Recently, comedian Joel Stein in the LA Times called anti-Bush/Iraq war troop-supporters wusses and openly admitted,“I don’t support the troops.” The right has pilloried the schnook. And they are trying to turn Stein into the latest deadly serious cause celebre now that Belafonte’s had his Two Minute Hate. But I think the right’s gonna have problems with Stein.
Y’see, when you boil it down, Stein’s saying that if you support the troops, then you’re not supporting the troops; however, if you don’t support the troops then you are, in fact supporting the troops. So Stein does, in fact, support the troops. Except he doesn’t. I’se like, Wha?
So…if you make the rightwing’s mistake of taking Stein’s writing as worthy of serious notice, then you are compelled to conclude he’s even dumber than John Ashcroft. And that immediately creates a serious existential problem, because no one can be dumber than Ashcroft and breathe without medical assistance. And that, Stein is doing, or so I’m led to believe. Therefore, anyone who knows how to read English should find it patently obvious that to argue with Stein’s “ideas” is to tilt at a very stoned windmill. They’re a joke.* And jokes are what comedians do, duh. And jokes are often offensive, duh.
Now, I don’t happen to think his column was very funny. But I DO find it gut-busting hilarious that the right would be so STOOPID as to interpret his remarks as a serious starting point for an earnest discussion. What next, are they gonna seriously complain that SpongeBob’s gay?
Ooops…
*That Joel Stein the citizen might actually believe what Joel Stein the comedian says is not relevant. It was Stein the comedian who was clearly the “I” in the op-ed.
In comments to an earlier post, Seth wrote that he’s read the documents in the Google versus Bush dispute and that they are not after personal records in this case. As it happens the Times makes the same point today. The article, states, “The government apparently wants to show that real-world searches will pull up offensive materials that filters will not catch” and goes on to say that “Google’s main argument was that its ‘highly proprietary’ trade secrets could be jeopardized.”
I’d like to make the point that I respect this conclusion. I haven’t read the subpoena but I trust their reporting. Both Seth and the Times (I know the reporter) have examined the documents, reported what they found, and stated their conclusion without spin or hyperbole (the Times article has several qualifications but clearly the impression left is that there are no serious privacy issues at stake).
Where we disagree is not on the legal issues in play, but on the potential for abuse of the data by an administration which has demonstrated time and again its obsession with character assasination as well as its desire to amass huge amounts of information while insisting that it operate at an unprecedented level of unaccountable secrecy. Despite assurances that searches cannot ever be linked to individuals, some of us who remember John Poindexter’s Total Information Awareness program, which advocated mining of vast amounts of seemingly random information, can’t help but worry that a week’s worth of Google searches in the hands of the Bush administration is an invitation for heretofore unknown forms of blackmail and abuse of anti-Bush critics.
That kind of worry, of course, is a matter of opinion, it’s an assertion of intent which depends upon the weighing of relevant facts, not upon reporting a set of facts and performing a more straightforward analysis. And honest people can disagree about how much weight should be applied where, and even whether certain facts, such as prior performance, are relevant.
In this case, I’ll gladly, and carefully, read the subpoena if someone will link to it, but I don’t think my concerns about it will abate. Technical details might help convince me that there could never be a problem here – I do know a smattering of statistics and I’m pretty stubborn when it comes to understanding technical issues – but I also know that even an expert’s knowledge might not encompass all scenarios, including very simple ones that are inadvertently overlooked. A few years ago, a record company went to a lot of trouble and expense to copy protect their cd’s against copying them in a computer. I’m sure the documentation that the copy protection was robust was quite convincing. And no one imagined that, soon after the system’s debut in the real world, someone would be able to subvert it using nothing more than a black magic marker. So I’ll keep an open mind about this, which means in this case a highly skeptical one, but not entirely dismissive.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a subpoena for searches will not have anything to do with trolling for dirt on individuals. But sometimes a cigar is more than a cigar. Given Bush’s history, I think that clearly this is one of those cases. I hope Seth is right, however, and I hope I”m overreaching. I’m pretty sure I’m not and only time will tell.
