Quote of the day

"Suppose I hire you to repair my computer. The job is worth $200 to me and doing the job is worth $200 to you. The transaction will occur because we have a meeting of the mind. Now suppose there's the imposition of a 30 percent income tax on you. That means you won't receive $200 but instead $140. You might say the heck with working for me -- spending the day with your family is worth more than $140.

You might then offer that you'll do the job if I pay you $285. That way your after-tax earnings will be $200 -- what the job was worth to you. There's a problem. The repair job was worth $200 to me, not $285. So it's my turn to say the heck with it. This simple example demonstrates that one effect of taxes is that of eliminating transactions, and hence jobs."

-Walter Williams (on the effect of taxes)
Quotes

GONE FOR THE WEEK

I'm going on vacation to the Oregon coast, one of the most beautiful places on earth. In the interim, I'll leave you a few things to read and think about, some links to peruse and even Sultan to play with (Internet Explorer viewers, it's down at the bottom of the page - get Firefox!).

I'll be back in about a week, and the blog will start right back up where it started, I hope you'll all be back and we can explore the word around the net once more!

-Christopher Taylor

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

“We’ve lost the peace,” men tell you. “We can’t make it stick.”

This article ran in Life Magazine about the war and rebuilding and how it was a failure. We were, in their words, "losing the peace" even though we'd won the war. It was a quagmire, a waste of money and the locals hated us.

In Germany, 1946. This article ran January of that year:

We are in a cabin deep down below decks on a Navy ship jam-packed with troops that’s pitching and creaking its way across the Atlantic in a winter gale. There is a man in every bunk. There’s a man wedged into every corner. There’s a man in every chair. The air is dense with cigarette smoke and with the staleness of packed troops and sour wool.

“Don’t think I’m sticking up for the Germans,” puts in the lanky young captain in the upper berth, “but…” “To hell with the Germans,” says the broad-shouldered dark lieutenant. “It’s what our boys have been doing that worries me.”

The lieutenant has been talking about the traffic in Army property, the leaking of gasoline into the black market in France and Belgium even while the fighting was going on, the way the Army kicks the civilians around, the looting. “Lust, liquor and loot are the soldier’s pay,” interrupts a red-faced major. The lieutenant comes out with his conclusion: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” You hear these two phrases again and again in about every bull session on the shop. “Two wrongs don’t make a right” and “Don’t think I’m sticking up for the Germans, but….” The troops returning home are worried.

“We’ve lost the peace,” men tell you. “We can’t make it stick.”

A tour of the beaten-up cities of Europe six months after victory is a mighty sobering experience for anyone. Europeans. Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. They cite the evolution of the word “liberation.”

Before the Normandy landings it meant to be freed from the tyranny of the Nazis. Now it stands in the minds of the civilians for one thing, looting. You try to explain to these Europeans that they expected too much. They answer that they had a right to, that after the last war America was the hope of the world. They talk about the Hoover relief, the work of the Quakers, the speeches of Woodrow Wilson. They don’t blame us for the fading of that hope. But they blame us now. Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. People never tire of telling you of the ignorance and rowdy-ism of American troops, of out misunderstanding of European conditions. They say that the theft and sale of Army supplies by our troops is the basis of their black market. They blame us for the corruption and disorganization of UNRRA. They blame us for the fumbling timidity of our negotiations with the Soviet Union. They tell us that our mechanical de-nazification policy in Germany is producing results opposite to those we planned. “Have you no statesmen in America?” they ask.

Yet whenever we show a trace of positive leadership I found Europeans quite willing to follow our lead. The evening before Robert Jackson’s opening of the case for the prosecution in the Nurnberg trial, I talked to some correspondents from the French newspapers. They were polite but skeptical. They were willing enough to take part in a highly publicized act of vengeance against the enemy, but when you talked about the usefulness of writing a prohibition of aggressive war into the law of nations they laughed in your face.

The night after Jackson’s nobly delivered and nobly worded speech I saw then all again. They were very much impressed. Their manner had even changed toward me personally as an American. Their sudden enthusiasm seemed to me typical of the almost neurotic craving for leadership of the European people struggling wearily for existence in the wintry ruins of their world. The ruin this war has left in Europe can hardly be exaggerated. I can remember the years after the last war.

Then, as soon as you got away from the military, all the little strands and pulleys that form the fabric of a society were still knitted together. Farmers took their crops to market. Money was a valid medium of exchange. Now the entire fabric of a million little routines has broken down. No on can think beyond food for today. Money is worthless. Cigarettes are used as a kind of lunatic travesty on a currency. If a man goes out to work he shops around to find the business that serves the best hot meal. The final pay-off is the situation reported from the Ruhr where the miners are fed at the pits so that they will not be able to take the food home to their families.

“Well, the Germans are to blame. Let them pay for it. It’s their fault,” you say. The trouble is that starving the Germans and throwing them out of their homes is only producing more areas of famine and collapse. One section of the population of Europe looked to us for salvation and another looked to the Soviet Union. Wherever the people have endured either the American armies or the Russian armies both hopes have been bitterly disappointed. The British have won a slightly better reputation. The state of mind in Vienna is interesting because there the part of the population that was not actively Nazi was about equally divided. The wealthier classes looked to America, the workers to the Soviet Union. The Russians came first. The Viennese tell you of the savagery of the Russian armies. They came like the ancient Mongol hordes out of the steppes, with the flimsiest supply.

The people in the working-class districts had felt that when the Russians came that they at least would be spared. But not at all. In the working-class districts the tropes were allowed to rape and murder and loot at will. When victims complained, the Russians answered, “You are too well off to be workers. You are bourgeoisie.” When Americans looted they took cameras and valuables but when the Russians looted they took everything. And they raped and killed. From the eastern frontiers a tide of refugees is seeping across Europe bringing a nightmare tale of helpless populations trampled underfoot. When the British and American came the Viennese felt that at last they were in the hands of civilized people.

But instead of coming in with a bold plan of relief and reconstruction we came in full of evasions and apologies. [Emphasis mine] We know now the tragic results of the ineptitudes of the Peace of Versailles. The European system it set up was Utopia compared to the present tangle of snarling misery. The Russians at least are carrying out a logical plan for extending their system of control at whatever cost. The British show signs of recovering their good sense and their innate human decency. All we have brought to Europe so far is confusion backed up by a drumhead regime of military courts. We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease. The taste of victory had gone sour in the mouth of every thoughtful American I met.

Thoughtful men can’t help remembering that this is a period in history when every political crime and every frivolous mistake in statesmanship has been paid for by the death of innocent people. The Germans built the Stalags; the Nazis are behind barbed wire now, but who will be next? Whenever you sit eating a good meal in the midst of a starving city in a handsome house requisitioned from some German, you find yourself wondering how it would feel to have a conqueror drinking out of your glasses. When you hear the tales of the brutalizing of women from the eastern frontier you think with a shudder of of those you love and cherish at home.

That we are one world is unfortunately a brutal truth. Punishing the German people indiscriminately for the sins of their leader may be justice, but it is not helping to restore the rule of civilization. The terrible lesson of the events of this year of victory is that what is happening to the bulk of Europe today can happen to American tomorrow. In America we are still rich, we are still free to move from place to place and to talk to our friends without fear of the secret police. The time has come, for our own future security, to give the best we have to the world instead of the worst.

So far as Europe is concerned, American leadership up to now has been obsessed with a fear of our own virtues. Winston Churchill expressed this state of mind brilliantly in a speech to his own people which applies even more accurately to the people of the U.S. “You must be prepared,” he warned them, “for further efforts of mind and body and further sacrifices to great causes, if you are not to fall back into the rut if inertia, the confusion of aim and the craven fear of being great.”

The first winter of peace holds Europe in a deathly grip of cold, hunger and hopelessness. In the words of the London Sunday Observer: “Europe is threatened by a catastrophe this winter which has no precedent since the Black Death of 1348.” These are still more than 25,000,000 homeless people milling about Europe. In Warsaw nearly 1,000,000 live in holes in the ground. Six million building were destroyed in Russia. Rumania has her worst drought of 50 years, and in Greece fuel supplies are terribly low because the Nazis, during their occupation, decimated the forests. In Italy the wheat harvest, which was a meager 3,450,000 tons in 1944, fell to an unendurable 1,304,000 tons in 1945. In France, food consumption per day averages 1,800 calories as compared with 3,000 calories in the U.S. Germany is sinking even below the level of the countries she victimized. The German people are still better clothed than most of Europe because during the war they took the best of Europe’s clothing. But their food supply is below subsistence level.

In the American zone they beg for the privilege of scraping U.S. army garbage cans. Infant mortality is already so high that a Berlin Quaker, quoted in the British press, predicted. “No child born in Germany in 1945 will survive. Only half the children aged less than 3 years will survive.” On Germany, which plunged the Continent into its misery, falls the blame for its own plight and the plight of all Europe. But if this winter proves worse even than the war years, blame will fall on the victor nations.

Some Europeans blame Russia for callousness to misery in eastern Europe. But some also blame America because they expected so much more from her. On the following pages the distinguished novelist John Dos Passos, who has been abroad as LIFE correspondent, reports on Europe’s suffering and what it means for America.

This article was mentioned on the Rush Limbaugh Show, from which I got the text and images. He made the same case I'm making: people need to be patient and have some historical perspective. The press and some people - even soldiers - were crying that we were a failure in Germany, that the people hated us, that we were wasting our money and ruining the victory we'd won. They were criticizing the president and America.

Just keep that in mind next time you read or see a report on Iraq's rebuilding.

LINKINATION

Here are a few useful links you might enjoy, first some fun stuff:
James Lileks' sites, one of the finest writers alive today
Smithsonian Magazine Online
National Geographic Magazine Online
Apple's Movie Trailer Site: see em before you watch a movie! (warning: slow computer killer)
Cute Overload! Tons of cute stuff and critters
The Hubble Telescope Site with lots of images from the space telescope!

Some humor sites to tickle your funnybone (warning, some may have language content):
Frank J's IMAO
Scrappleface
Iowahawk
Broken Newz
Engrish (Japanese and other asian signs and materials translated to English)
The Onion

And some blogs you probably didn't know existed:
Eye Level, the Smithsonian Art Museum blog
William Shatner's blog site, although he doesn't update it much
The LAPD Blog, with updates on cases, requests for info, and more
Chris Farrell's Gaming Blog - board games, computer games, you name it!

Some smaller blogs you ought to take a look at but might have never seen:
Reformed Chicks Blabbing
Right Wing Sparkle
Anna Venger or is that An Avenger?
Tigerhawk
Hispanic Pundit
Stuck on Stupid Lies, or as his site says "It’s not what you don’t know that disturbs me, it’s what you know that isn’t true!"
Seixon - an American in Norway
Mostly Cajun, All American, and Opinionated
The Texas Rainmaker
Tom Grey, LIBERTY DAD!
Hollywood, Interrupted - a hollywood type going and doing what reporters fear or won't do in Iraq
Stand to Reason Christian Apologetics blog

Check em out folks, lots of places to go, things to read and interesting stuff to learn!

And don't forget to check the sites I have linked to the right hand side!

REVEREND FUN

A daily cartoon of bible and church humor - safe for kiddies

TERRORISM ON THE DOLE

"something tells me if we were paying some eskimoes, or any number of other groups some of these 'handouts,' they wouldn’t be repaying us by 'allegedly' planning to blow us up"

This isn't some stunning shocking development, either. In a column on December 29, 2001, I noted the likes of Zac Moussaoui, the French citizen who became an Islamist radical while living on welfare in London, and wrote: "If you're looking for 'root causes' for terrorism, European-sized welfare programs are a good place to start . . . Tony Blair pays Islamic fundamentalists in London to stay at home, fester and plot."

I wasn't the first to notice the links between Euro-Canadian welfare and terrorism. Mickey Kaus, the iconoclastic California liberal, was way ahead. But, after 3-1/2 years, one would be entitled to assume that Tony Blair might have spotted it, too — especially given the ever greater numbers of British jihadi uncovered from Pakistan and Afghanistan to Israel and America.

That's how Mark Steyn points out in a column on terrorism in the UK how so often terrorist suspects and terrorists are found to have been living on welfare and off the public dole. For example, the Australian newspaper Herald Sun has this story:

Australia’s 22 terror suspects and their families receive more than $1 million a year in taxpayer-funded welfare and legal aid.

And simply because the men were locked up, their families received a social security pay rise of as much as $1700 a year.

One of the jailed Melbourne men, Abdul Nacer Benbrika—leader of a radical group of Islamists—has been in Australia for 10 years and has never had a job.

Taxpayers provide his wife with almost $50,000 a year in welfare.

Tim Blair also noticed this on his blog, and commenters, well, commented:

“If you’re looking for ‘root causes’ for terrorism, European-sized welfare programs are a good place to start.”

We all get told time and again how harsh the American system of pensions and unemployment insurance are - that if you don’t pay anything in, you don’t get anything out. But in cases like these, it don’t seem so bad…
-by AlburyShifton

Current policies of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) towards some = the root cause of a future Dhimmia of the many?
-by tmciolek

From my calculation here in Australia our welfare spending happens slightly above $2000 per second.
-by Hank Reardon

Under Centrelink rules, she is entitled to almost $50,000 a year in welfare while her husband is in prison, awaiting trial.

That’s a good whack, that’s more than what most people earn through working their butts off. It’s the same in the UK, where they booted out some radical cleric, however his wife and dependents remain in the UK sapping public welfare of a country they so hate.
-by darrinh

Taxpayers provide his wife with almost $50,000 a year in welfare.

Just some statistics that I find interesting.

The average Australian wage is now A$53,861.60($US 40,846.02).

(OECD)Table 1.2 : Income tax, employee social security contributions and gross wage earnings.
-by joejr

May be its got something to do with sex education in Islamic schools see: http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/2006/05/when-saying-no-is-not-ok-sex-education.html#links
-by weekbyweek

Hmmmm, while i am no great fan of paying immigrant bludgers especially (that haven’t contributed anything to the country yet) to sit on their behind for 10 years doing diddly squat, something tells me if we were paying some eskimoes, or any number of other groups some of these “handouts”, they wouldn’t be repaying us by “allegedly” planning to blow us up.....

i don’t think we should dump completely on the system just becoz of a bunch of bad apples, who as so often seem to be adherents of the RoP… afterall any number of us may have needed a bit of a helping hand out at times, it the blood sucking parasites who constantly take the system for a ride who really need to be singled out…

hopefully these are getting fewer and fewer under the “work for the dole” schemes, but probably just like community service for minor crims programs, it is probably being abused in places…

but this concept of having untold numbers of children which the community ends up paying for has really got to be looked at, for the white trash and other groups who tend to like playing this game… four or five kids max and anything over that is a lifestyle decision of your own making and you damn well foot the bill people!!!
-by casanova

Bugger! my suprise gland must be dicky. i read that and didnt feel anything.

O/T A mate of mine is currently becoming a police officer in WA and has allready got a horror story. The cops cant even discuss each others case or ask for info without running the risk of an internal investigation. This is because of “privacy issues” for the crims.
Those faint 2 thudding noises were the collective testicles of the WA police farce /service being cut off.
-by thefrollickingmole

There is a a tendency to believe that the “dole” in itself is an act of jihad. A way to weaken the economy of the host country. It is basically the jizya tax that the infidel must pay to the superior muslims who are engaged in jihad against the west.
Although these guys are in jail, they must view these payments as a victory over the infidel.
Centrlink are surely totally incapable of understanding such political manoevres.
-by davo

My own humble thoughts on the mindset permitting this rampant stupidity.

For at least 3 generations the objective of the Communist movement was to question and attack the legitimacy of any other advanced system of government. It was largely successful in removing kings, somewhat successful in removing facists and dictators.
it proved utterly useless at persuading people to rise up against democracies and representitive rule though. So it changed its tactics slightly to take over the propaganda organs, and none were more attractive than the school systems.
It began slowly enough with the wooing and outright corruption of the universities. How many historians, social, and “soft” studies were active or sympathetic to Communists wont be known for sure. But a glance at the politics of many tenured instructors today seems to indicate a pattern of patronage where politics of a certain sort didnt hurt.
This form of corruption then began to infect the past, by disowning, demeaning, and fabricating whatever was neccessary to diminish the “west”. 3 generations later and the damage caused by this acidic eating away of anything good or glorious about the west is almost total.
The guilt industry spawned by the marxist corruption runs to billions in Australia alone. we must save the whales, refugees, aboriginies, environment, criminals, as well as feel shame about wars overthrowing theocracy and brutal dictators.
Think about being European and having your own governments actively shut down ANY debate leaving your ownly options to keep quiet (socialy acceptible) or vote far right (social death).
Communist tactics worked, I doubt if Europe would have resisted if the collective will was as low 30 years ago as it is today. Communism just didnt survive long enough to harvest its corrupt “fruit”, that will fall to the Muslims.
Im sure people much more elloquent than me can put it clearer/better and would like them to do so.
/rant off
-by thefrolickingmole

An explanation for gussy’s “dog whistle” slur, for North American readers who may not appreciate its currency in Australia.

“Dog whistle” is the slur-du-jour of the left against the right in Australia, especially as applied to John HoWARd.

In Oz at the moment it means you accuse the “dog whistler” of saying something with a hidden message that is heard by the rednecks in society and they instintively react to it and support the whistler.

Strangely, the left elites can also understand the hidden message and this allows them to accuse the “dog whistler”.

How gussy could EVER have the nastyness to discern the hidden “dog whistle” message in Tim’s post is beyond me. Maybe you are more like us than you think, eh gussy?
-by StopContinentalDrift!

The problem with welfare is just trying to find an appropriate balance between helping those people who are a bit down and need society’s assistance (such as short-term unemployed) without giving them so much that they lose the drive to become self-sufficient. I think that the only clear solution is to do the obvious and cut down on welfare until these people start contributing back to society.
-by anagallis

OK. Let me ask a question...hypothetical, but still a question...:).

Let us say I...ME, this nice little kid were young enough to migrate to OZ. I would need a skill (to provide for myself) of some sort to do so, correct?

OK, I lied, two hypothetical questions...BUT if I were say a, ummmm of a certain group with a supposed ‘religion’ that happens on a very regular basis fires RPG’s, straps on Bomb Belts, grows a beard, treats women like chattel, honor kills those women, and more things of that nature...I could come to OZ and live on dole money?
-by El Cid

I have to echo el Cid's question: I thought to emigrate to Australia you had to have a job and skills that contribute to the nation. What happened to that system with these Muslims? Any Australian readers, can you help us out here?

Terrorism

Comment Type #23

THE TYRANT

All blogs and comment sections are on someone's web site. You can read, comment, and even copy things off of their site at your leisure, but only because of someone's generosity. Many websites that allow commenting have some form of moderation, which allows editing or deletion of comments and posts that are too offensive, off topic, or simply violate the rules and policies of the website.

When moderation is done well, this is a great benefit to the blog or message board, preventing advertising, spamming, and dealing with trolls and other obnoxious web pests.

It also allows for mistake posts to be deleted to clean up the board, such as when lag or an error makes it appear that your clever comment didn't get posted when it actually did. Which results in duplication.

It also allows for mistake posts to be deleted to clean up the board, such as when lag or an error makes it appear that your clever comment didn't get posted when it actually did. Which results in duplication.

With moderation, this kind of effect can be cleaned up and not only save bandwidth but make the comments easier to read without wading through duplication (although it's fun sometimes to see what small editing and changes people make as they repost and rethink what they said).

However, moderation can take an unpleasant turn. Some moderators and bloggers are tyrannical, deleting anything that remotely disagrees with their ideas, banning people for the slightest hint of problem, and eliminating any real possibility of discussion. The website Democratic Underground will delete the post of and ban anyone who dares post something that does not toe the radical leftist line, for example. This kind of tyrant is distasteful and unwelcome, and will over time either create a dull echo chamber that only the most extreme zealot will appreciate, or kill off a blog entirely.

However in the context of a comment, there is another kind of tyrant, a sort of tyrannical comment. This kind of comment will demand that people do things a certain way, insisting that something not be discussed any more or that people stay on topic. The tyrant assumes control over the writing and ideas of other people, or the flow of conversation.

Tyrant Comments will command that a topic is dead, or that someone is no longer credible and ought to simply go away. A tyrant comment is the kind that tries to exert force and authority over others through rhetoric and demands. Often, these are done by someone with no authority or power whatsoever on a website. Instead of the moderator, this is often simply someone who has been at the website a long time and presumes by familiarity and seniority that their word is more potent and important than others.

Many message boards keep track of the number of posts someone has made and gives them rankings, which are sometimes used as a club to attempt to bludgeon others (rhetorically speaking) into submission. "I've been here for 3 years and seen this topic over and over, it's a dead horse, stop kicking it!"

Another kind of tyrant is the kind that presumes that everyone that posts on a site has the entire site constantly memorized, and daring to post on or ask a question that has already answered is met with contempt, mockery, and dismissal.

Don't be a tyrant. There's nothing wrong with suggesting things might not be worth talking about any more or that someone is off topic and interrupting the discussion. Noting that someone is a troll or that a question has been asked before is a valid topic, but shouldn't be done with the presumption of power or that people ought to obey them. Someone might have lost all credibility (at least with you) but this should be obvious to anyone who reads if it is true, and simply saying so about someone adds nothing but an appearance of arrogance - I should know, I've said it before and was wrong to do so. Tyranny is unwelcome everywhere, especially in the internet.

Comments

DIG THAT SCARF

"I've always felt that hijabis are discriminated against in the Arab world much more than in the West, and I've experienced it first hand."

In the past, women wearing scarves was a common thing, even in the United States. My mother used to wear one to keep her ears warm in cold weather, but since she changed her hair style a scarf mashes it down so much she goes without. Not so long ago it was popular for young teen girls in the United States to wear scarves, and the image of the grandmother in a scarf was so ubiquetous in Russia the word for Grandmother in Russian (Babushka - бабушка) is simply the word for scarf, with the accent on a different syllable for each to distinguish between them.

The UAE blog Green Print is by an Arabic Girl named Noor (like the Queen of Jordan), and she had some thoughts recently on the hijab, the scarf muslim girls wear:

Wearing a scarf is one of the biggest choices a Muslim girl can make. For some, the choice to do so or not is expected, for others, the choice is extremely difficult. But regardless of the difficulty of the situation, the resulting choice marks a girl in nearly all aspects of her life.

She notes that not all Muslim girls wear the hijab, and points out why she does:

So why haven't these girls and i, especially those of us who weren't pressured into it, gone ahead and done so? In short, the answer is this: Because we believe in hijab and what it stands for. Hijab is the Muslim woman's show of modesty. There are many different ways of wearing it and different beliefs as to how much skin a woman should cover, but the general idea is the same.

Noor shares an incident that happened with another girl:

At AUS's Global Day, there was a Syrian traditional dance going on, called a 'dabkeh'. I jumped in, grabbing the hand of a poufy-haired, makeup-y girl. Now, i don't have anything against girls with that description - when they're nice. But this one totally tried to ignore me. She was barely holding my hand, practically ruining the dabkeh, and then halfway through, she ran to the other side of the dabkeh where some other poufy-haired, makeup-y girls were.

Now, why exactly did she do this? Because i wasn't as poufy-haired and makeup-y as she was. I promise you, if i'd been wearing a miniskirt and full on makeup and had my hair done, she would've stayed next to me. But no, being a hijabi is just not cool enough. Actually, being anything short of a sex toy is not cool enough. Now that that's said, i have to turn around and say that the situation isn't always like that. Most non-hijabi girls are as sweet as can be; one of my closest friends isn't hijabi. But we've gotta recognize this issue, this 'hijabism' in Arab society. If we want to be recognized in the West, then we've gotta be recognized in our own countries first.

Commenters responded:

Wow!..some strong words there. And i think i agree with everything you've said...although I've not personally witnessed any particular act of discrimination. However, from a male perspective, I know alotta guys who do not want to be with hijabis because they feel that its religiously wrong to do so. But, since im not a Muslim, i dont knw if thats true or not. But i guess it just comes down to maintaining that fine balance between tradition and novelty.
-by Mathew


Nice post and blog :) I've always felt that hijabis are discriminated against in the Arab world much more than in the West, and I've experienced it first hand. As if Arab women aren't already discriminated against as a whole, some make it worse by discriminating against their fellow hijabis because they think that the latter have hurt their struggle for women's rights. Before we ask for rights equal to men or women in the West, we need start respecting ourselves and the individuals around us for who they are, not how they look.

Oh, and I must say I like the "hijabism" terminology!
-by Moi


Well, there is another side to the story, of course. I don't blame those who are suspicious of the hijabis, as you say. You said it yourself when you say that the cloth is an affirmation of your faith. Maybe those women aren't interested in religion and they should have the right to have that opinion. So when they see a girl with a headscarf they assume someone who IS religious!

There IS a logical connection, you know.
-by pro-freedom

I know this isn't the most earth-shattering topic, and it doesn't compare in deep significance to some other issues of the day or things I've covered. It's just a glimpse into another culture, another nation, and some thoughts on something we in the west take all too granted: freedom and religious liberty.

International

WET FOOT, DRY FOOT

"I lift my lamp beside the golden door, right here in Miami. Give me your Cubans."

Mexican Foot, Cuban Foot...

A few weeks ago I posted about how I was sick of the immigration debate as it was being waged and tired of posts about the topic. I said I'd not post until something significant happened - but there's a perspective in this debate that is not being talked about in the media which I think is interesting and important.

Babalu blog is primarily concerned with the island nation of Cuba and it's cruel, greedy dictator Fidel Castro. But it also has occasional thoughts on other matters in the USA regarding national topics, Val Prieto had a post on immigration recently.

I do, however, have to state publicly, here and now, that I am extremely disappointed in our "Republican" Cuban-American Senator from Florida Mel Martinez. He voted "yea" for the amnesty bill, which included a last minute ammendment to said bill which states:

(b) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.--Consultations between United States and Mexican authorities at the federal, state, and local levels concerning the construction of additional fencing and related border security structures along the United States-Mexico border shall be undertaken prior to commencing any new construction, in order to solicit the views of affected communities, lessen tensions and foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important issues of mutual concern.

