The Recovering Engineer

New Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 05:52:00 +0000

I'm back, but I've moved!

Check me (and a few friends) out over at the new blog:

Culture. Race. Gender. Politics. Class. Media. www.coffeehousetalks.com

A Hitchhiker's Travels

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:45:00 +0000

For the few people that might actually read this, I've quit my job and I will be traveling from the end of the month until mid-August. I expect I will not be posting very frequently, even now, as I get my life in order and pack up everything I own into little boxes. On my trip though, I will be blogging at A Hitchhiker's Travels if you care to see.

But some time in mid June, there should be a detailed post on the Creationist Museum in Kentucky, as I go behind enemy lines. Despite jokes to the contrary, I will not carry matches, a lighter, or a flamethrower. As a future lawyer, arson is not in my best interests. Though I may pay admission with a fake $20 bill if I can.

And in later in the summer: Hitler on Ice, a Viking Funeral and Jews in Space!

The Anything But Courageous Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:27:00 +0000

I missed the debate Wednesday night. I'm very happy about that, because my TV still works, and I cannot guarantee it would not have had a large hole in it afterward. So, I wake up the next day to check the politics reddit, just to see what some people are saying, and all of the top ten (12 of the top 15) links were separate complaints about the debate. It was shocking how unified everyone was writing about the horrible lack of substance and stampede of right-wing attack that passed for a debate on ABC. Glenn Greenwald bats leadoff here, as always in dealing with media nonsense:

My favorite (unintentionally revealing) media commentary about the debate is from The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut and Dan Balz, who devoted paragraph after paragraph to describing the substance-free "issues" that consumed most of the debate -- Obama's "remarks about small-town values, questions about his patriotism and the incendiary sermons of his former pastor . . . gaffes, missteps and past statements" -- and, at the end of the article, they added:
The debate also touched on Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, taxes, the economy, guns and affirmative action.
It's just not possible to express the wretched state of our establishment press better than that sentence does.

And over at Kos, Hunter presents the idea that this sham of a debate was just as historic as Obama's speech on race, but in a much more sinister sense:

What a contrast. Only a few weeks ago, we were presented with what was considered by many to be a historic speech by a presidential candidate on race in America -- historic for its substance, tone, delivery, and stark candor. Last night, we had an opposing, equally historic example -- and I sincerely mean that, I consider it to be every bit as significant as that word implies -- of the collapse of the political press into self-willed incompetence. You might as well pull any half-intelligent person off the street, and they would unquestionably have more difficult and significant questions for the two candidates. It was not merely a momentarily bad performance, by ABC, it was a debate explicitly designed to be what it was, which is far more telling.

Read the whole thing. I'm tempted to agree. There was such outrage than even Howie Kurtz, media critic extraordinaire, decried it, not just the lefty blogs. Maybe this embarrassment to the profession will be a wake-up call to the traditional media. Maybe they'll start to realize people care, and we can begin the healing process. The cynic is me still doubts.

And for a bigger sampling of the outrage, here's a summary from AMERICABlog.

Musical Mario Car

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:01:00 +0000

One of the coolest things I've seen in a while.

http://view.break.com/487616 - Watch more free videos

Man, it takes me a day just to figure this out on piano. Can't imagine the effort that went into this.

Media hatred isn't new.

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:31:00 +0000

This is a really interesting post.

But the right wing talk brigade doesn't exist just to build up their own or tear down Democrats. They have, from the moment they first rolled onto the air, existed to tell you that traditional news organizations are no good. The Washington Post? Inside the beltway losers out of touch with real America. CNN? The Clinton News Network. The New York Times? Please. Do you really have to ask?

