Threading the Needle

The "C" Word

2006-01-04T03:27:00.000-07:00

Words are funny things. In the most simple sense, they exist to convey explicit meaning. A word has a specific definition, articulated in any number of dictionaries, and its use is intended to express this specific idea. In fact, these dictionaries could, in theory, serve as translation devices, converting seemingly random phonetic combinations into comprehensible meaning.

But, language is not so simple, for there exists an additional layer of connotational meaning in each word we utter. There may be a simple explicit meaning for a word in a given context, but that word may also carry a judgment or moral evaluation along with it. If we fail to recognize the existence of this connotational meaning, an important component of communication is lost.

Additionally, especially once we enter into the world of rhetoric, this implicit connotational meaning often overshadows the explicit message of the speaker in question. True, this is typically the sign of someone who either has a poor grasp of the language or is intent upon deceiving his audience (or both). But despite how poorly this phenomenon reflects upon those who employ it, language and its use cannot be understood without paying respect to this technique.

To demonstrate this phenomenon in action, I give you this post by a gentleman by the name of MacRanger.

MacRanger is upset by Representative John Murtha's recent statement that he would neither join today's military nor encourage others to do so. Now, I completely understand MacRanger's anger here -- Murtha's hawkish credentials make his criticisms particularly stinging to those who would make apologies for this ridiculous endeavor in Iraq. Were I bent that way, I too would be looking for a method to devalue his message. But, since I have a relatively strong grasp of the English language, I doubt I would follow MacRanger's lead.

Murtha needs to shut his chickensh_t pie-hole. Other's might not want to say that, but this ex-military career man will. There are two ways to undermine our military. 1) Give up secrets, 2) Give in to cowardess [sic].

[…]

…Your're not the only one whose served and said "War is hell". You pathetic coward.

He then goes on to approvingly quote an extremely disturbing memo by General Patton -- wherein he demands that soldiers who are suffering from trauma disorders be denied psychological intervention -- to underline his central theme: John Murtha is a coward.

Really?

Well, let me ask this question. Had John Murtha instead demanded that we stay the course or, better yet, increase the intensity of our aggression, would that make him courageous? Does MacRanger consider his support for the Iraq War a mark of bravery? In fact, is any statement -- pro or con -- made 10,000 miles from the frontline indicative of anything with respect to bravery or cowardice?

Of course not. And I'm willing to bet that MacRanger understands this (although, I'm more than willing to be proven wrong on this assertion). However, "coward" and "cowardice" are words heavy with negative connotational meaning. It might not be accurate in this context, but it does serve the purpose of tarring Murtha on the cheap. Why waste the effort of explaining why Murtha's position is wrong when one can simply call him names?

Since I don't expect an answer from MacRanger, I'll offer one: we're not in grade school anymore. When I want to insult someone, I'll use words that accurately describe his behavior and why his behavior is wrong. It just seems like the grown-up thing to do. In this way I feel that I respect both myself and my audience.

But, this grown-up stuff isn't for everyone. It's still a free country, after all. So, if this is your level of dialogue MacRanger, knock yourself out. And when you're ready to sit at the grown-up table with the rest of us, we'll all be waiting.

Hiatus

2005-09-06T00:10:00.000-06:00

As many of you have surely noticed, things have been pretty slow around here of late. There are a lot of reasons for this (school, work, etc.). However, I'm sure that if I were properly motivated, these obstacles could be overcome -- or at least managed better than they have been recently. This leads me to the somewhat uncomfortable realization that I'm not sufficiently motivated to run this project the way that it should be run. Over the last month, I've been able to post a few articles. But, clearly, both quantity and quality have been suffering. I've tried to work through it, to see if just grinding through an uninspired period would lead to greener pastures. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to have worked.

Therefore, I've decided to take a little break.

I've been quite proud of a lot of the work that I've done here and over at TIA. As I've thought about it, I've realized that I need some time away from this if I'm going to maintain the standards I've set for myself. It will allow me to read some new ideas, develop new insights, and simply re-energize my passion for this work. The only way I can do that is to stop until I'm ready to begin again. I'll know when that happens.

So -- that's it for now. But, don't worry. Like the great gropinator -- I'll be back.

Conversion Disorder

2005-08-25T00:15:00.000-06:00

What can one say about The Volokh Conspiracy? On the one hand, their contributors are intelligent, intellectually honest, and generally civil. This is no mean feat given that the right-leaning end of the blogosphere is currently being overrun by dishonest idiots who also happen to be complete jackasses.

On the other hand, they have flaws -- the most serious of which is that they have a tendency to argue from an ivory tower (much like that stereotypical Manhattan liberal I keep hearing about). I first took serious notice of this back during the debate over bankruptcy reform, when Todd Zywicki casually questioned whether or not death should count as a serious medical problem. It's a classic case of being unable to see the forest for the trees -- the argument is solid as far as it goes, but the larger context renders it nonsensical. That's a problem.

Well, they're at it again and this time it's Eugene.

Gays and Lesbians Trying to Convert Others to Homosexual Behavior: I've seen lots of assertions that it's a "myth" that gays and lesbians try to recruit others into homosexuality…Yet it seems to me that this assertion of "myth" is likely itself something of a myth, or at least quite incomplete.

Now we all know what he's talking about here. It's a fairly stock piece of conservative Christian propaganda that there exists a homosexual cabal, ensconced in Hollywood and in our colleges and universities, that is actively attempting to lure otherwise God-fearing heterosexuals into the exciting, yet sinful, world of man-on-man/woman-on-one fluid exchange. I've always found this to be a rather amusing argument because of what it implies about those making it. I don't believe it because I know I'm not vulnerable to persuasion in this arena. To be blunt: I don't like dick -- and no amount of fancy talk is going to convince me otherwise. The fact that some people believe in conversion theory implies that they sense a certain -- shall we say -- personal malleability on this issue within themselves. How else could they be so certain that conversion risks exist?

However, that's not where Eugene is going.

The gay rights movement has aimed — in my view, on balance quite laudably — to make homosexuals feel more comfortable with their homosexuality, and to help people who are attracted to the same sex be more willing to act on that attraction. But it follows that the movement also necessarily, and I suspect intentionally, also helps people who are attracted to both sexes be more willing to explore the homosexual facet of that attraction. It thus increases the likelihood that the bisexually-attracted people who would otherwise engage in purely heterosexual relationships (because of fear of social stigma, or because of their own disapproval of their homosexual attraction) will instead be also willing to engage in some homosexual relationships.

If I'm right, the movement thus is trying to convert those who have a bisexual orientation but act purely heterosexually — or would act purely heterosexually, if we're talking about people who haven't started having sex yet — into also experimenting with homosexuality. This doesn't mean that most gays and lesbians are trying to do this to particular people up close and personal; there are obvious costs to that, such as the risk of rebuff if you get the other person's interest wrong, or the risk of quick abandonment if the other person is interested in experimenting but then concludes the experiment has been a failure from his or her point of view, so many gays and lesbians might well prefer partners who have a more definite homosexual preference. But there are many actions that might go into this sort of "conversion" (if only a conversion into a mix of homosexual/heterosexual behavior, and a conversion that in many cases will end up proving to be only temporary): Providing oneself for the actual sexual behavior is one, but so is public action to destigmatize homosexual behavior, or to provide positive homosexual or bisexual role models, something that for perfectly understandable reasons many gays and lesbians are indeed trying to do.

