For once, I might be glad to be wrong

In recent weeks, I and others have made much of Fox's repeated dances around the truth. In the spirit of intellectual honesty, however, I feel obligated to present a recent memo going around Fox's offices, recently leaked to the public. In it, they essentally claim that the recent video splices and the like are purely accidental, and if they are continued, jobs will be lost. As follows:

Subject: Quality Control

We had a mistake on Newsroom today when a wrong book cover went on screen during a guest segment, the kind of thing that can fall through the cracks on any day with any story given the large amount of elements and editorial we run through our broadcasts. Unfortunately, it is the latest in a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months. We have to all improve our performance in terms of ensuring error-free broadcasts. To that end, there was a meeting this afternoon between senior managers and the folks who run the daytime shows in which expectations were reviewed, and the following results were announced:
Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors. Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the "mistake chain," and those who supervise them. That may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews. So we now face a great opportunity to review and improve on our workflow and quality control efforts. To make the most of that opportunity, effective immediately, Newsroom is going to "zero base" our newscast production. That means we will start by going to air with only the most essential, basic, and manageable elements. To share a key quote from today's meeting: "It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on." We may then build up again slowly as deadlines and workloads allow so that we can be sure we can quality check everything before it makes air, and we never having to explain, retract, qualify or apologize again. Please know that jobs are on the line here. I can not stress that enough. I will review again during our Monday editorial meeting, and in the days and weeks ahead. This experience should make us stronger editorially, and I encourage everyone to invest themselves one hundred and ten percent in this effort.

Now, given Fox's long track record of 'errors' like these, I am DEEPLY cynical about this. My instincts tell me to interpret this as either a "hey, lay low, people are noticing" or, alternately, an intentional 'leak' aimed at damage control. HAVING SAID THAT, this is a case where I would absolutely love to be proven wrong. As such, I'm going to do my best to suspend my natural cynicism, and adopt a 'wait and see' approach. Fox presents a right-wing view on matters, that's their stock in trade, there's nothing likely to change there, but I hold out hope that just maybe, these little 'glitches', as with the party mislabeling for Republicans under scandal in times past, have really been simple mistakes. Hey, you never know.

Hat Tip: TPM

Seriously? I thought I was kidding!

The other day in class we were discussing Palin's book coming out, and I made a crack about Fox splicing in footage in order to make the crowds look bigger. I was so certain I was kidding. I mean, it's not like they'd try that again one week after being caught at it, right? Well...

Seriously, it's like something out of a bad movie. Fox's explanation, according to TPM, is as follows:

"This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn't alert the control room to update the video,''

Funny how they'd make exactly the same mistake that they did ONE WEEK AGO! Seems to me that if you make a "mistake" like that, you make damn sure it doesn't happen again for a while, not go in for a repeat performance. Frankly, I'm not sure which part offends me more, the bald-faced lies, or that they really expect us to be dumb enough to believe it.

Ceiling Cat is watching you piss

Some days, a man has to set aside politics just to share the joy and terror of complete whackjobs with the world. Submitted for your approval: A preacher who's convinced that the problem with America is that apparently, not enough men pee standing up.

I wish this were fake, but you can't make this level of crazy up. Hell, I hate to bring this up, because it gives him some veneer of credibility, but doesn't this sound like more of an argument AGAINST standing peeing? Not to him, apparently. Oh, and while I'm at it, the Germany thing is a complete load. Tell you what, new rule, pastors: Do your business and get out. Don't hang around inspecting my pissing style.

Some of the better comments I've seen (Warning: Some contents are extremely crude):

I think the big problem may be pastors hanging around men's rooms to watch what other men do with their private parts.

Why would you piss against a wall? Unless you want splashback piss all over your pants...

So the problem with America is Germans pee sitting down? WTF?

I knew a girl in college who could piss into a coke bottle. Now that's a well-aimed stream. Maybe she was blessed by god.

If I would find this guy peeing standing up into a toilet and spraying his pee all around the room, he'd have to _lick_ it clean.

Hmm, biblical watersports.
I'm detecting some sort of bronze age version of rule 34 here.

