EUSELESS: Romano Prodi, the president of the European Commission, berated Britain on Monday for its apparent preference for the United States over the European Union. British officials, meanwhile, said he is full of it, the EU is a bloody mess, and somebody on that side of the pond had better be friends with the US to save Europe's sorry hide.

Sounds about right to me.

FROM INSIDE THE COLLAR: Catholic priest Thomas Buffer thoughtfully and poignantly describes what it’s like to be an honorable priest during the current Catholic scandal. And most priests are honorable, which we should not forget or ignore. Buffer also gently but clearly takes down the media for their often shallow, shrill coverage, which has done much harm beyond what was done by the scandal itself.

Naturally I especially enjoyed his surgical evisceration of Maureen Dowd:

…Dowd is the Old Testament prophet, hurling thunderbolts of righteous rage. She makes Dr. Laura sound like Mr. Rogers. In her column “Father Knows Best” of March 20, Dowd manages to lump together, as a single criminal class, the rulers of Saudi Arabia, the Catholic priesthood, Afghan warlords, the Taliban, and the “boy’s club running Enron.” Funny, I never felt I had much in common with the rulers of Saudi Arabia, who will not even allow a Catholic priest to say Mass in their country. But Dowd explains that all these groups are wicked because they are dominated by dominating men. Having no need for scholarly backup, she relies on her own experience of having grown up Catholic.

The good priest shows her and others for what they are, and gives interesting commentary on the state of our society in the process. Excellent.

TALES OF THE SERIOUSLY ODD:

A reporter who wrote a story about a diesel spill in his newspaper's building has been charged with failing to notify the fire department about the accident...

[Deseret News reporter Jerry] Spangler wrote a story critical of his newspaper and its building managers after diesel fumes circulated throughout the nine-story tower's ventilation system. The spill was caused by a supplier who mistakenly pumped 400 gallons of diesel fuel into a tank that already was full. The delivery was meant for a building next door.

Spangler interviewed a state environmental quality official, who told Spangler to report the spill by calling 911. Spangler said he told his supervisors of the spill, wrote his story, and went home...

How do you sit in a building full of diesel fumes, interview a state official about it, write a story and go home, without making sure the authorities come to fix the problem? What part of "Call 911" didn't he get? Obviously a man who takes his journalistic observer role seriously.

SOMETIMES TECHNOLOGY IS NOT GOOD. Since I have DSL, I can take calls while online. One of my favorite things is my hands-free telephone, which has a headset like the ones used by order-takers at your local Taco Bell, only mine has a cord. It makes washing dishes bearable. Tonight, I was surfing while talking to my sister on the telephone, using the headset. My brother logged onto MSN IM, and I started talking to him too. Then my cell phone rang - it was my mom. So I have a phone to each ear, my mom is saying "Do you want me to call back? What are you doing?", my sister is saying, "Put mom up to the phone, see if I can say hi! to her!" and my brother is typing away making rude comments about my sister.

It was nearly enough to send me screaming into the night.

SUPREMELY RIGHT: Disabled workers aren't entitled to a position more suited to their disability if it means someone with greater seniority is done out of the job, the Supreme Court ruled today. It was a 5-4 ruling, but two of the dissenters - Scalia and Thomas - were against it because they didn't think it gave the employers as much protection as it should. Not surprisingly, Souter and Ginsberg thought the ruling unfairly restrictive of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the law under consideration.

The LA Times voted with Souter and Ginsberg:

Companies' seniority policies almost always trump the demands of disabled employees, the Supreme Court ruled...

Such policies obviously being in place for the sole purpose of abusing already disabled employees.

When choice jobs go to those with the most seniority, employers do not have to upend that system to accommodate a disabled worker...the divided court ruled.

In fact, they can likely kick the disabled employee in the teeth and toss them down the stairs without repercussions.

The court has ruled for employers and against a disabled employee each time it has examined the scope of the ADA in the workplace. Today's decision is no exception, although the court did not give employers everything they wanted.

Although they probably had to grind their teeth to resist it.

I agree that people with disabilities should be employed to the fullest possible extent of their physical ability and talent. I encourage efforts to make sidewalks and public buildings handicap accessible. However, hurting your back is not sufficient qualification for a promotion, and the integrity of a merit system cannot be destroyed out of sympathy. If a person who has seniority, is qualified and is physically capable of a job isn't promoted because of a non-related disability, then that's a problem. But disability alone shouldn't lift you above the rest.

THIS IS NOT VERY COMFORTING, given the recent train accidents.

SEND A FEMALE JEWISH AMBASSADOR TO SAUDI ARABIA, says Conservative Economist James D. Miller. Wish I'd thought of that.

ANOTHER KIND OF MEDIA BIAS, which journalists tend to discount but which is a big reason why many of them went into the profession, and what often keeps them there, is: The Big Story. The rush of being In The Know. Jack Dunphy in NRO gives it a glancing blow in his article about why the Blake case is no OJ, no matter how much the media wishes it was:

...the Simpson trial was the Big Show, and for a reporter who covered it it must have been like an addict's first hit from the crack pipe: a high so intense that it can never be equaled, yet against all reason he continues to seek the euphoria of that first indescribable rush. And that hydra-headed creature we call "The Media" is still in search of the sublime buzz it got way back in '95, when for nearly nine months it was almost as much a star as Mr. Simpson himself but without the accompanying risk of life imprisonment.

The journalists can make all the noise they want about how they are providing what the public wants, but they are often in the business of creating as well as satisfying their market.

GLAD TO KNOW YOU’RE UNBIASED: You just have to laugh, sometimes, at how many journalists just don’t get it. Matt Welch, who always gets it and is always fun when he gets to talking about journalism (or anything else, for that matter), gives an insider look at a book fair panel discussion where excessive self-congratulations were exchanged amongst journalistic mavens. One comment in particular caught my eye:

[Journalism professor Ann Louise] Bardach bemoaned that kids nowadays get into journalism for the wrong reasons (money and fame, dontcha know), unlike her generation, which wanted “to change the world.”

Look at that carefully. Bardach would likely be amongst the first to get huffy if someone told her that journalists are biased. But what is bias? A preferred direction of thought. What is Bardach saying here? Her generation of journalists wanted “to change the world”. Now, do you think they wanted to change the world just for the sake of change? That any change would have been acceptable? First, a desire for change in and of itself is antithetical to the concept of neutrality – “we just report, ma’am”. Second, a preferred direction of change implies an ideological preference, thus, bias. Hmmmm…

Hoist on her own petard.

Also, don’t miss Welch’s analysis of the LA Times’s “It was a dark and stormy night” writing style. Priceless.

TIPS FOR ALLEVIATING DRIVING BOREDOM:

0-10 mph (traffic jam) or traffic lights: Reading anything, crocheting (quilting requires too much concentration)

10-45 mph (light traffic): Reading popular fiction and magazines; allows for frequent looking up

45-65 mph (light traffic): Reading popular fiction, only in paperback. Magazines and hardbacks too difficult to handle and still maintain proper grip of the wheel at this speed; "important" fiction and non-fiction require too much attention.

65 mph + (any traffic): Car dancing with loud music, preferably with windows down. Especially fun in West Virginia with “he done me wrong” songs. Reading at these speeds should be done only when you're the only one on the road and you're almost done with a chapter you just have to finish and the nearest rest area is still 40 miles away.

THE SHOPPING PAGE: Somewhere in a boutique in Washington, DC... The Last Page succumbs resentfully to a friend-of-the-bride dress, with the hapless help of a Him. I love The Last Page. That girl has talent. And now a new dress. That she kind of likes, despite herself.

She even manages to explain the deeper meaning of this blog's name, all fully in context. That girl's talented.

But then you knew that already. Go read. Now. I'll wait.

CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS have been down since 9/11 because so many gave to the funds for those victims and families of victims, but articles like this show why that trend may continue rather than reverse: The United Way of Washington not only has apparently been mismanaging and misusing funds, but the management is trying to hide it. This on top of the Catholic Church scandal, and revelations of misuse of funds by international relief agencies as well as clear ideological preferences and goals accompanying their "relief" decisions. Any non-profit agency (excluding churches) which receives tax-exempt status should have to reveal what percent of its funds are used for administrative costs, and I as a donor wouldn't contribute to those with a huge, money-guzzling infrastructure.

LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS is meeting opposition from...local law enforcement. I need to spend more time with this, but it seems bizarre to me. The situation is this: Currently illegal immigration is considered a civil matter, and those in violation can only be apprehended by the INS except in cases where local law enforcement (state, county or parish, and municipal) has entered into an agreement with the federal govt to enforce the immigration laws. Local law enforcement is resisting taking on this role for two reasons - budget and philosophy. I would understand the budget issue if they were required to proactively enforce the law. But they wouldn't - it would just be another set of violations they could toss in the mix. It wouldn't necessarily even be a "must arrest" situation - i.e. they would have the discretion to decide whether to arrest for that violation. The other reason given is that it would impede the local police from having good relations with the local illegal immigrant community. Huh?

I've never quite gotten the illegal immigrant situation in this country, and I've known illegal immigrants personally whom I liked a lot. And I thought they should have gotten here legally. I've seen a lot of pointing fingers and sage nodding on blogs lately talking about the growing immigrant populations in Europe and what a dangerous change they have wrought there. So why isn't there any pointing and nodding going on here? I think it likely that the majority of illegal immigrants in the US are hard-working people who want a better life and came here to earn it, not to live off the fat of the land at my expense (even though more often than I appreciate that winds up happening). I'm not against immigration per se; that would be rather hypocritical given that my family too were immigrants, way back when. But we need a clearly articulated, reasoned approach to immigration, we need to enforce it and we need local law enforcement empowered to help with that. If it's not a must-arrest situation, a good local law enforcement department is going to be able to do its job without spending all its time and good will hauling away illegal immigrants. But this situation was crying out for attention before 9/11, and post-9/11 we should see that it's even more important.

I also don't get this tension between the Justice Department and the White House. Bush is CEO and President of the country, and Ashcroft is Vice-President of Justice in this organizational structure. He serves at the pleasure of Bush. End of story. And I thought Karen Hughes wasn't gone yet - so why the leaks from the White House? Sounds suspicious to me.

MORE ON CATHOLICS and the priest sexual abuse issue. I posted a comment on QuasiPundit's site in response to a post by Tony Adragna, and he has responded. My response to his response (I know, it waxes ridiculous after a while) is posted on my writings page, because it is very long and also not precisely the type of thing I cover here. If you go read, you might want to read his original post, my response and his response first.

KEEPING ABREAST OF BARBARA BUSH, the Abigail Adams of our generation. At least she's got a sense of humor. I wonder if the reporter got fired?

HE GOT HIS TICKET PUNCHED, and both Tony Woodlief and his professors lived to tell about it, although it was a close thing, a few times.

JUST WHEN I NEEDED TO KNOW, I found a Blogtionary to explain those little bloggish words that keep popping up that I don't know but am afraid I'll sound silly and downright clueless if I ask - like, for instance, meme. What's a meme? A self-referring stutter? Someone can't spell memo? Short for memorex? Who knew? Certainly not me. But I have been saved by Dave Worley and his Blogtionary:

meme: An idea considered as a replicator, esp. with the connotation that memes parasitize people into propagating them much as viruses do. Used esp. in the phrase `meme complex' denoting a group of mutually supporting memes that form an organized belief system, such as a religion. Coined by Richard Dawkins (see source2) SOURCE1 - SOURCE2

Meme, by the way, has apparently spawned a whole discipline called memetics. I have just revealed the depth of my uneducated ignorance by admitting I didn't know about it, but any sacrifice of ego is worth it for the benefit of my readers. As for finding out what Source 1 and Source 2 are, you need to go check out the Blogtionary. But then, you needed to check it out anyway. So go, already!

STINK BOMBS, BORING BOMBS, MONEY-MONGERING BOMBS: HappyFunPundit has a rundown of possible directions for military weapon research.

GOOD, BAD, UGLY: The killings at a school in Germany has brought out the good, bad, and ugly:

GOOD:

The rampage apparently ended when a teacher ripped off Steinhaeuser's mask and pushed him into a classroom, police spokesman Achim Kellner said. Startled, Steinhaeuser locked himself in the room, then shot himself some time later as police commandos entered the school.

BAD:

Authorities believe Steinhaeuser's motive was revenge: The gun enthusiast was angry over being kicked out of school recently after faking a doctor's note in an attempt to avoid final exams, Kellner said.

UGLY:

"So-called 'American conditions' have reached us. We cannot let these excesses of violence become a part of our daily life," said Konrad Freiberg, the head of Germany's police union.

The teacher should – and probably will – be hailed as a hero. That was an act of bravery and selflessness. On the other hand, Steinhaeuser (photo here) was a self-absorbed, lazy young man tragically taking his own inadequacies out on others. I'm glad he's dead. Finally, Freiberg needs to seriously get a life. “American conditions” didn’t cause this behavior; more “American conditions” would make their country a better place.

And the only impact “gun enthusiast” has on this horrible massacre is in the choice of weapons and the success of the killer’s evil intent.

THIS JUST IN: SEATTLE IS STUPID - Racial preferences are under fire all over the country, and with good reason. Apparently a Seattle school district is amongst the battlefields, and the combatants are, well, showing their colors:

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an injunction to stop the Seattle School District from using race as a tiebreaker in student assignments while the district challenges a legal ruling last week that held its policy illegal.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled last week that the district's use of race as a factor in school assignments violates state Initiative 200, which was passed by voters in 1998 and prohibits racial preferences in public-school admissions, hiring and contracting.

Okay, sounds like the voters were heard, and the courts are upholding the law. Straightforward enough.

But the school district had said that in the absence of a direct court order, it would continue using the tiebreaker. Race is one factor used in determining which students are assigned to the district's most popular but racially imbalanced schools.

Nice example for the kiddos - disobey the law even when it's been voted on by the community, and totally in absence of any numbers showing support for the cries of discrimination. Notice that the articles says the schools are "racially imbalanced", but offers no evidence.

Of course, facts, law and democracy are immaterial to these social engineers:

The ruling was seen by many in the district as a blow to attempts to keep Seattle schools integrated.

District Superintendent Joseph Olchefske denounced the ruling, saying racial diversity is a "core value" for the district.

The 9th Circuit ruling also led popular Ballard High School Principal David Engle to resign Thursday, saying Ballard High's ethnically diverse student body would become "mono-cultural" as a result of the ruling.

In announcing his resignation, Engle invoked the memory of civil-rights activist Rosa Parks and encouraged students to act on their own moral convictions.

Still no facts, still no support. All emotion and crying buckets of horrified tears. Oh, wait, here is a little bit of data:

But Seattle attorney Harry Korrell, representing Ballard High parents who challenged the district's policy, said that calling upon "images of the old South" is little more than "posturing to scare people that the consequences of the ruling will be dreadful."

"Using the tiebreaker, Ballard is 43 percent nonwhite. If you take out the tiebreaker, it drops to 40 percent. Is that a segregated school?" Korrell asked.

Okay, I grant that the data comes from the "opposition" (or, er, the ones wanting to uphold the law). However, it's data, it's checkable, and it's totally unchallenged at least as far as this article goes. I hope this omission is journalistic incompetence, but I suspect it isn't completely. But then, why let facts spoil a good liberal chest-pounding celebration?

PUNISHMENT OR REHABILITATION? Competing ideologies of crime consequences in America will be played out this week in California. Leslie Van Houten, a Charles Manson follower in the group that killed the LaBiancas in the late 1960s, is up for parole. According to attorneys, she is fully rehabilitated and thus should be released:

Van Houten's lawyers portray her record behind bars as that of a model prisoner, noting that she has obtained a bachelor's degree, tutored other inmates, made quilts for homeless women and served as a leader in anti-drug programs and other self-help groups.

According to the state, her crimes outweigh any other consideration:

While Charles (Tex) Watson stabbed Leno LaBianca, Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel held Rosemary LaBianca in another room, placing a pillowcase over her head. Watson then stabbed Rosemary LaBianca with a bayonet, and gave Van Houten a knife and ordered her to "do something," court documents show. Van Houten testified that she stabbed the victim 14 to 16 times in the back, but believed she was already dead...

...at her last hearing, in June 2000...the [parole] board concluded that Van Houten would pose "an unreasonable risk of danger to society" if released and called her offense "especially cruel and callous." Members added that Van Houten "needs additional time to gain . . . further insight into her involvement in this crime."

Are we a rehabilitative society? A punitive one? A mix? In practice, our court and correctional systems are a crazy quilt of responses to crime; even though in the broader perspective more serious crimes seem to receive more serious responses, a lot of factors - including notoriety - play a role. In a purely rehabilitative model, Van Houten would likely have been released a decade or more ago. In a purely retributive model, she'd never see the light again as a free woman. A mix is not a bad thing, but in our system the percent of each model in operation on any one day vacillates wildly. Given that, her attorneys make a valid point:

The "one apparently insurmountable obstacle" blocking her parole, her lawyers argue, is "that she was part of the Manson 'Family.' "

...said Van Houten's attorney, Christie Webb[,] "She's an individual entitled to consideration outside of the mythology that has grown up around this case."

That's true. But I'm retributive, myself. Keep her in.

INSTITUTIONALIZED LYING: Anti-Semitism is increasingly becoming almost a tenet of faith in the Muslim world, according to this NY Times article. It's very chilling; although I've seen before all the pieces mentioned here, put together it's frightening. It is becoming a war of religions, as much as some try to disconnect religion from politics. In Islam, religion and politics are inextricably linked.

Again, the NY Times bizarrely included this article in its Arts section. Some editor is clearly spending Friday afternoons at the corner bar.

FOUR DEAD IN NEVADA after a shooting at a casino there; it happened this morning during an annual motorcycle club gathering. Eight injured, 100 arrested, bridges over the Colorado closed.

AND THE BEAT GOES ON: One or two gunmen apparently entered two Israeli homes and shot the occupants, two at least while they slept. Four people died, six were injured. And this article does not show any sign of public outrage; were it Israelis sneaking into Palestinian homes, I think you would. You have to wait till the 11th paragraph to even find out the circumstances, after reading about Jenin in three of those paragraphs:

Israeli media said two gunmen had entered a house in Adora and fired on a sleeping couple before moving to another house and opening fire.

The article gives the appearance of trying to be even-handed, with both sides quoted repeatedly. But the tone leans toward skeptical overall, and favorable to the Palestinians in the final analysis. One thing that is odd to me is the omissions; I’ve not followed this as closely as some, because I just get angry and feel helpless and I can’t do anything about it. I have to let it go occasionally to keep any level of perspective. But even with that, I know enough to realize that there is information this article doesn’t use that would mitigate what is said. An example is the references to Jenin; we learn that the UN is sending in a “fact-finding” team, we learn that it was the site of the “fiercest fighting” and that the Israelis “say” that many of the attackers come from Jenin. We learn that the Palestinians claim that “hundreds” of civilians died in homes “flattened” by tank fire and bulldozers, while the Israelis claim that 48 “mostly fighters” died.

What is missing? The most significant is any discussion of the reality of the Palestinian claim of dead vs. the Israeli claim. Nowhere near 100 bodies, much less many hundreds, have been found. How hard would it be, in a city that size, where the area damaged was mostly homes, to find out a close approximation of the number? Not very, if everyone was interested in truth; we knew pretty quickly a ball-park figure for the WTC deaths, even in the midst of that far greater devastation and death. Why wouldn’t we know, then, about Jenin? Could it be that the Palestinians are blocking any honest effort at making that determination?

Next, look at this sentence:

Palestinians say hundreds of civilians may have died in the Jenin camp, many in homes flattened by tank fire and bulldozers.(emphasis mine)

Notice the last phrase; does it to you, as it did to me, sound like hapless people innocently trapped in their homes while the Israeli army heedlessly mowed them down? Of course it did, without any kind of context provided. A few days ago several blogs, including this one, linked an article in Al-Ahram where an engineer in Jenin told how the houses had been booby trapped with bombs. How else do you neutralize such death traps unless it is from the safety of heavy machinery? The engineer also said that the people of Jenin, including the children, knew of the bombs. So if they knew the bombs were there, isn’t it logical that the Israelis would come? Wasn’t that the purpose – to bring them there to die? What prevented the people from leaving the homes when the Israelis came?

A good friend of mine, a smart man, one who has lived all over the world, who has a PhD in science, who is not one to be prejudiced, thinks the Palestinians are the ones who are the victims in this war. He reads what I read and he sees a beleaguered people finally saying “enough” – and that beleaguered people is the Palestinians. We’ve argued about this a few times, but we’ve gotten nowhere. We’re both scientists, we’re both compelled by data. The problem here is, the data is so tainted and there is no one we can trust. That is where journalism has failed us so completely in this.

I’m not so naïve as to believe that the information from the Israelis is unmarked by self-interest and a need to shape public opinion. I know the information from the Palestinians is tainted. The journalists are supposed to be the ones who ask the right questions, who put it all together, who do the heavy lifting in the field so we see behind the rhetoric. I’m not asking for unbiased; you know I never ask that. What I’m asking is that journalists collect information, check it, triangulate it, dig deeper, have some integrity and honesty and persistence. Instead, we have this miasma of conflicting emotions swimming with disconnected facts that rarely get resolved into truth – and when it does, we won’t know it when we see it, because it has no structure to connect it to.

But it makes good TV, doesn’t it?

UPDATE: NOT THAT WE'RE SURPRISED, but this article linked from iWon talks about the Palestinians disguised as Israeli soldiers killing the Israeli settlers, but the photo accompanying it is of a Palestinian man in his house damaged during the Israeli attacks. So do we want to take bets on whether a photo of a dead Israeli would have accompanied an article on Israelis moving in on Jenin?

CNN CONSPIRING TO SLANT NEWS? Shocking, but so Bryan Preston reports on JunkYardBlog, along with other evidence of media bias.

R.I.P. QUALITY JOURNALISM: The Last Page proves that IT’s gain is journalism’s tragic loss in this finely crafted piece about why quality journalism is dead and likely to stay that way. It is an excellent look inside what working for a newspaper really is like, how decisions are made, and why stupid things wind up on your doorstep every morning. Page is not only insightful and engaging, her writing is a pleasure to read.

My journalism experience was in the trenches of weeklies and tiny dailies; no big city dailies for me, at least as a full-time journalist. I did freelance for the Louisville Courier-Journal for a bit while in grad school at U of L. Page is so right that many newspapers snap up new eager journalists, suck them dry and care very little when they float away, empty. I think it takes both a certain personality and a good deal of fortunate circumstances to succeed in journalism and still be a person with self-respect and integrity.

Page mentions that she began at a paper paying $18,000/yr in 1997; when I left journalism in 1987, I was making $14,500. And that was a nice pay increase from where I started. At one newspaper, we were provided manual typewriters – I kid you not – for writing our articles. I brought in my own electric typewriter until we got computers a year later. I covered local government, police, water company meetings, school boards, sports, traffic accidents and Eagle Scout ceremonies. I took my own photographs – actually won an award for one – and usually also developed the film and printed the photos. When the Challenger exploded, I was in a darkroom in a rural Kentucky town, using a plastic screen to put those little dots on my photographs so they would print properly in the newspaper; I will always smell photographic chemicals when I think of the Challenger. I wrote hard news, soft news, filler news and columns. I designed pages and used an X-acto knife to edit on the paste-up page, cutting out typos and getting wax all over my hands – wax was used to stick the typeset text columns and photos onto the page (it’s all done by computers now). I learned that a thesaurus is your friend when writing headlines, and your readers don’t always appreciate a sense of humor.

My time on the front lines of journalism was hard, fun, stressful but ultimately worth it; if you read Page’s post you’ll understand why I don’t want to go there again.

TAX FREEDOM DAY tomorrow. Ipse Dixit tells us about it, and adds a challenge to the Democrats. Make my day!

I’M CONSIDERING QUITTING BLOGGING at least long enough to get email begging me not to. Meanwhile, I’m very happy that Media Minded made his way back into the fold, and that Sgt. Stryker lasted about, what was it, two or three days? without blogging. Okay, okay, I’m a realist. I’ll be blogging until the next obsession comes along, and probably even then I’ll find time to harangue at least intermittently. (Of course, if you wanted to email encouragement I wouldn’t delete it unread.)

MM, welcome back, for whatever time you can spare us. Cool sunglasses, btw.

LIFE OF A BLOGGER: Some days it's just too much.

