Selling Our Secrets
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
They never learn.
Remember, a couple of years ago, the scandals about the way corporate giants like Hughes Electronics and Loral Space, led by big Democratic contributors, sold secret U.S. satellite technology to Chinese aerospace companies and semiconductor manufacturers?
...the Bush administration is getting ready to let our ever-hungry multinationals do the same thing. This time, however, it would all be legalized. If current legislation (Senate 149, the Export Administration Act) being urged by the White House passed, American executives would be encouraged to sell the fruits of their most advanced research to foreign nationals who may not wish us well. [...]
In general, I don't pay a lot of attention to international trade legislation. Its not that I consider it unimportant, I just find it mind-boggingly boring. I don't do a whole lot better with economics in general. I'm much more of an abstract issues person, not a concerete numbers person. Despite all of this, even *I* remember the flap about our companies selling technology to Chinese companies. It was big, it was loud and it was one more thing used to demonstrate the horrific immorality of the Clinton administration.
I must give Mr. Safire credit, at least he admits it's no better when the Bush administration does it than when the Clinton administration did.
This is one area, though, where those abstract issues and concrete numbers do intersect. The issue is our safety. The numbers are profits. And in this case it appears that profits trump safety, even though the administration has shown repeatedly that our civil rights don't. This law would allow companies to sell technology to customers around the world, many of whom are free to turn around and resell it to our enemies. As Safire notes:
Iraq buys dual-use nuclear components through cutouts who could easily buy them from us. Take high-strength aluminum tubes, for example, which can be used in bicycles — but a thousand of them in easily hidden gas centrifuges can produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear bomb every year. Under the proposed law, a country like Russia or Jordan could buy ours and re-sell them to Saddam with no weapons inspectors the wiser.
You like the composite glass fibers in your tennis racquet? A sinister use is to form the rotors of those centrifuges, and their export has been controlled for 20 years. No more, if those who would sell our technology to multifarious middlemen have their way.
So, if our homeland security is so important that twenty people have to be detained because one of them has a name on a "no-fly" list, why isn't it important enough to maintain controls on the export of goods that could be used by our enemies - by Iraq, for example - to harm or kill unknown numbers of our citizens?
No-fly blacklist snares political activists
Alan Gathright, Chronicle Staff Writer
A federal "No Fly" list, intended to keep terrorists from boarding planes, is snaring peace activists at San Francisco International and other U. S. airports, triggering complaints that civil liberties are being trampled.
And while several federal agencies acknowledge that they contribute names to the congressionally mandated list, none of them, when contacted by The Chronicle, could or would say which agency is responsible for managing the list.
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, many different pieces of legislation and many new rules have been instituted to try and add to the security of this country. There has also been a great deal of debate, as it often seems that the lawmakers, and John Ashcroft in particular, are willing to have citizens sacrifice a number of their freedoms in the interest of "safety". Personally, I'd rather live with a certain level of risk and retain my freedoms, as do most others, I imagine - though where exactly that "certain level" falls becomes an issue of serious debate.
The article quoted above refers to a "No-Fly List" that was instituted in the wake of the attacks. The list is apparently "held" (though not "managed") by the Transportation Security Adminostration, and many agencies, including the FBI, CIA and NSA are able to add names to it as they see fit -- though none of them have been particularly willing to acknowledge if they have.
The purpose of the list was to keep a record of names of potential terrorists or other criminals, but in the last several months, a number of anti-war activists have also been denied or delayed in their air travel plans because their name was either on the list or "resembled" a name on the list (it seems no one is even willing to say for certain which it is).
Part of what concerns me is that no only does it appear that there is no one who is actually accountable for maintaining, vetting or resolving problems in regards to the list, but the guidelines as to who is considered to be enough of a risk to be added to the list also seems to be an unknown. If someone is being delayed or detained because of this list, then they should have the right to know 1) if, in fact, they are actually ON the list or if it is a matter of their name strongly resembling that of someone on the list, 2) why their name was put on the list and 3) who put their name on the list. In addition, they should also have the right to rebut the claim that they are a risk, and there should be some kind of recourse for them if they feel they have been listed unfairly.
Five months ago, a group of anti-war protesters from Wisconsin were delayed because the name of one member of the group was either on the list or resembled a name on the list. Twenty people were detained, but only one of those 20 was even allegedly on the list - a classic case of "guilt by association". That the woman in question was a 74-year-old Catholic nun made no difference, and the article notes that because the group respects that there needs to be tighter security after what has happened, they did not make much of a fuss at the time. But even now, 5 months after the incident, they still cannot find out any information about how her name got on the list, who put it there, why it was put there or anything else.
With no accountability, no difinitive source of origin, no established guidelines for inclusion or anything else of that nature, this list can be used not only to try and help prevent suspected terrorists or other criminals from getting on planes, but it can also be used to help make it more difficult for protesters who disagree with what the government wants to carry out the excercising of their freedom of speech. That, in my opinion, is unacceptable. If the government wants to maintain watch lists or "no-fly" lists, fine. Do it out in such a way that if someone is on a list they can find out why and how; give them the ability to challenge their inclusion; and establish some guidelines as to what qualifies someone to be considered a potential terrorist or criminal. To do any less leaves it far too open to abuse, and no administration need access to something like that.
[...] This is a huge change from a decade ago, when many doctors considered depression strictly an adult disease. Teenage irritability and rebelliousness was “just a phase” kids would outgrow. But scientists now believe that if this behavior is chronic, it may signal serious problems [...]
[Newsweek]
When I was a teen, I knew there was something wrong with me. I was teased mercilessly by the students around me - there wasn't a time from kindergarten though my senior year in high school when I didn't have at least one, if not more, derogatory nicknames, and in general the nicknames were far more well-known than my "real" name. But it went beyond just being the blues over being picked on. I would get A's and B's on every report card, but still felt like a failure. Evenings and weekends were usually spent home alone. From time to time, I might have a close friend - invariably someone I met away from school - that I could spend some time with, but during all my years of junior high and high school, I never once was invited to a party or asked to go out with "the girls". Yet my sadness went even beyond what you might expect for that. I always felt empty, cried a lot, slept a lot and found that I had very few interests beyond reading, listening to music and learning to play the guitar.
When I was 15, I remember one night sitting on the stairs in my home, crying and having yet another argument with my mother. Mom and I have always had a difficult time getting along. We're both have a lot of control issues, and we both want to be the one controlling my life. So there I was, angry, frustrated, hurting and crying and I told Mom that I really felt like maybe I needed to see someone about why I was so sad all the time. Mom would have none of it though -- her attitude was very much the kind of 'no one in MY family is going to be mentally ill'. I ended up not being able to get any help for it until I was in my 20's - and suffering from major clinical depression. Even now, it still plagues me. I'm on Paxil, which helps some, but in the back of my mind, I've never stopped wondering if maybe some of the damage I've acquired might not have been avoided if I'd been able to get help so many years earlier.
With that in mind, this article was bound to catch my attention. Its sad to hear that, for so many teens, the idea that they might be depressed is still dismissed out of hand by many parents and doctors. I'm also surprised. Many teens themselves have known for years that "something" is wrong. In some ways, it's hard not to, when you find yourself never feeling the way you see others feeling. Many teens adopt an air of depression - one with many people find easy to dismiss since outward shows of angst are somewhat trendy now. And while I have no doubt that there are more than a few kids who are more or less just trying to "fit in", it's important that parents and teachers not ignore the fact that there may really be something serious going on, and that there is help available.
Depression can be a serious problem. It takes many forms - from mild blues brought and sadness brought on by life events, to persistant feeling of darkness that never seems to let up, and all places in between. It's good to read that it's starting to come "out of the closet" a bit more, especially for teens, but hopefully some day people with depression and other mental illnesses will be viewed more along the lines of people who need to wear glasses - they have a condition that gives them a bit of difficulty, but usually doesn't get them subjected to discrimination or or other negative judgements from the people around them.
The Trial of a Radical, Finally
For 25 years, counterculture icon Ira Einhorn has dodged justice. Now, after a long, strange trip, he faces murder charges
By Steven Levy
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
Sept. 27 — This week, lawyers picked a jury in Philadelphia for the Ira Einhorn murder trial, with opening arguments to begin on Monday. It’s an understatement to say that this is an event long overdue.