Hat Tip: Pharyngula

No news is Fox News

A lot has been made of this ongoing tiff between Fox and the White House, and last I heard, neither showed any sign of backing down. I must wonder, though, why anyone thinks Fox has a leg to stand on here. I know, supporters frequently claim that freedom of the press allows Fox to put forth whatever views they please, and I agree, but that freedom doesn't include the right to an audience, and it ABSOLUTELY doesn't include an automatic White House press pass. Consider the following:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
For Fox Sake!
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

In short, Fox wants to be considered an opinion network instead of a news network. That's absolutely fine, I have no problem with that at all. That said, do you know who else qualifies as an opinion journalist? ANY REMOTELY POLITICAL BLOGGER EVER. I'm an opinion journalist, and I for damn sure wouldn't expect access to the White House press room. It would be awesome, sure, but it's not going to happen. They want to be considered a major news network (with all the privileges thereof), but be held to the same press standards I am. Yeah, no.

Of course, there are times when the "we're just putting out opinion" just doesn't cover it, and they get caught in an outright lie:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Sean Hannity Uses Glenn Beck's Protest Footage
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

And now, Stewart's reaction to what we will loosely refer to as Hannity's "apology":

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Sean Hannity Apologizes to Jon
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

*blinks* I'm sorry, what? Hannity's claiming that this was some isolated, minor mistake? An idiot could have caught that, so I'm not sure which would be more damning, an outright lie or the absolute incompetence he's claiming. Further, that claim would be a hell of a lot more compelling if there weren't a well-established track record of Fox pulling stupid crap like this. (You ever notice how on Fox, every politician in a scandal suddenly has a D next to their names?) Hell, how can they expect anyone to believe anything they say when they've actually been to court before defending their right to just make crap up? Seriously, I'm not kidding, look up Akre v. Fox!

For the record, I agree that, strictly speaking, they have the right to lie, if they so choose. I have no objection to that. I would love it if other intellectually dishonest pricks followed suit in coming clean about it. However, part of being a news source is having some measure of reliability. A mere opinion source that feels free to make up and/or distort any information they want is useless, and has absolutely no place as part of the White House press corps. One of the great things about this country is the right to say what you want, but that doesn't extend to some some sort of right to be taken seriously.

It's official: No sleep for the Sergeant tonight, folks.

I swear, waiting for poll results is worse than crack withdrawal. I need something to take the edge off before my fingernails are bitten clean away, so this week, I'll do something different: A running analysis of Maine's Question 1 and Washington state's Referendum 71. For those who aren't familiar with these, here goes: A while back, Maine's legislature finally put through a bill granting same-sex couples equal rights as straight couples. Option 1 seeks to repeal that. A push for No on 1 could be one of the first major victories for same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

Washington's Ref. 71, on the other hand, is basically the opposite: a vote to preserve the existence of a law that gives legal protection to gay couples. A vote of Yes here could have similar implications to a No in Maine. Either way, though, both of these will likely be very, very, very close, hence my aforementioned pseudo-crack withdrawal. Here goes:

As of 11:30 PM EST, Maine has Yes leading by ~2-3%, with 68% of precincts returned. Obviously, way to close for anyone to call at this point, but as a same-sex marriage proponent, I'm getting nervous.

Washington, on the other hand, currently has Yes leading as well, by ~4-5%, with 42% reporting in. Again close, but this one at least gives me hope. Either way, I'll keep posting as new info comes in.


Midnight: No change yet in Washington. Maine has 74% in, and the gap is widening, with Yes now leading by ~4%. That said, if same-sex marriage has a shot anywhere in the state, it'd be in Portland, and most of their precincts aren't in yet. Further, that difference is only ~20,000 votes. Sounds massive, but each side already has 10 times that number, so it's not that much. More later.


12:15 AM: Nothing new from either of the main races, but NY-23's done. Owens (D) won, Hoffman's conceded. Still, though I was opposed to him, he made a very impressive 3rd party showing (even if the Republican did have to thrown out by her own party for it to happen).

12:35 AM: No real changes. No on 1 in Maine has slipped a little, with currently ~4-5% down. 84% in, so it's really starting to look a loss for civil rights there. Absolutely nothing in Washington, 50% in, same breakdown as before. I think the Washington ballot counters all went home for the night or something.


1 AM: Washington's a done deal, apparently. The Secretary of State for Washington declared Yes on 71 to be the winner.


1:10 AM: Okay, I'm calling Maine. 87% of precincts in, and No on 1 trails by 5%. Looks like opponents of civil rights have won this one. I'll keep one eye on it just in case, though. Medical marijuana bill passed, so that's awesome, at least. Oh well, some dude's streaming Pulp Fiction on a webcam, so time for some epic.

