cut on the bias

Caught out?

Arthur Silber believes my comment to a post on his page was rude, and explains at some length why he believes that.

If you're interested, you can read his original post, my comments, and then his post explaining my rudeness, and decide for yourself.

Oh, what a difference a year makes

Well, actually very little, as you can tell from this excellent satire from Rand Simberg, posted last December. Apparently some of the patients escaped the hospital before their therapies were concluded...

A bloggish Saturday stroll

Media Minder highlights a couple of excellent Thanksgiving Day columns, and adds his own thoughts on the blessing of being American.

Bryan Preston at JunkYardBlog posts Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation establishing Thanksgiving as a national holiday.

Kevin McGehee of blogoSFERICS ponders JFK’s assassination in light of doctors’ efforts to save him despite his horrific wound, and the recent revelations about the true state of his health during his presidency.

Tony Woodlief has got Sand in the Gears over art, Oreos and people who say “holidays” instead of “Thanksgiving”. Go for the grumbling, stay for the post below it on NPR letting the idiot anti-war movement speak for itself; somehow, Tony, I don’t think NPR is sneakily undermining the movement by this series, I think they’re serious.

Arthur Silber explains that religious belief is irrational on its face; Misha responds. I made a few comments on Silber’s site, mainly noting that he so controls the definitions that it empties the debate of value. Best I can tell, Silber adheres to Ayn Rand’s teachings as tightly as any fundamentalist Christian does to God’s, and quotes her writings like a Bible. Hmmm….

AC Douglas smells a scam with Gevalia coffee, but finally decides it’s a clever – and likely successful – marketing ploy.

Jordana Adams at Curmudgeonry has the poop on a recent John Lennon marketing ploy – one that manages to be unintentionally apropos. I love it.

On a weekend of thankfulness, go read Dreaded Purple Master with great thankfulness that Daniel is still with us, and prayers that his concerns that he won’t recover fully are unfounded. Take a moment to say a prayer for the family of his friend Thomas Fuller, who was not so fortunate.

CG Hill pulls Vents from his archives to assess the last few years; he’s not extremely happy.

Moira Breen offers snakes as “sweet-tempered and interesting” pets.

Juan Gato reports that, yet again, the world is taking itself too seriously, at least as far as The Simpsons are concerned.

And finally, a little comment of my own: Why do people say “give props” when they compliment someone on something? Is it short for something? Did I sleep during that part of Slang 101? It just seems goofy to me.

On that note, I’m off to spend the rest of my day studying and cooking - looks like broccoli-rice casserole, homemade yeast bread, assorted cookies, maybe even a pie (or apple betty?). Yum.

An interesting discussion

John Scalzi holds forth with great gusto and derision about the Big Bang theory and those who are ignorant enough to question its validity. James Bowen has responded with an excellent set of posts – first here, then here. Alan Cornett weighs in with a more Biblical perspective of the debate.

I’m not going to comment on this issue, as I have before about similar things on this blog. However, here are a few quotes from Scalzi showing his respect for people who question him and his ideas:

I don't really think most Creationists really want to challenge their beliefs; after all, Jesus didn't tell them to question, merely to believe.

…some Bible-brandishing yahoo demands the science curriculum be changed to give equal footing to whatever damn fool brew of mysticism and junk science they've cobbled together this year…

…any Creationist who shows up at a school board meeting is already a lost cause in terms of rationality.

Another part of the problem comes from the idea that the Big Bang might somehow conflict with religious beliefs -- that the end result of accepting the Big Bang as a theory is an eternity of Satan cramming M-80s behind your eyeballs and cackling, "You want a Big Bang? I'll give you a Big Bang," before lighting the fuse with his own pinky finger.

Nice. I wonder if Mr. Scalzi has ever had a conversation with a real live Christian about this issue, where he hasn’t brought to it this attitude?

UPDATE: Here are some excerpts from the article linked by Scott Chaffin in comments:

In recent years, Allan Sandage, one of the world's leading astronomers, has declared that the big bang can be understood only as a "miracle." Charles Townes, a Nobel-winning physicist and coinventor of the laser, has said that discoveries of physics "seem to reflect intelligence at work in natural law." Biologist Christian de Duve, also a Nobel winner, points out that science argues neither for nor against the existence of a deity: "There is no sense in which atheism is enforced or established by science." And biologist Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, insists that "a lot of scientists really don't know what they are missing by not exploring their spiritual feelings."

...decades of inconclusive inquiry have left the science-has-all-the-answers script in tatters. As recently as the '70s, intellectuals assumed that hard science was on track to resolve the two Really Big Questions: why life exists and how the universe began. What's more, both Really Big Answers were assumed to involve strictly deterministic forces. But things haven't worked out that way. Instead, the more scientists have learned, the more mysterious the Really Big Questions have become.

Way smarter Harper's Index

Eric Lindholm scores again with his dismantling of Harper's Index for December. He looks at the UN resolutions Israel and Turkey supposedly "violated", the US State Dept's suspected terrorist list (it needs to be longer!), and the chances of getting a hotel room in Bethlehem this Christmas, among other things. It's a monthly treat to read Eric's dead-on and witty debunking, and this month he's posted a new photo as well! Eric, it's a nice photo but you're freezing me to death in those shorts, with those little guys in t-shirts! I'm sure it was taken in the summer, but even seeing it now with 20 degree temps out...!! Brr.

Honey, I'm home!

I had a great Thanksgiving, from freezing my backside off waiting for the Macy's parade to start, clear through to napping all afternoon and watching Harry Potter on HBO before going to sleep that night. A peaceful, fun time with good friends. Very thanks-worthy.

We woke up at 5:30 a.m. on Thursday, and got to Columbus Circle at 7 a.m., setting up our chairs about 20 feet from the Circle itself facing the park across Central Park South. We had foldup chairs, coats, blankets, hot coffee (or hot caramel cider in my case), hats, gloves, warm bodies ... and still managed to freeze almost solid, as it was 25 degrees with windchill in the teens when we got there. The parade didn't actually start coming through the square until about 9:30, but once it did it was lots of fun. I did get testy a couple of times. Some people seem to think that they can arrive at any time they want and then send their kids to stand at the front of the crowd behind the barricades, so the people sitting can't see, because, well, you know, they're KIDS! And it's a PARADE! At first a little boy about 4 and his sister about 8 mooshed their way beside and in front of me. I grabbed the boy and put him on my lap, and had the girl lean against my side so they could see, and that worked for a while. Until I had to go to the bathroom. That was NOT fun - have you ever walked at half mast pushing through a crowd praying for a bathroom when you have no clue if one is available? I did get to one in a cafe, and they were very nice (chalk one up for NYC). I was in quite a better mood when I got back, but that dissipated when a boy about 8 pushed in front of me to stand at the barricade. I made him move to the side twice, he crept back over, and finally I said, "Look. I got here at 7 a.m. to see the parade, I can't see it because you're in front of me, move away." Did I feel like Scrooge? Yes. Do I care? No. Is it my fault they didn't get there until 9? No. His parents are bums, is what they are. And their child has no manners.

The parade itself was good, although I must say I probably won't go back. Much nicer to watch it on television curled up in an afghan with the hot caramel apple cider to hand, and a bathroom down the hall.

Afterward we changed clothes, then took a taxi ride up to Session 73, on First and 73rd. It was supposed to have live jazz, but the band didn't show. The turkey dinner was good, but generic (canned cranberry sauce - I had better at home in my freezer that I made a couple weeks ago), which didn't give me any reason to come back to that restaurant again. The company, however, was excellent, so it was a fine dinner with much to be thankful for. Not the least of which was the nap we all took afterward. We didn't stir out of the room after about 4 p.m., napping, watching tv, then going to bed. A very nice Thanksgiving altogether.

And today I am writing a column to submit to a newspaper with some hope of publication, although (because of the circumstances too long to explain) not much hope because I live outside of their circulation area. We shall see.

I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving, and don't burn up too many future paychecks in today's frenzy of shopping.

Happy Thanksgiving!

(Don’t read this if you’re squeamish)

This morning on the way to work, I heard a radio newscaster describing the process of killing a turkey. The show’s host stopped him halfway through and said, stop it! We won’t be able to eat tomorrow! I have to say I was amused, but a little annoyed too.

Most people don’t know where their food comes from, have no real connection to the process from hoof to hamburger. I think that disconnection from what has been a huge part of life for the majority of our ancestors is a problem for our society – it encourages the thought that somehow we are Above That, or it Doesn’t Touch Us. I know a young woman who shudders at the thought of touching raw meat, although she’ll eat it cooked. And in this unnatural world where veggies are washed before you see them, where the worms are already cut out of the top of the corn, and the meat comes in nice little white and plastic packages, people often have a hard time understanding that life is sometimes bloody and dirty and difficult and it’s okay that it is!

Although I’m not precisely a farm girl, I did grow up on a farm where we grew our own vegetables and many times killed our own animals. I’ve never killed a chicken, but I’ve dunked its feathered body in scalding water and pulled the feathers off by hand – then I’ve eaten that same chicken and enjoyed it thoroughly, thankyouverymuch. I don’t get a thrill out of killing things, but I’m pretty pragmatic about it.

I didn’t realize just how widespread this visceral distaste for reality was until I wrote a short story (still unfinished, unfortunately) that opens with a vivid description of a hog being slaughtered and dressed. It is something I participated in as a young girl, so the details were clear to me. I think it’s one of the best pieces of writing I’ve done, and the scene is pivotal in the story – can’t have the story without that scene. I sent it to some other writer friends to get their advice. One really liked it, and had a few ideas for improvement.

