption of [former Democrat Governor] Sims and the Democrat party.
-swatter


Quote of the day

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
-Benjamin Franklin

Monday, April 17, 2006

CONTAINING FRANCE

Winds of Change blog has an examination of French policy and activities, making the case that France is a rogue state that the US foreign policy has a responsibility to contain. Gabriel Gonzalez ends this extended analysis with these thoughts:

I am not sure that "evil" is the right word, but France is, among Western powers, the closest one can get to a "rogue" state.

The real questions at this point should concern how we should "contain" France - through engagement or through isolation? I am personally undecided here. I find attractive the idea that the Bush administration (or any U.S. administration) should isolate a country whose policies are deeply and irremediably immoral as well as hugely destabilizing of the global order. On the other hand, it might be better to limit the damage the French are capable of through engaging them, giving them an "outlet" for their puerile anti-Americanism and delusional obsession with their own grandeur, and closing up the space in which they can cynically "triangulate" against the U.S. in the wanton pursuit of their deeply cynical and destructive commercial and geopolitical interests.

I know Trent will probably disagree with me here, but I think Clinton might have managed this better than Bush.

What followed was a good discussion of the topic in the comments:

WJC would have "managed" foreign policy better than GWB, but that is merely due to his management goals being undefined beyond the short term. "One year in Bosnia and out", the Haiti escapade, and how to get everyone mad at your CINC on Pristina's runway when the Russians decide to intervene were examples of this. But nobody but the Serbs ever miscontrued the fact that the US wasn't going to lunge for the jugular prior to Jan 2001. The only mistake the Serbs made is to not surrender before the war ever started. If they had gave Milosevich the shove prior to bombing, they'd still have Kosovo to call theirs, at least nominally, just as they still control Montenegro.

This lack of foreign policy long term objective eventually led to the current NK, Afghan, and Iraqi situations. You might disagree with Bush's remedies in these theatres, which the French certainly do, but the lack of international friction under WJC was simply a function of the US not representing its own long term interests and underwriting everyone else's protection policies with the local thugs. The fallacy was that we were not defending ourselves (USS Cole and the first WTC attack being prime examples). And what particularly is gaulling to the French is that ever since 9/11, Bush's foreign policy has been backed by substantial electoral majorities, unlike your cited French situation. Prior to 9/11, most US voters couldn't tell you the prime foundations of US policy, much as the French cannot today except in negative ideological terms. Today most US citizens can say why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, even if they disagree. Bush cannot manage this political motivation behind US foreign policy after 9/11, any more than one "manages" sitting on a rodeo bull.
-by Tom Roberts


Having sold Iraqis into slavery in exchange for petrodollars, the French have proven that they are beyond redemption. Disturbing as it may be to contemplate, some conduct puts one beyond the circle of humanity - enslaving fellow human beings, condemning them to rape, torture and execution, all for a few pieces of silver, surely qualifies.

It only remains to determine how civilized nations should deal with this kind of offender. Perhaps in another time - a time when nations could play the great game and risk only a few deaths in far off places - one could use all the tools of statecraft to isolate and disarm the French threat. But that time has passed. Western civilization is now in a knife-fight with a deadly and determined foe.

If France seeks to align with Islamic fundamentalists and/or their Arab government backers - if it signs a separate peace with Arab fascists - as it looks likely to do, the US and its allies must begin to think hard thoughts, to ask what will be required to defeat France. In this regard, I would expect Western leaders to contemplate even the nastiest of tricks to counter French perfidy - sabotage, false flag operations, diplomatic deception, espionage, political subversion, etc.

Once it is admitted that (1) the West is in a fight to the death against Arab Islamic fascism and (2) France has allied itself with fascists, there is no alternative but to oppose both fascists and France.
-by Mark


Excellent analysis. You have to go a bit further back in French history to get the cause I think. This attitude on the part of the French people isn't the least bit new. What you're seeing is the divide between the nobility and the serfs.

My grandfather once told me that the only thing you need to know about history is that every country is only afraid of their own history, not anyone else's. The French (and the Germans to a lesser degree) are afraid of political anarchy more than anything, dating back to the collapse of the Roman Empire. France as a modern nation didn't really take form until relatively recently and most of the history of France is full of constant warfare, largely with their English cousins/competitors. Rampaging feudal armies running back and forth tend to leave an imprint on a national psyche.

I think Americans (and the English who really should know better) don't understand the French because we don't share their 'social contract'. Our 'social contract' is pretty much spelled out in the Constitution. Government gets to do what we allow it to, and no more. And we get to decide what the 'government' is too.

The French social contract is more of a generally understood abstract than anything else. The nobility, ruling elite, government, or whoever is in charge may do whatever they like, indeed is EXPECTED to do whatever they like as long as they meet certain baselines of domestic security and economic well-being.

This is why the French goverment feels free to meddle disastrously in Africa, but is scared spitless to so much as criticize the unions. They understand the lessons of the French revolution well. Foreign adventures are well and good, but when social order breaks down and the economy crashes, they'll be lucky to escape with their heads.

A lot of their more inexplicable actions make more sense in this view. The governments gotten themselves into a bind, they need to undo some of the economic goodies they gave away when the economy was roaring but are afraid of crossing that unwritten social contract. So they play a balancing game, trying also from time to time to distract the populace with foreign events. The hijab ban for example is an attempt to reassure the general populace that muslims won't be allowed to take over the country without actually doing anything that might kick off insurrections that might convince the populace they aren't providing domestic security.

Really the government is only concerned with - A) enriching themselves and B) hanging on to power. The classic obsessions of nobility throughout history.
-by Treefrog


Regarding the final question of what we should do about France, the answer is not political or diplomatic but rather economic. As pointed out, the French economic house-of-cards is damned near collapse, and a lot of what the French government has been doing is oriented around delaying that collapse. With the new reality in the world, a lot of what was previously being used to prop up that house is now gone (e.g. the "oil for food program") and I don't think they can keep it together any longer.

The French government deficit (4.1% and still rising), indirect effects of the strong Euro, and the fundamental unsoundness of the French economy all bode ill. The party will end quite soon.