Basically, the US government must now ask permission from the Mexican government before it secures our borders. This is the same Mexican government, Senator Martinez, that just deported 57 Cuban refugees seeking freedom from fidel castro's tyranny, the very same tyranny you fled all alone as a child via Pedro Pan. What kind of precedent will this set, Senator?

Val includes a warning for his senator, one among the millions that congress best heed:

And still, not a damed peep from you, Senator Martinez, on the wet foot/dry foot policy. You prefer to grant amnesty to immigranst from a free country as opposed to exiles from a dictatorial state.

I can assure you, Senator, that this Cuban-American Republican will remember this come re-election time.

The wet/dry foot policy he mentions is also brought up in an excellent article by Jay Homnick in the Why Simper to Fidel?:

So I'll tell you what. Here's my deal. If you guys in the Senate want to ram through an immigration bill to reach out and bring all these folks into the Big Tent of the Republican Party, I'll bite my lip and go along. I won't be legalistic or puristic or a nudnik. You want me to give you your short-order cooks and your lawn guys and your house painters, you got it.

But I want something in return. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door, right here in Miami. Give me your Cubans. (No, not the cigars. Apparently Babbin copped all of those.)

HERE WE HAVE one of the great ironies. The one group of emigres with the most legitimate claim for asylum is the Cubans. The one law-abiding cadre that doesn't make large demonstrations is the Cubans. The one enclave that never presses for bilingual education but works to master English without complaint is the Cubans. (You would never hear them yelling "March!" in April.) And -- here is your full daily USDA RDA of irony -- the only reliable clique of Hispanic voters for the Republican Party is Cuban. Well, guess what? As things stand, the proposed immigration bill leaves the Cubans missing the boat.

These folks are living ninety miles from our shores under the longest-ruling dictator on the planet. While he jubilantly closes in on his jubilee, defiant in his autocracy, oppressive and restrictive and vindictive, we not only refrain from interfering in his internal affairs, we turn away his escapees. Plenty of hardy Cubans would hot-foot it here, but they get cold feet because of our "wet foot - dry foot" policy. This means that after days of baking in the sun on a makeshift raft made out of a car fender and a few pickle barrels, then swimming with labored strokes toward shore, throat parched, breathing stertorous, spirit flickering, if the Coast Guard can intercept you a foot from shore, back you go to the Communist paradise. Foot on shore, more sure of foot, you stay.

This article as well is a good read and brings up problems about immigration that are not being considered in the haste to appease corporations and big farms. Commenters on Bablu Blog had this to say:

Great article, how long has it been since that wet foot/dry foot "meeting"? Too bad President Bush doesn't have the b*lls to just do what's right. Eleven million cross our border illegally and that's acceptable, but i guess a thousand or so Cubans is just more than we can handle. What a cruel hypocrisy.

I can't wait to hear the Cuba policy recommendations. Is there any doubt that Cubans are the immigration scapegoats? God f**g forbid we upset V. Fox and Mexico, but it's kiss castro's ass time once again. By the way, I predict that the estimated count of 12 million illegals will turn out to be more like 16 million plus.
-by Ziva

It might be wisest to keep an open mind. The way I see these Mexican migrants voted with their feet, and they voted for the US.

Yes I get angry every time I hear of Cuban rafters returned to Cuba from Mexico, but that is the Mexican government doing that. Those idiots with images of the murderous Che Guevara on their t-shirts are only trying to make trouble, they know that by now 40% or so of Mexican Americans vote Republican.
Yes I know it is not the 80-90% of Cuban American still it is enough to help swing the balance.

let us press Senator Martinez to get rid of that dry foot requirement, and let all escaping Cubans into the US.
-by Larry Daley

I live in LA, I grew up here, and for LA, this whole discussion is at least 30 years too late. I honestly don't care about the Mexicans moving into LA because by the second or third generation they are English speaking conservative homeowners. That's a fact. What I care about is the hypocritical amnesty for 12 (in my opinion a very conservatie estimate) millon Mexicanos while handfulls of Cubans are sent back to castros gulag. Where the fuck are the Cuban American politicos on this? What is this? Hug a Mexican, execute a Cuban? What the hell is wrong with people?
-by Ziva

Thank God that the Senate can't make Laws without the House! It's not over until the fat lady sings! American public opinion will not allow this charade to continue much longer.
-by Jose Aguirre

Any immigration policy that favors Mexico because it makes life easier for some businesses at the expense of other immigrants - particularly those trying to escape the misery that the island paradise of Cuba was crushed into by communist rebels - is a policy I cannot support.

Immigration

Quotes of the day

Some thoughts from the past about remembering those who have gone before, their valor, thier honor, and their deeds that have built the country we now enjoy, the life we now take for granted, and the freedom we now savor:

"Anybody who doesn't appreciate what America has done and the President Bush, let them go to hell."
-Betty Dawisha (Iraqi Voter, December 2005)

"I would like to salute you and salute all the troops who are freeing 27 million people. Please stop questioning the administration and their decision. It was the best decision anybody could take, freeing 27 million people! Thank you, Mr. President!"
-American Iraqi Kurdish woman, during President Bush's appearance in Kansas.

"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."
-Abraham Lincoln

"If we are forced into war, we must give up political differences of opinion and unite as one man to defend our country."
-Thomas Jefferson

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
-John Philpot Curran

"I am a revolutionary so my son can be a farmer so his son can be a poet."
-John Adams

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined..."
-Patrick Henry

"Posterity--you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it."
-John Quincy Adams [courtesy anna venger]

Quotes

IN MEMORIEM

defending freedom together since 1801
Memorial Day

GENUINE BIAS - THE MISTAKE

Never attribute malice to something better explained by sloth or incompetence.

One of the charges most often leveled against the press by any political party or person of any ideology is that they are biased. Biased against them, biased for the other guy, slanted in their coverage. Conservatives point to stories and one set of facts, liberals point to other stories and other sets of facts, and the media claims snowy-white innocence and purity. So is there bias in the media, does the news media carefully craft stories to hurt one political party or help another, is there a sinister cabal of cigar-smoking media moguls sitting around a table deciding how things go and what will be said tomorrow?

Whether bias is present in a their work or not, the news media is suffering a series of setbacks and losing audience rapidly. Circulation of newspapers is down sales of news magazines such as Time and Newsweek are lower, and viewing of almost all television news shows and channels is lower – with Fox and MSNBC being the exception.

First, the task that must be addressed is to define what bias is and is not. There are many times which bias is not the source of a problem, and times that it is. Sometimes it is the bias of the reader that perceives problems, rather than a problem of the news media. There are several categories of problems both real and apparent that the media suffers from in it's coverage of events.

1) ERROR
2) SLOTH
3) INCOMPETENCE
4) CREDULITY
5) BIAS

Each on one of these areas will take a significant amount of coverage to express with examples and citations to show where and how they happened, so each will be taken as a separate essay.

ERROR
Newspapers, news magazines, and other media news sources have always had to face the fact that human beings are fallible and will make mistakes. There’s rarely a regular newspaper that goes out without a small section correcting mistakes made in the previous day’s paper, and while spell-checking and editors try their best, occasionally spelling mistakes will make it through the system into print. The process of proofreading and checking is so smooth and practiced at this point that such errors are real, but when a newspaper prints tens of thousands of words a week, it is unavoidable. Sometimes the errors will be using homonyms incorrect (there instead of their, for example – something spell checkers will not catch because both are spelled correctly), or even an embarrassing sort of sentence collection.

Ladies, don't forget the rummage sale. It's a chance to get rid of those things not worth keeping around the house. Don't forget your husbands.

This is the kind of mistake that, apart from a source of amusement, is acceptable and does not present the appearance of any sort of political, religious, or ideological bent. It is possible, however, to make an error that seems to betray bias.

Example:
Talk show host KTRS St Louis Dave Lenihan was discussing the possibility of US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice taking over the Paul Tabliabue’s job as commissioner of the National Football League:

She's been chancellor of Stanford. She's got the patent resume of somebody that has serious skill. She loves football. She's African-American, which would kind of be a big coon. A big coon. Oh my God. I am totally, totally, totally, totally, totally sorry for that.

I didn't mean that. It was just a slip of the tongue. She's definitely got all the attributes to be commissioner. I'm really sorry about that.

Now, this could be taken as the kind of hateful bias against Condoleeza Rice that Ted Rall’s described in a political cartoon as a “house nigger,” in the Washington Post, or the LA Times column which said

Loyalty has been the price of admission to this administration, and black conservatives have proved to be more loyal than most.

That has unfortunately, but not always unfairly, invited comparisons to slave times, when the most loyal blacks were those who worked in closest proximity to their white masters — house Negroes, as they were derisively known.

With this kind of commentary (and it’s only a small portion of the rhetoric regarding Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice alone for the crime of Republican While Being Black (RWBB) it is easy to view this radio host’s response as a sort of freudian slip, an attack on the Bush presidency by someone unable to contain his bias. But it was a genuine mistake, the man was praising Dr Rice and her accomplishments, and instead of saying “coup” said “coon” by accident. This unfortunate mistake ended with the radio station admitting it was a mistake, with Condoleeza Rice accepting the apology from Mr Lenihan, but his being fired anyway. In short, it was a stupid, sad mistake, not bias.

However, there’s another kind event that can be more difficult to discern if it is a mistake or not. On November 21st, 2005, CNN ran footage of a speech by Vice President Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute. Several times in the speech a large black X appeared over the Vice President’s face for less than a second. CNN called it a technical error, others pointed to several incidents in the past where CNN has had what they called technical errors, always at the expense of a Republican.

Subliminal advertising was outlawed in the United States and many other countries because of its presumed potent effect on many people. The average person can see things no faster than 1/10th of a second, and if an image is flashed at or slightly slower than this speed, the brain may be able to pick up what was shown or said – if it is simple enough – but may not consciously notice the image. That’s the theory behind subliminal messaging. This kind of advertising is said to prompt urges in people without their thinking about it consciously. During World War 1, the United States government allegedly used subliminal messages in songs and posters to attempt to increase numbers in the draft. In the 2000 campaign, the Bush for President team ran an ad that had the word “Bureaucrats” flashed on the screen, and allegedly the word RATS was the only part that showed up in one frame. While likely accurate that at least some bureaucrats are quite ratty, the Gore campaign complained about this ad.

Was this an attempt to use a subliminal message that is negative to the Vice President? Was this an attempt to imprint in peoples’ minds a negative idea of the man, or to portray what he said as false? Or was it a genuine error that somehow managed to show up repeatedly and only at this one time? How likely is it that a giant black X was cued up and ready to use on CNN and was triggered very briefly over and over? There’s no way of knowing whether this was intentional or not, and it may have been an genuine error.

It is an easy out for any public figure to simply say “well, that was just a mistake, oops!” Certainly everyone makes mistakes, and the more public a person is, the more public their errors are. Some degree of latitude has to be offered to anyone who works with words and is in the public eye constantly. But when these errors form a pattern, when they can be categorized along a certain ideological lines, then the mistake excuse is a bit less easy to swallow.

*UPDATE: Take a look at these two pictures and see if you notice a difference:


William Jefferson is, of course, a Democrat. The first picture ran earlier today, and as of 5:30 PM PST had been changed to the second picture. Honest mistake? Possibly, but at the same time, it might betray a certain viewpoint of the writer. Instead of checking the party, did they just presume he must be Democrat? A wag on the Ace of Spades Headquarters imagined this exchange:

[Inside CBS headquarters]

Editor: Another corrupt Congressman! These white male Republicans will stop at nothing!

Asst Producer: Uh, sir, in this photo, he looks black.

Editor: But, but... there are no black Republicans!

Asst Producer: Maybe we should embargo this until we can check it out.

Editor: No, no. Just run it and we will confirm he is white later.
-by Terry Notus

If this was a simple mistake, it's a sad one because rather than being upfront about their error and correcting it the way blogs do, CBS simply slipped in a fixed version without notice, updating, or even any sort of indication of a change.

For example, I moved the cartoon of Condoleeza Rice to where I meant it to be originally and removed the quote marks from around the introductory line, since I'm the originator of the sentance and don't need to quote myself. That's how blogs work: up front, obvious, open corrections without hiding errors. Without this clarity and honesty, bias will appear more likely in a source, especially in a source that seems to consistently make mistakes that target one particular political party or ideology.

Next Week: Sloth

Essays

DON'T SUE THE LAWYER

There was a class-action lawsuit brought against Apple Computers for their I-Pod Nano music player, claiming the screen of the Nano scratched easily, becoming unreadable. The lawfirm Hagens Berman are seeking remedies including a refund of moneys paid and a share of the company’s profits on the music player’s sales. One cannot deny this would be a sweet deal for the lawyers, but I hope the suit is thrown out and the legal firm publicly mocked for even attempting it.

However, the legal blog Overlawyered points out a side story related to the Nano suit:

An education in how class actions start: Jason Tomczak says that he posted on his blog about the iPod Nano, and was contacted by plaintiffs' lawyers seeking to bring a lawsuit against Apple. Tomczak says that he told the lawyers he wasn't interested in suing, but, nevertheless, the law firms of Hagens Berman and David P. Meyer and Associates filed suit naming Tomczak as the lead plaintiff. Two days later, they realized their mistake, and sent Tomczak a proposed attorney-client retainer, which Tomczak refused to sign.

Annoyed at the bad publicity and being named in a lawsuit he did not choose to be...

Tomczak hired lawyers and filed a lawsuit against the law firms; his lawyers don't seem to have explained to him the repercussions of challenging the plaintiffs' bar, however, and, after what he calls a harassing deposition, the law firms have filed counterclaims against Tomczak, seeking their fees for defending themselves. Jason Tomczak now asks to clear his name: are there reporters out there who want to cover this David v. Goliath story? (See also Milt Policzer, "Who Needs Plaintiffs", Courthouse News undated).

Commenters had their day:

It sounds like Hagens Berman showed at a minimum gross negligence in filing official court documents. KNowingly doing so is definately a violation of the legal rules of ethics. The court should sanction them, and maybe a judge with a taste for justice will recommend that lawyer(s) be disbarred over this filing and the firm's subsequent actions.
-by JKoerner

It is almost impossible to read this story and believe that it is on the level.

Let it be that Hagens Berman follows in the steps of Milberg Weiss down the path of professional disgrace and ignominy.
-by wavemaker

Any legal filing should require the signature of the person it's supposedly filed in the name of to be valid.

Unforunately, that is not the case, and this case is not the first (or likely the last) of its kind.

I had a friend who had a lawyer file in his name without permission. He personally went down to the courthouse and dropped the suit, since the lawyer wouldn't. A year later, the defendent sued HIM for defamation; he lost, even though he hadn't filed the suit, so he sued the lawyer who filed it, only to have that thrown out as after the statute of limitations. It was a complete screw-over, to the tune of over $50K.
-by Deoxy

Deoxy: in what state did THAT happen? Statements made in legal filings can almost never be used as the basis for defamation. I think you may not have the whole story there.
-by Mike

Musta made some comments to the court clerks while he was filing his voluntary dismissal.
-by wavemaker

Why sue the law firm? Better to have his own lawyers file a motion to have him dropped from the suit, and file an ethical complaint with the state bar.
-by AMH

I had a short discussion with a lawyer friend about the Milberg-Weiss case and he mentioned the disproportionate power law firms have over public policy by lawsuits and publicized cases. Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards made millions in lawsuits, including a highly publicized case in which he "channeled" a baby in the womb of a mother, claiming to speak for it, wishing that more tests were done because it was born with Cerebral Palsy. The lawsuit was won and despite the medical fact that the test would have done nothing for the child in question, it's a regular part of many hospitals' childbirth procedure, to avoid such a lawsuit again. This obviously increases the cost of the entire experience for parents, which through insurance affects all of us. I think it's high time for tort reform.

Legal Issues

Comment Type #22

THE BOAST

There is such a thing as proper pride, in feeling good about one's accomplishments in the innocent way a child is delighted when you like something they have done. But the more common kind of pride is self-gratifying and unattractive. Pride can take on a character of egotism and arrogance, which is certainly unwelcome in a person.

This kind of attitude can find its way onto a comment or message board entry, often by the same person again and again. It can be bragging about accomplishments or personal attributes, it can be a claim to some deed or action that few can match, it can even be the pretence of being something that a person is not. Gaming boards such as for World of Warcraft (WoW) or Everquest are full of this kind of comment.

The WoW database site Thottbot has shared information about various quests, locations, creatures, and such from the MMORP. Some of the more difficult quests or dungeons have tips on how to accomplish the task, with notes about how challenging it is. Inevitably someone will chime in with how very easy it was and how he did it alone (soloed it) with x or y character.

Such a post does not add a thing to the site, and is usually met with disdain or dismissal. It may have been intended as a joke, or it may have been an honest post of some astonishing deed, but nobody gains from such a comment except the person's ego who posted it.

Other boasts usually involve personal abilities such as athletic or monetary. Jobs making giant amounts of money are claimed, the kinship or friendship of famous people, personally being famous is occasionally attempted. Often claims about personal attributes are claimed, saying someone is so vastly attractive that they have to chase off women with a broomstick, and so on.

A third kind of boast is the kind used to give an argument credibility or weight by the respectability and experience or expertise of the person arguing. This will take the form of someone claiming to have served in the military and thus their viewpoint on the army is more valid than someone who has not. Or that they are have a doctorate in economics, so one must heed their wisdom. This may or may not be true - one need not have served in the military to understand something about it, and one may have a degree in an area and still be quite wrong.

In general, the more someone boasts about themselves in an anonymous setting, the less one has cause to believe them. It is easy to claim anything whatsoever about one's self where there is little to no way to verify their position. I could claim to be Brad Pitt, and while nobody would believe me (for good reason) as far as a casual reader could tell it might be true. On the other hand, why would anyone believe me to be someone as successful and busy as Mr Pitt when clearly I have a lot of time on my hands and live in Oregon?

In logic, there is a kind of fallacy - an error - called ad hominem that is often used when sheer logical and rational power does not carry one's point. A form of ad hominem is called "appeal to authority" in which one either rejects a argument simply because an authority says otherwise or insists on their point by claiming authority. This is a fallacy because rather than arguing the case with logic and pointing out it's validity by reason, one is simply insisting that the point is true based on the experience and training of someone. As pointed out above, merely having expertise and a degree does not make one infallible or accurate.

Ultimately the internet is the test of Dr King's dream where a man is judged by the content of his character. Boasts and bragging claims have little weight but the way you act, react, write, and read all have much more significant impact. Don't be a braggart, and don't feel compelled to boast. If you are someone of character and wisdom, of intelligence, experience, and thoughtful ideas, then people will notice without your needing to point it out.

You'll find this is true in real life as well.

Comments

Quote of the day

"Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've worked in the private sector. They expect results."

-Dr. Raymond Stanz (from Ghostbusters)

Quotes

ADVENTURES IN MEDICINE

"He'll be discussing a subject that seems to carry a body count with it no matter where it goes: 'privacy.'"

Some stories make me wonder how on earth this came about in the first place. For example, recently doctors have discovered that giving some comatose or vegetative patients doses of the sleeping medicine Zolpidem will awaken temporarily:

An improvement was seen within 20 minutes of taking the drug and wore off after four hours, when the patients restored to their permanent vegetative state.

Patient L had been in a vegetative state for three years, showing no response to touch and no reaction to his family.

After he was given Zolpidem, he was able to talk to them, answering simple questions.

Patient G was also able to answer simple questions and catch a basketball.

Now, how on earth did a doctor decide to attempt this? Why would someone ethically give a comatose patient sleeping pills, what prompted the idea? Ace of Spades Headquarters carried the story, ending with this wry point:

In related news, Michael Schiavo just said "Whew! That was a close one!"

Commenters awoke:

Schiavo's speaking at Yearly Kos, you know. Go over to the event site and look in the tentative schedule section.

He'll be discussing a subject that seems to carry a body count with it no matter where it goes: "privacy."
-by Allah

Ritalin, a stimulant, calms down hyperactive children.

Now we find that Zolpidem, a sleeping pill, can revive some people in a vegetative state.

Well, based on scientific extrapolation from the above data points, I've decided that the best way to sober up is to do a few shots. I plan to field test this ground-breaking theory before work tomorrow morning. If all goes according to spec, your old pal Sandy is gonna make millions.
-by Sandy Burger

Wasn't this a Robin Williams movie? With Robert DiNiero?

Awakenings. This was a true story, too. Possibly the best movie Robin Williams has done (low bar I know). DeNiro was an encephalitis victim which caused Parkinsons like symptoms, mainly uncontrollable shaking, which ultimatley manifested into a paralyzed state. Williams gave him L-dopa, which was being used for Parkinsons and it brought him around.

Unfortunately, much like Parkinsons, stronger and stronger doses of the medicine were required to keep the symptoms away until ultimately no does would suffice. Brain diseases are still very mysterious and very, very sad.
-by JackStraw

Gotta wonder about the person who came up with this approach. How did that thinking process go?"

"How can I get this SOB to stop breathing so I can collect the life insurance, yet not have bleeding wounds that make it look like murder?"

-by Purple Avenger

Having practiced nursing for over ten years, (nope, never did get it right) and having followed medical research closely for a lot longer, I'm convinced that humans are much more complex than anyone realizes. Just think about the medical research, and the conclusions that have become, "facts," and have later been debunked.

I was told, not long ago, that anyone in a coma for an extended period of time was beyond recovery, and should be, for lack of a better term, "Schiavoed." Now, more and more cases of people in, "irreversible," comas, and even those who have been diagnosed as, "brain dead," who have awakened, are coming to light.

My question: Are these people being misdiagnosed, or are things not what they have seemed for the last several years?
-by JannyMae

People can function with gigantic brain damage. People in a full-on coma can wake up after years. Doctors are in no better position to know what constitutes consciousness and what goes on inside damaged skulls than anyone else. They just see more examples. The good ones acknowledge that.
-by S. Weasel

Medicine

EATING IN THE DARK

"I laughed out loud at the first “dark” picture. Writing lol wouldn’t have done it justice."

I'm always in favor of clever new ideas for a business and am sympathetic toward any new endeavor or product, as I know it represents the best hopes and dreams of someone who came up with it. Sometimes the ideas are poor, but sometimes wierd or poor ideas take on a life of their own and become quite successful.

In London there are a lot of restaurants, and one that has opened is called Dans le Noir, a Parisian food restaurant that serves its food with no lights. As in total, cave-like darkness. The Blogjam Fraser Lewry has a report of his experiences trying out this unique place:

The first thing you notice when entering Dans Le Noir are the reviews. In the manner of all good high street curry houses, the walls are lined with the framed excerpts of favourable reports, in this case a series of searingly pretentious quotes proclaiming the restaurant’s lack of pretension. It’s not a good start, and neither is the wine list, which features both roman alphabet and braille listings. This is a nice touch, except that the Braille is printed on the page, not embossed. In other words, a blind person couldn’t read it.

He ordered some wine in a well-lit bar, then headed into the inky dining area.

We meet our ‘guide’ (they’re not called waitresses, of course) and are led, though a series of thick black curtains, into the dining room where, like it says on the tin (printed in braille, no doubt), it’s absolutely pitch black. You have no idea where your fellow diners are sitting, how many are at the table, how big the room is, or indeed if the guy in the next seat has stripped naked and is rubbing asparagus spears into his groin. It’s genuinely disconcerting. Pouring wine becomes a Krypton Factor-style test of nerve and dexterity, and despite inserting three fingers into the glass to gauge the level, I still manage to soak the tablecloth. Luckily enough no-one can see this, of course, although our guide notices straight away. Pretty soon our first course arrives.

He was, overall, unimpressed with the quality of the food:

Dans Le Noir is a truly interesting experience in sensory deprivation, but the grub is underwhelming and bland. The restaurant would probably argue that because you’re denied sight, your other senses compensate and you appreciate the food in new and pleasurable ways, but this simply isn’t true: your senses are jumping all over the place, trying to adjust to an environment they’ve not experienced before, and it becomes altogether impossible to concentrate on the flavour.

Commenters gave their reviews:

I laughed out loud at the first “dark” picture. Writing lol wouldn’t have done it justice.
Was it as pricey as it was pretentious?
-by phenoptix

[he responded: "it was £34" (that's about 50 bucks US) "for the three courses. Wine was extra."]

I laughed out loud too. What a shame about the food.

Its one of those places you kind of guess would end up being all about the gimmick, but hope it isn’t.
And having the menu in printed braille is appalling. It turns the whole thing into an embarrassing theme restaurant.
I once did a project with the RNIB. They were talking about restaurant experiences which included: in braille ’see board for specials’ and also the name of the restaurant *over the top ofthe door* in giant braille. How is anyone supposed to reach that?

Shame… makes you wonder what the pointof this restaurant is…
-by pep

Not cheap then, but not madly pricey for London. What sort of chef wants his creations served where they can’t be seen, good food isn’t just about flavour, it’s about presentation and impact on the eye, er, unless you’re blind of course.
-by Yorkshire Soul


One thing you didn’t mention was that the portions seemed incredibly small - one reason I ended up scrabbling around my plate with my fingers was that I was hunting for the rest of the food.

I’m convinced my “3 tastes of foie gras” as actually only 2 tastes. Unless my third fell off somewhere, I think I was sold short.
-by Mike

Of course, the management are filming everything on night vision cameras and are totally raking it in after cutting a deal with the makers of “You’ve Been Framed”.
-scaryduck

“Apart from hearing. I’m not sure if that matters so much.”
Usually no, but there are some examples. Like the sizzling hot plate you can hear before it even gets to your table – or someone else’s table for that matter. That’s a guaranteed way to get me salivating. That and when the bloke with the beard over there rings that bell. I wish he’d stop doing that.
-by gusset

I agree completely. The food has almost nothing to do with the experience - having over-excited conversations with the other guests who’s voices emerge from the ether as if you’re talking to them on the phone is truly hilarious.
The food is almost a distraction, and I, having ordered the surprise menu, couldn’t tell what the Hell I was eating. I still have no idea, and don’t really care.
I’m going back in July though…booked it today. It really is an experience and a good old laugh.
But spare a thought for the cleaners….imagine the mess at the end of the evening!
-by nick27

Apparently the staff is mostly or entirely blind, which makes the printed braille even more odd. Unless you're Daredevil.