Punditry has always aimed as much artillery at the people who deliver the news as it does at those who make it. There's a very good reason for this. Before you can convince someone of a lie, you need to make it more difficult for them to check your information. If you establish from the start that NPR is communist, MSNBC and CNN are slanted, and every newspaper this side of Journal's editorial page should be printed on pink paper, then any exaggeration you deliver becomes the de facto standard. Impugning the validity of other news sources is the first job of a successful pundit. They don't seek to be your sources of information by passing along reliable news. They do so by constantly assailing the legitimacy of other sources until you're left shaking your head at the absolute ignorance of everyone but Rush/Bill/Sean/Ann.
...
The myth of the "liberal media" came long before the blogs. Discrediting the "nattering nabobs" of the press is not a game that originated with bloggers. Every blogger I know is fully aware that we could not survive without the legwork done by hardworking, professional reporters. Bloggers are not competition to the traditional media -- though they do, hopefully, act as an occasional check on its excesses. However, even if the Internet were entirely dedicated to the downfall of existing media, it would be only one popgun in a chorus of cannons. A large part of the traditional media is dedicated to nothing less than making war on the rest.
Suffering the wounds from that war, the media might have chosen to hold to strict standards and fought back by dissecting the falsehoods being directed against good reporting. Instead, that job has been left, almost without exception, to the very bloggers Keen blames as the cause. The reaction of the traditional media was quite different.

In response to the assault from less factual sources, media both accelerated the already existing trend toward mingling news and entertainment and -- in the most twisted move imaginable -- sought to imitate the mudslingers. They joined the war not by upholding their standards, but by dismissing them. And again, they did so for the reason that Keen indicates as the break between amateur and professional: the perception that there was more money to be made on the less truthful side of the aisle.

It's a good point, I think, that blogs are not new in that regard. But how do we reestablish that facts are indeed important and reshape the news? Glenn Greenwald, in this interview, suggests mudslinging MAD:

The point isn't to start lowering oneself to that level and copying the worst parts of the Right's behavior. The point is to neutralize what they do so that it's no longer one-sided. If one country possesses nuclear weapons, a rival country wants to obtain them not to use them, but to render their use irrational, impossible. That's what Democrats and liberals must start doing with these election rituals.

Maybe that's the answer. But, as they suggest about Iran, I'm not sure the Right is rational enough for MAD to work as a deterrent. We probably need regulation of what qualifies as press, as I've suggested in the past (last few paragraphs, post-rant).

CNN calls Obama elitist

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:43:00 +0000

I just do not know where to start on this one. I once again had the profound misfortune of watching CNN while at the gym. And once again, I came away with anger.

So, here's the deal. Yesterday, at San Francisco fundraiser, Obama said the following:

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Daily Kos has the summary of the back and forth between campaigns here. Personally, I don't believe the comments are that big a deal, maybe just a little accidental slippage of the truth. But that's not even what I care about here. CNN, and Kitty Pilgrim in particular, very Seriously, and responsibly, charged into the fray to make sure we understand "Senator Obama's political attack on small-town America". She wanted to make sure we knew about the "outrage" at the "stunning comments". CNN wanted to make sure we judged for ourselves the last to last night's poll: "Do you believe that Senator Barack Obama's comments reveal his elitist attitude toward every hard working American?" Just like Fox News, that poll question is exceedingly fair and balanced, isn't it?

At points during the program, Pilgrim asks several correspondents for reactions, and they seem to be trying to offer the idea that it's not nearly as condemning a moment as she wanted.

PILGRIM: Words are being parsed very, very carefully. This is quite a statement. Errol, your thoughts on this?

ERROL LOUIS, "NEW YORK DAILY NEWS": I think this is a problem Barack Obama should have anticipated and could have easily avoided which is he's walking on a tight rope every time he goes and speaks. Every place I've seen him campaign, in every state, he does something that politicians don't usually do, which is to ask people to be better than they are.

And to sort of delve into it and to say for this nation to work we all have to be better, we have to be more understanding, we have to be more generous, we have to be a little less narrow minded. It's very different from what politicians normally do.

And Roland Martin:

Wow. Politically dumb because he actually told the truth. At some point we have to accept the reality that there are people in America now who are angry and are bitter. And we do blame other folks for certain things.

Basically, Kitty Pilgrim and her producers were trying to shove the storyline that this was a huge gaffe down the throats of their correspondents and viewers, with phrses like the "very important controversy". Instead, you see them call her out. Here's another exchange: Pilgrim says she'll put the remark up, but then she puts Obama's response statement, and Clinton's remarks, never actually showing what Obama said. After:

PILGRIM: What strikes me about that remark, Roland, is that Senator Clinton is using this as an occasion to talk about being presidential. Did Senator Obama do himself a disservice in this remark in not coming up with a solution in siding with the problem instead of the solution?