The other ate me up like sausage for breakfast. “How could you do this?” she asked. “This is disgusting! This is horrible! I suggest you destroy this story and never finish it!” She found the passage about the hog slaughter to be inhuman. While I’ve never had another response quite so negative, the reactions of people who’ve read it tend to be extreme – positive or negative. And more negative than positive.

Why is that?

I think it is, in part, that separation, sanitization of our experience from the bloody dirty messy things that the life we lead really necessitates – but which with technology and separation of labor most of us have managed to push away from us. I think this disconnect contributes to disconnects of other sorts – for instance, the success of an organization like PETA. And on a larger scale, the difficulty of many in our society to face up to war. I know there are those who fully understand what war is and are not lacking in courage themselves, yet object to war. While I may disagree philosophically, I can respect that they are operating from knowledge. But so many of us live in a Disney World of sorts, with no knowledge beyond the nearest Kroger or Pathmark, beyond The Sopranos or Private Ryan. Maybe we should introduce “Reality 101” into our school curriculum?

So there’s my little rant about dead turkeys. I’m off to Manhattan to spend a couple of days with friends; we’ll watch the Macy’s parade from a sidewalk on Broadway tomorrow morning (freezing ourselves silly), then eat a traditional turkey dinner at a restaurant in the Upper West Side tomorrow afternoon. We’ll be sitting right by the stage, where they’ll be playing jazz live. Have a great holiday, remember all the wonderful things we have to be thankful for, and know that you my readers are definitely among those I’ll be giving thanks for.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Sounds right to me

So what about all those graduate students working for zero money and less prestige? CPO Sparkey rails against universities that grind grad students up like so much paper through a shredder, only to complain about how there just aren't any good graduate students anymore.

Well, excuse me.

This is a topic that has been widely discussed amongst the students in my own graduate program; the consensus is, you're tossed out there to live or die, teaching has no importance and if you don't manage to get yourself into a mentoring relationship with a professor expect a much longer track to finishing and possibly such a disheartening experience that you give it up altogether. And if you want to make a living wage? Fuhgeddaboutit. Even after you graduate. If you want to make a comparison, a lawyer in her first year out of college will make more with a large law firm than a tenured professor in the social sciences in many universities.

One of my professors - internationally known in his field of expertise - once told me that at a university like Rutgers, where research is heavily emphasized, a professor who is considered a good teacher by the students is regarded with some suspicion by the administration. Why? Because working at being a good teacher - and it does take work - requires time away from research. Can't have that, it brings money into the university! The original theory was that the cutting edge researchers are going to turn out the best students with, yes, cutting edge knowledge. But if the professors couldn't teach a kitten to drink milk, what use are they?

Gotta hate a school that emphasizes good teaching, don't you?

FAIRness in media

The Always Excellent Media Minded has a couple of posts on media bias that warrant your attention. In the first, he asks a very good question: Where's FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) in the matter of the reporter in Nigeria who has had a Fatwah issued for her death after making a (probably truthful) comment about the Prophet Mohammed and the Miss World beauty contest? (They do manage to find time to report about The Most Biased Name in News; that would be FoxNews, btw.)

In the second, he discusses an interview in the LA Times with Jay Harris, the former San Jose Mercury News publisher. Harris has good insight into mistakes reporters make in "performing" for each other in their coverage, but skids off the rails badly in the rest of his thoughts. MM has the scoop on it all.

Losing meaning

When a word is stretched out of shape to do whatever the user wants, rather than applying to a specific, widely understood meaning, that word has lost most of its communicative value - or has come to mean something else entirely.

That's the case with the word "racism".

Nick Denton has an excellent illustration of this:

Speaking of political correctness, I was told I was a racist at the weekend, at a dinner for radical geeks. The topic was guns, and the question: why did Canada have a lower murder rate when guns were as common as in the US? My partial explanation: African-Americans commit more gun crimes than average, and make up a greater proportion of the population of the US. I can understand that attitudes can be racist; but can facts? It was a bad evening for my liberal reputation. Later, as we were introduced, Matt Jones said: "Oh, so you're the fascist."

And that's the rub - when merely stating facts can lead to an accusation of racism, the word has lost any meaning beyond "You said something I didn't like!" It's really a shame, because I think people get so accustomed to hearing a concept misused that they become deaf to its proper usage. Of course it's possible to be racist, in the original and pure sense, but it's increasingly a buzzword for saying truths about (pick the race) when those truths are unpleasant.

McGreevey loves the gravy

The political gravy, that is. The state is in budgetary troubles, New York City is threatening to tax NJ residents who work in NYC at the same rate as NYC residents, and Jim McGreevey, Our New Governor, A Democrat, A Man of the People, who Feels Our Pain...

Flew to Ireland on a "trade mission" and spent $105,000. In a week. Including $16,000 on a cell phone bill!

Apparently he was trying to make that one trip into New Jersey's half of a reciprocal trade agreement. I shudder to think about how many more "trade missions" he'll feel compelled to take. NJ will go into bankruptcy.

McGreevey, who has trashed former governor Christie Whitman for her fiscal policies, took his wife, eight state officials, three state troopers AND his security detail (was the security detail also protecting the troopers? just curious). Here's some of the details:

The Governor went back to his ancestral homeland in style. He flew first-class, was chauffeured around the Irish countryside in a Mercedes-Benz, and stayed at luxury hotels. In Dublin, the Governor and first lady Dina Matos McGreevey spent one night in a $720 per-night "luxury suite" at the plush Berkeley Court Hotel -- a five-star hotel whose guests have included Tom Cruise, Nelson Mandela and the king and queen of Spain...

In Banbridge, Northern Ireland, McGreevey held a family reunion at a steakhouse that cost taxpayers $3,178.48. About two dozen of the Governor's relatives came, joining the trade delegation participants. They ate steak, drank Guinness and sang Irish songs.

Interesting. Especially since McGreevey seriously low-balled the cost in a release before the trip:

By the time McGreevey released his $20,000 estimate for the trip on the day he boarded his plane for Ireland, the state had already spent at least $36,000, according to state records.

And the first class trip was due to the good graces of Continental Airlines:

The state purchased round-trip coach fares on Continental Airlines for $800 each for the Governor, his wife, and the other state officials on the trip. Nearly all of them were moved up to first-class, courtesy of Continental, which had its registered lobbyist, Nene Foxhall, on the delegation. A first-class ticket would have cost roughly $4,900.

Earlier in the month, McGreevey enacted an overhaul of the corporate tax that included a provision that capped the amount Continental will have to pay in corporate taxes at $2.5 million.

Jeff Awalt, a Continental spokesman, said the provision "recognized the hundreds of millions of dollars that Continental has invested in transportation infrastructure in New Jersey."

He said there was "absolutely" no connection between the tax break and the service upgrade to first-class. "The cabin wasn't full so we offered the available seats as a courtesy," Awalt said.

Glading, the Governor's spokeswoman, said accepting the upgrade was "standard practice on trade missions."

Rita Strmensky, director of the Executive Commission on Ethical Standards, said "it probably would have been a good idea for somebody to run it by the ethics liaison in the Governor's office."

Ethics? Isn't that when somebody is a different color from you? Okay, now, while you're at it, remind me again who the "fat cat politicians in the pocket of big corporations" are. Certainly McGreevey had some grateful corporate fellow travelers along:

Administration officials said that 17 corporations and groups represented on the trip paid $26,500 in "participation fees." Those fees were used to offset the state's cost, the officials said. Participants included PSE&G, Merck, Continental Airlines, Prudential Financial and the New Jersey State Laborers' Political Action Committee.

Hmmm. That would be ... $450,500. That's a lot of family reunions in Ireland! Wonder where the rest of the money went to? I'm sure none of those companies have expectations about, you know, favored treatment.

At least some real work got done in advancing trade:

The mission did not produce any new trade agreements or business deals, but some of the company representatives who went along said the Governor helped give them access to top Irish leaders -- including the prime minister. Most of the company representatives on the trip were lobbyists or public affairs executives, not top executives. Richard Kinney, vice president of public affairs for Schering-Plough Corp., said he made several useful contacts.

"In Newry, there was a fellow who wanted to make contact with a pharmaceutical company, so I took his card," he said during the trip. "Same thing in Belfast. I had lunch with a fellow who is involved with various start-ups. So I picked up his card and I'll pass it to our people. I don't know if anything will materialize from it, but you never know."

I always feel getting a business card or two is worth tens of thousands of my tax dollars (well, I don't pay that much, but I guess that would be from part of the $7 million Jon Corzine paid in taxes last year. Remind me again which party is the party of the wealthy?).

It turns out that the $105,000 was just for the Governor and part of his entourage:

Glading said McGreevey's estimate was limited to the projected costs for the Governor's office alone and did not include estimates for his security detail or those of the Labor and Commerce departments. Though most state officials on the trip were from the Governor's office, most of their bills were paid through Commerce.

I guess that's where some of that "participation fee" went. Who knows? Certainly McGreevey wasn't extremely happy about all this getting out:

State law requires that vouchers and receipts for trips such as the Irish trade mission be made available for public inspection on demand. The McGreevey administration took three months to release the documents, and did so only after negotiations with a Star-Ledger attorney.

I have to give kudos to the Star-Ledger for pursuing this. Good job!

My very favorite quote of the entire article comes from Jo Glading, McGreevey's spokeswoman:

"Every effort was made in keeping costs to a bare minimum on this trip and conducting this trip in an efficient and responsible manner," she said.

Preserve the taxpayers if McGreevey ever decides to go first class on a wild and inefficient bacchanalia!

Is Blix pronounced "blech"?

In honor of the first day of weapons inspections in Iraq, a day that finds their Fearful Leader in New York City, a place where we've long suspected Saddam maintains a major cache of weapons (in the basement of the UN), I give to you the Happy Fun Pundit analysis of Blix & Co. Yes, I know that was a run-on sentence. The post is from last week too. So sue me.