Fact checking the Pauline Howe issue

A couple of days ago, Zack brought up the case of an elderly woman, one Pauline Howe, who was purportedly visited by police for protesting a gay pride march. The story seemed a little unusual, and the visit excessive, so I decided to fact-check it a little bit. In researching, I found that, while a real event, the topic was really only mentioned in a couple of sources, particularly the far-right UK tabloid the Daily Mail. As this might indicate, the event took place in the UK, not any US location. Though free speech is of course still valued there, there is no constitutional enumeration protecting it to as high a level as in the US. As such, an attempt to equate hate crime policies in the two countries is futile at best.

The second issue is that, contrary to the Mail's claims, her attitude toward gays seems rather serious. From the Guardian UK:

The Mail described Howe's letter as an attempt to "complain", although the article later mentions in passing that Howe had described homosexuals as "sodomites" with "perverted" sexual practices that spread sexually transmitted diseases.

Further, it wasn't as if she was simply sitting at home writing letters, but actively attended the rally with the sole purpose of being intentionally intrusive to the marchers. Granted, no one has the right to not be offended, and the police visitation was more than a little excessive, but think: If someone showed up at the Million Man March dressed in the robes of a Klansman, what exactly do you recommend? Contrary to the protestations of some, there is absolutely a connection between these attitudes and very real violence. Attitudes like this don't happen in isolation, and people who go on about how much they hate gays, but always add "oh, but I wouldn't hurt them. I just think they deserve to die" need to learn that.

What's next, Nike's Next Great Shoe Sower contest?

Anyone who's spent any time on Craigslist knows that the site is propped up by two things: Ads for hookers and really, really cheap job offers. Hell, there's a whole site dedicated to compiling and mocking these crappy offers at workingfail.com. If you think about it, though, that isn't all that surprising given the source. It's mostly startups, amateurs, and other people who don't really know what they're asking for. Therefore, imagine my surprise when I find that the Washington Post was making an offer that makes those look outright generous:

The Next Great Pundit Contest!

Yes, that's right, the Washington Post is now pretty much throwing in the towel, seeking to rely more on bloggers and webcam owners, rather than actual reporting. I'm no business major, and I know newspaper subscriptions are down, but is lowering the quality of content really the solution? Honestly, though, the lack of quality they're inviting speaks for itself, so there's not much to say here. Almost as absurd, however, is from the grand prize itself: For a year of work and submissions, you can walk away with a grand total of $2600. Yes, that's the real amount. Oh, and that's IF YOU WIN:

By entering the Contest, each entrant grants Sponsor an unrestricted, royalty-free, perpetual right to display, modify, perform, copy and create derivative work from his/her Entry.

Maybe I'm misreading this, but it sounds like they can use the submissions pretty much however the hell they want, and tough shit to the entrant. If that includes passing it off as their own, so be it. This whole thing is so ridiculous that it's almost past my ability to mock. Therefore, I'm going to let Andy Cobbon do it for me.

Balloon Boy, the Media, and Stupid People

"Who or what the hell is Balloon Boy?" I found myself asking this question Saturday, as I'd heard the name in passing repeatedly, but had yet to hear a definition. When I looked it up, though, I was rather glad to have missed it. It was about the dumbest thing I'd heard in a good, long while. It seems like every few months, something gets into the water supply and a bunch of people buy into some ridiculous bullshit or another. If it isn't this, it's the body of Bigfoot, or President Obama's birth certificate, or the LHC causing black holes, or that the world will end in 2012. (Protip: It won't, any more than it ends every December 31.) Hell, if some crazies are to be believed, 'something gets into the water supply' is more right then I know:



Dammit, people, how are we supposed to improve our society, make ourselves more politically aware, if we can't even see through crap like this? Every time one of these hoaxes/conspiracy theories comes along, I hold out hope that people will learn a lesson, that they'll develop some basic critical thinking skills. So far, those hopes have been dashed every time. Not only that, the level of media coverage surrounding stuff like this shows that people don't even have any interest in changing. It all paints one very disturbing picture: If our society is to come to an end, it won't be an apocalypse, it won't be an alien invasion, it won't be a home-grown black hole, and it for damn sure won't be vaccinations. It will be stupid people who lack anything resembling basic reasoning. Don't even try telling me there aren't enough of those to go around.

Down With This Sort Of Thing!

