Do people really still care about Deep Throat? I don't, sorry, maybe I'm too young. I liked it better when it was a mystery.
Interesting article on love's biological basis from the NYT. They use fMRI data, which is always fun to analyze. (NOT!) Yeah, well read it, but ignore the headline because it is painfully stupid.
Maybe I should start insulting people because I'm so bored. Hmmmm.... Who do I hate a lot 100%er , being shut down. Ariana Huffington? nah, huffington toast has that well in hand. Damn, I'm too apathetic. I could post mean things about people I like. But then I'd be an asshole with no friends instead of just an asshole. Oh well back to the jorb.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Dude
If you get a dell you should definetly shell out extra bucks for their business help line if possible. My dad put me on his and I got to talk to someone who actually speaks english. It was amazing. And I was really grateful for it as I was attempting to re-seat my processor.
Anyway, my computer is broken, as in they are coming out this week to replace the motherboard and RAM. So no blogging while not at work for a while.
Hope everyone had a good memorial day weekend.
Anyway, my computer is broken, as in they are coming out this week to replace the motherboard and RAM. So no blogging while not at work for a while.
Hope everyone had a good memorial day weekend.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Corn fuled cars
Here we come.
My Alma Mater has produced new biodiesel that is apparently easier to produce and more green than previous attempts.
Richard Jackson, president of Capital Technologies International (CTI), said the new process, which causes no harm to the environment, produces biodiesel more quickly and is less expensive than standard methods. The technology has been licensed to CTI and patents are pending. David Purta and Marc Portnoff of Carnegie Mellon's Center for Advanced Fuel Technology (CAFT) were principal developers of the new process.
Made from domestic agricultural products, biodiesel fuel can be burned or blended with petroleum in diesel engines without vehicle modifications. Certified by the U.S. Department of Transportation as the preferred low-cost alternative fuel, biodiesel emissions reduce public health risks associated with air pollution. Biodiesel is less volatile, non-toxic and biodegradable.
Where can I buy stock?
My Alma Mater has produced new biodiesel that is apparently easier to produce and more green than previous attempts.
Richard Jackson, president of Capital Technologies International (CTI), said the new process, which causes no harm to the environment, produces biodiesel more quickly and is less expensive than standard methods. The technology has been licensed to CTI and patents are pending. David Purta and Marc Portnoff of Carnegie Mellon's Center for Advanced Fuel Technology (CAFT) were principal developers of the new process.
Made from domestic agricultural products, biodiesel fuel can be burned or blended with petroleum in diesel engines without vehicle modifications. Certified by the U.S. Department of Transportation as the preferred low-cost alternative fuel, biodiesel emissions reduce public health risks associated with air pollution. Biodiesel is less volatile, non-toxic and biodegradable.
Where can I buy stock?
Pollibuster
Mystery Pollster has a great analysis of polls on the filibuster. I can't really add anything to that discussion, it is definetly worth a read.
Girls Rule
Qando links to a poll showing 53% support for Hillary Clinton in '08. That's exciting. I don't know if I like her or not, but the part of me that is still playing Girls vs. Boys in kickball is jumping for joy. It would be great to have a female president, but not at the expense of having a good leader so I will reserve judgement. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of women felt this way.
A big gender gap. Six of 10 women but 45% of men were likely to support her.
That's not really surprising, though why not say 60% of women and 45% of men. I hate it when they round like that. It's probably like 6/10 women and 5/10 men. But this way it sounds like there is some HUGE gap. I hate journalists.
In the new survey, more than seven in 10 Americans said they would be likely to vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008 if she were running. One in five said they wouldn't be likely to vote for her.
Karen White, political director of the liberal group Emily's List, says the findings underscore growing acceptance of women as candidates, even for president. "People realize that women reach across party lines and are problem-solvers, and they want to see more of that in public life," she says.
Voters under 30 were by far the most likely to say they would support a woman for president. More than half of them said they were "very likely" to vote for a woman, compared with less than one-third of those 50 and older.
I find the age gap in the last paragraph begins to confirm my suspicions about the generational differences in the US. Younger generations I think have very different views on the roles of men and women. It strikes me that debates on women in certain fields may be started by people in generations that are less accepting of women. I think that as these old men retire the workforce may even itself out and salary gaps may begin to close. But that may just be wishful thinking.
Anyway, Chicks for President!
Update: Atrios has a post on this as well.
A big gender gap. Six of 10 women but 45% of men were likely to support her.
That's not really surprising, though why not say 60% of women and 45% of men. I hate it when they round like that. It's probably like 6/10 women and 5/10 men. But this way it sounds like there is some HUGE gap. I hate journalists.
In the new survey, more than seven in 10 Americans said they would be likely to vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008 if she were running. One in five said they wouldn't be likely to vote for her.
Karen White, political director of the liberal group Emily's List, says the findings underscore growing acceptance of women as candidates, even for president. "People realize that women reach across party lines and are problem-solvers, and they want to see more of that in public life," she says.
Voters under 30 were by far the most likely to say they would support a woman for president. More than half of them said they were "very likely" to vote for a woman, compared with less than one-third of those 50 and older.
I find the age gap in the last paragraph begins to confirm my suspicions about the generational differences in the US. Younger generations I think have very different views on the roles of men and women. It strikes me that debates on women in certain fields may be started by people in generations that are less accepting of women. I think that as these old men retire the workforce may even itself out and salary gaps may begin to close. But that may just be wishful thinking.
Anyway, Chicks for President!
Update: Atrios has a post on this as well.
I'm not dead
Just in case you were worried.
I had SAS training this week. (Which will hopefully make my resume even more appealing) It was fun, but there was no internet. I met some nice people who work at FedEx and we had lunch together, that was fun.
I'm back in the office today, so hopefully I'll have something of value to say later.
Oh and by the way, any Pittsburgh residents looking for a dog, Treach is still in the shelter. Poor guy :-(
I had SAS training this week. (Which will hopefully make my resume even more appealing) It was fun, but there was no internet. I met some nice people who work at FedEx and we had lunch together, that was fun.
I'm back in the office today, so hopefully I'll have something of value to say later.
Oh and by the way, any Pittsburgh residents looking for a dog, Treach is still in the shelter. Poor guy :-(
Monday, May 23, 2005
Links to stuff you've probably already seen.
As my life/career/self-esteem/desire to continue living have all hit rock bottom and with all of that so has my ability to add anything to any discussion in the blogosphere.
So here are some links to some things all of which you have probably seen already.
Female circumcision at Ideonexus, conversation on it at Kav's
Media Bias discussions at Balloon-Juice and Protien Wisdom
Best review of the worst book ever at Quando
Open mocking at Echidne of the snakes
100 Best movies at A Small Victory
Discussing Souper-Bias or Nuclear War over at Cabal
If you can't find something entertaining in that list then well... sorry.
So here are some links to some things all of which you have probably seen already.
Female circumcision at Ideonexus, conversation on it at Kav's
Media Bias discussions at Balloon-Juice and Protien Wisdom
Best review of the worst book ever at Quando
Open mocking at Echidne of the snakes
100 Best movies at A Small Victory
Discussing Souper-Bias or Nuclear War over at Cabal
If you can't find something entertaining in that list then well... sorry.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Congratulations Class of 05
My little sister graduated from highschool tonight. We have the same alma mater, private, catholic, all girls, you get the idea. We graduate in white formal gowns (usually wedding dresses sans train and veil) and carry red roses. It's a beautiful ceremony and though I'm not a fan of tradition or girliness it made my graduation very special and unique. She looked gorgeous (of course, since we share a gene pool). I'd post pictures but I don't want you cretons oggling my sister.