DEATH TO EXECUTIONS? The highest court in New York State, the Court of Appeals, will soon be considering a death penalty case that could have broader implications for the implementation of the death penalty in the state. Those against the death penalty are hoping the justices will use this opportunity to strike down the state’s law for a variety of reasons, including finding it discriminatory and cruel and unusual punishment.

The death penalty is facing challenge from another court as well, also in New York:

A federal judge Thursday said he was prepared to declare the federal death penalty unconstitutional on the grounds that too many condemned inmates turn out to be innocent.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff said he would throw out the federal death penalty in the case of two men charged with drug and murder conspiracy unless the government can explain the number of wrongful convictions that wind up on death row.
He gave the government a final opportunity to present arguments before he issues a final ruling after May 31.

Citing post-conviction DNA testing that has freed 12 condemned inmates since 1985, Rakoff said that the possibility of an innocent person being executed would be ``difficult to square with basic constitutional guarantees, let alone simple justice.''

Consideration of the death penalty has two parts, in my judgment. First are the general moral and constitutional questions: Is it right? Is it constitutional? Next come implementation issues: Is it discriminatory? Is it cruel? Does our process have too high a rate of error? It’s a hierarchical decision-making process. If you decide it’s wrong, the rest of the questions are immaterial. Ditto constitutional. But you can decide that it is a morally and constitutionally appropriate penalty in our country and still believe that the way it is currently implemented is so flawed as to require its suspension until safeguards can be put in place to lessen those problems. Too often those of us who believe it is right (and I do) allow ourselves to be backed into a corner where we feel we have to aggressively support its implementation or find ourselves outmaneuvered on the “is it right” front.

Agreeing that too many innocent people are dying is not the same as saying it’s wrong to execute a guilty person.

REPENTANCE, REDEMPTION AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: The biggest discussion on the religious front right now is what to do with priests who committed sexual abuse years ago and have apparently not engaged in it recently. The Catholic bishops are uncertain, and I’ve heard public opinions ranging from, “How could they let a pedophile stay on no matter how long ago it was?” to “What about repentance and forgiveness?” In fact, whenever someone has done something truly awful, later realizes it and asks for forgiveness, a certain group always cries for consequences to be suspended because of the repentance. A good case in point is Karla Faye Tucker, who committed a heinous murder, was sentenced to death, converted to Christianity in prison and then sought clemency as a result of her change in behavior. From what I saw, it seemed likely that her conversion was genuine. She was executed in 1998.

So what’s the answer? Should forgiveness automatically imply a suspension of earthly consequences?

I think the answer in the Bible – in both words and context - is clearly “no”. Forgiveness, while it has implications in this life, is about eternity. Some behaviors are so damaging to others in this life that even someone who is repentant can rightly be kept from having the opportunity again. One example is when one person in a marriage is sexually unfaithful; the other person may forgive, in a spiritual sense, when the unfaithful partner is truly sorry, but that doesn’t mean the trust in the relationship can be regained. Giving forgiveness doesn’t obligate the innocent partner to take the unfaithful partner back. Neither does it prevent reconciliation; only the injured can make that determination.

The case of sexual abuse is even more serious in this instance because a forgiveness that includes a restoration of full privileges puts vulnerable children at risk and undermines confidence in spiritual leaders. It’s important to note here that while Catholic priests are the center of this particular storm, religious leaders of all faiths, of either sex, are in a position of trust with children that could easily be abused. The potential for harm both to children and to trust in religious leaders dictates that the strongest measures be taken to ensure purity: All the priests who can be proven to have committed abuse – by a legal standard, even though the case may now be beyond statutory limits – must be removed. In an organization with the size, wealth and power of the Catholic church, any priests removed who have truly shown a change in behavior can find other duties that do not involve the trust and leadership role of a priest. Those whose crimes are still within the statutory limits should be turned over to the authorities and the Catholic church should cooperate fully.

Forgiveness and suspension of consequences are separate processes, and extending the first does not necessarily mean extending the second. The Catholic church needs to send the clear message that protecting children is more important than protecting the careers of priests, even those with long and mostly illustrious careers.

IT’S A GREAT IDEA, BUT:

An anti-affirmative action activist in California is on a crusade to make the government color blind.

Ward Connerly, who helped end affirmative action at the University of California and in the state’s hiring practices, now wants state officials to stop collecting racial data entirely at taxpayers’ expense.

"In my view, government should not be asking, ‘What is your race?’ any more than, ‘What is your religion or what is your sexual orientation?’" he said.

The “balance” provided in the article was quotes from people who are for affirmative action and who see this lessening of data collection as undermining their ability to track “progress” in that area. That’s an ideological objection, just as this is an ideological proposal. What I want to know is, to what extent will we “stop collecting…at taxpayers’ expense” ? There are legitimate reasons, especially medical but also, in my judgment, sociological, why it’s important to have that kind of information. Ideologically, I’m totally behind the “color blind” concept. But we have to be careful that we don’t overreact by asserting that race has no impact on any decisions the government, or society, needs to make. For example, there are medical conditions which are more prevalent in some populations than others. It’s important in understanding those conditions that we separate out whether it’s race, culture or geography that’s have an impact, so we can go about resolving whatever the problem is.

On the other hand, the task of picking which race or ethnicity each person is has become more difficult through mixing of groups. That’s not a bad thing, but I think we need to restructure how we ask those questions. Maybe a better question would be, what was the race of your parents? Or even go as far back as grandparents. How do you answer “what race” if one set of grandparents were native American/African-American, and the other set was Italian/Asian?

Often researchers will use data sets collected for other reasons as the basis for their analysis; the census data is a hugely rich source of data for a wide range of analyses having nothing to do with the original purpose of the census. Government data sets are particularly rich for the exact reason that they collect so much. We need to assess the range of purposes for a data set before we start limiting the richness of the data.

We can always make the computer colorblind for specific selection tasks (like hiring), rather than eschewing collection of ethnic data altogether.

BECAUSE I CAN, I've started posting some of my poetry - older stuff, for now - on a new site, inside my mind. I'm no Emily Dickinson, but it keeps my mind busy.

WELCH ON BLOGGING: For those of you who didn’t read it yesterday, here’s the link to Matt Welch's discussion of newspapers, blogging and the Internet. Excellent.

NUN TOO TRUTHFUL: A Russian Orthodox nun who also just happens to be George Stephanopoulos' sister has been taking time away from her duties as teacher at a school for Palestinian girls to report second-hand information about Israeli atrocities:

"I'm not spreading propaganda," George Stephanopoulos' orthodox-nun sister vows, but Israeli soldiers last week "defecated" on the floors of a West Bank medical clinic they raided.

However, her track record is not strong:

An e-mail alert she dispatched 10 days ago about Israeli soldiers raping Palestinian girls was later deemed apocryphal, the priest told WorldNetDaily. Stephanopoulos was the victim of a Palestinian boy's e-mail hoax...

Nearly all of Mother Maria's reporting comes from Palestinian sources. She has not herself witnessed the alleged Israeli atrocities.

Sources say she has also been urging family members to make their bank accounts available to officials of the Nigerian government who want to give them millions of dollars.

(Okay, I made that last bit up.)

Thanks to DailyPundit for the link.

JOURNALISM PROFESSORS SHOW LIBERAL BIAS. In other news, it is revealed that Ronald Reagan was a conservative.

TAKING IT TO PAKISTAN: US military has been conducting covert operations in Pakistan in recent weeks, according to the Washington Post.

Just in recent weeks? If we've not been doing this for recent months, then we're stupid.

SAUDI GOVT CRACKS ON PRESS: Apparently after the fire in Mecca where the young girls died because the religious police kept them from leaving the burning school, the "Saudi" Arabian press became more vocal and actually criticized the government. That lasted a matter of weeks:

...a couple of weeks after the burst of openness, the government yanked the leash and the kingdom's newspapers reverted to their old, docile form.

And what does this flow of media look like in "Saudi" Arabia?

The main sources of news for most Saudis are satellite channels, such as the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera. Satellite dishes, though illegal, are widespread. The Internet is another source of news for Saudis, but their government heavily censors it -- about half a million sites, many of them pornographic or maintained by the opposition, are blocked on any given day.

The press restrictions are part of wider controls on all forms of literature, public artistic expression, and academic subjects.

The authorities prohibit the study of evolution, Freud, Marx, Western music, and Western philosophy, and prohibit the criticism of Islam or the ruling family.

I complain and fume about the political leanings of most American media, about the shallow coverage that is often the order of the day, and the race to entertain rather than inform. It's flawed, just as our democracy is flawed. But for all that, we have an absolutely amazing media compared to anything else in the world, with thousands of journalists who truly are dedicated to "getting the word out". Even when we complain, we know that eventually the "truth", whatever that is, will be spoken by someone and we just need to figure out who it is. In "Saudi" Arabia, as other places in the world, the "truth" is actively suppressed.

I think we need to send the military, but just to protect the media. Let the Saudi ruling family try to maintain power in the face of endless "Entertainment Tonight" features on their lifestyles, Court TV's incessant airing of their justice system, the religious police followed for a few weeks by a "COPS in Arabia!" film crew. Sic thousands of little journalism students full of themselves and their right to any and all information on every public official in every little camel watering hole in the country. Let Maureen Dowd look down her nose daily at the Saudi princes ("Abdullah took me aside the other day and said, 'I wanted to add you to my list of wives but I knew you'd soon have them forming a sex labor union'. I said, no, this is one case I'd preach abstinence."). Get King Fahd on an airing of "Crossfire" and let Carville eviscerate him in public. Let the Defense Minister try a Rumsfeld on a pool of piranha political journalists. Let Peggy Noonan gently and with mesmerizing prose show that the emperor has no clothes, and it's surely an ugly sight.

We'd soon have a bloodless coup.

BURNED OUT STARS OUTSIDE HOLLYWOOD? Scientists announced yesterday that some cooling stars are at least 13 billion years old; no information was available about whether this is older or younger than Barbra Streisand. Our own Bryan Preston of JunkYardBlog was orchestrator of the press conference where all this was announced, and he has some pertinent comments about what happens when journalists (or at least headline writers) try to think without assistance.

IF I WAS A FEMINIST I would complain that my boss gave me roses today in celebration of Administrative Professional's Day (was that invented by Hallmark?). If I was a Feminist, I would say, "I am not an administrative assistant or a secretary! I am a Real Professional! I demand respect! Take these roses and shove them somewhere!"

However, since I am not a Feminist, I do not have to look for Oppression behind every flower, and I do not have to be Offended or make the assumption that he is an Obviously Condescending Male who thinks that because I am Woman I am Clerical, and that Clerical is Inferior.

Since I am not a Feminist, I can accept the roses as a much deserved thank you for a Job Well Done, and I can be graciously appreciative.

They are very pretty roses.

CNN REGAINS CREDIBILITY: After a slide in the ratings, CNN - long known for thoughtful, unbiased hard news coverage - accomplished a coup in the reporting world and earned an exclusive on one of the most hard-hitting stories aired in recent memory:

The Robert Blake murder case may not rival O.J. Simpson's in television attention, but it's already caused a surprising ratings bump for CNN and a flareup of tensions in cable's hottest rivalry.

CNN had its biggest prime-time audiences of the year last Thursday after the former "Baretta" actor was charged with shooting his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, to death last May outside a Los Angeles restaurant...

CNN paid the airfare for Bakley's sister, Margerry, from her Knoxville, Tenn., home to Los Angeles, and guarded her against advances from other reporters Monday. CNN featured Bakley interviews on Paula Zahn's morning show, its "Talkback Live" daytime show and "Larry King Live."

FoxNews, an upstart yet surprisingly resilient competitor, cried foul and retaliated with a unique perspective of its own:

Shepard Smith, a Fox anchor, made an on-air reference Tuesday to another network having "bought and paid for" access to Margerry Bakley.

CNN said it doesn't pay for interviews but that - like other networks - it helps with travel for interview subjects.

"I'm sure (competitors) would have done it if they could have gotten her," Ryan said.

...Smith brought Denise Brown, sister of Simpson's slain wife, Nicole, on for an interview to discuss the Blake case.

The FoxNews audience was happy to learn that the network had a proper perspective on the factors to be considered in determining newsworthiness when deciding that it wouldn't cover the story as intensely as the OJ case:

The Blake case is about "a guy who ... played a tough guy and a woman you wouldn't want to be near," he [Shepard Smith] said. "I'm not sure it sells."

In a startling turn of events, Dan Rather got it right:

Broadcast networks have done nothing special to mark Blake's arrest; the case merited a 20-second voiceover report by Dan Rather on the "CBS Evening News," for instance.

Some sources, however, suspect that the reticence is due more to the unavailability of Margerry Bakley and Denise Brown than a philosophical aversion to celebrity crime coverage.

In other news, unnamed industry insiders indicate that Rather will host a debate between a Marie Claire editor and a really hot IEF in a bustier on the impact of terrorism on lipstick sales.

"Buy Tropical Mango Freeze all-day shine or the terrorists will have won" will be the slogan of the debate's sponsor, an as-yet unrevealed cosmetics manufacturer.

PAST SIN MAY BE OK: American cardinals of the Catholic Church have apparently decided that sexual abuse in the future is a no-no, but if you did it already, well, you know, we hadn't made it clear it was wrong and all, so hey! it's okay, man, don't worry.

American cardinals meeting with Pope John Paul II reached consensus on a "one-strike-you're-out" policy that would dismiss any priest involved in a future sex abuse case, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick indicated Wednesday.

The Washington archbishop said, however, that there were still some questions about whether a similar tough policy should be applied to cases that occurred in the past and have now come to light.

Next up: American cardinals to decide that murder by priests is ok as long as it happened prior to this conference; future murder by priests will be frowned upon, and the priest responsible may be transferred to duties involving inanimate objects only or, if murder involved mutilation, dismemberment or multiple victims, encouraged to resign. Authorities to be notified only if body cannot be hidden or melted with lye (a la last Sunday's Law & Order).

NEWSFLASH: NPR BIASED: On my way to work this morning I listened to a piece on the devastation in Palestine as a result of the Israeli incursion. Here's what the website has up about it; the audio isn't up yet, but likely will be later:

Palestinian Damage

NPR's Anne Garrels reports on an international donors conference that opens today in Oslo to discuss humanitarian aid for Palestinians. Palestinian officials say that the need is great in the wake of Israel's three-week offensive in the West Bank. (4:48)

This doesn't begin to give the gist of what Garrels' report was about. She sounded tight-lipped and angry, apparently at the damage done, and the entire piece was on all the infrastructure damage, on how the children were frightened, how Arafat when he was "released" would find that the Palestine he had to govern had no infrastructure to govern with. There was no discussion of the Israeli deaths that occurred as a result of Palestinian activities, nor the deaths of Israeli soldiers. She estimated the damage in dollars to each of several cities - no commensurate estimate of damage in Israeli commerce, never mind lives lost - and she listed a variety of other "impacts", such as the number of people who were out of work.

I think the media do have a responsibility to cover the impact of this conflict on the Palestinians, but I want the information to be accurate and in context. This piece was at the very least misleading by not providing context. For example, the figure on how many Palestinians are unemployed did not say how many were unemployed prior to the latest Israeli incursion, or what the average unemployment has been over the years. Without that context, we have no way of judging whether the current level is a little higher or a lot higher; the implication was that it is a lot higher due to the incursion. While it could have been just bad journalism, it seemed to me to be a very biased piece served up for the purpose of encouraging support for millions of dollars in aid to Palestine through this international donors conference. I recommend you listen to it, when it is posted on the Web, and judge for yourself.

And by the way, I looked up "incursion" because I suddenly realized that is the word I had heard mainly in the media, and I wondered if it had ramifications that I didn't realize. I wanted to know before I used it here. The first definition is: An aggressive entrance into foreign territory; a raid or invasion. I think it fits, as long as we don't assume "invasion" means an unjustified offensive.

GRITTY TALE: As a southerner, I'm a major advocate of corn in just about any form: on the cob, fried, boiled, grilled, baked; in soup, stews, chili; made into cornbread, hominy, grits, mush (or its more fashionable cousin, polenta). I came across this commentary and article on the subject of grits - also known as The Food Of Gods - on the NPR website. Check it out, and if you want one of the best foods known to mankind, make the Garlic Cheese Grits. Back home, that makes it onto the menu for everything from breakfast to Thanksgiving dinner.

PINK COLLAR GHETTO? Geneva Overholser laments the lack of women at the top of media management in the Columbia Journalism Review:

…after some strong progress in the 1980s, women's rise to the top reaches of the field had stalled, so that "women today fill about thirty percent of senior management jobs, the same as several years ago." As for the highest positions -- president, publisher, and ceo -- a survey of 137 newspapers with a circulation over 85,000 showed only 8 percent held by women. Moreover, the study cited retention problems with women and various "ceilings" that they seemed to be hitting (becoming managing editors, for example, but not top editors).

She recognizes that women are increasingly dominating journalism, but points out that it’s only at the lower levels:

Certainly, women now increasingly dominate the (low-salaried) entry ranks. But in the choicest assignments -- and at the top -- they are scarce. Indeed, the industry begins to look disturbingly like one of those "pink color" ghettos -- a trade shunned by men, except for those who run it.

Overholser is playing that one-note feminist plaint we hear so often – women are underrepresented in numbers at the top, compared to their preponderance at the bottom, so there must be discrimination happening. This conclusion is based solely on numbers; no one’s done a scientifically sound study on what’s happening. As a former reporter, I can attest that the life of a journalist, at least until you get to the lofty heights, is not conducive to family life. Maybe what we’re seeing is women exercising the “choice” among the options in life that the feminists initially claimed was their goal. And now the feminists are complaining.

How shocking.

BLOGGER IS GETTING ON MY NERVES! It's been down repeatedly over the last few days, and it just phantom-posted an entry - I hit "post & publish", it appeared in the "current" section of the posting page, I went to see if it showed up on the site... and it didn't. And when I got back to the posting page, it was gone from there too. Yes, I had written it in Word but erased it because it appeared to have posted. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

FASHION AND WAR - HAPPY TOGETHER: The women's fashion magazine Marie Claire is up for high praise today in the LA Times for it's savvy mix of news and lipstick:

Marie Claire is the title that women's rights activists often mention when they talk about what publication has done the most to interest women in feminist causes over the past few years...Marie Claire looks no different from any of the lip-glossy women's titles. But if you scan the cover of each issue, skimming down the current issue's pitch for articles such as "Men Confess: What Makes Him Commit--or Not" and the usual "sexy swimsuit" roundup, you'll find a cover line that seems out of place. It's a Day-Glo green banner that reads, in color-me-radical language "World Campaign: Stop War Criminals From Walking Free," a tease for the page Seymour now turns, exposing an ad for pills that purport to "Increase Breast Size ... Guaranteed!"

...After Sept. 11, scores of readers wrote in that they were the only women they knew who were well-versed about the Taliban, thanks to the magazine's previous coverage.

Marie Claire is proud of its dual focus, but they try to listen to their readers too:

Seymour...says they're not exactly looking for a movement rag, just a smarter beauty magazine.

"They're saying, 'Don't throw it in my face--I don't want to look like an intellectual egghead freak,'" Seymour says.

Some feminists are philosophical:

Though some feminists recognize the duality, it doesn't faze them. "A willing reader can handle reading about women in Afghanistan and still have the quick tips for firming up for before bathing suit season," says Jennifer Baumgardner, co-author of "Manifesta," a book about young women and feminism.

Some, like Andrea Dworkin, author of "Heartbreak: The Political Memoirs of a Feminist Militant", are less so:

There's something about being assimilated by beauty culture that is nothing but hostility to women," she says. "And I don't know why they need it."

This IEF (intellectual egghead freak) found the link via Romenesko.

UPDATE: While this IEF has not been assimilated into the beauty culture, due to a chronic inability to grow long nails and an aversion to eyebrow tweezers, I wish to make it clear that I think many women can be both an IEF and quite lovely. For an example, please see Virginia Postrel.

BOBBY KNIGHT: LOSER - The erstwhile Indiana coach continues his kind, loving and put-others-first ways.

INSIDER GRADING: Apparently at least one newspaper is being accused of bias from inside its own gates (see post below for media whining about readers complaining). The New York Observer's Off The Record column reports this:

Daily News columnist Juan Gonzalez is calling out the paper for what he deems a pro-Israel bias in the paper’s Middle East coverage.

In an April 10 memo obtained by The Observer, Mr. Gonzalez writes: "I am making a plea to the editors and my colleagues on the news staff to stop the unbalanced, anti-Palestinian coverage that has been filling our newspaper every day for the past two weeks."

And what does he base this on?

Mr. Gonzalez then tries to prove his point. He says the paper ignored humanitarian criticism of Israel by the International Red Cross. He chides the paper for putting more emphasis on, and showing more sympathy for, Israeli casualties, and faults the News for not reporting the beefs of international news organizations who have been barred from Palestinian refugee camps.

"With all respect," Mr. Gonzalez goes on to write, "to those of you who feel strong emotional or religious attachment to Israel’s plight, our newspaper’s overall coverage is doing an enormous disservice to our readers and to journalistic principles by not presenting both sides fairly."

I've not followed the Daily News coverage, so I can't say whether Mr. Gonzalez is correct. But I think he needs to check into the veracity of the International Red Cross before he uses them as a source, and perhaps look into why journalists might be held back from entrance into some areas.

NEWSPAPERS ON THE WAR FRONT: Newspapers around the country are finding that their coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is getting angry response from their readers, according to this article in Editor & Publisher. This quote gets at the general attitude of the media in response:

"It's scary, this idea that one group or another could turn on journalists," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Many people, she added, have probably given up on the idea of peace and become terrified -- "and one of the easiest things to react to is the media."

I think Ms. Dalglish is rather naive if she truly finds it shocking that people are going to react negatively to journalists when they perceive the coverage of such a divisive issue as biased. This is not a matter of how often the words "liberal" and "conservative" are used, although that's important in a discussion of ideological bias. This issue is a matter of life and death, literally, to many people, and the United States is a primary player in the situation. The main disseminators of information about the situation are the print, broadcast and Internet mainstream media, for all that we bloggers and others give important commentary on events. There is already a perception in this country that the media are biased, and you've seen here and on other blogs how the media has often seemed to "take sides" based on the preponderance of its coverage of the conflict. The US media has long had the protection of a free society, and this kind of relatively mild objection (given what journalists in other countries face) seems to have sent them in a tailspin.

I think they should "listen to the American street" and look more closely at their coverage. Is it possible that they are being used by one side or the other, that they're not carefully checking information before publishing it (see: Jenin), that they're responding to the need for speed rather than holding out for thoughful accuracy? If they do that analysis, and determine that they are doing the very best possible job, then they need to stop whining and keep filing their articles. Wartime journalism is not for the fainthearted.

And that throw-away comment on "given up on the idea of peace" is a good example of why people might get angry.

CONSERVATIVE MISNOMER: Matthew Hoy has a nice takedown of today’s Paul Krugman column in the NY Times, but I have to take issue with part of it:

…"conservative Republican" is becoming a misnomer. Republicans were the ones pushing to change welfare, they want to privatize Social Security, add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare -- these are all changes. Conservatives, by definition, want to hold tight to the status quo.

First, an agreement – “conservative Republican”, in its true definition, is becoming an misnomer. However, apparently unlike Hoy, I think this is a bad thing. That leads to the disagreement – the definition of conservative is not holding to the status quo in the manner Hoy seems to indicate, i.e. an intractable unwillingness to change regardless of the situation. Even Webster’s says conservatism is about “preferring gradual development to abrupt change” – that’s not intractability.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I’m concerned about the blurring of the two parties in the middle, with each reaching for the same undecided market share while thinking their historical base would remain fast. The conservatism evidenced by that arm of the Republican party is not the conservatism of Ronald Reagan; it wasn’t, until recently, the conservatism of George W. Their type of conservatism isn’t conservative at all – just as true conservatism is not about political constipation.

True conservatism says, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it. It says, identify the principles that have made us a strong and honorable people, and let’s stick close to those. It says, don’t chase the flash and dazzle, don’t race to change, but consider, and move thoughtfully, and remember that it’s better err on the side of the individual, not the government. A true conservatism isn’t afraid of change, but it doesn’t change to be fashionable or in response to polls. Conservatism also doesn’t mean tight-lipped and puritanical, just because it isn’t trendy.

Whether conservatives want to “hold tight to the status quo” depends a great deal on what the status quo is. Democratic control of the Senate is the “status quo”; racial preferences are the “status quo”; hedonism in society is the “status quo”. I assure you true conservatives are not holding tight to those.