In other words, by creating an environment where the stigma against homosexuality is less severe, homosexual activists are "converting" non-practicing homosexuals and hetero-only bisexuals into practicing versions of same.

Now, I don't know about you, but that's not exactly what I would call conversion. In my mind (and in the mind of the conversion theorists), conversion means straights being drawn to the dark side and exploding as flaming queers, not the release of latent/closet tendencies that have been bubbling beneath the surface the whole time. When people talk about the "myth" of recruitment, they're talking about the former phenomenon, not the latter.

So -- it seems like the "myth" is a myth after all, and Eugene's argument is no more than a strawman. Sure, it might be interesting to examine how the softening of social stigma leads to an increased expression of homosexual behavior. And it might be technically accurate (as Eugene argues later in his post) to refer to it as conversion. But using that terminology in a public sphere, knowing the connotations it has in that context, is -- well -- clueless.

Fortunately, Orin Kerr pushed back on Eugene fairly hard (you can follow the entire discussion here), thus saving The Conspiracy's position on the blog roll for another day. But, I'm warning you guys. You do this 12 or 13 more times and you're cut.

Seriously.

Redirect

2005-08-23T00:56:00.000-06:00

Nope -- nothing here today.

However, my doppelgänger has once again appeared at TIA. Head on over.

The Black Hat

2005-08-15T12:35:00.000-06:00

Like many of you, I have been watching the Cindy Sheehan story evolve with a strange mixture of sadness, hope, and revulsion. Like so much of what passes for political discourse these days, this event plays out as a spectacular piece of calculated theater. But unlike our traditional diet of sound and fury, the emotions that drive Cindy Sheehan's display are not drawn from theory or generated from method. No matter what else you might say about Sheehan the activist or Sheehan the political figure, she is Sheehan: mother of a dead son. Everything else is drawn from that cruel reality. And everyone knows that.

So, in the moments where I am able to successfully repress the rage I feel as the soulless war apologists do everything in their power to obscure this woman's clear and simple message, I'm struck by how foolish the conservative reaction to this protest has been. In a certain sense, their reaction has been just another rendition of the old standby: attack the messenger. But by playing hardball with the mother of a soldier who died for the cause they support, it's nearly impossible to get away without looking like a total asshole. That might work when targeting a former ambassador, a presidential candidate and war hero, or a former counterterrorism adviser -- all of who have made a living, to varying degrees, in the rough and tumble world of professional politics. Not so with Cindy Sheehan. When they go after her this way, they voluntarily wear black hats.

I suppose that it's possible that this has simply become a reflex or that they simply don't know any better. But, I think it's a little more complicated than that. I think that Cindy Sheehan is extremely dangerous to the conservative case for war and I think that, consciously or unconsciously, they know it.

Last week, while justifying his use of the term chickenhawk, Publius had the following to say:

But even putting the whole chickenhawk point aside, you can tell from the actions of both the administration and the nation that people’s hearts are not in this war. Again, not from their words, but from their actions and. For example, the draft is not even whispered by an elected official in Washington (well, ok, 99.9% of elected officials). That’s an extremely telling action. If people really – really – believed in this war, they would be willing to accept a draft. But it’s worse than that. The American public won’t accept – indeed, are not asked to accept – even the tiniest sacrifice for the war effort. No new taxes to fund armor. No new taxes on gasoline to limit dependence. The President won’t even press people to sign up for the military (one sentence in passing, last I checked). And we are all familiar with the recruiting shortfalls.

This points to one of the most disturbing aspects of this conflict -- for most people, this war doesn't really exist. We see the news reports and we hear about the costs in terms of dollars and coalition lives, but all of that is an abstraction. Although there clearly will be a price to pay for this excursion somewhere down the road, there is nothing that is immediately tangible to it.

This fact has been critical to the marketing of the war. True, many of those who initially supported the war did so because of the threatened cross-section of Islamic terrorism and Iraqi nuclear weapons. However, an important corollary was the belief that we could easily achieve our goals and that the costs would be minimal. Now that the primary justifications for our invasion have evaporated, and weaker justifications have been promoted to replace them, it becomes even more important that the perceived cost of the conflict be low. Since the perceived benefit of the conflict has been reduced, our cost threshold has been similarly lowered.

But, as Publius pointed out, we really haven't been asked to pay anything. It's been a free ride. As long as you aren't directly connected to the military or living in Iraq, your metaphorical wallet has been safe.

However -- what happens when those who have actually been footing the bill start to complain?

This is the threat that Cindy Sheehan represents. She and many others like her have been paying the costs for the rest of us. First she paid by having her leave her side to enter the conflict. Then she paid by losing him forever. And when she does her cost-benefit analysis, it doesn't add up. It isn't even close.

Thus far, the families of those who have died or been injured in Iraq have quietly endured the burden we have placed upon them. They have chosen to believe that the cause has been just and their sacrifice noble. Some surely believe this. Others cling to it, the cognitive dissonance of meaningless death and dismemberment too overwhelming to face directly. Still others question the costs outright, but do so silently, afraid to speak out alone.

Sometimes, though, all it takes is for one person to speak out. When they do, others of like mind begin to crystallize around them. If that were to occur to any significant degree, the illusion of a cost free conflict would be broken. The sheer duration and the abstract tallies of combat losses have already begun to erode this myth. An army of Cindy Sheehans would demolish it completely. And though they might stoop to slime a single mother standing alone, they could not hope to turn the tide against a movement built around her. It would be the end of the war, pure and simple.

It is better to wear a black hat and hopefully nip this movement in the bud. Discredit her, label her a traitor, imply that she is dishonoring her son, and hope that this dissuades other mothers from asking why their sons and daughters had to die, whether this conflict is worth the cost they are paying. Before it's too late.

I've got to admit -- the war apologists find himself in a bad spot. Given that they can't address the argument on its face, they have no choice but to slay the messenger before her message reaches too many ears. It's ugly and they know it. Yet, above all else, the conservative justification for war must be preserved. If it means wearing an ugly stain on their conscience, so be it. All other priorities have been rescinded.

So, while it may be painful to watch this disgusting display, we can take heart in knowing that the uglier the response, the closer to the end we are. And given how ugly things have become, I think it's safe to say that there is at least one movement that is truly in its last throes.

Thinking Outside the Box

2005-08-09T15:39:00.000-06:00

I have to get one of these for my car.

I'm all for teaching DUH
in America's schools!