[Update: Seth has kindly provided some links. Some court documents and an analysis can be found here. More analysis here. Seth discusses the subpoenas. While he criticizes what the government is up to, he strongly believes that the blogosphere has entirely mischaracterized these searches as privacy issues when they are not. He speculates that Google may be angling to improve its image and be perceived as a Defender of Freedom.
I’ve read his criticisms and skimmed the court documents, reading carefully the parts having to do with the requests made and their purpose. Nothing causes me to change my opinion that this is unnecessary and potentially ominous. Yes, even to individuals. That other engines may have complied doesn’t mean they were right to, or that Google should. I see no reason why the US government, and especially the Bush administration, should have this information. At the very least, it would set dangerous precedents which all of us know all too well the Bush administration will perceive as a boot in the door to ask for much more. At worst, Google’s trade secrets will be compromised, the Bush administration will have URLs and search queries which could, in some ways, come in handy down the road for nefarious purposes, and personal information will be included as it was when the Bush government requested passenger lists.
Finally, apparently it won’t it serve much of a useful purpose in addressing the stated objectives of the government to defend the COPA law as constitutional.]
I missed this yesterday and it’s fascinating. Via Think Progress, here’s Michael Isikoff yesterday:
ISIKOFF: As a general rule, if you’re the president … you don’t like pictures out there of you with convicted felons. It sounds like … there’s at least one picture of him with at least one convicted felon and another indicted, so it’s probably not a picture the White House is eager to have out there. The other interesting aspect of this is, while the White House hasn’t put these out, Jack Abramoff has clearly shown them to people. I don’t know anything about Time sources, but I do know that he showed them to Washingtonian magazine, which suggests he may be playing a little bit of a game here. He has, of course, pled guilty already to the Justice Department. But it does raise a question in my mind at least as to whether Abramoff is maybe sort of sending some sort of signal out here: “Hey, I’ve got this stuff.” Maybe he wants something from somebody at the White House, or he wants someone at the White House not to do something, and just sort of subtly playing with people here.
It seems to me that might qualify as obstruction of justice. But what do I know? My recent exposure to that crime was when Clinton allegedly betrayed the republic by wearing a certain tie to signal Monica Lewinsky to … well, we were never sure just what he was signalling her, now that I think about it.
Felon Jack Abramoff sending signals to the White House that he has embarrassing photos certainly doesn’t rise to that level. That must be why this time we aren’t seeing the heads of every graduate of the Barbizon School of Blond Former Prosecutors spin around on their shoulders while they spew green bile and speak in Aramaic on all the cable news shows. It just isn’t as important, I understand that.
For those of a certain age, Bush’s contention that he has the constitutional right to ignore the law sounds strangely familiar. That’s because you have heard it somewhere before — and when you heard it you were appalled but not surprised, considering the source.
Take a trip down Memory lane over at Crooks and Liars:
Responding to all the Claud Rainsing on the right yesterday about manipulation of Amazon reviews I wrote a post about their own long standing manipulation of Amazon reviews.
How serendipitous, then, that one of the most notorious of Amazon manipulators in history should show up on the pages of the NY Times today. John Lott was long ago discredited as a social scientist. Indeed, economists at the University of Chicago use his work to illustrate shoddy scholorship. But naturally, even though he is held in almost universal opprobrium by every expert in his field, because he is a right wing academic he was granted a cushy sinecure at AEI and a lucrative speaking schedule. That he has now landed on the most valuable journalistic real estate on the planet, however, is nothing short of shocking.
But as I mentioned, Lott is even more interesting than just being a lousy (dishonest) scientist. In one of the blogosphere’s earliest triumphs, Lott was exposed as being slightly nuts:
Mary Rosh thinks the world of John R. Lott Jr., the controversial American Enterprise Institute scholar whose book “More Guns, Less Crime” caused such a stir a few years ago.
In postings on Web sites in this country and abroad, Rosh has tirelessly defended Lott against his harshest critics. He is a meticulous researcher, she’s repeatedly told those who say otherwise. He’s not driven by the ideology of the left or the right. Rosh has even summoned memories of the classes she took from Lott a decade ago to illustrate Lott’s probity and academic gifts.
“I have to say that he was the best professor I ever had,” Rosh gushed in one Internet posting.
Indeed, Mary Rosh and John Lott agree about nearly everything.