The people of France are apathetic and effete, but they will cease being apathetic once they begin to feel pain. What that will lead to is anyone's guess -- but it will mean the end of the existing order.
-by Steven Den Beste


"Nations have no permanent friends and no premanent enemies. Only permanent interests." Not from de Gaulle, but Benjamin Disraeli, 19th Century British Prime Minister.

Steven Den Beste: The U.S. economic house of cards is closer to collapse than the French. The U.S. deficit is higher than the French - per year and total (as a percentage of G.D.P.). On top of that the American savings rate is abysmal, while the French people still know the value of savings. (Still like your site!)

With that said, agree with a fair amount of the post. I think Taiwan-Israel is fairly similar. Once there was more to gain for France by turning against either, it did it. Moral considerations were not a factor.

Also left out in the post: the contracts that France is currently signing with Iran.

Still just because France is wrong doesn't make the Bush Administration right. For me Germany is the pivot country. Right now Germany is more in France's camp; if (when?) it swings back to the U.S. side, I'll be much happier.
-by Andrew Boucher


Gabriel Gonzalez has some excellent points regarding the fundamental issues that plague France and its society. I have some others to add.

One is the Cadre system. This basically ensures that if you haven’t spent five years in university then you will not pass a certain glass ceiling, be it management, technical or political.

The other is the adherence to laws : smoking in non-smoking places and the driving habits of the average Frenchman are the most remarked on. The ways that companies stretch the law in order to actually produce anything is another that shocks me daily. There are other examples.

The bureaucracy is incredible and is now in a self sustaining stage – one couldn’t get rid of a certain government department since it has made itself necessary for some medical or social payments process to work.

The power of unions. I’m not sure if there have been any other democratic nation where the same unions are represented in all industries. As far as I understand, there is no auto-workers union, no coal miners union, no steel workers union. These workers join either the CGT, CFDT or other cross industry, cross sector unions. They are everywhere. How their members think that they can look after the interests of everyone in all industries is beyond me.

These four points (among others, including history, population structure etc) make the French socio-economic system stagnant with no possibility to improve.

I have some ideas but my colleagues don’t want an American-type society. They want the generous holidays, they want the socialised medicine, they don’t seem to mind that the Police and politicians are corrupt (C’est la vie), they don’t like the big bosses (although all would like to be one).

I don’t know what the answers are to solving ‘The French Problems’ but one thing is for sure. With more countries about to join the EU in May, and other countries wanting to join, the inefficiencies of France will only be put off, while new members are forced to put in place the same laws that are now hobbling France, Germany and to some extent the UK. France will be able to hide itself in amongst 25? other nations who will be forced to trade with it.
-Matt Bunter

"Still just because France is wrong doesn't make the Bush Administration right."

Well, there is the following from the original post, and it does have implications about options that first need to be assessed, followed by some choice, an executive decision, taken in the real world, not just the world of supposedly wonderful ideas:

Just as France's "alternative" model for "combating" terrorism by opposing U.S. "militarism" is based on nothing of substance, it's "alternative" model for political development in the Middle East would also appear to be little more than a front for promoting French commercial and strategic interests in the region, with the complicity of authoritarian regimes perfectly willing to agree to this "alter" political model.

Debate all you want the U.S. option taken of essentially a forward positioning in the M.E. following on the heals of Afghanistan. But if the only option suggested (whether consciously or by default) is one that refers back to the previous status quo (as the French option does), then that doesn't suggest very much that attempts to craft a stable, long term future. Unless, of course, one feels that the significant enemy is in fact limited to al Queda and little or nothing beyond that. I doubt that many would accept that premise though.
-by Michael B

This is a good article and i'm saying that as a French person who's lived in Australia for many years(but who still often goes back to France where I have close family.)
However I think you have to understand that there are lots of French people who despise the Govt for what it's done; that France, since the Revolution, has laboured under the twin deadly traditions of absolutist statist authoritarianism on the one hand and revolutionary insurectionism on the other; that the French governing class despise, fear and mistrust their people, and that they give no possibility of actual useful democratic participation. France is a republican absolute monarchy. The anti-Us stuff is also a useful way to divert the population's attention from the massive problems of corruption of the govt not only in terms of Iraq but in terms of the whole shebang--some people even call the state now 'la republique mafieuse', the mafiosos' republic. Something's going to give one of these days in France, and it's not going to be pretty. But there are many people--Guy Milliere, Andre Glucksmann, Alain Madelin, and many, many more, who understand precisely and who are attempting to argue against the rotten administration of M.Chirac. Don't condemn everyone, it's not fair, and it doesn't give any hope to those trying to change things.
Incidentally many young people feel very close to the US and hate the whole anti-American thing. Generational change may work wonders!
-by Sophie


TAX DAY TIPS

Due to tax day falling on a weekend, the Federal Government deadline has been extended to today, which prompted a few Mallard Fillmore comics on the dubious wisdom of getting a tax refund. The Geek Soap Box blog has an excellent roundup on government spending and economics cribbed from Human Events Online, which includes some facts on spending that are quite informative and useful.

It’s a list that proves to be a fascinating read, and incorporates resource materials such as the dates the programs were enacted, by whom they were enacted, and under what Constitutional authority they continue to exist (should there be such authority). It's a must-read for the thinkers that comprise much of this blog’s humble readership.

Commenters chimed in:

Wow. A magnus opus or whatever the term is surely applies here. Haven't seen this kind of quality on GSB since that guy wrote about spring training! ;)

This kind of stuff is so depressing. Like you said about SS - "we really are in this thing to the bitter end." I don't see a away to stop the whole damn freight train fueled by 1-10 on this list. Really makes me feel hopeless for America. It's probably just a matter of time, whether it's 50 more years or 150 more, the day is coming when even we (no less Washington or Lincoln) will not be able to recognize this place.

But I like the idea about the Senate. Figures Boortz would come up with something like that. I miss the daily dose of his wisdom (and the Bobby Cox interviews too) on WSB.
-by Jeff


Unfortunately, I must concur. I don't really see any possibility short of a radical event to change a lot of the items on the list.

Heck, even with #10, [Davis-Bacon Act]last year it was attempted to remove for Katrina bids and labor and got met with screeches and howls.

I wish I felt better about a lot of these, but I don't. A lot of these will be with us until the bitter end. Once so many people are on the dole it's hard to get them off.