Over the last quarter-century, Ira Einhorn has been accused of having murdered his long-time girlfriend Holly Maddux, jumped bail, fled the country, tried in absentia and convicted, got married and settled down in France and fought his extradition to the US to serve out the sentence for his murder conviction. Also during that time, the French refused to turn him over to the US because they did not believe that a trial held in absentia could be a fair trial. Instead, they kept something of an eye on him, but allowed him to stay in their country, free - having gotten away with murder.
Then a few years back, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a special law to grant Einhorn a new trial, if he was returned to the United States. This, it was believed, would address the concerns of the French over the fairness of his trial and should allow them to extradite him back here to face the charges, this time, in person.
It worked. Einhorn was returned and the trial is now getting set to begin, and, if it is like the rest of this case has been, it should be an interesting one. As the Newsweek article notes:
A look at a list of the defense’s “potential witnesses” read to the jury shows the desperation of the Einhorn team. Besides the expected forensic experts, there is a bit of celebrity power on the list, a testament to Einhorn’s pre-arrest connections. But rocker Peter Gabriel has no evidence to present about the murder, nor does actress Ellen Burstyn. (It’s unlikely either will appear.) Less recognizable character witnesses will be of dubious value. One potential witness is a woman who met Einhorn in a hot tub at Esalen, the famous New Age retreat at Big Sur, Calif., in the period between his arrest and his illegal flight. Others on the list, like Episcopal priest David Gracie and scholar Stafford Beer, can’t help Ira at all, since they’re dead.
I cannot even begin to imagine the frustration that Holly's family has had to endure all these years, and for them, I am quite pleased that this trial is finally being held.
From Talk Left:
Ashcroft's Response to Moussaoui Document Foul-Up
We got this email today from two nationally prominent lawyers. It isn't for real, but we didn't know that when we read it. What's scary as you read it is that it could so easily be true with this Administration. [we deleted the name of the wire service for liability purposes and any spacing glitches are our's]
We should also mention that it fooled the higher-ups of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as well--by the time it was discovered to be a hoax (by astute NACDL Media Affairs Director Dan Dodson), one call to a congressman had already been made to express concern and a staff meeting was in the works as to how to respond.
Update: We were just told that the Congressman mentioned above believed it too and made some phone calls of his own before learning it was a hoax.
Those of you who know me at all also know that I do not like John Ashcroft. At all. Knowing that the memo is a hoax, however, is something I feel as many people as possible should be aware of, largely because the memo may appear to be legit, especially if you are alread of the opinion that he believes criminals and suspects already have too many rights.
I'm hoping that with as many bloggers and journalers as possible spreading the word that this is a hoax, the memo won't end up being something that haunts Ashcroft the way Janet Reno's alleged comments about Christianity being a cult (which she never made) have long haunted her.
The full text of the fake memo can be read at the Talk Left site.
This is a test. This is ONLY a test. If this had been a real post, you would have been notified by the presence of content.
Sorry -- having some trouble getting a piece I wrote last night to appear, so I figured I'd see posting a subsequent something would get it published. It's worked before. I'm just to tired to actually come up with a topic :)
Big trouble in the world of "Big Physics"
Six months ago, Jan Hendrik Schön seemed like a slam dunk nominee for a Nobel prize. Then some of his colleagues started to take a closer look at his research.
I see articles from time to time about scientists cutting corners or falsifying evidence, and it always seems that the scientific communit are surprised by the development.
I just don't quite understand why.
Several months ago, I read the book "The Death of Innocents", a look at the issue of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and how some murders are diagnosed as SIDS by mistake. The book spends a large number of its pages covering how a theory, based on a single case history, launched the entire home infant monitoring industry and has lead a some pretty nice profits for some clinics that do SIDS-prevention screenings. That same theory also popularized the theory that SIDS can run in families.
The book also points out exactly why the doctor who made the initial case study should have realized from the outset that what he was seeing was not SIDS, but infanticide - especially since the case in question involved a woman whose 5 children had all died, some under circumstances that could possibly appear to be SIDS but some under circumstances that went against the basic definition of SIDS. In the case of the two children the doctor observed throughout their entire, short, lives, he knew that sympoms of the supposed breathing problems only manifested when the babies were at home with their mother, and never while the children were in the hospital, and a few of the nurses even spoke to him about their concern that the mother was hurting and killing her children. In spite of all this, however, the doctor published his paper showing how SIDS ran in families and raising the idea of babies who might be at risk being sent home with monitors to help try and prevent their deaths.
His theory was quickly adopted by the scientific community at large, and with such fervor that even when questions about it were raised, they were often swept aside. One memorable section in the book talked about how two American doctors claimed they could run monitoring strips on children and predict, from those, which children were at the highest risk and which weren't. They ran a clinic and made good money from offering the testing services and sales or rentals of the necessary eqiupment. Then a doctor in England, who thought their claims were pretty much bunk, challenged them. He, too, had been doing studies and he also had been using the monitoring strips. He challenged the American doctors to look through a collection of the strips he had that were old enough for the child who's monitoring was reflected on that strip to have aged past the point of being vulnerable to SIDS, and to use their method of evaluation to essentially catagorize the strips by what risk level they would consider the child to be. Their success rate was abysmally low, to the point where it certainly cast a great deal of doubt among many scientists as to whether their method was of any value at all or not. Unfortunately, this doubt did not reach most parents, who continued to have their children tested and monitored.
Eventually, several years after the children for the initial study had died, and after some were starting to at least raise questions about the doctors original theory, the police and prosecutors in the jurisdiction where the children had died were able to bring the case to trial and convict the mother for her children's deaths. In the course of the trial, the doctor's theory was also challenged in the court of law and it did not hold up well. The doctor, however, is still practicing to this day, and still promoting much of the same theory he started with.
In the end, it basically came down to a man being to prideful to admit he was wrong and that he'd made poor choices because he wanted to vindicate his theory; doctors who invested a lot of their own credibility in his theory and who didn't want to look to be foolish; a sense of intertia that sometimes seems to pervade the scientific community and a lack of ethics that lead many to insist that they knew the truth because it allowed them to keep making the money they'd grown to love.
Another excellent book that looks at charges of scientific impropriety is Science Fictions: A Scientific Mystery, A Massive Cover-Up, and the Dark Legacy of Robert Gallo. This book focuses on the discovery of the cause of AIDS and the questionable role Robert Gallo played in it. Here, again, the scientific community rallied behind a scientist only to later learn that he may not have been playing straight with him. Gallo was so set on being the discoverer of the virus that caused AIDS that, in the end, he apparently appropriated a bit of tissue that had been sent to him as a sample, claimed it was his own discovery and was awarded a patent on it (along with the National Institutes of Health).
The dispute over who had actually discovered AIDS and the question as to who was entitled to a patent on it had some interesting side effects, not the least of which was that the first AIDS testing kits available for doctors to use here in America were far inferior to the ones developed by the French, using their research and under their own patent. It is not an exaggeration to say that, in all likelihood, had the French been allowed their proper due here in the US, many cases of AIDS could have been prevented by earlier and more accurate testing.
These two books cover just two of the more well-known scandels that have struck the scientific community lately. Now there's a scandel for Physics instead of Biology, but it still seems to be driven by much the same things that drove Drs. Gallo and Steinschneider (who did the initial study on SIDS) - ego. The need to be seen as the best or the brightest or the "leading expert". As long as ego is a factor in science, these scandels will continue to occur.
I suppose in some ways it's good that there is still some shock when a scientist is uncovered as a fraud or, at the very least, unethical. It means that scientists and the public still expect more from the scientific community. But it's becoming more and more common it seems, and in the long run, the only effect that will have is that no one will want to trust scientists, either.
Part o the problem appears to stem from the practice of peer-review. While I understand the basic concept that it makes the most sense to have professionals who have the greatest ability to comprehend what a given paper is saying be the ones who review the paper for publication, it has some fairly serious flaws. Among these are the recognition that if you're reviewing another scientist's paper, odds are pretty good that at some point he will be reviewing yours; and approving his paper, even if you recognize some flaws in it may be seen as a way of helping ensure that he'll give you similar consideration when it's his turn to read your material. Another problem is that if you write about a theory that might challenge one of the "greats" in your field, that "great" scientist may well be one of the one's who reviews your paper, and may decide it's better to claim that it's unfit for publication than to allow it to be published and therefore a threat to his own standing.
