Enjoy the holidays

Red/Blue

This is fascinating...

But without context, it doesn't represent what we see today. Keep in mind, all that blue in the South was largely Jim Crow Dixiecrats, and the fact that Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and #41 Bush would never be the Republican nominee given today's environment.

• (Ike: "Military Industrial Complex" warning speech; maintained FDR and Truman's liberal agenda.)
• (Nixon: Opened relations with Communist China; created the EPA; signed Title 9 legislation.)
• (Reagan: Raised taxes to historic levels; negotiated with Soviet Union/Russia.)
• (Bush 41: "Read My Lips".)

None of these would meet the current Republican bar, and in fact would automatically disqualify them. Today's Republican party bears little resemblance to the party of even Reagan, much less Lincoln. (There's virtually no resemblance in the latter comparison.)

To be fair, the Democratic party is a far cry from what it looked like in the 40s or 50s. But I think a Kennedy or a Clinton could conceivably be nominated today.

Regardless, one should digest this info with the following reality regarding the country's debt:

Under the radar

Over the weekend, the Senate has gotten all the press: Harry Reid's keeping the Senate in session over the inter-holiday week, Sen. Kyl loudly complaining that this move was anti-Christian (and then proposing that the bills be read out loud, to run out time and force them to stay in session longer,) the votes on DADT repeal, the DREAM Act, and soon to come, START.

But since the focus has been on the Senate, one may have missed this disgusting bit from the House: via TPM.

And Boehner, Cantor, et alia are celebrating this. I guess they felt they had to one-up the Senate (who campaign on 9/11 heroes, but filibustered the bill which would help the ailing 9/11 heroes.)

So...

What would the reaction have been if Democrats used the filibuster-based procedural rules to block a Military funding bill when the Republicans were in power?

Same can be said for filibustering the START Treaty -- these usually pass by over 90%.

In either case, the vitriol would have been political fodder. But it rolls right off of the Republicans. The Dems need to learn that trick.

And I'm not even talking about legislation that the Republicans write and sponsor, but when it comes time to vote, they don't want to give the White House or the Democrats a win -- and so vehemently oppose their own bills (DREAM Act, almost all of the Health Care Act, among others.)

Might it be explained by the fact that the use of the filibuster has more than doubled since the Republicans fell out of absolute power?

PAC Name Generator

Yogi Bear in 3D/IMAX

No.

These folks are to be saluted.

Billionaires wanting to do their share and recognizing the value of a society in which we all benefit.

Bill Moyers

Adam Savage in SEA: WTF, TSA?

snOMG

Sure, there're lots of vids like this, but this one is but a few blocks away: (via Slog)

Print and share

Here's a good (PDF) to print and distribute if you're flying soon.

"The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution."

A conservative Republican's take on the party's line on climate change.

Need a rejoinder to Fox News? Shakespeare wrote it.

King Lear, Act 3, Scene 2:

Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!
You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout
Till you have drenched our steeples, drowned the cocks!
You sulphurous and thought-executing fires,
Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts,
Singe my white head! And thou, all-shaking thunder,
Strike flat the thick rotundity o' the world!
Crack nature's molds, all germens spill at once
That make ingrateful man!

Is the TSA now officially at least as dangerous as the terrorists?

I know that various aspects of this story have been everywhere the past two days. (My original post on it was before the storm of stories.)

Security expert Bruce Schneier (who coined the term "Security Theater") has the most comprehensive wrap up of all the various stories on his site. Boing Boing's Xeni Jardin has been doing a Yeoman's job, as have so many others.

However, there's one point that I haven't seen explored (though Schneier does touch on it.) Let me start with a few observations to set the groundwork.

• Terrorists killed thousands on American soil.
• The President created the Department of Homeland Defense, which took over the Transportation Security Administration.
• The purpose of the TSA is to make the US safer.

Here's part of the story that's been on most major media in reaction to the implementation of the new scanners (emphasis mine):

Peter Rez, a physics professor at Arizona State University in Tempe, did his own calculations and found the exposure to be about one-fiftieth to one-hundredth the amount of a standard chest X-ray. He calculated the risk of getting cancer from a single scan at about 1 in 30 million, "which puts it somewhat less than being killed by being struck by lightning in any one year," he told me.
While the risk of getting a fatal cancer from the screening is minuscule, it's about equal to the probability that an airplane will get blown up by a terrorist, he added. "So my view is there is not a case to be made for deploying them to prevent such a low probability event."