We just have to operate under the assumption that it will not be there because it's been run through so much. Then again, if it's not there because all the money is gone I'm not sure I mind too much, since no money means no stupid program.

Unfortunately, we can be sure that, given incompetence by whomever is in charge, that the solution will be to just raise taxes more and more.

Oh, what fun.
-by Francase

A SAFE FIVER

Frank Warner has a blog called Free Frank Warner in which he has made a bet:

Step right up. I still have $5 for the first person who can name one thing, anything, Joseph Wilson found on his 2002 trip to Niger that proved "false" President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union statement, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

It's a safe five dollars, as commenters noted:

I appreciate your comments and have done a bit more research and now must humbly admit that there is nothing factually incorrect in the 16 words. Reading over the entire account, from the first intelligence reports through Wilson's trip, the NIE and the Senate Committee report, it may well be that a delegation from Iraq (possibly this al-Zahawi character)shopped around for some yellowcake in 1999-2000 and that, yes, the British learned about it, as did we. So any wager is safe from me, I will eat crow and never try to say that what the President said in the SOTU was a "lie."
However.
Reading the unclassified versions of the NIE is quite a shocking experience - If I had my hand on the big red 'war' button and I glanced over that thing I'd be pretty temped to push it too. But it's an even greater shock when you step back from precipice and remember that almost everything in it is WRONG. Or, as the Senate report stated, it “interpret(s) ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program.” Following one of the strands of intelligence, as we are doing here, is very instructive as it shows clearly how tiny bits of information – reports of meetings and a couple of forged documents – with almost no legwork to back it up, became the cause for war. The only real legwork they did, sending Joe Wilson to Niger, turned up nothing conclusive and added no new information. In fact, that trip and concurrent conversations with the ambassador to Nigeria tended to reiterate how committed Niger was to staying clean. We get no more information about the rumored deals with Congo and Somalia. We get no confirmation of transport of uranium, money changing hands, no substantial indication that there is processing going on… really nothing but rumors of envoys in 1999 and some forged documents… and yet in the NIE there is this: “A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of "pure uranium" (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement.”
Let’s take one minute to dissect this. The intelligence reports from the ‘foreign government’ brought up the idea that Iraq had sent out feelers to Niger, but from what we know there were never any indications, and several assurances to the contrary (Joe Wilson included) that a deal could never get done in that country due to tight regulatory oversight. How this got twisted into Niger "planning" to send yellowcake seems particularly bizarre. “500 tons of yellowcake” seems to be pulled out of a hat – the discredited documents possibly talk about a deal of 400 tons per year, an amount too large to plausibly be true without other indicators, and it appears the drafters of the NIE just rounded it up and lopped off the “per year” and signed off. “We do not know the status of this arrangement” pretty much sums it up.
This NIE and the lame-ass, confused and contradictory intelligence reports that preceded it, which amount to just so much paper shuffling and very very little actual-on-the-ground intelligence, became the basis for the 16 words, which became the basis for taking this country to war.
In the end, I think the focus on the “16 words” is overblown and off the mark. The reason Hadley had to fall on the sword and admit they should never have been in SOTU is not because they were wrong, but because they were essentially true and all they had. The British did indeed hear of such reports, but there was no more to the story and still it was used to scare the American people into believing we had to go to war immediately. The question is not whether they were true, the question is, how on earth did they become the operational rationale for war?
-by Chasm


Hmmm.

How about...

Wilson...

Damn it. Can't be done. The former PM told Wilson he thought the Iraqis were there to bag some uranium. You can't really come up with anything else to claim that they definitely were not...

Of course, that would be trying to prove a negative, which is virtually impossible.

So, nope, nothing Wilson found disproves the 16 words.

Which is exactly why he claimed anonymously to the New York Times and the Washington Post that he had debunked the forgeries that were supposed to have been the source of all the claims. Of course, that too was a lie.

Wilson will get what's coming to him one of these days. Maybe at the end of the Libby trial.

I'm curious though, why doesn't the government indict Wilson for leaking classified information? Or his wife, who leaked it to him?
-by Seixon


YOU SAY YOU WANT A CONSTITUTION?

The conservative voting bloc in this nation has been increasingly annoyed with the Republican Party's actions and voting in congress over the last four years. The Republican party has, since 2002, had a majority in both houses of congress and the President of the United States has been a Republican since 2000. Thus far, the President, although he has the constitutional power to veto any bill, has not done so and has only threatened to do so once.

Voters have become increasingly upset at the spending and the types of bills this congress has engaged in - pointing out rightly that during the 90's when the President was a rather liberal Democrat, spending was significantly lower and more controlled, even balancing the budget.

Recent proposed legislation favored by President Bush on Illegal Immigration has been met with protest not only from illegal immigrants (who wish to have their legal status ignored and even rewarded with citizenship), but Republican and other conservative voters who wish the laws simply to be enforced and the borders controlled.

Worse, corruption from lobbyists and misuse of funds by congress is becoming better publicized, and while the President's "approval rating" poll numbers are quite low, as low as 36% in some polls, congress has an even lower approval rating.

In short, voters are becoming angry and frustrated with the current congress and the rumbles are becoming loud. Now, as the Vodkapundit notes, even long-time conservative columnist George Will has had enough:

It's official! George Will has given up on the Republican Congress:

The 211 Republicans who voted for big-government regulation of speech will have no principled objection. How many principled Republicans remain? Only 18. The following, who voted against restricting 527s:

On this remnant of libertarian, limited-government conservatism a future House majority can be built. The current majority forfeited its raison d'etre April 5.

All I can add to that is, "Yeah, what he said."

Commenters had this to say about the affair:

TO: Stephen Green
RE: The Solution....

...is not to try to form a third, fourth, fifth or sixth party.

The solution is to change the Republican Party to what you want it to be. And you can do that from RIGHT WHERE YOU ARE TODAY.

Get involved. And start hammering away at the bad things in the organization.

You've got Hefley, a Republican whose name I didn't see in the item from Will; as opposing the piece of legislation.

Get involved, as opposed to standing on the sidelines whining. You'll find it is much more satisfying than whining, either on the web or in letters.

Susan and I had, between us, two planks added to the county-level platform. Hers about 2d Amendment Rights for adults under the age of 21. Mine about repudiating and preventing Kelo v. New London at the federal level.