Being a non-scientist, I'm not entirely sure what the best alternative would be, but I do think it would be a good idea to start looking for some. The best might be to find a way to create an independent board, where the members would not be ones who are unlikely to have any kind of interest in whether a paper is published or not - but given the "publish-or-perish" mentality of the sciences, I'm not sure where people like that could be found.
The important thing, though, right now is for the scientific community to be seen attempting to do something about the probem - acknowledging that the problem exists, researching different ideas on how to ensure that papers are judged solely on their merits and not because of who wrote them or what favours they may owe you in the future. Science is, for many non-scientists, as much a matter of faith as any religion. There may be papers out there containing the proof of a theory, but odds are it will make as much sense to me as if I tried to read the Eddas in Old Norse. As a result, when I hear on the news that some new discovery has been made or some theory has been confirmed or debunked, I have to take it on faith that what I'm hearing is correct (or I have to learn the advanced principles of a number of sciences and I had enough trouble with the basics of chemistry). If we're to have faith in science, however, we have to be able to trust the system by which scientific inqueries are presented to the public - and only the scientists can figure out how to fix that.
Since starting different strings, I've been looking at my referrer listing just because it's fascinating to see how people find this site. This one, however, has to be the most unique search engine match I've seen yet.
(For those who don't want to click, it's "Do waitresses at Bonanza restaurant make any money").
I just love computerized logic sometimes *g*
According to Canadian Customs, you are looking at what is apparently one scary guy. He was on a tour today, as part of a vacation with his dad, and when the tour bus pulled into the customs station, the Canadians made him get off the bus and spent about 5 to 10 minutes asking him various questions such as how much money he had with him, what his camera was for, and a number of other things.
Now, I may not be a customs agent, (and I'm probably a bit biased since I'm married to the guy) but generally if I see a tourist on a tour bus as part of the tourism-related tour, well, I figure they have a camera with them to take pictures, but maybe all the training that agents receives tells them to be suspicious of long-haired guys with a camera on a bus.
A few days ago, I wrote a piece about the upcoming FX show, American Candidate. This has been the quite the talk of the Blogosphere, and now Phil Bowermeister from the Ace of Justice has an idea he'd like to share.
His goal is to get Stephen Green from VodkaPundit nominated to be one of the potential-Candidates on the show. Be sure to read Phil's piece, and if you agree with his idea, send a letter to FX (address provided) and we can see what happens from there.
Sorry, Thinkofthechildren.co.uk has been torched by an angry mob.
On Monday 23rd September, the Metropolitan Police (acting with the support of The Internet Watch Foundation) contacted my web host, Webfusion (aka Host Europe), and requested that thinkofthechildren.co.uk be 'removed from the public domain'.
Thinkofthechildren.co.uk was a site that satirized the British tabloids coverage of child murders and paedophiles. Now, granted, those are likely to be fairly sensitive topics to try and write satire about, and, in all honesty, I had not seen the site before it was taken down. The issue here, though, isn't if the site was actually funny, its that it serve a legitimate purpose in criticizing the way that some people - particularly those running tabloids - were making a fair amount of money by writing about (and writing about and writing about) paedophiles and child murders.
If you want to read the full story of what has happened, and find out how to get updated as the webmaster attempts to find a new home for his site, be sure to check out http://thinkofthechildren.co.uk
Be sure to take a few moments to read the article "Failsafe" by Elaine Scarry. It's a very well written and well-thought-out evaluation of our National defense system in light of what did and didn't work on 9/11.
The article focuses particularly on how so much of our national defense system is based on the idea that decisions will have to be made and actions taken in a very short period of time - "a matter of minutes" as the saying goes. Yet even with as much warning as was available about the potential for hijacked planes and the knowledge that if a plane was hijacked that day there was a very good possiblity that it would be crashed into a building, none of our high-tech, super-fast planes were of any use. Our military was unable to defend us that day, in spite of decades planning for the President to be able to make quick decisions and have them carried out immediately.
What did work was a group of ordinary citizens who made use of whatever resources they had available, including their own personal courage, and were able to prevent yet another tragedy that day.
Scarry provides an interesting breakdown of how much notice the Pentagon had in regards to the plane that plowed into it and what actions (or lack thereof) were taken. She then compares that to a breakdown of how the passengers of Flight 93 made use of their time and the actions they took.
She also takes the time to comment on the excuses that some have given as to why the government had a difficult time getting anything done that day - and why the situation would be largely the same if we were looking at missles instead of airplanes.
So take some time to read it - agree with it or not, I'm sure it'll get your mental wheels working.
From Dave Winer's Scripting News blog:
Google PR sends a message that they have a new News service. Maybe I'm slow this morning, or maybe I'm spoiled, but what's the big deal. I thought they already had this. My personal aggregator is better, it shows me what I'm interested in, it's not one size fits all. Help me figure this out. I'm sure there's something innovative here, I just don't see it.
Well, the main page of their News service isn't much different than any portal services "add news to your home page" feature, but their News service does have one feature I like very much and have already found several uses for -- their news article search engine.
Say, for example, you've seen a really interesting article referenced on someone else's blog, but there are no links to it available. You'd like to be abe to offer credit to the initial publisher of the item but aren't sure where to look. You can grab a sentence or short phrase from the article that you think might be unique, put it in the news article search box, and it'l find any matching new articles with that line or phrase in it. This, I've found, is extremely useful.
Because it only searches news articles rather than the entire web you're less likely to get "junk" returns - sites that have the phrase you're looking for, but otherwise bear no relevance to what you're trying to find. Plus, it helps you find other interesting news sources to add to your aggregator page.
Gore raps Bush for Iraq stance
Associated Press
Tuesday, September 24, 2002
[...] In his first major speech on the Iraq situation, the once and possibly future Democratic presidential candidate accused Bush of abandoning the goal of a world where nations follow laws.
"That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the president of the United States," he said.
"If other nations assert the same right, then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear," and any nation that perceives itself threatened would feel justified in starting wars, he said. [...]
Even if you agree with the reasons offered for going to war with Iraq and the goals that our government reportedly has in mind, this is one question about the idea of attacking Iraq that I think should be given serious consideration. Would we be creating a situation where other nations could declare an enemy nation to be a "threat" and engage in a pre-emptive attack themselves?
Right now, we're putting ourselves in a position of saying that we believe Saddam Hussain is a threat, that he may be able to attack the US in any of a number of ways, and that the best defense we've got at this point is to go on the offense and attack him first. There are various documents, reports, images and explainations offered to support our reasons for being concerned, and we are calling on our allies to aid in our plans. We've even gone before the UN in hopes of getting a resolution passed that would essentially give us their blessing for an attack. Given all of that, many would say that the odds of some other country using this as a precedent to attack whomever they consider a threat is fairly slim.
I have to wonder about that, though. It's always possible to falsify evidence, and in the world of governments and international intelligence, there would usually be ways of making it appear legitimate, even if no one else can find a way to obtain the same information. I would certainly hope that no country would stoop to this level, but it is something that has to be considered, at least, as it is a realistic possiblilty. Even if they have no evidence - real or fake - that isn't necessarily going to stop them, though. President Bush's goal, as in so many things, seems to be to avoid issuing any actual evidence to support his claims of Iraq being a threat and hope that the world will just take us at our word. And virtually any country could go before the UN to ask for permission to attack. Bush has already indicated he may have us attack even if the UN turns down our request for permission, so that's certainly not a stumbing block.
One important diference between us and the rest of the world may be the fact that we are, after all, the United States, and that tends to let us get away with a bit more than other countries might. I'm just not sure how much we want to rely on that as a sure-fire deterrant in situations such as the ongoing war between Israel and the Palistinians or between India and Pakistan, but it is something that might have a dampening effect on other nations.
There is one thing I see as being a hopeful sign. Similar concerns were raised prior to the War on Terrorism. Many thought that certain countries would decide that if the US can attack whomever they want to declare as being terrorists, and start naming their own enemies as terrorists so that they, too, could attack countries they don't like. So far, there's not been much of that happening, and maybe, with a bit of luck and restraint, it will stay that way.