Excuses, Excuses

2005-08-08T04:14:00.000-06:00

Yes -- things sure have been slow of late. For that, I apologize. Doing this right takes time, and I haven't quite worked all the kinks out of my new schedule yet. It's frustrating, but the real world still has to come first.

At any rate, I've opted in general to be silent rather than post crap. If you ever got to see the stuff that doesn't make the cut, you would wholeheartedly endorse my decision. Trust me.

For now, check out my newest post hosted at TIA. I know -- it isn't Friday. But, sometimes things just work out this way. Deal with it.

Hopefully, I'll make strides in ordering my life, which will allow me to be a little bit more consistent. Until then, I appreciate your patience.

-- TTN

Update: Part II of the post alluded to above is now ready for your perusal at TIA. Don't miss it.

Intelligent Designer-in-Chief

2005-08-03T01:56:00.000-06:00

I don't have a lot to say this evening, but I can't let this go by without comment.

President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life…

“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

As usual, Bush is parsing words. He avoids revealing his own opinion with regard to intelligent design, while cloaking his support for its inclusion by claiming that he merely endorses exposing children to "different ideas."

Oh really?

Let's all remember that this is the man who sold us the GWOT as a struggle between good and evil, tyranny and freedom, black and white. Could there be ideas -- different ideas -- that are driving violent Islamic extremism? Clearly, Bush would say no. In fact, he and his surrogates have consistently ridiculed anyone who has even intimated such a possibility.

So, Bush isn't so much an advocate of the "marketplace of ideas" as he is an intellectual mercenary, employing whatever argument that he feels will move his position forward. As things currently stand, he can't come right out and endorse creationism over -- or to the exclusion of -- evolution, since such a stand would be far too controversial, even amongst some of his most loyal supporters. Therefore, he says what he can to ensure that intelligent design has a seat at the table.

Were the shoe on the other foot, would he be so generous? If creationism dominated public school science classes, would there then be support for "different ideas" emanating from the White House? Need I answer.

Here it is: Bush is correct when he says that there is right and wrong in this world. He just hasn't figured out where this binary perspective should be applied. So far, this application is driven by expediency. But, the fact is that he doesn't get to choose where this calculus works. Some things are just wrong.

Today, Bush is on that list.

Guilty!

2005-07-29T02:15:00.000-06:00

Certainly those of you who have been paying attention have noticed the evolution of the conservative position on Karl Rove of late. If not, you might want to peruse Kevin Drum's recent summary on the subject (bonus: it is a wonderful, and somewhat uncharacteristic, rant that is as funny as it is informative). As you do so, make sure you pay special attention to the following details:

During the past month, however, the growing evidence that someone in the White House really did expose Plame has caused more than a bit of panic — and a change of heart…Since then, the proposition that it wasn't a big deal even if the White House did out Plame, has become a routine talking point.

This point is hammered home even further later in the post, this time while discussing Senator Pat Roberts' upcoming hearings.

Senator Pat Roberts, the Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, announced that he "intends to preside over hearings on the intelligence community's use of covert protections for CIA agents and others involved in secret activities."

Let that sink in. Does it sound like Roberts is concerned about CIA agents being exposed in the press? Of course not. Instead, Roberts is preemptively defending Rove by implying that perhaps the real problem is that the CIA overuses clandestine cover for its agents.

Of course, this is all an absolute outrage, a hypocrisy of staggering proportions. But before we are driven to pull out our hair in frustration, we should step back and calmly reflect on the meaning of these current events.

Karl Rove is guilty!

Now, I'm generally the last person to jump to conclusions regarding the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants. Moreover, I generally believe that, once someone becomes a suspect, their behavior is a particularly poor barometer of their criminal culpability. Regardless of guilt or innocence, everyone becomes a tad cantankerous once they are the focus of a criminal probe.

In this case, though, I'm going to make an exception. You see, Karl Rove is no ordinary defendant. Unlike you or I, there's no chance that Rove is going to be accidentally railroaded by an overzealous prosecutor. He is, after all, the second most powerful man on earth (right after Dick Cheney) and one doesn't hunt game of this magnitude unless you have the goods or you are intent on professional suicide.

At this point, pretty much everyone has reached the same conclusion. Patrick Fitzgerald clearly has something and, from the information that has percolated into the public consciousness, it's pretty clear what it is. If factual innocence was a viable defense in this instance, you can be sure that it would be used. The fact that the "it wasn't that bad" defense has suddenly taken center stage tells you all you need to know.

Of course, some might argue that I'm jumping to conclusions here. To them, I say consider the following: would you believe a murder suspect who claimed innocence -- but added that if you found him guilty, you should consider the slaying an act of self-defense. In other words, I didn't do it -- but if I did, I had a good reason.

Not terribly convincing, wouldn't you say?

This isn't to say that Karl Rove is going to jail. Obviously, there's a lot that can still happen to avert that glorious end. As always with these jokers, I pray for the best, yet brace for the worst.

But the overriding factual issue at hand can be put to bed. The jury is in on Karl Rove.

Sorry -- I'm Not Here Right Now...

2005-07-22T16:21:00.000-06:00

You will, once again, find a brand spanking new TTN post over at TIA.

Thanks for stopping by. Please come again.

Every Blog Has Its Day

2005-07-22T13:17:00.000-06:00

You can learn a lot of funny things from your referrer logs. Case in point: it seems that a number of my recent visitors have been led here by performing Google searches for the terms "threading the needle day." And, if you follow the link, you'll discover that ~~Sunday~~ Monday, July 25, is in fact National Threading the Needle Day. How about that?

What is National Threading the Needle Day? In truth, I have no idea. However, if you chose to celebrate the existence of my blog, I promise to back you up.

Gifts are likely appropriate. Or money. Your choice -- but keep the value under 10 grand so I don't have to report it to the IRS.

The Weakly Standard

2005-07-21T03:01:00.000-06:00

Okay -- let's talk about Karl Rove.

One of the things that has gotten everyone in a tizzy over the last couple of days is Bush's new standard for Rove's termination -- specifically:

If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.

This is, of course, quite different from his former assertions, that anyone involved in the leak would be terminated. So, on one level, I'm happy to see that this departure has not gone unnoticed.

However, on another level, I'm not sure that I would spend too much time harping on this issue. I say this for a couple of reasons.

First, while this allows us to score a few cheap political points against Bush, it is extremely unlikely to amount to anything. Bush certainly isn't going to be shamed into honoring his original position and few converts will be acquired in the process of highlighting his hypocrisy. This is no more than a Democratic "feel-good" moment. And while it feels good, I think we would all be better served with something a little more lasting.

Second, is far from clear to me whether or not Rove's removal benefits Democrats at this point. Usually when a presidential appointee steps down for the mere appearance of impropriety, the real motivator for it is practical and not ethical. It is done to avoid tarnishing the administration at large and, in so, derailing the agenda. In this case, the smart play was clearly for Bush to can Rove once it became clear that he was involved. Of course, Bush is far too stubborn for that -- and this time it works to our advantage. The longer he sits on this rotten egg, the more thoroughly its stink permeates through the entire administration. They will have to spend more time playing defense and will have less energy left to push through controversial policy initiatives. Ultimately, it means the administration will be weaker. So, it isn't how I would play it, but if George wants to tie his presidency to a sinking anchor, far be it from me to stand in his way.