Oh, yeah, they respect their women

The all-encompassing burqa worn in the more strict Muslim societies supposedly sets a woman apart and protects her from the unwanted (by her? her father? her husband?) attention of men. Apparently that's not precisely how it happens:

Although wearing the burqa protects a woman from "impertinent eyes", it does not necessarily protect her from the greater impertinence of pinching and groping. Well-meaning friends from home recently warned a lovely young woman working in the Middle East that, if she dressed carefully, she would not provoke unwanted attention from men. She was therefore quite shocked to find that her Muslim girl friends who appeared in public with only their eyes showing were just as tormented by men as were provocative young women exhibiting miniskirts and skimpiness.

Interesting. This comes from a website run by Christian missionaries in the area, so it reflects their experiences. I didn't realize this:

A burqa* (or abaya in many places) is a long garment used by Muslim women to drape their body, with only a grid through which to see. When women observe this custom, it means that from the age of puberty they mix only with near relatives and women friends in private, and must wear the veil or the burqa in public. Although the Qur'an does not demand that women should be covered completely in public, complete veiling of women is practised in many countries. This reflects traditions in very conservative societies, rather than the teaching of Islam. Some women today may therefore be more restricted in their dress than Muslim women were at the time of Muhammad.

Apparently in some groups, WWMD* isn't sufficient. They have to improve on the prophet. Not that it matters, the women still get "tormented".

* What Would Mohammed Do

Ozzie Osbourne = Ozzie Nelson?

Kay S. Hymowitz in The City Journal chronicles the conversion to "family values and bourgeois respectability" of rockers Ozzie Osbourne and Madonna, finding them now "no more a threat to middle class values than Fear Factor".

Pretty funny.

A whirling carousel of thought

The newest Carnival of the Vanities has been posted at Silflay Hraka and BlogCritics for your reading pleasure. I realize that most of you already go there if reading from it is your thing, and those of you who don't read it will blow on by this post, but I've been informed that I'm needed nonetheless to get a good Blogdex rating. Always compliant, I'm doing what I can to support my fellow bloggers. So, GO READ. And if you love your bloggish pals, link 'em too so they blow out Blogdex.

This has gone too far

I don't often remember my dreams, but my last one of the night this time lingers on with painful clarity. Was it one of those falling dreams, where you fall and fall and never hit ground? Was someone chasing me with harmful intent? Did I lose someone I love, show up naked to work, see an accident happen that I couldn't stop?

Nope. Nothing so... dreamish.

I dreamed that I had parked my car on a narrow Jersey City street and couldn't find the sign that told me whether I could park there. I finally had to ask a police officer. He was very nice (if a bit gruff - it was JC, after all), but still!

A nightmare about opposite side of the street parking??

I really need to get out of this place.

Outrage

Chris at The Spoons Experience is livid over an email exchange he's had with a woman claiming to be (very well could be) the niece of the organizer of the Miss World Pageant in Nigeria, Guy Murray-Bruce. Apparently Mr. Murray-Bruce is refusing to blame the rioters for the carnage, but blames the journalist. His niece feels the same. Spoons is appalled at them both. As he should be.

The link goes to a post with the full exchange. I especially like the part about "soft bigotry of low expectations" in the West. I think that's one of the biggest international policy concerns we face - our elite's own reluctance to face their patronizing attitudes, and thus refusal to do what should be done in response to such behavior, here or elsewhere.

UPDATE: Here's a very good column by Dennis Prager about what larger meaning the riots in Nigeria have.

(Link via Little Green Footballs.)

Live interview with proud father

Frank Schaeffer wrote a book with is son, a corporal in the USMC, about his shock and final acceptance of his son's choice. He wrote a beautiful essay about it in today's WaPo; right now (1:15 p.m.) he's answering questions about it live on WaPo live online here. I think the transcript will be accessible at the same link after the interview is over.

NYTimes, WaPo take their licks

David Frum on NRO has a great column today about the NY Times and WaPo's attitudes about the Dems, religious persecution and selective emphasis of facts. It's a good look at how bias reveals itself in what is selected for coverage and emphasis as much as how the material is worded. It's difficult to excerpt, because the whole thing is good - not just in approach but in content. The thing I agree with most is this:

All that said, are we forbidden to notice that religiously motivated hate crimes in the modern world are overwhelmingly committed – not against Muslims – but by Muslims? Apparently so. Yesterday, the New York Times--yes, them again!--ran this amazing headline to describe the murder of an American missionary in Lebanon: “Killing Underscores Enmity of Evangelists and Muslims.” Yes, those missionaries and those Muslims really hate each other: Bonnie Witherall showed her hatred by offering free prenatal care to indigent Lebanese; the local Muslim clerics were naturally goaded by this outrage and killed her.

Frum was keying off WaPo coverage of an FBI hate crimes report, where they emphasized hate crimes against Muslims even though they were committed at a much lower rate than hate crimes against Jews, and were of a much less serious nature than hate crimes against gays.

It's just a column chock full of goodies, and even mentions bloggers!

UPDATE: While we're at it, let's visit a few more examples of liberal consistency and vehement stance for eradicating all hate speech. First, a few quotes from Mike at Cold Fury, who has lots more on his site:

"(I)f there is retributive justice (Sen. Jesse Helms) will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it." - Nina Totenberg, NPR

"I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease." - USA Today's Julianne Malveaux on Clarence Thomas

"That herd of managers from the House, I mean, frankly, all they were missing was white sheets." - Eleanor Clift, on her principal object of adoration Bill Clinton's impeachment

Charming. And moving right along, let's take a look at how the media respond to behaviors against their favored classes as opposed to behaviors by their favored classes that would be vilified if done by anyone else. This from an article by Rod Dreher in today's NRO:

Before long, though, they were asking questions about my personal life I found intrusive and unwelcome. They wanted to know about my relationship with God. The pair were witnessing to me, which as Evangelicals is a duty of faith. I hastened to assure them that I was a believing Christian, but that didn't dissuade the two, who wanted to be sure I was the right kind of Christian... I simply took the pamphlet they offered me, smiled, thanked them and returned to my book...

You are asking: Rod, why didn't you strangle them and stuff their bodies in the overhead bin?

had I murdered these people, and had been tried by a jury of my peers — that is, journalists — I would have gone scot-free, provided my attorney had kept hidden from the jury the fact that I am neither a sexual or racial minority, a Muslim, or a member of any certified victim class requiring them to suspend normal standards of ethical judgment.

I reach this conclusion based on the deafening media silence around the savage murder of Mary Stachowicz, the middle-aged Chicago churchgoer allegedly killed by coworker Nicholas Gutierrez, a 19-year-old homosexual who reportedly snapped when the Catholic woman told him he should quit sleeping with men. According to Chicago police, Gutierrez confessed to killing Stachowicz in his apartment after arguing with her about his lifestyle. According to Chicago authorities, Gutierrez confessed that he set upon Stachowicz when she asked — are you ready for this? — "Why do you [have sex with] boys instead of girls?"

Obviously, this woman was a Nazi. As a state's attorney told the Chicago Tribune, "He got upset with her. The defendant punched and kicked and stabbed the victim until he was tired. He then placed a plastic garbage bag over her head and strangled her."

...Where have we heard of this sort of thing before? Why, when three redneck men killed Matthew Shepard a few years ago, after the homosexual young man propositioned them in a bar. Understandably, the men found Shepard's words offensive. They should have told him to get lost. Instead, they tortured and killed him.

There is no moral difference between these acts. Both were heinous, and both deserve publicity. Yet the American media made Matthew Shepard an overnight cause célèbre, and have so far said very little about Mary Stachowicz — just as the media said very little about Jesse Dirkhising, the 13-year-old Arkansas boy raped, tortured, and strangled by homosexuals in 1999.

The entire article is worth your time. I have absolutely no problem with the men who killed Matthew Shepard receiving the strongest penalty the prosecution can get. I deeply deplore Stachowicz's killer getting any type of pass because he is gay and she questioned it. The media's coverage of the two cases is clearly biased.

How can you tell?

Dreher does the heavy lifting with his comparisons, but ask yourself this: If someone else did this, someone who was white and rich, or someone who killed a black person because that person asked him why he used the word "nigger" - would that get more coverage? Look at the nature of the acts involved versus who engaged in the behavior, and see if there is a pattern of coverage associated more with who than what.

How many of you have heard of Jonathan and Reginald Carr? The two brothers killed five people in Wichita, Kansas; in one incident alone, they raped, sexually abused and tortured five young people before robbing them and taking them into a field, where they shot all five. One woman escaped that last killing field, and was the primary witness at the Carrs' trial. The Carrs were sentenced to death. There was coverage, yes, but not an incessant beating of the drum like with the horrible killing of the black man in Texas who was deliberately dragged behind a truck, or the beating of Matthew Shepard.

What was different? Certainly the scope of the behavior was comparable if not worse. However, the Carrs are black, and all of their victims were white. Did the Carrs choose to kill white people deliberately, as opposed to other races? I don't know, and for the purposes of this discussion their reasoning is not really important. What is important is whether the media took into account the race of the offenders and victims in choosing not to cover this as heavily as some other cases. I think it's likely that they did.

Obviously other things can have an impact on how much coverage one particular crime receives - for instance, if war were to begin, something that would get front page coverage at any other time would fall to the inside of the paper. But it's still possible to detect patterns of coverage, even given the normal ebb and flow of news, and I think the media has been caught out on their coverage of crimes that could have a hate component, although the prosecuting attorney said it did not:

Some residents in the Wichita area say the murders would have been prosecuted as "hate crimes" had the skin color of the gunmen and their victims been reversed.