An interesting collection of political cartoons from the early 1990's - and they barely need to be updated to still be usable today.
Last week I had written a letter to Larkin Community Hospital, where the three Muslim students who were suspected of being possible terrorists and had their cars searched on the highway in Florida. Today, I received a response to my message from the hospital in regards to their situation. Since I had initially spoken out about their actions, I feel it is only appropriate that I also allow their response to be seen by the same audience. I must say, however, that I am very gratified to see that the reports in the media were, in fact, incorrect, and that the students are being allowed to continue their education with minimal disruption.
September 22, 2002
As a community hospital, we appreciate and value your input and would like to thank you for taking the time to share your views. Due to the misinformation and inaccurate reports by the media, many people were under the misconception that these students were "fired" or "kicked out" of their medical program. The medical training of Ayman Gheith, Kambiz Butt, and Omar Choudhary has never been in question, nor postponed or interrupted in any way; they have simply been reassigned to an alternate location. We have been working together with the students from the beginning of this ordeal to relocate them to other facilities to assure their safety, the safety of our patients, and the ability of our hospital to provide excellent patient care.
This is a medical school rotation, not an internship as has been incorrectly reported. They were never fired. Nor were they ever dismissed from the program by their university. Larkin Community Hospital is in full support of these students’ medical education. This rotation involves lectures and rotations at clinics. They were originally scheduled to be at the auditorium at Larkin for classroom lectures, not to work in the hospital. The entire class has simply been relocated to an auditorium at a different location.
Inaccurate media coverage has generated a significant amount of ill will towards the hospital triggering over 5,000 emails, phone calls, and faxes some of which have been disturbing. This interferes with our ability to provide the high quality of patient care to which we are committed. We cannot and will not jeopardize the care of these patients nor their safety--this is our first priority.
We are a hospital—a place where people come to seek medical care--not just a place of business. This is not the place to make a statement that will risk people’s lives, but a place to care for patients. This has always been understood and supported by the medical students, themselves, who appreciate our concern for patient care and safety. Yet, media reports and other correspondence declared me and the hospital to be "racist," "biased," "un-American," "coward," "abhorrent," and even "the real terrorists." Many went even further and sentenced us to "deserving" various forms of punishment both on earth and in the afterlife.
Many people asked us to "look at the facts" and to "not pass summary judgement" based on media reports. So I ask you to follow this advice: look at the facts and do not pass summary judgement based on inaccurate media reports.
From the start of this misfortunate incident, we have maintained the same position. This was and continues to be the only solution that would both protect the students and allow them to continue their medical education while at the same time assuring the safety of our patients and our ability to provide excellent healthcare. I am personally involved in and committed to ensuring Ayman, Kambiz, and Omar get the best medical experience and education possible.
Dr. Jack Michel
Chairman and CEO
Larkin Community Hospital
Bush asks appeals court to kill Ore. assisted-suicide law
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The Bush administration asked a federal appeals court Monday to strike down Oregon's assisted-suicide law as counter to U.S. drug law. Attorney General John Ashcroft is seeking to sanction and perhaps hold Oregon doctors criminally liable if they prescribe lethal doses of medication under the Oregon measure, the only such law in the nation.
The Oregon law, approved by voters in 1994 and 1997, allows the terminally ill to obtain a lethal dose of drugs if they have less than six months to live and are mentally competent to make the request. Patients must take the fatal dose by themselves.
I've long found the Bush administration's and John Ashcroft's objections to the Oregon assisted-suicide law rather ironic, since the Republican part is typically the one that favours states' rights and purports to want to keep federal interference at a minimum. Yet, here is a law that was approved by the state's voters not only once, but twice, which would indicate a fair amount of support for the measure.
Here's the administration, however, trying to get the law struck down, and the Justice department wanting to penalize doctors who provide aid to terminally ill people who simply want to get it over with. I suppose part of why this bothers me - aside from it going against the usual and oft-state preference for letting the state's manage their own business - is that I have a hard time understand what there is to be gained from forcing people who are dying, have no realistic or reasonable chance of recovery, are of sound mind and want to be able to meet with death on their own terms.
The benefits of self-directed euthinasia are fairly obvious: the individual is empowered to deal with their life - and the end of it - on their own terms; the family is able to be with the individual, to say their goodbyes, to know that their loved one is at peace with death and to know that their passing was reasonably pain-free; lowered medical costs as no further long-term care is needed (something that can actually benefit others beyond just the family, as the less insurance companies have to pay for such long-term care, the less they have to raise insurance costs); and additional hospital beds and life-sustaining equipment made available for people who may only need it in the short-term and then return to their own lives.
To some, the inclusion of hospitalization and insurance costs as well as equipment usage may seem a bit callous, but they are valid issues to incude in reviewing the situation. Granted, you would probably need quite a few people choosing assisted-suicide to have a noticable impact, but right now we have no way of really knowing how many people might choose that option if they really did have that option available to them. To paraphrase the old saying - a thousand dollers here, a few thousand there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
There's another bit of irony here - not so much because of the government's position, but just looking at the issue of controlling insurance costs in general. Recently, we've seen states going after tobacco companies because the use of their products is believed to cause health problems, and those problems cost insurance companies - along with the state-funded Medicaid programs - a lot of money to treat. In just the last few months, we've seen people trying to challenge fast food companies over the damage their products do to individuals, and there is a great deal of talk that some states may also get involved in going after food companies, again, because of the increased costs of caring for people who have become ill from eating too much "bad" food. Most states now have laws requiring the use of seat belts and new cars must have air bags build in, because the costs of long term care resulting from injuries sustaine in a car wreck add to the already heavy insurance and Medicaid costs.
Yet when people - any number of which may be dying because they were smokers, ate the wrong foods or were severely injured in a wreck - want to put an end to their lives, there are scores of people, groups and agencies (not to mention the Presidential administration and Justice department) who feel they should not be allowed to do so. They take this stand in spite of the humanitarian reasons for allowing assisted suicide, and they take it in spite of the financial reasons for allowing it.
Most will say that they oppose it because they feel that all life is sacred. And I can, to an extent, understand that. The problem I have is that in the kind of cases where assisted suicide would be allowed, the life is nearly gone as it is. What is gained by insisting someone live another six months or so in a body filled with pain, watching themselves wither away - knowing and seeing how difficult this is for their family, and wishing desparately they could escape? That's not preserving life, in my opinion, that's more of a perversion of it.
From Morons.org:
http://morons.org/articles/5/2240
The RIAA and other industry interests have been trying to silence web broadcasters, and they'll succeed without our help...
Many of you may not be aware of this, but the RIAA along with other very large interests have been working hard to shut down Internet broadcasters. They recently worked with the Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panel to approve fees for Internet broadcasting that are tens to hundreds of times higher than the royalties paid by traditional radio stations. The goal here is obvious: groups like the RIAA and National Association of Broadcasters can't stand one bit of competition, so they're trying to drive out the small guys with the willing help of government.
To make a long story short, these fees will shut down the vast majority of online broadcasters, or make the better ones easy targets for acquisition by large media conglomorates that will turn them into stations that play the same tired dreck you hear on your radios today. Payment for every song played since 1998 is demanded on October 20.
Now nobody is saying that web broadcasters shouldn't have to pay royalties. Nobody is saying they should have a free ride. But there's no reason in the world to charge them so disproportionately compared with traditional radio stations.
Please support the Internet Radio Fairness Act. Fax your representatives and tell them to support the legislation. And while you're at it, you may want to support Digitally Imported, one of the more popular Internet broadcasters, if you like dance or classical music. --- Nick
TV show set to select a presidential candidate
Friday, September 20, 2002 Posted: 5:36 PM EDT
NEW YORK (AP) -- There's a real president, a fictional president on "The West Wing," so why not a presidential candidate chosen by television viewers?
That's what the FX hopes to produce. The cable channel announced on Friday the start of a series, "American Candidate," designed to pick a TV-endorsed potential president. [...]
At first glance, the idea of using a television show to select a potential presidential candidate sounds positively, incredibly, embarassingly stupid. At second glance, too.