MARTIN: Well, first of all, we don't have -- do we have the full tape of what he said after that, as well? Or do we just have that?

Even Roland Martin on the show was trying to get her to be a little fairer, just in case, maybe the remarks are being distorted a bit. The good news is that while Pilgrim was stuffing the anti-Obama spin down our throats, CNN correspondents fought back on both her show and on the Situation Room, surprisingly enough.

I hate CNN, but maybe, just maybe, there's a small chance it won't be too bad this time despite the MSM trying it damnedest.

UPDATE: It gets so much better. I honestly can't remember the last thing Hillary attacked on that she didn't also do or that Bill didn't do in his 1992 campaign. It's hilarious.

Eminent Domain for Intellectual Property?

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:14:00 +0000

So, I've now seen two weird cases in the news that seem like patents are infringing on the public good.

Voting machines:

A Sequoia executive, Edwin Smith, put Union County Clerk Joanne Rajoppi on notice that an independent analysis would violate the licensing agreement between his firm and the county. In a terse two-page letter Smith also argued the voting machine software is a Sequoia trade secret and cannot be handed over to any third party.

Stray satellite:

In the face of unrelated legal battles between the current patent owner Boeing and the satellite's owner SES Americom - any efforts to salvage AMC-14 have been cast aside.
Primarily this is because SES is currently suing Boeing for an unrelated New Skies matter in the order of $50 million dollars - and Boeing told SES that the patent was only available if SES Americom dropped the lawsuit.

Doesn't this seem wrong? Isn't intellectual property subject to eminent domain? SCOTUS said so back in 1912. Voting transparency is fundamental to our society, so I feel eminent domain definitely applies in the first case. It's a tougher argument for a privately owned satellite, but space research has been said to be good for advancement of mankind before, so maybe it applies. More likely to apply is a principle in tort law where if one party has a minor inconvenience in order to solve the entire dispute, they are made to swallow it. I feel $50 mil is a minor inconvenience compared to a likely multi-billion dollar satellite. Then again, I don't know for sure.

Fox News Documentary

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:05:00 +0000

I wasn't going to say anything more about Fox News specifically, because most people know how absurd it is, and I've long since given up. But this, from the Daily Show last night, is just hilarious and says it all.

Bill can also lie to be a loyal husband.

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:32:00 +0000

I thought he was supposed to be a master politician. The polls were just starting to turn back slightly in Hillary's favor, implying that the damage from Tusla was starting to wear off. So why, Bill, do you bring it up again? And that you manage to lie 4 times in about a minute doing so is not only poor ethics, but poor strategy at this point, no?

UPDATE: Whoops, 8 times total.

Slot Machines vs. Voting Machines

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:23:00 +0000

Tables are usually good for getting a point across. A greater point that this illustrates is that it is not the concept of e-voting that is the problem, merely the implementation - the lack of any oversight or security. Like everything else in society, moving towards computers in inevitable, really - we just have to work on making it incorruptible.

Duties of a Citizen

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:33:00 +0000

This is a problem that I'm sure we've all known about for some time.

I make it clear to my students that it is not only their right but their duty to arrive at their own conclusions. They are free to defend rendition, waterboarding, or any other aspect of America's post-9/11 armamentarium. But I challenge their right to tune out the world, and I question any system or society that can produce such students and call them educated. I am concerned for the nation when a cohort of students so talented and bright is oblivious to all such matters. If they are failing us, it is because we have failed them.

...

As a nation, we spend an inordinate amount of time fretting about illegal immigration and painfully little on what it means to be a citizen, beyond the legal status conferred by accident of birth or public processing. We are too busy building a wall around us to notice that we are shutting ourselves in. Intent on exporting democracy — spending blood and billions in pursuit of it abroad — we have shown a decided lack of interest in exercising or promoting democracy at home.

This ties into a discussion I had a while back. I think, on a moral level, voting should be mandatory. It is more than a right, it is a duty. The problem comes when you try to actually make it policy. Voting day is not a national holiday, workers are not guaranteed time off, voting credentials are constantly questioned inappropriately, etc. Also, how do you enforce it? Economic penalties? A large portion of the people that aren't voting for all these reasons are doing so because they are already poor. Several other countries do levy a fine for not voting, even absentee, but I'm just not sure that's fair, given our country's current makeup. And I suppose voting is useless if the voter is uninformed, so Gup's perspective may have more relevance. We are in complete agreement in that democracy requires participation - if there is no will to participate, how can we hope to control our own fates?