It might have come to your attention that our society is being destroyed from within. It's true. Our morals are steadily being degraded through the evils in our culture. Our precious children are growing wicked and disobedient, and I think we all know the cause: Sex and violence on television. Or, wait, was it rap? Or Harry Potter? Could it have been video games? How about Catcher in the Rye? I thought it was comic books. Yeah, that or Dungeons and Dragons. Maybe I'm thinking of Rock & Roll, with that Elvis shaking his hips, or maybe jazz. It could even have been "beer, pinchback suits, galloping in horse races ("Not a wholesome trottin' race, no, but a race where they sit up right on the horse!"), smoking, ragtime music, knickerbockers rebuckled below the knee, dime novels, modern slang words like "swell", and "So's your old man""? I just can't remember which of those modern evils we're supposed to be outraged about this week.

Some of these might sound nuts, but I swear, they've all been for real. (Except, possibly, for that list at the end, that was a parody out of The Music Man.) Don't believe me? Go check out the work of Jack Chick. On second thought, don't, that dude's just disturbing. Poe's Law in action, but he insists he's for real, and people on both sides certainly treat him as such. (Dammit, I'm getting off track here.) The point is, as long as there's been culture, people have decried the so-called "moral degradation" of the younger generation. There are many reasons for this phenomenon, ranging from an overly active sense of nostalgia to a feeling of "surely WE weren't like this!" Hell, one of the reasons for Socrates' execution was purportedly a corrupting influence on the Athenian youth, and Socrates himself was famously opposed to the idea of WRITING IDEAS DOWN. Yes, it really does go back that far, and get that nuts. Astonishingly, despite all this evil we've apparently built up, somehow society has absorbed it all and remained intact.

The moral crusaders of today of course claim that exposure to the modern media's sex and violence is hurting children and all that. They usually have some anecdotal examples from relatively current events, but they frequently suffer from two major flaws. Firstly, they often fail to due any real research on the events in question, thereby missing the fact that the connections are often EXTREMELY tenuous. Case in point: Virginia Tech. That just HAD to be because Cho had played violent video games! What? He didn't play them? And he was an unmedicated schizophrenic? So what? It fits what I already know is true, and that's more important! This brings me to the second issue: Even if they do find something, they ignore that it's the exception, not the rule. Most of these anecdotes are just like that guy, they already had something majorly wrong with them. Hell, I'm listening to some Black Sabbath right now (seriously), and I'm just sitting here quietly writing, not out going on a rampage.

Further, the draconian solutions these people propose are, I think, rather telling. People tell them that they do, in fact, have the power to keep their kids from watching programming they object to ( very different from "objectionable programming"), but they worry about their kids being able to see it at a friend's house, or go online and watch it, and so on, and so on, and so on. What, then, do they propose? Why, it should be taken off the air entirely! At that point, I lose what little sympathy I had, because at that point it stops being about them living their lives, but rather telling us how to live ours. Our society is not so weak as to be demolished by a bit of language, sex, fake violence, or girls wearing pants instead of a dress. To Mary Whitehouse, Bill Donahue, Jack Thompson, and other crusaders: Your concern is noted, now go away and let the rest of us enjoy ourselves.

While I'm at it, the inspiration for this post's name seems as good a way as any to finish off.

Objectivity standards? Yeah, good luck with that.

In our current culture, much has been made of media bias toward one side or the other. On the far-right blog/forum/news site Free Republic, for example, I've actually seen people using the phrase "mainstream media" as a pejorative (just don't ask me to explain why I was there). Indeed, it's undeniable that individual sources sometimes hold a slant toward one side or the other (I doubt anyone would seriously argue that Olbermann and Maddow don't lean to the left, or Limbaugh and Hannity to the right). Overall, however, I would hold that there is only one gigantic, monolithic "Media" in scare tactics, and in practice, any real institutionalized bias is next to impossible. There are just too many agendas pulling in too many different directions to be viable. Still, much has been made about the possibility of objectivity standards. I'm actually opposed to such a push, but not for the same reason as many others.

First of all, is such a thing as "objectivity" even possible? Who defines it? I'm biased, you're biased, that jerk over there's biased, so "unbiased" can really only mean "a bias I agree with." Horrible basis for an organized push. Second of all, how would these standards possibly be implemented? One possibility has been the "He said, She said" approach, the "equal time" method that CNN follows so much these days. However, that plan has major problems with it. After all, in any given argument, one side has more evidence than the other. Wouldn't that approach just be biased toward the side that has no such support? Should the media really give equal time to Obama birthers, 9/11 truthers, young earth creationists, and the Flat Earth Society? Not just no, but HELL NO. The "center" in an argument should not be determined by whichever side's crazier.