HISTORY OF JENIN: Joe Katzman at Winds of Change has put together a lengthy piece on Jenin and how the battle there and its aftermath fit into the overall scheme of the Israeli/Middle East conflict over the decades. Apparently this went up last week, and was linked around, but I didn't see it. I found it very helpful in giving the news reports context; it was updated today. Worth a read.

WELCOME, UGLY NORA: Hanging out on my referrer logs, as of course I tend to do from time to time, I came across an unfamiliar name – uglynora.blogspot.com. Ah, I think – has someone linked me? So off I go to check out this new-to-me blog, having found some wonderful reading that way in the past. It was even better than I had ever hoped! The very first sentence of her (his?) most recent post:

I want my blog to simply and clearly refute every post at Cut on the Bias. I want my blog to be funny and grand and leave no argument unchecked.

How cool is that? It reminds me of when my brother was editorial page editor of his college newspaper, and wrote a column that steamed the liberal students. Being good little liberals, they promptly staged a candlelight vigil in protest, which of course resulted in my brother appearing on all three local television news programs. When he called me, the conversation went something like this (paraphrased, Alan, don’t email me and say I misquoted you):

Him: “I’m being vigiled.”

Me: “Huh?”

Him: “I wrote a column that upset the PC set and they’re protesting. It’s my first candlelight vigil!”

Me: “Excellent! You’re well on your way to commentary success!”

Him: “I’ve been on all three television stations. I wore that Harris tweed you got me to one of the interviews.”

Me: “Which bow tie did you wear?”

I had been flagging a little in the blogging department, the sheer time and energy involved some days feeling a bit much, but I feel revived! Ugly nora, thank you for the encouragement, and the sure knowledge that somewhere out there, I’m annoying someone on a regular basis. If you ever need a clarification on some point so you can make sure you’re properly debunking it, my email box is always open. It is, after all, a free country.

Let me close with some more of ugly nora’s wisdom:

How anyone can badmouth Jesse Jackson is beyond me.

We're waiting to see what else is beyond you, ugly nora! Have fun!

UPDATE: Apparently ugly nora either is or knows someone named dan haar, who's hotmail account is the email address. Hmmm. I guess "he" is how I should refer to ugly nora. I don't even want to speculate on how dan became nora. And what kind of investigative reporter am I anyway, to only now think to look at the email address given?

THIS TOTALLY BITES: Media Minded, my inspiration in this line of media bias denouncing, has declared himself done with blogging. MM, say it ain't so! Take a few days, hang with Techie Girlfriend, clear out some cobwebs, take care of those nagging issues that have gone by the way during your blogging months, then come back. It just won't be the same without you.

ATTENTION, CLASS, Charles Hill at Dustbury.com has today’s history quiz, wherein interesting patterns emerge if you pay careful attention. It’s subtle, though.

UPDATE: Reader Donald Korn sends a reminder for the history lesson:

Petty Officer Robert Dean Stethem, a US Navy diver, was killed in 1985 as he was planning to return home from Greece aboard TWA Flight 847. The flight was hijacked to Beirut, Lebanon, and Stethem was shot in the head, his body dumped on the tarmac. The Lebanese hijackers held 39 other people hostage for 17 days, demanding that Israel release several hundred Shiite Muslim prisoners.

Never forget.

INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS AND ETIQUETTE: Wendy McElroy of iFeminists has a thoughtful column on FoxNews today, which marches along with my earlier post on feminism. A sample:

You have the right to form an opinion and to express it. You do not need a diploma, permission from your spouse, dispensation from the Church, or a birth certificate listing the "correct" sex. Simply by being human, you have a right to reach conclusions and state them. For example, men have a right to independent opinions on "women's" issues like abortion.

Check it out.

THE REAL AL GORE: Self-understanding is a wonderful thing, as this photo at The Angry Clam shows.

WEAK MINDED PREMISE: A new book takes up old themes in claiming that modern women are harmed by attitudes based in Victorian views of women’s frailty. A review in today’s NY Times of The Frailty Myth by Colette Downing says:

…the myth of female frailty has not disappeared, and the misinformed, gender-biased attitudes that keep it alive have also strengthened another unfortunate myth, that of the mannish woman, loosely defined as any woman who excels in sports or "man's" activities. Both fictions, the author writes, have kept many women from using their bodies — either by reinforcing the notion that they are weak by nature, or by the threat of ridicule, of being "reduced to little more than sideshow freaks" if they proved that they weren't frail by becoming too athletic.

Actually, any views of women being physically “frail” have been limited to the upper classes; women of the working and servant classes have always had to work, and very hard. And in my judgment, women are more involved in sports than ever before and admired for it. The tone of this review makes it clear that the author has a feminist agenda:

Fortunately, the notion that women are unable to achieve the same levels of physical development as men is being challenged. Strength and physical skill have much to do with training, and the potential for improvement, Ms. Dowling notes, "has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with know-how."

Yes and no. Women are intellectually capable of any tasks that men do; physically, women are capable of more than most probably do. But saying “the potential for improvement… has nothing to do with gender” is patently false. Women’s bodies are constructed differently, and the majority of women just have less muscle and/or body mass than the majority of men, which means they cannot do the same level of physical tasks. That’s just biology, not some nefarious paternalistic scheme to keep women down.

I think the greater damage is done by the feminist call to similarity with men, to erase differences. We would do better to explore what the natural differences are and both honor and encourage them, while at the same time creating an atmosphere where everyone, male and female, feels able to pursue his or her talents no matter what they are. It’s the same plantation, just the other end of it, for women to be told they need to show “male” qualities to be acceptable. Who says that more women participating in sports is a sign of progress? In my judgment, the goal is for every woman to feel she can if she wants to, but won’t be characterized as weak and socially harmed if she doesn’t want to.

There are natural differences to how women and men engage the world, physically, intellectually and emotionally. That’s a good thing. Women bring something to the table that men don’t – and vice versa. We’re hindered from understanding how those complementary traits can fit together to make a whole greater than the parts – and I think they do – by this insistence that women will be downtrodden until they all can play baseball.

SHAMEFUL REACTION: Why is it that France is "shamed" by the successful candidacy of Le Pen? I don't know a lot about French politics, and I'm not going to comment on Le Pen's views. But I think if the leadership in France reflected Le Pen's views now, and the vote had been for a more liberal government, would we be talking shame? Look at some excerpts from a NY Times article:

"It is the honor of our country that is at stake."

...Signs of shame were everywhere in France today. "NO" was the headline on the front page of the leftist newspaper Libération, a terse summary of the widespread incredulity that a man whose politics have been consistently marked by anti-immigrant bigotry could do so so well.

Le Monde published a column entitled simply "The Wound." Written by its publisher, Jean-Marie Colombani, it said: "France is wounded. And, for many of the French, humiliated."

The "shame" is on the part of the liberals; the "humiliation" is theirs too. I think what bothers me is the discounting of voters that the "shame" theme implies. Some see this as a legitimate protest:

"This vote is the first to sanction the political class for not listening," said Laurence Parisot, of the IFOP polling institute.

I think that's the better attitude. If there's shame, it belongs to the people who'd been heedless of an entire group of people, who are speaking through this election. France is so quick to say the US needs to listen to the "Arab street" - why do they explode in recriminations when the "French street" says something they don't want to hear? The article notes that too:

Like the United States, France feels that its values hold a universal message for mankind. It has been quick in recent years to hand out moral lessons to other European nations, like Austria, that have voted heavily for rightist candidates, making its sense of humiliation today that much harder to bear.

Liberals usually try to paint themselves as speaking for "the little guy". I think this shows the falsity of that construct. How will France handle this little wake-up call? I don't know about the long run, but so far, the response has been shameful.

UPDATE: According to the LA Times:

A spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Le Pen's besting of Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin was "very sad," adding that in the runoff election, "we trust the French people to reject extremism of any kind."

"Socialist" Jospin? Sounds to me like they just did.

KENTUCKY COOL: Just found a blog tonight by a fellow native Kentuckian, although he – lucky guy - still lives there (even if it is Louisville). Ipse Dixit is smart, funny and has a regular photo caption contest for the competitive among you. Check it out.

MEDIA BIAS EXCHANGE: Regurga-blog weighs in on the media bias debate, answering issues raised by Geoffrey Nunberg about whether the mainstream media label conservative groups "conservative" more than liberal groups as "liberal". Interesting reading, and some good links.

GUNNING FOR MANUFACTURERS THROUGH COURTS: A NYC council member is seeking to limit access to guns in NYC even more by opening the door to lawsuits against gun manufacturers who don’t follow a “corporate code of conduct”. David Yassky, a former law professor and aide for Chuck Schumer when he was a congressman, received money from 189 attorneys and others of his "social class" in his successful campaign for Council, and filed an amicus brief in the US vs Emerson case encouraging a finding that in the 2nd Amendment, “bear arms” meant for military use only. From the NY Times:

MANHATTAN: BILL WOULD LET GUN VICTIMS SUE A City Council member proposed a bill yesterday that would allow gunshot victims to sue gun manufacturers that do not conform to a corporate code of conduct. The council member, David Yassky of Brooklyn, is a former Congressional aide who helped draft the federal Brady Law and the assault-weapons ban. Mr. Yassky wants gun manufacturers to agree to stop selling weapons to dealers who resell to other dealers who will offer customers more than one gun a month. He also wants manufacturers not to sell to gun shows, which have relatively little supervision, or to dealers found to have sold more than 20 guns used in crimes in one year. Michael Cooper (NYT)

In its endorsement of Yassky for council member, the NY Times said,

David Yassky, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, was Charles Schumer's firepower when Mr. Schumer, now senator, was in the House of Representatives.

I’ll be watching this one. If it passes, would it be "next stop, Senate"?

UPDATE: I skidded past the "gunshot victims" part of the bill in my first pass through, but that is a huge concern. Just who qualifies as "gunshot victim" - anyone shot? Or just those accidentally shot? Does this open a whole area where criminals shot in the commission of crimes can go after gun manufacturers for damages? The mind boggles.

END DOES NOT JUSTIFY MEANS: The Supreme Court has agreed to look at the extent to which RICO can be applied to organizations who use violence in protests and civil disobedience. This aspect is crucial:

The court limited its review to two legal questions about application of the RICO statute and federal extortion law. It will not consider the legality or constitutionality of abortion itself, nor wider questions about the political or religious messages of the abortion protesters.

I'm not for widespread usage of RICO, but I do think the Court needs to make it very clear that protesters have to limit their actions so no active harm is done. And we need to make sure that the law and its interpretation are applied equally to groups on both ends of the ideological continuum - since it is usually the extremes that disintegrate into ugly violence. Thus, anti-abortion protesters who damage property and environmental protesters who release lab animals or wreak havoc with logging equipment or toss paint on someone's fur coat should be treated precisely the same.

JEWS WHO ARE AMBIVALENT ABOUT ISRAEL: Jonathan Gewirtz at ChicagoBoyz has a great post explaining how some Jews - mostly observant, religious Jews - are ambivalent about the state of Israel, and why. It's worth remembering that everyone Jewish isn't reflexively pro-Israel as per status quo; there's some dispute about how the state should be run to most closely either reflect Judaism or separate church and state for a more representative country.

UPDATE: The post Gewirtz has on his site primarily consists of an email from a friend. Said friend says my understanding of the post is a little right and a little wrong. He explains in detail just what he meant, in the comments section of this post, so instead of my trying to figure it out again, I ask that you please read his comments. And the problem rests with me trying to understand anything at 6 a.m., rather than any fault with his writing skills.

THANKS, HOWARD! Today's Washington Post has a nice, breathlessly cute column about blogging from Howard Kurtz. I'm happy to say that mine is one of the more breathlessly inane quotes. The sad part is, most of the quote comes directly from my blog, so I can't claim misquoting or even the startled awe of someone suddenly finding herself talking to HOWARD KURTZ (after all!) on the telephone. Just a few quibbles, Howard - there is some serious commentary going on in the blogosphere - as I noted to you; there have been mainstream impacts - as I noted to you; and there are purposes beyond just a I-haven't-anything-better-to-do-so-why-not that some of us do this - as I noted to you.

A friendly column though, as I said, expressing Howard's somewhat condescending fond-uncle perspective. Welcome to all three of you who find my page via the column, and yes, I do now know that Tucker Carlson is the fourth on Crossfire, that he has a long and distinguished conservative journalistic career, and he wears a cute bowtie. Please read the full post to see that Howard's editing of my quote took out some fairly pertinent discussion of Crossfire. And please read my other postings, where I sound much more informed and much less inane.

UPDATE: Well, I sound a bit huffy above, which wasn't my intent but that's what you get for posting at 5:30 a.m. when you were up reading until 3:30. WELCOME to everyone who's visiting from the Washington Post; thanks again to Howard for the mention. For those of you new to the blogosphere, I highly recommend all the blogs listed on my links to the left. Bookmark some of us and, when you have a little time, link around, dig deeper into the archives of the various blogs, and see all you're missing from some truly excellent folks. Most of us have our specialties of one sort or another, and I've learned an amazing amount in the few months I've been around this corner of the Internet. I'm happy to have some small part in it.

GREAT MINDS: Matthew Hoy takes down the Jimmy Carter op-ed in today's NY Times that I had a few things to say about below. Matthew's a bit more intellectual and historical about it than I am.

RURAL RULES: Will the rural areas of the United States be where the battle for the House is fought this fall? This FoxNews analysis says yes:

From the Maine woods to the New Mexico desert, rural America is disputed territory in the battle for control of the House this fall, and Democrats are appealing for votes across a cultural divide of gun control, abortion and religion.

Which helps explain why Stephen Udall, running in Arizona, says, "In my pickup truck I've got a shovel, I've got a set of wrenches and I've got my rifle."

I grew up in a county where fewer than 30,000 people lived, and where the largest town still has only 1,700 residents. Yes, my great-grandmother did chew tobacco. Yes, I did go barefoot most of the summer. Yes, I do know how to hoe corn. That doesn't mean that I don't also know which fork to use, and that I can't see through the camouflage to the Democrat underneath. I resent this cynical attitude on the part of the Democrats, and the implication that it’s okay to play up the stereotype of the hounddog-n-huntin’ religion-blinded yahoo in the country:

…Chuck Byrd's campaign in Georgia probably will run commercials mentioning that he spends one week a year in Central America with Southern Baptist missionaries, building churches, hospitals and schools.

Would it be unkind of me to ask whether he started doing that when he decided to run for political office?

…State Sen. Lincoln Davis, the party's unofficially preferred candidate in a rural Tennessee district, opposes abortion and says he won't let anyone "outgun me, outpray me or outdaddy me."

How about “out-truth” you?

…The largest community in the Tennessee district where Davis and one other Democrat are running is home to a mere 30,000 people.

A “mere”? It’s not Manhattan, but it’s not rural by my definition. That’s a city, where I come from.

"The arms have opened wider" in recent years to moderate and conservative candidates, said conservative Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C…

Define “Democrat conservative” here. Is it someone who votes for huge government in between gospel meetings and ‘coon hunting?

"I talk a lot about common sense and small town values," said Rep. Mike Ross, a first-term Democrat from Arkansas … In an interview, Ross added he is a "lifelong hunter and a member of the NRA."

Do you put your life where your mouth is?

It’s so bizarre to me that the party of Sara Brady, feminists and those who speak derisively of the “Bible Belt” is now the party of the card-carrying NRA, gun-totin’ Bible beater. And how will those Democrats behave in Congress?

I guess in a larger sense this confuses me. The Republicans are talking about the need to open up the party to the pro-choice crowd just as the Democrats are pulling in anti-abortion candidates. The Republicans are trying to pull away from the image that they are run by fundamentalist Christians just as the Democrats are setting themselves up as God-fearing church goers. And what’s to become of the Kennedy Democrat? Is all this so much posturing?

I want to know what the differences between the parties are now. They seem to be blurring together in the middle, a continuum rather than ideologically polarized. I’m not very impressed with either.

I’d have more respect for a Democrat party that reveals its heart instead of dressing up in camouflage and piety. And I’d have more respect for a Republican party that held the small-government line, regardless of the stance on abortion.

BOYS AT RISK? Just wait until the feminists get hold of this Australian project:

Single-sex classes trialled at primary

A NSW public primary school is trialling single-sex classes in an attempt to improve the academic performance of boys...

The classes have been developed to improve boys' literacy skills at an early age. Teachers have been
using a variety of reading materials, including rugby league results and motorbike and farm machinery magazines, to encourage boys to read more...

Feedback from teachers during the national inquiry has found the poor literacy skills of boys are affecting their performances in assessments. Many boys struggle to understand and answer exam questions correctly including at Higher School Certificate level...

In 1981 the difference in HSC aggregates between boys and girls was less than 1pc while it is now almost 20pc.

Of course, a country that uses the word "trialling" is facing an uphill literacy battle in general. But this is very interesting news. Is it possible that we will learn that girls and boys learn differently enough to make it important to teach them separately, at least initially? Are they just treated differently to an extent that is harmful to boys? Or is some of both going on?

LOVE NUTS? The ex-Nirvanians seem to think so:

The two surviving members of the band Nirvana say they want Kurt Cobain's widow to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to see if incompetence is causing her to make bad business decisions — like holding back the band's unreleased material.

Stay tuned. It should be interesting to see what criteria they use to determine incompetence. If bad acting is a measure, she's sunk.

CALLING JIMMY CARTER: Does this sound like a peaceful crowd?

Hamas has been Israel's deadliest foe, dispatching scores of suicide bombers in 19 months of fighting. But the Islamic group boasts it has escaped Israel's military offensive and now threatens to carry out even deadlier attacks--with weapons-grade explosives, not fertilizer bombs.

Weapons available to Hamas have increased in quantity and quality recently, with light arms and ammunition smuggled from Egypt through tunnels to the Gaza Strip without the knowledge of the Cairo government.

At the same time, the Palestinian security forces have been largely dismantled, with facilities destroyed and personnel in hiding or detained by Israel. And Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is confined by Israeli troops to his headquarters in the West Bank town of Ramallah. (emphasis mine.)

Jimmy, did you notice that Egypt is involved? Do you really think the Egyptian government is ignorant?

Note, as well, that the third graph implicitly lays the fault for the increased Hamas intensity on Israel - Hamas is getting more out of hand, but what can be done? Israel has dismantled the very security forces supposed to reign them in, and Arafat is impotent in his headquarters, it seems to say.

Amazing that Arafat's ability to communicate seems unimpeded when it comes to granting interviews.

CARTER CAVES: Ex-Prez Jimmy Carter manages to slam Israel and pander to the Palestinians in an column in the NY Times today. Here it is in toto, with comments:

In January 1996, with full support from Israel and responding to the invitation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Carter Center helped to monitor a democratic election in the West Bank and Gaza, which was well organized, open and fair.

Establishing his bona fides – his Center has already laid down a democratic process in Palestine, so of course he knows how to proceed.

In that election, 88 members were elected to the Palestinian National Authority, with Yasir Arafat as president. Legally and practically, the Palestinian people were encouraged to form their own government, with the expectation that they would soon have full sovereignty as a state.

Sounds good, if you accept his premise that the election was “open and fair” – or just designed to appear that way to Carter, not known for his lack of gullibility.

When the election was over, I made a strong effort to persuade the leaders of Hamas to accept the election results, with Mr. Arafat as their leader. I relayed a message offering them full participation in the process of developing a permanent constitutional framework for the new political entity,

Wow, this sounds very promising. A democratic election, fair and open… But wait. What’s this need to “persuade”? You had to push them into it? Their attachment would be suspect then, I would think. Or…

but they refused to accept this proposal.

…maybe non-existent. Huh. You mean, given the opportunity, under your guidance, to form a legitimate government, the Palestinians rejected it? Because you of course understand that if the Palestinians as a whole accepted the government idea, they could deal with the objections of Hamas, just like the US deals with objections to its legitimacy by outlaw militia groups.

Despite this rejection, it was a time of peace and hope, and there was no threat of violence or even peaceful demonstrations.

Jimmy, you been at the Billy Beer again? The “peace and hope” was a figment of your imagination; the lack of violence probably happened because the Palestinian terrorists were laughing at you too hard to hold their guns steady. You yourself say the effort at peace was “rejected”. Why are you so blind?

Ariel Sharon is a strong and forceful man and has never equivocated in his public declarations nor deviated from his ultimate purpose. His rejection of all peace agreements that included Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands, his invasion of Lebanon, his provocative visit to the Temple Mount, the destruction of villages and homes, the arrests of thousands of Palestinians and his open defiance of President George W. Bush's demand that he comply with international law have all been orchestrated to accomplish his ultimate goals: to establish Israeli settlements as widely as possible throughout occupied territories and to deny Palestinians a cohesive political existence.

We get it, Jimmy. Ariel Sharon is the reason for the open season.

There is adequate blame on the other side.

Only in your mind.

Even when he was free and enjoying the full trappings of political power, Yasir Arafat never exerted control over Hamas and other radical Palestinians who reject the concept of a peaceful Israeli existence and adopt any means to accomplish their goal.

So if he couldn’t bring peace at the top of his powers, why do you think he can now? Even if he was inclined?

Mr. Arafat's all-too-rare denunciations of violence have been spasmodic, often expressed only in English and likely insincere.

Yes. Only I would say “lies” rather than “likely insincere”. And this is someone you want to trust? Have trusted? The DEA will be there in a few hours to remove all cases of Billy Beer from Carter Center storage.

He may well see the suicide attacks as one of the few ways to retaliate against his tormentors, to dramatize the suffering of his people, or as a means for him, vicariously, to be a martyr.

Ahhhh… he has “tormentors”, which means all his actions are justifiable – regrettable, maybe, but justifiable – in the face of that behavior. Jimmy, where’s “turn the other cheek” when you don’t like the implications?

Tragically, the policies of Mr. Sharon have greatly strengthened these criminal elements, enhanced their popular support, and encouraged misguided young men and women to sacrifice their own lives in attacking innocent Israeli citizens. The abhorrent suicide bombings are also counterproductive in that they discredit the Palestinian cause, help perpetuate the military occupation and destruction of villages, and obstruct efforts toward peace and justice.

Yes, Ariel Sharon is the sole and operative reason why those “criminal elements” continue to kill with Palestinian support. It has nothing to do with the above-mentioned failure of Arafat to denounce it, or prevent it. And of course the main reason we abhor the suicide bombings is because they discredit the Palestinian cause, not because innocents are dying in bloody piles. By the way, seen any Netanya restaurants booby-trapped lately?

The situation is not hopeless. There is an ultimate avenue to peace in the implementation of United Nations resolutions, including Resolution 242, expressed most recently in the highly publicized proposal of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah. The basic premises of these resolutions are withdrawal of Israelis from Palestinian lands in exchange for full acceptance of Israel and Israel's right to live in peace. This is a reasonable solution for many Israelis, having been accepted in 1978 by Prime Minister Menachem Begin and ratified by the Israeli Knesset. Egypt, offering the greatest threat to Israel, responded by establishing full diplomatic relations and honoring Israeli rights, including unimpeded use of the Suez canal. This set a pattern for what can and must be done by all other Arab nations. Through constructive negotiations, both sides can consider some modifications of the 1967 boundary lines.

East Jerusalem can be jointly administered with unimpeded access to holy places, and the right of return can be addressed by permitting a limited number of displaced Palestinians to return to their homeland with fair compensation to others. It will be a good investment for the international community to pay this cost.

Yes, I agree that a proposal from a Saudi prince is the right way to go. They’re so neutral in this. Oh, did you get a chance to contribute to the telethon?

With the ready and potentially unanimous backing of the international community,

Potentially unanimous? Certainly we’ve seen signs of worldwide support for peace… Oh. Wait. What’s that about anti-Semitic attacks in Europe and elsewhere?

the United States government can bring about such a solution to the existing imbroglio.

Why us? We’re willing, but all that will happen is that we’ll get the blame for whatever doesn’t work instead of the world of sniping eurocrats and totalitarian dictators who continue support and incitement. If we’re supposed to “handle” the Israelis, shouldn’t the rest of the world take responsibility to “handle” the Palestinians – and take “credit” when it doesn’t work?

Demands on both sides should be so patently fair and balanced that at least a majority of citizens in the affected area will respond with approval, and an international force can monitor compliance with agreed peace terms, as was approved for the Sinai region in 1979 following Israel's withdrawal from Egyptian territory.

What part of this don’t you get? There are no solutions that are “patently fair and balanced” and would be accepted by “a majority of citizens” when the demands of one side include the eradication of the other.