On top of that, Susan has decided to run for the state legislature (district 46). It's going to be an interesting year.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Stop sitting on the sidelines whining. Get involved! It's as easy as [American] pie.]
-by Chuck Pelto


I doubt that the Republicans will loose the house despite their dismal record on spending caps & cuts, limiting government or any of the other issues so dear to the heart of conservatives and libertarians.

My reason for that prediction is this, the dems are worse by far. They don't get the full ramifications of the GWOT, they will spend and tax even more, they care even less for free speech than the republicans do, they have no policies of their own other than being against whatever Bush and the Republicans are for and harbour the fantasy of impeaching Bush if they do regain the house. They have been taken over by the extreme left wing of their party. Most reasonable folks left them long ago.

I'm not apologizing for or embracing the Republicans, the Republican governor and legislature in my state are abominable idiots at best who make a mockery out of fiscal conservatism while attempting to promote the basest parts of social conservatism. They are the embodiment of a leftist's characature of the worst Republicans.

But in the final analysis, they are better than the democrats and that is their ONLY saving grace.

Until a 3rd party is viable, or enough folks have quit supporting or left the Republican party in disgust, for those in power to take notice and make changes, things will remain the same.

Meanwhile, as the Titanic sinks, the democrats argue over the arrangement of the deck chairs.
-by Tim P

[Is anyone else tired of the Titanic Deck Chair analogy yet?]

Stephen,
Will, like his Democrat alternative Broder, has been inside the 495 Beltway waaaay too long. He's the journalistic version of the entrenched politician.
Repubs in Congress are looking at only one thing, re-election! They may have arrived in Congress full of the Party's beliefs (which I espouse), but getting a mid six figure income, including perks, for working fewer days/hours than a CA teacher (who works about 70% of the hours/days as a private sector employee) becomes paramount.
Adding to the dysfunction is the opposition party's only program is being opposed to anything Bush and/or Republicans are in favor of.
They are all whores for their positions, even the so-called 18 who, I'm certain, believe their anti-measure vote will add to their re-electibilty.
Principals from an elected official of any party? I've got a great little bridge for sale. Cheap!
-by Mike Daley


Comment Type #4

The previous comment types have been fairly standard, obvious, and well-known. But no list would have been complete without them, and as they are useful for reference, I wanted to get them out of the way as soon as possible. Today we start with less familiar comment types unless you're an experienced internet commenter and message board visitor.

THE COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT

Complaint comments are most prevalent in message boards or blogs dealing with a game or when connected to some group or company that can affect the product or topic being discussed. MMO"RP"Gs* such as Everquest or World of Warcraft tend to see a lot of these types of posts, but any sort of comment section or message board can be visited by them. Political blogs see complaints about the actions of politicians or the media. Sports blogs have complaints about the manager or coach, or head office, or other details. Any setting or focus can include these kinds of comments.

Some are reasonable, they point out something that's wrong and often even suggest solutions and ways to remedy this problem. This kind of complaint post is better received and can contribute a great deal to the conversation and the blog they appear on. In the case of game message boards such as for Everquest, the message boards allow designers and programmers to know of problems in the game or suggestions to make something better. For other blogs and message boards, this sort of post brings people together for a common cause and can help find solutions.

Some are simply irrational rants, raging against a perceived problem without remedy or often sense or grammar. Other complaints are repetition of the same annoyance so often that even if they are well-written and correct, they can become unwelcome or counterproductive. This kind of complaint may serve some deep need for catharsis but usually does not help anyone or anything. A poorly done or crazed complaint often will become a rant (Comment type #5) and lose all real impact.

Complaints are often difficult to read and are skipped over unless they address an area the reader is personally is interested in or a very topical issue (Illegal Immigration, Gay Marriage, National Elections, NFL Draft Day, the next patch coming up for an online game, etc). But a well-written, thought out, and pertinent complain can spawn an excellent discussion and even result in beneficial change in some cases.

*Few games labeled RPGs (Role Playing Games) are actually role playing games in anything but the most superficial sense. Everquest even stopped using RPG in their official press in some instances, calling it an MMOG: Massively Multiplayer Online Game.


Quote of the day

"Satan's purpose is not to make good people bad or bad people worse. Satan's purpose is ultimately to make people 'good' without Jesus Christ. If the devil owned any one town in the United States, it would immediately become the loveliest town in America-- crime free, prosperous, and everyone would go to church, where Jesus Christ is not preached."
-Donald Grey Barnhouse

Saturday, April 15, 2006

THE BLOG AS COMMUNITY

What kind of a loon creates a blog on comments from other peoples’ blogs?

Well, the header to this “clog” (Comments Log) has a short explanation but more can be said on this subject. In the mid-80s when Personal Computers (PC’s, and not Player Characters for you gamer types) and modems became readily available and cheap enough to purchase, people started to set up a program on their home computer attached to the mighty 300 baud modem that let people dial in and look around. This sharing was done without any profit or hope of reward, it was just fun to set up something that people were interested in and share files. Small local Bulletin Boards (or BBS’) as they were called began to pop up in many towns and cities.

As time went on, small games could be played, the modems went to amazing 1200 and even the lofty 2400 baud speeds! Along with these advancements the message board began to develop. At first it was simply a literal bulletin board, just a way to to post notices and talk to friends. These rapidly developed into small communities around the theme or idea of the BBS, posting comments and ideas. Some even had stories told by whoever posted the next part or role playing games ran one move at a time as people posted and the GM responded.

This was the origin of what we see today on the internet blog. A blog is simply a personal journal reacting to and noting events, information, ideas, and files focused on an area of interest or hobby just like the old BBS. Comment sections were added over time to replace message boards and old guest books to give people a chance to react and add to what they read.

So many blogs have a comment section that it seems almost like a requirement for a successful effort. But some do not, notably Michelle Malkin's blog and blogs like Country Store. What does having comments do for a blog, and how do they effect the internet blogosphere? [see also this article at Microcontent News for more thoughts on the blogosphere]

Something regular readers (assuming there are any) may have noticed at this Clog is that I tend to post from a few blogs more often than others.This is due not to any particular partiality, but rather because some blogs have a more active and capable commenter community than others. There are some great blogs out there, some small and some big that have wonderful articles, interesting bits of information and hilarious things to say. But without a good comments section, they aren’t much use to what I do on this clog. I still browse through dozens of them every day to find something, because even tiny blogs can have a good comment. I’m always on the lookout for unusual sites and interesting bits of information.

