Steven Malanga has an interesting take on Thomas Frank in his piece What's the Matter With Kansas? Not a thing, it turns out.
Some fun bits:
In purple prose, Mr. Frank paints a grim picture of the state and its towns. Kansas is "pretty much in a free fall," he informs us, and as a result of its economic devastation, it's "a civilization in the early stages of irreversible decay." The cause of all this decline, he says, is modern capitalism, especially as practiced by all those businessmen-Republicans. Kansas is "burning on a free-market pyre," he writes. Things are especially bad in his old hometown of Shawnee, where, during his visits, he no longer sees anyone in the streets. Instead, "heaps of rusting junk and snarling rottweilers" blight the landscape.
Sounds pretty grim. Unfortunately, for Frank, it all seems to be imaginary.
Yet Mr. Frank's characterization of the Jayhawk State is completely--bizarrely--at odds with the facts. Kansas's economy has actually outpaced the nation's for years. Throughout the 1990s and the first part of this new decade, Kansas had a lower unemployment rate than the U.S. as a whole. In fact, when the country's unemployment rate dipped below 5% from 1997 to 2001, Kansas's fell under 4%--a level so low that economists basically consider it full employment. Overall, the state's economy added 256,000 new jobs during the 1990s, a 24% growth rate, compared with a 20% national gain in the same period. Even when the economic slowdown set in and the recession finally hit in 2002 and 2003, Kansas lost jobs at a slower rate than the national economy did.
The article concludes:
Regardless of Kansas' economic performance, Mr. Frank's main thesis--that people who are struggling economically should be voting as liberals, not conservatives--is dubious. As an editorial in the Wichita Eagle observed: "There's nothing wrong with many Kansans wanting to hold onto a little more of their paychecks . . . or preferring that when they need help it comes from their family, their church, their community--not an intrusive federal government." But what's really astounding is that Mr. Frank, who offers little in the way of economic data, would base his argument on such blatant falsehoods. To Mr. Frank's liberal prejudices, something may be the matter with Kansas, but it sure isn't its economy.
What Frank really doesn't like is that the people of Kansas keep voting for Republicans. He seems deeply troubled that they don't think like people in New York, Washington DC, or Boston think. From his perspective the trouble with Kansas is that its full of Kansans.
Monday, December 06, 2004
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Ken Starr is Good for Something?
I am something of a vehement anti-prohibitionist. I have no trouble even going after the M.A.D.D. people when they stray from anti-drunk driving advocacy to outright neo-prohibitionists. I am always pleased when outdated liquor laws go the way of the dodo, as in the recent case of the South Carolina Minibottle law. (Which, to their credit, M.A.D.D. was on the correct side of.) And I am hopeful that the Supreme Court might render an important service by allowing wineries to sell and ship their product throughout the United States. See Wine Case Goes to High Court
I was interested to see that former independant counsel Ken Starr is representing the small wineries in their battle against the large liquor wholesaler lobby. These wholesalers enjoy near monopoly status in the states that have banned direct shipping from wineries, which is almost exclusively those states without a native wine industry. (Why do I keep moving into these backwards states?) In an effort to protect their profits they have recast themselves as the only thing standing in the way of underage drinking.
To drive home that point, the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America commissioned an undercover video showing a teenage girl, with parental permission, ordering alcohol on the Internet. Days later, the alcohol arrived at her home in a plain container.
Any Supreme Court justice who claims to be swayed by this argument should be immediately impeached as being too gullible to sit in judgement on any topic, however insignificant. The purchase of the wine with parental permission (and presumably with their credit card) is indistinguishable from the parents buying it themselves. What would have been a little more convincing is showing the child buying the wine without parental permission.
Now, in order for the child, without parental permission, to get away with such a purchase they would need to A) either have their own credit card, with the between $60 to $400+ buying power needed to purchase a case of wine (how wineries sell their product), or B) steal access to their parent's credit cards and somehow keep them from seeing the bill, AND C) have the wine shipped to them while not being noticed by parents.
Or, they could do what we did when I was in high school and pay someone older a couple of bucks to buy us a six pack. Hmm, which one sounds more plausible?
I have personally felt these restrictions on the wine industry acutely. I have always wanted to support homegrown products, but have found as I moved across the country that I couldn't purchase wines for shipment or find them in my local wine shops. I love Missouri wines, and I even have a cousin making wine under the family name in Virginia, but more often then not I cannot support their efforts by buying a case of wine. I hope that changes.
Besides, 26 states allow wine to be shipped to consumers and I haven't heard a single story that those states are going to hell in a handbasket. How about a little economic freedom here?
I was interested to see that former independant counsel Ken Starr is representing the small wineries in their battle against the large liquor wholesaler lobby. These wholesalers enjoy near monopoly status in the states that have banned direct shipping from wineries, which is almost exclusively those states without a native wine industry. (Why do I keep moving into these backwards states?) In an effort to protect their profits they have recast themselves as the only thing standing in the way of underage drinking.
To drive home that point, the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America commissioned an undercover video showing a teenage girl, with parental permission, ordering alcohol on the Internet. Days later, the alcohol arrived at her home in a plain container.
Any Supreme Court justice who claims to be swayed by this argument should be immediately impeached as being too gullible to sit in judgement on any topic, however insignificant. The purchase of the wine with parental permission (and presumably with their credit card) is indistinguishable from the parents buying it themselves. What would have been a little more convincing is showing the child buying the wine without parental permission.
Now, in order for the child, without parental permission, to get away with such a purchase they would need to A) either have their own credit card, with the between $60 to $400+ buying power needed to purchase a case of wine (how wineries sell their product), or B) steal access to their parent's credit cards and somehow keep them from seeing the bill, AND C) have the wine shipped to them while not being noticed by parents.