Food, International, Fun

INVEST IN AFGHANISTAN

"Yes, I can remember Karzai saying that he wants to be an exporter of foreign aid as soon as possible."

Because the death tolls are lesser than in Iraq and the political left tend to support or at least accept the invasion of Afghanistan, news about the country's rebuilding is generally left unreported unless a story pops up about poppy sales or the alleged regrowing Taliban menace. But there are always blogs to the rescue, and from the area we can see an inside view from the Afghan Warrior blog. Waheed reports about how business and rebuilding are going:

An international business conference was held in the capital Kabul last week to find out new ways to invest in Afghanistan. More than 25 foreign companies from different countries participated in an exhibition in order to introduce their goods to the market. After the decades of war and conflict, Afghanistan is finally open for business. Many foreign inverstors have invested in different business fields which gives a good benefit to the government and also opens up job opportunities for the Afghan people.

So far so good, but he also laments incompetence and corruption in the government, at least at some levels (a song every nation knows well):

The income taxes which have been brought to the government treasury have not been used properly and according to some reports around 400 milion dollars from the general revenue of the country has been wasted due to administration corruption and lack of working capacity. There are some Afghans that are living under tents but our ministries are spending thousands of dollars on buying fancy cars and furnitures. Even though our budget increased 30% this year, living conditions are not developed in the country.

It takes time for changes to take effect, and a change in a budget one year usually lags a good two to three years before real impact is felt by the public. Commenters had a few thoughts on the matter:

Yes, I can remember Karzai saying that he wants to be an exporter of foreign aid as soon as possible. It is wonderful to see the Afghans trying so hard. I think the future is bright for the whole world. But we should remember to thank the Americans for doing the lion's share of the work. And getting nothing but bile for all their efforts. It is sad to see.
-by Paul Edwards, Mu'tazilite


Thanks for the well-written explanation of what is going on these days.

Controlling corruption will be the key. Bluntly, corruption cannot be eliminated (got some prime cases going in the U.S. right now, in BOTH political parties), but it's impact on what needs to be done has to be limited. Certainly limited to the point where civil servants get paid enough to live on.
-by Mike O


Your mention of ministry corruption is not unlike here in China. Government officials here are constantly showboating around in their newest benz as well as buying up top-notch clothing, furnishings & housing.

Shanghai's a good example of that. Outside of Shanghai, workers are squeezing about 5000 RMB per year, while local government officials inside the "Inner Circle Road" (what locals call the Foreigner & Government Haven) turn a blind eye & celebrate the grand opening of the newest luxury hotel & Ferrari dealership.

Government officials cheer their booming capitalist economy & the upcoming Olympics while turning a blind eye to poorer sections of the country. Unless the poorer people are in the way of the next Olympic stadium to be erected. Then they shoot them.
-by Eric

Afghanistan

MEMORIES OF KATRINA

"Cannibalism? Good Lord, it's only day two. Are you THAT hungry?"

One of the most amazing displays of the remnants of the legacy media's power and influence was when Hurricane Katrina struck the southeastern coast of the United States. Although newspaper circulation is down, TV news viewing is down, and people's trust in the news media is even lower than it was in the past, they still have some influence. Ask yourself, what are the three most significant or memorable stories or images of Hurricane Katrina, and how do you think of President Bush when you consider the disaster? To this day, radical tales still are told of mass graves, deliberately breached levees and a conspiracy to sacrifice a city to cover up some story about President Bush.

What you think about and what you remember is largely shaped by the news coverage at the time, images and stories told over and over again to fill a 24-hour news cycle. And these stories were told with a certain bent and lurid excitement that lingers still. Real Clear Politics has an article about the coverage of Katrina, including these lines:

Remember the dozens, maybe hundreds, of rapes, murders, stabbings and deaths resulting from official neglect at the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina? The ones that never happened, as even the national media later admitted?

Sure, we all remember the original reporting, if not the back-pedaling.

It goes on to talk about events that didn't actually happen, coverage that focused on some things to the exclusion of others, and the furious effort by Louisiana and New Orleans officials to put the blame on someone, anyone other than themselves.

Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online says he has difficulty thinking of more fraudulently inaccurate coverage in his lifetime of any event. I agree with his analysis, the coverage was incredibly poor and inaccurate, to the point of deliberately misleading viewers. As millions were glued to CNN, events were reported that simply were not happening, the government was accused of things that were untrue, claims were made of inaction that was actually taking place, and reporters struggled to portray the Bush administration in the worst possible light while ignoring or downplaying culpability and incompetence of the local officials.

Canadian Blog Small Dead Animals advises people remember this event, the coverage that was given it, and keep that in mind the next media frenzy that comes along, and the next, and the next...

Commenters gave their coverage to the news:

"if the news doesn't suit your agenda, just lie about it" seems to be the modus operendi of the pseudo journalists that ply the trade these days.

Always remember the dimwit in the canoe, paddling bravely through the flood waters that devasted so many lives, while having to avoid the technicians who accidentally walked through her shot in six inches of water and "spoiled" her dramtic breaking news . . .
-by Fred

[Fred refers to NBC' Today Show reporter Michelle Kosinki's stunt in which she was shown in a Canoe for her field report when several rescue workers casually walked by in camera, demonstrating the water was inches deep. Video can be seen here, in Real or Windows Media format]

I was hoping the press would do a follow-up on the claims that the po' folk had to resort to cannibalism because President Bush did not personally deliver the rations to the Superdome.

I remember thinking WTF? Cannibalism? Good Lord, it's only day two. Are you THAT hungry? Holy $hit, day two and they were already writing the script for "Alive 2: Hey Kids, Grandma Tastes Like Chicken", a made-for-tv movie starring Sean Penn and Susan Sarrandon. Music by the Dixie Chicks. Special guest appearance by Harry Belafonte as Mayor Nagin.

Remember Anderson Cooper's crocodile tears? Or were they alligator tears? Remember Oprah going to Nawlins? Screw FEMA, Oprah will get things done, right?

Meanwhile, as Sean Penn bails out his boat with a Dixie cup, hundreds of school buses sat in the compound, partially submerged.....THESE are the two pictures I'll remember about Katina the most.
-by Eskimo

Here's an article on "pack journalism":

[Live Journal Article]

"Instead of checking facts, the media prefer to follow what others are saying. And what others are saying is often inspired by establishment hardliners seeking to impose their agendas with the help of bogus news agencies, subsidized research outfits and hired scribblers."
-by bobby fletcher

I'd love to see a show featuring some of the most memorable bs moments from the big time reporters on New Orleans.

IMO, Shepard and Geraldo on FOX were terrible too.

It looked like there were just too many broadcast minutes that had to be filled.

The reports featured all kinds of what was to become laughable hearsay and innuendo and rumours.
-by concrete

Currently reading Douglas Brinkley's "The Great Deluge", and in it NOLA native and resident Brinkley tears Nagin and FEMA's Mike Brown new ones right through the entire book. Gov. Blanco is dealt with in slightly more sympathetic tones. The real first-responders were the big, heartless bastards like Walmart.
As far as media-weasels, NBC's Brian Williams is given thumbs up as are the freelancers hired by ABC. A local talkshow host who stayed on-air right through the storm is also considered highly by the residents for keeping his cool while the windows were blowing out of his studio.
-by bruce strang

Maybe the truth about the levys will surface.
The feds had been giving money to New Orleans for years to shore up the levys but the tree huggers like the sierra club said to fix the levys would harm the fish and wildlife in the sippi river so nothing was done.
A disaster witing to happen. To bad the Mayor didn't load up all those school buses and evacuate all those po folks. The buses were lost as well as lives.
-by scott

Psuedo-blogged in real time here, by Yer Obediant Servant:

-HURRICANE KATRINA- archive of links--

Note particularly the "live thread" links ( 23 of them ) which covered Katrina as it happened.
-by backhoe

As a Houstonian, I can vouch for a lot of what is written in the article Peter Rempel linked to, and say that next time NOLA gets hit Houston won't be opening up it's arms so fast.

The dredges of Chocolate City ended up staying here while the actual hardworking minority of New Orleans residents have already gone back to rebuild or moved on. That "give a man a fish/teach him how to fish" thing is lost on the majority of evacuees. They are still trying to get more money from anyone but an employer. Kind of like Dipper entitlements. Sad but true and heaven help you if you mention this as the race card comes out faster than you can say Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton.

As in Iraq, the MSM always tried to put a humanity vs bad Bush spin on this disaster but one thing always puzzled me. Every time a reporter from any MSM outlet got on line they started by saying "Every day when we drive here to the Superdome we see..." and proceed to interview dirty, hungry, thirsty evacuees. My question is: " Why didn't you pack that SUV full of water and food so you could help the people you are interviewing?" If Geraldo can fly down from New York City and get to the Convention Center to cry on camera then why did he come empty handed? Oh, the humanity!
-by texas canuck

For an excellent, well-written and calm analysis of Hurricane Katrina and what should be done to prevent another disaster, read Popular Mechanics' online article.

*UPDATE: A recent drill was run in Baton Rouge, Louisiana to respond to a mock flooding, and as the AP story reports, it was less than encouraging:

A misunderstanding about who had jurisdiction over a Federal Emergency Management Agency trailer park for evacuees canceled the first day of mock evacuations on Tuesday but was later resolved.

News Media

Quote of the day

"Liberty is not a matter of words, but a positive and important condition of society. Its greatest safeguard after placing its foundations in a popular base, is in the checks and balances imposed on the public servants."

-James Fenimore Cooper
Quotes

HOME ON THE RANGER

"I'm just saying too many people are distorting the facts as stated"

A number of blogs are having fun at the expense of Jesse MacBeth (formerly Jesse Al-Zaid; name changed when he was 2), hapless anti-war activist who falsely claimed to have earned various citations and medals while serving in Iraq. This fellow put out a short film and was part of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War, but has been so thoroughly debunked that it is almost a running joke on conservative blogs.

However, Baldilocks' coverage on this is something that is different and appropriate for this blog. In all the furor, it was pointed out that Mr MacBeth was not an Army Ranger at all. And here is where a commenter on Baldilocks' blog noted:

Oh, for crying out loud! When will people learn how to read!? I'm tired of entering the same blasted comment on every excitable blog on the planet.

If you to back and read the original post from JustCitizens, you'll notice that the Army rep say ONLY that MacBeth has no record of having served in the Rangers or Special Forces. What he did NOT say is that MacBeth had no record of service of any kind.

Who here does not understand this? I'm not saying this proves MacB was in the service; I'm just saying too many people are distorting the facts as stated.

Baldilocks, a woman of honor and integrity, responded:

Casey, you are correct in your discernment that I did not read the Just Citizens post closely enough to discover that the Army representative who responded did not disclose whether one Jessie MacBeth served in the Army in any capacity. I thank you for pointing out my error via your most-polite correction.

And this points out, in the long run, something more important and significant than the lying attempt to attack a war by some fellow who'll be forgotten next month. Blogs are self-correcting and useful only as long as the people who work on them will admit error, correct without rewriting text, and by using updates to alert when things were changed.

Here's an example of such corrective work, from the very popular Hot Air blog:

If you see it anywhere else, e-mail us or leave a comment below and we’ll update. (Update: Radio host Jay Severin eats up Macbeth’s bilge with a spoon. See update below.) (Update: Totally wrong on Severin. That’s an attack site. See the update below.)

The following update has this correction:

[UPDATE: Totally wrong. That’s a Jay Severin attack site, not Severin’s own site. The jackass who’s attacking Severin is the one who fell for it hook, line, and sinker. My apologies.]

This kind of correction and adjustment is very healthy for blogs, and it shows a level of fact-checking and honesty that legacy media such as newspapers cannot achieve and television is ill-suited to exercise. To this date, sites such as CNN.com will run incorrect or mistaken information (and have often in the past), but correct the entire page, replacing the error, with no clear notation and corrections on a seperate page.

This was fine for newspapers, when you have no choice but to run corrections and updates in a seperate printing. But for an online site, it is dishonest and misleading not to correct in an obvious way.

And what's more appropriate for this blog and more significant overall is that it is commenting that drives many of these corrections. It's happened on my little blog in the past, and it happens on bigger blogs on occasion. Many blogs will update a story based on information commenters offer and post about, adding to the news from various sources. Commenting gives a blog ammunition and a level of fact checking and research that a single person simply does not have time or energy to accomplish alone.

Commenting drives the blogosphere, even for blogs that do not have a comment section. Emails and other blog updates all add up to the same effect - a greater degree of accountability and accuracy than legacy news sources can offer, greater than they are inclined to offer.

News Media

DON'T GET WELL?

“Dad, I’m sorry, but I’ve been hit bad and they don’t think I’m gonna make it.”

Imagine you are a father, and that your son is one of the men fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq to defend the Afghani and Iraqi people, fight terrorism, and protect the world from terrorist aggression. One day you get a crackly satellite phone call from him with that quote. That soldier's name is Joshua Sparling, and his father picks up the tale at The Gun Nutt blog:

I received a call saying he was being sent to Landstuhl, Germany for further treatment. On November 23, 2005, I got a call saying Joshua was being shipped to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I arrived here on November 24th, the same day Joshua did. The doctor in ER wanted to amputate his leg at that point, but it would have been an amputation just below the hip. Joshua said no, so the doctor called in another surgeon, who was on leave. Major Tis, the BEST surgeon in the country in our eyes, told Joshua that he would personally take his case up with Captain Mack and Captain Hagelson, but it was going to be a long hard road ahead. Joshua and I agreed with Major Tis.

On the way to his first surgery on November 24th, the Red Cross gave Joshua a card. Josh thanked them for the card and opened it the next day. The card said, “Have a great time in the war and have a great time dieing in the war.” Joshua hung the card on the wall of his hospital room as an incentive to get well so he could go back to Iraq and finish the job.

Later, this man and his son, in a wheelchair, tried to get a plane flight out, and were stopped at security:

Security would not let us through because we had no boarding pass. We informed them that SPIRIT had our boarding pass and asked that he please let us go to the gate with him and he could verify it, or get someone from SPIRIT and they could give it to him. The security guard said, “You are no different than any other passenger with no boarding pass - no go.”

My son started to cry uncontrollably and told the guard to go to hell. Another lady spoke up and said, “That’s what you get for fighting in a war we have no business in.” Madder and very emotional I asked, “Can’t you remember 9-11?” She responded that was just our excuse to be in Iraq when we should not be there and we deserved whatever we got. That is when my son really lost it. Three WWII vets were coming off flights into DC, gave my son a hug, and stood up to the lady and security guard. They stayed with my son until he flew out.

SPIRIT was not forthcoming with a pass because of obscure circumstances, so they went to Northwestern, their first choice until they saw SPIRIT was $35 cheaper for the ticket:

I went to the Northwest counter and the lady was crying because of what had happened. She told me she was already working on a ticket for Joshua. Northwest offered any passenger a free roundtrip ticket to anywhere they flew, if they would give up their seat for a soldier who was severely injured in Iraq.

EIGHT businessmen came forward and said he could have their seat and no compensation was necessary. Northwest then asked if anyone would give up his or her first class seat for Joshua. A gentleman came forward and said Joshua could have his seat, saying he would sit in the toilet if need be. Other passengers remarked that Joshua could sit anywhere on the plane he wants and we will sit wherever.

That is when I broke down and started to cry. Everyone on that Northwest flight began patting Joshua on the back shaking his hand and telling him what a great job he did and how proud they were of him and the other troops who serve.

Commenters at the site gave their thoughts:

GN - gosh, I'm in tears now...
What a story...it's just unbelievable that somebody could be so cruel.
Josh - you can count on prayers of many people like my family and me.
I mailed a card back in November. Where do I mail another one now?
-by Agnieszka O


Am so glad his dad was with Josh, and he didn't face this trial alone.

Cowards like that woman (not lady) at the airport, are all to anxious to kick someone who is down. So I take it she opposes the American Disability Act too.

The thing that makes a country civilized is defending the weak. Thank God for all of you here who stand together for wounded warriors.

Bless you all.
-by jim b.


Josh needs to KNOW every SINGLE day that there are good people out here who care tremendously, and are beyond outraged that he should be treated with anything less than the deepest respect and honor.

Please, please add me to the list of those who would appreciate an updated mailing address.

His Dad needs his job back. Maybe there's a way that enough light could be shed on all this that might make that happen too. All I know is I am forwarding this on to friends and family and other blogs. Spread the word!
Thank you, so much, Josh. We can all never, ever say it to you enough. But we can d**n sure try EVERY DAY for the rest of your good, long, inspiring life. Hang tough.

Thanks also to Gunnutt and Armywifetoddlermom, and Matt of B5, for bringing this to all our attention.
-by Beth A.


I have to thank a friend for putting me onto your site. This is the most incredible real life story. I hope and pray life improves for you now Joshua. Remember, the minority such as that woman only have one purpose in life, that is to be anti anything and continually mouth off for media attention - they have no real feelings. While they intend to be hurtful, they are not worth the oxygen they breath nor the listening space given by the media, but the majority of people all around the world (even here in Australia) would love to have the chance to meet you and shake your hand. The world is a better place because of people like you.
A grateful Aussie.
-by Colleen Wildman

Soldiers

GOOGLE THE BIAS?

"I promise you, if Google thought they would get more happy eyeballs by linking to conservative blogs in news related searches, they would do it in a heartbeat."

Recently, several conservative sites have repeated a charge that has come up a few times in the past. The allegation is that the internet search engine colossus Google is selective in it's editing and choices of advertising based on political bias. But is it bias or is it business? Newsbusters carried the story:

Something frighteningly ominous has been happening on the Internet lately: Google, without any prior explanation or notice, has been terminating its News relationship with conservative e-zines and web journals.

....As reported by NewsBusters, the most recent occurrence of this unexplained phenomenon was Friday, May 19, when Frank Salvato, proprietor of The New Media Journal, realized that his content that day hadn't been disseminated at Google News as it had been on a daily basis since he reached an agreement with the search engine in September 2005.

Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, Jawa Report, and now Right Wing News have all noted that Google News turned them down as a source that the company would carry. John Hawkins at Right Wing News notes:

Let me add that Right Wing News has been turned down as a Google News source twice now. The last time, after they turned me down, I politely wrote back and asked the reason why RWN didn't pass muster and they politely responded that they were declining to give me a reason.

Does that mean that this is some sort of vendetta against conservatives? I'm not so sure about that. To the best of my knowledge, Google doesn't post their requirements to be included on Google News, but they seem to be very inconsistent.

There are a lot of big conservative and liberal blogs that don't seem to show up -- like Power Line, Hugh Hewitt, Crooks And Liars, & MyDD.

On the other hand, some of the blogs that did make the list include:

Wonkette, TPMCafe, Wizbang, & Q&O.

Now, most of these are not news sites at all, but rather opinion sites that carry some news. Most of these blogs get their information and news from the AP wire and other generally known and used news sources, which makes their information redundant in many cases (something Mark Cuban noted and I blogged on earlier). The choices of what to carry and what not to is a bit arbitrary by this standard, however, since Q&O, while being a good site, does not carry very unique news and PowerLine often does.

For a greater understanding of how this works, we turn to the comments section of RWN:

Google is a very unique company, in that what they specialize in and what they get paid for are two completely seperate things. The specialize in delivering relevant content to search engine users. However, as far as income goes, Google is simply an advertising company, and one of the best ones. They brought in just over $6 Billion last year, and 92% of that came from AdWords revenue.

I'm currently in the process of starting a new business venture (trying to take advantage of this booming economy), and as part of that I've been dealing with Google quite a bit the last few months. Here's what I've figured out: They care about two things and two things only. The first is delivering relevent content when somebody performs a search. The second is generating revenue through AdWords. They will absolutely forego the revenue-generating part if they think it impedes search relevency (in fact, Adwords is designed so that the more relevant your site is, the less you have to pay per-sponsored-click).

What does that have to do with anyting? Only this: based on my experience dealing with Google, if indeed they are rejecting conservative blogs as news sites, it has absolutely nothing to do with political ideology. It has everything to do with their perception of the relevancy of the content of these sites in relation to what the majority of Google users are expecting when they search for "news".

Of course, they could be wrong about that... but they have some pretty damn smart people who are paid well to figure such things out.
-by President Friedman


If I remember correctly, the owners and most most of the employees are liberal democrats, who donated heavily to the Kerry Campaign. Maybe that explains hte aversion to RWN and other conservative blogs.
-by Lumberjack 7393


98%, to be exact.

But that's okay - they may be overwhelmingly liberal, but liberals are fair and understanding.

Were they overwhelmingly conservative, however... oh, the bias!
-by fatmouse


There's term in Google jargon referred to as "happy eyeballs", which simply means people who searched for something and landed on a page with information they wanted to read.

I promise you, if Google thought they would get more happy eyeballs by linking to conservative blogs in news related searches, they would do it in a heartbeat. They don't give a flip about 'fair and balanced', they want to deliver what they think people want to see.

I guarantee if they saw enough regular and widespread complaints about news links to liberal blogs, you'd see them get pulled.
-by President Friedman


"They don't give a flip about 'fair and balanced', they want to deliver what they think people want to see."

Hmm, an anecdote is coming to mind here. Something along the lines of "no one I know voted for Nixon..."
-by Mike_M

Mike is referring to a tale told about the 1972 landslide election of President Nixon in which the late Pauline Kael, elite film reviewer for the New Yorker, could not figure out how it happened, allegedly saying "Nobody I know voted for him!"

I'm not sure when I use google whether its google, my search words or just whats out there. In some cases its clearly not the third - eg Ann Coulter has a website and lots of conservatives talk about her - but it might be the search or the way that the sites get themselves crawled by google; I don't know all the details to how they are prioritized.

Still, sometimes the results are disappointing, you know that 99% of people don't think that Galbraith is the smartest economist, yet when you search "Galbraith" that is what keep popping up, along with a few blogs that say bad stuff about him, with no proof.
-by economicliberty


I haven't used google news for a long time. Do they still take stuff from indymedia there? That was the main reason I started with ask.com. Anything that calls indymedia news is just not worth my time.
-rpearso

I suspect that it is no official company policy to slight conservative sites and favor liberal ones, but it is possible that some who work there might tend toward this, and what is considered interesting, wanted, or worthy as news may be viewed through a worldview that considers conservative posts as wrong or untrustworthy and liberal as normal and ideologically neutral.

News Media

Comment Type #21

THE FLIRT

Some commenters seem to only have one real interest, regardless of the conversation, the discussion, or the topic at hand. politics, sports, movies, none of it really matters to this comment type - all that matters is making flirty comments and hitting on the other people who post. There are entire IRC channels devoted to flirting and more, but generally speaking a comment section on the average blog is dedicated to the blog's area of interest and the topic at hand.

Instead of responding to thoughts about the way Druids need to be nerfed or how Lamborghinis look sweet but until recently were a lousy, uncomfortable drive, the flirt comment is directed to the people posting, often using vaguely-related double entendres and a lascivious tone. When someone asks about the stock market, the flirt post is about how hot rich guys are and how the stocks might be sexy, wink wink.

The way this is accepted or rejected depends on the community. Generally speaking a feminine name will be more likely to be at least tolerated in this than just one of the guys, because men tend to outnumber women on most blogs and message boards, and because guys appreciate being flirted with, even if the actual identity of the flirter may be in question.

This sort of post can be amusing and if it's not too common can break up monotony or the often-pompous tone that many discussions can take on. But it also can be annoying and drag the entire discussion down to a level that makes serious thinkers leave and ruins the community if flirting occurs too often or too consistently. Given the anonymous nature of the internet, flirting can be potentially embarrassing or humiliating - the person posting as HawtPrincess16 might be a tubby 50 year-old in a grubby tee shirt and boxers.

Comments

Quote of the day

"It (freedom) means nothing of itself. One can be free to be a Nazi, to torture prisoners in Manila, to oppress others; freedom is good only when directed toward some good. We want to be free that we might freely serve God, and so benefit ourselves and our fellowmen. This alone can make freedom worth fighting for."

-Chaplain USS YORKTOWN Lt. COMDR J.N.MOODY
Quotes

WELCOME!

In the last two days I've had visitors from all around the world, and while I'm not exactly sure what prompted this increase in international readers (I've always had a few from around the world and not just the USA), welcome and thank you for dropping by! All of these countries have been represented:

Australia		Austria
Brazil		Canada
France		Germany
Japan		New Zealand
Puerto Rico		Republic of Korea
Sweden		Switzerland
Thailand		United Arab Emirates
United States

UNBIASSED EDITOR SPEAKS

"And abandoning Iraq to the terrorists promotes human rights how?"

New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. addressed graduates at the State University of New York at New Paltz on Sunday in their commencement ceremonies. During this speech, Mr Sultzberger apologized for various events, and the Daily Freeman carried excerpts:

"I will start with an apology," Sulzberger told the graduates, who wore black gowns and hats with yellow tassels. "When I graduated in 1974, my fellow students and I ended the Vietnam War and ousted President Nixon. OK. OK. That's not quite true. Maybe there were larger forces at play.

"Either way, we entered the real world committed to making it a better, safer, cleaner, more equal place," Sulzberger added. "We were determined not to repeat the mistakes of our predecessors. We had seen the horror and futility of war and smelled the stench of government corruption. Our children, we vowed, would never know that. So, well, I am sorry."

...
"It wasn't supposed to be this way," Sulzberger said. "You weren't supposed to be graduating in an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life, the right of gays to marry or the rights of women to choose."

The media watch blog Newsbusters carried this story, noting that

The Monday Poughkeepsie Journal also has a story on Sulzberger's remarks and Romenesko has posted the text of the prepared address.