I especially enjoyed the graduation speaker they had this year. It was a woman who is currently the principal of a local boys highschool. And her speech was amazing, lots of encouraging girls to be independent, to think and act independently and to strive for excellence. She pointed out all of the opportunities that women have now that they didn't have years ago. I had no idea that women once couldn't take out loans or have their own credit cards. I guess I did, but the practicality of the situation didn't sink in until I heard her say it.
But seeing them up there, all these proud independent women going of to amazing futures made me proud to be a woman. And that I think is why I liked going to a girls school. Even though I didn't get a long with most of my classmates and I didn't really fit in, I never felt like I was just a girl. Academically they expected a lot from you, they expected excellence. They expected us to compete against the boys and win. And that is something I don't think I would have gotten at a co-ed school.
I've heard people say that single sex education hurts socialization etc. But that is bullshit, if you get 60 teenage girls together, eventually they will find themselves some boys. And they will also find independence and a sense of their own self worth. Maybe that's why catholic school girls are so much trouble, we know what we want and we have the audacity to go for it. (Even if what we want is a bottle of tequila.)
Congratulations Class of 05!
I especially enjoyed the graduation speaker they had this year. It was a woman who is currently the principal of a local boys highschool. And her speech was amazing, lots of encouraging girls to be independent, to think and act independently and to strive for excellence. She pointed out all of the opportunities that women have now that they didn't have years ago. I had no idea that women once couldn't take out loans or have their own credit cards. I guess I did, but the practicality of the situation didn't sink in until I heard her say it.
But seeing them up there, all these proud independent women going of to amazing futures made me proud to be a woman. And that I think is why I liked going to a girls school. Even though I didn't get a long with most of my classmates and I didn't really fit in, I never felt like I was just a girl. Academically they expected a lot from you, they expected excellence. They expected us to compete against the boys and win. And that is something I don't think I would have gotten at a co-ed school.
I've heard people say that single sex education hurts socialization etc. But that is bullshit, if you get 60 teenage girls together, eventually they will find themselves some boys. And they will also find independence and a sense of their own self worth. Maybe that's why catholic school girls are so much trouble, we know what we want and we have the audacity to go for it. (Even if what we want is a bottle of tequila.)
Congratulations Class of 05!
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
# Ninja and the Migraine
This morning our faithful Ninja arrived at work after a 2 hour battle with a migraine that was only won after calling in reinforcements. In her in box she found an e-mail waiting for her from Dumbass. This e-mail, very politely requested that she do some copy and pasting. However Ninja has been doing this particular copying and pasting every week for the past 6 months. And this week this copying and pasting is going to be particularly useful, and so Ninja, being the amazing copy an paste artist that she is was already starting to do this when she opened the e-mail. Needless to say she was slightly peeved to be reminded to do work that she was already doing. She informed Dumbass that she had the matter well in hand and that his request was unnecessary. Dumbass declared that she was being too "sensitive."
Blogging will be light this week because I there is actually work to do AND I'm going back to St. Louis to watch the Sister of Shinobi graduate from HighSchool.
Blogging will be light this week because I there is actually work to do AND I'm going back to St. Louis to watch the Sister of Shinobi graduate from HighSchool.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Liberal MSM (with Meanwhiles)
Instapundit and several other blogs have cited this survey from the University of Conneticut today. (JD, you got your wish, they surveyed the journalists and found out about their political leanings, YAY, now we can disagree about what it means.)
Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%. In this sample of 300 journalists, from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to 1–but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a majority (53%) called their political orientation “moderate,” versus 28% liberal and 10% conservative…
You may want to read the whole article, it is very informative lots of juicy stuff, but since this came up into he comments before I will focus on the Liberal Journalists/normal people divide.
One of my concerns with this report is that it has an non representative sample.
However, the journalist part of this new poll, as with so many previous ones, seems to weigh its sample much too heavily toward managers, and so may not represent a true cross-section in the profession.
Of 300 surveyed–with 120 from TV and 180 from newspapers of different sizes–a lopsided 43% of them were news directors or editors, 4% TV producers, 5% news analysts and columnists and just 47% at the reporter level. One in three have spent 25 or more years in the field. They were overwhelmingly white (83%), largely male (70%) and relatively well-paid (with a significant number making more than $100,000).
So this could bring about some bias in the results, since there were so many very experienced journalists involved.
While the numbers from the public do show a growing distrust of the Liberal mainstream media, this is not necessarily an effect of their liberalism.
Journalists are politically not a representative sample of the American public. That is what this shows. And that is not at all surprising considering that Journalists themselves are not a representative sample of the American public in many other ways. The ones in this study were largely male, and well paid. 90% of the journalists had a college degree (compared to 23% of normal people). We should not expect the political leanings of a highly specialized group of people to look like the American public's. Would you expect the political leanings of all CEOs in the country to look like the American publics? Or even the political leanings of McDonald's employees?
Well if you would, you shouldn't. I think it would be rare to find any profession that is representative of the entire population. Every job requires certain characteristics of the workers, and Journalism probably more than most. Think about the sort of things required to motivate someone to be a journalist, it has to be a very specialized group of people. I think it would be nice if more conservatives were involved in the media, but the media is on its last legs anyway. And there are lots of good conservative bloggers!
I do not dispute the bias in the Media, I do not dispute that the media has been doing a crappy job, but I do not think that any of these things have to do with how liberal the media is. (I think some of the bias has to do with our own personal biases and) I think that they have to do with how lazy and or corrupt the media is. It is easier to talk about things that you agree with than it is to really question what is going on from an objective point of view. It is in their self interest to write stories that will get you recognized without fact checking them because this will guarantee exposure. Things like Memogate and NewsweeklyStupidity don't happen because they are liberal, these things happen because they have no incentive to do a better job. And it looks like blogs are starting to give them that incentive.
Blogs showed their growing influence among those polled as 83% of journalists reporting the use of blogs, with four out of 10 saying they use them at least once a week. Among those who use them, 55% said they do so to support their news gathering work. And even though 85% believe bloggers should enjoy First Amendment protections, 75% say bloggers are not real journalists because they don't adhere to "commonly held ethical standards."
well, neither do they.
MEANWHILE: Owlish makes a good point, what would the world be like if the media suddenly became a conservative media?
I will counter with, what if the media actually did its job, that is Reporting all of the Facts, and left the political grandstanding to the politicians. That must be my youthful idealism talking again.
Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%. In this sample of 300 journalists, from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to 1–but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a majority (53%) called their political orientation “moderate,” versus 28% liberal and 10% conservative…
You may want to read the whole article, it is very informative lots of juicy stuff, but since this came up into he comments before I will focus on the Liberal Journalists/normal people divide.
One of my concerns with this report is that it has an non representative sample.
However, the journalist part of this new poll, as with so many previous ones, seems to weigh its sample much too heavily toward managers, and so may not represent a true cross-section in the profession.
Of 300 surveyed–with 120 from TV and 180 from newspapers of different sizes–a lopsided 43% of them were news directors or editors, 4% TV producers, 5% news analysts and columnists and just 47% at the reporter level. One in three have spent 25 or more years in the field. They were overwhelmingly white (83%), largely male (70%) and relatively well-paid (with a significant number making more than $100,000).
So this could bring about some bias in the results, since there were so many very experienced journalists involved.
While the numbers from the public do show a growing distrust of the Liberal mainstream media, this is not necessarily an effect of their liberalism.
Journalists are politically not a representative sample of the American public. That is what this shows. And that is not at all surprising considering that Journalists themselves are not a representative sample of the American public in many other ways. The ones in this study were largely male, and well paid. 90% of the journalists had a college degree (compared to 23% of normal people). We should not expect the political leanings of a highly specialized group of people to look like the American public's. Would you expect the political leanings of all CEOs in the country to look like the American publics? Or even the political leanings of McDonald's employees?