But the truth is, really good blogs will almost always include good commenters. To be fair, this can take a while to build up. Let’s examine one example. Right Wing News is so big and successful now the site has been mentioned on national shows like Rush Limbaugh, gets interviews with major names and John Hawkins even gets asked for guest commentary by Associatd Press news service.

Right Wing News started with a comment section, and over the years has built in popularity and number of registered commenters. John Hawkins notes that his blog has over nine thousand people registered to comment, although by my count fewer than 100 comment on an average day. Many of these names will be trolls or spammers creating accounts so that they can flood the blog with their ideas. Several commenters come on under different names, at least one notably posting comments then logging in with a different name to agree with what he just said! That said, Right Wing News has a lot of commenters by any definition.

This kind of community takes time to earn, for a blog. It can be done only by consistently interesting and entertaining articles, especially the kind that other, more popular blogs will link to and tell people about. As people become more interested in your site and occasionally comment on what you have to say, others will read comments and have their say. Over time this can build to enormous numbers, such as what Little Green Footballs or The Daily Kos enjoys. This community is built up slowly and naturally by having a quality product and intelligent, interesting readers to comment on it.

A way to encourage commenters is to let them know they have had something good to say, especially if it influences a blogger’s articles in some way. On Right Wing news, John has in the past updated posts based on things commenters bring up, and has even had articles in the past where comments are quoted to show a mood or common theme in what people have said in the comment section. In fact, John noted comments play a “small, but significant role.”

Sometimes I update or clarify things I've said based on comments. I may also pick a certain topic to talk about later because people in the comments section mentioned it… I thought [comments were] a good way to get instant feedback and [to] also help build up a sense of community on the blog.

When I asked how often he posts in the comment sections or interacts with commenters, John replied

Seldom, outside of Q&A Fridays, which is where I take questions from RWN readers and answer them on the page. The reason that's the case is my philosophy is that if I'm going to write something, I want it to be seen by the maximum number of people. So, rather than writing in the comments section, where only a few of my readers can see it, I want to write on the main page where all of them can read what I have to say.

Right Wing News is not unique in this. Bloggers write for their blog primarily and often have little time to spend reading all comments and typing there. As John noted, a broader audience is reached on the main page, and that’s the most efficient way to reach readers. On this blog I tend not to have comments by bloggers from that site because they’ve had their say with the main article.

But the key thing John mentioned about Right Wing News’ comment sections is that he thought "…it was a good way to get instant feedback and it also helps build up a sense of community on the blog." And indeed, that is the strongest contribution that comments will have to a blog. People who comment regularly read regularly, looking for something interesting to learn and have their say about. A good commenter community will not only bring success to a blog by showing up regularly, but add to the information and entertainment at that blog.

There are, however, some blogs, notably World Magazine Blog, that will deliberately post articles or questions to the reader designed to pack as many comments in as possible. Intentionally provocative or controversial topics are written about, with the intent to get people to visit and comment. Why? Because each new person who comments has visited the site, which increases the number of unique visitors to the site, making it more popular and attractive to advertisers. Long, involved arguments and fights in the comment section mean people are coming to the site and staying, returning to see what was said and to post again and again.

In this kind of repeated fight (the topics that bring the most attention are usually a small number that are repeated, such as gay rights) it is rare anything new is brought up by a commenter, it most often ends up being a continuous repeat of the same arguments with nobody paying the other any particular heed. This kind of thing does not build community well if at all, but it can build animosity and personal dislike.

Another problem that can happen to disrupt the community of a blog is either poor or a complete lack of moderation. Such a situation often ends up with the worst elements coming in greater numbers, creating dissent, spamming, trolling, advertising, and committing other internet “sins” that will tend to chase off intelligent or beneficial commenters to other places.

Merely getting a lot of hits and readers from commenters is useful in a marketing sense, but having interesting commenters who contribute to a blog is more important and beneficial to that blog in the long run. Comments are a subtle part of the internet, but like message boards such as Democratic Underground, form a useful way of meeting like minds, exchanging information and ideas, and form communities on the internet. A blog’s comment section can sometimes be as or more interesting than the blog its self, if you’re not reading one, you’re missing out on a lot.

Jeff from Protein Wisdom said it well when, in a comment on another blog, he ended with this thought about how commenters add to the discussion of the blogosphere:

In short, I think there’s more critical thinking than simply criticism happening out there. You just have to learn the new grammar of blog reading to find it.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Friday, April 14, 2006

WHY COMMENTS MATTER

Jon Henke wrote an article on the Q and O blog about the nature of blogs and the discussion of news and events on the right and the left of the political spectrum. He examined an article by Matt Welch in Reason magazine that complained about the lack of real discussion on the net. Matt Welch opined that
Instead of galvanizing the apolitical truth squads of my fantasy world, weblogs became marvelous organizing tools for the most partisan citizens and groups.
Jon Henke replied

The blogosphere is, of course, composed of many dedicated flacks and apparatchiks with their own partisan agendas and biases. But it's a tremendous shame that what Welch calls the "expressly political" acts produced by bloggers have not been consolidated into a fairly comprehensive encyclopedia of information on each issue.

He examined a couple of recent stories and how a few blogs on the right and left reacted to them as well as how certain stories are covered by either side of the political spectrum and others are ignored. Commenters had a few things to say on the topic:
You’re right, Jon. It’s frustrating. By reading all of them (and especially the somewhat sensible types like Volokh, Drum, Cole, Yglesias, and you guys), you can kind of get a sense of the overall picture. But finding the dispassionate analysis is tough. I guess that’s why they call it politics.
-by Keith, Indy


I think you run into basic supply and demand. There is a huge demand for partisan news: that’s why there are so many overtly partisan, well-funded blogs. There are a ton of blogs that do engage in relatively disinterested, nuanced analysis... but they are often relegated to the bottom of the Technorati lists because people don’t have the time to read nuance, they want to be told what to think.
-by Josh


This is a great post Jon.

Don’t blame the the blogosphere though. It just reflects the population.