Or, they could do what we did when I was in high school and pay someone older a couple of bucks to buy us a six pack. Hmm, which one sounds more plausible?
I have personally felt these restrictions on the wine industry acutely. I have always wanted to support homegrown products, but have found as I moved across the country that I couldn't purchase wines for shipment or find them in my local wine shops. I love Missouri wines, and I even have a cousin making wine under the family name in Virginia, but more often then not I cannot support their efforts by buying a case of wine. I hope that changes.
Besides, 26 states allow wine to be shipped to consumers and I haven't heard a single story that those states are going to hell in a handbasket. How about a little economic freedom here?
What's the Point, Exactly?
Here are a couple different takes on military recruitment, which has suddenly become quite the issue with many liberals.
First, John Leo of U.S. News talks about the movement to ban military recruitment on college campuses: The Wisdom of Solomon
Second, Rekha Basu of the Des Moines Register seemingly wants to ban military recuirtment in high schools: Schools wrong to help recruit
I'll state upfront that I have no problem with recruiters in college or in high schools. But I suppose the desire to ban that which you don't like is pretty strong. One might hope that a liberal society would be wary of such impulses. Such a one would be quite disappointed with our own society. As Leo points out:
Law schools that respected students would allow military recruiters to speak. They would encourage those who disagree with armed forces policy to picket, boycott, or argue for an end to "don't ask, don't tell." Instead, the schools are teaching future lawyers that if you disagree with anyone, it's best to ban or censor. Unfortunately, the campuses are fond of imposing their own version of contested cultural norms, instead of encouraging free argument over what those norms should be.
Sometimes you will see it argued that the law schools and colleges are really just fighting for their free speech rights, to not be told by outsiders like the government what they should do. But as Leo further points out, such a claim doesn't comport too well to reality.
...it isn't clear as to who is compelling whom. The law schools say they are being compelled by government, but they are compelled also by the Association of American Law Schools, which directs them not to allow military recruitment. Imposed policy is wrong, except when you agree with it.
The schools offer a free-speech defense, but in reality they are suppressing free speech themselves by silencing others and preventing freedom of association by banning contact between students and recruiters. It is the rough equivalent of a bookstore's refusing to sell books with which it disagrees. The store may have the right to do so, but it's a tacky tactic that shows little respect for allowing people to make their own choices.
In the second piece, Basu's argument seems to be that 17 and 18-year olds are hapless dolts too easily swayed by shiny baubles to be left to the mercy of military recuiters. For example, her evidence that schools actively help military recruiters but not college recruiters is a statement by a teacher that:
"The college recruiters don't set up a big display in the student center," she said. "They're in the guidance office and they wait for walk-ins."
The horror!
No evidence is given that colleges are kept from bringing in their own advertising materials. No evidence is given that colleges have been denied space to set up their own "big display." Why? Its because college recruiters don't bother with such things, and they haven't spent the money to produce a "big display."
Basu next introduces a student that, A) invalidates her opinion that students can't evaluate military recruitment efforts, and B) attempts to reinforce the "shiny bauble" argument:
Some students know they're not interested in enlisting. Sean Shatto, a junior at the University of Iowa, graduated with Davis. He got called at home by a recruiter when he was 17. "They asked, 'Are you interested in machine guns? Would you like to try a tank?' I was like, 'No, I wouldn't like to do any of those things.' "
But others are lured by the glossy images. "Their advertising technique is so much bright lights and happiness," says Shatto. "They don't tell you you get spat at and yelled at by drill instructors, or you might have to go into combat."
Shatto, presumably an expert on exactly what its like in the military because he hasn't been there, is the only student voice given in the piece. So its impossible to guage just how many 17-year-olds don't know that going into the Army might lead to combat. It's like going to law school to learn how to be a civil litigator and then being shocked to learn that you might have to go to court. I'm thinking there aren't too many 17-year-olds that clueless. Basu hasn't shown me one.
In the end the piece is more indicative of Basu's hostility to the military than to any real concern for young men and women. Basu, instead of having any real regard for young people, seems to think that they are, well, imbeciles. Basu's argument could really support a call for stripping young people's right to vote! 18-year-olds are supposed to be able to wade through all the campaign advertising out there to cast legitimate ballots in presidential elections, when they cannot overcome the sheer advertising power of a "big display" in a student center? I think not!
Actually it's hard to decide who Basu has less regard for, the military or young people.
First, John Leo of U.S. News talks about the movement to ban military recruitment on college campuses: The Wisdom of Solomon
Second, Rekha Basu of the Des Moines Register seemingly wants to ban military recuirtment in high schools: Schools wrong to help recruit
I'll state upfront that I have no problem with recruiters in college or in high schools. But I suppose the desire to ban that which you don't like is pretty strong. One might hope that a liberal society would be wary of such impulses. Such a one would be quite disappointed with our own society. As Leo points out:
Law schools that respected students would allow military recruiters to speak. They would encourage those who disagree with armed forces policy to picket, boycott, or argue for an end to "don't ask, don't tell." Instead, the schools are teaching future lawyers that if you disagree with anyone, it's best to ban or censor. Unfortunately, the campuses are fond of imposing their own version of contested cultural norms, instead of encouraging free argument over what those norms should be.
Sometimes you will see it argued that the law schools and colleges are really just fighting for their free speech rights, to not be told by outsiders like the government what they should do. But as Leo further points out, such a claim doesn't comport too well to reality.
...it isn't clear as to who is compelling whom. The law schools say they are being compelled by government, but they are compelled also by the Association of American Law Schools, which directs them not to allow military recruitment. Imposed policy is wrong, except when you agree with it.