However, Sedgwick County, Kan., District Attorney Nola Foulston said she would not charge the suspects with committing "hate crimes" because she believed the murders were motivated by robbery and not racial hatred.

I don't think she's necessarily wrong. But the media's coverage may have been motivated by race - ask yourself, if the race of victim and offender had been reversed, would the coverage have proceeded differently?

(As an aside, I know some people are saying to themselves, "Yes, but if the races were reversed, would the killers be more likely to get life instead of death if it were whites killing blacks?" It's a legitimate question, and one that has raised a great deal of debate about the fairness of the death penalty in this country. But an unevenly applied penalty doesn't excuse uneven coverage. Ideally the nature of the behavior would dictate both coverage and penalty, not race, religion or sexual orientation.)

UPDATE: Yes, I know, you're saying, "MORE?!" But Andy of World Wide Rants posted a link in comments to Jody at Naked Writing, so I went to see. Jody does go after Dreher, then for good measure spins off into a rant about religion in general, concluding:

The softer, more noble aspects of any of the above faiths pale beside the horror they've inflicted and that they continue to cause, all in the name of their most Holy and Invisible. In the day and age of nuclear bombs and biological weapons, and the coming era of nanotech killers, they are conceits, they are luxuries we can no longer afford.

I think if we were to take a few moments to consider those who have killed vast numbers with no religious ideology, or even an anti-religious ideology (ever heard the name Hitler? Stalin? Lenin? Me either), we would see that the killings associated with religion don't precisely stand out. Yes, a lot of horrible things have been done in the name of religion. A lot of great value has occurred as well. I'm not going to do an expository post on religion, but Jody's viewpoint here is clearly biased against it. There's probably not much I can say that would have any impact on him anyway. My only question to him is: What system has over the centuries proven itself to be better, balancing good and bad?

Jody makes a particular point of emphasizing attacks against gays which he said didn't get sufficient media coverage, and then points out the Catholic Church's recent sex scandal. Jody, dear, what did that scandal consist of? Perhaps... grown men victimizing young boys in homosexual acts? If I condemn all religious folk for the predations of some of their co-religionists, to be consistent I must then condemn all gay men for the predations of those who victimized these young boys. Sound like a good deal to you? I didn't think so. And I don't do it. I know full well that many gay men are as sickened by the victimization of children as I am. Good luck to me as a Christian getting the same pass from you.

As for the killing of gays (and lesbians - remember the woman horribly savaged to death by a neighbor's dog, and the accusations that it was to some degree a bias crime), I believe killing anyone deliberately for any reason but self-defense (or a just war, and I am not even going there) is wrong and should get full prosecution regardless of the victim. I would condemn a man to death and be willing to throw the switch if he killed a gay man because of his own religious convictions. Would you do the same for this young man who killed the Christian woman, who did nothing but question his lifestyle?

Nice to know the Dems aren't "Big Money"

Just heard this on the radio:

New Jersey's soon-to-be senior Senator, Jon Corzine, paid taxes of $7 million this past year. He received an income tax refund of $2.3 million. His income tax return was 100 pages long and cost him $20,000 to have prepared.

This man may be in charge of fundraising for the Dem Senators soon. I'm comforted to know that when the Dems rail against "Big Money" that there's no hypocrisy there at all. None. Nada. I admire that.

Not that I'd know

Where do the French win over us? According to this study, between the sheets. Or wherever the mood strikes - why limit it to an association with sheets?

An informal survey of my own indicates that even 138 times a year seems high for an average for Americans. All I can say is, if they're including me in the average, somebody out there is gettin' it on like a rabbit to pull the number up. Some day, I'm going to be an outlier on the other side of the bell curve.

It is, as my subject in my informal survey noted, a difficult result to validate. It was an online survey, which begs the question: If they had this other option, how do they find time to be online to take a survey on a website for a condom manufacturer? And why were they there to begin with? I'm suspicious. It's not precisely a scientific, randomized study, now is it? Maybe Americans were busy doing... other things than being online?!

I wonder if they broke out the demographics by liberal vs conservative. Now that's a statistic I'd like to see.

Oh. My.

This is the funniest thing I've seen in a while.

How does Brent find these things?!

Cameras shouldn't be allowed in the jury room

A trial judge in Texas has ruled that PBS's "Frontline" program can tape jury deliberations in a capital case; a Texas appeals court says, we need to think about this:

Two weeks ago, Ted Poe, a trial judge in Houston, said he would allow the PBS television documentary series "Frontline" to film the jury's deliberations in a death-penalty case there. Yesterday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in Austin, suspended jury selection and said it would consider the prosecution's appeal of the judge's ruling next month.

I think this is terrible. We do not need the deliberations of jurors to become fodder for nationwide second-guessing; it's difficult enough to get people to serve on juries, and the types of people willing to do it will be materially changed if recording the proceedings becomes a facet of the experience - especially in a capital case. The prosecutors in this case - the murder trial of a 17-year-old that includes the possibility of the death penalty - are arguing against it:

In their appellate papers, prosecutors said the prospect of open deliberations would harm the quality of the jury eventually chosen.

"The desire to serve on a `Survivor'-style reality television series should not be added to the qualifications for jury service," they wrote.

Shari Diamond, a law professor at Northwestern University and an expert on how juries make decisions, said the metaphor was apt.

"Conscripting citizens for a reality television program strikes me as a really bad idea," Ms. Diamond said. "It involves jurors in signing on for a national public performance. The potential for that having a distorting effect on their work is palpable."

The defense is of course all for it:

Ricardo Rodriguez, Mr. Harrison's lawyer, said he agreed to the filming only after consulting psychologists and criminal defense lawyers.

"It can only help us," Mr. Rodriguez concluded. "We want to make sure everything is done correctly. There is nothing to hide."

But the potential has already changed who may have served on the jury:

Fourteen of the 110 jurors initially called to serve were dismissed after they said the camera might affect their decision-making. Questioning of the remaining potential jurors started yesterday and included more questions about how filming might affect deliberations.

My question is - what is the judge's view on the death penalty? Of course he has to accept that it's a possibility, and to impose it if the jury decides it's the proper sentence. But it seems to me that one way to stack the deck against the imposition of the penalty is to put the jury's deliberations on film for all to see. Judge Poe's attorney doesn't allude to it, although I wouldn't expect him to:

Charles L. Babcock, a Dallas lawyer, represents Judge Poe in the appeals court. He said that the cameras would not affect the deliberations and that the benefits of openness were substantial.

"Anybody who has ever been in front of a camera knows you forget about it in about two seconds," Mr. Babcock said. "Obviously, the court has to balance the rights of the litigants against the positive aspects of opening the jury's deliberations and allowing the public to see it, after the fact, as the jury makes a literally life-or-death decision."

Naturally PBS is saying it will be done with the highest of standards, but to me that's not at issue here. Once that door is open, virtually any media outlet could rightly make an argument that they should be allowed in as well, or at least that any film made be pool film. Apparently jury deliberations in criminal cases have been filmed in Arizona and Wisconsin, and civil deliberations more widely. It's not a trend I like to see.

Certainly the fact that it's a capital case brings more drama into it, increased more by the fact that the defendent is a juvenile. Opinions go both ways on whether the scrutiny would make a death penalty sentence more or less likely:

Prosecutors argued that allowing cameras would distort deliberations and chill jurors' candor. "We strongly believe that the jury will be reluctant to engage in full and free deliberation when they are subject to being second-guessed down the road," said William J. Delmore III, an assistant district attorney in Houston.

Mr. Delmore also suggested that a televised jury might be less likely to impose the death penalty. "I don't know that I would want to take a strong position on the death penalty if the defendant's friends and family could identify who is taking a possibly unpopular position," he said.

Abraham Abramovsky, a law professor at Fordham University and the author of a leading law review article on filming jury deliberations, agreed that capital cases were particularly ill-suited to such scrutiny, but for a different reason.

"Death penalty cases bring out not only the cerebral in members of society but also the visceral," he said. "In a place like Texas, where the odds are that a major percentage of a person's neighbors and friends are pro-death-penalty, I think you would think twice before leading the band against it."

I'll be interested to see what the conclusion on this is. I think allowing cameras into the deliberations will open a door that won't be closed again, and I think it will change how our system works. I hope it doesn't happen.

UPDATE: Alex Whitlock of RAWbservations emails with support for Judge Poe:

Judge Poe (whom I vote for every cycle he runs) is in favor of the death penalty. Nor is it a matter of trying to stack the deck in favor of anything. He is by far the most popular judge around here and when our DA declined to run for re-election a couple years back, it was his Poe's for the taking. In a county with well over 300 (all independently elected) judges, he stands out more than any other (except the corrupt ones, that is).

Apparently Poe is into creative sentencing and has had a very successful career in law. Here's more, published when Poe was considering running for DA in Houston.

I guess my question is - if he's so good, why is he behind doing something so bad?

Redux

E.L. Core has kindly chosen as his guest column of the week my earlier post on the consistency of holding a pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-war-when-necessary position. He runs a cool site at A View from the Core, which you might want to check out as well.

Thanks, Lane.

Gotta luv arnee

That would be "irony", for those of you north of the Mason Dixon (and we'll ignore that, for now, that includes me). Take a look at this:

It is telling that the new chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee probably will be New Jersey's freshman Jon Corzine, who spent $63 million of his own money getting elected two years ago. Corzine is the prototype of what the Democrats need--self-financing candidates. Both parties adore such candidates, but, says Bainwol, Democrats especially crave them because of the new campaign finance law for which Democrats were cheerleaders.