I'm pretty sure the TSA itself cited this data as well, but I can't find a link right now. However, this information and these quotes have been widely reported. Of course, that doesn't make it true, but let's take it at its face value.

From this, we can assume that flying on a plane in the US, the TSA's scanners (assuming you do not opt out of them) are as dangerous, long term, as the terrorists. The scientists presenting this data seem to be framing this as a good thing.

If we go back to the groundwork above, the TSA is charged with making us safer. As of the implementation of this new screening procedure, the TSA is now as dangerous as the terrorists. How is that making us safer?

My conclusion is the choice to fly in the US is now a question of "which is more likely to kill me, terrorists or the TSA?" The answer is now both.

Crosspost

(This is an experiment in crossposting.)

  TSA stories are a dime a dozen today. This one has some interesting facts you can put together with all the others. 800M people fly every year in US. TSA says risk of harm from radiation is 1/30M. So your risk is a mere 3.75%.

I suggest wearing a kilt and go for the groping.

Airport body scanners may pose cancer risk, scientists say

www.sun-sentinel.com

As Americans grow increasingly concerned by the privacy implications of what many are calling "naked" body scanners at the nation's airports, U.S. scientists are offering even more reason for worry.

about an hour ago · Friends Only · · Comment · Share

• • 

    Joe Gallagher Again, there's too much info out there today, but this Slog is informative also: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/11/17/opt-out-of-backscatter-x-ray-whole-body-scanners

    27 minutes ago ·
  • 

    Joe Gallagher Last comment on this (for now): The science/tech info is good to have, but misses the point that the larger issue is that we're being desensitized to the fact that we're easily ceding our privacy (now featuring your genitalia!) for some ineffective, farcical Security Theater.

    4 minutes ago ·

Words fail.

Nomenclature

Teabaggers, Tea Partiers, Patriot Movementarians, Birthers, Tenthers...

I've said it before, but please make an effort to agree to your own self-appointed name.

Teabaggers: This is what they themselves called their movement initially, until they found out it was a reference to something dirty. So I get excoriated and dismissed if I use that term.

Tea Partiers: This self-anointed term by some of the movement is not universally adopted, and they also are offended by the Alice in Wonderland/Mad Hatter implications, or the fact that it sounds like a child's game with stuffed animals. So I get excoriated and dismissed if I use that term.

Patriots: An obvious hypocrisy to the point that the more moderate-ish movementarians are offended by its militia implications. Not the good kind of militias, but the blowing-up-government-buildings and training-in-the-woods-to-fight-the-feds kind. So I get excoriated and dismissed if I use that term.

This actually could be an (accidental) strategy. Call your movement something; promulgate it; and when others with differing views use it, excoriate and dismiss them. Seems like it's a good way to self-perpetuate eternal outrage.

I give up.

I propose we just call them what they are: Neo-Birchers.

One of the reasons I avoid flying.

Via Glenn Greenwald, who had it forwarded to him by someone else:



Glenn also points to Digby:

These routine insults, humiliations and suspensions of human dignity are training us to submit to the police state. I noticed this morning that in all the blathering about tax cuts and deficits, not one person brought up Homeland Security. That bloated budget is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger and if you build it they will use it. And the results of that are obvious.

It'd be hard add much to this other than Glenn's "Are you angry yet?" But here's a more measured assessment. (Here's a snippet:)

The U.S. Travel Association, in fact, is worried that the more onerous screening process will discourage air travel.

“The system is broken, it’s extremely flawed and it’s absurd that we all sit back and say we can’t do anything about it,” said Geoff Freeman, executive vice president of the association.

Almost forgot: November 24 is national Opt-out Day in protest. Unfortunately, the new fondling procedures make this option as egregious as the naked-and-irradiating "back scatter" body scanners.

Enjoy your flight.

Write Your Principal

It's a good idea. And it complements nicely Dan Savage's It Gets Better Project.

Here's my letter:

Mr. Kozlowski,

I graduated from Brother Rice in 1982. I feel I got a good foundation, and went on to get a BA with honors from Kalamazoo College, and did my graduate work at Southern Methodist University (they only accepted three people in my program that year.) Over the past decade, I've held great positions at Microsoft, Amazon.com, and working for myself.