Well they should, because Mary Rosh is John Lott — or at least that’s the pseudonym he’s used for three years to defend himself against his critics in online debates, Lott acknowledged this week.
“I probably shouldn’t have done it — I know I shouldn’t have done it — but it’s hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously,” said Lott, an economist who has held senior research positions at the University of Chicago and Yale.
[…]
Julian Sanchez, a Cato Institute staffer, is the cybersleuth who tracked Mary Rosh back to John Lott.
Sanchez is a blogger — someone who maintains a Web site where they report and comment on the news — who had been tracking the debate between Lott and critics of his gun research. He became suspicious about Rosh after he noticed that several of Rosh’s online defenses of Lott seemed to track closely with arguments the scholar himself had made in private e-mails to Sanchez and other bloggers. He tracked Mary Rosh’s IP address (the computer code translation of the standard e-mail address) to Pennsylvania.
“I compared that IP with the header of an email Dr. Lott had sent me from his home address. And by yet another astonishing coincidence, it had originated at the very same IP address. Now, what are the odds of that?” he wrote in a posting on his Web site. “Sarcasm aside, we’re a little old to be playing dress up, aren’t we Dr. Lott?”
I hear that South Korean stem cell researcher is out of work. Maybe The Times can get him to come on board as their science editor. Credibility is certainly not a requirement.
Those of us on the left of center aren’t going to sit back and take it anymore. I’m sorry if that’s hurt people’s feelings but they’ve left us no choice. We are half of this country and yet our views are consistently marginalized, often by fake Democrats like Chris Matthews. Samela, a regular reader of mine heard Matthews speak sometime back and he was quite upfront about his agenda. He said “they like it when I beat up on the liberals.” He is the definition of a media whore. He whores for ratings and he whores for access.
Update: I always find it interesting when Chris Matthews and Rush Limbaugh use the same talking points, don’t you? How do you suppose that happens?
Boy that Washington Post chat with bloggers sure was fun, huh kids? It’s really cool when guys like Glenn Reynolds cojmpletely misrepresent themselves in a national forum. It shows once again how out of control the left is.
Here’s Glenn:
My own sense is that it’s very hard to preserve civility — or even a good ratio of interestingness to flaming — on sites that have high traffic without a fair degree moderation. There’s some sort of a threshold after which things tend to break down into USENET-style flamewars, which some people like, but which I’m tired of. I find the comments on Atrios, Kos, or for that matter Little Green Footballs, to be tiresome.
[…]
I love open comments, just as I love free beer, free pizza, and other giveaway goods. But I’m not entitled to them. And those who partake, I think, owe a certain degree of civility to their hosts.
Yes, and one certainly shouldn’t celebrate such incivility and encourage your readers to participate, right?
THE NYC TRANSIT WORKERS’ UNION has an unofficial blog, and it’s getting an earful in the comments. Here are some excerpts:
[S]econdly, if i could meet the masterminds behind this strike, i’d personally spit in each of their faces. I know fifty people at my campus who now cannot return to their families for the holiday season, and are being forced to spend their break in a hotel off campus until the transit system is running again. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves doing something this stupid this time of the year. Every single worker participating in the strike is extremely selfish and short sighted.
—–
You guys really have a lot of balls. All you do is drive around in circles. Your job isn’t hard at all. You get paid as much as cops and firemen, while much more as teachers. Something is wrong. You’re asking for way too much here.
—–
I am thoroughly disgusted with the TWU. Who are you to think you’re above the law? Who are you to take well-paying jobs (for your education levels) serving millions of people and then hold us hostage by striking?
I have a 16 month old son who will be taken to day care today in his STROLLER. In 20 degree weather. I am paid hourly and will lose today’s salary.
But they’re standing up for working people!
Meanwhile, Bloomberg has to be asking himself, “What would Rudy do?”
UPDATE: Apparently someone woke up long enough to remove the comments. [LATER: CraigsList removed the link, which was to an item featuring pictures of transit workers asleep at their posts.]
Glenn Reynolds knew exactly what he was doing when he linked to that blog and sent his massive readership over there to flame them. That’s within the rules of engagement. But it’s chickenshit when you don’t have comments yourself. And it’s dishonest in the extreme to pretend that you don’t engage that way when you do.