The schools offer a free-speech defense, but in reality they are suppressing free speech themselves by silencing others and preventing freedom of association by banning contact between students and recruiters. It is the rough equivalent of a bookstore's refusing to sell books with which it disagrees. The store may have the right to do so, but it's a tacky tactic that shows little respect for allowing people to make their own choices.
In the second piece, Basu's argument seems to be that 17 and 18-year olds are hapless dolts too easily swayed by shiny baubles to be left to the mercy of military recuiters. For example, her evidence that schools actively help military recruiters but not college recruiters is a statement by a teacher that:
"The college recruiters don't set up a big display in the student center," she said. "They're in the guidance office and they wait for walk-ins."
The horror!
No evidence is given that colleges are kept from bringing in their own advertising materials. No evidence is given that colleges have been denied space to set up their own "big display." Why? Its because college recruiters don't bother with such things, and they haven't spent the money to produce a "big display."
Basu next introduces a student that, A) invalidates her opinion that students can't evaluate military recruitment efforts, and B) attempts to reinforce the "shiny bauble" argument:
Some students know they're not interested in enlisting. Sean Shatto, a junior at the University of Iowa, graduated with Davis. He got called at home by a recruiter when he was 17. "They asked, 'Are you interested in machine guns? Would you like to try a tank?' I was like, 'No, I wouldn't like to do any of those things.' "
But others are lured by the glossy images. "Their advertising technique is so much bright lights and happiness," says Shatto. "They don't tell you you get spat at and yelled at by drill instructors, or you might have to go into combat."
Shatto, presumably an expert on exactly what its like in the military because he hasn't been there, is the only student voice given in the piece. So its impossible to guage just how many 17-year-olds don't know that going into the Army might lead to combat. It's like going to law school to learn how to be a civil litigator and then being shocked to learn that you might have to go to court. I'm thinking there aren't too many 17-year-olds that clueless. Basu hasn't shown me one.
In the end the piece is more indicative of Basu's hostility to the military than to any real concern for young men and women. Basu, instead of having any real regard for young people, seems to think that they are, well, imbeciles. Basu's argument could really support a call for stripping young people's right to vote! 18-year-olds are supposed to be able to wade through all the campaign advertising out there to cast legitimate ballots in presidential elections, when they cannot overcome the sheer advertising power of a "big display" in a student center? I think not!
Actually it's hard to decide who Basu has less regard for, the military or young people.
Asterisk This
The emergence of the "steroid scandal" in baseball is in many ways a joke. Any part-time follower of the sport could see this building over the last ten years. Its not a new problem, its a rather old problem that can no longer be ignored by sticking one's head in the sand. But since, as an issue, it will be all the rage for awhile I figured I'd make a few iconoclastic observations:
1) Sportswriters, who will be taking the lead and castigating baseball with a holier-than-thou attitude, in reality don't have much of a leg to stand on. Too many times, too many of these "journalists" have ignored the story. Time after time we were told by some sportswriter that Barry Bond's puffing up after he turned 35 to the extent that he looked like a Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade balloon, was nothing all that exceptional. They have engaged in too much willful ignorance for too long to be believable as critics at this point.
2) People should just forget about taking away Barry Bond's Home Run record. You just cannot do it. Bond's has already tarnished his record so badly that no one will take it seriously, ever. That is more than damage enough. And what if you did take it away from him? Are we really sure that Mark McGwire's "record" is a clean one?
3) If you really wanted to take something away from Bonds, take away his MVP's. Those were something he took away from other honest players that they can never get back.
4) If MLB doesn't actually make sweeping changes, and I mean sweeping changes, I hope Sen. McCain doesn't back down and slaps baseball around something good.
5) Someone should throw the Boston Red Sox out of Major League Baseball. Maybe make them a Class A minor league farm club of the Yankees. (Sorry, that doesn't have anything to do with the steroid scandal. Its more of a general principle.)
1) Sportswriters, who will be taking the lead and castigating baseball with a holier-than-thou attitude, in reality don't have much of a leg to stand on. Too many times, too many of these "journalists" have ignored the story. Time after time we were told by some sportswriter that Barry Bond's puffing up after he turned 35 to the extent that he looked like a Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade balloon, was nothing all that exceptional. They have engaged in too much willful ignorance for too long to be believable as critics at this point.
2) People should just forget about taking away Barry Bond's Home Run record. You just cannot do it. Bond's has already tarnished his record so badly that no one will take it seriously, ever. That is more than damage enough. And what if you did take it away from him? Are we really sure that Mark McGwire's "record" is a clean one?
3) If you really wanted to take something away from Bonds, take away his MVP's. Those were something he took away from other honest players that they can never get back.
4) If MLB doesn't actually make sweeping changes, and I mean sweeping changes, I hope Sen. McCain doesn't back down and slaps baseball around something good.
5) Someone should throw the Boston Red Sox out of Major League Baseball. Maybe make them a Class A minor league farm club of the Yankees. (Sorry, that doesn't have anything to do with the steroid scandal. Its more of a general principle.)
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Limits
I'll admit that in many ways I am not a strong person. There are certain things that I cannot argue about or see the other side to. The Groningen Protocol's are one of those things. I find that I cannot even read much about it because it depresses me so completely. However, I could handle this amount from Dave Kopel in the Rocky Mountain News:
On Wednesday, the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post both ran an Associated Press story about doctors killing children at Groningen University Hospital in the Netherlands. Accurately summarizing the AP article by Toby Sterling, the News headline called the killings "infant euthanasia," while the Post headline read "baby mercy death." According to the AP, one condition for killing the child is "when parents think it's best."