Lastly, the "commission of a crime" standard has been, I feel, incorrectly portrayed as a difficult threshold to achieve. Now, if Bush had set the standard at "conviction of a crime", or even at "indictment", I would agree. But, he did no such thing.

You see, as we all recall from civics class, a criminal conviction requires proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt." This high burden of proof exists because we want to be certain that no questions of guilt exist before we allow the state to deprive an individual of liberty or property. However, from a practical standpoint, this means that "not guilty" verdicts are not interchangeable with factual innocence. Without a doubt, many who receive a "not guilty" verdict have actually committed the crime in question, but the state was unable to demonstrate that fact to the level of certainty required by law. To a lesser degree, the same thing is true with respect to indictments. While it is said that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich, in the real world prosecutors rarely seek indictments unless they strongly believe that they will eventually be able to achieve a conviction. The absurdly high conviction rates of most prosecutors demonstrate how accurately they are able to gauge the strength of their cases.

On the other hand, factual guilt is an entirely different question -- a point raised by "law and order" pundits every time a supposedly guilty man goes free. And, unless Bush revises his position further, that's the standard currently on the table. Therefore, if Fitzgerald decides against seeking an indictment, but presents ample evidence that the crime likely took place, that should be enough to require Rove's termination.

Of course, Bush will, in the end, likely attempt to claim that a non-indictment is akin to exoneration. But, depending on the character of Fitzgerald's final report, that may be a tough sell. This will be especially true if Rove continues to stink up the joint for the next couple of months. After weeks of headlines and damaging leaks, anything less than a mea culpa from the special prosecutor will send Karl to the bench. And that would be fine with me.

So, for now, let's just let them all twist in the wind. They have more than enough rope to hang themselves and I wouldn't want to do anything to slow them down.

"Frack" You

2005-07-19T02:58:00.000-06:00

Now that things have finally settled down here in my life, it's time to get back to our regular diet of Bush-bashing. Frankly, with all that has been going on a late, it's been torture to remain mute.

However, I don't want to jump on the Rove thing right away. That's some serious heavy lifting. Instead, I'm going to warm up on lighter fare so I don't pull something. I'm not 18 anymore, you know.

On that note, let's talk about Battlestar Galactica.

I'm not the crazy sci-fi geek that I was as a youth, but I still have some passion left for the genre (as evidenced by this post). So, when I started hearing that the new Battlestar Galactica was really worth checking out, I immediately... Well, I immediately thought that the people telling me this had gone batshit insane. Because, as much of a sci-fi geek as I was, I can remember the original series and -- let's be honest here – it blew.

But, as the retooled version headed into its second season, people began buzzing about it once more. And some of those buzzing seem to be pretty on the ball in other respects. So, I figured "what the heck?" I have a TiVo and a bong -- how bad could it be?

Verdict: not that bad. Of course, I have no idea about the storyline or characters at this point, so it's hard to know how believable the plot actually is. But the production value is much higher than expected and the grittiness of the battle scenes made them delightfully intense. All in all, it was good enough to merit a Season Pass nomination for the time being.

However, there is one little thing.

Clearly, part of the creators' goal was to create a very brutal, raw, and real universe. And these creators knew that, in the real world, when people are faced with intense, life and death situations, they tend to say "fuck" an awful lot.

Unfortunately, you can't say that on basic cable. You can say a lot of other words, but admittedly nothing quite does it like "fuck". It's just one of those words.

This has been a dilemma for TV screenwriters since time immemorial (or since the FCC started laying down heavy fines for broadcast transgressions). Usually, the dialogue is modified in order to avoid the f-bomb. This leads to a lot of "I don't give a damn” (as opposed to "I don't give a fuck”) and "screw you" (as opposed to "fuck you"). It's a little silly, but at least it's English.

The creators of Battlestar Galactica, however, have decided that this isn't good enough and have, instead, created a new word for us.

Frack.

This word has been globally pasted into the script in every instance where a "fuck" would normally be. In fact, I suspect that the writers simply write what they want, and then do a search and replace for every instance of "fuck." I don't know if that's how they do it, but there's no practical reason why such a strategy wouldn't work. The two words are interchangeable in every respect, with nary a grammatical or idiomatic deviation to be found. Just whenever you would expect a "fuck", you have a "frack" instead.

Two observations.

First -- to the creators. This is incredibly distracting. One of the burdens of science fiction is that there is a fairly high burden of disbelief that the story must attain for it to be enjoyable. The stories take place in strange worlds, with aliens and space travel and all sorts of other things that we never experience in real life. The viewer must be able to lose himself in the story so that these issues of believability never have an opportunity to bubble to the surface, breaking the spell. However, every time I hear an utterance of "frack", I can't help but think about the FCC -- something I'm pretty sure doesn't exist in the Battlestar Galactica universe. Maybe I'll get over this -- but, then again, maybe not. We'll see.

Second -- to the censors. Is this really what you intended? Is preventing the use of the word "fuck" really about offensive phonetics? Is the problem of that word -- whatever that problem is -- really alleviated by this strategy? Is it really OK to express everything that you would otherwise expressed with the use of the word "fuck" as long as you don't say "fuck"?

You can get back to me on that.

Anyway -- this isn't a deal killer -- yet. But, if I'm still cracking a smile every time I hear that silly word three episodes from now, I'm pulling the plug. I'll let you know.

Reports of My Death...

2005-07-10T12:08:00.000-06:00

Lest you are under the impression that my work has again come to a crashing halt, please take a moment to visit my every-other-Friday-home-away-from-home, Total Information Awareness, which is hosting my most recent effort.

Look for more to show up here later in the week.

The Sharks and the Insurgency

2005-07-05T00:53:00.000-06:00

And so, sharks are in the news again these days. It seems hard to believe that the media has worked itself up into a frenzy over this subject, given what happened the last time "death from the deep" was dominating the headlines. But, to a certain degree, I understand.

You see, I have a somewhat long-standing fascination with sharks myself. I saw Jaws 2 at the tender age of 10 or so and have been an avid shark-o-phile ever since. I've probably read about a hundred books on the subject and have been known to schedule vacations around the Discovery Channel's Shark Week. In fact, "cage diving with great white sharks" is prominently featured on my short list of things to do before I die -- right above climbing Kilimanjaro, if memory serves.

At any rate, this is just a long way of saying that I'm familiar with the subject. And it is this familiarity allows me to confidently state that the recent hysteria over these attacks in Florida is exactly that -- hysteria. The threat of shark attack has not increased recently. The odds are now what they have always been: indescribable low. So, you can relax. The water is actually quite safe.