Telling indeed. Democrats rattle on and on about big money and the fat-cat Republicans, but now they're caught in their own trap - race after the candidates with piles and piles of money, earned by engaging in Evil Capitalism, or find themselves increasingly marginalized by Republicans who have never vilified those who've succeeded through honest work so find no hypocrisy in supporting candidates who can bring money to the table. In addition, the Democrats have worked diligently for decades to turn their voting base into dependents sucking off the government teet, so now who's going to contribute? The choices are: the average government-aid receiver giving out of his/her welfare check (yeah, that's going to happen) or people who have earned their money by consorting with The Enemy Capitalism, writing checks while weeping their guilt into their Dom Perignon, wrapped in their cashmere shawl, teetering on their Prada shoes, hanging out with Babs and Bill and Hillary and Alec and whatever Kennedys can be dragged in. It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

Okay, it's funny anyway.

NYC progressives

The NYC City Council just approved a more than 18% increase in property taxes for all five boroughs, part of Mayor Bloomberg's effort to close a projected $6 billion deficit. He had requested 25%, but I'm sure before he proposed it he made sure they were on board for what he really needed (the 18%). Asking for the much higher percentage gives the Council something to hide behind when they approve the highest percentage increase in the city's history.

I'm sure it's something the NYC liberals will embrace - after all, it's a tax on possessions, and thus progressive since people with more money have more possessions.

Another move is an increase in cost for public transportation - bus and subway - from $1.50 to $1.75 or $2 per ride. As someone who uses NYC public transportation most times when I go into Manhattan, I don't much like it. Jane Galt says it's past due, however, and I can see her reasoning. I'd much rather pay cost than increase taxes to subsidize it.

And I'm grateful not to work in NYC, given that another Bloomberg effort is to pass legislation requiring those who live outside of the five boroughs but work in the city to pay the same (or more) income tax percentage as those who live there.

My question is this: If taxes are going up precipitously, the risk of further attack continues, and soon workers from outside the boroughs will be penalized for working in NYC, what's going to keep NYC from bleeding jobs into the surrounding areas or even, in this technological world, out of the NYC range altogether?

Book sales tank, Gore lawyers activated

Rand Simberg has an exclusive on Al Gore lawyers swinging into action against Amazon.com for confusing online ordering of books, resulting in low sales for Gore's new book.

I think the lawyers are from Hanging, Chad & Dimple of Miami.

I'm not surprised

What Type Of Retro Gal Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

(Via Jane Galt)

I'm suffering from...

Best of the Web today has a great list of post-traumatic disorders, keying off an earlier BOTW about the latest designer PTSD, where some blacks are having flashbacks to the slavery experiences of their ancestors, and some Latinos are flashing back to slavery experiences not even their ancestors had. So Taranto had his readers write in with their versions. Too funny.

And here's mine:

I'm suffering from Post-Appalachia Stress Disorder. My ancestors were chased out of Scotland and Ireland and virtually interned in remote and desolate reaches of the southern Appalachian mountains. Although I've been released from it, whenever I see anything associated with my childhood I draw up into a ball and keen. The word "grit" can put me out for an hour or more; people wearing overalls give me heart palpitations and flashbacks to my grandfather with unbuttoned galouse cutting weeds with a hand-scythe. I'm repeatedly bombarded with images from Lil Abner, Beverly Hillbillies and, most recently, a proposal to have a reality show where released Appalachian internees are cut loose in the wilds of Beverly Hills to fend for themselves. Oh the humanity!

I think that's worth a few mil, don't you?

Poor Joe

John Stryker does a laugh-out-loud fisking of San Diego State University school newspaper opinion page editor Joe Zarro, who I mentioned earlier. Put down your drink before reading Stryker's response. Here's a couple of gems:

In actuality, our military is designed for aggression.

You don't say? Joe, you've just taken your first step into a larger world. Just wait until you find out where babies come from. It'll blow you away...

You shouldn't have to join the military and kill Muslims for a leg up in society.

Nope, you should be able to kill all sorts of people to get a leg up. Being limited to the slightly darker peoples of the world really limits you in the long run. In the interests of universality, we should open up the Hindu as well as the untapped Asian markets.

I'd love to know how much of the bloggish and general derision Zarro knows about. I'm sure he feels he's being martyred for his cause.

How bizarre, how bizarre

Mike at Cold Fury has posted a lot of a letter received by The Guardian, supposedly from either Osama Bin Loser or a representative, about why the Islamonuts hate us; here's the full text. Pretty fascinating, and the second half reads like Babs served as a consultant on it (except of course for the bit about Bill Clinton and his Oval Office shenanigans). Mike has pertinent comments all throughout; it's worth reading.

Will be interesting to see how this spins on the Left, or if they even are willing to touch it.

Here's a bit from toward the end that's enlightening:

The Nation of victory and success that Allah has promised:

"It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad peace be upon him) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it." [Quran 61:9]

"Allah has decreed that 'Verily it is I and My Messengers who shall be victorious.' Verily Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty." [Quran 58:21]

The Islamic Nation that was able to dismiss and destroy the previous evil Empires like yourself; the Nation that rejects your attacks, wishes to remove your evils, and is prepared to fight you. You are well aware that the Islamic Nation, from the very core of its soul, despises your haughtiness and arrogance.

If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness, guidance and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that you will lose this Crusade Bush began, just like the other previous Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace. If the Americans do not respond, then their fate will be that of the Soviets who fled from Afghanistan to deal with their military defeat, political breakup, ideological downfall, and economic bankruptcy.

How much clearer do those who defend the Islamonuts need to have it made? And the rewriting of history that this statement requires puts me in mind of someone lying on the ground in a bloody pulp, his victor standing virtually unmarked above him, and out of his smashed mouth saying, "Yes! You are afraid of me! I can see it! I will defeat you!"

Don't miss the quotes from the Quran. The Religion of Peace ™ makes its stand again.

Which official would that be?

We've all heard recently about the supposed funneling of money from the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US through a circuitous route to 9/11 terrorists. The main question seems to be, what route? Well, according to The Arab News, the Justice Department has cleared them:

JEDDAH/WASHINGTON, 25 November 2002 — A US official has denied reports that the two Sept. 11 hijackers were allegedly funded by Saudi personalities vindicating the Kingdom’s stand that it had no link with the funding.

A Justice Department official said it was unthinkable that Saudi officials supported a terrorist organization which is inimical to them also.

The only problem is... that's all that is said about the "Justice Department official" - no word on what section, who it is, why they're talking to him, whether it is a him; this could be a janitor or it could be nobody at all. Good journalism there, amazingly kind to their view.

The Arab News has decided where to hang the responsibility for this vilification of sweet lil ole Mrs. Saudi Ambassador (she's a mother! she's a grandmother! She would never.... haven't they heard of Ma Barker?). They say, it's the American Congress, trying to score points:

Al-Jubeir said the Saudis had thought the money trail issue was closed. “So we find it surprising that now out of the US Congress they repackage this and push it as new evidence, which leads me to believe that the people who are behind this are more interested in scoring political brownie points than they are in arriving at the truth,” he said.

Somebody's had education in the US, Mr. Al-Jubeir Brownie Points. It's funny to watch the Arabs spin this situation, which looks quite bad for them. But then every time we lift the rock named "Saudi Arabia" we see nasty slimy crawling hypocrisy, bloated self-interest and vicious back-stabbing. I wonder what a "Justice Department official" would say about that?

They just can't help themselves

Bryan at JunkYardBlog mentions a site apparently run by al qaida; he gives the site address but no link. When you go to the site, it tries to imbed a virus into your computer (one of the reasons he offers no link, and I won't give the site name). The insertion attempt happens when your computer first accesses the site, before the page even loads. And this is a propaganda page; they want you to visit, ostensibly. It put me in mind of a vicious creature that bites and tries to maim or kill even when it is in its own best interests not to. If it's not an intentional thing on their part, it's still a good metaphor for their organization. They seek to harm because that's their nature.

DO NOT go to the site unless your virus detector is functioning and updated.

Steyn does it again

I love Mark Steyn. Just thought I'd mention that. This time he's dealing with the irrelevance of the left. Wait a minute - that's what he always deals with. But this is particularly tasty.

A long day

I drove over to Brooklyn this morning to attend church with friends visiting NYC from Kentucky. I did fine until I got to Prospect Park on Flatbush Avenue, was proud of myself to have gotten that far. Actually I was eventually happy all around because I did find where I needed to be without asking for further directions. But it took a while because I had to figure out how to get to Prospect Place from Prospect Park, and almost had to find moss on trees to get headed properly. It turned out the street I needed wasn't a "bear left" it was a "turn left", and since all the streets are one way I meandered around a while.

My friends are in town because the daughter's band is in the Macy's parade on Thursday. The daughter and I drove back into Manhattan (the others took the subway) where I found a nice parking space, only to learn it was on a street limited to commercial traffic. We needed to find a restaurant and a parking space, so this time all five of my friends piled in and off we went. Did I mention I drive a Nissan Sentra? I did find a space, right in front of an Irish pub where a real Irish lass waited on us (although I had the impression she would have belted anyone who called her a "lass").

Everything was quite pleasant until... it took me two hours to drive the 15 or so miles home! Most of that was spent sitting on 7th Avenue waiting to get through Holland Tunnel with all the other New Jerseyites come into the big city to shop. Over an hour, right there. Wouldn't have been so bad (I have a high tolerance for traffic jams when I have books or crocheting or something good on the radio to listen to), except I had neglected to fill up on gas and was getting edgy watching the gas gauge dip down below the last line before E. Made it to the gas station though. Whew.

So that's my day, and also the reason for no other posts. I'll see what I can tear into tomorrow...

Another Saudi link to 9/11

Newsweek has an exclusive article tracing money from the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US, to two of the five terrorists who flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Scott Koenig has a summary.