There are two existing factors that offer success to United States persuasion. One is the legal requirement that American weapons are to be used by Israel only for defensive purposes, a premise certainly being violated in the recent destruction of Jenin and other villages. Richard Nixon imposed this requirement to stop Ariel Sharon and Israel's military advance into Egypt in the 1973 war, and I used the same demand to deter Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 1979. (A full invasion was launched by Ariel Sharon after I left office). The other persuasive factor is approximately $10 million daily in American aid to Israel. President George Bush Sr. threatened this assistance in 1992 to prevent the building of Israeli settlements between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

Okay, say that we do those things. Are other countries going to stop their funding of Palestine in the same way? Or would our pulling support for Israel just leave them vulnerable to annihilation? Because I really think that if Israel was perceived as abandoned by the US, the other Muslim countries in the area would fall on them like a brick wall in Jenin. I can hear them now: “Oops! Hate it that they’re all dead now, but hey! We’ve achieved peace!"

And yes, we noticed that you’re pointing out that if you had still been president, none of this Israeli nonsense would have happened.

I understand the extreme political sensitivity in America of using persuasion on the Israelis,

Apparently you don’t, or you wouldn’t be taking the side of the Palestinians. The “persuasian” you advocate means “death”. Get that? As long as Israel is the one that blinks, the Palestinians will keep coming. Why don’t you, Jimmy, use your vaunted mediator skills to get the Palestinians to admit fault and make concessions? Then maybe you’ll have some credibility. (Pssst… you don’t, right now.)

but it is important to remember that none of the actions toward peace would involve an encroachment on the sovereign territory of Israel. They all involve lands of the Egyptians, Lebanese and Palestinians, as recognized by international law.

“Sovereign territory” based on what measure? Shall we go through the world and determine what the “sovereign territory” of, say, England or France is? Where in history do we settle?

The existing situation is tragic and likely to get worse.

I agree. Scary.

Normal diplomatic efforts have failed.

True, but I would suggest that idiot interference like yours have contributed to that failure. At least Jesse J. didn't go over there.

It is time for the United States, as the sole recognized intermediary, to consider more forceful action for peace.

We’re trying, but you seem to object to eliminating Arafat.

The rest of the world will welcome this leadership.

And right there you’re showing your ignorance. They don’t welcome anything from us but our money. No matter how this pans out, one thing is certain: the United States will come out as wrong: too little, too late; too much, too soon; too harsh; not harsh enough; too neutral; too partisan; too…too… well, just too American.

Whenever I see or hear you, Jimmy, I find myself chanting through clenched teeth, "Freedom of speech is a good thing. Freedom of speech is a good thing..."

MAUREEN DOWD has got to be one of the most unhappy people in this world. Today she mocks George W. with every liberal stereotype from early election onward, totaling missing the first rule of satire: there has to be some truth for it to be funny. She isn't funny. She's just bitter and ugly.

INSTANT OVERSIGHT: Companies are increasingly monitoring instant messages sent through AOL IM and other software by employees. I've wondered about whether they could - I assumed they could - but interesting to have it confirmed. A whole new genre of software is hitting the market to help companies stop or monitor it, and Microsoft plans to integrate archiving into its next Windows messaging software.

THE BOMBING IN THE PHILIPPINES is a very bad sign. We've already got two Americans held hostage there, and Islamic terrorist organizations with connections to Al Qaeda are very active. They also specifically are threatening Americans:

The statement [given in March] also noted that the Abu Sayyaf has kidnapped Americans and may do so again.

Thirteen people died from bombs someone planted - no one has taken responsibility but the general attitude is that the Islamic terrorists are to blame - and several more bombs were found undetonated. How long before the escalation hits here?

You've heard this repeatedly, but there needs to be serious disassociation of the mainstream Islamic adherents from these terrorists or there's going to be a war between Muslims and non-Muslims - not just Christians and Jews , but all non-Muslims including the non-religious. Sometimes I feel like our multi-culturalism has set us up for this very kind of problem. We can't criticize any group generally, except for white Euro-Caucasians or Jews. That's giving some very evil people lots of cover to harm others. We as a society are going to have to admit the truth that evil knows no color, race or religion. It buries itself in the heart of anyone receptive to it.

This isn't just about America - these Islamic terrorist groups want to own the world, and I'm not being facetious or hyperbolic. There are, it seems to me, two ideologic battlefronts - the war to take over Islam, and the war to take over the world. In the first, an Islamic faction with beliefs far from the mainstream of Islam (according to the US media and a number of Muslim writers) is lashing out, co-opting the religion, behaving in ways that the mainstream doesn't approve of. But where is the disapproval, beyond words? I don't see it. I don't see denunciation, I don't see active assistance in helping to root it out. Now is the time to make that distinction, before the creeping sense that the majority of Muslims are either secretly or openly in favor of this movement takes stronger hold. And that is because of the second battlefront - it's already moved from Afghanistan to Palestine to the Philippines and France. If the Muslims themselves don't give the rest of the world the means to distinguish terrorists from non-terrorists, then there's going to be at the least a heavy suspicion spreading toward all Muslims as the attacks and hatred toward non-Muslim countries and peoples intensify.

Right now, the Catholic Church is going through a similar process on a smaller scale - they have in their midst men who are preying on underage boys and girls, and that situation can't continue. To save itself, the Catholic Church has to identify and purge those people. The Catholic Church has to do that - or the law of this country and the people who's children are affected will do it for them, and the damage to the Catholic Church will be much greater if that happens. Similarly, there are other groups of so-called Christians who engage in godless and evil acts - and I keep coming back to this, but the one that leaps most readily to mind are the abortion clinic bombers - and anyone who claims a Christian faith must denounce those actions to preserve the integrity of the faith. Two factions of "Christians" - Protestants and Catholics - have been fighting for years in Ireland. That too is co-opting God's name for wickedness, and should be denounced by Catholics and Protestants alike. The list goes on, and each time claiming God's will as a means to oppress, to kill innocents or to gain political control is totally wrong.

I'm not attacking Muslims. Of course I'd like to see them agree with me doctrinally, but the only true religious adherent to any faith is one who chooses to be one through free will. The same is true on their end - of course they'd like a world where everyone was Muslim, but they have no more right to spread their doctrine through terror than anyone else does. And the average Muslim has a moral responsibility to stand against terrorism, to make the distinction between true faith and vicious power-mongering in the name of their god. Some have, and that gives me hope. But I'm increasingly concerned that the world will polarize between Muslim and non-Muslim as the terrorism continues because the Muslim mainstream is reluctant to condemn their own. They must. Or I fear for what the world will become.

POST DEARTH: As those of you who've been on today have noticed, there's been a significant dearth of posts. This is because I have been sleeping and recouping (still), and, most recently, baking cookies (I am Cookie Queen. And Cheesecake Queen. And Pie Queen... you get the drift. Pesto Queen too but that doesn't fit the list). The dearth will continue until late tonight, when I'll post some things I've noticed surfing around today. The Saturday Ramble will also be up, I hope by midnight so it will still be Saturday. I've been saying ugly things under my breath while trying to crop a photo of my niece, who will be the subject of today's Ramble; I'm going to try out the advice so graciously given by several people on how to post photos. So we'll see.

Meanwhile, enjoy your day, bake cookies (I made brown sugar shortbread) and hug your computer. It's been feeling unloved, all those things you've said to it lately (that's your ISP misbehaving, not poor puter).

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? The NY Times put the following article in its Arts section:

Sex Scandal Gives Catholic Reformers a New Momentum

I can't figure out why. No other place to put it? Sex is art? Reforming is art? I suspect it is because they see religion as Art - a creation of man meant to enrich the aesthetic spirit of man. You know, Art. As in Myth. Fiction. Stories.

Wish I could ask the editor.

CASE IN POINT: The headline pretty much says it:

For 2 Decades, in 3 Countries, Priest Left a Trail of Sex Abuse

This has to stop.

MARIANE PEARL IN HER WORDS, telling her story in the New York Times. Link from PatioPundit.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN JEOPARDY? I’ve not said much about the scandal over Catholic priests and sexual misconduct, because it seemed mainly an internal Catholic struggle with some larger implications. As it continues to play out, however, a long-standing fear of mine is crystallizing – that the religious freedoms we hold dear will be largely lost in future generations because of the misconduct of some.

The freedom of religion is a founding principle of this country – it’s why many of those whose descendents live here now came to this country. It is a cornerstone of our individualism, our compassion, our free speech and willingness to help others. But the crisis in the Catholic church shows the down side of freedom of religion as it has been practiced in this country, and unless we as religious people demand truth, honesty and obedience to our nation’s laws from our religious leaders, we are at risk of having that privilege eroded.

What I am specifically referring to is the fact that the Catholic Church leadership has been slow, molasses-in-winter slow, to open up to show the perfidy and evil practiced by some in its priesthood over the decades. I understand the hesitation from a corporate standpoint – no company with a popular brand name wants its criminal elements and poor management paraded before the public. It gets bad press, it sullies the name, it cuts down revenue. But the Catholic Church is not supposed to be a corporation – it is supposed to be a messenger of God on this earth, and the extent to which its leadership behaves in this reprehensible manner it harms every person who professes Christian faith, not just Catholics. Those who do not believe in God justly abhor the behavior of these few, but they often do not make the distinction between God’s teaching and His people. To many, they are one and the same – a hymn we sing sometimes says, in part, “We are the only Bible…the world may see”, and that’s true. Right now, the Bible many see is one that somehow allows child abusers to stay hidden in the shadows, preying on the innocent, betraying vows they took before God of celibacy, of sacrificing self for the good of others, of obeying God’s law.

I have many doctrinal differences with Catholicism – I am about as “low church” as it gets - so I don't advocate their doctrine. I don’t believe that celibacy of the clergy is necessary; I also don't think celibacy causes pedophilia. But if you say you are something - i.e. celibate - then be it! I object strongly to having an entire faith dragged through the mud because certain leaders think protecting revenue and reputation is more important than serving God. I also am dismayed that the Catholic adherents aren’t more vocal in their demands that all miscreant priests be purged from their rolls, and all those who mismanaged the situation step down from positions of authority. Quite frankly, if this was not a church, many of these men would already have been taken away in handcuffs, their bosses fired and the assets of the company in the process of being divvied up among the harmed – and rightly so.

It is this fact that frightens me. In an increasingly secular world, how will we preserve our freedom of religion when it is so thoroughly abused by men supposedly of God?

By “abused”, I mean that the leeway given to the Catholic Church would not have been given to any secular business. That leeway is from a combination of things: the political power of the Catholic Church and its adherents, the money it represents, and, ultimately, our nation’s protection of religious entities. That protection is severely strained by this abuse.

So what are the implications?

If church groups knowingly and systematically disobey the country’s laws, or allow those under their oversight to do so, I think eventually the government would feel justified in stepping in more directly to control that behavior. We’ve enjoyed centuries of a largely hands-off attitude from government, and even while the role of religious observances in public life (prayer, display of religious symbols) has been curtailed, the core functions of churches are left alone. But how can we defend continuing that hands-off attitude when the abuses are so egregious? It’s not something that will happen quickly, but the seeds are being sown by this arrogant and ungodly reaction to exposure on the part of leaders in the Catholic Church.

Religion has already been co-opted cynically by any number of people – the “religious” leaders who go by the name “Reverend” and yet produce children from adulterous affairs; the televangelists who take money from the elderly and poor so they can drive Mercedes and build magnificent churches; the people who kill in the name of God (and I would include here those who bomb abortion clinics). There are always those who would exploit religion for their own gain or twisted reasons – Simon the Sorcerer in the New Testament is one good example.

But those, while shameful, are not engaging in the same kind of systematic abuse we see in this instance. While I don’t see this scandal as likely to end our religious freedom, I think the extent to which the religious allow the Catholic Church to hide behind the skirts of the Constitution in its handling of the situation is the extent to which the credibility of religious freedom is eroded. Once it begins to erode, what’s next?

I think it possible that within the next 100 years religious groups in this country will lose their tax exempt status, unless they begin to police themselves with more rigor and, yes, godliness. I think it will begin with the tax exemption being used as a means to make churches police themselves in the light of scandals such as this. I think it will then become a means to force certain changes in the church practices that march along with the general society’s view. For example, the congregation where I worship does not, and will not, have a woman as minister. It’s a doctrinal decision, but a practice that is definitely out of the mainstream in our society. Is it possible that laws would pass saying only churches where women are allowed to be ministers can be tax exempt? Because the congregation is autonomous, and thus has no larger administrative super-structure to support, losing its tax exempt status wouldn’t be a huge blow and certainly not worth shifting doctrine. That’s not the case for some groups, which have huge multi-million, multi-national organizations. And is it possible other means of eroding that freedom, such as lawsuits, would be allowed?

The protection religious groups have now is because of our Constitution – the protection of religious freedom – and because it is generally felt even among non-believers that religion on the whole benefits society, if for no other reason than that it is an expression of our freedom of speech and pursuit of happiness. What if, as society changes, the religious practices become more and more out of step with it? I think the response to what we see in Afghanistan is illustrative. When the media speak about the oppression of women in Afghanistan, using burkas as a symbol of it, they don’t separate belief from practice. The problem, as I see it, is not that women wear burkas, but that the ones who don’t believe it necessary are forced to do so. Our society, however, can’t quite conceive of women choosing to live within the restrictions imposed by some of the stricter Muslim teachings, so we assume that any woman who is living that way is doing so through force or ignorance. Perhaps that is true in some cases, but not all. And if we insist that their religious freedoms must stay within certain boundaries, then how can we preserve the full range of our own?

I’m not advocating, in the Muslim instance, that all manifestations of Islam should be allowed. Murder of the innocent is always wrong, and we have a responsibility to stop it. And I’m also not saying that the teachings of Islam are correct; I don’t believe that’s true. But how we as a society respond to their religious choices, and how those of us who are religious respond to evil when we find it in our midst, will shape the tomorrow for religious freedom in the United States.

Losing tax-exempt status wouldn’t end religious freedom in this country, but it would move us further down that road, and it’s not a road with easy return. Just as our right to privacy is in jeopardy from laws passed ostensibly to give us greater homeland security, so our religious freedoms could suffer from laws passed to prevent ecclesiastical abuse. I think we stand at a crossroad; how we call the Catholic Church hierarchy to account for lies, abuse and years of protecting self at the cost of the innocence of dozens of young men and women will help determine on which path we set our feet.

FOREST FIRES IN NYC: Fritz Schrank at Sneaking Suspicions details the failings in a Reuters story which tries to imply that correlation equals causation in a study on homicide involving women victims worldwide. The story says more women in the US die because we have more guns; Schrank says, you're full of it. And they are. Read exactly why.

Oh, and you'll have to read Fritz's post to understand why I mention forest fires.

EVEN SPEECH ISN'T FREE ON eBAY: Apparently eBay has put such tight restrictions on its discussion boards that not only are certain subjects off limits, but discussing censoring of the subjects is off-limits:

Under the new rules, eBay community members can’t use the boards to warn others if they were ripped off by a buyer or a seller, they can’t ask each other where to find a particular item to buy, they can’t share private e-mail, and — if eBay decides to delete an offending post — the members aren’t allowed to even discuss the post.

Members who violate the rules can be banned from buying and selling on the site, and if that happens the millions of other eBay members are barred from even discussing that person on the boards—or they too are at risk of being kicked out of the community.

I wonder if they read blogs? If so, I think I may have just jeopardized my eBaying.

WTC VICTIMS IN NUMBERS: The NY Times analyzes information on the WTC victims - where they came from, what age they were, what they were doing when they died.

I REALLY DID POST THIS MORNING, but since it was a very lengthy update to my last post in the 18th, it got stuck under that date. So check it out.

LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS REDUX - Below I mentioned the American Prospect article saying that actually the media identifies liberals as liberal more than they label conservatives as conservatives. Edward Boyd fact-checked AP author Nunberg and found him wrong. I still think there are other factors that can create a lean toward one or the other, without using those labels, but word counts in a content analysis is a valid tool.

UPDATE: Desert Pundit, who provided the table Zonitic's Edward Boyd used, goes on to detail some of the "other factors" I refer to above - story and word selection, placement of information, who is interviewed, etc. He also points out how small the differences are in terms of percentage, and compares that to discussing what is is. He has a good point, but I'm not sure it's valid - it may be, but without analyzing it statistically I can't say. It's amazing sometimes what small differences produce a statistically signficant effect. I think the bigger point stands, though - it's a preponderance of evidence, not one aspect, that points out bias. I like how he points out that his own words create an impression you might not have realized until he shows you.

And, in my judgment, using Goldberg's Bias is not the best starting point anyway. I'm having a hard time finishing it because of the writing style, which is bombastic, hyperbolic, etc., to a point that his larger meanings tend to be obscured. The point I've found most compelling thus far (and I've read a refutation of it, I just can't remember where) is that the vast majority of journalists don't recognize their own liberalism because in the crowds they run with it's centrism. That's a problem that plagues a lot of us - sticking to mutually affirming collectives. One of the best debate training tools is to argue your opponent's side, because then you see the nuances of her argument and that informs your own argument, if not actually altering your position. So journalists on either side of the ideological aisle who don't spend some time trying to understand why the other side feels as they do are going to be blind to their own flaws. (Which is, I rush to say, not the same thing as saying the other side is right, just that understanding is useful.) When you don't recognize that you even have a side, you're in deep trouble.

Going way away from this topic to give an example, I realized how true the "try to understand your opponent" point was when I considered the pro-choice vs anti-abortion debate. I'm anti-abortion (and I'm not getting into the nuances of that), and a very close friend of mine is pro-choice. Just the names of the positions really tell you the problem. We discussed it a few times, and it got heated, and basically we don't go there anymore. I realized, on reflection, that we could argue ad infinitum with no progress - because our basic premises are not related, and our arguments are both fully valid if our basic premises stand. She says that a woman should have the right to choose how her body is used; to her, the status of the fetus is a detail that is handled by scientific data (i.e. undifferentiated tissue until whatever point). My basic premise is that once impregnation occurs, there is someone else with standing (the baby-to-be), even though for at least a while that "someone" is more potential than actual. To her, the woman's rights are paramount; to me, the baby's are. We're not going to convince each other differently, and since our arguments are based on those basic premises, they serve no useful purpose. The only useful arguments are ones that deal with the validity of the basic premises.

To really go off topic, I think we're seeing a similar dynamic with the Israeli/Palestinian situation. If you accept the basic premise of either side, then the actions that emerge from that are fully defensible (from the perspective of each side - I'm not saying that each is as morally defensible, in my own judgment). You see that in the articles where the Palestinians talk about a suicide bomber bringing honor to his or her family. I can't see the honor in killing innocent people celebrating a religious holiday with their families, but they do - and if they don't, they're so bound to the basic premise that the Palestinian cause is right, that they will accept things they normally wouldn't rather than concede any small bit of the basic premise. If a cause is honorable, then all behaviors in support of that cause must be honorable, if the two sides are so polarized that admitting any fault feels like giving points to your opponent.

And this is echoed to a degree in the extremes of the anti-abortion/pro-choice debate. As much as I am against abortion, I am to the same degree or more against someone blowing up abortion clinics or sniper-shooting doctors who perform abortions. Yet these murderous extremists are invoked in many pro-choice debates as examples of "mainstream" anti-abortion people. Similarly, many pro-choice people are against the extremes of partial-birth abortion where even viable babies are killed in the process of the abortion; using the incidence of partial-birth abortion as a blanket indictment against all pro-choice adherents is unfair and just wrong. But you don't see disclaimers about either behavior as much as you should, because it's "giving up points".

So where does this bring us, in a discussion of journalists and bias? I think admitting bias for journalists is "giving up points" - any concession of systematic bias for the mainstream media, even if the bias is not an intentional ideological choice but rather an artifact of who chooses to be journalists, and who succeeds, would seem to them to be giving away the farm. It would bring their whole body of work into question, and require adjustment of their day to day approach to their job, or at least that's how I think they generally see it. I don't think that's completely true, but that's another post. Given the disasterous consequences of such an admission on the general premise of their profession (worshipping the god Objectivity), they will put up all manner of defenses, some as silly and easily refuted as this whole labeling thing, to protect and deflect.

SORRY ABOUT THE NEAR ABSENCE of meaningful posts lately, but my brain is recovering from that last rush to finish my core area biblio. I meant to do more tonight, but I find the heat, dead brain cells and the cortisone shot I got in my knee this afternoon make me disinclined. But I'll be back in fine form tomorrow.

Well...

In better form, how's that?

NO BECAME YES: I just heard on the radio that actor Robert Blake has been arrested in connection with the death of his wife Bonny Lee Bakley last year. Are we surprised? Apparently some people will be, according to this article from last year:

May 11 — The mystery over who killed actor Robert Blake's wife is more than a puzzle for Los Angeles police detectives — it's a matter of fierce speculation for his friends and her family.

In the minds of close friends and relatives of Bonny Lee Bakley who spoke to ABCNEWS, Blake is a killer. But a good friend of Blake's says the former Baretta star could not have done it because Blake once turned down a previous offer to have his wife killed.

Well, you know, sometimes "no" becomes "yes". While this friend found Blake's refusal compelling, I would have had to ask - how many men have someone offering to kill their wife in the first place? I don't think anyone's ever asked my dad if he wanted my mom taken out, and she's been making him help her with the flower garden for almost 45 years now, which always makes him complain. The point is - your average non-murderous type doesn't have people lining up to off family members. I thought the whole story was very suspicious from the beginning. Glad to know they finally got enough proof to nail him.

I wonder who'll take care of the cockatoo.

UPDATE: On FoxNews, Greta Van Susteren, who really needs to do something about those black roots, is opining that this will be a dramatic story that will captivate the American people. Blake's bodyguard Earl Caldwell was also arrested. Geraldo managed to squeeze in a little time from his war-hopping to give a live report about the arrest alongside a real-time shot of a white car driving down a Los Angeles freeway. I'm still not sure who's in the car, except that it's not OJ, although Geraldo took the opportunity to evoke that comparison. Right now Geraldo is outlining the defense's probable case that the bodyguard did it because Bakley flirted with him.

On another front, my sister in law informs me that an ag-major buddy of hers once volunteered to put a dead coyote on the hood of her ex-boyfriend's Blazer when said ex-bf broke up with her. Apparently sometimes people do randomly offer to do bizarre things for others, but dead coyote and dead wife are very different.

Personally, I'd rather they just stick Blake in a cell, give him five minutes of coverage a day until he's convicted, then let it go. I'm not in the mood for lives of the rich and wacky given all that's going on in the world. I'm sorry about Bakley, and I hope her family gets some peace from having her killers behind bars. But I don't want to see it on the news for months.

And now Geraldo is telling us that we all go through passion in relationships that is not... normal. I don't think I needed to know that about him.

SECOND UPDATE: The car, as I suspected, is a police car transporting Blake to be processed. In a continuation of the weird, Greta just reminded us that Blake's career kicked into high gear when he starred in "In Cold Blood" as a murderer. I need to change channels; I don't want to get interested in this.

6,000 TO DIE - WE THINK: The NY Times reports on a study which finds that:

...pollution from more than 80 power plants owned by eight electric utilities will cause nearly 6,000 premature deaths in the year 2007...

The analysis estimates that in addition to the 6,000 deaths, pollutants from the eight utilities will lead to 140,000 asthma attacks and 14,000 cases of acute bronchitis in 2007.

This is a sweeping charge, but they seem hurt that the utility industry isn't happy about the findings because, after all, it's not as bad as it could be:

The number is lower than the estimated number of deaths by pollution now because the air is getting cleaner, but the utility industry still cast doubt on the study's credibility.

The article isn't highly ideological - they don't quote anyone who trashes the utility companies for existing - but they do act as if it's true despite the objections to the study. Of course the utility companies will dispute the findings, but instead of just reporting the dispute and then going on to act as if the study is accurate, the NY Times should take the time to find a third, unconnected party to review the study. The utilities do make some strong accusations:

Quinn Shea, executive director of environment for the Edison Electric Institute, an industry group, questioned the accuracy of the report.

"Regarding adverse health effects, we take that claim very seriously," Mr. Shea said. "But, given our experience with these authors, with their data base, with their modeling methodology, we have strong suspicions that this work is not credible."

and

Mike Tyndall, a spokesman for Southern, said the report used selective data that did not provide a complete picture of the situation. "It ignores dozens of other peer-reviewed studies that find no association between sulfates from power plants and health effects," Mr. Tyndall said.