I only bore you with this minutiae because I actually had the opportunities to experience them. As you know, we've had a spate of suicides nationally due to middle and high school bullying. I'm writing to find out what Brother Rice is doing to confront this.

As a student, I was certainly bullied and beaten (I was a nerd before it was fashionable.) The despair of these students, who will never have the opportunities I have had, resonates with me. I hope it does with you, too.

Any response would be appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

--Joe Gallagher

UPDATE: The WYP site featured my letter on their homepage.

Not sure what Subaru's ad agency was thinking with this...

Jaunty tune, no doubt. But did they read or understand the lyrics? Or the fact that the frontman is:

Somehow reminiscent of Carnival Cruises using Iggy Pop's heroin-themed "Lust for life" for their ads.

Neology

Political types sometimes exaggerate, mislead and flat-out lie. I get it. Happens on both sides, or so the narrative goes. But frankly, one side has this down to a fine art.

Latest example: calling the Health Care Reform legislation "Health Spending".

But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won’t veto any of these things.

Other examples abound.

• Death Panels
• Death Tax
• Rendition / "Tough" Interrogation

And of course:
H1N1

Certainly, there was recently the "refutiate" Twitter typo by Sarah Palin (or more precisely, whomever writes her Tweets.) I give her a pass on this, because everyone knew what she meant, and it was amusing.

In contrast to Ms Palin's typo, the other neologisms are politically calculated to mean the opposite of what they actually say. And consistently, they are meant to inspire fear.

Fearmongers today often invoke Thomas Jefferson's quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants". Those fearmongers apparently did not read the entire letter, because the main point of the essay, unlike the bumper-sticker out-of context quote, argues that it's imperative for a democracy to have a well-informed populace. The neologisms above are precisely what Jefferson was arguing against.*

Perhaps this snippet from the same essay would be more appropriate: "Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying."

* (Not to worry, the conservative school boards are making sure every reference to Jefferson is removed from their history books.)

On Global Warming

A conversation

Enumerated powers

IANAL. No, that doesn't mean I'm anal-retentive, in case you don't know that acronym.

That said, I'm shocked and saddened by the interpretations of certain parts of our foundation document by the extreme right wing, as well as a large chunk of the mainstream GOP.

These arguments, all over the place these days, go along the lines of "we need to get back to the original, explicit intent of the Founding Fathers." Often this argument is augmented by the statement that the Constitution was inspired or dictated by God. Therefore, the logic goes, anything that's not in the Constitution should not be ceded to the federal government. These are a variation of Originalists, much like Justices Scalia and Thomas.

The most common defense of some of these views is the Tenth Amendment, which says that any rights not in this document should default to the States. These defenders are referred to commonly as Tenthers.

Seems like a cogent argument. Why, if the federal government overstepped its authority, you'd think that there would be a public uprising that would tear the country apart. Of course, there was; the Civil War.

This question was violently resolved over a century and a half ago.

However, we have governors threatening to secede if they don't get their way (TX Gov. Rick Perry), Senate candidates threatening "Second Amendment remedies" if they don't get their way (NV Senate candidate Sharron Angle), other Senate candidates insisting that the concept of Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution (DE Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell), candidates claiming that the right to privacy is not in the Constitution (CO Senate candidate Ken Buck), lots of candidates claiming the 14th Amendment does not apply to certain people... Well, the list goes on and on. (Yes, I know these involve other Amendments, but the argument invariably comes back to the Tenth argument and the Originalist argument--see Rand Paul.)

The thing that should concern anyone is that I'm not citing the crazies on the fringe; these are duly elected Congresspeople or duly nominated candidates of a major party.

So, for their sake, here is a short and by far incomplete list of things that they're arguing should be abolished (and in many cases, they are literally arguing exactly that):

• Any Federal institution not in the Constitution. 
• Department of Education
• Department of Energy
• Interstate highways
• Federal Aviation Administration
• Food and Drug Administration
• NASA
• Social Security
• Medicare/Medicaid
• Internal Revenue Service
• Federal Communications Commission
• Too many others to list
• The concept of Judicial Review

That last one's important in my view. If you obviate Judicial Review, which is clearly not in the Constitution, then every ruling by the Supreme Court is obviated. That would include many of the Amendments to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights.