But as Knight-Ridder reporter Matthew Schofield explained in an article last October, the "Groningen Protocol" (which may be adopted as law in the Netherlands) gives doctors the power to kill a child even when the parents object, and allows the killing of children up to age 12. By U.S. legal standards, premeditated nonconsensual killings of innocents are known as "murder." The Denver papers erred by soft-pedaling the Dutch barbarism.
How do you argue with Dr. Mengele?
On Wednesday, the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post both ran an Associated Press story about doctors killing children at Groningen University Hospital in the Netherlands. Accurately summarizing the AP article by Toby Sterling, the News headline called the killings "infant euthanasia," while the Post headline read "baby mercy death." According to the AP, one condition for killing the child is "when parents think it's best."
But as Knight-Ridder reporter Matthew Schofield explained in an article last October, the "Groningen Protocol" (which may be adopted as law in the Netherlands) gives doctors the power to kill a child even when the parents object, and allows the killing of children up to age 12. By U.S. legal standards, premeditated nonconsensual killings of innocents are known as "murder." The Denver papers erred by soft-pedaling the Dutch barbarism.
How do you argue with Dr. Mengele?
Friday, December 03, 2004
Was She Pushed or Did She Jump?
There has been a lot of talk of late about the relative paucity of Conservatives in academia and the reasons for their scarcity. Law prof. Steven Lubet adds his two cents in Why Republicans shun ivy towers
Perhaps fewer conservatives than liberals are willing to endure the years of poverty- stricken graduate study necessary for a faculty position. Perhaps conservatives are smarter than liberals, recognizing that graduate school is a poor investment, given the scant job opportunities that await newly minted Ph. D.s. Or perhaps studious conservatives are more attracted to the greater financial rewards of industry and commerce.
Beyond the ivy walls, there are many professions that are dominated by Republicans. You will find very few Democrats (and still fewer outright liberals) among the ranks of high-level corporate executives, military officers or football coaches. Yet no one complains about these imbalances, and conservatives will no doubt explain that the seeming disparities are merely the result of market forces.
They are probably right. It is entirely rational for conservatives to flock to jobs that reward competition, aggression and victory at the expense of others. So it should not be surprising that liberals gravitate to professions -- such as academics, journalism, social work and the arts -- that emphasize inquiry, objectivity and the free exchange of ideas. After all, teachers at all levels -- from nursery school to graduate school -- tend to be Democrats. Surely there cannot be a conspiracy to deny conservatives employment on kindergarten playgrounds.
If you remove the childishly simplistic stereotypes from the above (e.g. all Republicans are proto-fascists whose number one goal is to harm people for their personal gain, or all Democrats are starry eyed selfless dreamers who only want to help children!) there is some common sense in Lubet's views. But it, just like most conservative takes on the subject, suffers from what I call "Was She Pushed or Did She Jump?" syndrome. The issue really isn't covered by setting up a dichotomy of either A) Republicans are discriminated against academia -i.e. She Was Pushed, or B) Republicans remove themselves from employment consideration in academia -i.e. She Jumped. The trurth is more interesting than that.
Just like any other organization, academia is very status quo oriented. Anyone who has been in grad school recognizes this. In spite of all the talk of "inquiry, objectivity and the free exchange of ideas" profs involved in the production of new PhD's can often be more interested in making little versions of themselves rather than independantly minded scholars. And, lets face it, it is easier to work with students that share your world view. It certainly is easier for the student to work with like minded profs! So it isn't that students with different perspectives are necessarily being actively discriminated against, as much as such students cannot count on support or sympathy with their work. In most cases such students are neither pushed nor do they jump. They are ignored.
Then again you can't blame conservatives for viewing academia as an inherently hostile place for them when you read things like the following: Meet the Newest Member of the Faculty: Clinton pardons a terrorist, and now she's teaching in Clinton, N.Y.
Perhaps fewer conservatives than liberals are willing to endure the years of poverty- stricken graduate study necessary for a faculty position. Perhaps conservatives are smarter than liberals, recognizing that graduate school is a poor investment, given the scant job opportunities that await newly minted Ph. D.s. Or perhaps studious conservatives are more attracted to the greater financial rewards of industry and commerce.
Beyond the ivy walls, there are many professions that are dominated by Republicans. You will find very few Democrats (and still fewer outright liberals) among the ranks of high-level corporate executives, military officers or football coaches. Yet no one complains about these imbalances, and conservatives will no doubt explain that the seeming disparities are merely the result of market forces.
They are probably right. It is entirely rational for conservatives to flock to jobs that reward competition, aggression and victory at the expense of others. So it should not be surprising that liberals gravitate to professions -- such as academics, journalism, social work and the arts -- that emphasize inquiry, objectivity and the free exchange of ideas. After all, teachers at all levels -- from nursery school to graduate school -- tend to be Democrats. Surely there cannot be a conspiracy to deny conservatives employment on kindergarten playgrounds.
If you remove the childishly simplistic stereotypes from the above (e.g. all Republicans are proto-fascists whose number one goal is to harm people for their personal gain, or all Democrats are starry eyed selfless dreamers who only want to help children!) there is some common sense in Lubet's views. But it, just like most conservative takes on the subject, suffers from what I call "Was She Pushed or Did She Jump?" syndrome. The issue really isn't covered by setting up a dichotomy of either A) Republicans are discriminated against academia -i.e. She Was Pushed, or B) Republicans remove themselves from employment consideration in academia -i.e. She Jumped. The trurth is more interesting than that.