The article notes that a similar kind of show is already underway in Venezuela. Perhaps that will be of comfort to some. I don't know, though.
I think part of why my initial reaction is to balk at the idea of using an "American Idol"/"Survivor" kind of concept to pick a potential presidential candidate is because our entire election system sometimes seems to be so much of a joke anyway, and there's no way this would actually help to alleviate that any. From the enormous amounts of money raised to fund our campaigns, to the constant "ooh! See what we dug up on this one?" from both opponents and the media, to the yearly attempts to explain the Electoral Collage and so on. For a country that is supposed to be the Last Great Superpower (tm), we sometimes just come off looking silly.
So, into this already glurpy mix steps FX, and their intent to make the 2004 election even more of a spectacle that it already is. The basic concept is that they'll start with a selection of potential potential-candidates (since there's no guarantee that the winner will actually go on to actually run in the election), and then traipse them around the country to "patriotic" locations and have them engage in competitions so that they can display their views, their skills and their ability to look good on camera. Some of the potential potential-candidates will be "voted off" each week until a grand finale to take place around July 4th, when FX will hold a "convention" of sorts, and the last three candidates will compete to be the winner. After that, they're on their own.
FX has stated that they will not be providing the winner with any campaign funds and will make sure that all financial aspects of the show conform to election law. Now if we could just get the political parties to do that, we might get somewhere. At any rate, the cable network acknolwedges that as a part of the media, they cannot actually run anyone as a candidate, which is why they won't guarantee that the winner will actually run.
Somthing I realized, though, as I was thinking about all of this. In some ways, this might not be such a bad method for picking potential candidates. You start off with a fairly large pool of people who are interested, and the you essentially take money out of the equation. With the show, the contestants will all have an equal shot at proving themselves worthy at each stage of the game up until they're voted off. Someone who comes from a family with very little money has the opportunity to get the same exposure for his or her qualifications, capabilities and views as, well, someone from a family as rich as the Bushes. To me, that part of it is actually a fairly appealing concept.
I've often thought that one of the biggest problems with our electoral system is that whoever can raise the most money really does have the best chance of winning. And just because they may have a larger pool of funds to draw from, it doesn't necessarily follow that they have more supporters. It could just be that their supporters can afford to make donations at the legal maximun (and probably have some good accountants or lawyers who can help them find ways around those limits as well -- and yes, that applies to the wealthiest candidates of ALL parties).
Doing something like what the show is doing helps take much of that advantage away - and its possible that by the time the show is done, the winner will be popular enough with the voting public that they could actually have a chance at really competing with the big boys. Most likely, they won't get a big enough boost from the show to actually have a shot at winning the presidency, but it could make them enough of an issue that the main candidates have to stop sniping at each other long enough to deal with other issues. Personally, I think a campaign that actually dealt with issues in general would be a nice change of pace.
So, part of me still feels that the show itself would be an embarassment, but part of me thinks it could actually have some value. It's going to take a lot more thought before I can make up my mind, but it might almost be worth risking a few snickers from overseas if it helps refocus the campaign here on more tangible issues and away from the "gotcha!" mentality our campaigns seems to be run on now.
West Wing starts strongly at Emmys. The West Wing has won two awards as the prestigious Emmys get under way at Los Angeles' Shrine Auditorium. [BBC News | Front Page]
I was actually kind of disappointed with the "success" of The West Wing at the Emmy's this evening. It ended up going home with four awards: Best Supporting Actor (John Spencer as Leo McGarrety), Best Supporting Actress (Stockard Channing as the First Lady), Best Actress (Alison Janney as CJ Craig) and Best Drama.
I admit I'm a fan of the show. I enjoy it, and I do think Aaron Sorkin does some great writing - since I have more of a liberal bent than a conservative one, I tend to agree with a lot (though not all) of what is said - and the acting is strong.
It's just not a show I find compelling to watch. If I miss an episode, it's more of an "oh well" than the "goddamned motherfucking sonofabitch" that pops out when I realize I've missed a new episode of "Law and Order". There's a certain kind of remoteness that seems to exist between the audience and the characters - rather than caring that much about what happens to them, I more-or-less just observe them.
Now, given how much I love "Law and Order" and the fact that you really don't get to know the characters on that show well at all, that might sound strange, but "Law and Order" is a plot-driven show. You don't watch it to get to know the characters or to become involved in their lives. You watch it to see what this weeks case is going to be about, how they're going to twist it about to surprise you, and to feel a sense of participation in the justice system. "The West Wing", on the other hand, is almost an entirely character-driven show. The plots are just there to move the characters from one situation to another so you can see how they deal with whatever live (or Sorkin) decides to throw at them. The problem is, if you don't really care all that much about the characters, then there's not much to keep your attention.
So seeing the show so heavily lauded this evening was a disappointment. I think there are many shows that are much more deserving - that do a better job of keeping you interested in the characters, that have more intriguing plots and that actually leave feeling like you've really missed something if you don't catch every episode.
National Holiday?
All over San Antonio, Texas, United States of America today, people are celebrating "Diez y Seis" - independence day in Mexico.
I'm confused - do they celebrate the Fourth of July in Mexico?
The above entry by Mark Harden of InSane Antonio reminded me of one that that almost always drives me nuts around holiday seasons. We seem to have this feeling of "entitlement" when it comes to holidays, as if we (Americans) believe that all holidays are "fair game" for us to celebrate - whether or not they actually hold any significance for us at all. I have no problem with people who belong to a certain ethnic, cultural or religious group who want to get together with others to celebrate these days that hold meaning for them. What gets to me are the many people for whom it's basically just another chance to get loaded, or coerce family and friends into spending time together. It's the way it cheapens the actual meaning of the holiday and the disrespect it shows to those for whom it truly is a Holy Day that botheres me the most.
Americans of all stripes have been celebrating St. Patrick's Day for years, even though it's an Irish and Catholic holiday. Here you'll find people who's ancestry traces back to Northern Europe, Africa, China, Mexico, and just about everywhere else, out drinking green beer, talking with fake brogues, singing out of key and claiming to be Irish in order to get a few kisses. Can you imagine what would happen if someone decided that everyone should celebrate "Juneteenth" and spend a day pretending to be black? It don't imagine it would go over very well, but that's what we do to the Irish.
A few years back, a new beer holiday sprang up. I call it a beer holiday because the "push" to celebrate it came mainly from bars, as another way to sell more beer. That's the Mexican Independence Day. Interestingly, here in KC, Mexican Independence Day is usually celebrated on the 5th of May -- and is called "Cinco de Mayo". In Harden's comment, he refers to "Diez y Seis" - which, I believe, would be the 16th of something - and since it's a recent entry, my guess is the 16th of September. I think that happens to say a lot about just how serious people are about "celebrating" this holiday - it's not even clear what day it should be on.
By far, though, the most egregious example of people glomming onto holidays that they really have no business celebrating have to be Christmas and Easter. Actually, these holidays have been "glommed" twice - first when Christianity was trying to gain a foothold and made a point of placing as many of the holidays they wanted people to celebrate on days when the Pagans were already celebrating. They took the familiar days and added new meaning to them. Now, the secular world is doing its own takeover.
Christmas has gone from being a time to celebrate the return of the sun and the passing of the "dead" part of the year, to being a celebration of Christ's birth (even though an examination of the stories in the Bible would place His birth sometime in the spring), to a time when we're supposed to be all jolly and nice to each other and trade gifts, but it's not always clear why. Easter has gone from being a fertility festival (hence the rabbits and eggs), to a celebration of Christ's Resurrection - and now it seems as if the candy and card companies are wanting to turn it into Christmas Jr.; another rather generic "be nice and give gifts" time of year.
Even Halloween has undergone transformation over the years -- from being one of the holiest nights of the year to the old Pagans (and the beginning of their new year), to a night associated with fear and evil (as the Christians tried to strip away the holiness that the Pagans had attributed to the night), to a night when adults dress silly and get drunk and kids dress fun and extort candy from their neighbors.