When Gore ran against Bush, Saturday night live ran a parady of the election that implied they were really the same guy. Much like when Clinton ran against George the first, the election was seen as two moderate candidates. It was widely perceived that it really didn’t matter which one was elected. The next election was disupted and nobody except for a few wild eyed lefties really cared.

People once complained about not having a real choice. The country is now as polarized as it has ever been during my lifetime. Maybe Viet Nam was worse, maybe we just haven’t gotten there yet. Maybe red and blue states will ultimately split over abortion the way the blue and grey once split. Its a very bad thing. The radical right took power, the radical left was made stronger by it and the moderates have lost their say. Who listens anymore to those who urge caution, consideration and collaboration?
-by Cindy B


CindyB, twas ever thus....My party is out to turf out YOUR party. The nation has always been polarized, YOU as a Liberal just never noticed, because until 1994 Liberals ran D.C.. Then some NOT Liberal folks came to power and suddenly polarization. We on the Right NEVER agreed with Ted Kennedy, the difference was from 1968-1994 it really didn’t matter as much what we thought. Now it does, so suddenly folks discover, there’s differences of opinion! Who KNEW!?!?!

CindyB you remind me of the nice white person who suddenly discovers that the Negroes around the corner are NOT happy with the status quo! Usually when they begin to protest and boycott. Your side never really noticed until my side got strong enough to be noticed.
-by Joe
And finally there is this comment that encapsulates the entire point of this blog, or "Clog" (comments log) if you will:
Jon —

This is why a lot of blogs have comments sections. And updates. I think all of the questions you raise re: the mobile "biolabs" were covered in the post and comments on the subject I made on my site — and in fact, I think Slart first raised his question in the comments there.

As you well know, when we are writing these posts, we simply don’t think of all the possible angles, but I think if you look around aggregately, you’ll find that they HAVE all been covered (for instance, I think someone linked to a David Kay quote that noted that the most laughable explanation for what these trailers were used for was "hydrogen production" — which rather ironic). For my part, I took aim at the Post’s choice of how to present the story, which I believe to another important question that goes to establishing and shaping public perception at home.

There are many strictly "Hannity" or "Colmes" blogs, if you will — but if you look around enough, you can find sites that will cover stories comprehensively, even if they rely on the posts merely as a way to start the discussion.

In short, I think there’s more critical thinking than simply criticism happening out there. You just have to learn the new grammar of blog reading to find it.
-by Jeff G

CNN GENERALS

The Real Ugly American examines a Victor Davis Hanson article and the rebuttal by Glenn Greenwald. The article is about generals going on television to criticize the President and the war effort, and examining why for the first time in American history this is happening.

So the question comes down to who do you believe. Do you believe the retired generals, some who did so in protest at not getting their way?

or do you believe the administration and the generals who planned the war, and the generals, colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, non coms, and privates who are still fighting it?

I choose the latter. I also humbly request that if the retired generals who served their country honorably feel compelled to speak out, that they offer real strategic and tactical alternatives to where we are today not where we were 3 years ago. That bus has left the station. Regardless of their feelings about the beginning of the war, it is here, we are in it and calling for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense is not helping us win it. As experienced men in uniform they know better.

Comments were on both sides of this issue, including one by the blogger:

Unlike Hanson Greenwald backs up what he says with facts and a well reasoned argument.

It’s false, by the way, to suggest as Hanson does does the Generals who are speaking up are only doing so to sell books. Zinni in particular has been raising these criticisms for years now. And he was right…

Why would you believe the people who planned the war when they so obviously got everything wrong?
-by A. Hermit


Just one example of Hanson’s nonsense; “Imagine that…in the midst of Matthew Ridgeway’s Korean counteroffensives, we were still bickering over MacArthur’s disastrous intelligence lapses about Chinese intervention that caused thousands of casualties.”

A better analogy would be “Imagine that…in the midst of Matthew Ridgeway’s Korean counteroffensives, we were still pretending MacArthur was right and the Chinese Army was just a “few dead enders” “in their last throes”. Hanson is being completely dishonest pretending that criticism in a time of war is a mistake. If you don’t identify errors, how will you correct them?
-by A. Hermit

Hanson never said they only do it to sell books. and the analogy is sound. It doesn’t matter which particular side your criticism is coming from.
-by The Ugly American


So is what we have here is yet another retired three-star defeatist publicly auditioning for the coveted CNN Armchair General broadcast position? Because really, he had all of THREE YEARS to speak out before. Why now? What the hell went wrong with our country? Once upon a time all our crusty old generals had to be restrained from invading every country in site. If Patton, MacArthur, or LeMay were still around today, they’d be calling us pussies for not having already bombed and invaded Iran, Syria, and North Korea. But instead we have these old farts who need to change their depends every time they see another Humvee get blown up on CNN. It’s seriously pathetic.

What was it Chamberlain said? (Joshua, not Neville) “There’s nothing so much like a god on earth as a General on a battlefield.” Or maybe he just said that in the movies.

In any event, what does that make a general in a living room?

Newbold’s whole case boils down to this:
“Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important.”

So what exactly is it about the Iraq War that General Patent Leather finds unconstitutional?

It’s funny, the CinC takes the same oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

So are we supposed to trust unelected and unaccountable men like el Commandante Newbold to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution in place of a man a majority of the country REelected a bare year and a half ago?

Sorry, Generalissimo. But I think we’ll stick with representative democracy for now if you don’t mind.

Buck Sargent
4-23 Infantry
Mosul, Iraq
-by Buck Sargent
*UPDATE: From Right Wing News comes this comment about generals:

Hey, sicne this is - I guess - an "open thread," let me address the issue of those retired generals now badmouthing Rumsfeld as a "disaster" and calling on him to resign:

1) Regardless of your political leanings, be aware that Rumself represents vast institutional change in the Pentagon. He's trampled traditional interservice rivalries and sacred goats, trying to transform the military into a 21st century organization. Many, many people in the Pentago DEEPLY resent him for that.

2) Where were these Generals while on active duty?

If they TRULY felt they way they say - they are immoral bastards for not having resigned their commissions and spoken out in protest YEARS AGO.

Instead, if they are to be believed, they protected their retirements instead of saving America from a debacle that cost thousands of lives. IF they are telling the truth: they are despicable. If they are LYING: they are despicable. Take Your Pick.