I suppose we could implement a method by which the evidence is what's presented, with less regard for framing, but that has practical problems as well. First, a metric fuckton of people just won't watch it (and yes, that's an exact measurement). That may sound overly cynical, but let's face it, in our culture, the Food Network gets comparable ratings to C-Span. People just aren't interested in seeing the solid information. It could certainly be questioned whether bad information is any better than none at all, but I'd rather people at least try to keep informed. Second of all, remember the "bias I agree with" bit earlier? It comes back into play. A good or bad lawyer is determined by "how did they do with my case," and the same is true with the media. If the evidence doesn't agree with what the viewer "knows it should be," suddenly there's a media bias conspiracy again. There's just no winning.

Mitteldämmerung

It's a known thing that the increasing media conglomeration has resulted in decreased focus on hard news coverage, but I think that it has been useful in proving one very important thing: the much-vaunted "invisible hand" isn't always the best solution. In this case, the blind appeal to ratings was a rather inevitable result of a bill that amounted to the enabling of a news monopoly. After all, when the various news agencies were forced to coexist, they had to compete in terms of actual quality, and if one failed in this duty, the others would outperform them. Now, though, there's an emphasis on sheer speed and sensationalism. This appears to stem from the new rules, where media outlets compete through buyouts and attempt to corner the market, simply squeezing out their opposition.

This wouldn't be a major issue, except for the fact that in our culture, the average person is less than adept at doing their research. We're a little different, since this is our field, but for the general public... Well, just picture us trying to keep track of all the latest chemistry journals and you'll get the general idea. As a result, people tend to treat whatever the media puts out as important and relevant, regardless of how silly or distracting it really is. (Let's face it, when a network owned by Rupert Murdoch claims that the big, faceless, monolithic media is somehow biased against them, it lacks the ring of truth, given how many outlets he personally owns.) Further, this dumbing-down is nothing less than a death spiral: as the main news sources appeal to the lowest common denominator, the public gets less informed, the denominator drops even lower, and the media dives down after it.

Some people have proposed blogging as an antidote for this, allowing for a more varied outlook on events. This seems to almost affirm an emerging business trend called 'crowdsourcing', but corporate strategy is WAY outside my department, so I can't really comment there. Still, Sturgeon's Law is always important to remember, and with blogs, it appears in full force. After all, with absolutely no quality controls in place, people can make any claim they please, about any topic, and have no real evidence for any of it (case in point, yours truly). Still, there is one very major upside to independent sources such as blogs: they get people engaged. It's been said that you can't get rid of problems, only trade them, and if temporary insanity is the price to pay for a more aware, a more informed, and a more inquisitive populous, that's a worthy trade indeed.

The Teabagger Socialist-Free Purity Pledge

(Courtesy of DailyKos via Pharyngula)

The Teabagger Socialist-Free Purity Pledge

I, ________________________________, do solemnly swear to uphold the principles of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word that I shall strictly adhere to the following:

I will complain about the destruction of 1st Amendment Rights in this country, while I am duly being allowed to exercise my 1st Amendment Rights.

I will complain about the destruction of my 2ndAmendment Rights in this country, while I am duly >being allowed to exercise my 2ndAmendment rights by legally but brazenly brandishing unconcealed firearms in public.

I will forswear the time-honored principles of fairness, decency, and respect by screaming unintelligible platitudes regarding tyranny, Nazi-ism, and socialism at public town halls. Also.

I pledge to eliminate all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of and participation in any socialist goods and services including but not limited to the following:

*

Social Security
*

Medicare/Medicaid
*

State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)
*

Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
*

US Postal Service
*

Roads and Highways
*

Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
*

The US Railway System
*

Public Subways and Metro Systems
*

Public Bus and Lightrail Systems
*

Rest Areas on Highways
*

Sidewalks
*

All Government-Funded Local/State Projects (e.g., see Iowa 2009federal senate appropriations--http://grassley.senate.gov/issues/upload/Master-Approps-73109.pdf)
*

Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)
*

Public and State Universities and Colleges
*

Public Primary and Secondary Schools
*

Sesame Street
*

Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children
*

Public Museums
*

Libraries
*

Public Parks and Beaches
*

State and National Parks
*

Public Zoos
*

Unemployment Insurance
*

Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services
*

Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, State or Federal Government (pretty much all of them)
*

Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government Grant or Research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)
*

Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)
*

Use of the Internet, email, and networked computers, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking
*

Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies
*

Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs From Government Subsidies
*

If a veteran of the government-run socialist US military, I will forgo my VA benefits and insist on paying for my own medical care

I will not tour socialist government buildings like the Capitol in Washington, D.C.