Of course, you'd never know that given the way the media is reacting. Frankly, it's understandable that people are beginning to get the impression that the water is churning with bloodthirsty sharks who crave human flesh. With every attack gobbling copious amounts each news cycle, who could blame the casual observer from arriving at this erroneous conclusion. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of beachgoers enjoy their coastal adventures completely free of any threat of predation. If only our anti-shark media could set aside its bias long enough to give a full and accurate report of all beachfront activities, then we would have a much clearer understanding of the shark situation.

Notice anything funny there at the end of that last paragraph? Yep -- I sort of drifted off into the standard apologist complaint regarding the media coverage of Iraq. It is simply the claim that the popular impression of a given situation is driven not by reality, but by the imagery generated by mainstream media. You may feel that you know the truth, but all you know is what you have been told.

On a certain level, this is a good point to make. It is undeniably true that we are at the mercy of those who provide us our information. If we did not witness an event ourselves, we must trust those who have. Perhaps more importantly, we must trust them to appropriately contextualize that event so that we know what it means. Given our dependence on our proxy witnesses, it is certainly possible to be misled.

That in mind, let's take a look at these two situations. Is contextualization problematic in each of them?

As it turns out, there is a very important distinction to keep in mind between these two situations: the violence at the beach is random while the violence in Iraq is not. The attacking sharks were not involved in a large scale conspiracy, colluding with others in order to achieve some sort of collective goal. These attacks do not represent any sort of general animosity between sharks and humans. Given that these attacks were most likely driven by mistaken identity or a confused territorial response, they do not even represent a manifestation of the natural food chain. They were, like so many natural events, triggered by chance and, in so, signify nothing.

On the other hand, the Iraqi insurgents are trying to kill coalition and Iraqi security forces. These attacks might be random in the sense that the perpetrators have little concern for the specific identity of their victims. But, they are committed with the intent to achieve a political end. Therefore, these events have meaning beyond the numbers involved. Even if they are few and far between, as long as they have a destabilizing effect on the political situation in Iraq, they matter.

So, this isn't a matter of the media ignoring the improving condition of the Iraqi schools in favor of antiwar propaganda. This is about reporting on events that dramatically affect the political stability of the region. It's not about violence per se, it's about what that violence means. That's the context and that's what's important.

I certainly would never argue that the media shies away from sensationalism. As they say, in local news, if it bleeds, it leads. To a certain extent, this is true at the higher end of the media food chain as well. And we are seeing this phenomenon in play with the Florida shark attacks and the missing white woman of the week. But the coverage from Iraq is a different animal and we shouldn't let the distinction be blurred.

Blood in the water is not the same thing as blood in the sand.

Phew -- Made It!

2005-06-28T01:15:00.000-06:00

Looks like I've successfully pulled off this relocation. I am here, as is my wife, my two dogs, and nearly all of my earthly possessions. So, that's a start anyway.

Unfortunately, there's still a lot to do. As such, I will be resuming my work here, but the pace is going to be fairly slow for a little while longer. So it goes.

At any rate, you can expect something of substance to show up here by the weekend. I know -- it must be difficult to contain your excitement. All I can say is: suck it up! It'll be worth it.

Trust me.

Update: Did I say new post by the weekend? I meant by Monday. Sorry for the confusion.

The Immediate Future

2005-06-10T11:22:00.000-06:00

I'm guest blogging again over at TIA today, so today's work product will be found there.

On another note, I'm moving in a few short days. That means I'm going to be without a reliable Internet connection for a couple of weeks at least. Obviously, that's going to make it difficult to keep this project running at its current pace. So, don't be surprised if things get slow for a while.

But, along with this move, a number of other things are going to change in my life. I'll be starting a job relatively soon and then starting graduate school starting in the fall. At this point, I'm not completely certain how all this is going to affect my work here. However, there is no question that it will be affected somehow. My hope is that I will be able to keep this going in some capacity, but right now it's just wait and see.

Once I get settled in my new home, I'll be able to figure a few of these things out. Once I do, I'll be sure to share that with you.

Unfortunately, one of the realities of running a small traffic blog is that service interruptions have a tendency to be fatal. With the number of blogs out there producing high-quality material on a daily basis, not many of us are going to hover around one that has gone silent. That's just life.

That said, I hope that you will check back in a few weeks to see what has become of me. I've had a lot of fun doing this and a big part of the enjoyment is knowing that there are people out there reading what I have to say. That's been incredibly flattering and I hope that it will continue in the future.

Until then, enjoy yourselves and stay out of trouble. I'll see you all soon.

Lessons from the Arena, Part II

2005-06-09T00:23:00.000-06:00

I'd like to spend today expanding upon a point I raised over at TIA last week. In that post, I lamented the liberal tendency to get distracted by the moral character of the opposition, while ignoring the systemic nature of their nefarious activity.

But, too often, I think, the accusations [of wrongdoing] revolve around the bad character of the involved actors. Karl Rove is accused of playing dirty (and he does). Katherine Harris illegitimately ended the Florida recounts (agreed). The Swift Boat Veterans were a bunch of stinking liars (testify, my brother!). I could go on (and on, and on...).

However, there comes a point in time went you actually want to do something about it. Demonizing the opposition may serve to solidify your coalition, but it persuades few new voters to take your side -- even when the accusations are undeniably true. It just doesn't work that way.

Rove may be an unscrupulous character, but he is so only because of the nature of the game. If the game were different, he would be different or he would be replaced by someone who was. It's that simple.

So, to my eyes, the applied solutions should be systemic ones. If we don't like the way the game is being played, we need to change the environment in which the game occurs. Simple.

But this does require abandoning certain fantasies of retribution, something many liberals seem unable to accept. And, in truth, who amongst us hasn't let a smile creep across their face as they imagined an indictment with Karl Rove's name on it? Be that as it may, it's never going to happen and we had better spend our energy elsewhere. Still, some can't let go.

Why is that?

I believe this stems from a somewhat naïve understanding of what rules, in practice, really are. Many of us can recall our days on the playground where we concocted byzantine regulations to govern that day's diversion. Similarly, we can recall the outrage we felt when someone chose to go outside the rules. We understood the order and fairness that these rules brought to our games and condemned those who devalued these social amenities with their lawlessness.

Most of us internalized these lessons and continue to apply them in our daily lives. We happily exist in a heavily regulated environment with laws, social etiquette, ethical guidelines, and tradition defining the limits of our behavior. We may not always be able to comply completely with the rules as we understand them, but we try the best we can and accept the repercussions for failure. On a certain level, we understand that it's best for all of us if rules are followed.

But, what are these rules?

Let's talk about the NBA again. In my last post on this topic, I acknowledged that "cheating" is rampant in professional basketball. Also, there is a considerable amount of play that many would consider to be unethical or, at bare minimum, a demonstration of poor sportsmanship. Whether we are talking about an elbow thrown when the ref isn't looking or a hard foul landed to prevent an easy layup, there is a fair amount of on-court behavior that is explicitly or implicitly prohibited by the rulebook. It rarely gets completely out of hand or interferes with legal gameplay enough to upset the ultimate outcome. But, it certainly gives people ammunition for their complaints.