Remind me again about how they're our allies?

Missing in Minnesota

A few days ago reader Harley Leonard sent me a link to news about four college students in Minnesota and Wisconsin who have gone missing since Halloween. I dug around a little about it, and learned that police have decided the disappearance of the female student, Erika Dalquist of Brainerd, Minn., is not connected to the other three, all of whom involve males: Christopher Jenkins, a 21-year-old University of Minnesota student; Michael J. Noll, a 22-year-old University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire student; and Josh Guimond, a 20-year-old St. John's University student. They were originally connected because all four had left parties (some at bars) just before disappearing.

According to an article on Noll just after his disappearance, another student not included in the four had disappeared in similar circumstances in late September. His body was found in a nearby lake a couple of weeks later. In articles about the four, at least three of them are described as being intoxicated when last seen. That would make them more susceptible to kidnapping, but is this likely foul play? It doesn't seem so, but the fact that bodies have not been found yet does raise that question.

While the families of the missing students are going through every parent's nightmare, at the same time it's good to see that the news media are not jumping on this with quite the alacrity they tend to. The information is getting out there that they are missing, but I've not seen specials on a possible serial killer in Minnesota - although the disappearances have been covered nationally, including an interview with Dalquist's uncle by Greta Van Susteren.

One of the reasons why crime is such a major staple in the news, and on television series, is because it is high drama - those victimized by crime are going through possibly one of the worst experiences of their lives, and their families are often dragged into it as well. It's difficult in the face of such trauma to maintain a sense of perspective, to realize that from a wider angle seeming patterns fit well within the statistical probabilities of chance. I was glad to see this section in an article about the disappearances being investigated by the FBI for patterns:

Authorities have said an average of more than 17,000 Minnesotans are reported missing each year. Few are victims of homicide and other crimes. Most are 17 and younger; according to the FBI, 15,401 juvenile runaways were reported in Minnesota last year, and most returned home.

Last year 795 endangered adults, such as nursing-home walkaways, were reported missing, as were 837 disabled people. More than 130 children were abducted in parental disputes.

Now, that isn't to say we should be unconcerned about these things. Having over 15,000 juveniles running away is a problem, and certainly those juveniles are highly endangered - very likely to either be victimized, turn to crime themselves, or both. But it does make it clear that when looking for patterns, we have to disconnect from the emotions of an individual case, or set of cases, and be pragmatic about causation or correlation.

I hope the four students in Minnesota and Wisconsin are found unharmed; in the case of the young men, who were not seen with anyone else, I don't hold out a lot of hope at this point. I'm just glad that the media is not lapsing into full dog-pack baying after the cases, which I think would only hinder the investigations.

A friendly warning as a public service

Guys, be careful with those laptops - for the sake of the species.

(I'm also skeptical of his story. And I don't think he was writing a report - had to be something a little more distracting.)

[Via Joyful Christian; James Rummel at Handbasket links a similar article.]

"You shouldn't have to join the military and kill Muslims for a leg up in society"

I thought about giving Joe Zarro - author of the fine words in the title of this post - a full-fledged fisking, but on reflection realized there was nothing even remotely of substance to use as fisk-hooks.

In case you care, Joe Zarro is the opinion page editor of The Daily Aztec, the San Diego State University newspaper. He's a junior there, and an English major. He also wears a goofy hat with some thought that it's cool.

I'll let him speak for himself. First, the headline:

Join U.S. military, degrade humanity

Mad yet? Hang on:

Join the U.S. military and protect your country from itself. Go to distance lands and fight enemies engineered, funded and trained by your government. Mindlessly follow the orders to shoot slightly darker people from countries you know almost nothing about or fly really, really fast over a village and bomb women and children without slowing down...

The bottom line is if you kill or get killed in the U.S. military, the death was for money.

The average private's level of political knowledge about the institution they support is ridiculous. They may know technical jargon about equipment and the workings of the military, but few know about the social repercussions of their job. They are trained to point and shoot, but never taught the real reasons why.

And my personal favorite:

Today's soldiers are not heroes deserving of unconditional respect -- they are enforcers of economic domination with blood on their hands.

Maybe he does deserve a full fisking with a spiked rod. I may get back to it. Meanwhile, read the whole thing, but not if you just ate. You don't want to get vomit on your keyboard.

[Link via Scott Koenig at Indepundit, who has a lot more grace about this than I'm inclined to.]

Kinda cool

The guy who runs Jish.nu posts photos and lets you guess what they're of. Pretty cool.

I love photography; I find the abstractions that occur in everyday life or in nature are the only abstractions that appeal to me visually, and photography is the best mechanism to capture those. Photographic framing is fascinating too - I have a landscape photo on my desktop at work, and one of my "doodling" activities while on hold is to use the cursor to select sections of it, trying to see different ways to crop the one photo into dozens of little photos with their own artistic integrity (using the law of thirds). It's one of the things I miss about journalism - I've really not done much photography since the days when my camera was almost welded to my hand, when I was a reporter. I need to dig out my Canon and have at it again...

Jish.nu takes common objects and photographs sections of them in pleasing abstractions - it's left to readers (viewers?) to figure out what each is. Go back in his archives to see more than what's on the front page. If nothing else, it's a fine lesson in how to make the ordinary look beautiful.

A good vibes - bad vibes story

Warning: PG rating

But too funny, nonetheless.

(The first time I've been glad not to live in Texas.)

(And why can't they just say the word in the article, instead of that long description that in the final analysis is a lot more graphic than just using the word?)

(The bad vibe is the arrest. At least she wasn't trying to give a demonstration of her products while driving as well.)

(Would that be DWV?)

Evil SUVs - killing children

Last night on Channel 2 out of NYC, consumer reporter Marcia Kramer presented a segment on “back over” accidents – where young children are killed because they’ve run behind a car in a driveway and someone, usually a parent or close relative, don’t see them and back into them. According to Kramer, there are 55 such accidents a year resulting in deaths. Here’s the link to the article about it on their website.

One of the important features of the segment was encouragement for drivers to get sensors on their back bumpers which tell them when some object (human or otherwise) is behind them. That’s a good thing, and if I had a child I’d probably do it. But Kramer couldn’t just do a straightforward presentation of the value of the sensors, or lay blame on the ones who actually hit the children. No, she placed the blame solidly on…

…SUVs.

That’s right. According to Kramer, a big part of the problem is the size of SUVs, where you can’t see behind them very well. She noted that about 60% of the accidents involved SUVs, and said that “critics” think the government should do something about it. My favorite quote, from a woman who backed over her son:

“It's like a gun, I was in control, I can't blame the car manufacturers. But buyer beware, when they sell you something they should let you know the dangers,” says Annette Bottum.

Like a gun? At least she says she can’t blame car manufacturers, but why should cars come with a warning that says, “You can’t see everything behind you, so you might run over your child if for some reason he or she runs behind it”? Those of you who thought you could see everything behind your vehicle, SUV or no, raise your hand. No hands? (Surely no one who reads this site is that ignorant, so I’m assuming no hands.) Then why would these people act like it was a shock?

I can’t begin to imagine the horror and pain of not only losing your child, but being the instrument of his death, even by accident. It would have to change who you are in some elemental level. But that pain shouldn’t give people a pass when they try to blame something that carries no fault for their mistakes. Yes, having the sensors would be great. But your first obligation is to know where your child is. And your second obligation is to recognize that you can’t see everything behind you, which is why the first obligation is so important. There is no obligation to blame your SUV.

Kramer obtained some of her stats, and mentions in her segment, the organization Kids ‘N Cars. It’s focus is a bit more general, basically making people more aware that children should not be alone around or in cars because bad things can happen – they can be run over, they can die if closed in heat or cold, they can put a car in gear and hurt themselves or others. It seems, from a cursory look, a worthy organization. But one thing stood out as not quite so kosher – their statistics. They compile data on all accidents and deaths involving children in and around cars. The numbers are comparatively low, but they have this notation underneath the chart: “These data vastly underestimate the true magnitude of this public safety issue.”

There’s no explanation about why that statement is true, and it is a dual indictment of their numbers: first, that the numbers are low and thus perhaps not the public health hazard some other things are; and second, that they are willing to make unsubstantiated statements there, thus calling into question all their other statements.

So, while the core of Kramer’s segment was solid – it would be a good thing to have sensors to detect if a child is behind your vehicle – the context and sources were either flagrantly or implicitly biased. And there lies a cautionary tale for media consumers in NYC – you have to strip away the agenda to find the nuggets of truth.

It's not about the placement

Ever heard the saying "hoist with his own petard"? Well, Don Wycliff of the Chicago Trib should have his photo next to that in Webster's.

The ever astute Spoons noted this photograph on the front page of the Trib - it shows Bush with a rather goofy expression. Apparently some other good citizens noted it too, and enough of them wrote the Trib to complain that columnist Wycliff was moved to write an apology. Of sorts. The kind of apology that goes something like this: "I'm sorry I called you stupid when I should have called you dumber than a slug after bein' run over by a semi in a rainstorm." The best part of Wycliff's nonsense, though, is this little gem:

...the tone of Snyder, Conway, Pfenning and the rest was not the usual strident hyperpartisanship of those pro-Bush zealots who live to hate Clinton and find evidence of media bias. The zealots probably relished "that picture" because it confirmed their conviction that the media are against them.

These correspondents were people who expected us to be fair and objective and were heartsick that, in their view, we had failed.

And are continuing to fail, Mr. Wycliff. You remind me of still another saying: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. And just because "pro-Bush zealots" are looking for evidence of media bias doesn't mean it isn't there. You - and your photo editor - proved it. The rather lame excuse your photo editor used for running the photo was either a) goofy and why is he still your photo editor or b) disingenuous. And here is your closing:

...my gut tells me it amounted to a Page 1 editorial in which George W. Bush was being labeled an idiot and a clown, unsuited to the presidency.