So, if one were to make the argument the Tenthers and others make, then that person would be complicitly treasonous by supporting an illegal and illegitimate federal government.

So: No more driving on the Interstate. No more television or radio or internet. No more store-bought food. No more subsidized gas and other fuels. No more "free" school for your children. No more Medicare or Social Security.

Here's my reply to the Tenthers: The Constitution is our Foundation Document. I think they'd agree with that. A Foundation is something to be built upon. I argue that the document was designed to be flexible enough to change as the country changed, and that was the genius of its authors. This is the Living Document argument, of course. For those who may disagree, I ask: Why are you using the internet right now?

The Raven

As read by John De Lancie. via bOING bOING.

Pineapple Express a-comin'

So says Cliff Mass. I've followed Mr. Mass for several years, and trust him (he is often the only one who gets it right.)

Short story: Monday and Tuesday are going to be wet and floody. Seattle may avoid the worst of it due to the Olympics rain shadow, but it's still going to be nasty.

Spill, Baby, Spill

Considering some development for the Blackberry Playbook tablet

Despite the observation that I've never developed for it or any other Tablet, or Adobe AIR, which is the platform for that particular device... Probably a passing musing on my part.

But I do like the idea of coming up with a name for said app. A few initial thoughts:

• PlayDate: A calendar with integrated notifications, and integration with any other OS thingies I can dig up which makes it more useful.
• PlayTime: A time-tracking app which allows users to track the time they spend on various categorical tasks. Integration with PlayDate, if that is developed first.
• PlayReader: Super simple ebook/epub/pdf reader (goal would be lightweight, not feature-heavy.)
• PlayStation: ...Uh, better not.
• PlayOutside: A nicely designed RSS reader with categories.

I know the other obvious ones: PlayMate, PlayDough, etc. Just not going there. Hell, the ones above are probably already in development. Just musing.

NPR: How to publicly mismanage a personnel issue.

Every media outlet has been shrieking about the dismissal/firing of Juan Williams regarding some poorly worded comments he made during his moonlighting job at FOX.

Especially, and apocryphally, FOX.

I just don't care.

This is not a First Amendment offense perpetrated by the extreme left wing, as it's framed by the likes of Murdoch-based media (see above) and others. Would that it were. I'd be among the first in line defending Williams for it. But it's simply not a First Amendment issue, no matter how much Sarah Palin wants you to believe. (Check her Twitter feed; that's her argument. Then again, that's always her argument.)

No, Juan Williams violated clearly stated guidelines by his employer. (Note sections nine and ten of Section V.) Mara Liasson is under the same guidelines, but has come under no controversy due to her appearances on FOX.

I agree with NPR's ombudsman, who reportedly stated that NPR should have offered Williams a choice: stay employed by NPR and drop his FOX gig, where he violated NPR's guidelines; or, leave. Since Williams got a $2M / 3 year deal from FOX immediately after his firing... Well, if NPR had let Williams make the choice, they would have been far better off.

Truth is, Williams was hurting NPR's brand. ("She's got this Stokely Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going." he noted of Michelle Obama.) He needed to go (and has so for a long time--notwithstanding his great early analysis, which has been MIA for over a decade.)

Now, NPR being what it is, it will doubtless swing to compensate. For years, it's been hell bent on being "balanced". I remember one segment about the Holocaust that gave equal time to a Holocaust denier, all in the name of being "balanced". I have no doubt that they'll compensate their poor management of this incident with similar atrocities.

Why I'm mad about TARP

It only yielded a single-digit percent PROFIT.

A letter to Mom, on her initial Facebook voyage...

Glad you're on FaceBook--now you can follow everyone's status as to what they had for lunch or when they've had a prolonged fart.

In all seriousness, FaceBook is a very useful thing. It's great for keeping up with long lost friends, family, following causes or even celebrities you like, and a lot more. Seriously, it's a good thing.

As long as it's used wisely. Let me explain. (And once you're using it wisely, you'll be able to use it happily and without that "this technology concerns me" feeling.)

There's a reason you can't access my FB (that's the parlance for "FaceBook") account. I have very specifically set up my account with permissions that don't give my personal information away willy-nilly. One question might be, 'why would you do that, if it's a "social network"?'