Did the General betray us after all?

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:38:00 +0000

I've been willing to give General Petraeus the benefit of the doubt so far. I didn't watch this last testimony, but read that he was making an effort to remain intellectually honest, and preserve his role as a general and non-politician. And he was put in an impossible position of trying to "win" a war he didn't start. I didn't see great evidence (though I didn't look all that hard) that he was a loyal more to Bush than at least what he sees as the truth, and to me, it seemed that most of the bloggers saying that were dismissing Petraeus's statements based on that assumption, rather than checking their veracity. And mostly, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, and try to reserve my opinion, because the guy's son was a college teammate of mine, and it just felt wrong badmouthing the guy's father.

But this is just inexcusable. This is knowingly lying about the actual conditions in Iraq to further the story that the surge is a "success." This is precisely what all the bloggers were claiming he was doing! I had faith that he could be a stand-up man, resistant to pressure of the Bush administration and really just trying to do what is best for our military. But he knows as well as us what happens to people that tell Bush something he doesn't want to hear. And being replaced is unacceptable with his particular political ambitions. It seems MoveOn was right all along, not that I would have doubted if I had cared to look.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan gives a reader's take. It's an interesting idea that if Petraeus were to stand up to Bush, he'd just be replaced, so he might as well do the best for his soldiers but giving Bush what he wants. And I do essentially argue that the first part is true above. However, Bush trusts Petraeus to the occasionally subverting the chain of command. Thus, doesn't it make sense that in this particular case, if Petraeus both actually believed what was best is different from what Bush wants to hear (as evidenced by his manipulating the graphs), he has an obligation to say so to Bush as an honorable man and general? Isn't there a good enough relationship there to not necessarily assume he will be discarded and to do what's right? I guess not, if he perceives his own future presidency is at stake.

UPDATE 2: Petreaus says, pretty definitively, that he will never hold public office. So then, why is he lying at all? Does he think we have to believe things are going well for the army to get it's job done? Is he blind to the very idea that withdrawal might be right? Seriously, if he's not gonna run for office, then really, why not tell the truth? He may be the only person Bush will listen to.

Botnets = Dirty Bomb?

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:51:00 +0000

Raise your hand if you understand computer security well enough to comprehend how a massive online attack shutting down our communications and financial networks might work. Anyone? Anyone at all? Perfect, then that's the right claim for the next round of fear-mongering.

It's also reportedly just the first step in having the nation's most powerful spy agency begin to take over information security responsibility for large chunks of the net. In January, President Bush signed an order, National Security Presidential Directive 54, that begins that process. The details are murky, since the order itself is classified.

To sell the plan to the private sector, Chertoff and other officials will likely talk about Chinese hackers infiltrating the military's most secure unclassified servers, and perhaps offer another iteration of the claim that a serious computer attack against the United States would deal an economic blow that makes the September 11 terrorist attack look like a parking ticket.

Beyond the hype, of course, there are some serious threats that will go under the microscope at RSA -- most prominently the pernicious influence of botnets, the large collections of compromised Windows machines that are used for online crime ranging from spam to phishing. The largest of these are estimated to be hundreds of thousands of computers strong.

But in keeping with the tone set by the United States, botnets are being recast as the equivalent of a dirty bomb. Consider the title of one panel on the malware: "Protecting the Homeland: How to Win the BotNet Battle?"

THREAT LEVEL's been on this for a little while. It seems that the fear from the War on Terror is wearing off, and we need a new threat so that we can entrust the government with more spying powers over Americans. That's really what is always comes down to isn't it?

The sad thing, as the post mentions, is that there are real security issues that will be overlooked by our government in their quest for even more sweeping powers. Sound familiar?

Let's give this an Orwell rating of 3, for inventing a new war, and attempting to further implement Big Brother directly. A 4 rating would have to be a successful sweeping change, and I'm not gonna bother with rating an event like the creation of Newspeak - that would be beyond 4. I'll give a full rationale for the ratings soon.