There may be a place for that in the newspaper, but it's not Page 1.

Interpretation: Bush is an idiot and a clown, but we should bury our beliefs a little deeper so at least the non-zealots aren't slapped in the face with it.

Don Wycliff: A man who would say "I don't &$#!% curse!" and think he had effectively denied the charge.

UPDATE: Justin Katz has a few comments to add as well.

Peace, tolerance and understa…uh, wrong religion

I can’t say that the Miss World contest is precisely an evangelical wonder, but somehow I’m not thinking the reaction of local Muslims is covering their religion in glory. Alan has a good post about it on theosebes; I especially like this:

One has a hard time taking seriously the religious sensitivities of people who resort to mass rioting over a newspaper article.

Idiots are idiots regardless of what religion they profess, and murderers of innocents are wrong no matter how many times a day they pray. Hey! Let’s send Jimmy Carter over there to Negotiate Peace ™ and Disarm The Masses ™.

Harry Potter - fostering witchcraft?

One of the controversies swirling around the Harry Potter series - both books and movies - is that the witchcraft central to the story is anti-Christian and dangerous to children. My usual response to this charge is, "Please. I think you need a life in the worst possible way." My brother, a preacher, went to see the second movie last night and has this to say about the movie, the books and the charges of danger.

(He pretty much agrees with me, but is nicer about it. Love the Sesame Street reference, Alan!)

Jimmy Carter: He's not just our idiot anymore

Not that he ever was, but he's now an apologist for everyone but us. Nice from a former president - you really like to see that, dancing for Castro, kissing up to tyrants, skewering and lying about his own country to increase his own sense of piety. Yes, you like to see that.

Tammy Bruce slices and dices Carter for his latest idiocy in this article:

Former president Jimmy Carter told CNN that the United States should disarm, just like we’re asking North Korea and Iraq to do. After all, he said, we should set an example and do exactly what we’re asking the insane totalitarians of the world to do...

Carter also complained to CNN, "There is a sense that the United States has become too arrogant, too dominant, too self-centered, proud of our wealth, believing that we deserve to be the richest and most powerful and influential nation in the world."

...Here’s a little dose of reality for those, like Jimmy Carter, who have somehow forgotten how and why this country became the greatest on Earth. It’s because we have sacrificed dearly to save nations of strangers who were besieged by Bad Guys and Evil Doers throughout the 20th century.

I think the "sense" about the US being "too arrogant" is Carter's sense, and feeds the hatefulness of those he wants to pander to. I've read around the Internet, both in media outlets and blogs, that the US is arrogant, that we do think we're top dog. Maybe we need to give that impression? One of the first things that a police officer learns is that taking control of a situation through his (or her) manner is the first and best line of defense in staying safe and getting the job done. That's part of what we have to do, at least militarily. If we play Carter Kissy-Face with the bad guys, are they going to be deterred or emboldened? I think you know the answer to that. If we swagger just a bit, does that convey the impression that 1) we can whip you without breaking a sweat and 2) we intend to shortly? I think so. And I think that the US's manner is part of what keeps the world safer. I think the "cowboy in the White House" can do as much to accomplish our goals as the actual deployment of our military, just by being a cowboy. I know that is meant as a term of derision, but I like it. Yeehaw.

If you can stomach it, read Bruce's skewering of Carter. Well-deserved, well-done. Can we revoke the citizenship of a previous president?

[Thanks to Brent at The Ville for the link to this idiot-fisking.]

Amen, sister, say on!

I like this woman's style:

The problem with Broome County's social services is women of low morals and their drug-dealing, abusive boyfriends, said the chairwoman of the county committee that oversees the Department of Social Services.

Further, said Legislator Wanda Hudak of Endicott, the solution to the abusive boyfriends is "a 25-cent bullet."

..."The problem lies with the low moral character of women who insist on breeding children they can't care for because 'somebody else will.' The problem lies with boyfriends being allowed to stay with them to suck on the system while they themselves service a multitude of women and deal drugs without repercussions."

Later that day, Hudak attended a Legislature meeting at which the budget was adopted, and told a number of child protective and foster care caseworkers that the way to end abuse was with "a 25-cent bullet."

...Hudak said Tuesday that the "bullet" comment was an exaggeration, but was an otherwise accurate assessment of her feelings.

"Invariably, you will find the abuser is a boyfriend," she said, citing the October death of 4-month-old Iceas Maddox. Clemmeth L. Maddox, the boyfriend of the child's mother, has been charged with second-degree murder.

Do you think we can convince Hudak to run for national office? I'd like to see her in charge of Health and Human Services.

[Link via Romenesko's Obscure Store and Reading Room]

With friends like these...

I was awake for hours. Hours! Doing virtually nothing of value (as the posts below attest). So then I go to bed for a nap...all curled up, warm... RINNNNGGGG!!! It's Desiree.

"Did I wake you up?"

No, I always have morning voice.

We chat for about 15 min, then hang up. Curling up again. Warm, toasty, drifting....

RINGGGGG!!!!

Melody.

"Listen, I have to tell you this!"

"I'm asleep."

"No, you're not. Listen..." and off she goes with her tale.

I give up. So here I am back online while dinner is cooking. Now all I need is for Ben the Conscience to call and ask if I've studied today.

No, Ben, I was trying to sleep, I'll say. Go away.

I wonder if all my phones have ringer-off buttons...

I promise to try harder

One of my friends in college was a guy from Australia with a very strong accent. Whenever I didn't get something he said, he'd grin and say, "Gave ya burn marks on the forehead, did it?" I must have had quite the little forehead callous by the time we left college, what with his sayings zinging past me at such speed and frequency. It has occurred to me lately that the finer points of my sense of humor seem to do this to a lot of my online friends. Somehow my words aren't always translating as "humor" when I mean for them to. I'm not quite sure what to do about this. Use more emoticons? (No, Page would strangle me; she already saw through a fake persona I attempted because of all the emoticons.) Say "wink wink, nudge nudge"? (No, I look nothing like Eric Idle.) Say, "In case you didn't realize, this is supposed to be funny"? (No, that immediately kills any humor that might have lifted a weak tendril to the sky.)

I give up. Folks, if you're not sure if it's humor or not - assume humor. It's easier that way.

Not that I know anything

I’m at home today, more annoyed than sick although not feeling the best either. It’s one of those days when you can look someone dead in the eye and say, “If you truly want to see tomorrow’s sunrise, you will turn around, walk away slowly and not say whatever it was that I saw in your eyes.” Not only am I irrational on such days, but I both know I am and make no apologies for it.

It seems appropriate then that I would take a few minutes out of my nap to lay into this article:

Eight Sexy Holiday Tips to Turn an Average Joe Into a Romantic Lothario

My first reaction is, who wants a Lothario anyway? Just look at what Roget has to say:

1. A man amorously attentive to women: amorist, Casanova, Don Juan, gallant, lady's man, Romeo. See SEX. 2. A man who seduces women: debaucher, Don Juan, seducer. See SEX.

Debaucher? Casanova? Ew. Of course the main point is "See SEX". Note too how both definitions use the plural “women”. If a man goes Lothario on me, I’m likely to go Lorena on him. To get things off on the right path, I’ll just rewrite that headline:

Eight Sexy Holiday Tips to Give Your Average Joe a Solid Clue of How to Make Happen What You Both Want In Such a Way That You’re Both Happy

There. Not quite as literary and a tad wordy but, I think, more literal. Now for this messy list from Rachelle Zukerman, a PhD (i.e. someone who should know better):

Start communicating. How can he do "it" if you don't even know what "it" is?

Well, first I thought, “If he doesn’t know what ‘it’ is by now, you best toss him back and see what other fish are in that barrel.” Then I realized she meant the turns-you-on “it”:

Figure out which of your senses is most romantically receptive. Do you like soft music, candlelight, loving words, surprises, gastronomic pleasures, gentle touches, incense or perfume?

Yes. So, leave him a Pier 1 catalog and a Godiva catalog all marked up, beside the checkbook? Personally, I find all my senses are receptive. Do I have to choose? How about making it a full body-mind experience?

Get past your hang ups. Don't buy into the myth that romance isn't truly romantic or satisfying unless it's spontaneous.

She keeps doing this. I think she’s going one way with it and she winds up in a completely different zip code. I’m thinking, “Yeah, check your inhibitions at the door”. She saying, “Don’t get whiny if you have to tell him to take you out to lunch or to buy you (fill in the blank).” I say, it’s the blind leading the blind if you ain’t already past the point of being whiny. Any woman who doesn’t know that she not only has to tell a guy something directly, but has to draw a map of how, when and what to do, preferably scanned into a file for his PDA, is a woman who needs a lot more help than MSN can provide.

Spell it out. Men are not good guessers in this area. Tell him what you would like (that's why you must know which of your senses is most romantically sensitive). A sure-fire way to get him moving is to say, "When you do (or say) such and such, I feel sexy." Men will do anything to make you feel sexy!

There we go! She got there, eventually. I’ll just say “ditto” to that last sentence and move right along.

Smother him with affection. No matter how small, fuss over his romantic words or actions. Tell him you adore it when he calls you "pookie" or brings you your coffee in bed. Your reaction encourages him to be even more romantic.

I’m a bit skeptical here. Nobody (well, nobody I’d date) likes a clinging vine, some woman always attached to his hip making little purring noises and calling him “snookems”. And constant exaggerated praise for little things is going to make any man worth anything run screaming in the other direction. What’s more, any man who calls me “pookie” will be summarily dumped, not adored. On the other hand, I’m all for expressing appreciation for sweet, kind, loving, romantic, thoughtful behaviors. But you should be doing that anyway. The more I go along here, the more I’m thinking this is all too calculated.