Commenters at the site did not throw their hats into the air:

One would think that after numerous quarters of declining ad revenues, subscribers and incresing newsroom scandels, combined with growing shareholder revolts, the publisher would focus on his business model rather than spew leftist talking points to a group of grads who most likely think he's an idiot anyway.
-by SixStringBassPlayer


Perhaps he should have apologized that there weren't more young people there to graduate? Why didn't he apologise for the millions of abortions that reduced their numbers? Why didn't he apologize for his participation in, and his approval of, the liberal/leftist undeclared war of genocide against the unborn?
-by stonefingers

"Sulzberger added the graduates weren't supposed to be let into a world 'where oil still drives policy ..."

Not agreeing with him, but what should drive policy? Leftist ideology? That's real useful for heating homes and fueling vehicles. Apparently, Sulzberger would have no problem abandoning those nasty oil reserves in the Middle East to whatever despot wants to take over. After all, poor folks in the U.S. could handle $5.00 a gallon gas, right? Inflation due to high energy prices...no problem. But wait, liberals always complain about high energy costs hitting the poor...geez, it's so confusing trying to figure out these limousine leftists. It's like they don't have any sense!
-by Republic1

"stop the Iraq War and to sufficiently promote "fundamental human rights" "

And abandoning Iraq to the terrorists promotes human rights how?
-by NYT_sucks

Certainly an editor's personal comments do not necessarily indicate a bias or tendency of a newspaper to tilt to one side or another. But this kind of remark, combined with the Times' history and publishing record is another story. Certainly this kind of comment is amazingly presumptive and arrogant in it's assumption of his ideas being the only possible facts. Such an apparent trait is not ideal in an editor, I should think.

News Media

BENEFITS OF WEALTH

"Though, now that I think of it, arranged marriage has been a popular tradition in a lot of times and places -- maybe it just seems like a fundamental right because I'm used to it."

Having more money is undeniably an advantage in this world over having less money. Since money is little more than a representation of power and influence, this should not be particularly surprising, but for some this situation is improper and unfair. It is wrong, some argue, that those with wealth have benefits and advantages that those with less wealth lack. Eugene Volokh examines one portion of that argument in an article about the idea of genetic engineering of babies which, should it come about, would be available to wealthy due to it's cost would not to poorer parents.

I've often heard the argument (buttressed sometimes by citations to the movie Gattaca) that letting parents use genetic technology to boost their babies' intelligence, athletic prowess, or musical ability would make it easier for rich people to improve their kids' genes, which will increase social stratification, as descendants of the poorer people will find it harder to compete. I profoundly disagree with this argument. (I set aside the quite different arguments that certain techniques, especially in their early stages, may have problems that increase the risk of serious genetic defects, and that certain genetic traits help kids at the expense of others -- imagine a gene that makes people resistant to some contagious disease but increases the chance that they'd be asymptomatic carriers.)

He points out that if you make this argument, then you have to make the same argument for private education of children, that technologies tend to start out expensive (I remember my brother getting his first calculator for graduating high school in 1976. The calculator was more than thirty dollars and had only four functions - add, subtract, multiply, and divide - and a memory) but become cheaper over time. Volokh makes the argument:

So if you're concerned that only the top 5% will ever afford getting higher IQ for their kids, that seems highly unlikely. And if you're concerned that only the top 70% will afford it, and oppose the technology because of the bottom 30%, then I think you have the wrong set of priorities. Work on ways to eventually make the technology accessible even to the bottom 30%, rather than denying it to the top 70%.

And finishes up with a great Soviet-era Russian joke I highly recommend reading for it's appropriate point. I agree, don't be the guy in the third cauldron.

Commenters crawled out of their cauldrons and said:

As I pointed out in Orin Kerr's post about using consultants to gain an advantage in college admissions, if you're serious about eliminating these kinds of social inequalities (which don't disturb me), you should abolish the family or have arranged marriages.

I suppose that a Rawlsian egalitarian might accept such inequalities insofar as they eventually benefit the worst off or at least the majority (Prof. Volokh's 2nd &3rd arguments), who could receive even more of the benefits of genetic engineering via hefty redistributive taxes.
-by Perseus


I think there's quite a difference between worrying about a new technology increasing inequality and "being serious about eliminating these kinds of social inequalities."

Also, let's suppose that the social equality benefits of prohibiting a new technology are similar to the social equality benefits of prohibiting selective breeding. I think the costs are a lot lower - the right to use a new technology is less fundamental than the right to decide whom to raise a family with.

Though, now that I think of it, arranged marriage has been a popular tradition in a lot of times and places -- maybe it just seems like a fundamental right because I'm used to it.
-by Steven Jens


This is as good as any, a time to ask this question - or at least as good a time as I will get. I fundamentally fail to grasp, why is social inequality considered to be per se a bad thing? Suppose A makes $25k, and B makes $100k. After, say, some new technological advances, B increases his annual income to $150k, but A remains at $25k. If by virtue of B's increase, A is actually no worse off - he still has his $25k - then what's the problem? In law school, it feels like everyone has a problem with this dynamic except for 3 people in any given class? Am I just missing the moral nexus in my brain that's supposed to make me feel bad when someone who is poor ends up being even *more* poor than the rich, by virtue of the rich outpacing him economically?
-by MikeBUSL07

Am I just missing the moral nexus in my brain that's supposed to make me feel bad when someone who is poor ends up being even *more* poor than the rich, by virtue of the rich outpacing him economically?

Imagine everyone gets richer, save the one guy who stays poor. Relatively speaking, he is more poor than he used to be. Additionally, if everyone has more money, inflation has probably chewed away the poor guy's spending power, so he is actually more poor in real terms than he used to be, even though he makes just as much as he used to.

Now, you personally may not feel bad about this situation, but make no mistake about it - through no "fault" of his own, the poor man has become poorer when the rich become richer.
-by John Castiglione

Relatively speaking, he is more poor than he used to be.... the poor man has become poorer when the rich become richer.

Only if you accept the notion of poverty being relative at all, which is far from uncontroversial. (Would you switch places with Charlemagne?)
-by AmandaG


I think Vorn is missing an important part of the "$50 million party." That $50 million did not goe from the celebrity's pocket into some black hole. It when into a lot of pockets (presumably less endowed). Hundreds, if not thousands of people saw their incomes increase through that act of "extravagance".

That helped at least some of them close the gap between their situation and that of the celebrity.

Was it wasteful? Probably. There are certainly more efficient methods of redistributing wealth. But within the constraints of personal liberties, there's no law or moral obligation to behave in the most efficient method possible.
-by John Burgess


John Burgess,

Good point. I think there are two kinds of resources expended on a $50 million dollar party. One is real resources which are truly consumed, like the time of the people involved. Another, are imaginary resources, like the time of a chef that charges $250,000 for one meal. Clearly, the use of that chef versus another does not consumer a huge amount of "real" resources, and so a good portion of that $250,000 is not harmful to anyone, but simply represents a transfer payment from the celebrity to the chef. To this, I entirely agree with your sentiment that this is a "who cares" sort of issue.

On the other hand, such a party is likely to consume real resources. Say it is held on some remote island, and private jets are utilized. These jets in turn consume the talents of many people to build and maintain. That represents a consumption of real resources that in turn effects the supply of basic goods and services for those with lower incomes.

As for your point about liberty, I think that is completely valid. But that goes to the point of whether we should do anything about the problem of inequality, rather than whether it has negative effects on others. I have not addressed the issue of what, if anything we should do about inequality, but am rather establishing the point that it has negative effects on others. Inequality has costs. It is not free.
-by Vorn


There is both good and bad about relative poverty. Without a significant gap between the top and the bottom, there is little incentive to take the gamble of starting a new business for the possibility of getting rich. The bigger the gap, the bigger the inventive to take the gamble - which is one of the big problems with attempts to redistribute income. The more you redistribute, the less incentive there is to work hard and, probably more importantly, to take the gamble of starting that new company that will sell you the next PC.

On the other hand, as was pointed out, there is the envy factor too. If the rich could just sit on their wealth and be happy with that, it wouldn't be a problem. We could have our incentives to take the gambes required to make all this new technology, etc., and still minimize the envy. But unfortunately, we are human, and one of the reasons to make a lot of money is to fluant it. It is just natural. Think of it as little different from the mating displays of many animals. Besides, the generation earning wealth rarely spends according to its ability to spend. Rather, it is the succeeding generations, those who Freder suggested fell into their wealth, that are going to be the real problem as to envy.

I don't think that many really are overly upset about the house race that Gates and Dell got into awhile back, because the millions they spent on their houses were small percentages of their wealth, and most could appreciate where they got their wealth - with many running Windows and Office on their Dell computers. But a lot would be a lot more upset if their grandchildren got into the same type of race to build the biggest, fanciest house. Luckily, Gates at least, has seen fit to make sure that his progeny won't find themselves in that position. But he is unique there, giving almost all of his wealth away (he is apparently giving less than 1% of his wealth to his kids - which is of course still substantial by most people's standards).
-by Bruce Hayden


There's already a whole lot of eugenics going on here, you just don't see it unless you or your wife is pregnant. What do you think all that pre-natal screening is for. They aren't looking to see if you kid is smart, but whether he will be defective, in which case you will be encouraged to kill him off.

On what basis is it OK to kill off the less than perfect but verboten to help the average?
-by Houston Lawyer

Medical Ethics

FEW SURPRISES

"When I disagree with a member of MY team, I simply tell them what I would do. I don’t start kicking over everything in the room and threaten to never support them again, or throw my support to their enemies."

At present, it is popular among conservatives to bash President Bush. This is often done with as little style and originality as liberals have for six years, often using the same insults and lines. The reasons for this are complex, although his stance on immigration is the final straw that drove most around the corner from frustrated support to angry opposition. But the man has been consistent and steady over the years, delivering many great things that conservatives appreciated, while making moves that we have not.

The Anchoress is a Democrat blogger who originally was no supporter of President Bush, but has become more his friend over the years. She ponders this and his career in a post called The Essential President Bush, asking a question:

That made me wonder a little - has President Bush lost his bearings, or have we? Is it President Bush who has broken faith with “his base” or have they?

She goes on to consider this, examining various events in the man's presidency:

Perhaps I am a dim bulb, but President Bush has never surprised me, and that is probably why I have never felt let down or “betrayed” by him. He is, in essentials, precisely whom he has ever been. He did not surprise me when he managed, in August of 2001, to find a morally workable solution in the matter of Embryonic Stem Cells. He did not surprise me when, a month later, he stood on a pile of rubble and lifted a broken city from its knees. When my NYFD friends told me of the enormous consolation and strength he brought to his meetings with grieving families, I was not surprised. When the World Series opened in New York City and the President was invited to throw the first pitch, there was no surprise in his throwing (while wearing body armor) a perfect strike.

And the Anchoress wraps it all up with these concluding thoughts:

How you receive a good has a lot to do with whether any more “good” comes your way. The Conservatives got a “good” in 2000 and 2004; they’re receiving it very badly, indeed. I think the throwing-under-the-bus-of-George-W-Bush by “the base” is one of the most shameful things I have ever witnessed in all my years of watching politics, from both sides of the political spectrum. How do you receive a good?

President Bush has never surprised me. He is, in essentials, the man he ever was. It does not surprise me that he is a Christian man living a creed before he is a President, that he is a President before he is a Conservative. It seems to me precisely the right order of things.

You “base” have received a great good. You’ve forgotten it. Continue to do so at your - at all our - great peril.

I dislike President Bush's willingness to spend too much - he could have vetoed spending and lobbied to cut it back - and his position on immigration is better, but still wants to reward long-term criminals for being persistent and defiant of our immigration laws. I am frustrated with his near lack of effort to get his word out on what he's doing. But overall, he's been a good president, he's done much of what Conservatives needed and wanted to see, and as a career, he's actually done more conservative work than President Reagan did - he just isn't as charismatic and faces far, far more bitter, angry, and extreme opposition.

I don't expect perfection, and I knew from the first day I saw George Bush the Younger running for president he was not as conservative as I was, except in social areas. But he's done much and is very, very unfairly attacked and vilified every single day. I don't expect politicians to be perfect - I don't even expect them to be trustworthy and fulfill their duties in office. I just know to appreciate it when they are and do. And I recognize that a mistake or bad policy can be repaired and redone, but that good work needs to be supported and appreciated. I'll not sacrifice the good in foolish longing for the perfect.

Commenters at Anchoress' blog had this to say:

Brava, Anchoress, BRAVA!!!

I thought my husband and I were the only ones who felt this way. Nice to see that we are in such excellent company. Thanks for this post.
-by Julie D.

I agree, Anchoress. I think President Bush is one the truest, most honorable and principled men to occupy the White House in many years. In fact, he may well be the only person in America that cares about the immigrants without regard to some ulterior politcal or economic motive.

That’s what makes it so damn hard to part company here with this good man. Maybe devorcing someone is hardest when you don’t hate him.

You can undo an ill-advised law about taxes or energy or the budget or this or that. You can’t undo the consequences of the Bush/Senate immigration reform.

Yes, we’re a nation of immigrants. But after we all got off the boat, we were popped into to a militantly nationalistic public school system that converted us all into 100% red blooded Americans, as they used to say.

Well, that process hasn’t worked in years, and you can thank pc for that.
And until we get it working again, until we can make the country sturdy in spirit again, I have to stand against the President–and you, I guess.

But may I still wave to you from across no-man’s land?
-by igout

Anchoress, You are a blessing. You eloquently express what I feel. My heart is also broken that this good man is so maligned from all sides. I pray for him daily. I hope his family has his back and props him up when he gets down as surely he must. He takes the hits because he believes what he believes. Such a one as this will not come around again soon.
-by fschmeig


In fact, you summed it it nicely a few days ago when you noted that the president represents all Americans and his mandate exceeds that of pleasing and satisfying his ‘base’ only.

It is hubris that by many on either side of the political spectrum that denies that truth.

To this day, Mr Bush has given me no reason to distrust him or his motives.

True, he is a politician, constricted by the ‘rules of the game.’ That said, he remains a decent man, guided by decent ideals.
-by Sigmund Carl and Alfred

Excellent post as usual, Dear A. However, I have noted that the concern of several of the Usual Conservative Suspects is driven from their fear of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. And the fact that Mr. Bush–so stalwart in defending Iraq and Afghanistan–seems to be overly concerned with appeasing Mr. Fox.
.
Why? The accommodation of the millions of illegals, especially those from Mexico, has made the U.S. an “enabler” in the AA sense, allowing the Mexican Government to avoid the hard work of cleaning the corruption in their own government and building their own country’s infrastructure and economy. Mexico is a land rich in natural resources, has a tradition of education, and whose people (as we in the U.S. can attest) are willing and able to work hard.
.
Why does Mr. Bush continue to enable Mexico? His actions don’t make sense to me and his administration’s fatal flaw is the inability to communicate his ideas and his vision directly to his constituents.
.
Tell me your vision, Mr. President! Give me some idea of where you see us, America, in the next ten years, or 20, or 50! I want to believe–but I can’t do it on just your word that “It will all work out.”
-by March Hare

Thank you for the post….. and for all those people out there obsessing about immigration to the point of lunacy..where were you a decade ago? Why is it all of a sudden that you lose all reason on this issue? Bush is actually confronting it and trying to get something done. Left to one of the “base” the status quo, illegals and all would probably go on indefinetly, just like it always has.

I don’t even think a lot of these people listened to the President when he talked about immigration, they just kept right on blowing off as if they had some special insight that Bush does not.

Why should an Independent like me ever trust or believe this base? After all, they have proven how shallow they really are.
-by Terrye

Thank you, thank you dear Anchoress. You are so right when you say that he is exactly who we knew him to be all along. He never tried to make us believe differently on this or any issue. I think he ‘calls them like he sees them’. I think the man is true to his conscience and to what he believes is best for this country, to his political peril, I’m afraid. I sincerely hope history sees him for who he is and not for what he’s been made out to be by the press and his fellow conservatives. After all, he campaigned on compassionate conservatism. What did people think that meant, after all?
-by Gracie

Beautifully said and I couldn’t agree more! When I disagree with a member of MY team, I simply tell them what I would do. I don’t start kicking over everything in the room and threaten to never support them again, or throw my support to their enemies. We are at War. Not only on the field of comabat, but here at home. The MSM launched another offensive this weekend to hurt the US economy. See those headlines “Is the market DUE for another catastropic correction?” Ahh, no..it isn’t. Almost all the change in inflation is due to higher energy prices–more than at any other time in history. Plus those price increases are due to a run-up in the futures market, not any supply and demand concerns. Trying to help your Dem buddies, MSM? After ignoring all the positive economic news of the last two years? Disgusting! And the Wapo coming out with that headline about the Republicans’ future hinging on the next election? It doesn’t for the Democrats? Hmmm? Maybe we need a new trend in the US—’Wrote Rage”–where readers tar and feather MSM writers who insult their intelligence. And work against the best interests of this country. I’m glad I am not a Democrat today, with my success pinned to everything negative that could happen to my country and trying to make that a reality. I’d like to think that if I were I would be thinking about doing what’s best for my country now…Checking on my immigration application to Canada. Or something more permanent.
-by Darrell

Utterly fantastic, beautiful and meaningful. I completely agree with you about Bush, and the excess of conservative desire for Unreal Perfection — and disagree with Bush on immigration.

In fact, each and every conservative against Bush should be asked — where is your energy on the local Republican Primary, to get a better Republican candidate?

I’m afraid the Personality Bush-hate anti-cult of the media has infected Michelle Malkin & LaShawn Barber (who I read and enjoy and usually agree with), into being too critical of Bush.

Bush, or any “conservative” leader, needs supporters in Congress. The failure of conservative pundits to pressure big-spending Reps is a failure of the Republican “leader” as well as the pundits — and, like most folks, they want to blame Bush instead.

Prof. Bainbridge and Mark Tapscott should be scolded for taking the easy, lazy, “Bush only” approach to gov’t, and not fighting the longer, harder, “true conservatives” for Congress thru Rep primaries.

Just as the media focuses too much on America (not Darfur, Congo, China, Indonesia), it focuses too much on the President, not enough on the 100 Senators and 435 reps.

Most conservatives who feel betrayed by Bush have betrayed themselves by their own laziness/ busyness in other things.

Thanks again for your heart AND mind.
Please consider re-reading Rerum Novarum (115th anniversary last week).
-by Tom Grey-Liberty Dad

Politics

Quote of the day

"Not to mention all the 'sacred feminine' crap makes him sound like a teenage girl who just discovered Wicca."

-by NCVOL on DaVinci Code
Quotes

FLIX

There are a few movies coming out that I am actually looking forward to seeing. Not many, because like most things there is one rose in 100 piles of feces, but here are a few:

Superman Returns
This baby is costing 300 million to produce and Supes looks a little young and small, but from this trailer and the script parts I've seen, it really seems like they have a great grasp on the character.

300
Still early in production, this is another Frank Miller effort (Sin City, Robocop 2). It is the story of 300 Spartans holding off the mightiest army in the world at Thermopolae by sheer grit, tactics, and an unending sense of honor and duty - and saving civilization in the process.

Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest
I have to be honest, I have concerns about this one, but the first Pirates of the Carribean was so very, very good that I can't miss this and the same folks are all involved.

Over the Hedge
I'll catch this on cable, but I do really enjoy the comic strip and the movie just looks light hearted and like fun to me.

And one more I'm not sure about.

Miami Vice
I really like Michael Mann's work (Collateral, Heat, Manhunter, Thief) and Miami Vice at its best was very compelling and entertaining television, but I just don't like Colin Farrell much and I'm worried that what worked so well in the time period will come across as cookie cutter and have rap rather than cutting edge and alternative music like the original was at the time. Anthony Yerkovich (the original creator and writer of Miami Vice) is involved, and that's a good sign. And to be honest, do we really need yet another remake of a television show?

Movies

NO SCIENCE POPE

"I really have to fudge this data to get it anywhere close, and I have no idea what I am doing."

Thanks to images of the white lab coated-savior of the 1950s and technological advances we all enjoy in the west, scientists and science has enjoyed a very positive reputation over the years. One almost gets the feeling that these men are nobler than others, more concerned about detail, accuracy, and good work than mere mortals.

While there are fine scientists doing great work, there are lazy, incompetent, foolish, and sloppy people in the field of science just like every other job. Science does not have a unified voice on any subject except the most fundamental of efforts; there is no "Science Pope" who speaks with the final, infallible voice on a given topic.

Ace of Spades Headquarters had an amusing story about a lab report that illustrates this well:

I don't think he turned this paper in. But I do think he did all the experiments, turned in a dishonest and unscientific paper, most likely with fudged data, and then wrote this accurate, honest, truly scientific assessment of his experiment.

Title, abstract, and conclusion:

Electron Band Structure In Germanium, My Ass

Abstract: The exponential dependence of resistivity on temperature in germanium is found to be a great big lie. My careful theoretical modeling and painstaking experimentation reveal 1) that my equipment is crap, as are all the available texts on the subject and 2) that this whole exercise was a complete waste of my time.

...

Conclusion

Going into physics was the biggest mistake of my life. I should've declared [Computer Science]. I still wouldn't have any women, but at least I'd be rolling in cash.

He exposes a critical truth: college (and most definitely) high school science lab experiments primarily teach people how to lie about their data, and secondarily about futility and the total uselessness of experimentation, which really aren't the first things you want budding young scientists learning.

Commenters shared their experiments:

I think he wrote this for the Journal of Improbable Research, though it's probably representative of his real-life experience. I remember that in one physics lab I had to measure the speed of a muon, and no matter what I tried, I ended up with 1.1c (i.e., faster than the speed of light). I finally gave up and just presented the results to the professor (who looked just like Dr. Bunsen Honeydew). He reviewed everything I did, then shrugged and gave me an A-.

Experimentation sucks - that's why I try to stick to analysis.
-by geoff

He's right about the money in CS, at least. I've been thinking about going back to grad school, and this is a good reminder of some of the downsides.
-by SparkVarc

I studied physics as an undergrad. And, there really is a third year lab wherein you do some classical experiments with terrible equipment.

Of course, when I was in school we still used vacuum tubes for op-amps -- so no germanium experiments.

On the other hand, there really is such a thing as "the art of the experimentalist". We were doing a transmission line experiment, trying to match impedences and such, and of course nothing was working at any of the six stations in the lab.

Along comes a young experimentalist (name withheld) who was maby four years older than us -- I had the guy for second year course the year before. He had his own (real) experimental lab down the hall and was taking a break and stopped in to kibbutz.

In the space of ten minutes he walked around to each station, LAID HIS HANDS ON THE EQUIPMENT, and got the experiments to work.

I did switch to Computer Science.
-by Eric Rogers

How times have changed since I was in college. When my lab partner and I had an experiment that didn't work, we didn't have no stinkin' computer with which to calculate the therortical result to turn in with the paper. WE had to copy the ideal curve from the text book and then randomize the data around it using a die (variance of 1 to 6 percent) and then flip a coin to determine whether the variation would be positive or negative for every freakin' data point. It was just hell to do hungover, I tell you. That's why I got out of the sciences (Hell, I never got past Organic Chemistry). It worked out; I like drivin' this truck.
-by Lokki

My high school physics teacher was a rocket scientist. The government made him work on the Mercury program, and he helped design the innards to withstand the stress and strain of liftoff and reentry and not kill anyone inside. After that, he got tired of doing governmental work and became a teacher. He had taught for about 38 years.

I was doing an experiment involving diffraction and interference patterns of light: stare at a light source through a slit and see what you see, and all that, wave properties and the like.

My data was entirely messed and didn't match up with the theoretical stuff. I had to stretch to get anything close to the theoretical answer. I was totally lost. So I wrote what I could in my conclusion, and closed it like this:

"I really have to fudge this data to get it anywhere close, and I have no idea what I am doing."

Checkmark. 10 out of 10.
-by Nibbles the Shark

Hah, his data looks a lot like what I got for most of my experiments in my materials class (I'm an engineering student.) You know when you have a standard deviation of 20 points for one of your values that SOMETHING is screwed up, and all the help the TA will give you is to tell you to "write about what was SUPPOSED to happen." Sheesh. That report is pretty much what I wanted to write for every lab I've ever done in every class I've taken in college.
-by Tina

Science and Technology

THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE OZ

"...what a beaut way to say thanks to US 'doing the heavy lifting' and poke the leftie gits in the eye."

"G'day" is what Australia is saying to US military members, offering cheap flights and accommodations to active duty, members of the Reserve component, retired military, Department of Defense civilian employees and family members, according to the US Army Home Page:

A five-night stay in Sydney or Melbourne is available for $838 per person based on double occupancy. The “G’Day Good Deal” packages include three- or four-star accommodations for five nights, round-trip airfare from Los Angeles or San Francisco aboard Qantas Airways and a 15-hour calling card that can be used to dial the United States. Taxes and surcharges are not included in the base price.

“Normally, when you’re talking about a trip to Australia, your opening bid is $1,800, at least,” said Dan Yount, chief of Army Leisure Travel Services at the U.S. Army Community and Family Support Center. “This is a major savings.”

Tim Blair, Australian blogger extraordinaire, noticed this and announced it on his webpage, and commenters donated their ideas to the cause:

Looks like bloody good value. Hope they can make the offer again in summer. Visiting Australia without spending time at the beach or on the waterways is a handicap.
-by Steveo

Hope they can make the offer again in summer. Visiting Australia without spending time at the beach or on the waterways is a handicap.

Hey, no worries about that one! They just need to come to Queensland, Broome or Darwin! Winter only applies to the South; that’s why there are so many Mexicans migrating North every year! :-)
-by JPB

I dont think this is a good thing. Not even a little bit.

Australia has:
Spiders that can kill you just by looking at you.
Huge monster snakes.
Crocodiles that pop up out of toilets and get you when most vulerable.
Big hairy spiders that purposly hide in your shoes/boots and can bite through inch thick steel plate armor.
Giant muntant rats that hop and are deadly in hand to hand fighting.
Giant mutant birds that like to kick a man’s guts out.

And, the worst of the worst is the Australians!!