Good question.

You may have seen/read of privacy problems with social networks recently. (<-- That's a link; click it if you want to learn more, and it'll come up in your browser.) Actually, these problems have been going on for some time (years.) Bottom line is, your privacy settings--who you let see your private info--are by default open to the world. No problem so far, one would think. But there is a problem with it.

That information is potentially available to anyone. Anyone is including spammers, scammers, hackers, advertisers, etc. etc. etc.

Now, the next good question would be, "Well, I only have a little personal info on FB, so why should that be a concern?"

As you know, I've been in the tech industry for some time. I know what those folks can do with the tiniest scrap of information about you -- they will scoop it all up and try to correlate it with all the other data they've scraped up from all sorts of other sources. Got your name? Oh, now they can figure out your nickname on other sites. Then they can figure out all sorts of other stuff, like where you go to often (that's that thing called "cookies", which are a good thing, but they use it to track you.) And that's about the most benign thing (you'll get more ads or spam.) Others can do much more malicious things.

So, what to do, now that I've panicked you?

Simple: Take control of your privacy. This will involve a couple of steps, but they're all painless.

First, go to your FB account and in the upper right hand corner, click "Account". Go down to "Privacy settings". Once in there, systematically review all the settings. Many are set to a default of "Everyone". I suggest you consider each one, and if you have any question, set it instead to "Friends only" or "Don't Share". There, you're mostly done.

Next -- and this one is important -- DON'T participate in any of the silly FB "apps". These are usually games, surveys, etc. These are things like "Farmville", "Bejewelled", "Mob Wars", "Beatles Song I'm Most Like", etc. Be aware that these "games" are not FB itself, but are third party companies. To use them, you have to give up your personal info that you've made available. If you did the step just above, you're somewhat protected; but still, don't use them.

Think about it; where does FB make its money? From advertising. Those third party game companies gobble up that personal info and then they're free to sell it to the ad aggregators--the ones that track you.

Finally, if you have friends who use those silly games/surveys/etc., tell them to stop it. They're just giving away all their info to advertisers etc. And here's the worst part: because of the legal agreements, they're also giving away all of their friends' personal info. So you've protected yourself to a degree by doing step 1 above, but all their other friends probably haven't.

That all being said (and I realize it all sounds alarmist,) it is great you're on FB. It really is a great tool as long as you keep safe. Just be a bit skeptical and use the technology, rather than the technology using you.

Finally, if you like, spread the word. I'll post this to my blog: click here.

Boo from Seattle

Full size here.

Stephen Fry Kinetic Typography - Language

Is his nickname "Id"?

Rich "Id" Iott.

Zilch

Mr. Paladino; Mr. Carl Paladino.
Mr. Paladino; Mr. Carl Paladino.
Mr. Paladino; Mr. Carl Paladino.

Zilch.

Shocker: Predatory lenders contributed to the housing crisis.

Reuters article here.

Source report is here.

Which leads to a question:

We're still wondering why those who participated in predatory mortgage lending practices are not in jail. They're in jail in Europe and Australia. Why not here?

Completely off-topic

Archer.

On FX. You should watch it.

H. Jon Benjamin. (Yeah, the standup and the guy from Dr. Katz.) An animation style that combines Mucha as well as Sid and Marty Krofft. And the intro is totally Friz Freling.

Just watch it.

Time on modern militias

I don't usually put much stock in TIME; they, like many of the legacy media, lost credibility for me a long time ago.

However, this article is worth reading. An excerpt (emphasis mine):

"I don't know who the redcoats are," says Brian Vandersall, 37, who designed the exercise and tried to tamp down talk of politics among the men. "It could be U.N. troops. It could be federal troops. It could be Blackwater, which was used in Katrina. It could be Mexican troops who are crossing the border."
Or it could be, as it was for this year's exercise, an Islamic army marauding unchecked because a hypothetical pro-Muslim President has ordered U.S. forces to leave them alone. But as the drill played out, the designated opponents bore little resemblance to terrorists. The scenario described them as a platoon-size unit, in uniform, with "military-grade hardware, communications, encryption capability and vehicle support." The militia was training for combat against the spitting image of a tactical force from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), FBI or National Guard. "Whoever they are," Vandersall says, "we have to be ready."