Is there any credibility behind these claims? They look serious to me and, actually, fairly easy to look into if someone knows the research literature. Where are the disinterested scientists who care about data, not politics? Apparently the NY Times doesn't want to take the time to find one - and it could be a politically hot potato, so some scientists might not want to touch it. Meanwhile, the Times continues to present the study's conclusions in about as dramatic a fashion as possible:

The study said the companies that caused the most pollution were, not surprisingly, the biggest — American Electric Power, with 1,400 projected deaths, and the Southern Company, with 1,200 deaths...

The most deaths, 550, are in Pennsylvania.

"The big loser is Pennsylvania, because they're in the wind path," Mr. Schaeffer said.

New York can expect 340 deaths the report said, New Jersey 180 and Connecticut 54.

All this sounds remarkably similar to the "crime clock" ("a rape occurs every X number of minutes") formulation that is so disliked among criminologists. Seeing it starkly there - "New York can expect 340 deaths" - sinks into the mind in a way the scientifically-stated objections don't. But there are a great many factors that can have an impact on conclusions like this, and an article that presents the information in this credulous manner, without more digging, is neither responsible nor credible. Yes, the utility companies have a dog in this fight, but so do the organizations behind the study. We need more information before the NY Times gets cutesy with who's dying where. This article is at best lazy, and could frighten people who haven't scientific training to understand the potential for inaccuracy in the study.

NYC 911 OPERATORS HONORED: Lori Anne Byrnes at Rumination reports on a ceremony honoring 911 operators in NYC who took calls from people in the WTC towers and their desperate families on 9/11.

LAWYERS WITH A SENSE OF HUMOR - what a concept. Well, InstaPundit seems to have one, although I've never seen his stand-up routine, so I don't know his rotten-tomato quotient. Anyway, I found through Rapmaster's blog the funniest law firm website I've ever seen. I laughed out loud reading it, and that's pretty bizarre behavior - I'm usually laughing at attorneys, not with them. Here's a taste:

Powers Phillips, P.C., is a small law firm located in downtown Denver, Colorado within convenient walking distance of over fifty bars and a couple of doughnut shops. Powers Phillips also maintains a small satellite office-in-exile on the cow-covered hillsides near Carbondale, Colorado, where it puts out to pasture some of its aging attorneys.

The firm is composed of lawyers from the two major strains of the legal profession, those who litigate and those who wouldn't be caught dead in a courtroom...

Prospective clients should be assured that the woman-controlled nature of the firm in no way lowers the quality of legal services. Indeed, Powers Phillips' slogan from the very founding of the firm
has been "we're every bit as incompetent as any male-owned firm."

...The firm maintains a strict "don't ask, don't tell" policy with respect to the sexual proclivities (if any) of its lawyers. Thus, we cannot report with any degree of certainty the extent or variety of sexual proclivities (if any). However, there is a substantial likelihood that a number of lawyers in the firm are practicing sexual proclivities. The firm regards this as a private matter so long as it does not unduly interfere with the firm's internship program, male or female.

I think if I lived in Colorado, and had money burning a hole in my pocket, and needed an attorney, I'd be beating a path to these folks' door. Any group with this kind of sense of humor, and the confidence to post it, is going to be killer on the opposition. I am, however, specifically excluded from hiring them:

What we're trying to say is, if you're an individual looking for a lawyer, unless you’ve got some kind of family problem, we're probably not your best bet since we're so busy trying to suck money out of these corporations, businesses and government organizations.

And especially if you're from New Jersey.

BEST EXPLANATION YET about why "objectivity" is a myth, and by someone who's post was not about bias anyway. Max Powers said it, on his Warblogging Book site, which you should read anyway, in case you know of a great post about 9/11 that should be included. This is what Max said:

I don't believe in the definition of "objectivity" that says you don't call a terrorist a terrorist because someone might disagree with that assessment, or that the talking head condemning suicide-bombing pizzerias has to be "balanced" by a supporter of the practice. There's going to be biases in the finished work, biases towards good writing, biases towards tolerance and pluralism, and biases towards the belief that crashing fuel-and passenger-laden jumbo jets into skyscrapers is not a laudable act and that there's something wrong with those that suggest otherwise.

If that's not the book you want written, we're fortunate enough to live in a free society that permits you to write a different one.

Yes, yes and yes. Go, Max! The point is - nearly everything is biased! Ultimately you make a decision about justice, truth and reality, then you evaluate your other choices on that basis. Someone who says that a terrorist isn't a terrorist "because someone might disagree with that assessment" isn't being objective, but rather is valuing one thing - "not choosing sides" - over another thing - making a judgment about behavior that implies a right or wrong (i.e., a moral judgment). It shows the reality of the statement that not choosing sides is in fact choosing a side.

I've been meaning to say a little about this "no such thing as objectivity" statement I make repeatedly, and now seems a good time. I'm not saying there aren't objective facts, or objective methods of discerning facts. There are, and that is called "science", whether it be the physical sciences or the social sciences. That's why you spend time in college learning about research methods - random sampling, random assignment to groups, validity, reliability, etc. - and why statistical formulas include aspects that "control for" various factors that could interfere with your ability to get at some objective truth. People who don't believe in God (atheists), or who say there's no way to know (agnostics), are generally fierce adherents to this type of objectivity, at least as far as God is concerned. They sometimes get pretty bizarre in their ability to believe other things, but that's for another post another time.

Where the bias enters in is anywhere that this rigorous scientific formula can't be applied, or where it's inconvenient, time consuming or just annoying to apply. That's when you need another system to determine what is closest to "truth", and people have a wide range of systems. My preferred system is what I call triangulation - going to several sources, preferably with differing agendas or perspectives, to see what they have to say about an issue. Wherever there's overlap, there's likely to be some truth there at the deepest level of their rhetoric. This is the method a number of people used to debunk Marc Herrold's inflated statistics on civilian casualties during the war in Afghanistan. Another method is to look at competing ideas and see which holds up the best through repeated research, and which fits the world best as you see it. That's why I used a textbook written from a Marxist perspective once when I taught a college-level corrections course. I made it clear to the students that I approach the material from a conservative, somewhat utilitarian, free-will perspective. I pointed out the Marxist approach of the textbook author. And I made them make distinctions between the approaches. There were some facts there - for instance, how many people are in prison, what their races are, what crimes they are in for - but there are a lot of theories and ideas underpinning the discipline that are open to debate and, thus, bias. They had to learn how to recognize the impact a philosophical or theoretical preference could have on the presentation of objective truth, or the obscuring of same.

I respect writers who admit their biases up front, and then try their best to be fair. Fair isn't refusing to choose sides. Fair is saying, I choose this side, for these reasons. If you have a problem with that, go see what side others chose, and why, then make your own decision. That's what I think journalists don't do well, or often. Sometimes it doesn't matter a lot. Sometimes it matters a great deal. Either way, you don't know.

And that's why Max's last sentence is so important:

If that's not the book you want written, we're fortunate enough to live in a free society that permits you to write a different one.

PEDOPHILIA AND SUGAR - an odd combination, but Scott Rubush has excellent posts about both on his self-named blog. Near the top is his post about the normalization of pedophilia in this society, and I agree with him that it's happening, and it's frightening how it's being done. Then he rips apart an article about how sugar is addicting and should be regulated by the FDA, the first entry under Monday, April 8. It's a classic debunking of journalistic laziness, bias and hyperbole. And yes, yet again I couldn't figure out how to get the links for the specific posts. I'm sorry you have to suffer through my techno-incompetence, but you knew that already. Rubush's posts are worth your effort.

IF YOU WANT A BROKEN HEART, go look at these photos of the Yates children, posted by Russell Yates. He says they "died tragically". Yeah, that's one way to put it.

WHERE'S THE FAIRNESS? Rutgers University's student newspaper, The Daily Targum, is engaging in partisan coverage, according to an article by Claudia Winkler at The Weekly Standard:

ON APRIL 5 the Daily Targum, campus newspaper of Rutgers University, published a front-page report on a pro-Palestinian student rally. It quoted one protester, a fourth-year pharmacy student, as claiming that the media portray Palestinians as terrorists, "but when the Israeli government went into an all-female hospital and randomly selected 30 women, called them terrorists and executed them, you don't hear about it." She added, "We must educate where the media has failed."

Now, no one would look to student demonstrators for dispassionate scrupulousness about facts--or expect student editors to exercise infallible judgment. Still, it's disappointing that the Daily Targum, while willing to recycle this unsourced allegation of atrocity, has thus far failed to publish any of the responses it received.

Winkler goes on to detail at least one response the Targum didn't print, from Leslie Fishbein, associate professor of American Studies and Jewish Studies. Toward the end of the article, Winkler notes another incident at Montclair State University, in Upper Montclair, NJ, about 15 miles from the Rutgers-Newark campus.

Although I couldn't find it on their website, I think The Daily Targum is based out of the main Rutgers campus in New Brunswick, although they probably have correspondents at the Newark and Camden campuses. I'm disappointed but not surprised that the Targum has behaved in this way - it doesn't look good for the journalism department, though. Where's the vaunted objectivity, the fairness journalism is supposed to have? You would think that journalists still in training would have the highest level of attachment to the ideals of journalism, before being subjected to years on the ground, fighting the daily battles that can erode or reshape idealism.

Universities in New Jersey are certainly likely places for differences about the Middle East situation to flare up. Paterson, NJ, where there is a major Arab population, and where there were links to some of the 9/11 terrorists, is close to Montclair State. The Rutgers-Newark campus, while not (I think) the location of the Targum, has one of the highest percentages of minority students - including a large contingent of foreign students - among state universities in the nation. I've taught at both Rutgers-Newark and Montclair State, and both are very good schools. Given the likelihood that both schools have sizable representation from both Arab and Jewish communities, it's appalling that this kind of behavior is accepted, or even promoted through a failure to at the very least give both sides.

QUILTING BLOG: Bill Quick at DailyPundit posts about getting PR spammed, quoting at length from Kottke.org about his experience. One thing Jason Kottke says is this, discussing an article he was asked to link:

Near the end of the article, he even laments that what's missing are "blogs dedicated to cultural pursuits written with the same enthusiastic, hobbyhorse zeal as the breaking-news blogs". The funny thing is that if you break the habit of only reading the sites listed in Instapundit's sidebar, you'll find that there are *tons* of weblogs out there doing just that. Granted, many of them are about technology and Web design, but there are more and more on music and movies and television and theatre and cars and sewing and parenting and cooking and eating and and and!

So I went in search of blogs about quilting – one of my hobbies – via Google, and came up with this nice one by Mary Beth Goodman, a professional quilter who links her beautiful art quilts on auxiliary pages.

So let’s test this theory. Are all the hobbies represented? Look for your hobby, and if you find a blog about it send me an email with the URL. I’ll post the list this weekend so we can browse around non-current events weblogs a bit.

YATES/GARCIA COMPARISON: I mentioned earlier, in passing, that a reporter from the LA Times had interviewed me about the Yates/Garcia cases, which I compared in an earlier post (at the bottom of this archived page). I thought it had been spiked, but it showed up Monday and I just found it. Of course they didn't include a link to the site, but they did quote me and mention cut on the bias. It's a good article, and nice to see the media looking at itself about why one case gets coverage and another doesn't. I just wish they'd get a clue about linking from their website.

WHAT'S FAIR? Powell failed in the Middle East and is returning home having accomplished nothing. Meanwhile, Arafat is distressed:

``I have to ask the Bush administration, the international community, is this acceptable that I cannot go out the door,'' he said, his voice rising with apparent exasperation.

I think the bigger question is, Mr. Arafat, whether it is acceptable that Israelis cannot ride a bus, go to the supermarket or sit down for Seder at a local restaurant without fear of dying.

And that is a question Mr. Powell seems to be giving the wrong answer to.

ALLEGED SHERIFF KILLERS STUPID: Not that this is a news flash – out and out murder is always stupid, on some level, and we can toss in evil and arrogant. But sometimes the stupidity overwhelms you, and you think, how awful that a good man dies at the hands of people too stupid to tie their own shoes.

In this instance, I’m talking again about the assassination last Saturday night of Sheriff Sam Catron in Somerset, KY. His mother was at the fish fry where he was killed – the woman who lost her sheriff husband to a bullet 38 years ago got to be there when her 48 year old sheriff son was killed much the same way. Do you think she’s sleeping any these days?

Three men have been arrested for conspiracy in the killing – one is a former deputy under Catron who was opposing him in the upcoming primary election; one is a man who has been charged with drug offenses in the past (dismissed) and who was working for the former deputy’s campaign; and the third, the alleged shooter, was under investigation by the DEA, was unemployed and owed $20,000 in credit card bills. Model citizens, all three.

First, it’s monumentally stupid to think that you’ll get away with shooting a sheriff if you know him at all. When a cop dies, other cops come out of the woodwork to find out who did it. When you’re a former deputy who left under a cloud, and are now running against the sheriff in an election, your stupidity quotient shoots up exponentially. When you conspire with two men known to police as suspected of drug offenses, one under current investigation – well, I guess it takes that kind of stupidity to ignore all the hints that, boys, you ain’t gonna get away with it. And the planning about it, the deep thinking involved, was clearly stellar as well. From an article about the killing:

Less than a minute later [after the shooting], several people saw a man in camouflage, a rifle strapped to his back, ride a motorcycle out of the edge of the woods along the highway overlooking the fire station, Stringer said.

Oooookkkkkkk….! Let’s think about this. You shoot a sheriff from a sniper position, in an area where a lot of other law enforcement and emergency personnel are. They, oddly enough, will immediately be looking for suspicious people. So, of course, you strap the rifle you used to your back, you ride a motorcycle (how quiet is that?) out of the woods where the shot likely came from… Naturally a deputy and firefighter gave chase, the alleged shooter wrecked five miles away and was arrested. (Notice, please, that I’m trying hard to use “alleged” a lot, and note as well that these men have been charged, not convicted, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty, etc.)

Men who would do this are craven and beneath contempt; I don’t think anyone could argue with that. But somehow, the tragedy is compounded by this comic collection of assassins. Of course the daily newspaper with the largest circulation in the area– the Lexington Herald-Leader – had to weigh in with an editorial that couldn’t just acknowledge the tragedy, mourn Catron and urge that the assassins be dealt with harshly. No, the editorial writer had to pull in Afghanistan and urge the local people to allow the courts to take their course:

We worry in particular about the lessons young people might derive from a gangland-style assassination in a place that we like to think is far removed from the tribal rivalries that have savaged the Middle East and Afghanistan…

Not only must they [police in Somerset] bring the killer or killers to justice, they must do so in an open and exemplary way that helps restore the public's faith in the power of our democratic institutions.

The condescending tone of this adds insult to injury, in my mind. The lesson the young people will get is that it’s stupid and you’ll get caught, not that we’re in danger of becoming Afghanistan (I think they just wanted an opportunity to editorialize about the war, again). And what’s this “open and exemplary manner”? Has there been any indication otherwise? Or any evidence that the public’s faith in democracy is shaken? I think the always-liberal editors were struggling to find something to say besides what should be said:

Fry the stupid scum.

SUN SOLD OUT: After reading about the rebirthed New York Sun online today, I went to my local news kiosk across from the PATH station in Jersey City and found just one left. I went straight to it, pulled it out from under the weight and went to the counter to pay – it was very obvious I came just for that.

The newspaper guy said, “Where did you hear about that?”

“Online,” says me. “I read this guy’s website, and wanted to get his paper. Have they sold well?”

“We sold out the 10 here, you got the last one,” he said. “I put them out by accident, then went somewhere, when I got back they said, three of those papers had sold.” He gestured to a stack of papers behind the counter on a chair. “They make us take some of these papers, and the ones I know won’t sell I don’t put out. This one I hadn’t heard of, and I wouldn’t have put it out. But they all sold.”

“Buy more,” was my advice.

And it’s a very good little paper too – little because it doesn’t have the pages most do, not yet at any rate. The design is very New York Times and Wall Street Journal-ish, none of that modern block-design stuff for them. It gives the paper a feel of history, as does the wider broadsheet pages. I naturally read Glenn Reynolds’s column about Supreme Court Justice Byron White first, then browsed through the rest. Very nicely done.

I think I’ll visit the kiosk daily for a while, just to keep the Sun rising each day.

HUNGRY FOR RELEVANCE: Philip Murphy at The Invisible Hand takes down Anna Quindlen’s latest, feeling the pain of the underfed in… Greenwich, Connecticut?

I’M ALMOST AFRAID TO LINK but Bryan Preston has some good stuff over at his site, JunkYardBlog, including tracking down information on a group that apparently thinks that Mike Spann, the CIA agent murdered in Afghanistan, is actually a war criminal; a perspective on “Johnny Bin Walker” and certain photos (Bryan, as former military, has standing to comment too); and a nice little addition to the recent “I don’t care if you read me or not” spat of posts, most notably from Instapundit and Sgt. Stryker. If you recall, I do in fact care if you read my meanderings, but nonetheless I think you’d enjoy some time over at Bryan’s place today too.

LIFE IS VERY VERY GOOD, at least today. I was up till 5:30 this morning finishing a proposal for school that, finished, is 7 pages of bibliographic references – over 80 in all – about media and police. Today the PhD Committee at my school will review it. If they approve it, I will study all the materials and take an exam on them in the fall. If they don’t approve it, then they’ll tell me what’s wrong, I’ll fix it and resubmit in the fall. Either way, it’s a milestone to get this submitted, so I’m very tired but happy! And if you want to know what life as a PhD student can be like, here’s what the exam is: they’ll shut me up in a room with a computer and all the materials, give me a question on that topic, and I will have 8 hours to write no more than 20 pages in answering it. Twenty pages in 8 hours? I think I’m up for it (an English professor of mine actually gave one of my fellow students credit when he put my name down as the sole definition for “loquacious”). This section of the degree is called the core area (i.e. my major area of interest), and I’ll be doing my dissertation on an expansion of the same topic. This summer I’ll be studying for the core area exam and putting together the first draft of my dissertation prospectus, which I hope to defend in late fall.

Now I’m at work with two hours of sleep under my belt and a realization that sometimes my aversion to coffee is not a good thing. Pepsi, please?

THE ANGRY CLAM reports from Berkeley - now in a permalink list near you (i.e., mine). Pretty cool, complete with photos (I need to figure out how to do that).

MAYBE IT’S NOT THE NOTEPADS after all that tripped up Michael Bellesilles. Should we be looking at what bars in the country have historical probate records?

LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON – IN LIFE, IN DEATH: Sheriff Sam Catron of Pulaski County, Kentucky, shot to death on Saturday by a sniper’s bullet, died as his father did 38 years ago when Sam Catron would have been about 10 years old. His father, Harold, was also sheriff, and was killed in the line of duty. In part because of that, Sam Catron wore a bullet-proof vest, which he had on on Saturday – and the bullet hit him in the face. Sounds like the shooter knew Catron’s habits.

I knew Sam Catron in passing, as I mentioned in the post below, and in the photo still up on the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Department website as of this posting he looks very like he did 17 years ago when I worked for the newspaper there. His death reminds me of the many conversations I’ve had with police officers over the years; as much as I get annoyed at police for a variety of reasons, I am an admirer of the profession, and I have seen close up the high caliber of men and women who often serve as sworn officers. Some things that come to mind:

· One state police detective I knew in another part of Kentucky grew up in the same county as I did, although 25 years before me. His father was also a sheriff, and was shot while on duty in an isolated part of the county, dying while crawling for help. The detective himself, when a trooper, once left his trooper hat on the headrest of his cruiser while he slipped into the bushes in a remote country area to take a whiz; when he returned to the car, there was a bullet hole in the hat.

· A state trooper friend once blue-lighted a car on an interstate in Kentucky; instead of pulling over, the car sped away and my friend gave chase. After going at speeds in excess of 100 miles an hour for a little distance, the car blew its engine and coasted to the side of the road. My friend couldn’t call for backup – it was the wee hours of the morning and he was the only trooper on duty for many miles around. He told the man to put his hands on the steering wheel, approached the car, checking the trunk and back seat for other people, then reached the driver’s side of the car – only to see a loaded semi-automatic gun on the seat beside the man. The arrest went smoothly, but, later, when the car was impounded, they discovered a load of stolen goods from a robbery in another state. Close call? Maybe, but not untypical. My trooper friend also wore a bullet-proof vest. But that doesn’t stop a head shot.

· Once, when I was going ride-along with a police officer in an Arizona suburb of Phoenix, he answered a call to an abandoned gas station at the edge of an empty field, where a man was supposedly holed up with a gun, threatening suicide. He made me lie down in the seat of the cruiser while he went looking for the suicidal man. Although they didn’t find him, it was scary lying in the dark, in a police cruiser, waiting to hear a shot.

All of those men I knew personally, and would trust my life to implicitly. And we do, you and I, every day. We trust our lives to the police and, in our time of war, we trust our lives to the military men and women fighting for us in the Middle East. Neither group gets it right, all the time. But some time today, take a few minutes to imagine yourself with gun in hand, looking for someone who wants to kill you because you are a symbol for the safety of a bunch of other people, some of whom hate you too. Then say a prayer of thanks for the soldiers, for the police, and for the Sam Catrons of this world.

REPUBLICAN WIMPS? Apparently the buzz in Washington right now is that Republicans are whining because James Carville and Paul Begala, newly on Crossfire, are “too good at what they do”, so the word is out to boycott. Naturally, this causes crowing on the Left. I have to say that when I saw the matchup – Begala/Carville vs. Novak/some-guy-I-have-never-heard-of (yes, I’m not up on all the political guys), I thought… wow. Somebody screwed up. Not that the Republican side isn’t smart, and savvy, but Carville is a killer, spinning issues until his victims don’t know truth from fiction (hint: If Carville is saying it, then suspect fiction), then strafing with word bullets until reasonable discourse is dead. It isn’t that they are too good at policy discussion, it’s that CNN has put killers up against thinkers. They need to have killers vs killers, which will be exciting but ultimately unuseful as debate, or thinkers vs thinkers, which will help debate but no one will watch it except my mom. Or maybe a third option – thinkers with some killer moves, on both sides. Hmmm… I always liked Michael Kinsley as an opponent – I could stand to watch him even if I couldn’t stand his positions. Carville I can’t stand to see, whether in an ad, on television, or in any medium where he appears. (And to be very honest, I really have a struggle to care much for Mary Matalin, given that she is married to him. It makes me wonder about the honesty of either person’s ideological professions.)

IT’LL BE A WHILE: Instapundit Glenn Reynolds is waiting for someone, anyone, to call Saddam Hussein a baby-killer for shutting off oil exports. He’s right, it won’t happen, but what may happen is that someone calls the US baby-killers again because Saddam was forced into this action by our threats. There’s always a way to make it our fault.

IS HE OR ISN’T HE? The big question has been whether Osama Bin Laden lies dead in some bombed-out hole in Afghanistan, or if he is alive, well and plotting a new attack somewhere in the Middle East. The Qatar news station Al-Jazeera showed a video excerpt today which included footage of Bin Laden, but it isn’t clear when the footage was taken – they’ve said they will show the full video on Thursday. It’ll be interesting to watch this video get dissected, but at the end I doubt anyone’s mind will be changed – many supporters will continue to say he’s alive, and we’ll keep thinking he’s dead. I’m not quite sure at this point what proof short of DNA would convince us otherwise; I don’t think even that would convince the other side.

DADS AND DNA: The non-fathers are back in the news as California considers a new "paternity reform bill" aimed at helping men who are paying child support for children who are not biologically theirs. The two sides of the argument:

Pro-non-father child-support - Men should assume responsibility for children they have been "father" to in a social way even when they aren't the biological father, especially if they didn't contest the paternity within two years of the child's birth. The children need support; it is psychologically damaging to lose their father-figure once they recognize him as such; the law says you have to pay so you do, and if you don't contest it early enough, too bad.

Anti-non-father child-support - The laws are too comprehensive, pulling in men who didn't even know they were named the father until served with papers on child support; biological children suffer when their father's money is taken to support a non-biological child; the laws are anti-male, ignoring their rights in favor of the mother and child, creating an unfair and discriminatory situation.