Ah, conservatives

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:26:00 +0000

We must end this occupation! (via Atrios) If nothing else, conservatives are sometimes good for a laugh.

Oh, and here's Digby on what led up to that comment. Also pretty funny, but more pathetic funny than "haha" funny.

What our Media is and isn't reporting

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:53:00 +0000

I haven't been doing this very long, and I'm already tired of writing about how terrible the media is. Or maybe I'm just feeling lazy today. Either way, I'll just pass on two links that illustrate fun new media complaints. They really are dangerous.

Greenwald:

I just received the following statement from the Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Rep. Lee Hamilton, in response to my inquiries last week (and numerous follow-up inquiries from readers here) about Attorney General Michael Mukasey's claims about the 9/11 attack and, specifically, about Mukasey's story that there was a pre-9/11 telephone call from an "Afghan safe house" into the U.S. that the Bush administration failed to intercept or investigate:
I am unfamiliar with the telephone call that Attorney General Mukasey cited in his appearance in San Francisco on March 27. The 9/11 Commission did not receive any information pertaining to its occurrence.
That's the statement in its entirety, and it's hard to imagine how it could be any clearer...
In light of Hamilton's amazing comment, could journalists possibly now report on this story? One of two things is true about Mukasey's extraordinary claim about how and why the 9/11 attacks occurred. Either:

(1) The Bush administration concealed this obviously vital episode from the 9/11 Commission and from everyone else, until Mukasey tearfully trotted it out last week; or,

(2) Mukasey, the nation's highest law enforcement officer, made this story up in order to scare and manipulate Americans into believing that FISA and other surveillance safeguards caused the 9/11 attacks and therefore the Government should be given more unchecked spying powers.
Either way, isn't it rather self-evidently a huge story?

That's was the media is not reporting on, and here's what it is (from Digby):

Mitchell interviews Ann Kornbluth, a WaPo reporter who recently wrote a story about the anecdotes Clinton tells on the campaign trail which apparently got the attention of a hospital in Ohio. The hospital then decided to go on the record denying the veracity of this woman's story...Mitchell and Kornbluth both agree, however, that it doesn't matter whether the story is true or false (or that there are millions of similar examples of people dying for lack of insurance and proper health care.) None of that is relevant:
Mitchell: The Clinton campaign finds itself in another credibility gap, this time over a heart tugging health care story. Senator Clinton has been telling this story for weeks now out on the campaign:

Video:
Clinton: The doctors and the nurses tried hard, but they weren't able to save her baby. For fifteen days doctors and nurses worked heroically. But she died.

It is so wrong in such a good great and rich country that a young woman and her baby would die because she didn't have health insurance or a hundred dollars to get examined.

Mitchell: Well, it turns out it's not true. After reading about the story in the Washington Post, hospital officials demanded that the Clinton campaign stop using that anecdote. They say there is no indication that this woman was denied medical care, that in fact, she did have insurance.

...

Kornbluth: Well, this deputy sheriff, Brian Holman, met with her during a regular campaign stop. She had Chelsea with her and Ted Strickland the governor. He told this story, it was almost exactly as she repeated it, in the clip that you played. Uhm and she went on and started using it on the stump. And you know we all sort of hear these stories, and she doesn't use any names, so it's difficult to check it out but, but a couple of weeks ago I wrote a story about stuff she says in her speeches and started to write about this woman...the central question is, should the campaign be vetting things before Senator Clinton says them on the campaign trail, especially given her recent problems with the story from Bosnia.

Mitchell: And that is the problem isn't it? That this contributes to a perception, fair or not fair, that she's got a problem telling stories that are accurate. Not to put too fine a point on it, it does damage her credibility.

Kornbluth: And we've seen this movie before. When Al Gore, the first time he was quote unquote caught saying something that wasn't entirely accurate, again, fair or unfair, it became a storyline. After that, going forward, he was under extreme scrutiny for that.The same thing happened with John Kerry, when he was seen as being for something before he was against it, constantly looked for flip-flopping in his stories.