Well if you would, you shouldn't. I think it would be rare to find any profession that is representative of the entire population. Every job requires certain characteristics of the workers, and Journalism probably more than most. Think about the sort of things required to motivate someone to be a journalist, it has to be a very specialized group of people. I think it would be nice if more conservatives were involved in the media, but the media is on its last legs anyway. And there are lots of good conservative bloggers!
I do not dispute the bias in the Media, I do not dispute that the media has been doing a crappy job, but I do not think that any of these things have to do with how liberal the media is. (I think some of the bias has to do with our own personal biases and) I think that they have to do with how lazy and or corrupt the media is. It is easier to talk about things that you agree with than it is to really question what is going on from an objective point of view. It is in their self interest to write stories that will get you recognized without fact checking them because this will guarantee exposure. Things like Memogate and NewsweeklyStupidity don't happen because they are liberal, these things happen because they have no incentive to do a better job. And it looks like blogs are starting to give them that incentive.
Blogs showed their growing influence among those polled as 83% of journalists reporting the use of blogs, with four out of 10 saying they use them at least once a week. Among those who use them, 55% said they do so to support their news gathering work. And even though 85% believe bloggers should enjoy First Amendment protections, 75% say bloggers are not real journalists because they don't adhere to "commonly held ethical standards."
well, neither do they.
MEANWHILE: Owlish makes a good point, what would the world be like if the media suddenly became a conservative media?
I will counter with, what if the media actually did its job, that is Reporting all of the Facts, and left the political grandstanding to the politicians. That must be my youthful idealism talking again.
Friday, May 13, 2005
My name and other issues
I made the decision when I started blogging not to use my real name. The reason for this is manyfold and I wont bore you with them, but perhaps the most important issue is that I could lose my job for the things I have said in this blog. And while I don't like my job very much it does provide food and shelter for me, and I have come to enjoy those things.
I also made the decision to post my blog on my AIM profile for friends to read, apparently forgetting that some of the people that have my screen name were not my friends. So now these people are plagueing me and forcing me to do something I hate, deleting comments, in order to preserve the anonymity which I have been very careful to maintain.
If someone has a question for me they are free to ask me in private after identifying themselves and I will also be free to answer them. But anonymous posts in my blog comments that reveal personal information that I have worked carefully to hide are unlikely to extract any information from me beyond a sharp reminder that that poster is in fact quite rude. (In case you missed it, this is the sharp reminder. I'm tired.)
If you want to talk, send me an e-mail. If you have a comment on a post, then please feel free to share.
And, I am deliberately not answering your question because I am deeply offended by the manner in which you chose to ask it. You know me, so you know how to contact me, and if you really want to know the answer you can give me a call or send me an IM and I might tell you.
I also made the decision to post my blog on my AIM profile for friends to read, apparently forgetting that some of the people that have my screen name were not my friends. So now these people are plagueing me and forcing me to do something I hate, deleting comments, in order to preserve the anonymity which I have been very careful to maintain.
If someone has a question for me they are free to ask me in private after identifying themselves and I will also be free to answer them. But anonymous posts in my blog comments that reveal personal information that I have worked carefully to hide are unlikely to extract any information from me beyond a sharp reminder that that poster is in fact quite rude. (In case you missed it, this is the sharp reminder. I'm tired.)
If you want to talk, send me an e-mail. If you have a comment on a post, then please feel free to share.
And, I am deliberately not answering your question because I am deeply offended by the manner in which you chose to ask it. You know me, so you know how to contact me, and if you really want to know the answer you can give me a call or send me an IM and I might tell you.
The Birds and the Birds
Conversations with hypothetical offspring of my little sister:
"Auntie Shinobi, What's The Gay?"
"Well sweety, when two boys or two girls love eachother very much they move in together, decorate their new apartment and buy dogs. That's The Gay."
"Do they get Married?"
"No, they can't get married because the adults are afraid of them."
"Oh, Can I pet their doggies?"
Try as hard as I can, I still don't understand why people want to ban gay marriage. I am trying to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and find a reason not based on bigotry and I can't think of one. Is there some kind of economic benefit we gain by preventing more people from marrying? If so, why do we not do away with straight marriage as well? If we are so concerned with the sanctity of marriage then we shouldn't we be doing away with things like divorce, and the entire city of Las Vegas?
I read this really well thought out article by Eugene Volokh. And he points out a lot of the flaws in the Nebraska ruling and depressed me even further with the realization that it probably wont stand up to scrutiny. So in order to comfort myself I decided to try and rationalize why 70% of the members of the voting population of Nebraska want to prevent gay marriage in the hopes that I could convince myself to agree with them. And though I have tried, I cannot. Can someone explain it to me?
"Auntie Shinobi, What's The Gay?"
"Well sweety, when two boys or two girls love eachother very much they move in together, decorate their new apartment and buy dogs. That's The Gay."
"Do they get Married?"
"No, they can't get married because the adults are afraid of them."
"Oh, Can I pet their doggies?"
Try as hard as I can, I still don't understand why people want to ban gay marriage. I am trying to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and find a reason not based on bigotry and I can't think of one. Is there some kind of economic benefit we gain by preventing more people from marrying? If so, why do we not do away with straight marriage as well? If we are so concerned with the sanctity of marriage then we shouldn't we be doing away with things like divorce, and the entire city of Las Vegas?
I read this really well thought out article by Eugene Volokh. And he points out a lot of the flaws in the Nebraska ruling and depressed me even further with the realization that it probably wont stand up to scrutiny. So in order to comfort myself I decided to try and rationalize why 70% of the members of the voting population of Nebraska want to prevent gay marriage in the hopes that I could convince myself to agree with them. And though I have tried, I cannot. Can someone explain it to me?
Bolton
I'm back today. Left work early yesterday because I was sick, so I WoWed and slept all afternoon. Didja miss me? No? Thought not.
This morning I've read 3 posts on John Bolton. All of them are pro his confirmation.
I'm pretty on the fence about Bolton. Some people seem to that he is what the UN needs, I tend to disagree. I myself am not very good at being diplomatic. I tend to tell people exactly what I think in the crudest terms imaginable. (You can ask my best friend who I nagged for 5 years to break up with her boyfriend with complete disregard for her feelings in the matter.) This is why I, will never work at the UN. For while being obtuse and mean may work with friends or subordinates, it does not work with other diplomats.
Now, I'm not trying to say that John Bolton actually is that big of an asshole, because I don't know him. But Senator Voynavich seems to think that he is. This concerns me, why? To explain I will use a quote from Independance Day which I recently re watched "The LA Police department have asked citizens to refrain from firing their guns at the spaceship, you may inadvertantly trigger an interstellar war." Similarly I would ask that John bolton refrain from insulting members of the UN, he may inadvertantly make things worse for us.
I am sure he will get confirmed and everyone will forget all of the partisan posturing that has been going on. But my private hope is that Congress will actually make a decision based on what is best for the country which may or may not be confirming Bolton. Whoa... sorry what? I must be crazy.
But my personal opinion is that we need a Dick in the UN, not another Asshole. Why? Because Dick's can fuck those pussies in the UN, and dicks can also fuck the assholes. (Go Team America!!!)
This morning I've read 3 posts on John Bolton. All of them are pro his confirmation.
I'm pretty on the fence about Bolton. Some people seem to that he is what the UN needs, I tend to disagree. I myself am not very good at being diplomatic. I tend to tell people exactly what I think in the crudest terms imaginable. (You can ask my best friend who I nagged for 5 years to break up with her boyfriend with complete disregard for her feelings in the matter.) This is why I, will never work at the UN. For while being obtuse and mean may work with friends or subordinates, it does not work with other diplomats.
Now, I'm not trying to say that John Bolton actually is that big of an asshole, because I don't know him. But Senator Voynavich seems to think that he is. This concerns me, why? To explain I will use a quote from Independance Day which I recently re watched "The LA Police department have asked citizens to refrain from firing their guns at the spaceship, you may inadvertantly trigger an interstellar war." Similarly I would ask that John bolton refrain from insulting members of the UN, he may inadvertantly make things worse for us.