This issue hit the news hard about two years ago, but the law in the area is still evolving. Part of the rationale for non-fathers paying for child support is common law where a man assumes responsibility for any children born to his wife during the marriage; this is based on a society with a much different social structure from ours today, where people have revolving-door relationships and one woman may have children by several men without marrying any of them. It seems to me that, instead of getting into the emotions of this, we need to step back and clearly define who is a parent, then use that as a basis for determinations. Paternity tests should be a standard part of child support orders - the burden of proof needs to be on the mother in a case where the father is not there accepting responsibility or, if he is not available for a DNA test, once he is found the option of DNA testing should always be open. Putting the burden for contesting on someone who may often have no knowledge of the criminal justice system is just ridiculous. If a man is the biological father, then whatever needs to happen to get reasonable child support is appropriate. If the man has legally assumed responsibility - say, he adopts his wife's child from a previous relationship, then they divorce - he has the same responsibilities as a biological father. To say a man must pay child support for many years because he missed a procedural hearing is asinine.

IT'S A BIAS AGAINST LIBERALS, not conservatives, that plagues the media, according to this article in The American Prospect. Writer Geoffrey Nunberg did a search of several top newspaper publications in response to the accusations of ideology-labeling bias in the media, especially the broadcast media. His search shows that liberals are identified more frequently as liberals than conservatives are as conservatives. He thinks, in addition, that liberals are distancing themselves from the "liberal" label out of fear:

To tell the truth, Goldberg's claim about the use of labels didn't sound that implausible to me -- not because I assumed the media were biased, but because the word liberal itself has become an embarrassment to so many people. Two decades of conservative derision have turned it into "the L-word," to the point where some Democrats won't own up to the label and others are careful to prefix it with "neo-," so as to distance themselves from those "unreconstructed" tax-and-spend stereotypes. And on the left, where suspicion of liberals has always run deep, most people have thrown the word over the side in favor of "progressive." But no one ever talks about "the C-word," and conservatives invariably wear that label proudly. So it wouldn't be surprising to find that the media, too, were more diffident about calling people liberals than about calling them conservatives.

I'm skeptical of that "no one ever talks about 'the C-word'" statement. If the term has shifted any, I'd say it's more in the direction of using other terms intended to be more clearly perjorative, such as "fundamentalist Christian" - an odd phrase to be used as a term of derision yet, it seems to me from an anecdotal standpoint, in wider usage than before. And "conservative derision" has caused a change in use from "liberal" to "progressive"? Would that we could have an impact even on such an ideologically-unimportant shift.

This war of the word searches seems to me to be a decent start, but it's not precisely scientific. There are so many other factors that can have an impact on impression creation in the media that the lists result in more questions than answers. Get back to me in six months - one of my research projects is updating a meta-analysis of media bias studies in the criminal justice field.

THE SATURDAY RAMBLE is up, only a day late - Of concrete canyons and crawdads.

SLAVES TO THE STATE: I know that the US and state governments have been aggressive in their efforts to stamp out smoking for a number of years. It has seemed bizarre to me how the arguments have shaped up - blaming corporations for causing people to smoke, and then conversely harshly treating these "victims" when they engage in their "unstoppable addiction" in public places. Cigarette smoke sometimes gives me severe headaches, so I'm not unhappy that there are now smoke-free places for me to eat or to hang out in public spaces. But on principle, I believe it is an encroachment on freedom to try to stamp out smoking completely through taxes and public shaming. In recent years, the effort has started to try to get a "fat tax" on rich or non-nutritional foods (i.e. ones for which the negatives outweigh the positives, nutritionally speaking). The rationale has always been that people needed saving from themselves - a rather evangelistic, social engineering approach. However, I saw an article today which spooked me - I don't think the information was new, just that it suddenly clicked with me:

The agency [Center for Disease Control] estimated the nation's smoking-related medical costs at $3.45 per pack, and said job productivity lost because of premature death from smoking amounted to $3.73 per pack, for a total of $7.18...

"There's a big difference in the cost to society and what society is getting back in tax," said the CDC's Terry Pechacek. "We believe society is bearing a burden for the individual behavioral choices of the smokers."

...A spokesman for tobacco giant Brown & Williamson objected to the study, saying it presents the figures in a vacuum, without comparing smoking to the financial burdens other people — nonsmokers with diabetes, for example — place on society.

Do you hear that "society" mantra, over and over? And look closely at what the Brown & Williamson spokesman said, then think about this:

About 61% of Americans, or 127 million people, weigh too much, according to the latest government statistics. And 26%, or 54 million are obese — that is, 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight. That's up from 15% in the late 1970s...

Weighing too much contributes to heart disease, diabetes, arthritis and other ailments, and the U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher recently issued a call to action to put the brakes on the epidemic of overweight and obesity in this country...

[Kelly Brownell, a psychologist and director of the Yale University Center for Eating and Weight Disorders] advocates a tax on junk food, sometimes referred to as the Twinkie Tax or Fat Tax, which would subsidize the price of healthy foods so they cost less...

Brownell thinks the tax would work. "The process of change seems completely daunting, because food habits are so engrained, and the food companies are massively powerful.

"But if you look back 30 years ago, you would have said the tobacco industry was massively powerful, and no one would have thought there was any hope for changes. But now you can't smoke in public places, there are sky-high taxes on cigarettes, and states have sued tobacco companies," Brownell says. "I think we are at the very beginning of a similar movement with food."

This is nothing new. But look at something from Brownell's past - a conclusion from a study he headed up at Yale:

The study also notes that the economic cost of diet-related diseases has been conservatively estimated to be at least $71 billion annually.

Cost to whom? Why, to society. The tobacco people are pointing to the food industry and saying, hey! we don't cause more damage than they do, so let us be! The government - and social engineers like Brownell - are pointing back and saying, you're right! so instead of letting you be, we'll bust both tobacco and food! And what is the foundation, again, that they use as an argument? Cost to society.

So why is this important? Because it is not just a continuing encroachment on individual self-determination, but it is also an accelerated shift to a societal level utilitarian philosophy - not because the individuals in the nation decided they wanted that approach, but because some elites who think they know best for the country are wanting to design this nation's people into creatures that serve the greatest good to the state (and this isn't a moral good, this is economic good, although the same group is quick to blame our system of economics for all ills). I don't think they would argue it from that perspective, but it is the practical result of their actions and intents. We are told we must provide health care to everyone because it is their right, then we are told that because the state is providing health care to everyone, it is the state's right to tell us we're costing too much so we have to quit smoking, or stop eating Twinkies, or whatever the next advance will be. Will there be a "lazy tax" where you have to pay a certain amount if you don't exercise? Where will it stop?

Obviously society has to have structure and laws, to be a society rather than anarchy, chaos. But what basis do we use for that law and structure? The most basic one is a libertarian philosophy where the government serves a strictly limited role, focused primarily on security for the collective with little involvement in individual life choices. The opposite is a totalitarian government, where everyone lives and serves at the pleasure of the state, which generally has its power vested in one person. Our country chose its path in the late 1700s with our Constitution and its supporting documents, which was more about self-determination and less about paternalism. What we see now is a major shift in an approach to self-determination and rights, a shift that's been going on for many years, but is delving ever more intently into the minutiae of life. The argumentation is becoming self-referent - we are doing A because you need help, but your behavior is interfering with us helping you, so we are going to punish you for not helping us help you, even though most of you didn't want the help in the first place. You are costing us too much.

I don't know what the answer is. I keep being reminded of the story I've heard about boiling a frog: If you drop a frog in boiling water, it'll jump out. If you put it in cool water and very gradually change the temperature, it will cook to death without any effort at self-preservation.

I think most of us are being good little frogs, "helped" until we die as individuals and our lives become a reflection of what a certain elite sees as best for society as a whole.

R.I.P. – Sam Catron was a law enforcement officer in Pulaski County, Kentucky, when I worked there as a reporter in the mid-1980s. The sheriff at the time was an interesting man, and I won’t say more than that. Catron succeeded him, elected as sheriff in 1985; he was up for re-election this year. Last night, someone shot and killed him at a fish fry and political rally in Pulaski County. As of this writing no one knows why. I haven’t been back to Pulaski County in over 15 years, so I have no idea what kind of sheriff Catron was. But it’s just shocking to hear that someone you knew died so suddenly and violently, and any time a law enforcement officer is murdered, it is a blow to the order of our country. I will be following this case, to see what develops as motive.

FINALLY the New York Times covered the trial of Spc. Lillie Morgan, an American soldier in Germany who drowned her two children in the bathtub last September. Reader Bill Kirtley called my attention to the article in today's Times, which he said was on A3 and 14 inches long - i.e. short and buried. She got a life sentence with potential for parole in 20 years. The article is interesting for the mainly neutral tone, even though it makes a parallel to Andrea Yates's case - everything from evil religious influences to childhood abuse to an awful husband. I'm sympathetic; if all of that is true she has had a difficult time of it. But I still want to know - given all the similarities - why her case was not covered extensively, or really at all, in the United States.

GIRL GOT BOOTY: You won't believe this.

DON'T EVEN GO THERE: Instapundit points out an article where Florida Solicitor General Tom Warner says:

When national security is threatened, there are times when the United States cannot afford the luxury of adhering to the Constitution...

No, no, no, a thousand times no. It's when we're at war that we have to be the most assiduous about adhering to it strictly. It is our Constitution that defines us as a nation, and it is the blueprint of our success. Mr. Warner should be impeached (or fired, if he's not elected) for even suggesting this, because it's obvious that he is not committed to our law.

It's like a preacher saying he doesn't believe in God.

LOW POSTING AGAIN TODAY: I have a major project due Monday for school, my car has to be fixed and other life details have to be taken care of. I'll likely post some throughout the day, but not a lot until tonight. Go out and enjoy your Saturday.

MICROCONTENTNEWS has a follow-up to the blogging ethics code article posted Thursday. The follow-up is on the blog page, and you'll have to scroll down a bit to find it - first post under Friday, April 12. I couldn't find how to link that particular post - which is justice, I suppose, since my archives are being coy and he couldn't find how to link directly to my earlier post. Oy vey. But his follow-up covers the response to his earlier piece, so it's worth your time.

SLAP THE BAD PARENTS: The Last Page does it again. Some days I think I should just post "go see Page" and then get on with my life. Today is one of those days. She has an excellent post in her usual style:

Plain and simple, there is a raging epidemic of bad parenting going on in the U.S. Between "time-outs," "the Corner" and taking away the Nintendo that they've already played to the point of acquiring unnaturally large thumbs, the nation's youth are going straight to hell and they will be taking Western civilization with them.

Yep. I pretty much agree with her right down the line, except I don't think I'll be going for the tubal ligation any time soon.

A DAY OF RESEARCH: Professors and students from my program are making brief presentations most of today about their current research. While I'm not presenting anything, I'm going to be there, so no more blogging at least until tonight. However, given how long the post below is, you'll probably need all day to absorb it all. Have a great day.

JOURNALISM, ETHICS AND BLOGGING: John Hiler of Microcontentnews has a good column today about whether bloggers could – or should - be considered journalists on the merits of their blogging alone; in the interests of full disclosure, I talked to John via email about some of the issues he discusses in the column, a fact he mentions here. And while I don’t think he “got it all wrong in this piece” – in fact, I thought it was very well done and a great opening to the discussion - I do have some significant disagreements with portions of it.

First, my bona fides to comment. While I’m not now working as a paid journalist (which apparently is what John uses to define “professional” journalist), my undergraduate degree is in journalism and I worked four years as a reporter/photographer and sometime columnist before going to graduate school. Since that time I’ve worked some as a freelance journalist, although not recently. Currently I’m working on a doctorate in criminal justice, in the early stages of developing my dissertation proposal on the topic of the intersection of media and police, which includes a look at media bias in relation to policing and criminal justice. In both capacities – journalist and academic – I have spent a lot of time thinking about the issue of media bias. In addition, I’ve been a part of the online community since 1994, a blog reader since late last fall and a blogger myself since February.

The very fact that I felt the need to establish bona fides goes to the heart of what John says:

The fundamental principle of trust between reader and writer holds equally true for journalist and blogger alike.

That’s the heart of John’s column, and that is true. But he gives professional journalism too much leeway to establish that, and gives bloggers too little room for defining it. Let’s look at it more closely.

John tells us that during a conversation with a “real journalist” friend, he called what he does “online journalism”. His buddy bristled:

"Wait, how can that be real journalism?" he interrupted. "You're totally biased because you work in the industry. A lot of journalists don't even register with a political party so they can write about politics objectively!" And that was just the beginning of my crimes against journalism: "You don't even have an editor, so none of your articles are even peer-reviewed!"

John’s buddy is showing a peculiar tunnel vision that journalists develop and, if they have journalism degrees, they’ve paid good money to gain. That tunnel vision is the concept that journalists, and thus journalism, are in any shape, form, or fashion objective. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines objective as:

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Any human who is truly objective is also truly dead. It’s not possible to turn off everything you have been up to the point you begin reporting something and, I would argue, it’s neither necessary nor desirable. Yet we have this distorted view that journalists can be, SHOULD be, objective, promulgated by them and believed by the audience to the damage of both.

But think about what happens from event to story: Events A, B and C occur at the same time, same day, same town. Editor has two reporters. She decides (based on what?) to send reporters to A and C; B gets no coverage. One reporter is a veteran, one a newbie. Which reporter goes to which event? Once there, who does each reporter talk to? Is a photographer sent along? Once the reporter returns, how long is the story? How long does he have to develop it? Which copy editor does it go to? What other news is happening in the world? What factors are considered in putting Event A on Page 1 and Event B on Page 12 under the advertisement for corset girdles? And the list goes on. At each stage, the personal experiences, preferences, training and honesty of the journalists involved subtly (or not so subtly) affect the final product and its presentation. This doesn’t even include reporter-initiated stories, which beat reporters are required to produce consistently to maintain their position, or agenda pieces where a reporter, editor or publisher thinks a particular social issue needs to be addressed – selecting one over the other, I would argue, represents some type of bias. It is true that journalists develop a sense of what is important to their readers, and they have a sense themselves of what is important, but both of those are subjective. There is no objectivity, merely varying levels of consensus.

John’s “real journalist” friend also, somewhat naively, seems to think that not registering with a particular political party somehow indicates political impartiality. That is false on its face, and again is actually opposite from what would be best – knowing a reporter has liberal or conservative leanings helps me evaluate his or her work. How does it help me, as a reader, that Reporter A doesn’t register as a Democrat, when she voted for Bill Clinton twice, and Hillary once? The ideology doesn’t go away just because you don’t sign up under it. And what peer review is there when the assignment editor, reporter, copy editor, page editor and publisher all voted for Clinton (or, for that matter, Bush)? When they’re good – when it matters to them – they check things, and they try to compensate for their own biases. But if news media organizations as a whole are massive pools of peer review fact checking and ideology busting, how did all the glowing articles about historian Michael Bellesiles get published without a single outlet figuring out that his basic premise was deeply flawed because of fundamental, fairly easily discovered, inaccuracies? And how did the false calculation of Afghan war civilian casualties get purchase in the mainstream media?

This all leads to what John identifies as a major weakness of blogging:

…amateur journalists often have agendas of their own

Yes, this is true. Usually people who start a blog, who take the time to speak out, have something they’re passionate about; otherwise, they’d watch TV or play golf. But that doesn’t mean they are less likely to be accurate in their facts, or less fair, than the paid journalist – they’re just more likely to mix opinion with the fact, and that’s okay because the very nature of the medium warns you that such is the case. But “real journalists” have agendas too – look at Paul Krugman, as Andrew Sullivan has so intently (you'll have to link around his archives, but there's lots there). Look at Eric Alterman, as Matt Welch has done. And whole hard drives could be stuffed with the bytes generated on blogs debunking the American and foreign media’s faulty coverage of the Afghan war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even science (for instance, the piece I did taking apart a biased presentation of research about gun suicides by black youths).

John explores the professional ethics code of journalists (which could inspire an entire column on its own), and gives a personal story to illustrate the heavy responsibility journalists carry to present their information properly. I agree the responsibility exists, but from John’s story I think the culprit was not John – who wrote a carefully explained story on Google Bombing – but the BBC, whom he says drastically edited the story and then used a dramatic photo only tangentially associated with the story’s topic which conveyed a completely false impression to the casual observer. The “real journalists” screwed up by either following an agenda or seeking to entertain rather than accurately inform. So down goes the journalism code of ethics as a practical indicator of the state of the art in today’s news media. It’s a nice idea imperfectly followed.

So what about bloggers? John wants to set up a code of ethics for bloggers, which is again a nice idea, but limiting in a libertarian environment like the Internet. John doesn’t advocate objectivity for bloggers – and it’s a good thing too – but he says full disclosure is crucial. Well, what does full disclosure mean? Where does it end? If I tell you I’m a conservative with a graduate degree, do you know enough? Is it important to know that I’m a Christian? Well, what stripe – high church, low church, no church but the forest? Do you need to know if I am pro- or anti-abortion? Is it important that I’m a southerner, with rural roots, that math makes my head hurt? All of those things could be important, depending on what I’m writing about. But still, for both bloggers and “real journalists”, it comes to this:

Trust.

This is where John and I reconverge. What we as readers need to know is, can I trust you to be fair? Can I trust that you will say, “I have this bias about this topic so take my story with a grain of salt, but I will make every effort to be fair”? John gives good examples of how this works, and another article in TechCentralStation on the economics of old media vs. blogging gives a good perspective on why it is more efficient to trust, say, the New York Times vs. cut on the bias. But while I think the world of blogging and the world of old media will blend together at the edges even more as time passes, they both serve their purposes and have important roles to play. Are bloggers as good as “real” journalists? For the purposes of Constitutional protection of free speech and freedom of information, yes. In quality of reporting (when we do it), writing and fair presentation of material, many times yes as well (in this category, don’t think of New York Times vs. cut on the bias, think of, say, Arab News vs. Instapundit). In terms of identifying bias? Well, no, not there.

Usually, we’re better than they are.

A CASE IN POINT: I mentioned below the successes of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, taking on the world - literally - as brilliant, capable people, not defined by themselves or others as operating from a racially-defined context. I couldn't have timed it better if I'd tried - which I didn't - because all you need to know about what it looks like when people are defining themselves as primarily of a particular victim group is covered in the newest City Journal, in an article by John H. McWhorter called "The Mau-Mauing at Harvard". It covers "(t)he fracas between Harvard’s new president and its top Afro-American studies profs..." The first sentence does it all - the rest is just support:

"Dignity is all a black person in America has,” Harvard professor Cornel West solemnly told listeners during the kick-off episode of black pundit Tavis Smiley’s new NPR radio show.

No, Professor West - some black people also have talent and intelligence, and the respect for themselves and others to use those in the arena of ideas without becoming caricatures. Which, incidentally, imparts true dignity - something you apparently haven't learned the definition of, much less shown any evidence of yourself.

THERE'S NOTHING TO ADD to the rant by James Lileks about the accusations that warbloggers are profiteering, and that their writings are not critical analysis but rhetorical hyperbole, and boring and boorish to boot. Go read.

And his kid's really cute too.

ANNIVERSARIES: Asparagirl remembers the LA riots and general turmoil in NYC following the not-guilty verdict of the LA police officers in the Rodney King beating, 10 years ago this month. That turmoil leads her back to another day, six months ago today - the WTC attacks. Worth reading, and remembering, especially that we aren't done yet with those who killed our people last September, and wish the rest of us dead or subjugated to their will.

IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT: Orchid sees the Tribute in Lights in Manhattan from a different perspective. She has a point.

HE JUST IS: I've been meaning to say this for a while, because I've been thinking it. Regardless of what you think of Sect'y of State Colin Powell and his current role in the Middle East, you have to admit one thing: neither he nor anyone else is saying anything about the fact that he is black. No "he should understand the Palestinians because he as a black man would understand oppression", no "he should understand the Israelis because he as a black man would know about discrimination", no "Powell, the first black sect'y of state" etc. I'm sure whatever experiences he has had in life are informing his actions now - military, spiritual, tragic, educational - which is as it should be. But Powell, and to a lesser public degree Condoleeza Rice, are immersed in the most important world crisis so far in our generation, and they are gaining accolades and taking hits for their policy decisions, their behavior under pressure, and their ability to follow through on what they say without anyone trying to protect or deride them based on race. I think this is in part because they are conservatives - if they were Democrats, I think their race (and Rice's gender) would be mentioned in nearly every story about them and it would be used as a basis for praise. Instead, they are in the party of pragmatists, who say, show me what you can do. And they are doing just that, sometimes to good effect and sometimes not. But they are also giving a quiet, powerful lesson: it's not about who you are, it's about what you do. And when you're good, you don't have to hide behind excuses.

LIGHTS! CAMERAS! END OF ACTION! Hawaii is ending its program for issuing speeding tickets using sensors and cameras as the proof of speeding, which should make Matt Labash very happy:

HONOLULU - Gov. Ben Cayetano on Wednesday ordered a halt to the use of cameras to catch speeders, a safety measure many Hawaii motorists considered so underhanded they tried to subvert the system.

Cayetano said the Legislature was about to repeal the program anyway. "The traffic van cam law is the creation of the Legislature, and if they want to now cancel the program it will be canceled," he said in a statement.

The van-mounted cameras, introduced on Oahu two months ago and operated by a private company, were coupled with radar and automatically photographed a speeder's license plate. A ticket was then issued by mail to the car's owner.

Some drivers mockingly called them the "talivans."...

Drivers and civil liberties lawyers complained the system unfairly assumed the owner of the car was the person behind the wheel. They also said the cameras were an invasion of privacy.

Judges threw out the first batch of citations on a technicality that was later fixed. But lawyers then successfully argued that tickets issued to drivers going less than 10 mph over the speed limit should be dismissed because it conflicted with Honolulu Police Department practice.

While many states use cameras to catch people running red lights, Hawaii was the first state to pass a law allowing photo-enforced radar along state roads.

Now, if we can just spread the joy.

BIAS IDENTIFICATION TRAINING EXERCISE: Sometimes it’s good to set articles side by side to see just precisely how a journalist goes about spinning his work. Today the writers are the NY Time’s ever-objective David Sanger, with today’s sidekick David Rosenbaum, vs. an anonymous Reuters writer or writers. Sanger’s article is in Politics, but is not identified as a “news analysis”, so should be a straight detailing of the political game playing. The Reuter article is focusing on Joe Lieberman’s promise to filibuster over the Alaskan oil drilling issue, Sanger on a White House announcement about it, events one day apart.

I’m going to pull out a couple of examples of bias – see if you can find more.

1) Use of evocative language:

SANGER: …Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said today, using a somewhat aggressive estimate of the amount of reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

…the administration vigorously opposed an effort in the Senate to raise fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and trucks sold in the United States…

White House officials insisted there was no contradiction in the policy, contending that by mandating stricter mileage standards, Congress would force auto companies to produce more small, unsafe cars.

Last month, by a vote of 62 to 38, the Senate rejected a bill to require that the average mileage of vehicles sold in the United States rise to 36 miles a gallon by 2016, from about 24 miles a gallon now. Several Democrats from automobile-producing states broke ranks and voted with the Republicans.

REUTERS: Under the Senate's complicated rules, controversial measures like drilling in the ANWR need the support of 60 of the chamber's 100 lawmakers to end debate and permit a vote.

…However, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers already voted against modifying the energy bill to significantly boost vehicle fuel standards.

COMMENT: Sanger characterizes the administration’s efforts as aggressive and vigorous, indicating a very strong, almost hostile attitude; the terms “insisting” and “contending” raise questions about honesty – you usually see them when the person presenting the information doesn’t believe the source. And in the comment about how the vote fell out on vehicle fuel standards, Sanger says the Democrats “broke ranks” – a battle term indicating going over to the other side. Compare the Reuters information: controversial indicates disagreement without choosing sides, especially in this context (sometimes “controversy” is used where there is none in the hopes of instigating it, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here). And the discussion of the vehicle fuel standards is very low-key and non-judgmental.

2) Identifying sources:

SANGER: Democrats countered that even if drilling in the refuge began today, no new oil would be available for a decade. They said the Republicans' refusal to support tougher fuel-efficiency requirements showed they were not truly concerned about energy independence.

"The Middle East crisis is far too complicated to be calmed by drilling in the Arctic, and the fact that we're hearing such a far-flung argument tells me that our opponents don't have the votes," Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said.

REUTERS: ``The fact remains that drilling in the refuge would not produce a drop of oil for a decade, far beyond the time of the current crisis, and even then far too little to change the skewed foreign oil dependence equation,'' Lieberman told reporters.

Lieberman was joined by other lawmakers and environmental groups at a Capitol Hill news conference to protest drilling in the refuge.

``The Middle East crisis is far too complicated to be calmed by drilling in the Arctic, and the fact that we're hearing such a far-flung argument tells me that our opponents don't have the votes,'' Lieberman said.