As militias go, the Ohio Defense Force is on the moderate side.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2022516,00.html#ixzz119V530yb

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2022516,00.html#ixzz119Tu87PO

Schadenfreude

Farewell.

If I should fall from grace with god

Perhaps the perfect album: simultaneously has the most poptular UK holiday tune, as well as being banned for subversive content. You decide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrAwK9juhhY

Rolling Stone on the Tea Partiers

Or the Tea People. Or the Patriot Movement. I really wish they'd decide what they themselves want to be called. Originally, they called themselves Teabaggers, until they found out that the moniker also connoted something... else.

Exerpt from the article:

    "Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"

    "Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."

    "But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"

    "Yeah," he says, "but I don't make very much." Vast forests have already been sacrificed to the public debate about the Tea Party: what it is, what it means, where it's going. But after lengthy study of the phenomenon, I've concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They're full of shit. All of them. At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry's medals and Barack Obama's Sixties associations. The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending — with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse is key to understanding what this movement is all about — and nowhere do we see that dynamic as clearly as here in Kentucky, where Rand Paul is barreling toward the Senate with the aid of conservative icons like Palin.

...

    A loose definition of the Tea Party might be millions of pissed-off white people sent chasing after Mexicans on Medicaid by the handful of banks and investment firms who advertise on Fox and CNBC.

The Tea Party people certainly have justified, debatable complaints. I simply haven't heard any of those coherently expressed. Most often, it's pissed-off Libertarian types yelling "You're not listening to us!" into the microphones of the traditional media, which is giving them a huge platform. "Why won't you listen to us!"

Even if they get to the point of proposing how they actually would like to change things, it's always subtractive: repeal health care reform. Get rid of welfare. Eliminate Medicaid, the Department of Education and the EPA. Privatize Social Security and Medicare. Just get rid of government. Except when it suits them (government should be in control of abortions and anything you do in your bedroom.)

This is the modern Birch Society.

"Playbook"? Really?

RIM has announced its new Tablet (cue Moses): The Playbook.

See more here.

Specs look good. Form factor OK (but really, why do all these "media devices like this and the iPad have a 4:3 aspect ratio?) No word on pricing, carriers or any of the other fence-sitter issues.

Nor, notably, any much info on ebooks. DRM should be the tipping point (unless you're Apple).

I'm not a fan of tablets, but if they pull this off -- No DRM, great OS experience, good to great applications available -- then maybe I'd be inclined (oh, did I not mention getting the price point right?)

Atheists/Agnostics more knowledgable about religion than churchgoers

A story from the LA Times cites a new survey; here's an excerpt:

American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.

"These are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."

Atheists and agnostics also tend to be relatively well educated, and the survey found, not surprisingly, that the most knowledgeable people were also the best educated. However, it said that atheists and agnostics also outperformed believers who had a similar level of education.

The groups at the top of the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey were followed, in order, by white evangelical Protestants, white Catholics, white mainline Protestants, people who were unaffiliated with any faith (but not atheist or agnostic), black Protestants and Latino Catholics.

All too truthy

People believe facts (or disbelieve them) that reinforce their world-view:

Whoever you are, wherever you sit on the political spectrum, you can be confident that the polls and what they say about relative levels of enthusiasm on each side confirm what you think and your own experience of the last two years.

Via TPM.

What would have happened if the Democrats had ever filibustered a Defense Spending Authorization bill?

...from even being debated?

(Disclosure: I got the kernel of this thought from some readings I had today which I can't find to properly cite.)

The answer is clear: The Democrats would have been raked over the coals by the media. Mercilessly.

The reality is that since the Republicans did it--despite no party in our history having ever filibustered a Defense bill supporting the troops--the legacy/mainstream media are generally claiming this to be a victory for the Republican Party.

Once again, to paraphrase: "Republicans victorious with 43-56 majority".

"The right fears their base; the left hates their base."

The words of David Frum, one of George W. Bush's speechwriters.

Apocryphally, at least. Regardless, it rings true.

Numerous times recently, a conservative will have to roll back what appears to be perfectly reasonable statements. The joke on the left is along the lines of "X will have to apologize to Limbaugh/Beck/Palin in three... two... one..." They are indeed scared to offend their "base"--however, their base has lost its definition. ("Tea Party"-ers, anyone?)