I am sure he will get confirmed and everyone will forget all of the partisan posturing that has been going on. But my private hope is that Congress will actually make a decision based on what is best for the country which may or may not be confirming Bolton. Whoa... sorry what? I must be crazy.
But my personal opinion is that we need a Dick in the UN, not another Asshole. Why? Because Dick's can fuck those pussies in the UN, and dicks can also fuck the assholes. (Go Team America!!!)
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Typography
Spent the last hour or so reading through this PEW Typology study. (Via Michelle Malkin, okay, I admit it, I want to be her when I grow up.)
Gerry at DalyThoughts has a great summary of the report for people who don't want to read the whole thing. (for instance anyone in their right mind)
One thing that I noticed in the study that I found really interesting was this-
In an era when virtually all political issues are seen through partisan lenses, the political typology still finds numerous value cleavages in American society, many of which cut across party lines. In fact, public values about security and the use of military force are among the only value dimensions in which Republican and Democratic groups clearly align on opposite sides, and, even here, the intensity of opinion differs significantly within each coalition.
The divide on this subject is much clearer than any of the other issues I saw mapped out. There is a clear difference between the parties. (This takes the blame off of religious conservativism which seems like it has been blamed a lot for recent between party animosity. The Pew study shows this not exclusively a Republican value. Conservative democrats make up 15% of the population and tend to be more religious and to agree more with Republicans on issues like gay marriage. )
So it looks like the main issues dividing the country along party lines are the Use of Force and the War on Terrorism, not Terry Schiavo or Supreme Court justices. I think this is something that both parties should take note of for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Gerry at DalyThoughts has a great summary of the report for people who don't want to read the whole thing. (for instance anyone in their right mind)
One thing that I noticed in the study that I found really interesting was this-
In an era when virtually all political issues are seen through partisan lenses, the political typology still finds numerous value cleavages in American society, many of which cut across party lines. In fact, public values about security and the use of military force are among the only value dimensions in which Republican and Democratic groups clearly align on opposite sides, and, even here, the intensity of opinion differs significantly within each coalition.
The divide on this subject is much clearer than any of the other issues I saw mapped out. There is a clear difference between the parties. (This takes the blame off of religious conservativism which seems like it has been blamed a lot for recent between party animosity. The Pew study shows this not exclusively a Republican value. Conservative democrats make up 15% of the population and tend to be more religious and to agree more with Republicans on issues like gay marriage. )
So it looks like the main issues dividing the country along party lines are the Use of Force and the War on Terrorism, not Terry Schiavo or Supreme Court justices. I think this is something that both parties should take note of for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
The Biggest Idiot on THP (with Meanwhiles!)
Jim Lampley posted this FASCINATING post on The Huffington Post today. Really, full of facts and stuff. Um. Yeah. (Via atrios)
Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.
And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.
I admit, it is rather odd that the exit polls would be so wrong. But there are many possible explanations for such a discrepancy.
As Mr. Lampley points out
It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research [and its uncanny accuracy and validity. !?!?!?!]
Apparently Jim went to a completely different school of social research than the one I went to. But maybe it is just because I only have an undergraduate degree that I understand how delicate polling can be. Only someone with a basic university education could possibly understand that a poll is only as good as it sample and that exit polls are imprecise at best because they cannot be completely random.
It is clearly unreasonable to think that that exit pollers were swamped by democrats eager to give their opinions and passed by by Dubya's supporters. And how could I even question the validity of the always precise pollsters by pointing out that maybe their representatives were located in areas that tended to lean left. Obviously someone who spends their life talking while sweaty guys punch each other is the man we should be listening to when it comes to exit polling. No? Hmm.
We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, that's why there are identifiable margins for error.
Actually, what we know is that 95% of the time the data will fall within those margins of error. So, 5 % of the time the data falls outside of the range, in other words, 5% of the time the polls will be WRONG.
I know, I with a mere B.S. could not possibly comprehend how implausible it is that the exit polls are wrong. If you don't believe me, look at this post by the much more informed Mark Blumenthal at Mystery Pollster. (Which by the way was posted a long time ago, like... Near when the election actually happened as opposed to half a year later.)
I'm sorry Jim, I'm upset that Bush won too, but sadly exit polls are not evidence of vote tampering. It is possible that the votes were tampered with. And really, I wish I believed that they were. But I think that the probability of the polls being wrong is .05 and the probability of national vote tampering is probably closer to .0000000001
I would also like to add that conspiracy theories that eschew logic, reason and science are probably not the best way to help the already beleaguered left.
UPDATE: John Cole has a post on this and he pointed me to John Conyers who backs up Lampley's ridiculous accusations with a little movie somebody made. Oh god, I'm so ashamed that I voted democrat right now.
MEANWHILE: The Mystery Pollster has posted a response to the Lampley debacle. He has a lot of good links and more information on the entire exit poll debate. Definetly worth a read.
Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.
And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.
I admit, it is rather odd that the exit polls would be so wrong. But there are many possible explanations for such a discrepancy.
As Mr. Lampley points out
It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research [and its uncanny accuracy and validity. !?!?!?!]
Apparently Jim went to a completely different school of social research than the one I went to. But maybe it is just because I only have an undergraduate degree that I understand how delicate polling can be. Only someone with a basic university education could possibly understand that a poll is only as good as it sample and that exit polls are imprecise at best because they cannot be completely random.
It is clearly unreasonable to think that that exit pollers were swamped by democrats eager to give their opinions and passed by by Dubya's supporters. And how could I even question the validity of the always precise pollsters by pointing out that maybe their representatives were located in areas that tended to lean left. Obviously someone who spends their life talking while sweaty guys punch each other is the man we should be listening to when it comes to exit polling. No? Hmm.
We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, that's why there are identifiable margins for error.
Actually, what we know is that 95% of the time the data will fall within those margins of error. So, 5 % of the time the data falls outside of the range, in other words, 5% of the time the polls will be WRONG.
I know, I with a mere B.S. could not possibly comprehend how implausible it is that the exit polls are wrong. If you don't believe me, look at this post by the much more informed Mark Blumenthal at Mystery Pollster. (Which by the way was posted a long time ago, like... Near when the election actually happened as opposed to half a year later.)
I'm sorry Jim, I'm upset that Bush won too, but sadly exit polls are not evidence of vote tampering. It is possible that the votes were tampered with. And really, I wish I believed that they were. But I think that the probability of the polls being wrong is .05 and the probability of national vote tampering is probably closer to .0000000001
I would also like to add that conspiracy theories that eschew logic, reason and science are probably not the best way to help the already beleaguered left.
UPDATE: John Cole has a post on this and he pointed me to John Conyers who backs up Lampley's ridiculous accusations with a little movie somebody made. Oh god, I'm so ashamed that I voted democrat right now.
MEANWHILE: The Mystery Pollster has posted a response to the Lampley debacle. He has a lot of good links and more information on the entire exit poll debate. Definetly worth a read.
I'm not Biased, YOU are!
As an outraged centrist, I am long weary of hearing about how liberal/not liberal enough most of the media is. It is an un-ending conversation. I am not going to propose an end to it unfortunately. I am going to point out however that this conversation is inevitable, and fruitless.
The Hostile Media Phenomenon-Opposite groups, such as at football matches, will both perceive balanced and neutral views as hostile to their side.
This phenomenon has been documented in several experiments using both political ideologies as well as sports coverage.
Controlling for the same news clips, subjects differed along partisan lines on simple, objective criteria such as the number of references to a given subject. As such, the hostile media effect is not just a difference of opinion but a difference of perception.
So this argument is inevitable. Even if the media were completely unbiased we would still percieve it as being biased against our side, whichever side that may be.