There is, though, an old saying that I think is apropos to this situation: if a tree falls in the forest and no one was there to hear it, does it make a sound? Or, if you throw an elbow and the ref doesn't see it, is it still a foul? Of course, there are a lot of philosophical approaches to answering such a question, but in the real world there is only one answer: no.

There are the rules that exist in the rulebook and there are the infractions that the refs are actually able to call. Of these two, only the second set matters. You might get a bad reputation if you habitually attempt to evade the rulebook rules, which might lead to a heavier focus on your conduct. However, this doesn't change my contention in the slightest. It doesn't matter what you do on the court -- if the ref doesn't call it, it's legal.

A friend of mine who had just completed a contract law class shocked me one day with a declaration that contracts don't really exist. He went on to explain that contracts are only binding if (a) both parties perceive the benefits of compliance, or (b) a practical enforcement mechanism exists. For example, if a small technology company contracts with a powerful multinational corporation, the details of the contract are whatever the multinational says they are regardless of what is written on paper. If the multinational decides to default on its obligations, it will unless there is a realistic threat that their contractual partner will be able to enforce the contract through litigation. Since economic realities usually foreclose this possibility, the contract is binding only as far as the multinational allows it to be. The contract might exist in a theoretical universe, but it fails to materialize in the real world.

This is something that we all have to come to grips with. People are only bound by the letter of the law, not the spirit. Moreover, people are only bound by the laws that are likely to be enforced. If you can break the law without being noticed, your activity was, in effect, legal.

Was the election stolen in 2000? Were laws broken in Ohio this last year? From a theoretical perspective, the answer is probably yes. But, from a practical standpoint, the answer is no. Or, perhaps more accurately, it doesn't matter because if laws were broken, they were broken in such a way that the refs aren't going to call it. And if the refs can't or won't call a foul, there's no point wasting energy complaining about it.

Actually, I'm being a little bit glib here. Of course complaining helps. It's commonly referred to as "working the refs" and the right has been applying this principle to the media for the last 30 years. But the point is that it only gets you so far. If you want real change you have to focus on system dynamics.

And this doesn't just mean enacting new laws. You have to make sure that a practical enforcement mechanism exists, otherwise the law is hollow

What you don't want to do is to spend time hoping that those who have misbehaved will receive their comeuppance. They threw elbows and got away with it. The play is over and we need to be present for the next one. If we don't like playing games with thrown elbows, we need to create a system that is capable of effectively policing that behavior. Right now, throwing elbows is effectively legal. So, we can throw our own elbows or we can change the rules so they can't be thrown so easily in the future.

However, complaints do nothing more than highlight our regulatory naïveté. The other side has figured out which rules matter. We need to do the same.

One Toke over the Line

2005-06-07T14:57:00.000-06:00

Well, thanks to a 6-3 decision handed down on Monday, the Justice Department has once again managed to put the fear of God into the hearts of AIDS and cancer patients all across that decadent land known as California. I can't wait to see the press photos at their next bust. It's almost hard to believe that they would fight for the opportunity to have such a horrible public relations disaster. But, what do I know?

As I've thought about this case today, I find that I keep coming back to the idea that drugs make people crazy. You don't even have to take them; just injecting the subject into the discussion is enough to drive otherwise rational people into intellectual knots. It never ceases to amaze me, and this case is no exception.

The argument put forth by the respondents (i.e. the potheads) was simple enough. The federal Controlled Substances Act is limited by the Commerce Clause to regulating interstate economic activity. Since the respondents consumed their own product, there was no economic transaction. And since the activity occurred in their living room, it was all intrastate. I mean, to rule against this position you'd have to be willing to assert that this activity would substantially affect the national cannabis market.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what seems to have occurred. By relying on a precedent set in Wickard v. Filburn, the court ruled that Congress has the ability to regulate noncommercial intrastate activity because such activity "has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market." Moreover, the standard for such an assertion is rather low. The government doesn't have to prove that the existence of medical marijuana would affect the national market, it merely has to demonstrate that "a 'rational basis' exists for so concluding."

For the government, this low standard of proof is awfully fortuitous, as the evidence for said market impact is rather scarce, to say the least. Justice O'Connor seized on this point in her dissent:

There is simply no evidence that homegrown medicinal marijuana users constitute, in the aggregate, a sizable enough class to have a discernable, let alone substantial, impact on the national illicit drug market–or otherwise to threaten the CSA regime.

…

The Government has not overcome empirical doubt that the number of Californians engaged in personal cultivation, possession, and use of medical marijuana, or the amount of marijuana they produce, is enough to threaten the federal regime.

So, without actual evidence, we're down to the so-called "rational basis" for the market effect conclusions. But, in truth, how rational is this conclusion? It appears to be justified largely by an Econ 101 understanding of supply and demand laws. Medical marijuana patients, with access to legal domestic supplies, would drop out of the national market. With fewer consumers for illegal product, prices would drop as demand declined. Since these lower prices would make it easier for marijuana consumers to acquire their product, this market effect would undercut the intent of the Controlled Substances Act. It's an explanation good enough to satisfy any first-year Econ student.

Of course, some people move beyond Econ 101 and discover that real markets are a good deal more complicated than those described in first-year textbooks. In particular, illicit markets endure specialized costs not present in legitimate economies. Mark Kleiman explains this for us.

In the case of marijuana and other illicit drugs, the dominant cost facing any producer is the cost imposed by law enforcement (employees and principals alike need to be compensated for their risks of arrest and imprisonment) and the cost of evading law enforcement.

Roughly speaking, the enforcement risk faced by the average drug transaction depends on the ratio of the volume in that market to the enforcement effort devoted to suppressing it. If there's one dealer on a street corner and one cop patrolling it, the dealer is much more likely to get busted than if the same cop confronts 100 dealers. That "safety in numbers" principle is why prey animals herd.

So if we take some of the demand out of the illicit marijuana market in a way producers in that market can predict, they will likely reduce the amount they produce. If we leave the enforcement effort constant, each remaining kilogram of pot faces more law enforcement. Thus we would expect the price of illicit pot to rise…as a result of removing medical demand from the market.

It seems to me that there is as much of a "rational basis" for concluding that medical marijuana will drive the price of illicit marijuana up as there is for concluding that it will drive it down. Of course, the truth is that the marijuana market is so complex that it is impossible to rationally conclude anything at all with respect to prices. Therefore, this isn't really about rationality at all -- it's about convenience.

Take a look at these comments from Ann Althouse posted over at SCOTUSblog.

Justice Stevens wrote what I thought the Court would have to say: if noncommercial, homegrown marijuana were seen as beyond the Commerce Power for medicinal users, it is also beyond the Commerce Power for recreational users. The theory is the same, that noncommercial user-producers can’t be included in the Wickard-style analysis.