So I think Senator Clinton has discovered that there is something out there that she has to be really careful about and it's the facts of the stories that she tells, whether that's fair or not.
Notice the passive voice: "whether that's fair or not." The press apparently have nothing to do with determining whether it is fair, setting the record straight or getting the facts. It's all about "perception" --- perception that is directly caused by lies they publish, spin they present as truth and "storylines" they create.

...

You may hate Clinton with everything in your being, and that's fine. But this kind of journalism is what's killing our political system and what gets people like John McCain and George W. Bush elected. Clinton was repeating a story about bad health care which she heard on the campaign trail from an American citizen. She wasn't tooting her own horn or putting down her opponent in the telling of it. She was illustrating the plight of the uninsured in this country, which even if it turns out to not be specifically correct in the details, is certainly not something that doesn't happen every day to somebody in this country.

In fact, I suspect this particular "gotcha" is being done to degrade the argument against universal health care as much as to embarrass Senator Clinton. The Clinton Rules state that if any part of a story is proven true, the entire story is true. The corollary is that if any part of a story about a Republican is proved to be false then the entire story is false. The same concept is at work with health care here. If any detail about bad health care in the US can be shown as false, then notions that our health care system is screwed up are also false. Get ready for more of this. I don't know if it will work, but if they can get the media to play it like this, then the subliminal subtext going out there is that Democrats are lying about health care. They don't have to convince everybody, just a few.

Ladies and Gents, our Fourth Estate.

Greenwald nails it again.

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:38:00 +0000

The U.S. establishment media in a nutshell.

In the past two weeks, the following events transpired. A Department of Justice memo, authored by John Yoo, was released which authorized torture and presidential lawbreaking. It was revealed that the Bush administration declared the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights to be inapplicable to "domestic military operations" within the U.S. The U.S. Attorney General appears to have fabricated a key event leading to the 9/11 attacks and made patently false statements about surveillance laws and related lawsuits. Barack Obama went bowling in Pennsylvania and had a low score.

Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days:

"Yoo and torture" - 102

"Mukasey and 9/11" -- 73

"Yoo and Fourth Amendment" -- 16

"Obama and bowling" -- 1,043

"Obama and Wright" -- More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)

"Obama and patriotism" - 1,607

"Clinton and Lewinsky" -- 1,079

"Abortion" is not a fruitful search.

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:43:00 +0000

If you can't overturn Roe v. Wade, why not just put out an all encompassing health services search engine that simply pretends abortion doesn't exist? Again, if you don't know it's there, you can't even think of doing it.

I think we need something like the Washington Post fact checker's Pinocchio rating, but rather an Orwell rating to grade each event's relation to our slow slide into 1984. This would maybe be a Orwell rating of 2 (out of four, since I'm using the Pinocchio scale). Not sure what exactly this rating means - perhaps I need to flesh it out more. But 2 sounds about right.

UPDATE: They apparently reversed the censorship the same day. At least someone had some common sense.

Michigan Preiew Weekend

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 04:39:00 +0000

At Michigan's Preview Weekend now. Strangely not too many people here right out of college - most seem to have worked two years or so. And lots of people also want to do good things in the world, for many independent and interesting reasons, too.

I've already begun to establish my reputation as a gregarious, loud, and fairly opinionated person, who's hopefully at least entertaining amidst the many rants. Though I suppose it's a good sign that within a few hours I had someone tell me they'd vote for me if I run for office. Anyway, I have a mock torts class tomorrow and a real Con Law class, so hopefully I'll have a good idea for a blog from it - I'm already a couple ideas behind. I should quit my job or something... Oh wait.

Interesting Post on Prisoners' Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:39:00 +0000

The Debate Link discusses voting rights for prisoners. I recently had a similar discussion about Justice in the context of whether, even given Bush's war crimes, he should, or in fact must, be given the death penalty if convicted.

The main justification for the death penalty in this case is that no one person has committed crimes the level of his in the history of the USA, and since we are willing to put some people to death, how can we justify not doing so to a war criminal? Though the death penalty is an extreme and irreversible punishment, and exercising mercy in a capital case would not necessarily undermine our entire system of justice, especially if length of time in jail is the standard metric, as David suggests.