Now obviously the media is not unbiased. But I think they are biased in their own special way. They have a ratings bias. They write and publish things that get them traffic or ratings. They don't cover things that are only interesting to small pockets of the population, and they find stories that while not all that important are entertaining. (Runaway Brides, fingers in chili, that sort of thing.)
All I'm saying is next time you get mad about something you think it is biased, remember maybe it isn't the story that's biased, maybe it is you.
(This came up because of the comments in this post over at Kav's blog, and I decided to post about it because I got tired of copying and pasting data.)
The Hostile Media Phenomenon-Opposite groups, such as at football matches, will both perceive balanced and neutral views as hostile to their side.
This phenomenon has been documented in several experiments using both political ideologies as well as sports coverage.
Controlling for the same news clips, subjects differed along partisan lines on simple, objective criteria such as the number of references to a given subject. As such, the hostile media effect is not just a difference of opinion but a difference of perception.
So this argument is inevitable. Even if the media were completely unbiased we would still percieve it as being biased against our side, whichever side that may be.
Now obviously the media is not unbiased. But I think they are biased in their own special way. They have a ratings bias. They write and publish things that get them traffic or ratings. They don't cover things that are only interesting to small pockets of the population, and they find stories that while not all that important are entertaining. (Runaway Brides, fingers in chili, that sort of thing.)
All I'm saying is next time you get mad about something you think it is biased, remember maybe it isn't the story that's biased, maybe it is you.
(This came up because of the comments in this post over at Kav's blog, and I decided to post about it because I got tired of copying and pasting data.)
Good Advice
Good advice today from John Hawkins. (via Michelle Malkin AGAIN! shock)
7) If you're an attractive woman, you can gain a lot of extra traffic over time by posting pics. Maybe you think that's sexist, maybe not, but it has been proven to work time and time again.
I like that one a lot. But sadly I am doomed to be trafficless, for-
25) Given that there are plenty of people who've been fired or disciplined at work either for blogging on the job or for something they said on their blog, the fewer people at your job who know about your blog, the better.
If I put my picture on it, that would kinda give the game away now wouldn't it. ::sigh:: Maybe someday when I haven't been calling my boss a dumbass recently I will post pictures and then you can all come oogle me.
Until I get another job, or get fired, I will simply attempt to improve the quality of my content so that people might actually want to read what I have to say. But first it is time for the #Ninja to copy and paste things from one excel file to another. I went to college for THIS?
7) If you're an attractive woman, you can gain a lot of extra traffic over time by posting pics. Maybe you think that's sexist, maybe not, but it has been proven to work time and time again.
I like that one a lot. But sadly I am doomed to be trafficless, for-
25) Given that there are plenty of people who've been fired or disciplined at work either for blogging on the job or for something they said on their blog, the fewer people at your job who know about your blog, the better.
If I put my picture on it, that would kinda give the game away now wouldn't it. ::sigh:: Maybe someday when I haven't been calling my boss a dumbass recently I will post pictures and then you can all come oogle me.
Until I get another job, or get fired, I will simply attempt to improve the quality of my content so that people might actually want to read what I have to say. But first it is time for the #Ninja to copy and paste things from one excel file to another. I went to college for THIS?
Monday, May 09, 2005
Celeblogs
If I had tags, I would file this under bitter.
Everyone is posting about Ariana Huffingtons new blogthingy. Some people are being optimistic about its future and nice about it. Others, well.... is this optimism?
I however, will be reading and posting on This blog instead. (Via Michele Malkin who I never thought I would link to) I really like their title too!
I think the reason I was attracted to the blogosphere is that it seems to in some way reward individuals who are intelligent and who have things to say. (hence, no traffic for me) And while I have respect for celebrities, and think that it is great that they have opinions I can turn on the TV at any time and find out what they think, that's why I don't watch TV news anymore.
I'm not saying that I dont think celebrities should have blogs. I think they should, and if they have valuable things to say I will link to them and read them as individauls. But I think that to create a powerhouse of recognizable names and a blogroll of the most popular blogs etc... well, it's just unfair to the rest of us.
Arianna Huffington's makes me think of building a megamall full of chains right next to a street with lots of high quality privately owned shops.
Or is it the Celebrity DU?
I could name dozens of blogs with far more insight, intelligence, and worth that will never get mentioned in the media, yet because a handful of vapid Hollywood twats is throwing their names into the fray, this site will get ungarnered attention.
Everyone is posting about Ariana Huffingtons new blogthingy. Some people are being optimistic about its future and nice about it. Others, well.... is this optimism?
I however, will be reading and posting on This blog instead. (Via Michele Malkin who I never thought I would link to) I really like their title too!
I think the reason I was attracted to the blogosphere is that it seems to in some way reward individuals who are intelligent and who have things to say. (hence, no traffic for me) And while I have respect for celebrities, and think that it is great that they have opinions I can turn on the TV at any time and find out what they think, that's why I don't watch TV news anymore.
I'm not saying that I dont think celebrities should have blogs. I think they should, and if they have valuable things to say I will link to them and read them as individauls. But I think that to create a powerhouse of recognizable names and a blogroll of the most popular blogs etc... well, it's just unfair to the rest of us.
Arianna Huffington's makes me think of building a megamall full of chains right next to a street with lots of high quality privately owned shops.
Or is it the Celebrity DU?
I could name dozens of blogs with far more insight, intelligence, and worth that will never get mentioned in the media, yet because a handful of vapid Hollywood twats is throwing their names into the fray, this site will get ungarnered attention.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Dog Blogging
Yeah so, I think cat blogging is dumb. Dog blogging is equally dumb. But I'm going to do it anyway on the off chance that anyone in the Pittsburgh area is looking to adopt a dog and might actually read this blog. HAH!
This is my buddy Treach (not to be confused with Treacher, who, sadly is not my buddy, because he doesn't know me.) Treach is a big boy and can be a little intimidating. But fortunately He's great with kids and is very smart and friendly. We spent last saturday together at Petsmart shopping for a new family, but he didn't find any that he really liked. He needs a nice family to spoil him and fatten him up a bit.
And this is Bruiser. He's a sweet puppy who lost one of his legs. He's still learning to get around, but he desperately needs someone to love him and tell him it will all be okay.
Support your local animal shelter. And have a nice weekend.
This is my buddy Treach (not to be confused with Treacher, who, sadly is not my buddy, because he doesn't know me.) Treach is a big boy and can be a little intimidating. But fortunately He's great with kids and is very smart and friendly. We spent last saturday together at Petsmart shopping for a new family, but he didn't find any that he really liked. He needs a nice family to spoil him and fatten him up a bit.
And this is Bruiser. He's a sweet puppy who lost one of his legs. He's still learning to get around, but he desperately needs someone to love him and tell him it will all be okay.
Support your local animal shelter. And have a nice weekend.
Drugs Are Bad
And if you do drugs, you are bad. Digby at Hullabaloo has a great post on the "War on Drugs" and how it's really a "war on marajuana." Anyway, go read Digby's article because he's a good writer, and I am not.
”Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” HL Mencken.
And now here's something we hope you'll really like:
(via Kav)
1. What is your favorite word?
Uhm. I like prime numbers.
2. What is your least favorite word?
potentially (Because Dumbass says it like Poe- tentially, AHHHHHHH it makes my brain itch)
3. What turns you on creatively, spiritually or emotionally?
Reading, being with freinds
4. What turns you off?
Boringness, close mindedness
5. What is your favorite curse word?
Fuck
6. What sound or noise do you love?
Click
7. What sound or noise do you hate?
The sound of a television that isn't playing anything
8. What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
Directing, Singer, Author, Pundit
9. What profession would you not like to do?
Anything medical, it gives me the creepy crawlies
10. If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?
"Well well, certainly fucked that up didn't we, want another go?"
Since I'll never get to be on Inside the Actors studio much to my dismay.
”Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” HL Mencken.