Just like any other organization, academia is very status quo oriented. Anyone who has been in grad school recognizes this. In spite of all the talk of "inquiry, objectivity and the free exchange of ideas" profs involved in the production of new PhD's can often be more interested in making little versions of themselves rather than independantly minded scholars. And, lets face it, it is easier to work with students that share your world view. It certainly is easier for the student to work with like minded profs! So it isn't that students with different perspectives are necessarily being actively discriminated against, as much as such students cannot count on support or sympathy with their work. In most cases such students are neither pushed nor do they jump. They are ignored.
Then again you can't blame conservatives for viewing academia as an inherently hostile place for them when you read things like the following: Meet the Newest Member of the Faculty: Clinton pardons a terrorist, and now she's teaching in Clinton, N.Y.
Glory Days Revisited?
Maybe it was my understated sarcasm. Maybe it was my gently mocking tone. Pehaps, it was my quick and penetrating wit. Maybe it was my calling Paul McCartney a bastard. In any event, today I recieved the following note from the good people at Google:
Hello Richard,
Thank you for your email.
I understand you are concerned about the reason for your application disapproval.I'm pleased to let you know that I have re-reviewed your site and have confirmed that your website meets all of our policies. Your application has been approved.
You can't ask for fairer than that!
In one sense I'm disappointed, because now I have one fewer thing to complain about. And I do so love to argue.
Hello Richard,
Thank you for your email.
I understand you are concerned about the reason for your application disapproval.I'm pleased to let you know that I have re-reviewed your site and have confirmed that your website meets all of our policies. Your application has been approved.
You can't ask for fairer than that!
In one sense I'm disappointed, because now I have one fewer thing to complain about. And I do so love to argue.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Morons of the Right Unite! You have Nothing to Lose but any Semblance of Credibility!
Here is someone's conception of a bright idea in Alabama: Gay book ban goal of state lawmaker
MONTGOMERY - An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.
(Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale) said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.
"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.
I would have thought burning them would have been more his speed.
When asked about Tennessee Williams' southern classic "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof," Allen said the play probably couldn't be performed by university theater groups.
Allen said no state funds should be used to pay for materials that foster homosexuality. He said that would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters. While that would ban books like "Heather has Two Mommies," it could also include classic and popular novels with gay characters such as "The Color Purple," "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and "Brideshead Revisted."
Can "Will & Grace" be far behind? National Republicans should step forward and put this David Duke wannabe in a cold dark place.
You can tell its what they should do because its what they wont do.
(Gleaned from Captain's Quarters)
MONTGOMERY - An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.
(Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale) said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.
"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.
I would have thought burning them would have been more his speed.
When asked about Tennessee Williams' southern classic "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof," Allen said the play probably couldn't be performed by university theater groups.
Allen said no state funds should be used to pay for materials that foster homosexuality. He said that would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters. While that would ban books like "Heather has Two Mommies," it could also include classic and popular novels with gay characters such as "The Color Purple," "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and "Brideshead Revisted."
Can "Will & Grace" be far behind? National Republicans should step forward and put this David Duke wannabe in a cold dark place.
You can tell its what they should do because its what they wont do.
(Gleaned from Captain's Quarters)
Reappraising the Reappraisal
I gave the Guardian a hard time the other day for a nut-job piece they published on the situation in Ukraine. It seems only fair that I mention the much more sane piece they published today. Bitter lemons: Six questions to the critics of Ukraine's orange revolution
Behind all these contorted reservations, we hear an inner voice which says, in effect, "Why won't all these bloody, semi-barbarian, east Europeans leave us alone, to go on living happily ever after in our right, tight, little west European (or merely British) paradise?"
Ultimately, the question of what happens to the Ukrainian people must be answered by the Ukrainians. All the U.S. or western Europe can do is lend moral support. Which side they choose to lend moral support is, well, instructive.
Behind all these contorted reservations, we hear an inner voice which says, in effect, "Why won't all these bloody, semi-barbarian, east Europeans leave us alone, to go on living happily ever after in our right, tight, little west European (or merely British) paradise?"
Ultimately, the question of what happens to the Ukrainian people must be answered by the Ukrainians. All the U.S. or western Europe can do is lend moral support. Which side they choose to lend moral support is, well, instructive.
Shielding Shady Reporters
Another good example of the dishonest coverage of the Shield Law/Reporter Confidentiality issue from Newsweek/MSNBC: Whistle-Blower Crackdown Spreads
Built into the title of the piece is also my problem with it. The article talks about two cases, one allegedly involving the leaking of the name of a CIA operative, and the other allegedly involving leaks used to defame a former government employee. In both of these cases the supposed informant was not "whistle blowing" in the sense of pointing out malfeasance of any sort. In both cases it is the act of leaking itself that is the crime alleged. In both cases reporters are there at the moment the alleged crime is committed, in the CIA case illegally outing an operative, in the other case the dissemination of slander. Knowledge of a crime is not incidental in these cases but integral. If the "informants" of these cases are guilty of the charges then they are not "whistle-blowers" at all, they are criminals (or just civilly liable as the case may be.)
I can understand the need for reporters to protect souces that would be vulnerable to retaliation from superiors on the job or in the Government. Also, I can understand reporters might believe that any "retreat" on these cases might endanger real whistle-blowers in the future. But the slippery slope argument is always one of the weakest, and I don't see why, just because you call yourself a reporter, you should have the special right to ignore crimes that happen right in front of your face.
I wish reporters would get off of the slippery slope and debate each case on its individual merits. They are much less likely to lose something valuable that way.