COMMENT: All of the information Sanger uses here is from Lieberman; the Democrats behind him on the platform don't count. It wasn’t “Democrats”, it was Lieberman. Using “they” gives Lieberman’s comments more weight, as if several independently said the same thing. But then, as I’ve discussed at some great length previously, Sanger isn’t too concerned about mixing it up with hidden sources, attributions and pronouns like “they” vs. “he”.

3) What’s with the name thing? This isn’t bias, just funny.

SANGER: Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut
REUTERS: Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut

COMMENT: The two articles identify Lieberman somewhat differently. This is actually most likely a difference in style between the NY Times, which tends to be more formal, and the news service Reuters. Interesting that the copy editors don’t adjust wire service articles to conform with NY Times style.

DUELING PSYCHIATRISTS: The trial of Spc. Lillie Morgan continues in Germany; Tuesday a psychiatrist for the defense testified, and yesterday it was Dr. Park Dietz, a well-known forensic psychiatrist who has testified for the prosecution in a number of high profile homicide cases including the trial of Andrea Yates. Morgan, an American soldier stationed in Germany, drowned her two children in September in what both sides say was an effort to get revenge on her husband for unspecified misbehavior. Despite the many parallels between this case and Yates's, the American media has been silent on it, which means so have the feminists and the others who rallied around Yates. I discussed why this was true earlier.

HEATHER LOCKLEAR, RACIAL MINORITY: In a society where most of us are racial and/or ethnic mutts, of the Heinz 57 kind, it's becoming harder and harder to say who is and is not a particular race for the purpose of preference or discrimination. This is, in my mind, a good thing, although it makes life a bit more complex for those who play racial politics. The case of Heather Locklear - Racial Minority is illustrative:

Another family whose name is a giveaway for their African heritage is that of Locklear - yes, the same one that Heather, the blond bombshell of the TV series, "Melrose Place," claims as her own. Although as Anglo Saxon sounding as you can make it, the name is, in fact, an Indian one and in the language of the Tuscarora tribes means "hold fast." Indeed, it would appear that Ms. Locklear's family, at least on her father's side, once belonged to a segment of the population which in academic terminology is referred to as a tri-racial isolate - a community of individuals whose ancestry is a mixture of European, Indian and Black and who intermarried only with each other.

So our quintessential blonde actress is actually... black? I can't really tell from this little article, but it surely at least suggests that. They also make another point:

It should be noted that the modern ethnological word for such groups - isolates- is misleading. It reflects the restrictive social conditions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Since the "one drop" rule defining an African American would not be legally instituted anywhere in the nation until after Reconstruction, this definition does not take into account the fact that throughout the seventeen and early eighteen hundreds free people of black and white ancestry intermarried not only among themselves but with families of Indian and white ancestry. Furthermore, members of mixed race families intermarried with the surrounding whites, despite the fact that many states had passed laws outlawing such unions.

Hmmmm.... this seems important in the light of recent reparations demands. How do you parcel it out? And are you going to start using the "one drop" rule again, only this time for whites? "You are 1/16th white, therefore your reparation will be reduced by that amount..."

Locklear is also Native American, according to this article, so maybe she could start a casino with her reparation.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HIDDEN FAILURES: My parents are both retired teachers; three of my four grandparents were public school teachers; my sister is an elementary school librarian; more than a dozen aunts, uncles and cousins are teachers; I have taught college classes and so has my brother. I know a little about the public education system in this country, and right now I find it appalling. I understand the point behind tenure, just as I understand the point behind civil service, having worked as a government employee off and on for a number of years. But I think both systems have become a hiding place for a lot of deadwood that suck up huge amounts of tax money while providing no value to the system, and at the same time create an impression in the public's mind that is not fair to the many many teachers and government employees who are skilled, passionate and competent. I could go on about this at some length, but fortunately Tony Woodlief at Sand in the Gears did it for me, at least on the school issue. I would make some refinements on his comments, and I'm big on home-schooling, but on the whole I say - amen, brother.

A SLOW DAY: Not the news, but me. There will be very little blogging today as I am pushed both at work and at school. I can recommend any of the blogs listed on the left, or, if you're feeling really energetic, why don't you take a little time and write me an email? I always like to read eloquent, well-written discursions on the day's events. But you'll do. So write, already!

I LIVE FOR MY TIP JAR: I’m not quite sure where the idea of tip-jar-as-profiteering emerged, perhaps from the guy who’s accusing various bloggers of profiteering off the war, but it seems odd that this would gain purchase. (Yes, pun intended, I like puns.) The cry is taken up today by Aussie blogger Neale Talbot at WrongWayGoBack, who points out how mature, high-minded and unmaterialistic he is and how low, immature and craven warbloggers are. He then lists a group of bloggers who have tip jars. It included me! Yeehaw! He says:

…if each of these warbloggers makes a dollar a day, after a year they'll have collectively made almost $10,000. $10,000 that could have gone to the victims of 9/11.

This sounds remarkably like the “if you don’t support (insert your business here), the terrorists will have won” advertisements that were so distasteful and annoying there for a while. In this case the comparison is lacking merit. Patronage of “the arts” has been standard for centuries, and because of that we have many great artworks that otherwise would not have been done. And getting paid for bringing attention to atrocities isn’t precisely new – let’s look closely at, say, all news media, many movies and novels, and even, yes, Picasso – was he profiteering when he painted “Guernica”?

Certainly blogging is a “low art”, if art at all, but it takes effort and time and passion. I don’t have a problem with a tip jar, and people who get all hoity about it are welcome to their opinion too. As for profiteering, I’ve made a grand total of $0 from my tip jar in my admittedly short blogging history; I will confess to having dropped maybe $50 total in other tip jars. I doubt that I would ever make enough from mine, even if some readers got all excited and dropped a few coins in there, to have any impact on my decision about whether or not to blog – I already spend too much time on it, given that I work full time and ostensibly am in graduate school as well. So this argument by Talbot is actually precisely the kind of thing he decries himself:

…petty insults and a focus on irrelevant details…become the order of the day.

Of course answering his post this way is rather like killing a fly with a shotgun (with much less accuracy required), but I was just feeling contrary this morning and thought I’d take Talbot on. Not that he cares, or will read it, but I feel better already, and that’s the whole point of the blogging thing ultimately, isn’t it? Getting it off your chest and into the minds of other people who can laugh or smirk or cry or consider. Whether or not they tip.

TELETHON FOR SUICIDE BOMBERS: Saudi Arabia continues to actively support the Palestinians, this time with a telethon:

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd yesterday reiterated Saudi Arabia’s unwavering support for the Palestinians and ordered a nationwide telethon to raise funds for them. He also donated SR10 million to the fund...

King Fahd inaugurated the fund-raising campaign by donating SR10 million. Crown Prince Abdullah, deputy premier and commander of the National Guard, gave SR5 million and Prince Sultan, second deputy premier and minister of defense and aviation, SR3 million...

King Fahd also ordered the dispatch of emergency relief supplies to the Palestinian people in the form of thousands of tons of food and medicines. The last telethon for the Palestinians saw support pour from all over the world and by the end of the day SR40 million was raised. “The new fundraising campaign comes at a time when the Palestinian people are facing tragic circumstances. Saudis and expatriates are requested to support the Palestinians by providing them with food, medicine and clothes and contributing to rebuild the shattered infrastructure,” the committee said in a statement.

“The committee will continue to provide direct assistance to the families of Palestinian martyrs and those wounded while resisting the occupation,” the statement said.

Emphasis mine. What is going on here? Why are we hearing about just the support of Saddam for the suicide bombers when Saudi Arabia is openly supporting them - having a telethon!! - to raise money for it? The leadership of Saudi Arabia, including Abdullah-of-the-peace-plan, are contributing SR18 million (I don't know what that is in US dollars) up front to kick things off. What kind of entertainment are they going to have in the telethon - rotating replays of the videos left behind by the young people who spewed hate then blew up dozens of innocent people? Dramatic readings of the "blood pastry" propaganda? It's not just the fact of this event, but the boldness that is incredible.

Will there be a response on the part of our government? Americans? Europeans? Anyone? I'll be looking.

And if you want a little light Saudi humor, visit here. Be sure to link through several day's worth.

CRAVEN ADMISSION: In the midst of the recent stir of "I don't care how many hits I get on my blog because I have a life" comments, I will raise my hand and say I care. Someday, most likely when I'm dead, I won't care anymore when people read what I write. Until then, I care, I'm glad you're here, and I hope you'll be back again, soon, and 10 minutes won't be too soon. Just kidding, I won't have it updated by then. Probably not for at least 15 minutes.

So I feel no shame in saying, YAY! Today is the six-week anniversary of this blog, and today I got the 10,000th hit! It was someone in New Jersey, and I won't give the domain name in case it's someone at work who should be counting beans instead. This is small potatoes for the likes of Instapundit, who has that many hits before breakfast and twice that before he decides whether to have the white or wheat for lunch, and that's okay, I'm not a law professor either. In the interests of open disclosure, "hits" on my counter is the number of people who come by - I do have repeat visitors, so my actual "unique visitor" count is lower, but if they are back within an hour of their last visit it counts as another page view instead of a hit. But hey, if it's the same 100 people checking the page obsessively, it's nice to know I'm not alone in having no life. My "page views" are at 13,736, if anyone cares, and that includes the 10 times a day I check my own page because I can't get SiteMeter not to recognize my home computer.

This is more math-ish than I like (for details, see my comment on No Watermelon's most recent math post). But it's happy math, so I'll get over it.

CHECKMATE: James Lileks says what I think in his post today about checks for suicides:

If someone convinced my daughter to blow herself up in a restaurant, and one of Saddam’s men came around later with a check to buy us off, I would return it. And by “return” I mean I would kick his body over until his face is in the dirt and shove the check in the hole in the back of his head.

Are we clear?

Very clear, and ditto here. What I don’t understand is why the Palestinians don’t get it. That quote is from a post where Lileks explores another possibility for escalation in the horrors of suicide bombers, which follows a very good post about tech help. Weird mix, but it works.

AND THE BEAT GOES ON: The Pulitzer committee is still reviewing Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Pulitzer from 1995; Goodwin was herself a member of the Pulitzer committee until this year, when the issue of plagiarism in her books became too big and too well-substantiated to ignore.

Now, when is the Bancroft committee going to review Michael Bellesiles’s award?

Link via Drudge.

PULITZERS II: The previous post was too serious to allow for a light moment of mocking the Pulitzers, but I can't resist here. From the Pulitzer website:

Unlike the elaborate ceremonies and royal banquets attendant upon the presentation of the Nobel Prizes in Stockholm and Oslo, Pulitzer winners receive their prizes from the president of Columbia University at a modest luncheon in May in the rotunda of the Low Library in the presence of family members, professional associates, board members, and the faculty of the School of Journalism. The board has declined offers to transform the occasion into a television extravaganza.

It really speaks for itself. All together now: "meeeooowwwww!"

CONGRATS ON THE PULITZERS, BUT… It’s not surprising that the September 11 coverage dominated this year’s Pulitzers, given the magnitude and breaking news nature of the event. And it’s likely that most of the recipients deserved the awards; I don’t have the resources of the Pulitzer committee to make a judgment on that. But one controversy in the mix this year highlights the dangers in big-media journalism – playing favorites vs going for accuracy. It is especially unfortunate that this situation happened in the light of Pulitzer winner Doris Kearns Goodwin’s recently identified problems with plagiarism which were not identified by their awards committee when she was awarded her prize in 1995.

Here is The Seattle Times telling the basics:

The Seattle Times was one of three finalists for the Pulitzer Prize in investigative reporting, for a five-part series examining two failed clinical trials at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

The series, published March 11-15, 2001, reported that patients died prematurely in two failed clinical trials in the 1980s in which the center and its doctors had a potential financial interest. The patients and their families were not told about those monetary connections, nor were they fully informed about the risks.

The stories, reported by Duff Wilson and David Heath, generated controversy over the past few weeks when Wall Street Journal Assistant Managing Editor Laura Landro, a former Hutch patient and now a patron, wrote an op-ed piece blasting the series as "reckless" and "fundamentally false." The Times stood by the series, as a debate over its merits ensued in the journalism world.

The beginning of The Seattle Times series is here; I haven’t read the series and I haven’t read Ms. Landro’s editorial, or the Wall Street Journal’s defense here and here. What concerns me is the comments from the Pulitzer prize administrator about the controversy, and the attitude by the New York Times. First, the NY Times:

In an unusual move by a potential Pulitzer competitor, the Journal on March 19 published a critique of the series by assistant managing editor Laura Landro, who survived leukemia after a 1992 bone-marrow transplant at the Hutchinson center.

Landro's column labeled the series ``fundamentally false'' and called it ``a textbook case on how the media can convey biased and misleading information about biomedical research. It left out crucial facts, distorted others and ignored everything that didn't fit its sensational thesis.''

Fancher said Landro failed ``to offer a single factual inaccuracy.''

Now, Seymour Topping, prize administrator of the Pulitzer and journalism professor at Columbia School of Journalism, a premier journalism program:

``On the merits, in competition with the other entries, The Seattle Times simply lost out,'' said Seymour Topping, administrator of the prizes and a Pulitzer board member.

He declined to address the controversy involving the two newspapers, but said complaints from both the Journal and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center did not cost the Times the prize. The entry was a finalist in the investigative reporting category.

``The fact that The Seattle Times did not win the prize had nothing at all to do with any of the complaints that were lodged,'' Topping said.

This is chilling – the NY Times identifying the controversy as an issue between competitors for a prize, and the Pulitzer representative saying the criticism had no impact on awarding the prize. Journalism has to be about trust between the readers and the media organization or there is no value in the exercise. It is this lack of trust that has undermined the public’s view of journalism in recent decades, and events like Goodwin’s plagiarism woes and the proven inaccuracy of Michael Bellesiles’s much vaunted Arming of America, which won a prestigious Bancroft Prize for History, don’t help matters much. It shouldn’t escape anyone that Columbia University, a liberal institution in New York City, oversees the awarding of both the Pulitzers and the Bancrofts. Now we have a dispute about the accuracy of a nominee for a Pulitzer and while it did not win, the representative of the Pulitzer committee is saying publicly that the accusations of inaccuracy did not have a role in that decision.

I don’t know if The Seattle Times reporters were inaccurate. I don’t know whether Ms. Landro’s patronage of the clinic featured in the Times expose affected her attitude about the series; apparently she was also a patient there at one time. What I do know is that if serious questions about inaccuracy are raised, the Pulitzer committee has a responsibility to consider that in its deliberations. Not doing so is an abrogation of their purpose – recognizing honest, accurate journalism that has made a real difference in our society. I think it likely the criticism was considered, but admitting it would cast into doubt the selection processes of all the other prize committees who have given awards to the Seattle Times for that series, and would create a major rift between the Seattle Times and those on the Pulitzer selection committee – and higher echelon journalism is a small society as is any higher-echelon level of business. Either way, the Pulitzer committee does not come off well: either they are ignoring accuracy questions which throws into doubt all their selections; or they are lying about their selection process. And either way, the Pulitzers come under a cloud again.

NEXT FASHION TREND: GUANTANAMO HEADRAGS? In a spectacular blow for peace and humanity unlike any seen since "We Are The World", the Australian fashion magazine Australian Style's April issue has a full fashion spread on - refugee fashions.

...the team [was] quite serious in their decision to devote an entire fashion spread...to asylum seekers - complete with models in designer threads and sporting this season's must-have accessory: stitched lips.

That's right, the models have faux sewn mouths, so chic and yet so poignant. Not that they use those mouths for food, something they might in fact have in common with the refugees.

The Australians have been struggling for months with the plight of asylum seekers who some say should be sent back to their countries, and others say should be allowed to stay in Australia. Meanwhile, the refugees live in camps with few amenities, a fact that isn't lost on the fashion industry.

"We had something to say, that we don't agree with the way these people are being treated. We wanted to symbolically represent that through a fashion shoot," [Australian Style editor Jacqueline] Khiu said quite seriously from her Surry Hills office...

Australian Fashion Week organiser Simon Lock offered this thought-provoking gem: "Australian fashion designers draw their inspiration from our social, cultural and environmental diversity. These are the influences that define Australian style, a style that is as eclectic as the designers themselves. Asylum seekers and immigrants can form an important part of that inspiration, adding to the cultural diversity of this great nation."

I think Halle Berry was just out-Halle'd. Is there an Academy Award for self-mocking gestures?

BRILLIANT DEDUCTIONS: Steven Brill of the defunct Brill's Content is turning his attentions to the Walker-Lindh case, arguing for the defense in this article in Newsweek. For a more lawyerly take, I suggest you read the website of Henry Mark Holzer, professor emeritus of the Brooklyn Law School, who is dissecting the case motion by motion.

AND DON'T FORGET EGYPT: Instapundit points out this article which talks about "the Arab street" in Egypt, as Secty of State Colin Powell is scheduled to meet with the leadership there. This article discusses how the unrest is dangerous for the governments themselves. I think the Instapundit tag line is good: reaping the whirlwind.

"ARAB STREET" IN AMERICA: Over the weekend, Muslims in New Jersey demonstrated against US policy in the Middle East:

Chanting provocative slogans and hoisting the colors of the Palestinian flag, hundreds of Muslims rallied in Paterson and Teaneck on Friday afternoon to condemn Israel's military assault on the West Bank and criticize the Bush administration for its response.

I'm not quite sure how this fits the premise of Arab anger incited by Arab governments - these people live in the US and many are likely US citizens. It's definitely something to keep an eye on.

THREAT FROM THE ARAB STREET: We’ve heard about “the Arab street” since the beginning of the war on terrorism, with the clear message – implicit or explicit – that it’s a powerful force just on the verge of being released against the United States. The implication is that it will be a wave we can’t turn back, and we should be seeking to appease the crowd before we are swept away.

It has seemed to me that it was being used as a threat, and the articles in today’s NY Times reinforce that feeling – and it is a feeling similar to the one I get when I hear Arafat saying, I can’t stop the terrorists, they’re just ungovernable. Where has this hatred of the United States come from? I understand that US policies have not always been what the Arab countries wish they were, but I think the “anger” being reported now is as much an artifact of deliberate incitement by the governments involved and the tone of media coverage as any natural response to US policy.

What do the articles say? The first is about a young man killed during an attack on the American embassy in Bahrain – his family and others claim he was killed by US weaponry, the US Marines deny it. There is some indication he may have been killed by Bahrain police. But that isn’t the word on “the Arab street”, and

“…his death (is) feeding a brooding resentment of the extensive American presence on this Persian Gulf island.

"America's blind support for Israel and its silence encourage Israel to kill more Palestinians, just as America did in Afghanistan and Iraq," said Ibrahim Abdullah, one of a steady stream of mourners who made their way to the dead man's dusty grave on the edge of a poor village populated by Shiite Muslims just north of Manama, the capital.

"The American base is very dangerous here," Mr. Abdullah said. "Because of their presence we feel crippled. They will stand with the government against the people. They are against Islam. Americans hate Islam."

Where did he get this idea? I don’t hate Islam, and the tone in the United States from September 11 onward has been one of making clear distinctions between extreme Islamoterrorists and the average Muslim. Could it be that his attitude is fomented by Arab leadership, including Arafat? There is apparently also a backlash in Bahrain because Ronald Neuman, US Ambassador to Bahrain:

…had requested that a model United Nations school assembly observe a moment of silence for Israeli victims of suicide bombings. His suggestion came after a student asked the assembly to stand to observe a moment of silence for the Palestinians…

"Maybe the ambassador thought what he was doing was fair," said Mansoor al-Jamri, a former spokesman in exile for the Bahrain Freedom Movement, an Islamist opposition group, who has come home under a general amnesty. "But to Muslim people around the world who feel the Americans value them at less than zero, this sparked everything."

Again, who has encouraged “the Arab street” to feel “Americans value them at less than zero”? It’s not emerged from “the American street”.

Another article makes the tone into a more explicit threat:

Arab governments — particularly Egypt and Jordan, but also Lebanon, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and other gulf states — might have to face the decision whether to crack down violently against agitated crowds of stone-throwing students protesting the Israeli incursion into the West Bank and expressing their disillusionment with American policy and Arab leadership…

…Arab leaders "don't see themselves as having any viable political options" or arguments with which they can calm the daily demonstrations that, thus far, have been contained with minimal violence, a senior Western diplomat here said.

All it would take is for a large crowd to break through police lines and race toward the Israeli or American embassies.

"By the time they got a half mile down the road, tens of thousands could join them, and then you would have a real crisis," an Egyptian official said. American diplomats in the region, all of them living with hundreds of Arab soldiers stationed nearby to protect them, were rattled by the breach of the American Embassy compound in Bahrain on Friday, when about 20 demonstrators broke off from a crowd of several thousand and scaled the wall.

What does this say?

1) The “Arab street” is angry
2) The Arab leadership is losing ability to contain the anger
3) The anger is the fault of the US
4) The tipping point would be a large “Arab street” assault on a US embassy
5) It’s already happened on a small scale
6) A larger scale one is only a matter of time unless the US buckles to whatever it is “the Arab street” wants, which is removal from the region (and I doubt that means removal of US money too – removing that would likely further incite “the Arab street”)

It seems that the stage is being set for precisely the kind of attack described here, and fault is being apportioned now so that when it happens the response can be, “I told you so”. And where has this happened before?

The image [of the Bahrain attack] evoked memories of 1979, when Iranian students loyal to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized the United States Embassy in Tehran and held 50 American diplomats hostage in a crisis that undermined the Carter administration.

Is this a deliberate construction of an atmosphere conducive both to attacks on Americans in these countries, and to laying the blame for such attacks on American policy and hatred of Islam? I don’t know that it’s all deliberate – that would be a complex undertaking – but I do think forces in the Middle East are manipulating conditions that have arisen from decades of Arab government mismanagement and vilification of the US to bring about their own ends. And I don’t think those ends are about either religion or making things better for the “Arab street” – I think it’s about making things better for the pockets and the power-mongering goals of the ones who have been responsible for “the Arab streets” for a long time.

OUT OF ARABIA: For a serious give and take about what we should do vis a vis Saudi Arabia, go check out the exchange at Instapundit. I haven't said much about this because I have a pretty clear idea of what I think should happen, and haven't really come across many articles saying it. So I'll say it now, and then leave the larger discussion to better minds.

My take:

I think we should develop our own sources of oil and alternative fuels. I think we should pull out of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Middle East in general as far as buying oil is concerned. We should set strict limits on any type of aid that is given, and follow those limits closely. The kind of limits I'm talking about include: no aid if there is any evidence of supporting terrorism, no aid if the government's money is flowing into the coffers of individuals instead of going to build the country's infrastructure; no aid if women are treated poorly or not allowed education. The list would be longer, but you get the idea. As for us trying to engage in social engineering of those countries - if you want the money, you meet the requirements. No one is forcing them to take our money. And the money we provide should be precious little, and then only for specific projects such as building initial infrastructure or schools. No long-term subsidizing of any nation-states. Nada, zilch.

I'm ready to pay the price for such a decision, realizing that it could mean less oil in the short term and more expensive everything short and long term. If it means I live a simpler, more expensive life, so be it. Principle and safety are more important than riding the wave of luxury straight to hell.

Some days it already feels like the wave is cresting.

RESERVING JUDGMENT: Israel decided late Sunday to call up senior reservists to serve in Northern Israel after seven Israeli soldiers were injured there by Hezbollah fire. Lebanon and Syria are claiming they disapprove of Hezbollah's actions but can't stop it. Meanwhile:

A member of the American administration estimated that Hezbollah had recently received large weapons caches from Iran, some of which were unknown to Syria.

"Some of which"? And what's this about Iran being involved, aren't they supposed to be our allies or at least on the "marginally friendly" list? Sounds like we need to have another little discussion with Syria, and bring Iran in for a heart to heart too. "Stopping it", Syria, could include using your influence to keep arms out of Hezbollah's hands, and to convince the Hezbollah guerrillas that you accept Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon as complete.

And both countries are moving troops to Israel's border. Sounds very peaceful to me.

UPDATE: Well, I clearly had a serious brain hiccup with Iran, somehow blanking out the entire "Axis of Evil" speech. I claim chocolate nirvana as the cause - I was drinking Godiva hot chocolate at the time I wrote it. Fortunately, Scutum gently corrected me in Comments, and I appreciate that he didn't use any of the many variations of "brainless twit" available and appropriate to the situation. I think I will avoid further humiliation and end posting for the night. See you tomorrow.