Schools Training Americans to be Subservient

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:36:00 +0000

We all know school is as much about training kids to respect authority and function in a hierarchical society as it is about math, science, social studies, and language arts. But lately we've seen a few cases where school teaches us that authority is absolute and can do whatever it wants with regard to students' rights. We've seen unauthorized locker searches be justified, but strip searches of 13 year old girls? With no real cause?

When Wilson ordered the search, the only evidence that Savana had violated school policy was the uncorroborated accusation from Marissa, who was in trouble herself and eager to shift the blame. Even Marissa (who had pills in her pockets, not her underwear) did not claim that Savana currently possessed any pills, let alone that she had hidden them under her clothes.

Savana, who was closely supervised after Wilson approached her, did not have an opportunity to stash contraband. As the American Civil Liberties Union puts it, "There was no reason to suspect that a thirteen-year-old honor-roll student with a clean disciplinary record had adopted drug-smuggling practices associated with international narcotrafficking, or to suppose that other middle-school students would willingly consume ibuprofen that was stored in another student's crotch."

Does anyone still wonder why no one is in a major uproar about wiretapping and an authoritarian state? We're being taught that this is how it's supposed to be at the earliest levels. Or am I mixing up cause and effect - are they teaching it because it's become the norm in society? I hope so - at least that might be more quickly correctable.

Anti-Intellectualism II

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:51:00 +0000

Jessica Hagy makes my point in the equivalent of 1000 words.

Fixing the MSM

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:59:00 +0000

Yesterday I blogged about the Responsible Plan to End the War, and to me the most striking part of it is that they do take the media to task for not doing their job. However, the Plan is fairly limited in suggestions for how to fix the MSM, and so I wanted to reprint an idea I had that was buried in my longest post ever.

The real difficulty in disseminating truth lies in the reality that most people out there do not read blogs. Television news and print journalism are not going to go away for a long time, if ever. A great many people like their news fed to them passively, so I don't think the blogging community will overtake the MSM completely any time soon. Also, there are a great many blogs with no editors - some will be heard, some say truly inane things, and some will just be lost in the shuffle. Only our readers' willingness to fact-check gives us credibility. If the MSM were somehow just replaced by blogs everyone would go deaf with the noise. We need some sort of hybrid of the two.

Here's an idea: The government could establish a national Ombudsman department, under either the FCC or DOJ, with subpoena power. Hopefully they could be independent, just as we hope in the future the DOJ will also be. The department's first task would obviously be checking on the government's behind the scenes connections to the media and finding ways to sever them. More generally, they'd be checking that national media outlets were living up to some journalistic standard, and would perhaps air a 30 or 60 second report on each news program with their most current accuracy rating and breakdowns of how their news reporting time is spent. Maybe the report could include a "breakthrough score" to indicate how well the station does on investigative journalism - to bring that back into style.

With enough media outlets to choose from, this could actually be a sort of free-market, competition-based media solution. The news stations would stop telling us what we want to see, and instead, we choose to watch the stations that we want to watch, complete with ratings and reminders about how accurate and relevant they are. The stations will be forced to tailor their content to compete. Right now, there is not enough competition in the media to make this work, and people are forced to watch or read something. But that's where the blogs come in. Television and internet are converging, and soon the playing field between the MSM and the blogs may be leveled. To help that goal, along with the creation of the national Ombudsman, if it is possible to lower the barrier to entry further to allow blogs to catch up to the MSM in production capability, that will foster the competition needed to hold the news accountable. Maybe, for example, the government could create low-interest loans to start a new national news station, and limit what the distributors could charge for a good news station (remember, there are ratings now). I'm sure this is not the perfect solution, but maybe between the Ombudsman and competition, or some other method, we can fix the MSM, and make sure that we are not lied into an unnecessary war again.

The Responsible Plan talks about FCC regulation of media ownership. It seems the idea of killing off the oligopoly is the one they want to take. But they are talking about new ownership, not dismantling the current model like Bell Telephone. I think if we could find a way to break the current national media oligopoly, it is another alternative. Though we can't do it based on region like Bell. We have local news already, and it serves a different purpose. Anyway, I'm guessing that reducing barrier to entry further will create the same effect if not give better results, and may be inevitable given technology, but I'd be willing to explore either option.

War Criminals

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:57:00 +0000

Is John Yoo a bigger war criminal than Bush or Cheney? He certainly gave them the license to torture.