Model romantic behavior. Every tiny love note you leave in his tennis bag increases the chance that he will follow suit. This is important because some guys have never experienced romance for its own sake (i.e. not just as a prerequisite to sex).

Oh, yeah, this’ll work. Every man I know is highly likely to mirror feminine romantic behavior. As for not having experienced romance before - WHO HAS HE BEEN DATING? I thought all women wanted romance? If he’s not experienced romance before, he’s either a) buying it; b) looking for it in all the wrong places; or c) incapable of experiencing it. Dump him. Yesterday.

I do advocate doing romantic things. Just don’t do them as bait to get him to do it. All you’ll get is mad.

Start romantic rituals. Mark special dates or events with chocolate, music, massage or whatever turns you on. If he doesn't pick up on it, spell out your desires more clearly.

She keeps slipping here. There is no “pick up on it” with men. There is only “clearly spoken, then written, then drawn in a map uploadable onto his PDA”. However, the good thing is that after enough practice, muscle memory kicks in and something approximating spontaneity and planning begins to happen. Yes, I did just call a man’s brain a “muscle”.

Note: Massage is good.

Note: This is not:

One woman writes her husband a yearly "State of the Union" letter reviewing the preceding 12 months of marital joy. She gives it to her husband before their anniversary dinner, and he reciprocates with a special anniversary toast.

I would not want to be that man! He gets graded every year? When does he get to write a “State of the Union” letter? It’d probably be one sentence: “Too much stating, not enough unioning.”

Embrace his nature. Know your man's personality and act accordingly.

Okay, this is beginning to be more rational. Duh.

Traditional men feel protective toward women. To get one of these types to be romantic, say, "When you do such and such, I feel so taken care of." A shy man often can't say the words that are in his heart, but he can find what he feels in the words of others. With such a man, start a card-giving ritual. If your sweetie is disorganized, forget surprises, gifts and reservations. Instead, appreciate his "spur of the moment" gestures. Giving you the seat with the best view is more than just nice -- it's romantic!

I think this falls into the “love him for who he is” category. Uh huh. You’re with him because he appealed to you on some level that was important to you. It’s reasonable to encourage him to nurture you in the ways that make you happy, but it’s not all about you. What about him? I’m still not liking this calculated approach. I’ll give The Susanna Method in a minute. Let’s finish this off first.

Never complain about his lack of romantic creativity. Nothing squelches the potential for romance more than criticism.

Aaggh! What did we just spend the first seven items doing? Finding ways to make up for or correct his inadequacies! This list is the female equivalent of a list for guys on “How To Get More”. They’re just exchanging the coin of the realm – he wants more sex, and she wants more romance. So he doles out romance, she grants him sex.

What is wrong with this picture?

Just about everything, you say? I knew we were on the same wavelength.

Seriously, Zukerchick has some good points, but these lists make me grind my teeth. Why don’t we make it much simpler? Here’s The Susanna Method for Couple Bliss:

Everybody wants to be loved for who they are. Start there. Genuinely and frequently let the other person know that you’re pretty darned impressed with who they are. Awed, in fact. Deeply gratified to be with him (her). Two subsets of this: Compliment him for what you like about him. And compliment him for what he likes about himself. That requires that you know what he likes about himself, but if you don’t know, then you’re a selfish little snot and he should dump you. And if you aren’t impressed with who the other person is, then why are you in the relationship?

Everyone wants what they want. For all its self-evident appearance, this seems to be a little known fact. The point is, don’t give what you want. Give what the person receiving wants. If you don’t know, ask. Duh. Maybe you want to dress up and go out for a romantic dinner – sometimes he should do that for you because he’s giving you want you want. But maybe he wants you to dress up like a cheerleader and feed him beer nuts while he watches TV. Do it on occasion. Don’t do it because you want something back, though. Do it because you want to please the other person. All this calculated “if I do this, I’ll get this” business is why we have so much trouble to start with. Please. Get over yourself.

Don’t think you’re all that and a slice of cheese. An extension of the last sentence in the previous entry. You’re fortunate to have him/her. Act like it.

Always say what you want. Don’t be coy. Don’t expect anyone to read minds. Don’t go crying in a corner because of (fill in the blank). Yes, some guys are so clueless they couldn’t solve a mystery if the answer was written on their hand. But if they aren’t arrogant and childish they’re trainable. So train. In a nice way.

Hmmm… A lot of this seems to be focused on women. Okay, men, here’s one just for you:

Help out around the house and with the kids. That’s it. You can’t begin to imagine the value that one thing has in improving your whole relationship. If you’re just in the dating stage, think of this as “taking a load off her” – look for ways to do it. Just be careful about the pitfalls of condescension. Don’t go there.

And remember: Being a Lothario is a Very Bad Thing.

Because I say so

Go wish Dodd Harris a Happy 2nd Blogiversary!

And if you know what's good for you, you'll enter the Caption Contest too - or Nancy Pelosi will keep that whiphand.

[And since I can't, AGAIN, get to his site, you'll have to scroll around for the contest. I think he has a link to it just a couple of posts down. But you're smart. You can find it.]

Public dissection

A physician in London last night dissected the dead body of a 72-year-old businessman in front of an audience of 500; a British television company plans to broadcast an edited version of it.

Is this a bad thing?

Some in Britain say it is:

The government said there was a time and a place for autopsies, and this was not it.

Dr. Jeremy Metters, the official Inspector of Anatomy, said it was illegal under the 1984 Anatomy Act because neither von Hagens nor the venue had post-mortem licenses.

Metters said he wrote to von Hagens warning that he faced criminal penalties and that police were asked to take "appropriate action."

...Dr. Roger Soames, of the British Association of Professional Anatomists, said taking a post-mortem out of licensed premises and into a public place raised ethical issues.

He said people's curiosity was understandable, "because most of the public are fascinated by the way their body works."

But "I'm not sure if this is the way to do it," he said.

I tend to agree with Soames, that people are fascinated but that this type of venue might not be the best means of satisfying that curiosity. Especially passing the organs around the audience, which I think doesn't show enough respect for the bodies.

I'm one of those people who is fascinated by how the body works, and I'm not in the least turned off by graphic scenes of bodies in various stages of dissection. What disturbs me about scenes of carnage is not the bodies themselves, but the knowledge of the pain of those whose bodies are in that condition. That can be so difficult that you have to disconnect your emotions from the situation just to be able to observe. However, if the person or his/her family gave permission for a public viewing of dissection, I don't really have a problem with it on principle. I just think it needs to be respectful.

But then, my experiences are different from the average person's anyway. In the course of studying about crime and the things people do to each other, I've seen several crime scene videos that are very graphic, I've studied books on evaluating injuries (such as using blood spatters to determine trajectory of the wounding instrument), and once I even observed an autopsy. That was difficult, because the autopsy was of a child killed by his mother's abusive boyfriend. Your views on the need for severe punishment for abuse firm up remarkably when you see for yourself the little ruptured blood vessels dotting the top of a dead child's exposed brain, a child dead because a grown man hit him on the top of the head with his closed fist because the under-one-year-old child wouldn't stop crying. Yes, indeedy, it makes your approval of retributive sentences rock solid.

So clearly I'm not particularly sensitive about blood and gore, albeit very sensitive about cruelty. And I don't think that people who are sensitive about it should stand in the way of interested people viewing autopsies, as long as the person on the cutting table is handled in a respectful way. I just don't know that an arena atmosphere accomplishes that.

What constitutes a journalist?

Is there going to come a time when we have to have a legal definition of journalist? It's starting to appear so, given the proliferation of websites where the writers are not paid by a media outlet but do activities similar to what news media do. It's a difficult question, because you don't want to constrict who can be an official information disseminator - someone would have to make that designation, and any time a bureaucrat and lawyers are involved it gets ugly. But do we then open up the protections journalists have to everyone who has a computer or access to Kinko's and a distribution route? Can we allow Jane down the street to "protect her sources" when she publishes something on her website? Does intent or training play into it?

I'm a blogger, just like thousands of other people. What I do daily isn't substantially different (although, of course, more insightful and better written) than what dozens of others do. However, I do have a journalism degree, I have worked as a professional journalist and my goal is to do so again. Should I be perceived differently, in a legal sense, than someone who does the same thing without that background? In one sense, I would say, no, there's no material difference. On the other hand, I do have training in journalism ethics (stop laughing) and have a clear understanding of the need to not publish something you haven't solid sources for.

It's a bigger issue than I can decide in one morning's ruminations, but it's a question that's going to crop up more and more as things like this happen:

The creator of an Internet site that accuses the Lexington Catholic diocese of promoting a "homosexual agenda" is being sued for defamation by a local priest.

In a suit filed this week in Fayette Circuit Court, Father James Sichko, 35, says webmaster Efrain Cortes falsely accused him of being "actively involved in the homosexual culture that exists in Lexington" and of "cruising the Schools in the diocese."

Sichko, a campus minister at Eastern Kentucky University and Georgetown College, says the allegations caused him "great injury" and forced him to endure "public hatred, contempt and ridicule. ... "

But Cortes -- a maintenance worker whose Web alias is "Abe Lincoln" -- says he is an Internet journalist who is telling the truth about Sichko and other priests. He vows the 13-month-old Internet site, which also criticizes liberal Catholics, feminists and dissenters, won't be shut down.

Hmmm. The article doesn't give any details about what his "sources" are, so I can't judge whether his online writings have any truth. He does mention Drudge as another Internet journalist, and certainly while Drudge doesn'