What if our guys decide they like it better there? The US stands to loose those of our men and women that are actually willing to stand up and fight back when th

This aint good.
-by Grimmy

Yeah those muntant rats, lost my cousin to one just last week…

But only little girls are scared of being the crocodiles coming up from the toilets - just remember to poke ‘em in the eyes and watch those teeth, you’ll be fine.
-by Anagallis

And Grimmy that’s just in the big cities. Wait until they hit the countryside; there’s danger behind every bush & rock ready to gobble them up or sting them to death. That’s why I have mounted a .50 cal on my 4wd and those rocket launchers on the bull bar are for real.

#8 The powers that be have just announced the stinger season is over up here so I can put away my panty hose until November. Good protection from box jelly but a tad too thin against croc teeth. Rumour has it a rogue croc has taken up residence in the park lake in our Port Douglas estate.

Weather wise it looks like the cyclonic infuence has finally cleared off and tourism will pick up considerably.
-by Spang_oz

Makes you wonder what the multiplier effect might be if Aussie Govt chucked in say $500 aussie dollars as spending money to boot. If it doubled or trebled the bookings it might actually be cashflow positive to govt treasury and what a beaut way to say thanks to US “doing the heavy lifting” and poke the leftie gits in the eye.
-by thenailgun

Jumpin’ Jesus on a Pogo Stick! I might have to look into a little trip down Australia way. I just knew getting shot at by all those 107 mm rockets would pay off some day!
-by Major John

If you know a soldier or a soldier's family, let them know! This is a good 1000 dollars off what it would normally cost to make such a trip. On behalf of the American people, I'd like to say thanks, Australia, you rock!

Travel

FOOTBALL MADNESS

"But what drives me nuts most about soccer is the theatrics of the players."

Right Wing News has a feature every so often called Q and A Friday, in which John Hawkins will take questions in a comment section and then select a few he's interested in and answer them on his blog. The initial experiment was so successful that now he's done 40 of these by this date and it is a regular feature.

Last Friday, RWN answered the question "Are Americans Excited About The World Cup?"

Answer: Oh, yeah, a lot of people are excited about the World Cup. In fact, it's such a big deal that I hear that the ESPN Alternate 2 channel is about to drop semi-regional ping pong tournament finals being held at the Boise, Idaho YMCA just to show the World Cup.

Also, there are people with insomnia who'll get the best night's sleep they've gotten in months as they nod off as Angola and Togo play to a thrilling 0-0 tie.

Otherwise, I'm not sure that most Americans are ready for a sport like soccer that features all the excitement of a well played game of checkers and all the strategy that we've come to expect from a game of freeze tag.

All sarcasm aside, Soccer (Football) never caught on in the United States like it has other nations, and commenters discussed why:

I thought that ESPN2 was going to preempt this for a Magic: the Gathering tournament.
-EvilOtto


Anyone who says soccer is boring and then says they love baseball has zero credibity in my books (unless you like watching men spitting and scratching themselves!).
-by Paulehansen


GOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

"I thought that ESPN2 was going to preempt this for a Magic: the Gathering tournament."

Heh. That would be cool too.

Seriously, soccer will probably never be as big in the US as football (huge), basketball (also huge), or baseball (still big) - but its got a good chance of passing Hockey for 4th place.

The thing about soccer is that it is alot more fun to play than to watch, and you probably won't enjoy watching it unless you've played it alot. It's also a great game for mixed gender. It can be played as a low enough contact sport in which physical size is less important than experience, endurance, and speed.

But the real attraction to soccer, and the real reason its so loved by the rest of the world, is that it doesn't take much equipment to play the game as its intended. Since this is less of an issue in the US, I don't think it will ever be the game in the US.
-by Celebrim


I actually enjoy soccer-football during World Cup time, which pretty much means I enjoy soccer-football every four years only.

What I like about it: there's a lot of thinking going on on the pitch (field for us Americans). The execution of strategy during a hurried rush up the field can be dramatically exciting. For most of the players they are constantly running while others may not be running. PLUS, big for me, no commericals during the match; there's no mandatory T.V. timeout or any stupid crap like that like at the SuperBowl.

What I hate about it: I've seen some complete Drunk Fests on the pitch, meaning a majority or all of the players on both teams must be drunk because they can't seem to handle the ball, even when its dry and sunny out. BIGGEST PET PEEVE: THE INCONSISTANT OFFSIDES CALLS! Catching a highlight of the Champions League Cup between Barcelona and Arsenal I watched four plays whislted dead and one of the goals that was similar to the previous four whistled dead plays be allowed.

Granted, this is a sport where the rest of the world sticks it to the U.S., but I do enjoy it every four years, and unlike the previous World Cups our team is ranked very high in the FIFA power rankings. I think we might have a chance.
-by Corporate_Cabana


Speaking as a fan of any and all sports (yes, even women's golf. Natalie Gulbis. mmmmm) soccer has its moments ... but they are few and far between. Like beating Mexico four years ago. The MLS? Never watched a game. Never will. And whose bright idea was it to create a women's professional soccer league?

Anyway. What's with stoppage time and not being able to know how much time is in stoppage time? Only the ref knows how much time is left? Why should we believe him?

Get rid of offsides. If you can't get your butt back behind the last offensive player - at all times - then you deserve to be scored on.

But what drives me nuts most about soccer is the theatrics of the players. You scored a goal. Bully for you. Act like you've been there before. And worse? I have, never, ever seen a bigger bunch of floppers, con artists and, well, p*ssies when it comes to contact. Somebody so much as breathes on another player and he's down, writhing in pain like his leg is broken in 10 places. Yet, lo and behold, three minutes later he's running the field like nothing happened. Can't stand it.

In any case, I'll watch a few of the games. I have two, favorite teams: The US and any opponent of the Axis of Weasels.
-by jimg


From London where I play soccer 4 times per week: I once watched the Dallas Cowboys play the Chicago Refrigerators at 'football' at Wembley. 3 hours of pom-poms and standing around. God almighty. These literal and figurative tossers in helmets and padding would collapse on a rugby field.
When I used to play indoor soccer in Houston it was great apart from the mixed games. Ugh. I was told there that soccer is the biggest participation sport in the US. It seemed like it. In Manhattan at Chelsea Piers it was awful. Constant substitutions. You never got tired.
Bottom line if you don't play when you're a kid, it's not in your blood and you play clunky. It's great that Yanks think 'football' is interesting. What a mystery.
I love soccer to play, but rugby is the best spectator sport.
-by markadams999

>tossers in helmets and padding would collapse on a rugby field.

Not likely. The rugby players would have a brain hemorrhage the second they were tackled by an American Football player. There is a reason we wear helmets and padding: our footballers weigh 300 pounds, mostly solid muscle and tackle each other with the full force of it.

It is a complete myth that Brits are tougher because they don't wear gear; in fact they are foofoo Frenchmen compared to our guys.
-by economicliberty


I don't think many people in the US are excited by soccer or the world cup, but there are not a few fans, especially in college where it's considered cool and enlightened to like soccer, even if you don't really, because europeans are big fans.

And regarding pads and being tough: pads work two ways, they allow you not only to sustain more damage, but to deal more damage. You can do things such as charge full speed into an opponent wearing pads that would break bones and knock you silly without them. Yes, gigantic guys crushing into you without pads would be very bad for the crushee, but it would be for the crusher as well - that's why while rugby is a full-contact sport, you don't see NFL type guys doing NFL type tackles.
-by Christopher_Taylor

"But the fact is that its easy to get banged up by a 130 pound knock-kneed Brit on a rugby field without padding; now put that wanker on an American Football field in all the prissy padding and let him get hit by one of ours - 250 or 300 pounds of solid rock muscle, throwing him down on the ground, piling on him by twos and threes."

Dan Carter for the All Blacks might well be able to play in the NFL as a strong safety if he wasn't in rugby, but yeah - nationalist triumphalism aside - he'd definately want to do so in pads.

You're right that they don't have anything like linemen in Rugby, but the bigger players could play the secondary, running back, and possibly outside linebacker. I think that they lack the raw speed or size or strength of some of the NFL's positions, and they're definately under height pretty much across the board, but these are serious atheletes. Doug Flutie for instance would have been a great rugby player, maybe even a better rugby player than he was a quarterback and he was a darn fine QB.

Of course, the thing to keep in mind here is that even the best Rugby team in the world is drawing on a smaller pool of atheletes than any single NFL team. The All-Blacks have roughly the same pool of available atheletes as one of the larger college teams. If New Zealand was sending players to the NFL instead of Rugby, it would probably send one or two a year. Still, I've little reason to believe that the Kiwi's couldn't field a respectable football team. In fact, they are one of the few places in the world outside the US that I think could.

While I'm on the subject of not appreciating the subtlty and atheletic ability of sports you aren't familiar with, I use to say that NFL offensive linemen could easily push around Sumo wrestlers. I assumed looking at them that they were just tubs of lard that relied only on thier size, much as rugby players feel about American football players. That was until I saw a top Sumo wrestler lift a 300 lb guy up to his shoulder and with the delicacy of a ballerina, while balancing only on the toes of one foot, neatly slam the guy out of the ring with a 'German Suplex' (I don't know what the move is called in Japanese) while gingerly taking care that no part of his body touched the ground before his opponent did.

Since them I've been careful not to assume that people who love a sport don't know what they are doing when they play it.
-by Celebrim


Baseball is and always will be "America's Sport" and the "American Past Time"

It's about history, tradition, Teamwork, legends, and beacher seats.

Until anyone can name just 10 great american soccer players, that game will be justfied in america as a good way to get excersize and a good way to get some zzzzzzz's
-by wino


There is only one true sport and it is called college football.

That is all.
-by President_Friedman

Sports

Comment Type #20

THE ARCHIVE

One of the less-considered aspects of the internet is that everything that you have ever written, posted, or sent somewhere is saved. These files contain all the comments you've made, all the messages on message boards, records of where your IP address has traveled, the names of files that address has downloaded, etc. When you say something on a comment board, it's out there somewhere, if not forever, at least long enough that you may regret it.

The Archive comment is one in which things that a person has posted long ago are brought back up to make a point, have some fun, or repeat something particularly accurate or thoughtful. Often this kind of comment will be a series of previous posts, or excerpts from them containing information that a person said about themselves or about a topic. This often is used to point out a change of opinion or an embarrassing inconsistency.

For example, someone may have claimed to be in the military in the past, and when pressed was unable to accurately and realistically depict certain aspects of this military life. Months pass, and this person makes the claim again in an attempt to argue from authority, and the archive post will reveal the inconsistent details of the past.

Hypocrisy is sometimes pointed out by this sort of post, especially if someone complains a lot about spelling or profanity and rudeness, then is particularly rude or writes a terrible sentance. The archive post will detail these previous complaints.

But an archive is not always insulting or an attack, sometimes it can be a gesture of respect or a quote of something particularly well-said or to the point. This kind of archive is similar to quoting from any other source on the internet, in this case, it just happens to be of someone's comment from the past.

Archives bring up two things to remember when posting on comment and message boards. First, remember that what you've said in the past can be recovered and quoted again, so try to be consistent and tell the truth - lies will come back and bite you. Second, remember great things people have said, even save them off, because they can be useful for a discussion later on. Archive posts are not considered bad manners on the internet, but they can be a bit tedious if that's all you have to offer. Simply throwing something that a person said in the past in their face for the sake of an insult is little more than a flame and might not be welcome.

Comments

Quote of the day

"When your world view is made up entirely of round holes, your mind is a lathe that can turn everything into a cylinder."
-James Lileks

Quotes

I WANT MY RIGHTS

"In America, no other distinction between man and man had ever been known but that of persons in office exercising powers by authority of the laws, and private individuals. Among these last, the poorest laborer stood on equal ground with the wealthiest millionaire, and generally on a more favored one whenever their rights seem to jar." -Thomas Jefferson

One of the most important, but least understood concepts for a republic to survive is the idea of what rights are. People call for civil rights, demand their rights, call upon the bill of rights. The Declaration of Independence says this about rights:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

And the US Constitution says this:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

We must as a people understand what rights are and are not to have an orderly and survivable republic, to have a future to hand down to later generations and a legacy to be proud of in any nation.

Rights are a tricky thing to define, because to do so typically reveals an agenda or at the very least certain unquestioned assumptions you hold about life and what it means. To use Francis Schaeffer's term, your worldview. For example, modern liberals define rights differently than modern conservatives, who are different from classical liberals such as Thomas Jefferson, while libertarians define rights in a different way. To find the "true" definition is difficult due to this conflict of opinions and due to how the word is used differently in each context and setting.

But without a shared idea of what rights mean, we are unable to call for, defend, or reject as false different claims of rights. Is marriage a right, as the court Loving v. Virginia claims? Is raising a child a right? Is privacy a right? And what rights is the government compelled to protect and provide? Do rights issue from government or from some other source? How we answer these and other questions defines the direction of our nation and society and how we'll answer other questions as they rise in the future.

For example, the presumption that marriage is a right raises a great deal of possible conflict in the future. If everyone has a right to marriage, then should the government provide a suitable spouse? Can someone say no to a proposal if that's your right? What are the limits on who or even what one can marry if it is a right? If marriage is a binding contract, how can it be a right?

To understand this, we must distinguish between five different concepts, which to some degree or another are often confused or blended. Before we can know what a right is, it is useful to consider what it is not. To a certain degree, some of these overlap in some areas, as we will see. These five concepts are, (in addition to rights):

• Freedoms: things any citizen can attempt, regardless of law or morality
• Necessities: things the citizen needs in order to function or survive
• Privileges: things the citizen can enjoy if they fulfill certain requirements
• Responsibilities: things the citizen is obligated to provide

FREEDOMS: While many freedoms are rights, some are not. Everyone is free in a republic to choose the job they wish, for example. You may have no chance at successfully obtaining this job, and the job they desire or gain may be illegal or even immoral (hit man), but you are free to seek this job. Freedoms in this sense are generally separate from ought, that is, they are not restricted by law or responsibility. One is free to kill or steal or lie about eating Bon Bons all day, but one ought not do so. Freedoms are the most often confused with rights - being free to do something does not mean one has the right to do this thing.

This is the one area of the Declaration of Independence where Thomas Jefferson truly dropped the ball. Jefferson got his triad of basic rights from John Locke; Life, Liberty, and Property. But he substituted the right of property with pursuit of happiness as if it some how could ever be denied someone the ability to attempt to be happy. Being happy is a freedom, it is something you can try to do without restriction, to varying degrees of temporary success.

Freedoms are nearly limitless in this sense, one can attempt nearly anything in this life, even to fly if they are fantastical enough. One is free to do almost anything, but this does not mean that anyone is obliged to assist, permit, or encourage you in this attempt. In many cases, society has laws to prevent such activity, and sanity prohibits others (the attempt to leap across the Grand Canyon, for instance).

NECCESSITIES: For the most part, this category is not difficult to understand and grasp. Every human being has certain basic necessities of life, things without a minimum of which they cannot survive or function in society. Food and air, for example, are very obvious necessities. Shelter is a necessity, but beyond this the necessities become more difficult to defend and argue. Life-saving medical care is a necessity, without which one would perish. Lacking a necessity negates one's ability to be a citizen or live at all. Without necessities, one has no rights.

There are many things without which life become very unpleasant and difficult, but which are not truly necessary to function or survive. Employment, for example, is very important not only for wages but for the well-being of someone's psyche, for their sense of worth and accomplishment. Human contact is very miserable to do without and if sufficiently withheld can be damaging to someone's mental stability.

Certain things, however, are not necessities, no matter how much we may wish them to be or like them. Sex is a classic example, while it can be unpleasant and for some unthinkable to do without sexual activity, it is not a necessity, one can function and survive without any sex, even if they are in a long-term relationship. Art is another thing that while it greatly enhances life and the lack would be dreary and tedious, is not a necessity.

PRIVILEGES: These are acts or items that one gains through personal effort, luck, or merit. Privileges are luxuries, things which make no significant impact on someone's life other than enjoyment, things which can be abandoned entirely without threatening one's life and utility in a community. This is where sexual activity properly belongs, rather than necessity. Sexual Activity is a privilege, something that is engaged in by those who have earned a certain trust and maturity, who are in a setting that allows this behavior. Privileges can be taken away from someone due to their not earning these benefits or for not having the means to procure them. Often, exercising a right is a privilege in its self. One has the right to property and liberty but if they have broken the law they have forfeited the privilege of exercising those rights.

Having an internet connection at all is a privilege, not a necessity, a responsibility, or a right. Being well-paid is a privilege, being a football star is a privilege. Privileges are reserved for the few and are not required for any. Immigrating to a nation is a privilege, not a right or a necessity, to list a more topical and "hot-button" issue.

RESPONSIBILITIES: Responsibilities are those duties and acts which a citizen must carry out to remain a citizen or a proper member of society. One has a responsibility to obey the laws of a society, not a privilege or right, and not a necessity - one can refuse to follow these laws and survive, if not prosper. One has a responsibility to raise their own children, one has a responsibility to vote in a republic, one has a responsibility to respect the rights of others. Each citizen has a responsibility to work to benefit society in some manner, whether gainful employment, volunteering, or beneficial efforts through their influence on family and neighbors.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
This last concept is often dismissed or misunderstood by modern citizens who are more focused on personal enjoyment, liberty and life than on the culture and society they find themselves in. While each person enjoys rights and personal liberty in a republic, each person has a responsibility to those around them and the society as a whole. This concept is called the "Social Contract" which was best described and explained by Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England from the mid 1700's:

And this is what we mean by the original contract of society...that the whole should protect all its parts, and that every part should pay obedience to the will of the whole; or, in other words, that the community should guard the rights of each individual member, and that (in return for this protection) each individual should submit to the laws of the community; without which submission of all it was impossible that protection could be certainly extended to any.

That is to say; each member of a society gains benefits from being in that society, but in order to gain those benefits must be a productive member. They have to defend the rights of others, submit to the laws and will of the society, and protect the other members of the community while in return being protected by those laws and the fellow citizens.

The Social Contract is an agreement by the members of a community to work together for civilization and the betterment of all. In this effort, certain privileges are given up by it's members, such as the desire to act however they desire without concern of harm to others. The idea of the Social Contract was written about and considered by Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) and this concept was the foundation of what the United States was based upon, among others. These men argued that without this Social Contract, society dissolves and civilization ends, reducing people to a barbaric "natural state" without law, structure, or benefits of society.

Free citizens are free, insofar as they do not violate the freedom of others and do not damage society to such a degree that they interfere with the general benefit of the other members of the contract. All government is, in essence, an agreement - a contract - between the governed and the governor. Even the most heinous tyranny only exists and continues as long as the citizens allow it to. In a republic, this is more pronounced, with the citizens in more direct control of their destiny and government. But all citizens work together toward a common, shared goal of peace, prosperity, comfort, and safety in any government. Those who violate this contract are punished based on the agreed upon contract as codified through law.

This idea of the social contract, while mocked and dismissed by some, is the basis for government and is an important idea to understand when considering rights and responsibilities. If one is part of this contract, then rights have to be understood in the light of this contract, not as a free, unrestrained personal source of endless liberty. This is why, even though we have the right to liberty, it can be taken away by the state if one has proven to violate the social contract to a sufficient degree. Your rights presume a certain adherence to the social contract, just like the rights of any contracting party are within the agreements of that contract.

Rights and Responsibilities always go hand in hand, there is never a wholly free and unrestricted right of any kind. You have the right of free speech in many countries, but in none of those is this right completely free so that there are no restrictions or is the responsibility to use this wisely and properly negated. "Your right to swing your fist ends at my face," to quote John Stewart Mill.

RIGHTS
With an understanding of what rights are not helps us to know what rights are as a citizen and a human being. All people, whether citizens of a country or not, equally have certain rights. These rights cannot be removed, but they can be crushed and the free exercise of them can be prevented by tyranny. Whether one is able to exercise these rights or not, they are still owned and part of each human being of any age, gender, or status. These rights are described in the Declaration of Independence as self evident, inalienable, and given by the creator. This three-part definition of rights is what the entire concept of liberty, justice, and rights were based upon in the United States for over a century. Recently, these concepts have all three come under attack, despite their being the foundation of this nation and the basis for rights that the founding fathers formed the nation upon and understood.

Inalienable: rights that are said to be absolute, not transferable to another power, and incapable of repudiation.

Self Evident: clearly understood through examination of human nature, obvious to any who study and comprehend rights – not so obvious that they require no examination

God-Given: rights are not the result of government benevolence or personal effort, but are part and parcel of being a human. Not awarded by human power. Rights are part of a human being and a consequence of being alive, thus issue from a transcendent authority.

Thus, in order to be a right, something has to share certain characteristics.

• It has to be something that all human beings share regardless of their status, age, or gender.
• It has to be something that cannot be taken away, although their free exercise can be restricted. It has to be something that everyone can exercise, not simply a few or limited class.
• It has to be something that can be restricted or that can have it’s exercise prevented or it is no longer a right, but a fact of life, a natural law (such as gravity). Thus, rights must be something the government can defend and restrict. Were it something a government could not defend or restrict, it would be something that cannot be prevented and thus would cease to be a right and would simply be part of nature.
• It cannot require someone else to be exercised, or they would cease to be inalienable – they would cease to exist simply by someone not being a part of your activity. The exercise of a right does not require another person, either (freedom of speech does not imply requirement to be heard, for example). Rights are individual and personal in this sense.
• It is held and exists regardless of the location of a person. This is why rights are so basic, they are part of being a human, they are essential parts of humanity in that they are carried in all situations. One has the right to life, liberty, and property in all areas because they are inalienable, the position one occupies does not change their existence. Certain laws may prevent the exercise of a right in certain areas or situations, but the right remains.

Rights are not like laws of nature in that they can be violated but still maintained. For example, one can prevent you from speaking, despite the fact that you have a right to say what you please about public affairs. But one cannot prevent the law of entropy from taking place or gravity from its pull. A right is a legal, moral, and traditionally just claim that any human can make for themselves regardless of other persons or location.

TAKING AWAY RIGHTS
It is not actually possible to remove a right, they are part of being a human and are inalienable. However, a force more powerful than the person involved can prevent the free exercise of rights. In the social contract, all members of the community agree to certain laws and restrictions on their rights – one has a right to liberty, but not to unlimited liberty, especially at the expense of others, for example. Usually these restrictions are to guarantee the free exercise of rights to all. If one had the freedom to kill others, this would negate their ability to exercise their right to life.

When this contract is violated, the community takes upon its self the duty and burden of restricting the rights of the violator. They broke the law, and as a result have lost the privilege of exercising some of their rights. Punishment such as fines, imprisonment, and the death penalty are all examples of having the free exercise of rights taken away from a person as a result of their violating the social contract.

Government is given the power by it’s citizens to exercise this duty, to punish lawbreakers and issue laws that restrict the free exercise of rights. Such limitation must be done not for power or ideology, but rather because the failure to do so would result in the loss of free exercise or the endangerment of other members of the society. The social contract that all who live in a community defines these restrictions.

NATURAL VERSUS CONSTRUCTED RIGHTS
What we have been discussing are Natural Rights, rights that all citizens bear and have regardless of age, location, or status. However, there is a second kind of right that is discussed and used in our culture. These are Constructed Rights, rights that are given to citizens by government rather than by God and protected by government. Such rights are not properly rights at all, but are rather freedoms, privileges, or responsibilities. These rights are ones such as Voting or Marriage. Such activities are protected in their exercise by government and given their existence by law, but are neither inalienable or self-evident, nor do they issue from a transcendent authority, but instead local and human authority. They are powers given citizens by the government that they can choose to take or not take part of.

Properly understood, constructed rights are where the idea of President Reagan's Positive and Negative rights come from. For President Reagan, positive rights are those granted by government through action, and negative rights are those the citizens exercise while free of government influence and power. Positive "rights" would be ones such as the right to a job and health care. Negative "rights" would be the right to be left alone and run a business without government intervention. For President Reagan, negative rights are the most potent and valuable for liberty in a nation because the government tends to restrict freedoms by it's exercise of power.

The problem with calling these rights is that they become confused with basic rights such as Life, Liberty, and Property. Such constructed rights are not of the same category or nobility as natural rights, as they exist only as part of a structure of laws and government, issue from these laws and government, and are not a natural part of being a human. Such rights are not really rights at all because they do not issue naturally and inevitably from being alive and human. However, an examination of some of these is necessary to understand the difference.

VIOLATING RIGHTS
In the purest sense, it is not possible to violate someone’s rights. The only thing that someone can do is violate the exercise of these rights. Killing someone does not negate their right to life, it simply negates the exercise of that right. It is more cumbersome but significantly more accurate then to speak not of violating rights, but violating freedoms or exercise of rights.

NOT RIGHT
Some things that are and have been declared as rights are, therefore, not natural rights at all.

For instance, in 1967 the US Supreme Court examined a case where a man and a woman were arrested for being married because one was black and one was white. At the time, Virginia was one of 16 states that outlawed such marriages. The court declared that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. They ruled that marriage is a right, and thus is protected by the 14th amendment which states in part:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, marriage by its definition requires two people and thus cannot be a right. Marriage is more properly a privilege, something that certain people can achieve by merit or effort, but it cannot be a right, because it requires by definition at least two members. If a right requires more than one person it can be prevented from existing simply by someone else refusing. This right is alienated from me – prevented from my owning it – by someone else simply refusing me. The exercise of such a mythical right would require someone else to be part of the activity. This violates the definition of a natural right.

No one has a right to child birth. Not only is this something only women can do, but only some women, of the correct age, biological ability, and health. A right must be shared by all humans or it is no longer a natural right.

Each right must be examined in the light of what rights truly are. No one has a right to a job, no one has a right to good pay, no one has a right to be healthy. These may be privileges that the government desires to extend to it’s citizens, but they cannot be defined as or insisted on as rights. No one has a right to live in the United States, but citizens are extended legal protection and privilege to do so.

Voting is not a right. One does not have an innate, inalienable right to vote, except as an expression of the right to speak freely. Voting is a responsibility of citizenship and a privilege of being a certain age. The right to vote is a construct of government rather than a natural right.

GOVERNMENT AND RIGHTS
A right is not granted by government. This is a critical distinction, one that is deeply important to remember. A right exists even if government does not, it is part of the very nature of being human, inalienable and God-given. Government is a device by which a society works together to protect and allow the free exercise of rights that are already held by each and every citizen. That is the purpose of government, to be the will of the members of the social contract to defend rights and protect the people.