A New Contract with America

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:47:00 +0000

The Responsible Plan to End the War. It's got a nice ring to it, no? It's purpose: to take us back to the most fundamental, perfectly idealist view of how a Republic should work, using a purely progressive agenda as a platform. It's a thing of beauty. Honestly, in order to really appreciate this, two things need to happen. One, you just need to read the document. Two you need to see how many Congressional candidates have signed on. Hell, even the Washington Post picked it up.

First the document itself: In 22 pages, the Responsible Plan calls for the following items: End U.S. military action in Iraq, using U.S. diplomatic power, addressing humanitarian concerns, restoring our Constitution, restoring our military, restoring independence to the media, creating a new, U.S.-centered energy policy. The first three deal with fixing what we created in Iraq. The gist of it is that it is nation-building we need, not military occupation. We need to build up their infrastructure and economy or their government will not be worth much, and may collapse. "The Departments of State, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, Justice, and Treasury must be directly engaged in creating this solution," the document says, as well as asking for a higher level of international cooperation. I agree completely with the sentiment, and they go further in demanding this not be a leverage point for oil, but that we focus solely on the stability and health of the country.

I am even more excited by the second half of the document, titled "Preventing Future Iraqs". The biggest problem with this whole debacle is not that the Bush Administration made a mistake, or even that they lied once. It's that, as a nation, we were not prepared for the possibility of an out-of-control executive and thus could not handle it. Our Constitution, our checks and balances, and our media failed us and as nobody stood up, it only got worse. Right now, it addition to fixing the mess we're in now, we must reinforce our safeguards so that this can never happen again. When the ship is sinking, you must both bail the water and fix the leak. This is what the second half of the Responsible Plan demands - fixing our government's leak. If ratified by election of the supporting candidates, it is a formal mea culpa from the people of the United States for our complacency, and a resulting acknowledgement that all we can do now is ensure that it can never happen again. This is the only way the ideal of America can survive.

The second point that makes Darcy Burner's creation so amazing is that getting candidates (in addition to Gen. Eaton, Brig. Gen. Johns, Dr. Korb and Cpt. Seaquist - some orignal endorsers) to sign on creates a direct mandate from the American people. If we manage to vote these people into office, they will all clearly be required to advocate this plan, and since so far 42 candidates (38 House and 4 Senate) have signed on, they will have the power to do so. That is nearly a tenth of Congress, and seeing the effectiveness, more sitting senators and representatives will surely sign on. The progressives are angry, and we're taking back our country by using the very ideal our government set forth. We're writing a new Contract with America, and this time, America actually gets a say first.

American Anti-Intellectualism

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:26:00 +0000

Anti-intellectualism is the root of all evil. Or at least the root of all willful stupidity and ignorance. Anyone got suggestions on how to correct this? Will it self correct? Do we have to get to the point where America falls behind the rest of the world before we remember that trying to be the smartest is what got us on top in the first place?

From Singapore to Japan, politicians pretend to be smarter and better- educated than they actually are, because intellect is an asset at the polls. In the United States, almost alone among developed countries, politicians pretend to be less worldly and erudite than they are (Bill Clinton was masterful at hiding a brilliant mind behind folksy Arkansas sayings about pigs).
Alas, when a politician has the double disadvantage of obvious intelligence and an elite education and then on top of that tries to educate the public on a complex issue — as Al Gore did about climate change — then that candidate is derided as arrogant and out of touch.

Maybe when we elect Obama, it will signify the end of it - he is a Harvard-educated policy wonk. Though he'll likely be elected in spite of that. As long certain talk show hosts feed the hatred of the educated, intelligent, and informed liberal, I'm not sure how to fix anti-intellectualism. I'm not sure there is a way. This might be the one issue I'm really not optimistic about. It's going to take more than an ad campaign. It might take a realization that evolution-doubting, UFO seeing, "elitist"-hating America has suddenly become a second citizen in the world. By the time we stop being anti-intellectual, the world may be so fundamentally changed that the best we can hope to climb back to is not dictating world affairs, but being a good world citizen. Hell, maybe that's a good thing for all of us.

When did "elite" stop meaning something to strive for, and begin meaning something to despise?