Jeff Jarvis: Glenn: I agree with your assessment of those particular sites. I wonder whether that is a function of size or topic or host’s tone.
I hate it when the host’s tone creates a tiresome atmosphere that promotes flaming ,don’t you? For instance, how about this for tone?
Instapundit: There was a time when the Left opposed fascism and supported democracy, when it wasn’t a seething-yet-shrinking mass of self-hatred and idiocy. That day is long past, and the moral and intellectual decay of the Left is far gone.
Reynolds doesn’t have comments. Fair enough. He prefers to play hit and run. Which is also fair enough. But he is in no position to be lecturing about civility. He’s a rabid partisan who knows exactly how the game is played.
It appears to me that this chat today was structured as a combat between Jane Hamsher and Jim Brady, with Jarvis and Rosen there as filler — and Reynolds there to promote hte idea that lefty blogs are uncivilized in contrast to the upslifting atmostphere of the right wing (oddly similar to Brady’s interview with Hugh Hewitt.)
But let’s review the history of civility in our recent public discourse, shall we? Let’s take a look at some of the words of people who are brought on the highest rated television shows to give political commentary, who are paid hundreds of millions of dollars to pontificate freely on radio day after day, who are welcomed into the homes of major establishment players in Washington:
I mean, if there is a party that’s soulless, it’s the Democratic Party. If there are people by definition who are soulless, it is liberals — by definition. You know, souls come from God. You know?
I said at the conclusion of previous hours — part of me that likes this. And some of you might say, “Rush, that’s horrible. Peace activists taken hostage.” Well, here’s why I like it. I like any time a bunch of leftist feel-good hand-wringers are shown reality.
Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love American, too. No they don’t. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence.
O’REILLY: It’s a good question, Juan. And I don’t see it as a threat. I mean, I think you have to say to people, as we do with all our guests here, this is what’s likely to happen. And if they continue, those people continue to attack people personally, as Frank Rich does almost every week, and Keller allows it, then we’ll just have to get into their lives.
O’REILLY: All right, and that brings us to the other group. And you know, certainly ABC News is a responsible organization. They made a decision. And the folks can decide for themselves whether — who they agree with. The ACLU, I think, is a grossly irresponsible, irresponsible organization that is going out of its way to help Al Qaeda, that I don’t think ABC News is in that category at all. I mean, I think they’re doing what they think is best for the country. The ACLU is doing what they think is best for the country they envision, not the country we have now, but certainly is aiding and abetting the enemy.
The radical Democratic left is an army of soulless ghouls. Being of the living dead, they live in a world of death and try to impose it on we the living. Witness who led the charge: a radical homosexual, Barney Frank. A radical abortion Mafiosa, Barbara Boxer. What is difficult for we the living to comprehend is the reason they can engage in such anti-life abominations is because they have no souls.
That’s the tip of the ice berg. These are people who are feted by the president of the United States, who appear on the cover of TIME magazine and are profiled as merry jokesters, people who mainstream journalists refer to as “wonderful.” The Washington Post and NBC news referred to at least one of these people as “mainstream.”
Please, please spare me the crocodile tears about leftist incivility. We are living in a political world formed by rightwing commentators who have made a fetish of harsh eliminationist rhetoric hammered over and over again into the ether until it sounds like normal discourse. And we’ve been waiting for more than a decade for the mainstream media to notice that rightwing celebrity pundits, who reach millions upon millions of listeners and viewers a day, routinely accuse liberals of treason and celebrate our deaths. It’s made us a little bit testy. When important news outlets like the Washington Post see “leftist incivility” as a topic worthy of the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth it makes us wonder if they are even living in the same universe we do.
Famous and wealthy toxic political commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are routinely lauded as normal mainstream partisans while ordinary readers of the Washington Post are excoriated for incivility when they complain about inaccurate coverage that benefits Republicans. This is bizarro world. It is insane. It is a sign of a very sick political culture.
This New York Times article on Internet privacy inspired the thought that one good way to protest at least some of the behavior of an American government acting like a third rate Stalinist satellite is to make anonymous websurfing the standard.