Built into the title of the piece is also my problem with it. The article talks about two cases, one allegedly involving the leaking of the name of a CIA operative, and the other allegedly involving leaks used to defame a former government employee. In both of these cases the supposed informant was not "whistle blowing" in the sense of pointing out malfeasance of any sort. In both cases it is the act of leaking itself that is the crime alleged. In both cases reporters are there at the moment the alleged crime is committed, in the CIA case illegally outing an operative, in the other case the dissemination of slander. Knowledge of a crime is not incidental in these cases but integral. If the "informants" of these cases are guilty of the charges then they are not "whistle-blowers" at all, they are criminals (or just civilly liable as the case may be.)
I can understand the need for reporters to protect souces that would be vulnerable to retaliation from superiors on the job or in the Government. Also, I can understand reporters might believe that any "retreat" on these cases might endanger real whistle-blowers in the future. But the slippery slope argument is always one of the weakest, and I don't see why, just because you call yourself a reporter, you should have the special right to ignore crimes that happen right in front of your face.
I wish reporters would get off of the slippery slope and debate each case on its individual merits. They are much less likely to lose something valuable that way.
Maureen Dowd Should Consider Raising Her "Outrage" Threshold
She is not-so-shocked and appalled that Brian Williams, another damn white guy, got Tom Browkaw's old job. It's Still a Man's World on the Idiot Box
Is this really all feminism has left to complain about? Let's see.....there is a grand total of three Lead Network Anchor jobs in the country. In the last 20+ years a grand total of two of these jobs have become available. Of that grand total of two, women got neither. Forgive me, but I fail to see the vast right-wing conspiracy here.
It cannot even be claimed that it is "symbolic" of larger problems, because if you look at where most of the television news jobs are (Cnn, Fox News, MSNBC) women are very well represented and quite prominent.
And was Dowd seriously telling us that Katie Couric would have been a good choice for Browkaw's chair? Katie Couric? The Malibu Stacy of NBC? I think most people want their anchor to have a certain gravitas about them. Connie Chung had that sort of feel about her when she was around. Cokie Roberts has that now. But Katie Couric? Not so much.
Is this really all feminism has left to complain about? Let's see.....there is a grand total of three Lead Network Anchor jobs in the country. In the last 20+ years a grand total of two of these jobs have become available. Of that grand total of two, women got neither. Forgive me, but I fail to see the vast right-wing conspiracy here.
It cannot even be claimed that it is "symbolic" of larger problems, because if you look at where most of the television news jobs are (Cnn, Fox News, MSNBC) women are very well represented and quite prominent.
And was Dowd seriously telling us that Katie Couric would have been a good choice for Browkaw's chair? Katie Couric? The Malibu Stacy of NBC? I think most people want their anchor to have a certain gravitas about them. Connie Chung had that sort of feel about her when she was around. Cokie Roberts has that now. But Katie Couric? Not so much.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
GooglePerplexed
I've sent the following email off to the good folks at Google:
Dear Adsense people,
All I have to say about the response you sent me is, you've got to be kidding. I'll admit that on my blog I come down hard on some people, such as:
The Murderers of Theo Van Gogh
The writer's of the "Left Behind" series
Garry Wills
Paul McCartney for writing "Michelle" (the bastard!)
Mayor Williams of Washington DC
And I do quote someone from a major metropolitan newspaper who claims Yasser Arafat is off to hell. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. It's not really my call you see.
In any event I fail to see how any of this comes close to violating the guidelines laid out online. I can only assume that I violated some "unwritten" guidelines. And I might add, that I see no way that content from the Op/Ed page of the Washington Post or the Progressive Populist could pass muster either, let alone any current events blog.
Thanks for giving me something else to write about on my blog!
Ah well. it felt good to write it. But I haven't written an effective letter since I got one published in The Sporting News back in '94. Glory days.
Dear Adsense people,
All I have to say about the response you sent me is, you've got to be kidding. I'll admit that on my blog I come down hard on some people, such as:
The Murderers of Theo Van Gogh
The writer's of the "Left Behind" series
Garry Wills
Paul McCartney for writing "Michelle" (the bastard!)
Mayor Williams of Washington DC
And I do quote someone from a major metropolitan newspaper who claims Yasser Arafat is off to hell. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. It's not really my call you see.
In any event I fail to see how any of this comes close to violating the guidelines laid out online. I can only assume that I violated some "unwritten" guidelines. And I might add, that I see no way that content from the Op/Ed page of the Washington Post or the Progressive Populist could pass muster either, let alone any current events blog.
Thanks for giving me something else to write about on my blog!
Ah well. it felt good to write it. But I haven't written an effective letter since I got one published in The Sporting News back in '94. Glory days.
Google Deems Me Unacceptable
Anyone who has a blog on Blogger.com, as I do, has the opprotunity to enroll in Google's AdSense program. Google looks at your site and if you qualify you add a bit of code that allows Google to place advertisements on your blog. If people actually click on the things you can actually generate a little income. So I thought, why not!? Well, the word has come down from on high and it seems I have "Unacceptable Site Content." So I checked their link to see what content they call "Unacceptable." They say:
Site may not include:
Excessive profanity
Hate, violence, racial intolerance, or advocate against any individual, group, or organization
Hacking/cracking content
Illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia
Pornography, adult, or mature content
Gambling or casino-related content
Any other content that promotes illegal activity or infringes on the legal rights of others
Excessive advertising
Pop-ups, pop-unders or exit windows that interfere with site navigation, obscure Google ads, change user preferences, or are for downloads. Other types of pop-ups, pop-unders, or exit windows may be allowed, provided that they do not exceed a combined total of 5 per user session
Excessive, repetitive, or irrelevant keywords in the content or code of web pages
Deceptive or manipulative content or construction to improve your site's search engine ranking, e.g., your site's PageRank
Gee, and here I was holding off turning this page into a neo-nazi hardcore strip poker site.