Rights are dictated to the government through laws by citizens of a republic. For example, the United States Government is told through the codified will of the people - the Constitution – what rights the government is to protect and guarantee the free exercise of. Rights are held by citizens separate from and outside the purview of government, not because of it. All government can do is protect the exercise of these rights or prevent them through the force of law and arms.

CITIZENS AND RIGHTS
It is a fact, however, that as powerful a force as government is for the guarantor of the exercise of rights, it is not the only or perhaps the most powerful. Individual citizens are the best protectors of the free exercise of individual rights, for a government may demand that all be free to take certain actions, but if the people refuse to allow it or shame its exercise to the point of negation, then no amount of government efforts will matter. More importantly, a government may try to prohibit the free exercise of a right, but if the citizens protect and encourage it, the government can do little to prevent this, and never for long.

Citizens have a responsibility and a duty in the social contract to personally defend the rights of fellow citizens not only for their own benefit (each protecting each other) but because these rights are part of the necessary and good exercise of humanity. It would be immoral not to protect these rights. Citizens carry the greatest responsibility and duty to protect these rights, although they delegate some of the power to the government to act in their place.

LAST THOUGHTS
The works of John Locke postulated the three basic rights of humanity (although these are not the only three): Life, Liberty, and Property. These rights are a hierarchy of rights, descending in order of magnitude by necessary consequence.

If one is not alive, they have no rights at all, thus life is the primary right of all humanity. After this comes liberty, for if one is not free, one cannot exercise any right other than life, such as property. The right to property is possible only to exercise if the previous two rights are guaranteed and protected. This hierarchy is useful to understand certain rights and responsibilities a citizen has.

For example, the Roe v Wade decision declared that a woman has a right to privacy (which is proper and reasonable), and thus can choose what to do with her own body. This is true, to such an extent as it does not violate other people’s free exercise of their rights, and as long as its exercise is subject to the higher rights in this hierarchy. Certainly under no circumstances can any person defend the killing of another person due to the desire for privacy. Your exercise of your right to privacy does not permit the ending of another person’s life.

Another example would be the exercise of religion. One has a right to their faith and beliefs, but not to the extent to which this exercise would violate the free exercise of other’s rights. Thus, claiming that your free exercise of religion requires you to cut the head off infidels is not a proper right or exercise thereof.

The understanding of these rights and what they mean changes the entire character of a discussion of rights and the arguments being presented by pundits and writers. A true understanding of what rights are, a comprehension of what rights are not and the nature of government and these rights in proper relationship would be incredibly beneficial to our nation and world.

For more on this concept of rights and what they mean, Walter Williams has an excellent perspective.

Essays

A DAY IN THE TUNNEL

Under Moscow runs the Lefortovo Tunnel, a recently completed throughway that runs for almost two miles, making it the longest in-city tunnel in Europe. Part of the Tunnel runs beneath the Moskva (Moscow) River, which like all tunnels leaks slightly. This video is taken on a day when the temperature was -38 farenheit this winter, and a few security cameras catch the unfortunate mayhem, courtesy YouTube.

I just can't imagine what it would have been like to be in the back of that bus, bouncing around like popcorn.

Movies

STOP BIG LAW!

who is it working well for? Americans or greedy, thieving, counterproductive lawyers?

The law firm Milberg Weiss has been one of the most prominent and successful legal firms in history, a firm that has been involved in many giant class-action lawsuits from Amazon.com to Vermont Teddy Bear and all points in between. Milberg Weiss sued over the Exxon Valdez disaster, they sued for more than $500 million in HMO cases. This is one of the biggest ambulance chaser legal firms in the world, one that has been immensely successful.

A federal grand jury returned an indictment alleging fraud, corruption, and kickbacks at the firm, which is being prosecuted under RICO statutes. The indictment notes that this firm carried a number of plaintiffs on retainer, according to the New York Sun:

Two top Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schlman LLP partners, David Bershad and Steven Schulman, were charged personally with criminal racketeering conspiracy. In addition, prosecutors are demanding that the firm forfeit $216.1 million, the sum Milberg Weiss earned in cases allegedly tainted by illegal kickbacks.

These payments were used to get a jump on other legal firms in the drive to sue businesses, allowing them first access to file and thus win damages.

Ms. Yang said the secret payments to plaintiffs in Milberg Weiss securities cases totaled at least $11.3 million. "Because of the secret kickback arrangement, Milberg Weiss had a stable of individuals ready and willing to serve as paid plaintiffs," she said. The prosecutor said the scheme gave the firm an unfair advantage over its competitors, at least until 1995, when a change in the law reduced the importance of being among the first to file a specific case.

The firm, a huge Democrat politician donor that gave over a million dollars to the Democrat party before such donations were banned in 2002, was quick to blame politics:

In an interview last night, an attorney for Milberg Weiss, William Taylor III, stopped just short of alleging that the indictment was political.

"It's very clear that cheering will be heard from Wall Street all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," he said. "This plays into the hands of political demagogues who like to rail against trial lawyers as if they were responsible for all the miseries of society."

As Captain Ed notes in the Captains Quarters blog entry:

Perhaps this might convince people that we need to consider tort reform in order to take the lure of the monster paydays out of the legal process. The tort system exists to ensure that the wronged are made whole to the best extent possible, not to make attorneys richer than rock stars. Too often we see plaintiffs in these suits wind up with next to nothing even when the verdict goes their way, their reimbursement spread out over many people, while the attorneys take home millions of dollars paid by defendants with deep pockets. It's time to return our system of justice to the pursuit of justice, and not a slot machine exploited by shady lawyers.

Commenters made their case:

I was solicited as a plaintiff in a couple of class action suits. In one, the lawyers got millions, while the plaintiffs would receive $50.00 off closing costs - if they closed on a mortgage with the same bank within some fairly short period of time - i.e. 1-2 years. In other words, the lawyers got everything.

In another, my share of a judgement was going to be something like a dollar - but it would have cost me $1.32 to opt out - mail a letter to three different addresses...

Tort reform. Now. Preferably loser pays winner's legal fees.
-by MarkD

Why exactly is it that all of the brilliant lawyer politiicians in the Democrat Party (e.g. Hillary!) have so many suggestions on how to reform our health care system, but so few ideas on how to reform our legal system?

Is it because it's working so well? And who is it working well for? Americans or greedy, thieving, counterproductive lawyers?

Hilllary doesn't know a damn thing about delivering health care, but presumably she knows something about our legal system. Maybe after tossing a battleship full of softball questions at Lady Hillary and other Democrat politician-attorneys, an antique media member can ask them about our broken legal system.
-by NoDonkey

Ed:

You're unfortunately conflating class action litigation with run-of-the-mill tort claims. The federal "Class Action Fairness Act" was enacted just last year. Hopefully, it will curb many of the abuses, but nothing is guaranteed.

With respect to regular personal injury claims, I think that it's kind of silly for conservatives to attack the notion of plaintiff's attorneys making money, because it's the plaintiff's attorneys that assume all the risk when taking a case on contingency. This means that the courthouse doors are open to those who otherwise could not afford a lawyer to purse relief for injuries that they suffer as the result of others' misfeasance or malfeasance.

The best tort reform would be for the States to appoint judges who follow the law, and who are willing to grant dismissal or summary judgment against meritless claims. But too many judges are afraid to grant dispositive motions because they are less likely to be reversed on appeal if they simply allow the case to proceed and push the parties toward settlement. This is the biggest problem in our current tort system, and it's not going to be solved by placing caps on damages or attorneys' fees.
-by SWLiP

SWLip said:
"With respect to regular personal injury claims, I think that it's kind of silly for conservatives to attack the notion of plaintiff's attorneys making money, because it's the plaintiff's attorneys that assume all the risk when taking a case on contingency. This means that the courthouse doors are open to those who otherwise could not afford a lawyer to purse relief for injuries that they suffer as the result of others' misfeasance or malfeasance."

This is disingenuous at best. There is almost no risk borne by the plaintiff's attorney because the vast majority of cases are settled without a trial and the attorneys all know it. The cost of defending even a marginal or outright frivolous lawsuit is staggering.

Plaintiff's attorneys would love to have judges appointed. Instead of having to influence enough citizens to win an election to seat a particular attorney on the bench, they would only have to influence the governor or the appointing authority.

A big part of the answer is to require the losing party to pay reasonable attorney fees. Requiring the losing party to pay attorneys fees would not close the "courthouse doors" to an aggrieved party. It would just make plaintiff's lawyers much more careful in assessing potential cases.
-by AG

Next time Barbara Boxer joins Diane F. in denouncing the Republican culture of corruption, will anyone remember that she takes money from Millberg Weiss and delivers by way of stout opposition to tort reform? Fat chance...
-by John Van Laer

Be interesting to see how much play this gets in the MSM. This kind of corruption touches, in one way or another, every American. For example, ambulance chasers have succeeded in driving medical specialists out of practice in some areas of the country simply because the docs can't afford the malpractice insurance premiums that have been driven through the roof by frivolous lawsuits.

I'm not confident that this issue will get much play. For one thing, the MSM will assume that the issue is too complicated for the average American (who's mental ability, they think, is taxed to the utmost by trying to decide who to vote for on American Idol), and also because the trial lawyers are a major component of the liberal establishment. It's OK to try to connect ENRON to George Bush, but NO WAY are they going to chance connecting Milberg Weiss to DiFi or other prominent democrats.
-by docjim505

*UPDATE: Added links to a few references

Legal Issues

READING LINES

"POWER TO THE...line!...”
“People."
PEOPLE!”
“Keep rolling, we’ll fix it in post."

Something that can be easily forgotten is that the very essence and job of an actor is to read and deliver lines in a convincing and charismatic way. Some actors want to be taken more seriously than simply a thespian, and will be more politically active, such as Sean Penn, Charlton Heston, and Susan Sarandon. Often, however, the lines that the actors deliver in their political endeavors are no less artificial and unoriginal than the ones they are given to say by a script. Actor/Director Tim Robbins was interviewed in 2004 by the UK Guardian; Andrew Anthony gives the account, including this exchange:

He then explains that while, in the wake of 9/11, he could not bring himself to protest against the war in Afghanistan, he did not agree with the strategy of 'indiscriminate bombing'. If he had been president, he 'would have trained special ops to go do the job right' and not interfered with Afghanistan sovereignty. 'The democratic movement in any country has got to happen on its own. It's never going to happen through bombs and airplanes. Never going to happen that way.'

For the sake of historical accuracy I merely point out that there is a historical precedent for bombs and airplanes bringing democracy.

‘How? When?’ He sits up, suddenly rattled.

I mention Germany and Japan in the Second World War.

‘It seems to be that we always come back to that. I don’t know it didn’t happen without the determination of the people involved.’

I point out that it didn’t happen in East Germany, and he replies: ‘I’d have to go into the history and the specifics of that. It came at the end of the gun but with the influx of a huge amount of money: the Marshall Plan. In Iraq, the money is going into war-mongering. It has nothing to do with democracy. It’s about destabilisation. That’s what Kosovo was about. It’s the same thing any time there’s a threat to US national security.’ This is not the typical conversation one has with American film actors, and I feel a professional obligation to steer it back to more familiar territory such as marital infidelity and substance abuse (neither of which appear to loom large in the Robbins biography) but I recall something he had said in an interview some years back. ‘The only responsibility I have to anyone is to make sure that when I talk about something, I know what I’m talking about, that I’ve done the research. I take that responsibility very seriously. I read a lot.’

So I ask how Kosovo was a threat to US security.

‘Ahm ...’ he hesitates. ‘I believe ... I’m not the right person to talk about this ... but that region of the world, this is the way I’ve heard it put ... Can I go get a cigarette?’ He disappears and, as if having remembered his Noam Chomsky, returns a minute later with a ready-fit anti-imperialist answer. ‘Where it’s all flawed is this hegemonic belief that if you bring business to a country it will help them.’

Tim Blair carried this story, noting

As I understand it, the law in every Western democracy permits up to eight undefended punches for any public use of the word “hegemonic”. But I’ve never studied law. Could be as few as five.

and his commenters read their lines:

This confirms my suspicion, drawn from experience, that many actors can faithfully repeat words they read without the slightest comprehension of what they’ve just read.

“What’s that in the road… a head?”
“No, dear, the line is, ‘what’s that in the road ahead?’”

"POWER TO THE...line!...”
“People."
PEOPLE!”

“Keep rolling, we’ll fix it in post."
-by richard mcenroe

”...the law in every Western democracy permits up to eight undefended punches...”

What’s the equivilant in kicks to the jimmies?
-by JohnO

In the U.S., what is legally acceptable is determined by state or municipal law. In the one state, Louisiana,that is still heavily influenced by the Napoleanic Code, the assailant is entitled to 12 slaps or one kick to the, ah, jimmies (les gonades, in the strict legal definition). In North Carolina, one is entitled to a one-two combination, but neither punch is permitted to be landed on the same spot (there is a variance to state law operative in the town of North Wilkesboro which permits one chin punch with the butt-end of a squirrel rifle). New Jersey allows for two shots from a handgun to the knee of the hegemonaphile, but only with a caliber not to exceed .25 (since nobody in New Jersey carries a handgun of such small caliber, the law there is effectively inoperative).
-by paco

I know what you mean, Andrew. Actors are bad enough even if they seem like nice people and don’t have a political agenda; speaking for themselves, they just sound...dumb. And when they’re blowhards like Robbins, it’s painfully embarrassing.
-by Sonetka's Mom

David Sedaris comes to mind here -

“Fortunately, going to the movies seems to suddently qualify as an intellectual accomplishment, on a par with reading a book or devoting time to serious thought. It’s not that the movies have gotten any more strenuous, it’s just that a lot of people are as lazy as I am, and together we’ve agreed to lower the bar.”

The main problem with Sarandon, Robbins, Diaz and the rest of them is that society’s lack of time has meant that their pretty pictures are now an art form rather than a pleasant Sunday afternoon diversion. These days, to qualify as an intellectual, all you need is your Dendy membership card and a pair of nerdtrend black glasses. There’s no call for any real intelligence because leftist twats are terrified that they’ll leave someone out and that someone might be a member of a minority group. God forbid we alienate the black, one legged, lesbian dwarves.

At first their activism was funny, if a little pathetic, and I found the odd misinformed leftist comment to be a welcome change from blatherings about their “craft” and botox, but it’s getting to be irritating. And worse, the general public is pathetically star struck and unable to tell the difference between a genuine expert in his/her field (hint, no diet/divorce/bitchfight magazine covers) and a coked up starlet determined to make a “difference” and boost her multimillion dollar pay packet in the process.

Hollywood sucks.

"Robbins is not a politician and it is therefore a little unfair to parse his words, teasing out the contradictions and inconsistencies.”

This is my favourite line. Celebrities are mostly stupid, but even they know how much the public looks up to them, unlike politicians.
-by erin_j

Richard, thanks for reminding me.
From Benny Hill:

“...and next we’ll hear a song from Roy Orbison’s musical bum.”

off-stage: “That’s music ALBUM!”
-by Merlin

Michael Medved once remarked that in his experience, taken as a whole, Hollywood actresses are the stupidest group of people on the planet. Can Hollywood actors be far behind? Oh, I forgot, Tim Robbins isn’t a Hollywood actor:

He makes it clear that he doesn’t go in for Hollywood gossip. Indeed, he takes every opportunity to remind me that he doesn’t go in for Hollywood. He and Sarandon and their three children live in the more bohemian environment of downtown New York.

Yes, all real actor-intellectuals live in NY, London or France--anywhere, really, but in Hollywood. Hollywood is just so déclassé.

He then explains that while, in the wake of 9/11, he could not bring himself to protest against the war in Afghanistan, he did not agree with the strategy of ‘indiscriminate bombing’. If he had been president, he ‘would have trained special ops to go do the job right’ and not interfered with Afghanistan sovereignty. ‘The democratic movement in any country has got to happen on its own. It’s never going to happen through bombs and airplanes. Never going to happen that way.’

He would have trained, huh. What a monumental twit. Never in the history of American “bombs and airplanes” has the bombing been so discrete as in Afghanistan. Who would have guessed that Tim would be such a supporter of the oppressive Taliban. I am a little surprised, though, that he didn’t support Bill Clinton’s war. Usually leftists love a war in which the US has absolutely no strategic stake (notwithstanding Timmy’s assertion that Kosovo “threatened” national security).

This confirms my suspicion, drawn from experience, that many actors can faithfully repeat words they read without the slightest comprehension of what they’ve just read.

Exactly, except I would say “most actors”, or perhaps, “all actors except maybe one or two”. Reminds me of when Ed Asner spouts off in Free Mumia mode. One time a reporter had the audacity to ask if Asner had actually read the testimony about which he was expounding. He said, no he hadn’t, that it wasn’t his job. Righto, Ed, I’ll give you this, you know your job.

As playwright Lloyd Richards said to actress Margo Channing in the wonderful All About Eve:

I shall never understand the weird process by which a body with a voice suddenly fancies itself as a mind.

-by Kynda Sylvester


Tim Robbins politics are horrid, and as a member of the celebrity culture--constantly asked to do interviews--obviously, he can’t resist the temptation to tell people what he thinks, no matter how ill-formed his knowledge and opinions.

Yet, I must offer a nugget of a story regarding Robbins’ good works. Following the 9/11 terrorist attack on the WTC, he spent weeks volunteering his time and money doing good works for the families of NY firemen killed. And he did it without any desire for publicity. I only know about it because a good friend--a Lt. in the FDNY--drove him about to visit different fire stations, etc., in the course of this.

Doesn’t change much, as all kinds of people, from all walks of life, volunteered their time following 9/11, but it’s worth knowing he’s not 100% certifiable.
-by Forbes

I agree with paco’s and The Real JeffS’s comments. I want to add to it by asking a question. What would happen if a team of Army Rangers was captured by Mullah Omar and paraded down the main street of Kabul? How does the US extract a small team of soldiers when it has virtually no other forces in the area?

Answer: It can’t.

I’ll tell you what would happen instead. The Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandons would come out en masse and accuse their own country of heavy handed imperialist murderous actions against innocent people. They are gadflies with blinders on, holding neither a responsibility nor a desire for resolving very difficult issues. Instead, they want only to grandstand and make themselves feel special for basically selfish and conceited reasons.

Going further, what would be the reaction in the US to captured American soldiers? Conceivably, isolation, the raising of drawbridges, and the forming of an “everyone for themselves” geopolitical philosophy.

How is that a positive thing for the world in today’s turbulent and troublesome times?
-by wronright

Popular Culture

Comment Type #19

THE DRIVE BY

A Drive By comment is a message or comment left by someone who does not stay at a blog, maintain any sort of community, or return to discuss matters. This may be due to web browsing, moving through many blogs a day and touching on comments once in a while, then not returning. It may be due to someone who is afraid of or cannot handle disagreement very well.

Drive Bys often happens when a blog has a link to a site it disagrees with, such as how Right Wing News will sometimes visit the Democratic Underground and find comments that are offensive, ludicrous, or immature, then list them for all to see. This often will stir up commenters from the DU to visit RWN and leave a comment (often a trollish one) and never return.

Drive Bys are not so offensive by nature, they can be intelligent, funny, or contribute to the site. But by not returning to continue the discussion, they don't add very much to the board's community and do not make their point very well because any questions needing answer or clarification people might want are never provided by the original author.

Comments

Quote of the day

"America is like a healthy body, and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we [communists] can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."

-Josef Stalin

ORGANIZED TERROR?

Brazil is a beautiful land with beautiful women, but in Sao Paulo, things got ugly on Monday:

Rio de Janeiro - The largest gang offensive in Sao Paulo's history brought the city to a standstill Monday as shops, companies, schools and train stations closed amid an organized assault by drug gangs against Brazilian police and security forces.

At least 81 people have been killed since an offensive was launched Friday night by organized crime groups in Brazil's commercial capital, Sao Paulo, and outlying regions of Sao Paulo state.

...

An estimated 150 attacks took place within a 40-hour period over the weekend against police stations and patrol vehicles, military facilities and prison outposts.

But the drug gangs shifted tactics Sunday night and into Monday, extending their offensive beyond Sao Paulo state, setting about 90 buses on fire and attacking 11 banks and two subway stations with molotov cocktails and sporadic gunfire.

Sao Paulo's second largest airport, Congonhas, had to be closed Monday after a bomb threat.

'This is like war, a nightmare,' said a resident living next to a bank attacked in the Vila-Olimpia quarter of Sao Paulo.

The drug gangs were also blamed for uprisings by prisoners in at least 60 correctional facilities. Around 120 hostages were still being held Monday night at 25 prisons in Sao Paulo state.

Among the dead during the violence since Friday at police stations, jails and other sites were 39 police officers and prison guards, four civilian bystanders and 38 suspected gang members. Another 60 people have been wounded, and 20 men have been arrested.

It certainly sounds like a war. According to the BBC, about half of Brazil's jails are involved in riots. One of the problems Brazil faces is that not only were some parts of their cities essentially police-free crime zones, the police and military worked with criminal gangs to try to enforce order and now it's out of their control. Large sections of cities like Sao Paulo are shanty towns, little more than shacks built on the side of hills from cardboard, tin, and corrugated metal. These areas fester with crime and virtually no law. The Washington Post reports:

Leaders of First Capital Command gang, or PCC, reportedly used cellphones to order the attacks. Gang members then riddled police cars with bullets, hurled grenades at police stations and attacked officers at their homes and after-work hangouts. On Sunday night, the gang employed a new tactic: sending gunmen onto buses, ordering passengers and drivers off, and torching the vehicles.

And BBC online has background:

The violence is an escalation of what many in Sao Paulo are calling a war between the state authorities and the First Command of the Capital (PCC) criminal faction, the BBC's Brazil correspondent Steve Kingstone says.

The attacks and riots began on Friday after 700 jailed PCC members were transferred to higher-security facilities.

The Gulf Times reported that

"We are in a true war against the mafia," said chief of Sao Paulo’s military police Elizeu Borges. State Governor Claudio Lembo refused an offer from the federal government to deploy 4,000 national guardsmen to Sao Paulo, though President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said the forces stood ready to intervene and help contain the violence.

‘What happened in Sao Paulo was a provocation, a demonstration of organised crime’s strength,’ President Lula said late Monday.

The crime war finally began to subside when the government had talks and showed the crime bosses were safe, according to Channel News Asia:

Order was restored in 73 prisons hit by gang-launched uprisings Monday, after prison officials negotiated the release of 195 hostages.

Local media reported that the jailed PCC leader had met government officials in prison to reach a negotiated settlement, but state governor Claudio Lembo has denied any talks had taken place.

The head of the prison system, Nagashi Furukawa, told reporters Tuesday that he had allowed a lawyer to visit Marcola on Sunday and report that the gang leader had not been harmed.

Lalia Christina from the Brazilian blog The Pawnshop had this update:

The PCC [one of the crime gangs] power lies on its complex web of inmates' connections. Members of this group pay monthly fees to keep heavy weapons, munitions, lawyers, and also to infiltrate cellphones and drugs in jails. The PCC was founded in 1993 in São Paulo's Taubate Penitentiary supported by international terrorist organizations and became involved in drug and arms trafficking, kidnappings, bank robberies and extortion.

To me, this is a clear image of a failed law enforcement. There is no safety in this country. These folks from PCC can do whatever they want to. They can start a war if it is needed one. I could just state: "I'm glad I don't live in São Paulo anymore", but I acutally can't. My entire family still lives there. My best friends work in São Paulo city. I've got relatives in the city too. I don't want any harm happening to any of them. Besides, this criminal group leads outlaws around Brazil. Oh gosh! I wish It didn't end up being this CHAOTIC!

At the Belmont Club, Wretchard draws some parallels between these highly organized, violent criminals and terrorists. The only major difference, he notes, is a spokesman to make their grievances political:

All the Brazilian gangsters really lacked to reach the first rank of villains was a good pitchman to cast their depredations in terms of some politically respectable cause; a task theoretically made easier because the gang leaders had roots in Third World slums instead of being billionaires like Osama Bin Laden. But the pitchmen may come later. Money can buy respectable apologists and not simply for cults.

In his commentary, Wretchard goes on to point out the similarities, noting sarcastically about al`Qaeda that...

All they want after all is simply to conquer the world and subjugate it using weapons of mass destruction and unrestrained savagery. That is so much more reasonable than the irrational desire to sell drugs for profit and prevent the transfer of gang leaders to a different jail cell.
...
Thomas Barnett believed the world was better described not in terms of its Muslim and non-Muslim parts but as being divided between a Functioning Core and a Non-Integrating Gap: between localities that "worked" and those which were falling apart. But if Barnett is conceptually right the problems of peace in the 21st century are rooted in the difference between the Core and Gap; between the world's gleaming cities and its seething hinterlands. The War on Terror is really the Struggle Against Chaos, a chaos that is riding the wings of Globalization. If so what institutions does the Core have to deal with problems like ultra-powerful Third World gangs, militias and terrorist organizations? The UN, aid agencies and NGOs have proved no match for them in the past and nothing has come forward to take their place.

Commenters considered this:

too soon to tell yet. but there may arise citizen groups -- i.e., coordinated vigilante organizations that use the same tactics. If failed and failing governments cannot keep or restore order then individuals will...

...our southwestern states are beginning to resemble failed states. No one can rein in the chaos or curb the expense and damage to the infrastructure, so voila, The Minuteman Project.

This is not a phenomenon we can escape, only postpone.
-by Dymphna


wretchard said:
"If so what institutions does the Core have to deal with problems like ultra-powerful Third World gangs, militias and terrorist organizations?"

Newspapers? (no, they think every gangster is the second coming of Che)
Broadcast TV? (no, they love the guys that make snuff shows)
Universities? (no, gangsters get immediate tenure)

The organization that can deal with networked gangsters will have to be equally fast and violent.

It may sound silly, but the 'beat cop' must get with the times. Newspapers, broadcast TV and universities vilify the 'beat cop', but that is where the rubber meets the road.

Watch the movie 'Untouchables' for details on the basic archetype.
-by nonomous


I'm glad someone finally grouped these similar organizations together.