As you may have noticed, there's a pretty consistant pattern to each of these changes. At some point, different corporate interests have figured out that there is money to be made by convincing people to celebrate a given holiday - and the best way to get as many people to celebrate it as possible is to promote it in ways that make it more generic - not so much the special provence of any ethnic, cultural or religious group, but something anyone could celebrate. So, for a day we can be Irish, or happy for the Mexicans, swap gifts in honour of nothing in particular or whatever else the marketers think they can convince us of. Granted, it would happen so easily if we didn't have a strong streak of materialism and hedonism in this country, but it still seems to be more a matter of marketing over meaning.
What can be done? Probably the most effective thing is to decide if there's actually a reason for you to celebrate a certain holiday. If you can't think of a compelling reason to be celebrating it, then you probably don't need to be celebrating it. At least it's something to think about.
This is how he would have wanted it to be
[...] Last night, it emerged that, true to Yoni Jesner’s wishes, his Scots family had instructed doctors to donate their son’s kidney to a Palestinian refugee. None who attended the young Glaswegian’s funeral in the hills above Jerusalem was surprised by the humanity of the gesture. Even in death, his compassion had set him apart. [...]
I tend to be more than just a little cynical at times, and I don't have a lot of faith in the goodness of humanity. Every now and again, though, I hear about a story that reminds me that there's no need to give up on us entirely.
The man referred to in the story above, Yoni Jesner, was killed in a suicide bombing perpetrated by a Palestinian. Yet, in spite of that, his family agreed to donate his kidney to a young Palestinian girl. I don't want to go and get all sappy about stuff, but that just really touched me -- especially coming in this week when we've all (or mostly all) seen that tape of the mother beating her child because she couldn't get a cash refund at a store. So this is just a note to say thinks to Mr. Jesner and his family for being more concerned about the life of another human being than revenge or anger.
[...] THE UNKEPT VOW involves the company’s stated intent to make its wildly popular AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) software work with other instant-messaging programs. AOL has about 150 million registered users of its program. The company boasts more than 2 billion instant messages (IMs) sent daily. Yet AOL users can’t zip off their how-de-dos to those using Microsoft’s MSN Messenger or Yahoo Messenger, or even ICQ, AOL’s less ubiquitous, “edgy” IM service. Can you imagine a telephone system where you can’t call your mother because she’s on AT&T and you’re on Sprint? [...]
[Newsweek]
Way back when, before Time Warner and AOL merged, there was a great deal of talk about making IMs interoperable. The FCC felt it was important and even made it something of a condition for the merger between AOL and Time Warner. So far, though, the only way to be able to keep in touch with all your friends through IMs is to either have one of every kind out there on your system, which, face it, would make it just a bit crowded and do who knows what to your available memory; or you could do what I did and use Trillian, a nifty little IM client that can connect to each of the major systems, and to IRC.
One of the things pointed out in the Newsweek article, though, is that there no longer seems to be as much of a push for interoperability from AOL's competitors as there used to be. Both Yahoo! and MSN seemed to have found out that there are benefits to a closed system -- your product doesn't necessarily have to be the best one out there, it can be pretty piss-poor, in fact, if you have enough users who like it well enough. As it stands right now, most people have several friends on each of the various systems, so they all get more users, just so that second tier or users can contact the first through their client.
This seems to be a situation where users are going to have to take the lead. Switching to something like Trillian (or Jabber, which also allows for some interoperability, though it doesn't cover as much cyberspace as Trillian does) is a good start - but it still gives the companies the idea that there is support for all of the competing networks. Users need to make it known that they want to be able to use whichever client they prefer and still be able to contact whomever they want. Right now, if all the systems were to become interoperable, some users might move from one system to another, but most people who go ahead and stick with what they're already familiar with, so its unlikely any client would experience a huge drop off in business. As for gaining new users, there they'd have to provide the kinds of services that customers want - but isn't that the point of competition anyway?
[...] But there is something deeper -- and less justifiable -- at work. The Democratic leaders in Congress, in both the House and Senate, largely have abandoned principle and long-term strategy for the short-term tactics they think will help them in this November's election.
Tom Daschle's desire to hold the one-vote margin in the Senate and Dick Gephardt's hope to pick up the six additional seats that would switch control of the House are driving decisions -- even on large and consequential matters. [...]
David Broder of the Washington Post has written an editorial this week about some of the questions that he finds coming out of the webchats that the Post hosts each week. This weeks hot topic was, of course, the possiblity of war in Iraq, but he said that one of the other major topics had to do with where the Democrats are in regards to their views and policy on something like this.
I have to be honest. I'm a registered Democrat - not so much because I agree with everything the party stands for, but because I live in Kansas, and a few years back, Fred Phelps (the "God Hates Fags" guy) tried to become the Democratic nominee for the gubantorial election. By registering as a Democrat, I was eligible to vote in the Democratic Primary, and therefore could vote against Phelps. I've kept my registration the same since then, just in case he tries to do it again. (Yes, I feel that strongly about Phelps, but that's a whole different rant...)
So, as a Democrat, I think I have the right to comment on what it is they do, and frankly, I've not been happy with much they've done in years. This latest refusal to show any kind of leadership is just one more drop in the bucket.
Since the beginning of Bush's term in office, it's often felt like we have only one party - not so much because they Democrats and Republicans are so much alike (though the are a bit similar for my taste), but because the Democrats have seemed to be somewhat afraid to really stand up for, well, much of anything.
While I found the tactics the Republicans used during the Clinton administration to be deplorable, I do think the Democrats could learn a few things from their example. No matter what else was going on in the world, questions about Clinton's sex life, fund raising practices and involvement in the Whitewater debacle were constantly being brought to the front and center. Why haven't the Democrats made a genuine effort to keep the many questionable activities of those in the current administration in a similar position? Between the entire issue of corporate fraud and excess (which, regardless of who's "fault" it is, tends to reflect badly on the Republicans because of their close ties to Big Business), John Ashcroft's attack on civil liberties, Tommy White's malfeasance or ignorance while working at Enron (and what that portends for him in his current position in administering the Armed Services), George Bush's fanatical (almost paranoid) need for secrecy, questions regarding his involvement with possible insider trading or other financial hijinks while at Harken, Dick Cheney's responsiblity for possible fraud at Haliburton during his tenure as CEO, how much involvement companies or individuals who were members of the Energy Task Force contributed to the apparently contrived energy shortage in California, and so on.
It is very possible that with many of these issues there's no "there" there, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be thoroughly investigated and reviewed to make sure of that. In my opinion, many of those issues are of far greater concern than what Clinton did with whom, where and smoking what cigars, yet the Democrats don't seem to be interested in making sure any of these issues are persued. And its hard to tell why - whether its that they don't want to come off looking as "low" as the Republicans have, they don't have any backbone, they're afraid of "making waves" or something else entirely - but I definately see it as a problem.
I want to elect politicians whose beliefs are similar to my own (which usually rules out most Republican candidates - I have some very conservative views, but they're usually secondary to my more liberal ones), but I also want to elect leaders who will actually LEAD. Hopefully someday soon the Democrat party will realize that the less they lead, the less we'll follow, and get back into the game
Spotted Sept 20, 2002 in Salon Headlines:
Cheek. Correcting the sin of omission, this company adds extra sex, nudity, profanity or extreme violence to our favorite screen gems.
Sept. 20, 2002 | [...] A San Fernando Valley, Calif., man announced today that he is offering a new film editing service that will insert violent and pornographic images into classic Hollywood movies.
Rod Cumming, 34, president of FilthyFlicks Ltd., a film production company in Reseda, said that he is doing it for "educational and religious purposes."
Hmmm... maybe it's a case of Great Minds Think Alike? Or maybe it was just such an obvious response :) Either way, it cracked me up - given the comment I made on the 18th in different strings:
I have to wonder how they would feel if someone took a good, wholesome, family-oriented movie, and, in order to fit in with their desire to see more sex and violence, added scenes of shoot-outs and orgies to it, and then rented it to whomever. I doubt many people would be willing to agree that they have a right to make such changes, and there'd certainly be an outcry over the "degredation" of these clean-cut films.
[different strings - 3rd story]
My current favourite, from Robert's Virtual Soapbox
I am very leery of joining the bleating masses where “patriotism” is concerned. Fierce “patriotism” – jingoism – is a quick and easy recipe for world war. I found the post 9-11-01 flurry of U.S. flags to be a disturbing rather than comforting development. “United We Stand,” we claimed, but what I saw was “Together in Fear We Huddle.”