Google has every right not to include this blog in their program, but lets be up front about what they don't like about it because it isn't in the list above.
Site may not include:
Excessive profanity
Hate, violence, racial intolerance, or advocate against any individual, group, or organization
Hacking/cracking content
Illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia
Pornography, adult, or mature content
Gambling or casino-related content
Any other content that promotes illegal activity or infringes on the legal rights of others
Excessive advertising
Pop-ups, pop-unders or exit windows that interfere with site navigation, obscure Google ads, change user preferences, or are for downloads. Other types of pop-ups, pop-unders, or exit windows may be allowed, provided that they do not exceed a combined total of 5 per user session
Excessive, repetitive, or irrelevant keywords in the content or code of web pages
Deceptive or manipulative content or construction to improve your site's search engine ranking, e.g., your site's PageRank
Gee, and here I was holding off turning this page into a neo-nazi hardcore strip poker site.
Google has every right not to include this blog in their program, but lets be up front about what they don't like about it because it isn't in the list above.
The Ukraine Refrain
More must reading from the Des Moines Register: As protests spread, free press stirs This was written by Steve Berry, former L.A. Times reporter and current Univeristy of Iowa prof. In it he describes the work of Ukrainian reporter Hellen Pany Ly Shyn.
While she waited in a corridor to talk to election workers, a group of men she described as "bandits" rushed into the building. Ly Shyn heard a commotion and shouting. A shot was fired. She ran into the office and saw the men and election workers locked in a tug-of-war over the ballot bags. Finally, the men overpowered the workers, knocking one fiftyish-woman to the floor. They took the ballot bags and drove away.
After checking in at her office, Ly Shyn went into hiding without writing a story.
But she recovered enough shortly afterward to tell her story to a reporter for another newspaper, the Ukrainian Truth, and to some television reporters.
"I'm still frightened," she said. "But I am proud to have been able to tell the whole of Ukraine about the events that took place that night."
In Ukraine, she has good reason to be afraid. Since 2000, nearly 40 journalists have been killed. One particularly aggressive investigative journalist was beheaded, and President Leonid Kuchma has been widely reported as a suspect in the still-unsolved case. Last year alone, 42 journalists were attacked or harassed.
Don't they realize they are all just pawns of the American plot!? They should stop complaining about the occasional beheading and just curl up with the Guardian instead. They'll know what to do!
While she waited in a corridor to talk to election workers, a group of men she described as "bandits" rushed into the building. Ly Shyn heard a commotion and shouting. A shot was fired. She ran into the office and saw the men and election workers locked in a tug-of-war over the ballot bags. Finally, the men overpowered the workers, knocking one fiftyish-woman to the floor. They took the ballot bags and drove away.
After checking in at her office, Ly Shyn went into hiding without writing a story.
But she recovered enough shortly afterward to tell her story to a reporter for another newspaper, the Ukrainian Truth, and to some television reporters.
"I'm still frightened," she said. "But I am proud to have been able to tell the whole of Ukraine about the events that took place that night."
In Ukraine, she has good reason to be afraid. Since 2000, nearly 40 journalists have been killed. One particularly aggressive investigative journalist was beheaded, and President Leonid Kuchma has been widely reported as a suspect in the still-unsolved case. Last year alone, 42 journalists were attacked or harassed.
Don't they realize they are all just pawns of the American plot!? They should stop complaining about the occasional beheading and just curl up with the Guardian instead. They'll know what to do!
Enjoy Your Kool-Aid
There are times you come across something and you are almost at a loss for words. Here is one of those times. An author's take on the "US led coup" of the Ukraine Only sleepwalkers believe in fairytale revolutions
Where to begin......well I'll let the man speak for himself, to a point.
There was a time when the left was in favour of revolution, while the right stood unambiguously for the authority of the state. Not any more.
Wow! One sentence in and he's already unloaded a pile of crap. By that logic the "right" must have supported Stalin and every other two-bit thug. There was never any wavering from the right on wether authoritarian soviet regimes should be overthrown, there was plenty of ambiguity on the left however.
This week two British newspapers - the anti-Iraq war Independent and the pro-Iraq war Telegraph - excitedly announced a "revolution" in Ukraine, while in the US the right-wing Washington Times welcomed "the people versus the power".
Wow! The Washington Times seems to set the agenda for news coverage in the US. Who knew?
Two million anti-war demonstrators can stream though the streets of London and be politically ignored, but a few tens of thousands in Kiev are proclaimed to be "the people", while the Ukrainian police, courts and governmental institutions are discounted as instruments of oppression.
Oh cry me a river. The last time I checked plenty of Labour MP's and many from other parties have taken up the anti-war crowd's cause. Sure, it wasn't enough to change the policy, but welcome to democracy, you often won't get your way. Learn to live with it, please!
The demonstrations in favour of Viktor Yushchenko have laser lights, plasma screens, sophisticated sound systems, rock concerts, tents to camp in and huge quantities of orange clothing; yet we happily dupe ourselves that they are spontaneous.
Oh is "spontaneity" the standard? How about the "spontaneity" of a weeks or months in the making anti-war march? And gee, with all the equipment and color cooridinated clothing they had right there at their disposal you would have thought there was a presidential election going on or something. Oh, thats right, THERE WAS ONE!
We are told that a 96 per cent turnout in Donetsk, the home town of Yanukovich, is proof of electoral fraud. But apparently turnouts of over 80 per cent in areas which support Yushchenko are not. Nor are votes for Yushchenko of well over 90 per cent in three regions, which Yanukovich achieved only in two.