It is simple , really. Al Queda is and always was a criminal gang. Forget that we should treat them as common criminals due to their international nature and their avowed goals of bringing down governments.

dymphna & nonomous are both on the right track. The antidote to such an organization would look something like the UN peacekeepers but with accountability throughout the ranks and with effective leadership.
-by enscout


I suspect that the modern era is unusually hard on community institutions that tie people together, as government and employer both are very impersonal and bureaucratized. With the rise of modern communications technologies, which make organizing groups much easier, I think "unofficial" replacements for those institutions are arising.

In America, we have online communities we can access from our own bedrooms instead. However, our government is not (for the most part) dysfunctional, so we don't create a substitute for it. Other countries may not be as lucky.
-by Mycroft

So what parts of the world can be considered functioning right now? North America, much of South America, the European Union, Putin?s Russia, Japan and Asia?s emerging economies (most notably China and India), Australia and New Zealand, and South Africa, which accounts for roughly four billion out of a global population of six billion.

Even within nation-states there is this divide, between those who have merged into the globalization freeway and those who have been flattened on the on-ramp. And the fact that the more people who have merged, the farther ahead they move beyond those who have not is a sign of trouble to come. When the average Singaporean has twice the income of the average Indonesian there is irritation; when the gap is five- or tenfold there is violent outrage. Given that being on the outside looking in doesn't prevent you from using the modern world's technology against it (viz., ramming aircraft into office towers with only a handful of box cutters as weapons), such technology will offer the functioning parts of the world little haven.

One could also imagine sections of much of the modern world lapsing into dysfunction - the slums in LA or Paris, large chunks of Rio and Sao Paolo (indeed much of South America once the world moves away from its overpriced oil), etc. So it will not be nearly as much an interstate problem as one demanding interstate cooperation against distinct but similar interior foes.
-by Evan


Uhm, while the press are using the term "gangs", they are actually leftist political organizations. If you dig into it you discover these are agitation groups with connections to the communist party. I also suspect that if someone digs even deeper, they will find a link to Venezuela somewhere in the money trail.

The difference between past communist movements in that area of the world and this one is that this one is backed by Venezuelan oil revenue.
-by crosspatch


You need to be really, really careful about analyses, like Barnett's, that the world has changed and the old rules don't apply. Too often, we get sucked into the newest management consulting fad with "net centric warfare" or "4th generational conflict." Maybe we would be better off reading Thucydides and assuming the nature of Man has not changed.
-by Joshua Chamberlain


Wretchard said ... "But the pitchmen may come later. Money can buy respectable apologists and not simply for cults."

Yes, money can buy such people. Yet money is not always required. MEMRI reports today that Noam Chomsky was recently in Beirut meeting with Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah. Here are some choice quotes:

"According to Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV network, Professor Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) visited Hizbullah headquarters this week, meeting with the organization's secretary-general Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in a Beirut suburb as well as with other Hizbullah leaders. The U.S. State Department lists Hizbullah as a "terrorist organization." (1) It should be noted that Sheikh Nasrallah frequently calls for the destruction of the U.S.(2)"

Al-Manar goes on to state, "When asked about the U.S. list of terrorist states, he [Chomsky] said [that] if the U.S. was to stick to the clear and precise definition of terrorism in its code of laws, it would be the leading terrorist state."(3)

Link to MEMRI dispatch

Beyond shameful.
-by Starling David Hunter

Personally, I see this as a conflict that's been active since the world began, good versus evil. It takes different guises and different masks, but it's the same old story. For a time, we were able to isolate ourselves from the raw nature of this conflict by time and technology, but the technology is getting so widespread and cheaply available that the barriers will not protect us and isolation is no use. We'll have to face this evil once again, and face it with courage, honor, and strength that the west has largely lost due to sloth and ease.

Terrorism

BUZZWORDS

"Do you get extra points for anticipating next year's buzzwords, or is that generally frowned-upon?"

There is a tendency among some to cling to the latest buzz phrases or words to demonstrate how very hip and "now" they are. This is similar to the tendency to drop pop-culture references in to every sentence in a sort of overly trendy MTV version of Dennis Miller. The Blue Cat has an idea for a game, based on his experiences with attempting to sell a script to producers who know little about writing but like certain words because they seem relevant. Here's the setup:

Buzzword Bingo

A game for two players. Player 1 ('The Producer') faces Player 2 ('The Writer') across a large desk.

The Producer has in his hand a sheet of paper, on which is written a list of words, known as 'Buzzwords'. These words are changed each financial year. The Writer is not allowed to see these words, although the rules do allow him to memorize a number of Buzzwords from the previous game.

The Buzzwords for last year, for example, were: 'grotesque', 'dark', uncomfortable', 'surreal', 'single camera' and 'trag-com'.

The Writer suspects that Buzzwords this year are: 'family', 'warm', 'silly', 'multi-camera', 'bold' and 'trad-com', but without being able to see the Producer's piece of paper, he has no way of knowing.

The game begins when Producer offers the Writer a cup of coffee, or glass of water. The Writer turns this offer down, or, if he wants to use the Tortured Genius Gambit and asks for a glass of water and a neurofen, then the game begins.

The Writer must attempt to use as many current Buzzwords as possible in the time allotted for the meeting. Each time the Writer guesses a correct and current Buzzword the Producer will Lean Forward In An Interested Way. Each time the Writer accidentally uses one of the previous years Buzzwords, the Producer will Wince Uncomfortably.

If the writer manages to get five Buzzwords in a row, the Producer will jump up from his chair and shout 'House!' (nothing to do with Hugh Laurie). The Writer will be declared the winner, and must return to his base to await news from his agent.


UPDATE: apparently Buzzword Bingo already exists as an actual teambuilding game. Dear god in heaven. Possible alternative names: Cliché Seesaw, The Shibboleth Shuffle, Wanker's Tennis.

Naturally, such a game has variants for all sorts of different jobs. Commenters played along:

Do you get extra points for anticipating next year's buzzwords, or is that generally frowned-upon?

Don't forget "studio audience" by the way. That's very 2006/07. Or are you in 2007/08 in commissioning terms? It's all terribly confusing.
-by Pashmina


Buzzword bingo is also played by web-development freelancers, when meeting a prospective client.

This year's "hot topics" are "xajax", "frameworks", "Ruby on Rails" and "code refactoring". Bonus points are scored for the client dropping any of these into the conversation in a way that proves they don't know what the F**k they're on about.
-by Steve Dix


You could always call his bluff and think of some Buzzwords of your own. How about inflammatory, contrapuntal, nascent, snorkel or even chamfer. If he doesn't use any of them, snatch the script from his desk, tell him you don't want to compromise your art for some one who is so obviously out of touch and stomp out of the office without a backward glance.
-by Nugglymammoo


In many ways producers I think are like editors. The same complete lack of originality, the same inability to see the point of the Internet. I really shouldn't worry about your blog - only people in search of NEW ideas read blogs.

Now I want to play, what about argent, crinkly, slobber, tango and throstle? or do you have to mention cameras, singly or in groups?
-by Hadmandod

Popular Culture

VISITING ISRAEL

"Israelis and Iranian and American we are all brothers."

Hossein Derakhshan writes a blog called Editor: Myself in which he writes about Iran, events, news, pop culture, and technology. He was recently given a BBC News column in which he wrote about a trip to Israel, in which he attempted to do his part to change relations between Iran and Israel, who have had many ties in the past:

For me, an Iranian raised in post-revolutionary Iran, Israel has always had three great qualities: unknown, forbidden and therefore extremely intriguing. That's why I finally decided to visit Israel.

But unlike all Iranians who have visited Israel, I decided to publicise my visit to the 20,000 daily readers of my blog - even though I knew I would not be able to go back to Iran again.

Mr Derakhshan encountered many fellow Iranians and former Iranians in Israel, and was confronted by not only his misconceptions of Israel:

Having been born and raised in a religious, pro-revolution atmosphere in Tehran, like many others from my generation, I knew nothing about Israel except that they were "a declining group of Jews who constantly conspire to kill Muslim and forcefully capture their lands".

Most Iranians still believe all influential world institutions are secretly run by a small group of Zionist Jews (the Iranian regime doesn't usually make a distinction between Judaism and Zionism), who basically run the world. This includes CNN, The New York Times, Hollywood, the World Bank, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations.

But Israeli misconceptions about Iran:

On the other side, I could imagine how Israelis' perception of Iran was being formed by their own government, as a big country with millions of angry Muslims, all look-alikes of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, bent on destroying Israel with nuclear weapons.

I thought this [was] especially true of the young generation, who would not remember that 30 years ago, the then Shah of Iran was a close ally of Israel and the two countries used to exchange tens of thousands of tourists every year.

Commenters on his site had this to say:

I'm also an Iranian who works in Palestine, better to say the occupied territory. My encounter with Israelis have been quite different. I have seen the miseries they have caused and see almost everyday in every checkpoint i have to cross to get to work how they treat the Palestinians. So, please if you want to negate the biases that people have it does not help if you fall from one side to the other. Iranian regime is a dictatorship and it feeds people with false information but this does not make those Israelis who live in the occupied homes of Palestinians a saint.
-by ruzi


In my opinion people -who in fact are the victims of all this controversy- are driven by media and politicians to consider other people as their enemies only because of their different nationality or belief. Israelis and Iranian and American we are all brothers. Kain and Avél they are trying to make us.
-by Yannis Koromilas


you little zio hack. How were you able to go to Occupied Palestine and manage to avoid a single Palestinian? What happened to your honesty? The entie Palestinian population is being embargoed and starved and mr Hero manages to talk with the occupiers and never even mention the occupied.
-by rio


its necessary to overcome the blind antizionism from the "muslim" side. iranians can play an important role in that. karim, what you wrote is just one side.hostility and brutality not only came from the israelis. most of the arab states are violators of most human right conventions...not to talk of all the terrorist organizations which kill innocent civilians and call it "self defence". as long as so many people in the orient focus on israel/palestine as the key to all the problems in the region and only blame one side (the israelis) for everyhing, nothing will change there and the circle of violence will continue. the more israel is declined by its neighbours, the more they have to lean against the "west" and then israel is considered by the same people even more as a "crusader-state" oder "imperialist state", and so on. the solidarity with the palestinians often is false-faced and dishonest. most palestinians in the meantime have accepted the existence of israel while many of their apologists have not. a state with 20 000 square kilometres cannot be the root of all evil in the whole region... to hoder: i, as a person of iranian origin, have also been once in israel. sometimes it was not so pleasant, when i declared myself as (part-) iranian.i had-maybe like you-not only good experiences. but i learned also-probably just like you- a lot of sympathy, respect, interest.
-by admin


Thank you very much for your open minded work. I think all of us iranian that are outside Iran have a big responsibility against our younger iranian people living inside Iran. They must know the truce that Israel is really a friend of our people and the main enemies of our nation are the regim that abuse Islam and its power in arabic world and iran to reach their dirty aims. Long live Iran and Israel. We must clean our country of arab culture and make our real culture getting a new live!
-by asheghevatan


Yes, a nice article. Welldone. You mentioned that many Iranian bloggers and the Iranian media hadn't mentioned your visit to Israel. I think Iranian's want peace and want to enjoy their life without threats. People these days aren't as political as they were in the 70s as people are tiered of all the conflict. I'm not saying it's right, but just stating the impression I get when talking to friends and family.
-by Navid


I am an Israeli Jew of Iranian descent, living in the US. Although my maternal grandparents had to flee Iran in the 1950s, my mother still plays songs in Farsi, she cooks all the Persian dishes, she often invites Iranian friends to our house, both muslim and jewish, so that we can understand the type of culture her parents came from. My grandparents were only allowed to take two carpets with them when they fled, and we still have those carpets in our home. Fortunately, Israel was a great place for them to build their life and bring up children in a healthy positive environment. It is a shame that the situation is like how it is now, but I think it really is up to people in that part of the world, like Hossein Derakhshan, to really question their environment and decide what is acceptable and what is not, thats the first step.
-by Gal Gershoni


it might surprise you to know that we the persians were and still are the only country in the face of earth who had a jewish queen..esther....she is burried in hamadan...also we defended the jews as we should when dumb arabs were killing them as our father's father CYRUS the great did....as we always should....so one has to ask themselves what and why we became so weak to allow bunch of uneducated idiots all with arab origin rule on us and decide for our future??? answer ...we we gave up our way of life and our true religion ZOROASTRIAN faithand true persian life.to copy and obey bunch of idiots who came with their camels from desert..ofcourse we ourselves are to blame also....mismanagement and corruption of few in pre-islamic government also is to blame.....now what???? as long as iranians obey islam and ways of arab lifestyle there is no hope.....we must know ourselves first b4 we can understand were we are going... damn this life,damn this fate,damn this world...that arabs have to invade my home to force me to become muslim...
-by david

International

Comment Type #18

THE FARK

Named after a humor website Drew Curtis' Fark, this kind of comment is filled with satire, humor, or just weird information. It is peppered with quirky and often light hearted pictures, often just a short sentence and a picture to make their point. Such a post many times will be satirical or sarcastic to the point of abuse, and offer little more than an excuse to post a picture that involves someone being "owned" or "punked" (mocked, humiliated, demeaned, or defeated someone in a overwhelming fashion; owned sometimes is spelled "pwned").

A Fark post can be humorous and enjoyable, although constant use of this kind of post can be unwelcome or annoying. Large pictures can be slow to load for those with a slower connection, and being the recipient of a post designed only to humiliate or abuse you can be less than welcome. A Fark post might also be against the rules or policies of a given blog or comment site, which may discourage the use of pictures or personal attacks. Often a Fark comment is completely off topic, which may make such a post unwelcome as well.

Comments

Quote of the day

"It was only after the soviet regime became unmistakably totalitarian that English intellectuals, in large numbers, began to show interest in it. Burnham, although the English Russophile intelligentsia would repudiate him, is really voicing their secret wish: the wish to destroy the old equalitarian version of Socialism and usher in a hierarchical society where the intellectual can at last get his hands on the whip."

-George Orwell

Quotes

TRAVELOGUE

These are the states I've visited in the US. I've also been through Canada from BC to Ontario on Highway 1.

create your own visited states map

Tip of the fedora to Reformed Chicks Blabbing for this bit.

Fun

THE VALUE OF DEAD TREES

If Im going to give blogs their props at the expense of mainstream media, then I have to be fair (ok, i dont have to be, this is a blog :) and give newspapers their props when appropriate.

This is how Dallas Mavericks owner and billionaire Mark Cuban's blog starts about the newspapers. He goes on to explain how the news feeds such as Associated Press provide stories that are picked up by a wide variety of sources:

About 1pm Dallas time, got on the PC, and checked out ESPN. What a waste of time. AP story. A nice story by Marc Stein, the same kind of sportscenter highlights they have for every game, and that if you watch TV, you already saw. The same stats they have for every game, ok, but nothing unique. Bottom line, not worth the trip. It reminded me why I hardly ever check out the site any more.

The world wide leader in sports, for the NBA semi finals, basically did nothing more than it did for every game of the regular season. Its recap is the same AP recap that the tiniest of tiny newspapers users to fill its sports section. Its stats, the same available to any website from multiple sources. You would think that they could find some value to add beyond the usual.

Cuban goes on to note that local newspapers actually will have better and more unique content than many blogs and websites will offer:

During the playoffs, I make sure to read the local newspapers because they have made the decision to differentiate their coverage to include depth and in some cases differentiated information, far beyond what is available online. If they invested the same effort during the season, I would be sure to read it every day. Im sure fans of other sports and topics would feel the same way.

Its interesting to me how my online reading habits have changed over the past 2 years. It used to be that i had a series of sports sites bookmarked and I would check them out to see if there was anything of relevance. Now, they are all either live bookmarks in mozilla or in an RSS reader and I just glance at the headlines. Which makes it painfully obvious how much they all just reuse the AP feeds. I also use RSS feeds of searches from icerocket.com that I can just glance at to see if there is anything being published from news, blogs or other RSS enabled sites. No need to visit ESPN, Sportsline, etc. If they cover a topic im interested in, and they match the keywords ive chosen, I see it.

I have found that he is very right, many blogs will simply regurgitate the same news bits with a short comment on them (similar to what I do here before the comments start), using the same news wire feeds for all their information. Blogs can offer a great deal to news, at their best (such as what happened with Ra^thergate when actual reporting was not covering the story. Its the comments I try to use on this site to expand on the stories reported, as well as to add new information, link to things others may have forgotten or missed, and increase the depth of coverage. Mr. Cuban concludes with this thought:

Which is all the more reason that rather than focusing on speed and breaking stories, I personally think newspapers and websites need to define their brands to heavy readers like myself through depth and differentiation. Brand yourself as the home of unique stories, not for breaking news. We have been trained that the net has all news 15 milliseconds after its “broken ” elsewhere. But if i know that you are the sole home of in depth coverage on things I care about, you got me.

And while Im on the subject, one last suggestion for newspapers. I think internet readers have started to understand news sources. We know that a story with Ap as a source in the paper is going to be the same AP story online. Rather than wasting money on newsprint for a story thats available 20k places on the net as every AP story is, could you please just print a list of the stories you think would be interesting that are sourced outside your paper. In fact, just use any of the memeorandums as a template for each section of the newspaper. That hopefully will open resources for the paper to gives us the depth and differentiation we crave. Syndicated stories dont help you, they hurt you. It kills your brand. It makes you look like an outlet that puts regurgitation over origination. Not the way a paper or website for that matter, wants to be branded

And the commenters at his site carried on:

I havn't read the newspapers in awhile but occasionally I peek through it. Mostly because I work and live online 24/7. I own a ton of websites and so does my business partner. It is hard to do anything else really. I live on Yahoo news that I see on their homepage. Also news is easier to publish faster on the internet. Sometimes I see something on Yahoo that I wouldnt see on the news or a newspaper until the next day or two.
-by Brandon Connell

i am surprised the large papers printing their little block of generic information about the game (or any story for that matter) havent found a profitable way to link to a local source for much more in-depth coverage.

btw, the officiating last night sucked.
-by blb

Hello,

personally I find the news on ESPN or CNN/SI quite interesting.

Alas I am from Germany. Our paper may, or not, give a brief (very brief) note about some mavs games: the final score and Dirks numbers.
So a website that provides basic informations is quite nice...

Right now the hype about LBJ can be a little bit frustrating, seeing those sites, you would never know the defending champions are battling the nr. 3.

See you
-by Robert

ESPN is garbage. For years they owned the "instant" sports reporting. Now with internet, the competition has increased significantly, and ESPN is now scrambling to figure out how to provide us with unique, relevant content. Hearing about Barry Bonds every 14 seconds is not unique to me. Actually, I refuse to watch SportsCenter just so I can get away from all of that. Shows like Real Sports on HBO are so much more worthwhile IMO, because like you said, it's indepth reporting, not merely jazzing up box scores.
-by Clark G

I've got to give some props to the USA Today - a paper I used to dismiss as eye-candy. I too subscribe to the RSS feeds from the major sports sites and USA Today has the most original content, hands down.

But I have to ask, does anybody who's not staying in a hotel actually read a physical copy of the USA Today?
-by MattyP

I have always felt quality was better than quantity. I used to read espn.com almost exclusively, but now I have all my different smaller websites that thoroughly cover each area of sports. ESPN isn't as appealing to me as it used to be. I only read Bill Simmons and Scoop Jackson on a regualr basis anymore, but thats only like one article or so a week.
-by Ron Jumper

I am a MAVS fan that lives in NC and lets just say that I am definetly left wanting for MAVS coverage. DallasNews.com has always been one of my favorite sites to view to check on any type of in depth coverage. ESPN just seems to be stretching so broad they cant cover everything, unless your the NY Yankees or Boston Redsox. Ok so what to do? What about a "wikipedia" type website for sports, But using those who are paid to analyze games, the scouts, to write for it. i dont know if its feasable but maybe we could get a good anaylsis for every game.
-by DormanG

yep, investigative reporting - that's what I still get from a paper that I can't get anywhere else. Whether it's Sports or courts or business, that kind work takes both expertise and cash - things that newspapers have and most bloggers don't.

I love the idea of segregating the segregating syndication coverage to one area of the page. I disagree, however, that carrying syndicated news dilutes your brand. I want my news outlets to provide me with those stories - I want to be able to read the paper's analysis, and then quickly get caught up on the facts by reading the ap story.
-by Adam Elend

I worked many years ago for a newspaper. I found it very interesting how a simple news story would come in, and then over the next few days propagate through the different news channels (TV, radio, paper, internet, current affairs, etc).

Often the initial news story was a short paragraph that was then spun, re-written, and retold over and over. Usually with the expected 'Chinese whispers' effect.

Unfortunately, most Internet news sites are run as a store and forward fact repository. In the news comes, and out it goes, unmodified. Papers still employ journalists, commentators, and other experts to comment on the facts, rather than just hand out the facts.

For me, if I want to know what the various commentators are saying, or just the facts, I know where to go...
-by Michael Vanderdonk

Mark,
You make a good point with the regurgitation factor of the internet. I was at the game (which was probably one of the best games I've ever seen) and came home and wanted to read some unique perspectives from the "experts" about the game, just to hear someone else's opinion. I go and check yahoo, espn, and nba.com and, sure enough, all 3 have the exact same AP feed.
It's sad, but it seems like espn is getting worse and worse about this, as well as the rest of the internet. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I really don't want to spend the time to find the right places anymore. I kinda got off on a tangent, but it seems to me like search engines tend to funnel users to a few hundred websites (depending on the topic you are searching for), many of which either use the exact same article or a regurgitation of it. Because of this, the internet is now a boring place to me, so I see myself spending less and less time browsing it. Where is the unique content? I guess it's just too easy to copycat something quickly than to spend a few mintues and come up with something new and original.
Beau, good point about page 2 on espn. Those are really the only articles I spend time reading as they are at least people's opinions. Many times they are quite humorous, too.
Nonetheless, go mavs and I'll be at game 4 loud and proud (assuming I get my voice back after screaming for the entirety of game 3!)
-by Austen Holmes

Online journalism is still in its infancy (sort of like TV news in the 1930s and newspapers centuries ago), but as Web staffs grow and a more cohesive bond is formed between them and the news organization the site is associated with, more original content will be made available to the news consumer.

Right now, it is not uncommon for a local news site in the Dallas area to have only four staffers, whose schedules are divided among an 18-hour news coverage day and weekend coverage so that there is only a short time span -- maybe two hours in the middle of the day, three days a week -- in which there are three people working together. This is on top of the fact that those staffers are not assigned to a particular beat to cover.

It would be interesting to find out how many journalists ESPN, The Sports Network, and other sports media organizations have covering Dallas sports, along with the number of Web editors they have updating the organization's associated Web site. The number of editors is probably relatively small compared to the number of in-the-field reporters ... and the bulk of their job, as of now, is probably to repurpose what was broadcast or printed by their associated media organization.

On a related note, Google's News search is a great way of finding stories you might not find anywhere else. However, at the same time, it reaffirms your point that online news stories, for the most part, are regurgitated and unoriginal (the take on headlines can be rather unique though … Yahoo! News usually does a decent job).
-by Andrea

ESPN is a joke as far as "covering" a story. They lowered the bar for coverage on a national level. They grab a couple clips from the game and maybe a local media outlet's post game chat - but why even bother with that. And then they rerun the same SportsCenter package a dozen times during the day.

And now they just run columnists shouting on shows to make up for its barely there journalism. But that's the nature of the beast. Look at Fox News or even CNN. They'd rather run the same few clips and then have "pundits" go over talking points. It's not about the story. it's about the personality of the reporters - as discovered by FoxNews.

And the lazy nature of the AP wire must be addressed. Especially when they post a report that has a lot of mistakes. And since a majority of newspapers have cut back on staffers that might know facts, they just paste up these articles without any sort of double checking.

News now is all about cutting production costs to the bottom line. And the best way to save is to not actually report anything on your own. Just take the feed and insert your reporter.
-by Joe Corey

News Media

FOULWEATHER FRIENDS

"The French are a great ally. They will always be there when they need us."

A common complaint against President Bush is that he "squandered all that goodwill" that the world was showing after 9/11 by his actions against terrorism. Immediately after 9/11, the gestures of solicitude and solidarity poured in from countries around the world. In Great Britain, for the first time in history at the changing of the guard in front of Westminster Palace, another anthem than the British one was played: the American national anthem. Even NATO met and invoked a Cold War-era treaty clause that notes that when one member is attacked, all members are attacked. NATO thus declared that should the United States take a military response, NATO will help it militarily or politically.

But a scant year later, nations such as France, Germany, and Russia were all critical of the United States, growing in volume and disagreement until events such as the desecration of an allied graveyard in Normandy indicated that at least some people around the world were no longer in solidarity with the United States. What happened? Did President Bush and the actions of the United States destroy the support of the world?

Right Thinking Girl wrote an article about this subject, questioning if nations truly are your friends if the only time they show it is after a horrific attack:

But America doesn’t like being anybody’s victim. It’s just not who we are. Within a day or so we were picking ourselves up and looking around for the ones who momentarily knocked us on our ass. Then we picked ourselves up and went after them with everything we had.

That whole ‘retaliation’ thing was just so gauche.

Imagine it. If we had simply lain some wreaths, had our little candlelight vigils, and agreed that Islamofacists were our friends, we’d still be buddy-buddy with just about everyone. Because, after all, you don’t need strong friends if you’re just going to lay around and be a weenie. You need friends when you’re making tough decisions and taking tough actions. Of course, once we showed our true colors, France began to burn the “We Are All Americans Today” backissues of Le Monde and decided that we were not so victimy, and therefore not as loveable. And thus the “America squandered the goodwill” meme was born.

Right Wing News picked up the story and commenters there had this to say:

"The French are a great ally. They will always be there when they need us."
-by StanW


What we squandered is the opportunity to play "the victim who had it coming". We were supposed to act like an alcoholic who finally realizes he needs help after driving his car into a tree, or someone who catches an STD while cheating on his wife.