First it was Ebonics, now it's Webonics
According to the New York Times article, teachers are having difficulty getting students to write complete words. So many kids have gotten used to the shorthand used for instant messanging that they now turn in school papers filled with "b4"s, "ur"s and "oic"s. And, as is the norm for teens, they don't see what the big fuss is. One of the more common excuses is that when they're proofreading papers, they're so used to seeing the shorthand in their IMs that they don't even notice it in their papers.
When I was still in school (back in the stone ages, obviously) I remember their being a bit of concern that, thanks to a popular antacid commercial, students really would think that relief is spells R-O-L-A-I-D-S. I suspect that was a more popular anecdote than an actual occurrence, but at the time it was considered a big deal.
Now we're to the point where the Internet has helped create almost a new language from the shorthand used for IMs and chat rooms (and, far too often, in e-mail as well). Here's the problem, though. While the kids may not think that its that big of a deal, they seem to be unaware that, in the professional world, there are places where such spellings are simply inappropriate.
Several years ago I worked for a company where we were required to take detailed notes on the phone calls we were engaged in. In that context, I frequently resorted to using web-like shorthand simply because I was trying to type as fast as the conversation was happening and because I had limited space in which to record my notes. This was not a problem, as many other operators did the same and, over the years, a kind of note-speak had developed. When I was moved to a different position later, however, I had to write letters to customer and, more often than I'd like, to their lawyers as well. For them, complete words and actual sentences were necessary. No matter how much I was used to reading or writing the shorthand in the notes (and still had to at that point, since I had to enter notes on every letter I wrote), I had to be able to catch any such slips in the letters - my company's credibility was riding on it, to an extent.
The problem facing todays students isn't that they shouldn't use web shorthand or that web shorthand is somehow "bad"; what they seem to be failing to realize is that its just as important to recognize when standard English is necessary, and be able to use it in those situation. I fully support teachers who give lower grades for papers where the shorthand forms are used, and I hope that the school boards will back them up if parents start to complain. And don't think they wouldn't - if they can get hacked off at teachers for lowering grades or even failing a student for cheating, getting upset over a lowered grade because a paper was written partially in web-speak is nothing.
Oh dear, what can the anti-matter be?
Enough about Bob Greene already! What's really important? Researchers at CERN -- the Swiss physics lab that birthed the World Wide Web a dozen years ago -- have "made 50,000 atoms of anti-hydrogen, the antimatter counterpart of normal hydrogen." Read more here. (Link courtesy David Harris.) This "blob" is apparently enough anti-matter for scientists to test the entire basis of modern physics: "If antihydrogen does not behave as they expect, the model will need to be replaced, and our notions of the structure of the Universe overhauled." What do we root for? Do we keep our fingers crossed that the standard model holds? Or do we root for the world to be turned upside down? NYTimes coverage is here. [Scott Rosenberg's Links & Comment]
I'm no physicist (Hel, I have trouble with basic biology and chemistry), but I've always been confused about a few things with regards to antimatter - and, sadly, none of the information in the linked articles does anything to settle the questions.
Here's the thing: Whenever antimatter runs into regular matter both are destroyed, right? Well, since essentially the whole known world is made of regular matter, how can we find something in which to make and hold antimatter? I mean, if antimatter is created, it has to be created someplace, right? but unless its created in a vacuum, there will already be some kind of matter there - and if it is created in a vacuum, there has to be a container that the vacuum itself exists in, right? So if the antimatter is made in a vacuum, which, logically, has to exist in some kind of defined space (and that space would be defined by matter), then inevitably, it will run into those boundaries and be destroyed. And you can't make a container out of antimatter because the outer part of it will still come in contact with matter.
So - if we are finding ways to make antimatter, how are we going to keep it from being destroyed long enough to study it, and how would we ever some kind of practical use for it?
Ah well... I'm not sure what side to root for on this one. part of me would love to see the world of physics turned upside down, just because it'd be interesting to watch them all scramble. :) But keeping the status quo has its advantages too. Really, I just want to know what we're going to keep the antimatter in....
Barriers To 9/11 Inquiry Decried
Congress May Push Commission
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 19, 2002; Page A14
Lawmakers from both parties yesterday protested the Bush administration's lack of cooperation in the congressional inquiry into Sept. 11 intelligence failures and threatened to renew efforts to establish an independent commission.
[...]
All I can say is that it's about time.
Of course, the Bush administration doesn't believe in cooperating with any kind of investigation, especially one that might happen to touch on it in any way. For an administration that promised to bring honour and integrety back to the White House, they sure aren't very willing to let anyone verify that they have.
It seems that for the most part, the Bush administration just doesn't want truth to be known.
These are just the examples I can think of off the top of my head. I have no doubt that there are many more out there.
I have no confidence, whatsoever, that Congress can get to the bottom of the questions about 9/11, simply because the White House holds too much sway over the individual Congressmen. An independent investigation is exactly what is needed. Run by people who are not beholden to campaign contributors or who need the President's coattails to ride on, an independent investigation can ask the difficult questions, talke to the difficult people and release the difficult truth.
Once they're done with that, I'd also love to see them try to investigate the Enron mess among other things.
Underreported Stories You Need To Know
by Margie Burns
[...]
* Another reason is that Osama bin Laden is dead. You don't bounce back from renal shutdown, and anyway if he were alive, we'd be hearing from him. This tidbit has been outed in Pakistan, which supported bin Laden and the Taliban. Here, it was fed to the supermarket tabloids.
I have NO way of knowing if Osama bin Laden is dead or not. I honestly don't know if anyone in the West does. I do find it interesting, though, that no one in the government seems to be very eager to find out the answer to that question.
But then again, why would they? Osama bin Laden and the Al Queda network are the ones who are supposed to be our targets, are they not? If Osama were dead, we'd probably lose a fair amount of support for our continuing war on terrorism, as one of the main objectives - finding Osama dead or alive - would have been met.
Instead, whether Osama himself lives or not, keeping the specter of his exisence alive and out front is enough to insure that support continues for George Bush's little party. Few things motivate people to fall in line like fear - justified or not.
War could unshackle oil in Iraq
A U.S.-LED OUSTER of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.
[...]
As if there has ever been any question about it.
There goal of ousting Saddam has little, if anything, to do with concerns about weaponry of mass distruction, moral or ethical objections to Saddam's regime or any of the other crap the government has been throwing at us.
Yes, there may be some legitimacy in those concerns, but they're not the reasons for this war. Its the oil, and the money that Bush and Cheney's cronies in the oil industry stand to make if Iraq become friendlier towards the US, especially when it comes to letting us get oil out of there.
It's pretty sad, really, that the Iraqi people have been used as pawns for years by Saddam to maintain power and push his own agendas; now they're being used by our government to take power and push their agenda. Maybe, someday, someone will actually care about them.
Asshole of the Week
Ever wish you could tell a CEO what you think of him? (I write "him" because how many CEOs are not stupid white men?) Well, now's your chance!
Dr. Jack Michel is the CEO of Larkin Community Hospital in South Miami, Fla., the CEO who made the decision to cancel the internships of three Arab-American men because a woman of questionable mental health claims to have overheard them discussing a terrorist plot in a restaurant last week. He is the first Asshole of the Week.
[...]
Dr. Michel knew exactly what he was doing. Before giving the three men a chance to clear their name, he decided to cancel their internships. In a bullshit press release (see http://www.larkinhospital.com/press_releases.htm), he claimed, "We strongly believe that the students’ current notoriety could adversely affect the high quality of care we provide to our patients. We also remain concerned for the safety of our patients, our staff, and the students due to the large number of disturbing e-mails and phone calls received at the hospital since Friday. In addition, we felt that the students’ medical education would be adversely compromised due to the current national attention focused upon them."
Robert goes on to suggest writing to Dr. Michael and his boss to let them know just what you think of their cancellation of these student's internships. Here is a copy of what I sent:
I am appalled that your institution would cancel the internships of three men who have done nothing wrong and, in fact, are victims of the near-hysteria that exists over the possibility of terrorism-related incidents by Muslim- or Arab-appearing men.
In cancelling their internship, your institution is giving in to the baser fears - no matter how nobly you dress it up in statements of concern for your patients and the students themselves. I doubt it is of much comfort to them to know that you have decided that it is in their best interest to be denied the opportunity to continue their education at this time.