3) These generals are obvlious to the damage they are wreaking on American morale - civilian and military - during a time of war. General Myers is DEAD ON RIGHT to denounce them.

4) People should ALWAYS remember it is easy to second guess. Would doubling the number of ground troops really put down an insurrection using car bombs, or merely provide twice as many tragets?

In any case, Rumsfeld presided over the defeat of 2 evil regimes with MERELY 3,000 American military dead. That is a STUNNING achievement of historic import. These retired generals are too busy nursing old slights to realize that...
-by CoolCzech

*UPDATE There are about 4700 presently retired military men at the rank of general officer or higher, according to an article on Slate by Daniel Engber.

UNION AND DISCRIMINATION

Professor Althouse has a blog in which she examined a flyer that the USC Muslim Students Union distributed titled "Islam and the Cartoons: the Responsibilities of Free Speech" (PDF file). Ann Althouse examined the Volokh Conspiracy's article on the topic:

I just want to defend the Muslim Students Union here. There is nothing in that flyer that condones violence. I would prefer to see the Union openly condemn the threats of violence and distance their religion from the threats of violence that are plainly at issue in the cartoon controversy. But it is perfectly legitimate to have a private conception of "free speech" that is narrower than the legal definition. But it is perfectly legitimate to have a private conception of "free speech" that is narrower than the legal definition. And it is is likewise perfectly legitimate to have a private conception of "discrimination" that is broader than the legal definition.

Here, the Muslim Students Union may mean to say something like: "We want to host a discussion, and we are going to try to keep the discussion civil. We want to talk with you, not provide an occasion for you to show up at our place and taunt us."

Commenters pondered the meaning of free speech, discrimination, and civic responsibility:

I think the question is whether the flyer is expressing an intellectually defensible point of view. It is, as Prof. Althouse says, perfectly defensible to have a narrow conception of free speech (e.g., personal insults, though constitutionally protected, have no place in the comments section of the Volokh Conspiracy). But it isn't intellectually defensible to subsume speech that offends people's religious sensibilities under the rubric "discrimination." If that counts as "discrimination," what doesn't count as "discrimination"?
-by Sean
Professor Althouse responded with this comment:
Sean: I think it makes sense that a person could have the opinion that speech discriminates against them. It's not legally sound, but many sane and intelligent people hold opinions like that. Remember the feminists who insisted that pornography discriminates against women. They tried to get that view inscribed into the law and failed, but they privately held that opinon, a minority interpretation of the law. If they want to give a speech and say that's what they think, what's the problem?
-by Althouse
The comments continued:

You're being a little rough on EV. He says that it's a shame that the group in question takes a different view than modern First Amendment law at the end of the second quoted paragraph. His ultimate conclusion is that this will look bad politically for the Muslim community at large, which seems right to me.

He's claiming that they should have that broader understanding of free speech and not the narrower vision they are espousing, but not that they must have such a vision, which opinion I think you're imputing to him.
Certainly, at an event this group is holding they can confine the discussion to what they think is fruitful (even if others think they are wrong about that) because others can certainly have other discussions separately, but that's not what this flyer is about.

The "hate speech" <> "free speech" part is clearly a more general statement. It's plain from the flyer that the authors have a conception of free speech that is downright Orwellian, excluding "hate speech" and "discriminatory" speech.

I don't think a fair reading of their flyer says that "good muslims don't use discriminatory speech/hate speech," which I understand is the reading you're giving it. It demands freedom from criticism in the name of religious freedom, which the latter clearly does not entail. I'm going to have to side with EV on this one.

[As to violence, if we're looking at this in context, knowing the violence that followed the (fake) cartoons, isn't any attempt to invoke the cartoons and the response at least an implicit threat of violence against those who disagree, absent a repudiation?]
-by John Jenkins

Many good points, professor, but I have to disagree. The Muslims who are upset about the Mohammed cartoons are claiming, in essence, that the rest of us have an obligation to abide by the rules of their religion, even if they are putting it in terms of discrimination or tolerance. They need to be told, politely but firmly, that in a free and pluralistic society, they cannot impose that obligation on others.
-by CB

Comment Type #3

ADVERTISEMENT

There are two types of advertisement comments. The first is the most obvious, simply an advertisement for some product that is inserted into a comment section on a blog. This is typically done late in a blog article's life, when it is low down on the page and close to "rolling off" (that is, about to be moved into archives instead of the front page). Usually this is the same kind of advertising that gets spammed into your email box: bigger breasts, Viagra, gambling, that sort of thing. There is a distinct connection between the morality of the product and the willingness to assault people with unwanted advertising.

This kind of advertising is totally unwelcome, and tends to show up late at night when the blogger and moderator (the person keeping track of the comments to edit or delete them) is asleep. This kind of comment relies on it not being seen by the people in charge, but noticed by people reading comments. How effective they are is questionable, as most people despise this sort of thing and skip past it, but it's nearly costless to put them out, so it's probably worth the attempt.

Some blogs require you to type in a weird jumble of letters before you can post a comment. The image looks something like this:
Verification Image
This is used because only a human being at this point can reliably read and copy what the letters are. Computer programs that send out advertisements to hosts of blog comment areas cannot duplicate this image, and fail to spam the comment. Sometimes the word or letters shown can be difficult for humans to read and decipher due to fancy backgrounds and subtle distinctions between letters like L and I.

The second kind of advertising is someone who has a personal product or site and wants people to notice. This can either be a subtle attempt like this:
I've gotten a link from Malkin....

NEENER, NEENER, NEENER!!

:)
-by Graumagus

Or a more obvious attempts that directly link the website in question and tell people about it. Offhand I couldn't find an example (later updates will add one in when I see it, these are more rare).

This kind of advertising is less offensive or annoying, unless it is Spammed into the comment section and becomes a different kind of comment (Spam). Most bloggers and fellow commenters will not mind a subtle link or even an occasional obvious one, if you've got a blog people are interested in, or a link that's hilarious. The type people do not appreciate is a straight up advertisement trying to get people to check out your T-Shirts or book just to make a sale.

Entertainment or information is what people look for when they read comments, not your pet project or sales records.