At one time, at least in the recent history of the party, (a la William F. Buckley Jr., or later Grover Norquist, ("I want government to be so small I can drown it in a bathtub",)) the Republican base was fiscally conservative voters. The Southern strategy, started around President Nixon's time, brought in a lot of social conservatives and religious types. Republican politicians could not afford, eventually, to lose this part of their base; and the base knew it instinctively. Evangelicals, Pentecostals and other increasingly extreme groups became more and more influential within the party. This ended up with politicians famously talking in codewords that appeased the "base" which sounded somewhat reasonable to those who weren't quite so extreme.

The Democrats, on the other hand, at the same time, theoretically built a "Big Tent", accepting all comers. Dixiecrats opposed to civil rights for minorities? Sure. (Though the Southern Strategy largely dismantled this.) Big Business Old Money folks? Yes, please. Blue Dog Democrats that will not vote with the party the majority of the time? OK, as long as you have a "D" after your name in the media. Will Rogers' famous quote "I don't belong to any organized Party; I'm a Democrat" rang truer than ever.

This creates an odd landscape. Those in power in the Democratic Party inherently don't agree amongst themselves. Since the early 2000s, the frustrated core who call themselves "progressive" ("liberal" had effectively become a dirty word,) organized online and otherwise in a more cohesive and focused voice. The Obama campaign caught the fancy of the Progressives, and arguably, became the new Democratic "base", since their messaging was better unified and ideologies more homogenized.

The situation today has been well illustrated by the recent comments by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' derisive "Professional Left" comments, as well as other administration officials' scorn (Rahm Emmanuel, for example, appears to have nothing but contempt for the base that elected his President.) President Obama himself has been complaining often recently about his supporters.

My takeaway from these observations is summed up in the alleged Frum quote. The Republicans, who intentionally constructed an ill-advised "base", listen to them attentively. The Democrats, whose "base" created itself despite the party's lack of involvement, are highly irritated by them. I'll be curiouse to see how this plays out for either party.

When I don't know or understand something...

...I consult a knowledgeable reference I trust.

That's how it is for me when it comes to economics. I have a background that does not include any formal training in economics. Being self-aware enough to know this, I seek out the opinions of those who have demonstrated themselves to be trustworthy.

That is, I seek out opinions of those experts who were right consistently.

So, for economics, I look to those who correctly predicted or warned of the situations we've been living. Unlike the standard television pundits, who were all shockingly blindsided by the turmoil, I go to the people who told us some time ago that this was going to happen.

Krugman, Stiglitz and Roubini all predicted these events. They also have several Nobels between them. So why are the people who not only demonstrably got it wrong, but also effectively facilitated our current woes, still the go-to pundits in the mainstream/legacy media?

I realize that's rhetorical; the media just need to justify their own existence.

The message from those who were consistently correct now is that we need a second and more robust stimulus if we want to avoid a painfully long recovery. Krugman's been saying this since before the first stimulus, and correctly predicted the long, slow, painfuly times we're in.

An effective second stimulus is unlikely, due to the political challenges. But that's the end result of the thing the Founding Fathers warned us about: an uninformed electorate. As long as the media only put forth pundits who were demonstrably wrong on just about everything, we'll have the burden and scourge of that uninformed electorate.

Why I'm not getting an iPad, iPod, iPhone or Kindle.

One acronym sums it up: DRM.

If I buy some media for personal use, I want to be able to use it. "Digital Rights Management" is all about restricting the consumer to only use a media product on specific devices. Cory Doctorow on bOINGbOING.net is far better versed in the intricacies and legal issues than I. Go there if you want more details, but know this:

You do not own the media you buy; you lease it.

At least, that's according to the media middlemen who write the laws via lobbyists.

For years, Microsoft led the cause of DRM; but around the same time, Apple perfected it. Purchase a tune from iTunes? You can only play it back on designated Apple products. If you decide you'd rather have a Blackberry or Android phone... you'll have to re-purchase the same media for which you've already paid.