I sincerely hope that you will reconsider this matter. In a matter of a few days, the press and media hype about it will blow over, and the you, the students and your patients will be able to continue on with little further disruption. I'm sure by now you must be aware that the American attention span isn't very great.
I urge you to show these students that America is not all about hatred or fear and let them continue with the lives they had underway before one person's ill-informed rush to judgement sidetracked them.
CLEAN FLICKS RETAILER SUES 16 DIRECTORS
A ruling that OKs practice of editing films for family viewing is sought.
By Ann Donahue and Dave McNary 8/29/2002
AUG. 29 | One week after getting word that the Directors Guild of America was planning to sue companies that specialize in excising objectionable material from movies, a retailer that sells and rents the edited videos has sued 16 high-profile Hollywood directors.
[...]
The plaintiffs are claiming that they have a First Amendment right to edit videos for private use. Huntsman said he has a patent pending for movie editing technology.
[...]
Huntsman noted that editing major features--such as removing blue language and nudity--is done for networks and showings on airlines.
"The directors allow those edits, but they've raised objections in the rental area," Huntsman added. "We think a jury will want to agree with us, that you shouldn't be required to watch what you find objectionable."
[...]
I wasn't aware that people were required to watch anything, actually.
Here's what I don't understand. The people who run this store are claiming they have a First Amendment right to edit movies that others have made, so that the movies fit in with their moral and ethical values. I'm just not sure how changing what someone else has already "said" (through their film) is "free speech" on the part of the companies editing the movies.
I have to wonder how they would feel if someone took a good, wholesome, family-oriented movie, and, in order to fit in with their desire to see more sex and violence, added scenes of shoot-outs and orgies to it, and then rented it to whomever. I doubt many people would be willing to agree that they have a right to make such changes, and there'd certainly be an outcry over the "degredation" of these clean-cut films.
The other part of their argument is that the directors don't mind if the films are edited for TV, cruises, airplanes or other similar venues where it may be shown. My suspicion, however, is that the agreements between the directors and the studios and the networks, cruise lines, and airline carriers have clauses in them that deal with the need for editing, and it may even include parameters as to what kind of editing can be done. When a network pays for the right to broadcast a movie, they pay a great deal more money than someone buying a copy of a movie or DVD does. As for cruises and airlines, they generally do not charge additional fees (above and beyond the cost of the tickets) for people to view the movies. They're not just copies that are purchased, edited and then rented out for additional fees. The copyright holders are properly compensated for the use of their work and have most likely had some control in how that work was eventually presented.
That's a big difference when compared to what these stores are doing - purchasing a single copy, editing it and then renting out copies of that. While no one is obligated to rent a video for their stores, they are still practicing a form of censorship. And while they say that their copies are for private viewing use only, they are still being made available to the general public.
I would support the right of a family to purchase a DVD, and then have the parents edit out what they considered objectionable before showing the edited version to their children. This I would consider a legitimate invocation of the "Fair Use" provision of the copyright laws. The filmmakers are properly compensated for their work (through the purchase of the DVD) and then the family can determine for themselves what is appropriate for them to view.
I understand why there would be a desire for a service such as this. Perhaps some of the studios will realize that there might be money for them to make in creating their own cleaned-up copies of films and offering them as alternatives. That would fill the niche that these video stores are currently exploiting and would offer the filmmakers greater control over and proper compensation for their work.
Forbidden thoughts about 9/11. From gloating about getting off work to enjoying the "country road" ambience of lower Manhattan to hating on-the-make firemen: A spectrum of improper responses to the terror attacks. [Salon Headlines]
In all the hubbub surrounding the 9/11 anniversary, it's sometimes hard to deal with not having all the required patriotic thoughts that we're expected to have. Being human, we sometimes have thoughts that seem out of place, inappropriate or just downright wrong. But being members of a society that, in spite of all its protestations of freedom, expect conformity, we don't always know what we're supposed to DO with those thoughts.
For me, one of the most forbidden thoughts I've had has been, isn't in convenient how all this worked out - George manages to get an election that he arguably should have lost, and then gets a tragedy that allows him to start changing all our rules to mesh in with his "jokingly"-stated belief that things would just be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship and he were the dictator.
Now, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I don't even necssarily think (or, at least I don't necessarily WANT to think) that the government had any hand in planning this or foreknowledge of it - but at the same time the coincidence factor is pretty high, you know?
As for the near-mandetory patriotism that's grown out of the tragedy, I've found myself being quite cynical. Waving a flag while we watch our leaders chip away at our rights and freedoms does nothing to support this country... and all those flags seem to be keeping some people from seeing what's going on. With it being so verbotten to question what our government wants to do (patriots always support the government, after all), its much harder to find ways of communicating appropriate concern for the treatment of potential terror suspects, plans such as the TIPS program, the holding of suspects without charges and with no judicial review of their cases and the other ways the government has stepped out of bounds.
At least once a day I see that "public service announcement" about how the terrorists thought they would change America forever - cut to a picture of a neighborhood with more flags than houses with a voice over telling us how they did. But what have those flags really done for us? Are we a more united country than we were before? Well, we have waitresses accusing obviously Muslim men of being potential terrorists because she thought they were "joking" around about 9/11 (heaven forbid anyone do that!) and might have made a couple statements that could be interepreted as possibly being terroristic in nature - claims they flatly deny. We have more hostility towards Muslims, Arabs, and those who look as if they could be Muslim or Arabic. We have extreme anger because a man wants to return the Pledge of Allegiance to the way it was before Congress changed it in the 50's. How dare someone think that it might be appropriate to rectify a violation of the separation of church and state? We have people watching and listening to their neighbors with more suspicion than they used to, especially if that neighbor is a bit "odd" or "different" somehow. The gaps between hawks and doves, liberals and conservatives, Christian and non, Republican and Democrat, and white and minorities seem to be growing daily. Rhetoric is more contentious, and there's a sense of "either you're with us or your're against us". So no, I don't think our sense of "patriotism" has helped unite us more than we were before 9/11.
Has it helped with supporting the economy? The gulf between rich and poor keeps widening, and there's no sign to the end of the current recession. Corporations are falling left and right to various accounting schemes and other forms of dishonesty. Investors are worried, weakening the stock market, and consumers seem to be more interested in getting the most for their dollar than in buying American.
In all honesty, I've seen very little benefit from the new patriotism. Sure, TV networks (including my beloved MSNBC) have begun their own flag waving to gain bigger audiences, and many products are being pitched with patriotic themes, but I can't say I feel any safer, any freer, any better off or any more secure than I did before 9/11, in spite of the near-constant reminders that I live in the greatest country in the world.
But I'm not supposed to say any of this, am I?
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| E-mail: |  |
AKA: | ThorsWitch |
 | INTP |
 | B7 d++ t+ k++ s+ u- f+ i++ o+ x- e l c- |
 |
    
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| « ? ProChoice Is Not AntiLife # » | ||||||||||
| << | domain-ated | >> | ||||||||||
| << ? domain girls # >> | ||||||||||
| <·· PWA ··> | ||||||||||
| < ? blogs by women # > | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ‹ # Circle of Shadows ? › | ||||||||||
| <-- ? In MY Opinion # --> | ||||||||||
| « # blogshares ? » | ||||||||||
| « # Scorpio ? » | ||||||||||
| < # Blogrollers ? > | ||||||||||
| < ? six degrees # > | ||||||||||
|
[ <<
?
Verbosity
#
>>
] |
||||||||||
| domain whore | ||||||||||
|
Are you a  ? Domain . Addict # |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
)O(
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
|
Rate me at Eatonweb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
![[ Registered ]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/diarist.gif){kind=small}
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Recommended sites |
Please note: The Salon Blog mailing list and web rings are not managed by Salon Magazine, but are specifically for the owners/authors/editors of Salon Blogs. The Salon name is used with permission.
| < £ Salon Bloggers & > |
| Do you own/edit/write a Salon Blog? Join the Salon Bloggers Webring! |
|
|
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/valid-rss-dylan2.gif "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
|
|
|
![[Blue Ribbon Campaign icon]](http://br.eff.org/br.gif)