And now here's something we hope you'll really like:
(via Kav)
1. What is your favorite word?
Uhm. I like prime numbers.
2. What is your least favorite word?
potentially (Because Dumbass says it like Poe- tentially, AHHHHHHH it makes my brain itch)
3. What turns you on creatively, spiritually or emotionally?
Reading, being with freinds
4. What turns you off?
Boringness, close mindedness
5. What is your favorite curse word?
Fuck
6. What sound or noise do you love?
Click
7. What sound or noise do you hate?
The sound of a television that isn't playing anything
8. What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
Directing, Singer, Author, Pundit
9. What profession would you not like to do?
Anything medical, it gives me the creepy crawlies
10. If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?
"Well well, certainly fucked that up didn't we, want another go?"
Since I'll never get to be on Inside the Actors studio much to my dismay.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Is your sperm the Gay?
The FDA is going to implement new policies that prevent homosexual men from being sperm donors.
“Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he’s been celibate for five years,” said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, Calif., that seeks gay sperm donors.
Disgusting.
I don't find the idea of sperm donors appealing, nor do I understand what would motivate someone to donate their sperm. However in my opinion this clause constitutes discrimination based on sexual preferences, not an attempt to improve safety standards for sperm donors. Improved safety standards would involve tighter screening procedures for ALL potential donors, not simply preventing an entire group from participating.
This caring thing is so tiring, I quit.
“Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he’s been celibate for five years,” said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, Calif., that seeks gay sperm donors.
Disgusting.
I don't find the idea of sperm donors appealing, nor do I understand what would motivate someone to donate their sperm. However in my opinion this clause constitutes discrimination based on sexual preferences, not an attempt to improve safety standards for sperm donors. Improved safety standards would involve tighter screening procedures for ALL potential donors, not simply preventing an entire group from participating.
This caring thing is so tiring, I quit.
Survey of Superficiality
Oh My god, like, I totally hate it when guys have like, back hair and stuff.
Ugh, I'm gagging. MSNBC and Elle have done a "survey" of people's pet peeves while dating. The article is pretty careful not to attribute anything to the whole american population. And I can't say the results surprise me considering the survey was of people who read Elle. Barf.
However mostt of their survey seemed to have to do with basic hygene and physical appearance, breast sizes, weight, bad breath, back hair. How does porn affect your image of your partner? type stuff. Yuck.
I wonder if they even ASKED about anything besides personal hygene? How is crooked teeth a dating pet peeve? It sounds to me like a superficial hang up. All of the questions were like that. So I will provide a list of my own dating pet peeves for any desperate losers waiting around for me and BF to break up.
My Dating Pet Peeves:
Ugh, I'm gagging. MSNBC and Elle have done a "survey" of people's pet peeves while dating. The article is pretty careful not to attribute anything to the whole american population. And I can't say the results surprise me considering the survey was of people who read Elle. Barf.
However mostt of their survey seemed to have to do with basic hygene and physical appearance, breast sizes, weight, bad breath, back hair. How does porn affect your image of your partner? type stuff. Yuck.
I wonder if they even ASKED about anything besides personal hygene? How is crooked teeth a dating pet peeve? It sounds to me like a superficial hang up. All of the questions were like that. So I will provide a list of my own dating pet peeves for any desperate losers waiting around for me and BF to break up.
My Dating Pet Peeves:
- forcing me to read bad poetry
- trying to impress me with extensive knowledge of only one topic
- failing to discuss ANYTHING but that one thing you know a lot about (beer, cars, heavy metal, etc.)
- agreeing with me all of the time
- stalking me
I have one superficial requirement: Men must be taller than 5'10," I'm 6' and I think it is reasonable for me to only date men taller than the shortest member of my family. (Okay smartasses, I know what you're thinking and that does NOT count as a date.)
So yeah, if I'm on the market again anytime soon, (Unlikely) now you know how not to piss me off. Basically, have a personality. I figure personal grooming is something that can be fixed, but boringness there is no cure for.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
What a Dvork
Bill Dvorkin has a fascinating article on bloggers and their role in "unredacting" the "redacted" pentagon document about the Italian hostage. (Via Atrios) Apparently he doesn't think to highly of us.
But some NPR listeners and cyber-savvy bloggers (people who run personal Web sites on the Internet) soon discovered if they downloaded the document from npr.org and translated it into another format, the edited portions could be restored.
The unexpurgated document was then posted on a number of Web sites. It included details of U.S. Army policies and procedures in hostage cases, as well as the names of the military personnel involved in the killing of the Italian agent.
First, it is essential to report on government documents. But in this case, publishing the unedited report (albeit unintentionally) could have -- and could yet -- threaten peoples' lives.
I agree with Mr Dvorkin. I think there is such a thing as responsible reporting. And revealing information that could be dangerous is bad.
But who is really at fault here? I don't think it is the bloggers who linked the unredacted document, or even the people who discovered how to uncensored it. It doesn't take a genius to manipulate a .pdf file. The pentagon could have done a better job of securing this information in the first place. At least now the pentagon knows that we know this information. How much worse could it have been if one lone terrorist discovered how to uncensored this document and use the knowledge against us. I hope, if anything the Pentagon learns from this little escapade.
Mr. Dvorkin goes on to discuss how younger groups are moving to internet news instead of clumsy newspaper and television. And then we have this little gem:
Those who rely on the Internet as their primary source of news keeps growing compared to other media sources. This group also considers Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show on Comedy Central, to be the most trusted television anchor.
I can tell you why this tech savvy generation prefers to listen to Jon Stewart. Because he isn't full of Bullshit! The world is full of ridiculous amounts of irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and The Daily Show Calls them on it. It stimulates our grey matter by making you think about issues instead of just expounding on what the right thinks versus the left, repeating things we already know. The daily show questions conventional "wisdom" and that is a beautiful thing.
Even more beautiful, On Monday night Jon Stewart had on Zell Miller on and at the end of the interview he told his guest that he disagreed with him, but that he was sure they both had the best interests of the country at heart. You don't get that with network news! You get Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, need I say more?
The appeal of the blogs? Humor seems to be the biggest attraction. Ironic detachment from the news, an ability to deflate egos and refreshing, undisguised opinion are also valued. All are antithetical to most news organizations.
I do admit I enjoy the humor. And the egodeflation. But at least you know that what I'm saying is opinion, and I'm not disguising my bias with real news.
American newspapers traditionally and scrupulously segregate fact-based reporting from opinion by designating pages for each. Radio and television try to ensure that opinion remains secondary to reporting. Conclusions should be drawn warily.
Okay, that is bull. Maybe the writers of newspapers aren't coming right out and SAYING this is their opinion. But they don't present a complete picture all of the time. They chose to cover the stories that are important to them, that further their interests. And they can put a positive or negative spin on a story without coming out and calling it opinion. The beauty of the blogosphere is that you KNOW it is someone's opinion. But you can still find the facts within the writing.
Bloggers tend not to care if they, and their readers conflate opinion and fact. It's part of the appeal of the blogosphere.
If one of my 2 readers confused something I stated as an opinion and thought it was a fact I would most certainly care. But I think most people can tell the difference between facts an opinions. Opinions can be value judgments, like "Dobson is a Child abuser". There is no way to quantify the phrase "Dobson is a Child abuser" Even if I offer lots of proof for that statement it is still an opinion based on how I define a Child Abuser. However if I say "Dobson writes books that promote the use of violence as a form of discipline." That can be easily verified by reading one of his books.
As news organizations fight to regain their battered credibility and vanishing audiences, the blogs and the number of people who read them continue to grow. The blogs entertain, they provoke, and they are not constrained by journalistic standards of truth telling.
I am not constrained by journalistic standards of truth telling, no. But I am constrained by the ability of my audience to double check the things I say and to disagree with me. In fact, if something I say is wrong, they can post it in my comments and I will either update my post or mock them because I am intimidated by their intelligence.