I pledge to never take myself, my family, or my children on a tour of the following types of socialist

locations, including but not limited to:

*

Smithsonian Museums such as the Air and Space Museum or Museum of American History
*

The socialist Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson Monuments
*

The government-operated Statue of Liberty
*

The Grand Canyon
*

The socialist World War II and Vietnam Veterans Memorials
*

The government-run socialist-propaganda location known as Arlington National Cemetery
*

All other public-funded socialist sites, whether it be in my state or in Washington, DC

I will urge my Member of Congress and Senators to forgo their government salary and government-provided healthcare.

I will oppose and condemn the government-funded and therefore socialist military of the United States of America.

I will boycott the products of socialist defense contractors such as GE, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Humana, FedEx, General Motors, Honeywell, and hundreds of others that are paid by our socialist government to produce goods for our socialist army.

I will protest socialist security departments such as the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, TSA, Department of Justice and their socialist employees.

Upon reaching eligible retirement age, I will tear up my socialist Social Security checks.

Upon reaching age 65, I will forgo Medicare and pay for my own private health insurance until I die.

SWORN ON A BIBLE AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF ____________ IN THE YEAR ______________.

Signed: ___________________________ ___________________________


While the above may not exactly reflect the teabaggers' position (sorry, couldn't resist), a public health insurance option is essentially no different from any of the above items. I'm not asking those of you opposed to such a program to change your minds, but please, for the love of any gods you may or may not believe in, learn what "socialism" actually is before you go spouting off about how inherently evil it is.

Stop me if this sounds familiar...

I was wandering the Internet the other day, and I came across an interesting letter. It was written by a fairly prominent physicist named Richard Feynman, back when he was serving as a tech adviser for a film back in 1958. As I was reading the letter, it occurred to me that it seemed very familiar.

Mr. Ralph Bown
Advisory Board in Connection with Programs on Science
New York, New York

Dear Mr. Bown:
Thank you for your formidable letter describing the legal interrelations. Who is the "designee"? Is that me or am I an advisor, or what the hell? Put it in clear one-syllable words, please.
Anyway the Warner guys have an author named Marcus. He has come to my office on two occasions each for about half a day (so you owe me one day's pay more). The purpose was to get more complete detailed explanation of some of the scientific matters in the report I wrote (like simultaneity in relativity, how short times are measured, etc., etc.). He is very intelligent and I was successful in explaining a great deal to him.
Although the gimmicks, etc. were not on the agenda, he told me about them, and left a document describing his plans. I made no comment on these ideas, telling him they are not my business.
(On the other hands, my hair stood on end as I read the "ideas" for presenting the material. But I kept my hat on and it wasn't noticed. It will relieve me a little if I can say a word to somebody so I can let out steam. So please don't consider the following as a valid for official opinion. It is just me letting off unofficial views and is to be kept safely within these parentheses).
(The idea that movie people know how to present this stuff, because they are entertainment-wise and the scientists aren't is wrong. They have no experience in explaining ideas, witness all movies, and I do. I am a successful lecturer in physics for popular audiences. The real entertainment gimmick is the excitement, drama and mystery of the subject matter. People love to learn something, they are "entertained" enormously by being allowed to understand a little bit of something they never understood before. One must have faith in the subject and in people's interest in it. Otherwise just use a Western to sell telephones! The faith in the value of the subject matter must be sincere and show through clearly. All gimmicks, etc. should be subservient to this. They should help in explaining and describing the subject, and not in entertaining. Entertainment will be an automatic byproduct.)
Don't worry, I'm keeping my hat on and will limit myself to scientific advice only.

Sincerely,
R. P. Feynman

He was talking about the play of science in the entertainment industry, but so much of what he said seems to reflect the very argument we have about the news media today! We've been treating this conflict between information and entertainment as though it were a recent thing, but this makes it pretty clear that the two ideals have been at loggerheads for the past 50 years and longer. Maybe science was an early battleground, and we're only now seeing the effects elsewhere, or maybe the internal conflict in the news media has always been there, and we just didn't notice until now. Either way, this is not a recent phenomenon, and I think we need to start taking the long view of this if we want real answers.

Some people are content to shoot themselves in the foot the old-fashioned way. Others insist on using an automatic.