Quote of the day

"For telling a good and incisive joke (about religion), you should be praised. For telling a bad one, you should be ridiculed and reviled. The idea that you could be prosecuted for the telling of either is quite fantastic."
-Rowan Atkinson

Thursday, April 13, 2006

SOUTH PARK CENSORSHIP

Muhammed from South ParkI am not a South Park fan, I find their humor often to be the most crass kind, they put words and ideas in the mouths of their child characters that are repugnant, foul, and unrealistic for a child to utter. Their animation is awful, and their storylines are often so ghastly it is difficult to believe. That said, through the blasphemy, lowbrow humor, and profanity, the show does at times have the most keen and potent satire available today, of the kind Jonathan Swift would applaud.

Recently, the show did a two-part episode mocking the reaction of many news organizations and world leaders to the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad. In their own unique way, South Park exposed and eviscerated the cowardice and hypocrisy of organizations like the New York Times which would not run these cartoons out of "respect for Islam" but feel free to run pictures of anything mocking Christianity.

Thus, I've decided to run a picture of Muhammad that was shown on an earlier episode of South Park. Why? Because the most recent episode had the image of Muhammad censored by Comedy Central, who carries and owns the show. They were so afraid of reaction by worldwide Muslims (assuming any would have noticed) that they refused to show the image of this man handing a silly hat to a cartoon character from the show Family Guy.

I'm no world leader, I'm no influential member of the press, this blog probably isn't noticed by more than a half dozen people a day at most. But this is something I can do. Now, back to your regularly scheduled Clog.

REPUBLICAN TAX

Ace of Spades blog has a post on a Newsweek article that tries to make the case that a good economy may cause a bad one. In essence as I understand it this article appears to be arguing that increased hiring lowers productivity and thus causes economic trouble.

Commenters noted that the economic acumen of this writer seems lacking:
increasing productivity means more jobs not less.I was the executive director of the Presidents Commission on Productivity from1972 -4.All our datashowed that industries with the greatest productivity growth had the greatest employment gains as well. Later I was Senior Vice President of oneof the worlds largest wholesaler/retailers.Super Valu Stores from1974 to 1990.I was able to show the Teamsters Union that the divisions in our company which had the greatest productivity growth had the greatest employment growth.the reason is simple.Employment growth depedns on growth in corporate after tax cash flow,and increased productivity creates increeased cash flow.
-by John Morrisey

You can tell where Newsweek's bias is by the last line in their article:

"No wonder they call economics the dismal science. "

The term 'the dismal science' was coined from the views of Malthus, an anti-free market early economist who believed that capitalism would eventually lead to shortage and starvation on a world-wide scale. He was part of the same movement that gave birth to Marx. Malthus's economic pessimism, however, has long since been discredited by everyone, except apparently the lefty media.
-by Adolpho Valasquez
But what caught my eye was this comment at the end of Ace's blog entry regarding something he's mentioned before:

The Republican Tax: I've said this before, but I think we've got to accept we will always, as a country, have to pay a "tax" on having a Republican president in office, because the media, through relentlessly negative coverage of Republican economies, will sabotage consumer confidence and thus reduce the actual strength of the economy (not just the perception thereof) a fraction of a percent or so.

Ace is describing the effect that constant negative spin on economic news and emphasis of bad economics can have on what is essentially an economy based on the good will and trust of the people living within it. News should be reported accurately and truthfully, but every person in the public eye needs to consider the effect what they publish may have and how wise what and how they say something is.

GOTCHA JURISPRUDENCE

The Just One Minute Typepad is a very serious blog, one that examines especially legal issues with a clarity, detail, and attention that sometimes I am hard pressed to follow due to legal details.

Jeralyn Merritt has Team Libby's latest on the disclosure question (29 page .pdf or here) and has added some must-read UPDATES. It's hard to believe this will make as many headlines as Fitzgerald's last filing, but dig in.

Here, for example, is a headline that will not appear: "Libby Didn't Lie, But Fitzgerald Did". From a footnote on p. 3:

Perhaps not surprisingly, given the media’s overwhelming interest in this case, an erroneous statement in the government’s response brief led to stories in the press that falsely accused Mr. Libby of making inaccurate statements – or even lying – to reporter Judith Miller about the contents of the NIE.

Commenters at the site noted this:

What I find interesting, but not surprising, is the role reversal here. In a real criminal case with real crimes committed, it is the defense that is trying to keep stuff from being presented to the jury and the prosecution arguing admissibility. But here the defense is trying to force the prosecution to let go of information in their possession so the defense can present it to the jury. While the prosecution is holding on to it, has stated they will not present it to the jury, nor will they release it to the defense (e.g. identity of UGO, Plame’s status with CIA, etc.). In fact, to the best of my knowledge, Team Libby has not asked for anything to be quashed. So who's guilty of what here? And why is the prosecution the one that appears to have a lot to hide.
- by Lew Clark


I'm going to borrow some phrasing here. Team Libby says:

A key government witness, Matthew Cooper, and another potential witness, Mr. Wilson, have both contended that Mr. Libby participated in a smear campaign organized by the White House to punish Mr. Wilson by outing his wife as a CIA agent.
As someone who reads the newspaper, I am going to contend that
Mr. Fitzgerald participated in (and continues to conduct) a smear campaign organized by opponents of the White House to punish Mr. Cheney by outing his work-wife as a government agent communicating information about White House policies at the direction of Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush.
So, when do we get the special prosecutor to interview Fitzgerald and all of the FBI agents and other staffers about their smear campaign?

But seriously, I find the whole NIE stunt by Fitzgerald to be pretty appalling. It is a direct assault upon the executive branch of government, and I think it adds more corroboration to the argument that Fitzgerald has been set up as a Fourth Branch of the government, not elected nor accountable to anyone elected. I mean look -- he's engaging in a separation of powers dispute with another branch of government!

cathy:-)
-by cathyf


GOTCHA JOURNALISM

Protein Wisdom is a blog that is part humor and part serious, like the Ace of Spades Headquarters. Jeff writes about the news cycle in a recent piece in which he quotes a comment by someone for the basis of his article.

In the comments to my post yesterday about the spin used by an ideologically-driven press to forge a particular narrative about a war with which they disagree, commenter rls pointed out this Washington Post story on a Pentagon te