But you know for a member of the unbiased media this "ombudsman" seems to have a lot of opinions of his own;
Can the MSM adopt any blog values to attract the younger audience? Or should we wait and see? Perhaps these younger people will outgrow these youthful informational indiscretions and come to their senses -- and back to media that can serve them best...
I have my doubts...
Informational indescretions? Where was this guy during Rathergate? I don't think that the youth of today will out grow their desire to participate in the news network. I don't think that they will go tired of conversing on issues and sharing facts with each other. The media has long ago stopped serving this generation. They tried to brainwash us, and it backfired.
We have control now, we can cover the stories we want, and get information from all over the world in the click of a mouse. We have control of OUR media and I'll be damned if they are going to take it away from us.
UPDATE:
Over lunch on the first day of the conference a representative from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs discussed strategies to counteract critical viewpoints of the non-lethal weapons programme in the media. ........ She admitted, however, that they ‘still don’t know how to handle the bloggers’. (Via Instapundit)
All I can say to that is, Good!
But some NPR listeners and cyber-savvy bloggers (people who run personal Web sites on the Internet) soon discovered if they downloaded the document from npr.org and translated it into another format, the edited portions could be restored.
The unexpurgated document was then posted on a number of Web sites. It included details of U.S. Army policies and procedures in hostage cases, as well as the names of the military personnel involved in the killing of the Italian agent.
First, it is essential to report on government documents. But in this case, publishing the unedited report (albeit unintentionally) could have -- and could yet -- threaten peoples' lives.
I agree with Mr Dvorkin. I think there is such a thing as responsible reporting. And revealing information that could be dangerous is bad.
But who is really at fault here? I don't think it is the bloggers who linked the unredacted document, or even the people who discovered how to uncensored it. It doesn't take a genius to manipulate a .pdf file. The pentagon could have done a better job of securing this information in the first place. At least now the pentagon knows that we know this information. How much worse could it have been if one lone terrorist discovered how to uncensored this document and use the knowledge against us. I hope, if anything the Pentagon learns from this little escapade.
Mr. Dvorkin goes on to discuss how younger groups are moving to internet news instead of clumsy newspaper and television. And then we have this little gem:
Those who rely on the Internet as their primary source of news keeps growing compared to other media sources. This group also considers Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show on Comedy Central, to be the most trusted television anchor.
I can tell you why this tech savvy generation prefers to listen to Jon Stewart. Because he isn't full of Bullshit! The world is full of ridiculous amounts of irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and The Daily Show Calls them on it. It stimulates our grey matter by making you think about issues instead of just expounding on what the right thinks versus the left, repeating things we already know. The daily show questions conventional "wisdom" and that is a beautiful thing.
Even more beautiful, On Monday night Jon Stewart had on Zell Miller on and at the end of the interview he told his guest that he disagreed with him, but that he was sure they both had the best interests of the country at heart. You don't get that with network news! You get Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, need I say more?
The appeal of the blogs? Humor seems to be the biggest attraction. Ironic detachment from the news, an ability to deflate egos and refreshing, undisguised opinion are also valued. All are antithetical to most news organizations.
I do admit I enjoy the humor. And the egodeflation. But at least you know that what I'm saying is opinion, and I'm not disguising my bias with real news.
American newspapers traditionally and scrupulously segregate fact-based reporting from opinion by designating pages for each. Radio and television try to ensure that opinion remains secondary to reporting. Conclusions should be drawn warily.
Okay, that is bull. Maybe the writers of newspapers aren't coming right out and SAYING this is their opinion. But they don't present a complete picture all of the time. They chose to cover the stories that are important to them, that further their interests. And they can put a positive or negative spin on a story without coming out and calling it opinion. The beauty of the blogosphere is that you KNOW it is someone's opinion. But you can still find the facts within the writing.
Bloggers tend not to care if they, and their readers conflate opinion and fact. It's part of the appeal of the blogosphere.
If one of my 2 readers confused something I stated as an opinion and thought it was a fact I would most certainly care. But I think most people can tell the difference between facts an opinions. Opinions can be value judgments, like "Dobson is a Child abuser". There is no way to quantify the phrase "Dobson is a Child abuser" Even if I offer lots of proof for that statement it is still an opinion based on how I define a Child Abuser. However if I say "Dobson writes books that promote the use of violence as a form of discipline." That can be easily verified by reading one of his books.
As news organizations fight to regain their battered credibility and vanishing audiences, the blogs and the number of people who read them continue to grow. The blogs entertain, they provoke, and they are not constrained by journalistic standards of truth telling.
I am not constrained by journalistic standards of truth telling, no. But I am constrained by the ability of my audience to double check the things I say and to disagree with me. In fact, if something I say is wrong, they can post it in my comments and I will either update my post or mock them because I am intimidated by their intelligence.
But you know for a member of the unbiased media this "ombudsman" seems to have a lot of opinions of his own;
Can the MSM adopt any blog values to attract the younger audience? Or should we wait and see? Perhaps these younger people will outgrow these youthful informational indiscretions and come to their senses -- and back to media that can serve them best...
I have my doubts...
Informational indescretions? Where was this guy during Rathergate? I don't think that the youth of today will out grow their desire to participate in the news network. I don't think that they will go tired of conversing on issues and sharing facts with each other. The media has long ago stopped serving this generation. They tried to brainwash us, and it backfired.
We have control now, we can cover the stories we want, and get information from all over the world in the click of a mouse. We have control of OUR media and I'll be damned if they are going to take it away from us.
UPDATE:
Over lunch on the first day of the conference a representative from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs discussed strategies to counteract critical viewpoints of the non-lethal weapons programme in the media. ........ She admitted, however, that they ‘still don’t know how to handle the bloggers’. (Via Instapundit)
All I can say to that is, Good!
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
To war, or not to war
A memo from across the pond implies that this matter wasn't so much under discussion. It looks like we were just looking for some justification. That is the full text of the memo (I believe). Some choice bits of nosh:
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
and later:
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
Honestly, if I'd wanted to make Bush look really bad, this is the memo I would have written. I wonder if it is a fake? The stir has beein going on in the British Press for a couple of days now though.
Here is a very very lefty article on this. And here's an article in the Washington post where I got the Memo, mostly about Tony Blair's situation. Here is something detailing what is going on in the US political arena. (i.e. nothing) Via Atrios
Helloooooo Liberal Mainstream MEEEDIAAAA where AAAAREEEE YOOOOOOOOOU!!!
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
and later:
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
Honestly, if I'd wanted to make Bush look really bad, this is the memo I would have written. I wonder if it is a fake? The stir has beein going on in the British Press for a couple of days now though.
Here is a very very lefty article on this. And here's an article in the Washington post where I got the Memo, mostly about Tony Blair's situation. Here is something detailing what is going on in the US political arena. (i.e. nothing) Via Atrios
Helloooooo Liberal Mainstream MEEEDIAAAA where AAAAREEEE YOOOOOOOOOU!!!
Call the ASPCA
I love animals. I feel that since humans have taken over this planet we have a responsibility to care for the furry things whose homes we have made more dangerous or non existant. Especially the critters who we have domesticated. (Horses, cows, dogs, cats... not really chickens cause they are annoying, but you get the idea.) So obviously I would not be pleased when I read the following excerpt from James Dobson's book (from Hullabaloo):
"When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. "Get lost!"
"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me "reason" with Mr. Freud."
"What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!"
How insecure do you have to be to have power struggles with your dog? Yuck. Someone should call the ASPCA and I will adopt Mr. Freud, he can come to tiny apartment and he can sleep wherever he wants and chase my cats. It will be lovely.
This excerpt is from Dobson's book(The Strong Willed Child), if this is how he treats his dog, I don't want to know how he treats his kids. Psycho. This book is part of his program "Focus on Family" which is to be advertised during ABC's Supernanny.