You don’t like George Bush having the opportunity to spy on you? Make yourself invisible, even when you surf for groceries. That way, simply using anonymity software will not be considered suspicious in itself – hey, I forgot to turn it off! And obviously, the more people who use anonymity software, the less suspicious its use by any one person.
So, here are a few Mac OSX programs to get started (the Times article has links to some PC programs). It’s probably a good idea even if you don’t want to use them now to download them anyway. Given this administration’s proclivities, there’s no telling how long anonymity software will be available.
You might ask: How good is this stuff? Does George Bush have a backdoor into these programs or their techniques, rendering them useless against a malicious US administration? Are they difficult to set up and use? Do they slow down web surfing and emailing?I don’t know. I’ve been told that PGP is exactly what it says it is: pretty good privacy, meaning it takes a very sophisticated computer program a considerable amount of time to decrpyt. The others are new to me so if anyone has any info please drop a note in the comments.
[Update: Link added to TOR. Link added to clarify the law at the center of the issue. Fallacious accusation #1 was corrected and changed in response to reader comments.]
Atrios links to the Bob Casey/Ed Rendell endorsement of Alito and it is pretty hard to take. I happened to see Rendell on Fox earlier today (Bill Hemmer’s show) and he didn’t just endorse Alito. He went out of his way to bash Democrats for being so partisan and failing to recognise that Alito is superbly qualified. Oh, and Bush won the election so he is out King.
He was good little Fox Democrat. I hope they gave him nice chew bone and a scratch behind the ears when he was done.
Talk Left has an interesting post up about a proposed expansion of the uniformed secret service which is being called a “federal police force.”
I guess the FBI, DEA and ATF aren’t getting the job done.
But why should they be given the power to “make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence” … “or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony.”
The last I heard police had to have probable cause to arrest someone. Apparently, the Republicans are trying to change the plain meaning of the fourth amendment.
I hate to get all Godwin, but come on. Update: Here is what the above link says about reasonable suspicion and probable cause:
Definition of Probable Cause
Many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation. Understanding the what, when, why, and how of police conduct during a stop is confusing for most people. Varying standards of proof exist to justify varying levels of police authority during citizen contacts. While FyR maintains that it is never a good idea to consent to a search or answer incriminating questions, an understanding of these standards will help the citizen understand when police can surpass constitutional protections.
Reasonable suspicion Facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to suspect that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed
At this stage, police may detain the suspect for a brief period and perform a frisk. In some cases, drug-sniffing dogs may be called to the scene, although officers must cite a reason for suspecting the presence of drug evidence in particular. Refusing a search does not create reasonable suspicion, although acting nervous and answering questions inconsistently can. For this reason, it is best not to answer questions if you have to lie in order to do so. Police authority increases if they catch you in a lie, but not if you refuse to answer questions. As a general rule, reasonable suspicion applies to situation in which police have reason to believe you’re up to something, but they don’t know what it is. Probable cause Facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed and the person arrested is responsible
At this stage, police may perform a search, and often an arrest. Probable cause generally means police know what crime they suspect you of and have discovered evidence to support that belief. Common examples include seeing or smelling evidence which is in plain view, or receiving an admission of guilt for a specific crime.
For the conscientious citizen, the best advice regarding police authority is to stick to your guns and not waive your constitutional rights under any circumstances. Police officers will often give misleading descriptions of what their authority is, but you have nothing to gain by submitting to coercive police tactics. Police must make ad hoc decisions in the streets regarding their authority level in a given situation and these decisions are subject to review in court. Asserting your rights properly is good way to avoid arrest, but it is an even better way to avoid a conviction.
Here is what Law.com says: probable cause
n. sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime. Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant, search without a warrant, or seize property in the belief the items were evidence of a crime. While some cases are easy (pistols and illicit drugs in plain sight, gunshots, a suspect running from a liquor store with a clerk screaming “help”), actions “typical” of drug dealers, burglars, prostitutes, thieves, or people with guilt “written across their faces,” are more difficult to categorize. “Probable cause” is often subjective, but if the police officer’s belief or even hunch was correct, finding stolen goods, the hidden weapon or drugs may be claimed as self-fulfilling proof of probable cause. Technically, probable cause has to exist prior to arrest, search or seizure.