I was going to stick with my usual strategy of just picking out something weird from the week to comment on, but with so much stupid shit going down, I can't pick just one. So without further ado:


1: In an event that, at this point, we all know about, Rep. Joe Wilson had a teensy little outburst at President Obama's speech last night. Now, I have no problem with him disagreeing, and I have no problem with him making it known publicly, but there's a time and place. Further, the claim that Obama was lying was more than a little out of line, since the specific portion of the speech he objected to is confirmed in section 246 of the bill currently making its way through the House. In fact, the bill outright states that affordability credits will not be provided to illegal immigrants.

A good friend put it best: "I'm one for revenge, so a well timed, lingering fart by Al Franken during a Mitch McConnell filibuster seems in order."

Adding to the fun, though, is the fact that since this little exchange, Wilson's opponent, one Rob Miller, has received massive - and rapidly climbing - campaign contributions. (See HERE or HERE) When you consider his strong track record of poorly-considered outbursts, I'm going to recommend the GOP muzzle him before he takes down the entire party.

For more fact-checking of his claims, go HERE


2: A couple of weeks back, Glenn Beck went off on this group of ostensibly "militant" group of young black men, as seen here (relevant part starts around 1:10):



Now, however, it's been revealed (not by Beck, of course) that this oh-so-dangerous junior military was, in fact: a group of high-school step dancers rehearsing. No, seriously, check it out:



If you check out the (many, many) videos on Youtube of this, you'll see that wearing camo pants is pretty common for things like this. Hardly the high treason Beck claims to fear. Honestly, I've always thought he was at least bright enough to hide the racist crap, but lately, he's just waved it out for all to see.


3: Speaking of waving things out for all to see, this one has much less relevance to real politics, but it was so damn funny that I had to include it. Apparently, Sacramento assemblyman Michael Duvall (married w/ 2 children) has been found to be in bed with a lobbyist. Not surprising on its own, but when you consider that it's literal, things get more interesting. For added fun, it was discovered when ol' Mikey didn't realize his lapel mike was on and talked about the affair to a colleague. Quite vividly, in fact! Some choicer excerpts:

"She wears little eye-patch underwear <...> So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And
 so, we had made love Wednesday--a lot! And so she'll, she's all, 'I am going 
up and down the stairs, and you're dripping out of me!' So messy!"

"So, I am getting into spanking her. Yeah, I like it. I like spanking her. She goes, 'I know you like spanking me.' I said, 'Yeah! Because you're such a bad girl!'"

Honestly, if Wilson needs a muzzle, this idiot needs something else entirely. For the entirety of the story, go read the article HERE. For even more entertainment, here's the news story, complete with audio clip:




EDIT: I know I've gone on long enough, but Jesus, this stuff just keeps on coming:
So, Sean Hannity says, "[Obama] said tonight that insurance executives are bad people." Okay, not true, but whatever. But then he immediately shows a clip of Obama stating, "Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people; they do it because it's profitable." Hannity's not even bothering to hide the fact that he's full of crap on this one!

You Can't Stop the Signal

Not long ago, the marching band of a school in the small town of Sedalia, Missouri introduced a new t-shirt design:

The shirt was intended to portray the way that music has changed throughout the years, but the reference to evolution caused creationist parents to react in a very typical way: they threw a tantrum. The superintendent, seeking to simply bypass the controversy, opted to pull the shirts. The local paper responded by putting a poll about the shirt onto their website, the Sedalia Democrat. (no political affiliation, despite the name) By the time the poll closed, the results stood with fully 97% of respondents holding that the critics and the district were overreacting, with only 3% claiming that there was anything wrong with the shirt.

What's notable, however, is that the poll received a response of more than 6,600 votes. For a point of reference, the standard response to their polls is only around 150 votes. Not only that, but responses were coming in not just from the town, but from all over the world, including Germany, England, and Australia, among others. What, then, would explain this odd turn of events? A significant part of the explanation lies in the linking to the poll on the noted science/politics blog, Pharyngula.

The practice is known as poll crashing, and it's a common feature on blogs across the internet, for reasons ranging from a desire to influence the results to simple boredom. Pharyngula blogmaster PZ Myers explains his motivations for the practice as follows:

"It's a regular feature of the blog: someone, somewhere puts a poll on the Internet, which will accumulate responses that someone will use to justify a position, despite the fact that these things are grossly unscientific and arbitrary,” he said. We look for such polls, and 'pharyngulating' just means that readers of the Pharyngula blog go there to vote."

Now, depending on the person, one might view this as a respectable goal, as dishonest and underhanded, or simply as a waste of time. One thing that cannot be denied, however, is the growing influence to the global community that things like this represent. This, no less than the "Twitter Revolution" for Iran, demonstrates the new world of global politics we have entered into. When such a small-town matter can gain the attention of people worldwide, it has become clear that the notion of provincial politics is a thing of the past. It may seem cliche to claim that "the world is watching", but the new power that the internet provides makes it more true than ever before.