With the exception of our few true friends (UK, Aussies, Canada, maybe Japan and some Eastern European democracies), everybody else's "goodwill" came with strings attached. We were supposed to mourn and repent and apologize for being the world's big bad bullies.

Thank God we had a President in office that did the right thing in response instead of following the self-destructive principles of geopolitcal liberalism. Better to be unpopular rather than powerless.
-by MikeM


Boy...here's a girl who's never been out of the country or travelled much.

I find it interesting that the only possible scenario she could come up with in responding to 9/11 is "go after them with everything we had" or hold candlelight vigils and agree the islamofacists are our friends.

This strikes me as a fundemental problem many have who both think about policy or pursue it. They are unable to think outside the box, instead relying on simplest, easiest, most black or white options.
-by Wino

"Realist political theory (vasty simplified) states that nation-states are rational actors that operate in their own best interest. Countries that stood to gain from a strong United States supported us, while those that stood to benefit from a weak United States paid lip serivce to 9/11 then opposed us when we moved to strengthen our position."

Obviously EVERY states goodwill comes with strings attached--Australia and the UK are not exempt.

You are assuming that balancing prevails in the international system. Many analysts have argued that in fact the post 9-11 world is one dominated by bandwagoning--i.e., just about everybody jumped on the "war on terrorism" train, including states like Pakistan and Libya. Europe, for example, is certainly NOT balancing against the US--they would not consistently gut their defense spending if they meant to pose a challenge. The disagreement lies in how to prosecute the war against radical Islam--and this split didn't occur with the war in Afghanistan, but with the war against Iraq.

BTW, a wide range of prominent REALIST scholars decried the war in Iraq, arguing that it would weaken our relative power. With regard to Rumsfeld's quote below, realists would be characterized as CYNICS.

The war against Iraq was supported by many IDEALISTS, both neo-conservatives and liberals.
-by KMB

"The disagreement lies in how to prosecute the war against radical Islam--"

Absolutely. They want to talk tough, send some strongly worded letters, but DO nothing.

"..and this split didn't occur with the war in Afghanistan, but with the war against Iraq."

Too true. But that's because so many of our "friends" were secretly in bed with Saddam. You ever hear of the Oil-For_Food scandal?
-by Good_Ol_Boy


Since 9-11-01 I've traveled to England, Sweden The Czech Republic, Germany and Denmark. Most of the people I discussed 9-11 sympathized with the US, mostly because they couldn't imagine what they would do if it had happened on their soil. One must remember the activists that marched in parades against Reagan in the 1980s are the "leaders" of nations like Denmark and Germany. A single event that didn't directly affect them isn't going to change their feelings towards a country that it has been fashionable to hate since the 1970s. Countries like the Czech Republic and Poland (several associates here in the US) have been our friends since the fall of Communism and look favorably on the US like the rest of Europe did in the aftermath of WW2. The today’s back biting b*itches like France are the same backbiting b*tches they were on 9-10-01. Being a victim is going to do little to change the attitudes of countries that fail to realize their place on the world stage has long been removed.
-by Hockey_Goon_of_RWN

"Are you saying US national security thinkers are so naive as to focus only on one threat at a time?"

And there is your answer. People higher up with access to a lot more intelligence (of ther surveilance kind, not brain power kind necissarily) could look at the Scenario back after we took down the Taliban and decide on any number of courses of acton. It was said (I think by you) Iran and North Korea were bigger threats than Iraq (at least in hind-sight, from our best estimates at the time, this may not have been the case). They both would have also been far more difficult challenges, costly in resources and life, to both sides. In keeping with your own statement about being able to focus on more than one threat at a time, why discount the possibility that Iraq was chosen, not only because it was a threat (working with best inteligence of the day, hind-sight doesn't count) but also because it would make future fights easier. If he have a marginally stable Iraq to use as an in theater base of operations, any action against Iran is made that much more doable. As for Korea, they are a threat if allowed to have Nukes, but their leadership (as insane as Kim Jong-Il is) is a bit more stable and rational than Iran's, plus China won't let them have nukes in the long run either, these two measures make Korea less worrisome than Iran. War isn't tag, it's chess.
-by Chris_RC

"this split didn't occur with the war in Afghanistan"

The first ANSWER anti-war protests took place on 20 September 2001 in New York. NYC Teachers Against War joined with ANSWER the next weekend. Workers World Party joined in the clamor the weekend after that.
-CavalierX

International

Comment Type #17

THE CONTRARIAN

This kind of post is one that is not interested in discussion or adding to the community at a blog or message board, but is simply negative or in disagreement. The difference is less one of content than one of intent or purpose. The entire reason for posting is to disagree. The blog entry is wrong, the others posting are wrong, the world is wrong, you're all mistaken, I disagree. There is no attempt at learning or understanding, there's often not even a real effort to persuade, simply disagreement. The post is contrary for its own sake.

This kind of post shows up most often on sites where the content is controversial or strongly held, such as religious, political, or Red Sox v Yankees web sites. It often can be the trademark post of specific people, ones that always seem to show up and disagree no matter what is said. This kind of contrarian will often be one of a few lonely voices of opposition on a website, such as a liberal on a conservative blog. The person so bold and set in their ways as to infiltrate the "enemy camp" often simply disagrees with whatever the given post is before bothering to read it and decide.

A contrarian post is not necessarily a troll, although it could be depending on how it was written. Such a post is rarely an attempt to generate responses and outrage, it's simply a kneejerk reaction, an unthinking response to what is assumed to be wrong.

Contrarian posts really don't add much to a community, although they can add traffic to a blog by the arguments they can generate. Contrarians aren't much more fun or more welcome on a blog or message board than they are in real life.

Comments

PARENTING IN THE NEW MILLENNIA

She's arguing that children need a father, so the state should force whoever the mother picked to be THE father. But wouldn't it be in the best interest of the child for him to have a rich daddy?

One of the things about criminal and civil law that is interesting is how they are perceived to be fixed and absolute, but are actually in flux based on the society around them. For centuries, there have been laws that punish men for abandoning or abusing their families to various degrees, and in the United States, paternity law has changed slowly over the years as the technology and culture changes. Overlawyered has a story about what is happening to the rights and legal responsibilities of men when newer technology points out one of the children of the mother is not his:

National Law Journal takes a look at one of the hot issues in family law: whether a man can terminate child support payments if DNA testing reveals that he is not in fact the father of the child he has been supporting. Or should he perhaps be given some legal remedy against the mother other than the right to suspend support? (Tresa Baldas, "Parent Trap? Litigation Explodes Over Paternity Fraud", Apr. 10).

Paternity fraud is rampant in the United States, triggering legislation and legal challenges in more than a dozen states, according to family law attorneys and fathers' rights activists.

At issue: Men claim women are getting away with trickery -- DNA evidence may show a man is not the father, but the courts are still forcing him to pay child support anyway.

"This is the new underdog," said Michigan family law attorney Michele Kelly, who represents mostly men tangled in paternity disputes. "I was a staunch feminist. I marched with Gloria Steinem. But the new victims in America are working men. All they are is a mule train."

Most recently, Kelly secured a victory for a Michigan man who had paid an estimated $80,000 in child support over 15 years to his ex-wife, despite DNA evidence that proved he wasn't the father of their first son. On March 23, after a bitter court battle, the case settled with the ex-wife agreeing to have all child support canceled. Richardson v. Luria, No. 91-7019-DM (Bay Co., Mich., Cir. Ct.).

Men are, all too often, an easy target. According to divorce attorneys, there are two types of divorce judges: ones that favor men and ones that favor women, and the ones that favor women are more common. For men, the mere accusation of rape, abuse, or other crimes is sufficient to demolish their reputation, relationships, and career. Now law is taking a new look at the legal rights and responsibilities of men toward children their wife or girlfriend had with another man.

What is more disturbing, however, is the attitude toward commitments, relationships, and honor that the article notes has changed:

"Clearly today, more than ever before, paternity is raised more frequently," said family law expert John P. Paone Jr. of Paone & Zaleski in Woodbridge, N.J., who believes old paternity laws don't work in today's world.

"The reality is that now there are women, as well as men, who are engaging in extramarital relations. Welcome to Desperate Housewives. Here we are," he said.

Paone, former chairman of the Family Law Section for the New Jersey State Bar Association, believes that new legislation is needed to reflect the change in societal mores.

"This presumption that a child born during the marriage is the biological child of the mother and father may no longer be appropriate," Paone said. "These things all worked very well in a 1950s lifestyle, but today that may be the exception to the rule," Paone said.

Commenters at Overlawyered took a look at this issue:

This is all simply the logical result of what an increasingly permissive culture has created. The problem is that some who have helped to make the bed do not want to sleep in it.
-by Wavemaker

The reliance on 500 year old English Common Law about Child from Marriage being legal issue worked when society enforced adultry and had no DNA testing. In today's society with accepted promiscuous behavior and no fault divorce, this is a weak straw. I'd hate to be a child who learns that Dad isn't Dad but also I'd rather not be named Dad as a convenient target.
-by SteveS

I love this quote:

"I think the problem with those laws is that, No. 1, they need to consider a child's best interest. I'm not trying to minimize the trauma to the nonbiological father, his feeling of betrayal," Jacobs said.

Let's take her argument to its logical conclusion. She's arguing that children need a father, so the state should force whoever the mother picked to be THE father. But wouldn't it be in the best interest of the child for him to have a rich daddy? Or a doctor for a dad? Or an astronaut for a dad?! What kid wouldn't want an astronaut for a dad?! If the law can arbitrarily decide that some non-father is the father, why not look out for the child's best interest and pick the best dad possible?!

And if one rich dad is a good thing, of course it'd follow that having multiple dads would be even better. I'd think that 30 rich dads, so they could rotate throughout the month, to take care of the kid.

And if multiple forced dads benefits the kid, it certainly follows that multiple mothers would be better too. Thus, the state should also randomly force 29 wealthy women to be mothers to the child.

And why only do this when there is a dispute as to custody? Wouldn't it be in the best interest of all children to have multiple rich fathers and mothers?!

Following the "best interest" argument even further, maybe the state should take all kids away from their parents until the set of 60 "best" parents can be established.

OK, back to reality. I agree that it's in the best interest of the child to have the real father pay his share. But to force some random guy pay is ludicrous.
-by ImaFish


RR-- allow me to clarify (my very early morning posts tend to be elliptical). I did not mean to imply that the male victims of paternity fraud have to sleep in the bed (isn't the metaphor almost too much?). The people to whom I refer as bed-makers are those who supported the fostering of a permissive culture in which adultery and unplanned (or unwanted) children are a by-product; and yet they refuse to recognize the right of an innocent victim to be absolved of responsibility for a problem not of his making.

That said, there is (I think) something to say for the laches argument -- that is, if you're not the father, you really shouldn't sleep on (enough!) your rights and render the child another victim.
-by Wavemaker

There is certainly a strong case for fathers that have been raising children to still be considered the father - call it an adoption, if you will. A small statute of limitations on parental challenges is thus a reasonable position (not necessarily the right one, but reasonable and arguable).

What is NOT reasonable is some states declaring fatherhood by default (when the so-called "father" never even met the woman or heard about the hearing at all!), then making THAT binding, despite proof that the man is not the father. THAT is complete and utter crap.
-by Deoxy

Courts defend this outrageous paternity fraud by hypocritically claiming that every child has a constitutional "right" to a father.

Yet, hypocritically, they often refuse to respect this "right" by protecting the father-child relationship from infringement by mothers who interfere with visitation.

And single-parent adoption by the mother is permitted in all fifty states.

And under the Supreme Court's settled "state action" doctrine, constitutional rights apply only against the government, not private individuals (like a father).
-by Hans Bader

In most states paternity cannot be repudiated. If it can, it's often possible only before an absurdly short period of time has elapsed, like 30 days. In some states he need not be notified. In CA he must be notified, but a notification is considered proper even if the address given by the mother is incorrect or fraudulent. Imagine the following: a woman names Bill Gates as the father of her child. The controlling law is that of the birth state, not Washington state. After a year, *bam* hit him up for a 10 million per year child support award. The award, remember, is based on ability to pay not need. I'm surprised this hasn't happened yet, if not to Gates then to some other well known wealthy man.
-by Bob Smith

Legal Matters

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
Quotes

GOOGLE THE TRUTH

That kind of says it all, doesn't it? The Indepundit thinks so too, and commenters on his site had this to say:

Yes, that picture says it all, doesn't it? IMHO, any one who holds a security clearance, and leaks confidential information to the press, should be subject to justice under UCMJ, not civilian courts.
-by Barb

This kind of argument is easy. But where do you draw the line?

Should we do away with search warrants entirely? Should all domestic phone communications be monitored? Presumably there is some line that each of us will draw and in so doing take away some tools that law enforcement could benefit from.

My biggest problem with Bush is less what he has done here - I have no problems with the programs revealed so far - but how he has done them - in secret without review while lying about them to the American people.
-by Tom G.

Tom, in time of war, it is both prudent and necessary to dissimulate to the people, for their own safety. The enemy is listening as well. Such has been the pattern in every war to date, not just those in which the US has participated.

What amazes and dismays me is the reflexive hatred of Bush the press, academia, certain parts of the CIA and State have displayed. They have justified all manner of compromises of OPSEC in claim of service to a "higher law". In truth, their higher law is restoration of their "rightful" place in society as our betters.

It would not surprise me if it were revealed they had indeed conspired with the enemy (as the Italian Communists have done) to plot our destruction and retreat, just so they could at last hold sway again.
-by Samuel Tai

Tom:

So far as I've been able to determine, both of the NSA programs leaked to the press lately -- the al-Qaeda wiretapping program, and now the domestic-call data-mining program -- were done with internal review, and with key members of the House and Senate (Democrats and Republicans alike) briefed on the programs and their progress from time to time.

For a top-secret program during wartime, that's all I'd ask, frankly. (Well, not quite -- I'd also appreciate the news media keeping their traps shut about it.)

As for lying, well, I'm not aware of any lies Bush has told about these programs -- and no Clintonian evasions, either. (No, he didn't tell us about these programs when he had opportunities to do so. That's why they're called "secret". But I don't recall him ever saying that American phone records would be kept away from the NSA, or that Americans who speak to al-Qaeda representatives abroad need not fear wiretapping. Had he said these things, that would be lying.)

Perhaps I shouldn't have said that. It's been my experience that the "Bush lied" meme has all the trappings of religious doctrine now -- people either believe it, or they don't, and if they do, very little will persuade them otherwise.
-by Dan in Brookline

Constitutionally, collecting the data from call registers regarding what telephone number called what other number, whether the call connected and how long the call lasted, is NOT a search for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. I do understand that there are some laws made by Congress that tell the phone companies that they are not allowed to disclose that data. However, in a conflict of laws situation the Constitution takes priority. Thus the government, under established case law, has a Constitutional ability to gather that data.

Case law says that the telephone user has knowingly put that data into the public eye. Remember too that the government still must prove who was on each end of the telephone during that string of 30 minute conversations between the number in Pakistan and the number in Podunk. This data gathering only allows the government to establish probable cause, not to mount a successful prosecution.
-by tex_airhead

Spy Games

THIS AIN'T A LIBRARY, KID

"Have you walked into the children's section lately? On some shelves you've got to thumb through the first few copies to find one that hasn't been handled by someone's little cherub."

Michele at Reformed Chicks Blabbing asks a question:

I was at the Barnes and Noble again yesterday and all week I've been surprised by the amount of people that hang out at there during the day. Just sitting around, reading the books and not just for a short period of time, I'm talking hours. Why would you spend your day at a Barnes and Noble? Doesn't anyone use the library? How can they sell their books as new when people are reading them there? Wouldn't that be considered a used book? These are the things that I was pondering while I should have been concentrating on justification.

She brings up a good question, stores like Borders and Barnes and Nobel encourage people to read their books, they have comfy chairs sitting around, nice lighting, and even a cafe you can read and drink in. Typically people who want you to read will prefer you kept food as far away as possible, but these stores seem to want you to combine the two.

Commenters responded to the question:

How can they sell their books as new when people are reading them there?

This thought used to bother me until I realized that nobody else reads the books I do. :-0

Maybe libraries aren't quiet enough ... or are too quiet ... or don't fit their image ... or they're less likely to run into their friends in a library ... or they want access to good snack food.
-by Moonshadow


I like the access to the snacks. I was eating a shortbread cookie yesterday and drinking ice tea! Something you could never do in a library.
-by Michele


I wonder that about the books too. Have you walked into the children's section lately? On some shelves you've got to thumb through the first few copies to find one that hasn't been handled by someone's little cherub. I don't like the fact that people sit around reading the books and then put them back on the shelves. Where have their hands been? Yuck!

I would also like to know just how much revenue they lose because of this kind of thing. I mean, a certain number of books must end up with latte spilt on them or chocolate chip thumbprints on the back cover. And of course they pass that along to the consumers!!!
But then again I can't complain because I purchase the vast majority of my books from Amazon and when I do buy from an actual brick and mortar B&N I get to use my handy dandy discount card.

Whew! I shouldn't have taken such a long break from blogging. I'm getting long winded!!!!
And no funny comments, you guys!!!
-by Ang

Popular Culture

TRUMPED WAITRESS

"They are doing what they have to and if they are happy doing it, more power to them."

Believe it or not, Donald Trump has a blog. On this blog, the man gives advice on business, thoughts on events, and economic analysis. In a recent entry, Donald Trump looks at the "Waiter Rule;" that how you treat a waiter or a waitress reveals a lot about your character:

You would be amazed at how poorly some people treat waiters and waitresses. They yell at them if they forget an order or spill a drink. They threaten to have them fired, or even demand to speak to a supervisor. Their actions speak volumes and reveal more about their character than anything they could say or do in the most impressive business meetings or boardrooms.

On the flip side are those who take everything in stride. They treat service people -- waiters, bellmen, security guards, secretaries -- with the same respect they would give the CEO of a huge corporation. Those are the kind of people I respond to because that's the kind of person I am.

This tip is also useful for dating: watch how your date treats other people, such as your friends, the waitress, the guy in line that's taking forever to write a check. That's the real person peeking out from around the dating persona they reveal to you.

Trump's site has commenters as well, and among the oddly sycophantic comments and flirting are these:

Dear Mr. Trump, I’m so glad you have put this subject matter in your blog. I am a ten year veteran of Hospitality, and I now treat waiters and waitresses with utterly grand respect, adulation, and calm. When they come to the table, ‘Bug-Eyed’ with that “Deer In Headlights” look, with that ever tight smile forced upon their face, as if they are a mechanical toy, forced to smile… I tell them the following: “Go ahead, and catch up with your other tables. Fill their waters, get their drinks, take their orders, or deliver their food. When you’ve gotten them all caught up, come on back, and we’ll be ready to order.” They can’t believe it. They are stunned, and I’m persistent. I smile, give them support, and reassure them, its really okay, and we’re happy to get a table to be served by them. Their whole body suddenly relaxes, they smile for real, and when we see them again, we get the best service you’d ever imagined. Why? Because they WANT to serve you, because you’ve given them a kindness not many people do or understand. “Giving Back,” is what its all about, and that’s my gift to the Service and Hospitality Industry, after ten years in college, getting my degree in Communications, and working every weekend or week, helping people enjoy their meal, or stay at the hotel, or area in general.

Hospitality is one of the hardest industry’s, stressful beyond anyone’s wildest means, and the intangible gift of service is well expected by those who just don’t have a clue. My most memorable chewing out by a guest was at the Anaheim Marriott in Anaheim CA, in the mid 1980’s, when a guest berated me for not getting him the manager after the first 5minutes he’d stormed into the restaurant. I’d performed all the Marriott SOP Standards, and exhausted them all, and still, no manager in sight after the restaurant had our morning slam/rush filling the establishment. The male guest of a party of 8 approached me and said, “What???!!! Marriott doesn’t hire anyone who graduated from high school???!!!” (I was in my 7th yr of college!) I looked at him, calmly, and all I could reply was, “Did you?” My manager eventually arrived, but not after a big blowing up by this guy.

No, I wasn’t fired, because management was pre-occupied on another situation, and I had no where to get help sooner. I couldn't leave my post, either. Marriorr SOP. This is why I give back to the Hospitality and Service Industry. It’s so critical in life, to give back and help others in life.
-by Anastacia Washer

When I was a small child, a member of my class was given the 'Student of the Year' award because she always smiled and said hello to everyone that she met- including the janitors. I wanted that award and was angry- but it was a lesson that I never forgot. Forty-five years later, I am a person who smiles and says hello to everyone- and it has made a difference in my life. Remember that the slightest thing that you do for one another can have the greatest impact. And a smile is a great thing.
-by Mary Rose Murrin

I agree you shouldn't treat people like they are a lower class because they don't have a credit card or an expense account. Nor should you assume because they wait on you they are stupid or uneducated. They are doing what they have to and if they are happy doing it, more power to them.
-by Hibiki

I work in the food service industry so I know first hand what it is like to be looked down upon and treated like a lover-class person. I know how to treat and respect those types of individuals who have to face those other inconciderate people out there. One thing that shows respect is a nice tip. Even if you feel you were a jerk but are embarassed to apologize, a good tip sometimes makes it understood.
-by Randy

What does it say in the leather bound good book, "do unto others as you would have them do to you"? I think it was the journalist/author George Plimpton who used to take on a specific job (airline pilot, hockey goalie, waiter etc.) for a period of time so that he could better write on that subject or position. It would do all the rude and obnoxious people good, to spend a little time as either waiters or waitresses, so that they might be more respectful of others.
-by Glenn Davies

I take it one step further; I believe everyone, no matter what station in life providence has afforded them by birth, should work in food service. Or, perhaps, some other customer service oriented job as well. My first job was fast food, followed by time in the parts/service department for Sears. These experiences have left an indelible mark on my life, dictating how I treat others that I interact with.
-by Scott Darpel

Ethics

IMMIGRATION-FREE ZONE

"When a nation has arrived at this state, it must either change its customs and its laws, or perish"

I won't be posting anything on illegal immigration after this final bit until the hysteria calms down and bloggers stop acting like little children throwing a tantrum. Shame on Polipundit, shame on Michelle Malkin, and other blogs who are jumping up and down screaming that the sky is falling because President Bush won't do things their way. A big thanks to Ace of Spades Headquarters who with his post Liar Liar Pants On Fire points out the odd attitude and overblown reaction to this issue:

Even so, I have to gaze in astonishment at two competing posts on display over there. Has it really come to this? Either Bush (or as some wags say, El Presidente Jorge Arbusto) is LYING with every word of his speech (thank you, Polipundit), or, if you aren't wildly applauding the speech and unreservedly supporting Bush's plan, and claim to be a Republican and a conservative, then "you are not a Republican. You are not a conservative. You are a LIAR. A LIAR." (Thank you, Mr. McClure) Oh, and don't disagree with Mr. McClure's definition of 'amnesty', or you might have to decide whether you are "a moron, or a liar."

I have sympathies for both sides of this debate. I'm not happy with how President Bush is handling a number of issues, this being a big one, but I'm also more interested in seeing that something positive and constructive takes place.

I agree that something needs to be done, I agree that the congress should take steps to secure our borders, and I agree that President Bush is failing in his duties as the head of the executive department by not enforcing the law and by not obeying the law.

But this reaction is far, far outside the realm of logic or rationality, it's like someone screaming and falling to the ground kicking and yelling because McDonalds gave them Honey Mustard instead of Barbecue Sauce for their McNuggets. Please, get a grip.

You want something done? Do you want the flood of illegal aliens dealt with and immigration worked on? The first thing to do is for each of us as individuals to take a stand. Don't hire someone you can't be confident is a citizen. Try not to shop at places you know hire illegals. Don't hire illegals yourself. Seriously. If every individual citizen did his duty by the law, then the government wouldn't have to do it for us because there'd be no jobs like the illegals come up for now.

We should be pressuring businesses we know hire illegals as best we can, while we pressure politicians to enforce the law. Do you live in a state that has "sanctuary" cities like Los Angeles, or laws that prohibit police from asking about citizenship status? There's the first place you should be working, to fix the problem where you live.

We have gotten so used to the federal government as big daddy fixing our problems we've forgotten how to work and do things ourselves. We've gotten so dependent on government to solve every trouble we face that we've lost all initiative and the American spirit that made this country what it is today. When our grandparents saw a problem they asked "what can I do to fix this" not "why doesn't the government do something???" and bust out crying like three year-old who was denied a third helping of ice cream.

In Democracy In America, Alexis DeTocqueville contrasted Americans with Europeans, saying that unlike Americans, who took problems in their own hands and kept the administration of government local and diluted, Europeans were so dependent on government to deal with their problems that

"This want of interest in his own affairs goes so far that if his own safety or that of his children is at last endangered, instead of trying to avert the peril, he will fold his arms and wait till the whole nation comes to his aid. This man who has so completely sacrificed his own free will does not, more than any other person, love obedience; he cowers, it is true, before the pettiest officer, but he braves the law with the spirit of a conquered foe as soon as its superior force is withdrawn; he perpetually oscillates between servitude and license."

America has reached that same point. We are a people who sit at home helplessly, a people who are "a kind of settler, indifferent to the fate of the spot which he inhabits. The greatest changes are effected there without his concurrence, and (unless chance may have apprised him of the event ) without his knowledge..." as DeTocqueville describes such a citizen. He warns us:

When a nation has arrived at this state, it must either change its customs and its laws, or perish; for the source of public virtues is dried up; and though it may contain subjects, it has no citizens. Such communities are a natural prey to foreign conquests; and if they do not wholly disappear from the scene, it is only because they are surrounded by other nations similar or inferior to themselves; it is because they still have an indefinable instinct of patriotism; and an involuntary pride in the name of their country, or a vague reminiscence of its bygone fame, suffices to give them an impulse of self-preservation.

You want something done? Then you're the one who should take action, where you live, in your community, in your town. Get something done locally, everyone. That's how we get things done in America - or at least we used to before we became pathetic infants suckling at the breast of big government.

But Illegal Immigration - unless something truly significant happens - is not a topic I care to waste bandwidth on here again.

Essays

Quote of the day

"All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it... Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."
- Adolf Hitler on sound bites and the use of the media

Quotes