Now, let me just say, I think the Nanny who stars in this show would be DISGUSTED to see/hear/read this man's theories on child rearing. She is british so I doubt she'll find out about it. (I like Nanny 911 better, but both shows make me realize how lucky I am that my parents are semi-rational.) Any good this show is doing will be undone by this man's idiocy. Here is a link to Max Blumenthal who has contact info for the FCC, if you are as idealistically outraged as I am then you should write them an outraged note. I know I am going to.
"When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. "Get lost!"
"I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me "reason" with Mr. Freud."
"What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!"
How insecure do you have to be to have power struggles with your dog? Yuck. Someone should call the ASPCA and I will adopt Mr. Freud, he can come to tiny apartment and he can sleep wherever he wants and chase my cats. It will be lovely.
This excerpt is from Dobson's book(The Strong Willed Child), if this is how he treats his dog, I don't want to know how he treats his kids. Psycho. This book is part of his program "Focus on Family" which is to be advertised during ABC's Supernanny.
Now, let me just say, I think the Nanny who stars in this show would be DISGUSTED to see/hear/read this man's theories on child rearing. She is british so I doubt she'll find out about it. (I like Nanny 911 better, but both shows make me realize how lucky I am that my parents are semi-rational.) Any good this show is doing will be undone by this man's idiocy. Here is a link to Max Blumenthal who has contact info for the FCC, if you are as idealistically outraged as I am then you should write them an outraged note. I know I am going to.
Monday, May 02, 2005
My Idea of Torture
is being forced into conversations with devout Christians who assume that since their opinions are based on their faith that I also would agree with them. This, is my idea of torture.
According to 60 Minutes Our Government's Idea of torture is:
As she stood in front of him, she slowly started to unbutton her army blouse. She had on underneath the Army blouse a tight brown Army T-shirt, touched her breasts, and said, 'Don't you like these big American breasts?'" says Saar. "She wanted to create a barrier between this detainee and his faith, and if she could somehow sexually entice him, he would feel unclean in an Islamic way, he would not be able to pray and go before his God and gain that strength, so the next day, maybe he would be able to start cooperating, start talking to her."
But the prisoner wasnt talking, so Saar said the interrogator increased the pressure.
"She started to unbutton her pants and reached and put her hands in her pants and then started to circle around the detainee. And when she had her hands in her pants, apparently she used something to put what appeared to be menstrual blood on her hand, but in fact was ink," says Saar.
"When she circled around the detainee, she pulled out her hand, which was red, and said, 'I'm actually menstruating right now, and I'm touching you. Does that please your God? Does that please Allah?' And then he kind of got pent up and shied away from her, and she then took the ink and wiped it on his face, and said, 'How do you like that?'"
I found this on both Balloon Juice and Buzzmachine. Not to start repeating memes, but I've been reading what the commentors on both sites had to say and I'm pretty disgusted to say the least.
It seems to me that there is an awful lot of talk about Christian Values most of the time. And now that people have a chance to behave in a truly Christian manner, that is to forgive, turn the other cheek, show love and caring for prisoners, there are a lot of jokes about how men pay for this kind of treatment at Strip Clubs.
Let's Compare,
Janet Jackson's Breast HORRIBLY OFFENSIVE!
Officer's using Breasts to torture devout detainees: HAHAHAHAAHA Only Whiney Liberals would call that Torture!!
Now granted, Even if it is not the same people that are having this conversation, shouldn't the Anti Boob Brigade have something to say about this offensive technique? No, of course not. These are our enemies, they deserve to be tortured! That's what they would have done to us!
Well this is my note to all those religious fanatics whose crap I have to listen to day in and day out: What would Jesus Do? Would Jesus sit back and let these men be tortured for their religious beliefs? Somehow, I doubt it. I think he said something along the lines of "Blessed are they who suffer for faith, theirs is the Kingdom of God." His forgiveness may have changed these men's minds, and made them better people. Unfortunately our torture and exploitation of them will only strengthen their hatred for us.
Because of the HYPOCRISY!
UPDATE: John Cole updated his post and pointed out some of the nastier comments made by some jerks. You should read that part too.
According to 60 Minutes Our Government's Idea of torture is:
As she stood in front of him, she slowly started to unbutton her army blouse. She had on underneath the Army blouse a tight brown Army T-shirt, touched her breasts, and said, 'Don't you like these big American breasts?'" says Saar. "She wanted to create a barrier between this detainee and his faith, and if she could somehow sexually entice him, he would feel unclean in an Islamic way, he would not be able to pray and go before his God and gain that strength, so the next day, maybe he would be able to start cooperating, start talking to her."
But the prisoner wasnt talking, so Saar said the interrogator increased the pressure.
"She started to unbutton her pants and reached and put her hands in her pants and then started to circle around the detainee. And when she had her hands in her pants, apparently she used something to put what appeared to be menstrual blood on her hand, but in fact was ink," says Saar.
"When she circled around the detainee, she pulled out her hand, which was red, and said, 'I'm actually menstruating right now, and I'm touching you. Does that please your God? Does that please Allah?' And then he kind of got pent up and shied away from her, and she then took the ink and wiped it on his face, and said, 'How do you like that?'"
I found this on both Balloon Juice and Buzzmachine. Not to start repeating memes, but I've been reading what the commentors on both sites had to say and I'm pretty disgusted to say the least.
It seems to me that there is an awful lot of talk about Christian Values most of the time. And now that people have a chance to behave in a truly Christian manner, that is to forgive, turn the other cheek, show love and caring for prisoners, there are a lot of jokes about how men pay for this kind of treatment at Strip Clubs.
Let's Compare,
Janet Jackson's Breast HORRIBLY OFFENSIVE!
Officer's using Breasts to torture devout detainees: HAHAHAHAAHA Only Whiney Liberals would call that Torture!!
Now granted, Even if it is not the same people that are having this conversation, shouldn't the Anti Boob Brigade have something to say about this offensive technique? No, of course not. These are our enemies, they deserve to be tortured! That's what they would have done to us!
Well this is my note to all those religious fanatics whose crap I have to listen to day in and day out: What would Jesus Do? Would Jesus sit back and let these men be tortured for their religious beliefs? Somehow, I doubt it. I think he said something along the lines of "Blessed are they who suffer for faith, theirs is the Kingdom of God." His forgiveness may have changed these men's minds, and made them better people. Unfortunately our torture and exploitation of them will only strengthen their hatred for us.
Because of the HYPOCRISY!
UPDATE: John Cole updated his post and pointed out some of the nastier comments made by some jerks. You should read that part too.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Lucky There's a
FAMILY GUY!!!
New episode today. I am SOO elated. I have seen all of the old ones so many times that they have almost stopped being funny. (I just hope the haitus hasn't caused it to jump the shark.
Looks like they are going to do some serious promotion this time around. They have a CD out, I just bought Stewie's Guide to World Domination at Best Buy. (Damn you shelves near the counter and your impulsebying wonderfulness.) And the calander on their website has lots of talk show appearances. The View hehehehehe
Well I hope the new season lives up to the old seasons. We shall see.
UPDATE: LOL!! And American Dad, funny even though it is clearly a FG rip off. At least it is a funny rip off.
New episode today. I am SOO elated. I have seen all of the old ones so many times that they have almost stopped being funny. (I just hope the haitus hasn't caused it to jump the shark.
Looks like they are going to do some serious promotion this time around. They have a CD out, I just bought Stewie's Guide to World Domination at Best Buy. (Damn you shelves near the counter and your impulsebying wonderfulness.) And the calander on their website has lots of talk show appearances. The View hehehehehe
Well I hope the new season lives up to the old seasons. We shall see.
UPDATE: LOL!! And American Dad, funny even though it is clearly a FG rip off. At least it is a funny rip off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