Amazon's particularly schizophrenic about DRM. (Full disclosure: I worked at Amazon for four years, but not in any of its media sales divisions.) On the one hand, they sell their music digitally as DRM-free MP3s. I can play them on any MP3 device I own in perpetuity. On the other hand, there's DRM-heavy Kindle. It offers many conveniences and attractive features, but the bottom line is that the DRM forces the user to only ever consume the media that they've paid for on an Amazon bit of hardware. Oh, and you can't lend it to your friend, like you can with a physical book.

Ultimately, we have a scenario that considers the customer to be a criminal. It was bad enough in days gone by when the industry raked in regular money by changing formats regularly (45s? LPs? 8-Tracks? Cassettes? CDs?) While I'm betraying my age, I've had to buy the exact same content on each of these media. I'd rather buy it once and then be able to use it on the device of my choice. Digital media allows me to do this. That's why it's so threatening to the media publishers. And that's why the media producers consider its customers pirates by default. Hence, their insistence on DRM.

They have to protect their failing business model, after all.

Etymology and respectfulness (and missing the whole point)

Having discussed recent issues with friends and family, I discovered a conundrum.

Paraphrasing: "The President and other Liberals are being terribly disrespectful in calling them 'teabaggers'." When I point out that 'teabaggers' is what the movement referred to itself as, (until the snickering from the left betrayed the sexual act it alludes to,) well--the President shouldn't do it.

I haven't heard the President use the nickname, but I'll take that--at least on its face--as fact, because that's what they themselves called their own movement participants.

Sure, plenty of bloggers continue to use the offending term. That's what bloggers do. The government and media have respectfully abstained from using it subsequently, once the Tea Party realized its dirty implications after they themselves annointed themselves thusly.

Respectful deference. I have a great deal of respect for that.

So why does this not work for non-conservative movements?

One of many examples: How often, in the mainstream/legacy media, have we heard the term "Ground Zero Mosque", or even "Victory Mosque" in reference to the Islamic Cultural Center being built two blocks away from the edge of the WTC site?

The developers refer to it as "Park51" or "The Cordoba House".

It's a 13-story community center open to all faiths, with a dedicated prayer room (which is pretty much required for an Islamic center, given how often they are required to pray.) The development made the front page of the New York Times last December once it started plans--and there was no outrage, or even much notice of it. The local regulating panels all approved the plan. So why the national outrage now?

You could answer that for yourself. (Hint: it's election season.)

But even with the press aiding the national outrage, you'd still be missing the point.

We're not at war against Islam. (Side note: 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis; why did we go to war with Iraq instead?) That would be one of the most destructive narratives ever. President George W. Bush understood this, and to his great credit, made a point of strongly emphasizing this repeatedly.

We have lost that now, with the apparent passive acquiescence of the media. This feeds into the worst of our national personality. This seems to be manifesting itself in every corner of the nation, and will only result in the exact opposite of what we should want. Stability and peace.

First random rant:

Blogger, why must you be so obtuse while trying oh so hard to look slick? Even simple changes to one's site can be painful.

Plenty of your features are dandy-- don't get me wrong. But some pretty simple things require advanced yoga training.

Separately, GIMP. You make me want to cry sometimes. Your UI is unuseable. Click on one tool, go back to the image window, and the tool suddenly reverts to its last one. Double click it? Sometimes that works.

For such a powerful, empowering tool, you have an interface only an engineer can even tolerate. This is an example of how software developed in a bubble is unuseable.

A few thoughts on the purpose of all this.

Primarily, I'm doing this for me, and I wish more bloggers were more unapologetic about this basic.

I'm not going to change the world. I'm venting.

I'll be on a series of topics. At one time, these topics would have seemed exotic or out of reach; now they're commonplace. Think Internet, Design, Software design, Photography, Politics and other issues that are now mundane. I hope to keep my brain a bit sharper by bringing a different perspective to them.

Will I succeed? I'd say "You Decide!", but of course that'd be disingenuous.

So, this "Different Perspective" thing--What is it? Well, that's where you get to decide.

Part of the problem with Blogging is that it creates an echo chamber, simply confirming beliefs you really want to be true. I don't pretend that anything I do will change that and lead people to thinking for themselves. But do keep it in mind.

Been a long time since I...

...blogged.

Yes, I was blogging before the term "blog" was around. That's reason enough for no one to care about this post, so I'll keep it short.

Too much is going on, and I figured that this was a healthier outlet than tossing ice cubes off my balcony at passersby. Let's see what happens.