This is, without a doubt, a problem with ruling in favor of the respondents. If all it takes to evade federal drug prosecution is that you produce and consume all of your own product without ever crossing state lines, you've created a loophole to be seized upon by every pothead in the land. Better to whip up some supply and demand justification than to face the consequence of a more honest ruling.

But, I'm no longer surprised by the contortions that prohibition advocates will perform in order to maintain the status quo. The case for medical marijuana couldn't be clearer. Despite the current scheduling of marijuana within the Controlled Substances Act, there is an enormous amount of clinical data demonstrating the medicinal effects of cannabis. The government, if it were so inclined, could easily develop a system in order to manage distribution and prevent diversion into the illegal market.

But doing so would undermine the central message of prohibition: drugs are bad. They realize (rightly so) that once the absolutism of this message is pierced in any way, the questions will begin to fly fast and furious. If marijuana can be used as medicine, is recreational use really that harmful? If not, is it really worth the societal costs preventing it? What if we began to see marijuana use as separate from other types of drug use? Would the levels of use in these remaining drug classes be high enough to justify the crisis rhetoric consistently emanating from the ONDCP? If not, how would the DEA budget be affected?

From a strictly legal perspective, this decision was hardly surprising. It appears to be well justified by existing case law and judicial analysis. But, this decision, like many before it, is based upon irrational justifications for the government's regulatory goals. The central premise, that it is in the interest of society to regulate recreational drug consumption, is never challenged. In fact, the government will go to almost any length in order to avoid answering that very question. Every discussion begins by accepting the truth of that claim.

However, that claim is undeniably false. There are few things in this world that I'm prepared to declare with absolute certainty. This is one of them. Too many are blinded by the hype and hysteria surrounding drug use to see the reality. But, there is no question that we pay a high price for this course of action. Hopefully, that will one day become clear.

Until then, let's hope we don't see too many glaucoma patients in handcuffs.

Update: Naturally, Publius has a take on this case that's worth reading. In short, he believes the case to be correctly decided, in that the court properly held that the Legislature should be the final arbiter of the Commerce Clause. I'm not sure that I agree, given that appropriate application requires that there be a "rational basis" for concluding that the national market is affected by medicinal marijuana. Somebody has to make that evaluation and Congress clearly isn't up to the task.

On the other hand, the judiciary doesn't seem to fare much better on this front. So, perhaps it doesn't matter at all.

To Compare or Not to Compare -- That Is the Question

2005-06-03T12:05:00.000-06:00

Irene Khan of Amnesty International managed to cause a bit of a stir recently during the speech that she gave introducing AI's 2005 annual report. While summarizing the document's findings, she spent a moment discussing the United States' contribution to the universe of human rights abuses. As she did so, she made the following statement.

Guantanamo has become the gulag our times, entrenching the notion that people can be detained without any recourse to the law. [Emphasis added]

Predictably, the White House has retreated into denial mode. Scott McClellan responded by claiming that the report is "ridiculous and unsupported by the facts." Bush called the allegations "absurd." Why am I not surprised?

As this has been going on, another discussion has been brewing, centering on AI's use of the term "gulag." At Legal Fiction we have Publius arguing:

Ok - after giving it some thought, I must concede that the use of "gulag" is inappropriate…

The main difference is that the Soviets tortured and killed millions, while we torture and kill hundreds or perhaps thousands. Now, if you were a Kantian, that might not make a difference, morally speaking. But I'm not a Kantian, and I think that numbers matter. Killing millions is exponentially more heinous than killing hundreds - and that makes it different in kind.

In a similar vein, we have Eric Martin's $0.02.

…Amnesty International made a strategic blunder by evoking the Soviet-run network of prisons ranging throughout the "gulag" archipelago to describe the detention facility at Guantanamo. Yes, there are certain similarities in the sense that both are extra-judicial prison systems. There is at least the specter of indefinite detention without due process at Guantanamo (though the Supreme Court will eventually intercede to halt this in my opinion) and thus far Guantanamo, and other facilities, have been the sites of incidents of violence, torture and homicide delivered at the hands of US officials. But the difference in the magnitude of horrors at the Soviet helmed gulags (millions killed, millions more suffered heinous conditions and abuse that exceed most of the more damning reports from Guantanamo) makes the comparison so strained as to render it devoid of meaning - or so wanting in clarifications of nuance that it becomes an unwieldy analogy that requires extensive unpacking every time it is trotted out.

And, for flavor, here's Andrew Sullivan.

Some of the rhetoric in Amnesty International's report on U.S. detainment policies is indeed excessive. It is simply wrong on every level to equate the United States' policy of detention, abuse, torture and rendition of terror suspects with the Soviet Union's vast domestic prison system, designed to perpetuate an evil totalitarianism.

So, I think it's safe to say that AI isn't getting a pass on this language. But, I've got to admit, I'm starting to believe that this is all getting blown out of proportion. Was this comment really so great a sin?

As I see it, there are really two questions. First, was this a "strategic blunder"? Have they hurt their cause by using such inflammatory language? Second, is use of such inflammatory language inherently wrong?

Looking at our first question, I'm under the impression that the positive/negative outcome of the statement has been a wash. Using the term "gulag" certainly leaves AI open to accusations of hyperbole, which has allowed administration officials to once again shift focus away from their conduct and on to the conduct of the investigating agency. On the other hand, as Eric Martin says

…Amnesty did end up drawing the media's attention to a report on conditions at Guantanamo that would have otherwise gone unnoticed and ignored in favor of the ongoing Jackson trial, a runaway bride, and/or the child abduction/amber alert du jour.

Moreover, I doubt very much whether the "gulag" comment really played a decisive role in determining the administration's response. If they hadn't seized on this language (and assuming that the report would still have been news without it), they would have seized on some other aspect of the report in order to discredit it. This way, at least, the report is being mentioned during primetime news broadcasts. And this time, according to David Schraub, the administration hasn't been fully in control of the spin.

This is one of the few times that the Bush administration has really let a negative story about itself spin out of its control. I mean, you have Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld dragged into this, and I have to think their comments have given the story a renewed life it would not otherwise have. Furthermore, I don't think they are coming out the better in these exchanges--they sound bitter and in denial.

So, on the one hand AI opened itself up to the administration's preferred plan of attack, but it was merely a variation of the attack that would have been used anyway. On the other hand, people are actually talking about the report, no mean feat. Bonus points are added when Bush & Co. sound like they are "bitter and in denial." Could AI have achieved these positive goals without the negatives? Perhaps. But, I hardly think that the answer is clear. There may have been an opportunity cost for their use of this rhetoric, but I'm not willing to say that it was a net negative.

Then we get to the question of the appropriateness of the term. For me, this gets into the larger question of when, if ever, is it appropriate to make comparisons to some of the darker moments in human history. Are analogies built upon these events ever illuminating enough to warrant their use?

Obviously, the Soviet gulags and our system of extrajudicial detention differ greatly in many respects, especially with respect to magnitude. Over the years, millions were tortured and killed in the Soviet system, while most estimates place the toll for our system in the hundreds. Similarly, the extremes of the Soviet system undoubtedly make Guantánamo Bay look tame in comparison. Therefore, claiming that these two systems are indistinguishable from each other would be an excusably reckless and dishonest.