And whereas Yanukovich was officially credited with 54 per cent of the vote, the Western-backed President of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili, officially polled 96.24 per cent of the vote in January. The observers who now denounce the Ukrainian election welcomed that result in Georgia, saying that it "brought the country closer to meeting international standards".
You're right. The blanket condemnation of these elections from all European observers must be a vast US led conspiracy, because none of those country's ever do anything but what the US tells them. But there is still the possibility that space aliens made them do it as well....hmm. Why limit ourselves to just one conspiracy theory? Let's embrace them all!!
They were unembarrassed about their allegiance, perhaps because last year Yushchenko and his allies stood up for the Socialist party newspaper, Silski Visti, after it ran an anti-Semitic article claiming Jews had invaded Ukraine alongside the German army in 1941.
Yushchenko, Moroz and their oligarch ally, Yulia Tymoshenko, cited a court order closing the paper as evidence of the Government's desire to muzzle the media. In any other country, support for anti-Semites would be shocking; in this case, our media do not even mention it.
Yes, because Lord knows that there has been nothing going on in the world over the last year or two that should have been more important to people in the US and UK then the workings of the socialist press in Ukraine. Its funny, in this country supporting the right of newspapers to publish unpopular things, even if you disagree with them, has always been a hallmark of the left, not the right. Maybe its differnt in Britain.
I like Anne Applebaum's take on this piece in the Washington Post: The Freedom Haters It's a good read. I'll just quote a little from her summing up:
The larger point, though, is that the "it's-all-an-American-plot" arguments circulating in cyberspace again demonstrate something that the writer Christopher Hitchens, himself a former Trotskyite, has been talking about for a long time: At least a part of the Western left -- or rather the Western far left -- is now so anti-American, or so anti-Bush, that it actually prefers authoritarian or totalitarian leaders to any government that would be friendly to the United States.
Where to begin......well I'll let the man speak for himself, to a point.
There was a time when the left was in favour of revolution, while the right stood unambiguously for the authority of the state. Not any more.
Wow! One sentence in and he's already unloaded a pile of crap. By that logic the "right" must have supported Stalin and every other two-bit thug. There was never any wavering from the right on wether authoritarian soviet regimes should be overthrown, there was plenty of ambiguity on the left however.
This week two British newspapers - the anti-Iraq war Independent and the pro-Iraq war Telegraph - excitedly announced a "revolution" in Ukraine, while in the US the right-wing Washington Times welcomed "the people versus the power".
Wow! The Washington Times seems to set the agenda for news coverage in the US. Who knew?
Two million anti-war demonstrators can stream though the streets of London and be politically ignored, but a few tens of thousands in Kiev are proclaimed to be "the people", while the Ukrainian police, courts and governmental institutions are discounted as instruments of oppression.
Oh cry me a river. The last time I checked plenty of Labour MP's and many from other parties have taken up the anti-war crowd's cause. Sure, it wasn't enough to change the policy, but welcome to democracy, you often won't get your way. Learn to live with it, please!
The demonstrations in favour of Viktor Yushchenko have laser lights, plasma screens, sophisticated sound systems, rock concerts, tents to camp in and huge quantities of orange clothing; yet we happily dupe ourselves that they are spontaneous.
Oh is "spontaneity" the standard? How about the "spontaneity" of a weeks or months in the making anti-war march? And gee, with all the equipment and color cooridinated clothing they had right there at their disposal you would have thought there was a presidential election going on or something. Oh, thats right, THERE WAS ONE!
We are told that a 96 per cent turnout in Donetsk, the home town of Yanukovich, is proof of electoral fraud. But apparently turnouts of over 80 per cent in areas which support Yushchenko are not. Nor are votes for Yushchenko of well over 90 per cent in three regions, which Yanukovich achieved only in two.
And whereas Yanukovich was officially credited with 54 per cent of the vote, the Western-backed President of Georgia, Mikhail Saakashvili, officially polled 96.24 per cent of the vote in January. The observers who now denounce the Ukrainian election welcomed that result in Georgia, saying that it "brought the country closer to meeting international standards".
You're right. The blanket condemnation of these elections from all European observers must be a vast US led conspiracy, because none of those country's ever do anything but what the US tells them. But there is still the possibility that space aliens made them do it as well....hmm. Why limit ourselves to just one conspiracy theory? Let's embrace them all!!
They were unembarrassed about their allegiance, perhaps because last year Yushchenko and his allies stood up for the Socialist party newspaper, Silski Visti, after it ran an anti-Semitic article claiming Jews had invaded Ukraine alongside the German army in 1941.
Yushchenko, Moroz and their oligarch ally, Yulia Tymoshenko, cited a court order closing the paper as evidence of the Government's desire to muzzle the media. In any other country, support for anti-Semites would be shocking; in this case, our media do not even mention it.
Yes, because Lord knows that there has been nothing going on in the world over the last year or two that should have been more important to people in the US and UK then the workings of the socialist press in Ukraine. Its funny, in this country supporting the right of newspapers to publish unpopular things, even if you disagree with them, has always been a hallmark of the left, not the right. Maybe its differnt in Britain.
I like Anne Applebaum's take on this piece in the Washington Post: The Freedom Haters It's a good read. I'll just quote a little from her summing up:
The larger point, though, is that the "it's-all-an-American-plot" arguments circulating in cyberspace again demonstrate something that the writer Christopher Hitchens, himself a former Trotskyite, has been talking about for a long time: At least a part of the Western left -- or rather the Western far left -- is now so anti-American, or so anti-Bush, that it actually prefers authoritarian or totalitarian leaders to any government that would be friendly to the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)