IT’S SO…MOTEL 6: Sometimes my comments only get in the way. Excerpts from an article on lawns in Miami:

WHEN you have a name like Raymond Jungles, maybe you are fated to rip up lawns to bring the jungle back to South Florida...Mr. Jungles, a landscape architect based in Key West, is fighting the kind of tyranny that makes a yard in Oregon look like a yard in Texas.

"The landscape is so disgusting around here," (Jungles) said as he drove his BMW along a winding road in Coconut Grove. "Florida McMansions and these plops of plant combinations on an overabundance of lawn."

...He stopped short in his tour of the gardens. "Ooh, that's got to go," he said, frowning at a Philodendron selloum, as common as a zinnia, quickly reproducing itself at the base of a beautiful grove of black bamboo.

"It's so mundane," he said. "And it's going to obscure the bamboo." He went off and spoke to the gardener in Spanish...

(Jungles) found converts in Victoria DiNardo and Stephen Montifiore, who gave up a loft in SoHo, with a huge roof garden, for a waterfront Art Deco paradise in Miami Beach. When the couple saw the house four years ago, its clean lines were hidden under latticework and Italianesque columns, and the yard had the usual hodgepodge of plants.

"It was all lawn with these dopey royal palms across the beach," Ms. DiNardo said...The little pool house reminded Mr. Montifiore, a clothing designer and manufacturer who grew up in Miami, of a Motel 6. But he liked the lines of the house. He could see its potential.

...(But Ms. DiNardo) couldn't picture the tall Alexander palms...soaring 40 feet over the L-shape wing of the low house. "But Raymond would run over and stand there with his arms up, to help me see the verticals," she said. "He bounds all over the garden, like a Labrador retriever."

I think they deserve each other, don't you? As for me, I'm just going to save Jungles's photo as my monitor wallpaper and water my plebeian houseplants with drool.

SIX DEGREES OF MYTH: A Psychology Today Online article posted last week debunks Stanley Milgram's "small world experiment" as a myth, noting that his first test of it had a 5 percent success rate, and the second had a 30 percent success rate - hardly compelling. Milgram's premise was that any person is within six acquaintances of any other person - a concept which took root in popular culture through the Kevin Bacon Game, to the point that Bacon is now starring in a credit card commercial using it. The Psychology Today authors claim the widely popular "six degrees of separation" is an urban myth, promulgated by our need for security - a "small world" feels safer - rather than rigorous scientific findings. They also posit another reason - look closely, this is a sneaky slide into bias:

And small-world experiences that we encounter naturally buttress people’s religious faith as evidence of “design.”

A nice little dig at religion as myth - I personally was moved to a much deeper faith by the sense that six people separate me from Kevin Bacon. My belief in a merciful God would have been shaken had I been, in fact, even closer to Bacon; clearly I'm under supernatural protection. Seriously, I find it hard to imagine any "people of faith" that I know latching on to the Kevin Bacon Game as evidence for God. This was a passing swipe with no support or reason for existence other than what must be a particularly deep aversion to religious faith on the part of the authors.

Be that as it may, the premise of narrow layers of association separating us from anyone else in the world is an interesting one, and Columbia University has launched an email version of Milgram's test of the Small World Phenomenon. The best part is - you too can be a part of it. This website shows you how.

But if I get any of those emails, they're going right in the trash bin. I don't want any Psychology Today writer to accuse me of myth mongering.

UPDATE: Well, as it turns out, I'm operating on two degrees of separation - today (Monday) Instapundit linked me... and I got an email from my previous landlord, who lives in another state and whom I haven't had contact with in almost three years! He reads Instapundit, saw my name, linked over to my site...and Voila! wrote to find out if it was really the same susanna. And, of course, it was. A very fun thing to have happen. But (sorry PT) it wasn't quite a religious experience.

IT MUST MEAN SOMETHING: Steven Den Beste at USS Clueless, an excellent writer and thinker, touches our hearts with a view from the other side, then explains why the Palistinian leaders may not be able to stop the suicide bombings. He doesn't say it's right; he just makes it clear why the Palestinian people have to think it is. There is no exit strategy other than winning, for them. The same is true of Israel. So how do we find peace?

THE PATIO VIEW OF PUNDITRY: Martin Devon, our fine Patio Pundit, does the heavy lifting for us this morning on the Sunday pundits in the NY Times and the Washington Post, dealing with Maureen Dowd, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Tom Friedman and an assortment of WaPo writers including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Join him on the patio before adjourning to the deep and sometimes dark rooms of the nation’s newspapers. His excellent insights may free up your morning.

GUNS N MOSES II: No sooner did Diane E. at Letter from Gotham identify gun ownership as a possible factor in fewer terror and anti-Semitic attacks in the US as compared to Europe and Israel than The Boston Globe informs us that personal gun ownership is burgeoning in Israel:

Gun sales have surged in Israel, particularly since an Israeli shoe salesman used his own weapon to fatally shoot a 46-year-old Palestinian who had opened fire in a Tel Aviv restaurant March 5 and killed three Israelis. The Interior Ministry says applications for licenses have tripled during the past month, overwhelming its staff and forcing it to shift employees from other departments to handle the deluge.

The Israeli government, meanwhile, has moved to ease once-tight restrictions on owning a gun, and some right-wing members of Parliament have demanded that anyone who has completed military service, which is obligatory for nearly all Israeli Jews, be allowed to carry a firearm.

''This is the realization that if we don't protect ourselves, nobody will,'' said Knesset member Eliezer Zandberg. ''There is a loss of trust in the government actions to protect the citizens. So we will act appropriately.''

I like this Zandberg guy. Interesting that the demands of the right-wing members of Parliament sound remarkably like the conservative interpretation of the "militia" in the Constitution, and the comments of Zandberg echo the comments of many American gun-rights proponents.

Meanwhile, the anti-gun crowd in Israel has apparently also been taking lessons from their American counterparts:

The trend has upset a vocal minority inside Israel represented by leftist members of Parliament and women's groups who fear that access to guns could worsen domestic violence. Others worry about an onset of vigilantism that mirrors a rise of militancy in the Palestinian territories, potentially undermining the authority of the government.

''If the state is relinquishing its monopoly by giving arms to the citizens, it becomes less of a state,'' said Yaron Ezrahi, a political science professor at Hebrew University. ''The first function of government is to defend the security of the citizens. When it cannot do that, the contract between the citizens and the government is broken.''

They're against it because: domestic violence could go up; vigilantism could go up; the state would lose its authority. Looking at the potential for increased domestic violence would require a review of crime statistics in Israel as compared to recent terrorist killings, but dying in the supermarket from a terrorist attack is a very real danger that could offset the potential for domestic violence. Using the United States as an example, vigilantism is not a likely consequence. As for the last - the state "relinquishing" authority - a democracy, which Israel claims to be, is a government whose authority emerges from the people rather than an entity that grants rights, as an absolute depository of authority, to its citizens. I think the government will lose rather than shore up its authority if it tries to prevent the people from protecting themselves. And when citizens cannot trust the government to act in their interests rather than its own, the contract is already broken.

The new gun owner whose example opens the Globe article is:

...not one of the Jewish settlers who have brazenly toted their assault rifles among Palestinians who consider them colonizers. Nor is he a hard-line supporter of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who has openly spoke of forcing the Palestinians to submit by force. He is a member of Israel's shrinking left, someone who opposes the Israeli occupation and demands Israel withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Diane said, on Wednesday:

It's true that gun ownership among Jews, who are mostly urban and liberal, is probably low. But in this country, there's always a chance that your intended victim might pull out a .45 and clock you.

Now even liberal Jews get the point. Smart woman, Diane. Maybe we should send her to replace Zinni.

CLONED BABY IN UTERO? Dr Severino Antinori, a fertility specialist who previously promised to clone a human by 2001, announced this week that a woman is eight weeks pregnant with the first cloned human, according to the Sydney Herald, quoting The Gulf News:

Dr Antinori made the announcement at a conference on genetic engineering in Abu Dhabi, according to a report in Gulf News. His office refused to comment on the report.

The Gulf News quoted Dr Antinori as saying: "Our project is at a very advanced stage. One woman among thousands of infertile couples in the program is eight weeks pregnant. We have nearly 5,000 couples in this project now."

A spokesman at the International Centre for the Study of Physiopathy of Human Reproduction would not confirm or deny the claim.

A search for Antinori at The Gulf News will show the article, published on April 3; the page that opens with the article does not have a URL. The NY Times ran a short piece on it yesterday.

What do we do if this is true? I don't know. We are so enmeshed in moral equivalence in terms of scientific advances that I don't think any ethics rules from the UN or anyone else will make any difference at all. The post earlier today about embryo development for the purpose of stem cell research illustrates that. I feel sometimes that we're in the days before Noah's flood again, where the world moves forward, marrying and giving in marriage (a phrase meaning, life as usual, living for the day), approaching each development of policy or science or social engineering as a progressive (thus, good) move without sincere contemplation of the long-range consequences. The voices crying, consider the consequences of your action, are being ignored - and those consequences could be devastating. I'm not anti-science at all, nor am I a Luddite. But I also don't believe that just because we can do something, we should.

UPDATE: My hysteria seems pre-mature, because Antinori is refusing to confirm the cloning story and fertility specialists are skeptical and, as one said, "very angry." Does anyone besides me find it somewhat amusing that Antinori announced this in the Middle East, that bastion of veracity and rock-ribbed scrupulousness?

SAME CRIME, DIFFERENT COVERAGE: Desert Pundit wrote to alert me about the case of Spc. Lillie Morgan, which I had not heard of. I bet most of you haven't either. What did she do?

Army Spc. Morgan, stationed in Germany, drowned her two children - 3-year-old son, Joshua, and 2-month-old daughter, Jazmin - in the bathtub on September 18, 2001; testimony is ongoing in her court-martial. Granted, her crime happened while our nation was literally reeling from the terrorist attacks on September 11. But that wasn't true during Andrea Yates's trial - there would have been plenty of opportunity to find out about this similar case, and include it in the coverage. I discussed at some length before about the difference in coverage of Yates and Adair Garcia, who killed five of his six children and tried to kill himself about the time of Yates's trial. In this instance, I searched Google, Yahoo!, the NY Times, the LA Times and the Washington Post, and found no mention of Morgan other than three Stars & Stripes articles and one brief in the Oakland (CA) Tribune.

Why the difference in coverage? There could be several factors, none of which say much positive about the media. The main ones, in my view, are laziness and time frame - the Morgan killings happened in the wake of the biggest story in decades, and by the time of the Yates trial the media weren't interested in digging for information that would deepen or broaden their carefully constructed analyses. Now that Morgan is on trial, we're in the midst of the Israeli-Palestinian story and the mainstream media, if they know about Morgan at all, likely have a sense of "been there, done that with Yates, no need for a redux when we can be causing trouble in the Middle East".

Another possibility is that the Garcia and Morgan cases don't have a "like me" component for the majority of the big media's audience - Garcia is poor and Hispanic, Morgan is black and military. As much as the mainstream media whine and gavotte about race, if you notice the coverage is usually framed for white consumption - either setting up minority culture as something for whites to admire or emulate, or serving up white guilt for breakfast. Coverage of Garcia and Morgan would require treatment of the two as humans, not as racial entities - because their crimes are not connected in any way to their race -and that is not acceptable for most big media. Minorities are the minority of their audience, and if the cases can't be turned to appeal positively or negatively to the largest audience - whites - the media doesn't want to know.

Finally, neither Garcia nor Morgan fit the frame the media placed around the Yates case - that of a mentally ill, religiously oppressed, I-did-the-best-I-could mom who just reached the end of her rope as anyone would. There were, in the media's Yates frame, juicy hotbuttons to push - fanatical religion, mistreatment of women and misunderstanding of mental illness. Garcia fell out because he is a man, and thus can lay no claim to any oppressed class other than Hispanic, and the media wouldn't touch the possibility that his ethnicity had an influence on his crime (which, in that case, was good because I think it highly unlikely that it had any role at all). Morgan fell out because she did not fit the woman-as-victim frame the media uses for such crimes - there is some evidence that her crime was done as a means to get back at her husband, and she does not appear to have been either isolated or non-functioning in her daily life.

There is a lot of room for meaningful analysis in the light of these parent-child killings. But, in that as in so many ways, the media has failed us again.

WHAT HE SAID: I just found a Shelby Foote quote on The Rapmaster's site that expresses my sentiments about my region of origin precisely. For those of you who don't know, Foote wrote the definitive history of the Civil War, which Ken Burns used as the basis for his amazing miniseries on the war (which I have nearly finished crying through - I think I have one more section to go). This quote is from a speech Rapmaster heard in college:

"With my father dead, I got two enormous benefits. One was that I was often left to my own resources, so I became a reader. The other was that at the rate my father was being promoted in Armour Co., I almost surely would have wound up in Oak Park, Ill., instead of Mississippi, and I would have been a Chicagoan.

"I'm sorry my daddy had to die to save me from that (growing up in the North), but I am glad to be saved from it."

Amen and pass the biscuits, Brother Foote.

ARAB NEWS - LEFT COAST EDITION: The LA Times has apparently abandoned any effort to appear fair or balanced in its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian battles. A quick look at their coverage is revealing. A photo essay called "Conflict in the Middle East" features only images of embattled Palestinians - except for one photo of an Israeli woman cheering on an Israeli soldier in his tank, heading into the Palestinian territories to wreak more havoc. If you need some idea of what that havoc is, and why it's happening, stay tuned - the LA Times has you covered:

With the Israeli occupation of Ramallah entering a second week Friday, Palestinians are experiencing both life and death under siege. Babies have been born, some languishing in maternity wards, unable to go home. People have died, or been killed, their corpses forced to await mass burial in a hospital parking lot because the trip to a cemetery was deemed too dangerous.

Food and basic services such as medical care, electricity and water are in short, spotty supply.

Except for two brief interludes when Israeli forces allowed Palestinians out of their homes, families have remained hunkered down, unable to go to work or school, struggling to conserve precious water, to distract terrified children and to pass the time.

Why is this happening?

Israel, which says it is trying to stop a wave of suicide bombers, has occupied every major Palestinian city except one, Jericho, placing an estimated 1.5 million Palestinians under virtual house arrest.

Emphasis mine. Which says? The LA Times must think this is just a pose, a back door way to get into the Palestinian cities to oppress this poor people, an oppression the article continues to detail with deep sympathy. An article about the policy involved is also enlightening:

On a bloody day of fierce fighting, the diplomatic isolation of Yasser Arafat was broken Friday when the United States' special Mideast envoy walked past Israeli tanks and into the Palestinian Authority president's besieged headquarters here.

Despite President Bush's appeal for a halt to the bloodshed, Israel accelerated its massive offensive in the West Bank, entering yet another Palestinian town. More than two dozen Palestinians and one Israeli soldier were killed.

I'm sure those were innocent Palestinians sticking their noses out of their homes for the sole purpose of hanging clothes out to dry (one of the photos in the Conflict photo essay) or going to get food. Earlier coverage of suicide bombings is also revealing. One article, after two bombings last week where 17 were killed, characterizes the two leaders this way:

As Israeli forces tightened their harsh siege on Arafat and Ramallah, the city that is the Palestinian Authority president's power base, the Israeli government ordered all journalists to leave the area. Some were ordered to submit their reports to a military censor...

"We must fight against this terrorism, fight with no compromise, pull up these wild plants by the roots, smash their infrastructure, because there is no compromise with terrorism," said a grim-faced Sharon, his brow deeply furrowed.

He told Israelis that they are fighting a war for their existence but offered no new ideas for resolving the conflict. Instead, he repeated a simple, blunt justification for Israel's thrust into the West Bank. The Jewish state, he said, is at war against "terrorism"--a word he used about 15 times in his four minutes on the air.

Arafat, taking advantage of visiting foreign activists who had sneaked past Israeli tanks into his compound, announced to the world that he would never surrender.

"Victory will be here sooner than expected, God willing," Arafat said, hugging his visitors and mugging for TV cameras.

Israel and Sharon are harsh, censoring, grim. Arafat, by contrast, invites the media in, welcomes activists brave enough to slip past the Israeli oppressors, and is affectionate and humorous. The article continues to set up the contrasting picture, in example after example:

The siege has trapped tens of thousands of Palestinians in their homes. Few dare emerge into the streets for fear of being shot.

In the kind of scene that was repeated throughout central Ramallah, Israeli troops were inspecting the faded home of an elderly man Sunday. In the back garden, about 20 men in civilian clothes could be seen, seated or squatting on the ground, their hands bound by plastic handcuffs, with soldiers standing guard. An officer said the men were fighters who had used the home to hide their weapons.

That faded home of an elderly man could well have hidden weapons in just the way that Red Crescent ambulance did. Just like the terrorists in Afghanistan, the Palestinians are not separating themselves into citizens and soldiers, but are drawing all sectors of the citizenry into their war mongering. The LA Times does not acknowledge this in any way.

After all of my reading about this crisis over the past few weeks, I think there are valid criticisms of Israeli policy to be made, and I don't say that everything the Israelis do is by definition right and good - just as the United States doesn't always get it right. But I think, in this, the Israelis are more right than wrong, and the Palestinians more wrong than right. It is appalling for the LA Times not to make at least a token effort to look at both sides, to paint the Palestinians as oppressed innocents in this, to show Arafat as a likeable leader facing off with a censoring murderous tyrant. The Israelis have tried time and again for peace, and the suicide bombers just kept coming. When an 18-year-old high school honor student, engaged to marry and with seemingly everything to live for, blows herself up in an Israeli supermarket on a high of anti-Israeli blood lust, then how can you say any home or person or place in her country is unlikely to harbor terrorists?

I think this kind of coverage in the United States gives comfort and aid to the terrorist activities in the Middle East, and to that extent the LA Times has blood on its hands. Criticize Israel if you must, press for peace and rail against killing, but don't honor and admire a people determined to eradicate Israel by the bloodiest means possible.

ANCHORS AWAY: Howard Rosenberg, a columnist in the LA Times, mocks the television media for shipping their anchors wholesale to the Middle East to cover the Israeli-Palestinian fighting, and gets in some mightly good points along the way. He doesn't say directly that the television media can't hold a candle to the print media, but the implication is obvious. A taste:

...Brokaw, Jennings and Rather appear to be the John Cameron Swayzes of this age, destined to be rendered obsolete, along with many of their colleagues and the eroding tradition they represent, by economics, changing tastes, shrunken news holes and the technologies of the Internet and cable.

Too bad the LA Times doesn't acquit itself any better - although it covers the conflict more deeply, it does so without any noticeable fairness or balance. Go do a search, you'll see.

THIN SKINNED AND WHINY: Matt Welch takes apart Minneapolis Star-Tribune's Jim Boyd for his "Gatekeeper Defensiveness" over an ad placed in his paper which objected to the paper's refusal to use the word "terrorism":

Good God, man, hast thou no vocational epidermis? You are the dominant local newspaper. You have an outsized influence over your community. People are going to criticize, raise their voices, and even (heaven forbid) act mean. Deal with it.

Go get 'em, Matt.

ERGONOMIC NONSENSE: David Nieporent finds NY Times bias in an article about new voluntary yet strangely mandatory federal recommendations about ergonomics in the workplace.

STEM CELL RESEARCH USING HUMAN EMBRYOS has a green light in Australia, despite a dispute between the Prime Minister and the New South Wales premier which could have derailed some support.The new rules are being reviewed to make sure that human embryos won't be created just for research purposes; apparently all that can be used are embryos created for other purposes but no longer desired for those purposes, such as invitro fertilization.

I have wondered lately if, in the future, there will be a group of people who defy the general culture by procreating naturally, who refuse any genetic alteration of their offspring or themselves, who continue the human race in its unfettered potential without efforts to mastermind it. Would this group be environmentalists? The religious? Would they be considered fanatics? Would they face discrimination? Will they be scientific Amish, their viability endangered by the same isolation necessary for their survival?

I think at least some of those things are likely.

At the very least, it would make a good science fiction novel.

SHARON ERASING ARAFAT? The level of bias in The Guardian is just amazing. It's so bad that it's hard to criticize - it's pretty much a caricature in itself, and no comment can do it justice. From an article today:

...the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, is not only pursuing a war against suicide bombers - as he claims - but wants to erase history: the eight-year interlude when Mr Arafat's Palestinian Authority had some control over the West Bank and Gaza...

...Mr Sharon's offensive this week has far greater ambitions - a long-term project which will complete the destruction of a Palestinian administration, paralysed for 18 months by Israeli bombardments and blockades. It is unclear what Mr Sharon envisages next - a return to complete Israeli occupation of the West Bank, or the emergence of a pliant Palestinian leadership that will be willing to make peace on his terms - but he evidently believes it is worth the international isolation the Jewish state suffered this week.

I don't think the Palestinian administration has been paralysed for 18 months; I think it was stillborn at the beginning. The article is worth reading just to see the Palestinian spin, but not if you are feeling emotionally fragile - it's rather like watching a bad accident happen. I wonder if I'm giving up on change in some quarters; I can't work up the indignation I was there for a while. I feel more sad, and resigned, but no less resolute. In a way it's worse, because when you give up hope of healing, the only option left is eradication of the disease.

SICK OF AIRPORT SILLINESS: A Pennsylvania boy believes he got sick after being made by Aspen, CO, airport security to drink from a jug of water in his backpack - which was stream water he was taking back home for a school project. The water probably contained giardia, a parasite that causes intestinal problems, which is more common in springtime waters.

It's apparently a policy now that all passengers must drink from beverages they have with them, in the presence of security officers. The boy was 14 and traveling alone, so there was no adult to say, this is a bad idea - except for the airport security, who thought it was a good idea.

For this, we federalized?

Link through Bushtit.

THE SATURDAY RAMBLE is up a little early. This week it's about Cars I Have Loved. Enjoy.

SGT. STRYKER, as usual, says it best in a pithy way:

Even if the only people reading this were myself and my wife, I'd still keep it up. I have no need for praise as I receive that from my family. I don't have an overwhelming desire to promote my views to the largest possible audience. I don't base the success or failure of this blog by the number of "hits" I get. I judge success or failure by whether the blog entertains me or not. I have a successful and satisfying life. I neither need nor require validation or approval in this endeavor as I recieve plenty of that from my career.

Me, I've been assimilated by my computer, but I can remember the days when I too was like Sarge...

STEYN'S RIGHT AGAIN: Mark Steyn sifts through the ongoing Middle East morass in The Spectator and pulls out a lot of good points, including:

It’s very difficult to negotiate a ‘two-state solution’ when one side sees the two-state solution as an intermediate stage to a one-state solution: ending the ‘Israeli occupation’ of the West Bank is a tactical prelude to ending the Israeli occupation of Israel.

He also sees taking down Saddam as a necessary aspect of fixing the problem in the Middle East. Read his column and find out why.

BRITS BETTER ON GROUND OFFENSIVES, according to this Spectator article by Julian Manyon, who rambles through the Bagram military base with a "pudgy" GI who, between bites of peanuts and "crisps", admits that the vaunted US 10th Mountain Division doesn't even train in mountainous terrain anymore. Manyon's admittedly British viewpoint leads to this observation:

Physically, the contrast between the British and the American troops is subtle but striking. The men of the 10th Mountain are often big and seem more or less fit, but to my eye at least they lack the honed edge of real combat troops. The Marines, by contrast, are sometimes smaller men, but they have the rugged, self-confident sturdiness that speaks of months of training in the most demanding conditions, and they carry their weapons as if they mean business.

That lack of honed edge is due to peanuts and poor training, I'm sure. It's an interesting article, but it seems focused on making it clear that the Americans may have great air power, but on the ground, the Brits will win every time. I say, more power to 'em. We'll pull out, take care of Iraq, and see how the Brits are doing in Afghanistan when we get back.

TRYING JOHNNY: The motions continue to flow in the pre-trial phase of John Walker Lindh's case, and Henry Mark Holzer, law professor emeritus from Brooklyn Law School, is keeping an eye on things. In an article in today's FrontPage, Holzer gets behind the defense strategy to explore their request for what he terms "graymail" - sensitive government documents or information that might put the government in the position of deciding whether to compromise national security or allow the Walker Lindh case to be weakened or dismissed. I think we need to keep an eye on this situation. It's obvious the defense is going to be very aggressive in this case, which is fine - that's their job. But as this war on terrorism continues, I think it likely we'll have more Taliban Johns (witness the prisoner with dual citizenship now trying to be declared an American despite the tenuousness of his connection), and what happens in this trial will set precedent for what happens in later ones. The defense shouldn't be allowed to go on wide-ranging fishing expeditions.