However, that isn't what Amnesty International did. They referred to Guantánamo as "the gulag of our times," which I understand as meaning "similar to," not "exactly like." And, you've got to admit, there are similarities. We have cast a wide net, ensnaring many who are guilty of nothing and who pose no threat. We hold these detainees incommunicado without due process. We engage in abusive interrogation techniques of dubious value, many of which directly violate both international and domestic law. In fact, the main distinction between our detention system and the Soviet gulags is one of degree. In most other respects, the comparison is a fair one.

Some might argue that the magnitude issue renders the comparison meaningless. Here, I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I would argue that it is important to make exactly these types of comparisons. Let's remember that the Soviet gulags didn't torture and kill a million people during their first week of operation. It took decades for them to accomplish this feat. Their crime was a product of both the system AND time. It therefore follows that any similarly constructed system could produce a similar result if it were allowed to persist over an equivalent period. Once you have all of the ingredients, all you have to do is wait.

And that's the point of making the comparison. It lets people know both the company we are keeping and the possible results of maintaining that affiliation. The hope is that people, once they realize the potential outcome, will demand that we change course long before the magnitude of our sins equal those of the Soviet Union, or of Nazi Germany, or of whomever we are being compared to. If someone had shamed these governments by comparing their actions to those of another ancestral perpetrator of evil, perhaps their atrocities would have been averted. Who knows?

There are, of course, lots of inappropriate comparisons being made these days. I'm not going to stand here and defend all of them. Each one has to be examined in context. What matters isn't the comparison itself, but the aspect being compared and whether or not that aspect is truly probative. Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. were both powerful public speakers, however a comparison between the two would be greatly misleading. Their differences overwhelm their similarities, making the comparison useless.

But, there are definitely times when such comparisons have value. It can give you an idea about where you're headed and give you an opportunity to decide whether that's really where you want to go. It can serve as a wake-up call allowing you to avert disaster. Even if there is some blowback from your rhetoric, it can be worth it.

On balance, that's where I see Amnesty International's comment falling. It identifies accurate similarities between detention systems while foreshadowing the possible outcome of persisting along this path. It has both practical and rhetorical value. As such, I don't have a problem with it. I wouldn't overdo it, but an occasional reminder of our historical bedfellows goes a long way in informing the debate. When done in moderation, we should welcome it.

How to Blog

2005-06-02T20:44:00.000-06:00

If you're thinking of joining the exciting world of blogging, you might want to read this so you know what you're getting into.

(via IsThatLegal?)

Still Unpacking

2005-06-02T16:12:00.000-06:00

Metaphorically speaking. Anyway, I'm not going to be putting anything substantial up today. Of course, if you missed my guest appearance over at TIA, now would be a great time to check it out (here, here, and here). Enjoy!

On Tour

2005-05-25T01:31:00.000-06:00

Things are going to be slow here until next Thursday. However, this time I rationalize my absence not with real-world distraction or my inclinations toward sloth. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

For the next week, I will be guest-blogging (along with Jonnybutter of Crush All Boxes) over at Total Information Awareness while Eric Martin is emptying his pockets in Las Vegas. It will take all of my energy to avoid driving away Eric's audience -- thus The Needle will go silent in the meantime.

Anyway, please feel free to join me at this home away from home. It's always great to see friendly faces during the away games.

Qualified Qualifiers

2005-05-25T01:15:00.000-06:00

(I began this post pre-compromise. The existence of the compromise may make my specific observation moot (then again, maybe not). However, in the end, I felt the observation retained enough value to merit publication. So, while this might no longer be insight from the cutting edge of the news cycle, it will hopefully provide you with a chuckle. Here's hoping.)

Over the last decade or so, I've noticed an amusing trend in the way that the news from sporting events is being reported. You see, sports broadcasters and reporters face a unique problem. Despite the fact that there are an enormous number of sporting events each year, most of what occurs within these events is perfectly ordinary.

Now, I'm not trying to say that sports are boring. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. My wife, who is graciously enduring my NBA playoff obsession, could testify to this fact.

However, as exciting as these events may be, almost everything we witness has been seen before. Home runs, touchdowns, and blocked shots are all everyday occurrences. Each event has individual beauty, but they all mean pretty much the same thing. The same is true when you examine athletic performance in a more holistic fashion. It may be a big deal when a basketball player scores 40 points in a game, but how many times did that happen in the last season alone? And, there are many times when nothing truly special happens at all. Everyone might turn in a solid performance without any individual standouts.

So, if there's nothing special about an event to highlight, and it's your job to discuss the highlights of the game, you've got a problem.

Traditionally, this is where statistics come to the rescue. If you can somehow numerically demonstrate that something special or unique occurred during a game, you suddenly have something to talk about. Unfortunately, there are limits to the strategy because there is always a finite number of statistical categories to monitor. It is quite easy to exhaust these possibilities without discovering anything worthy of mention. Once you've done that, you're stuck.

Unless… you start adding qualifiers.

It works like this. Let's say you have a pitcher who strikes out 10 batters on a certain day. That's certainly a good showing, but it's hardly unheard of. However, if it turns out that this pitcher is a rookie and that he turned in this performance in his first start in the majors, you suddenly have something to talk about: "Bob Jones is only the eighth player in major-league history to strike out 10 or more batters in his first major-league start."

Of course, like many rhetorical tools, this device can be used for both good and evil. Certain qualifiers, like those in the above example, serve to highlight meaningful, yet hidden, achievement. That isn't always the case, like in this example:

"Bob Jones is the first player in major-league history to strike out 10 or more batters in his first major-league start on a Tuesday while facing a team based south of the Mason-Dixon line."

By adding these additional qualifiers, you can now label this event as unique. But, as this example demonstrates, unique doesn't equal meaningful. The qualifiers have to matter.

If you're wondering why I'm bringing this up, observe the following statement made by Sean Hannity on Hannity & Colmes recently.

And let me repeat for our audience, and nobody can contradict this: This is the first time in 214 years, the first time that judicial nominees who would otherwise, if given an up-or-down vote would be approved, are being denied an up-or-down vote. It has never happened before ever.

So, yeah -- there have been filibusters, and filibusters of judicial nominees, and nominees that never made it out of committee, and nominees that were "blue-slipped", and nominees that never even got committee hearings. But, the current situation, as qualified, is unique -- and therefore wrong.

To be honest, when you qualify something that much, I don't even know what the issue is anymore. Except that you're pissed-off about the current state of affairs. That part is crystal clear -- I just don't care.

To repeat: unique doesn't equal meaningful. It doesn't matter whether it happens on ESPN or FOX News. It might give you something to talk about, but it guarantees no gravitas. You have to provide that on your own.

...But I Love the Internet

2005-05-19T22:59:00.000-06:00

Enjoy.

P.S. Personal best (so far): 322.9.