Sedalia Democrat article on poll results

What's Wrong with the Right, Part 1

Ignore the title for a second, if you would. I do not intend this series as a simple excuse to insult the right. Rather, I intend to pursue challenges the Republican Party has been facing in recent years, the troubles they soon will face, and what (if anything) can be done about it.

It is a known fact that the GOP has experienced substantial losses over the last few elections. It's easy to paint these losses in an overly-simplistic, partisan light, whether citing President Obama's charisma (from the right) or an outright failure of GOP economic and foreign policies (from the left). Rather, I suspect that the decline that the GOP is currently facing is the result of a variety of factors, and that if they can't change course, they might only be getting a taste of things to come.

A little history will be useful for this chapter. Following the Civil War, the Democrats became rather known as the anti-brown people party, favoring a return to pre-war practices in the South. The Republicans, by contrast, desired to reform the region, cutting out what they saw as the roots of the issues. This dichotomy continued for the better part of the next century, until Kennedy and Johnson, seeing the rise of the civil rights movement in the South, decided to shift the party line on the issue, hoping to get in on the ground floor and snap up black voters. Acting in response to this, Nixon adopted what was to be known as the Southern strategy, attempting to pick up the anti-civil rights wight southerners that the Dems were leaving behind.

Today, we see a similar dichotomy relating to the Hispanic/Latino vote. Studies have shown that Hispanic voters are the fastest-growing demographic in the US today, and shows no signs of slowing. Naturally, it would be of great benefit for a political party to align themselves with the group as soon as possible. In fact, it's doubly important to the GOP, as a great deal of this growth is being seen in the Republican strongholds of the South and Southwest. If the Dems can garner strong Hispanic support, therefore, they might even be able to take Texas in the near future, which would spell disaster for the GOP. Fortunately for the Republicans, the heavy Catholic tendencies the group means that, by and large, they are pretty well aligned with the religious right on the issues of gay marriage/abortion/etc., giving the GOP a substantial edge in gaining their support.

So, why would I say that this is a problem for the GOP? Frankly, because the Republican Party never bothered to call a halt to the Southern strategy. These days, the right-wing politicians are listening to the group calling themselves nativists, a faction primarily based in their opposition to immigration. Former President Bush, owing to his time as governor of Texas, saw this demographic shift coming, and tried to relax immigration standards, among other things, but the rest of his party shot him down. Even McCain, traditionally far more moderate than other members of the party, has sworn opposition to such matters, perhaps owing to his current Senate primary battle against the founder of the terrorist group known as the Minutemen. Perhaps the best example of this trend, however, is the contention over Justice Sotomayor. I'm not saying that race was the only factor causing the Republicans to oppose her, but several Senators seemed to make it clear that it was, at least, one reason.

The core problem, however, is the simple fact that the nativists are getting much older, and the new generation doesn't feel anywhere near as strongly opposed to immigration as in generations past. Result: The faction is on its way out as a viable vote source. It seems to me that the GOP needs to abandon the nativist appeasement plan they currently follow, despite the "sure thing" they pose in the short term. Getting behind sound immigration reform, coupled with their religious leanings, could be enough to garner a good bit of Hispanic support. The longer they fail to do so, however, the more support will slip through their fingers. By and large, the Republicans have already lost the black vote, but if they hurry, it isn't too late to learn from their mistake.

Next week: Does Fox News hurt Republican electability?

Armed protestors at town hall meetings

Original article

I feel the need to preface this by making it clear that I fully support the right to bear arms, and I have no issue with gun owners. That said, there's a time and a place to exercise that right, and protesting a town hall meeting is neither. This is doubly true when the one holding that particular meeting was the president himself! Oh, and for added fun, here's the dude:



Sign arguably advocating political violence? Check. Means to carry out violence, if desired? Check. Place where tempers are flaring (say, a political protest)? Check. The president himself on-site? That's a big check. Bad combination.

Nothing this guy did was illegal, sure, but I think gun owners would back me up when I say that gun ownership requires a measure of awareness and personal responsibility. Even if you are sure that you can control your temper, what about the guy next to you? Could he pull a gun out of your holster if HE lost control? There are just far too many ways for something like this to go horribly awry. Time and again the old adage is proven: Just because you can do something legally, that doesn't make it a good idea.