America: © 2009 Democratic National Committee

Hillary Clinton in 2003:

“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic and we should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer in their recent USA Today opinion piece:

Remember boys and girls: Dissent is only “American” when you’re with them and not against them.

Ω

Scrapped

The federal government’s “cash-for-clunkers” program, in which potential new car buyers are offered up to $4,500 in rebates to trade in their gas guzzlers for new, fuel-efficient cars, was suddenly suspended last night because the deal was “too popular.” The House is now holding emergency debates on whether or not to pump another $2 billion of tax dollars into the program.

It’ll be interesting to see how the same group of people who mismanaged a car-buying program will do when it comes to running an entire healthcare industry.

ReferenceKeane, Angela Greiling. “Lawmakers Voting on $2 Billion to Replenish ‘Clunkers’ Program.” Bloomberg.com. 31 July 2009.

Ω

The Bases Were Juiced

A new report shows that David Ortiz of the Boston Red Sox and former Red Sox outfielder (now Dodger) Manny Ramirez tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs during the 2004 season, in which they “beat” the St. Louis Cardinals in the World Series.

I’m not sure how much a legitimate victory it was, knowing now that they cheated their way to the top.

This isn’t new for Ramirez, however. A few weeks ago he finished serving a 50-game suspension for yet another drug violation in which he tested positive for steroids.

My hunch is that it’ll all be accepted by most baseball fans. You see, what I’ve noticed is that most fans are happy to see their guy use steroids to win but they hate seeing other teams’ players do the same thing.

Don’t believe me? Take a look at this image from a recent Dodgers game in which Manny Ramirez hit a pinch-hit grand slam. Did I happen to mention that it was also Manny Ramirez bobble-head doll night? Did I also mention that he got a standing ovation while he was rehabilitating at the triple-A level in New Mexico while finishing his 50-game suspension?

I don’t know about you, but a standing ovation from fans, a special section called “Mannywood,” and a bobble-head doll giveaway following a 50-game suspension for steroid use seems to suggest that people have embraced cheating as long as it helps their team win.

Reference“Ortiz Confirms He Tested Positive for PEDs in 2003.” AP/Fox Sports. 31 July 2009.

Ω

Drinking Problem

Racism is a serious issue in this country and the recent irresponsible comments by President Obama added to the fray. So, what kind of hard-hitting, serious reporting comes to us on the problem via ABC News?

Analyzing what brand of beer will be served at the White House meeting between the three men involved in the story, of course.

Ω

Why I Left Second Life

Given that I’ve only mentioned Second Life twice in the last two years on any of my blogs, it might come as a surprise to find out that I’ve been a Second Life user—or “resident,” as the term is—since May 2007. Throughout that time I’ve been fortunate enough to be able to say that I’ve never been addicted to this virtual reality world, but the time has come for me to distance myself from it and its other residents.

For those unaware, Second Life is a virtual reality environment in which you decide what it is to you. Thus, it’s not a game per se; it’s a world that is whatever you want it to be. Whether you want to be an entrepreneur and sell virtual merchandise or whether you want to be a bum on a beach, you can do it. Whether you want to be a vampire or an purple cheetah from a planet with an unpronounceable name, you can. It’s all up to you.

___________________________________________

A map of the Second Life grid.
___________________________________________

I’d be using a lot of space trying to explain the entire thing with words, so if you’re trying to figure out what it is, go to the Second Life FAQ page which is offered by Linden Labs, which is the company that developed the whole thing.

Before I get to the negatives, I do have to mention a few positives that came from my experience with Second Life: I did meet a few really great people and I learned how to use technology that was off my radar until I learned about it through Second Life. This technology ended up helping me with my job in real-life and was a godsend. Two items in particular are a photo editing tool called GIMP and a self-publishing Website called Issuu.com.

But like I had said, with the positives come the negatives, and there were quite a few. What I’ll do is frame these in a way that will hopefully make sense to both Second Life users (or former users) as well as those who have no clue as to what Second Life entails. So think of this list as a guide-sheet for newcomers—only it’s giving you a heads-up for some of the crap that you’ll run into on your virtual journey if you choose to explore it.

••••

RELATIONSHIPS
There are two aspects to this section, so keep both of them in mind if you decide to sign up.

Partnering
In Second Life, you can “partner” with a person of your choice. This is Linden Labs’ version of going steady with someone. What you’ll notice, however, is that most of this “partnering” turns into a really bad episode of Degrassi Junior High. For instance, a guy named Brock might be partnered with a woman named Sexykins this week, but next week you’ll see that Brock is partnered with Nippleicious and Sexykins is partnered with BigDick. Then BigDick finds out that Sexykins is having an “affair” with some guy named Gangsta, Nippleicious is having an “affair” with DJSmooth, and Brock is having an “affair” with an intergalactic vampire named Zorgonella who comes from the planet Xonix 15. Oh, and throughout that whole time, Sexykins was also cyber-fucking a girl named Trixxi, but it wasn’t supposed to be known because Trixxi didn’t want anyone knowing that she was a bisexual (since she had promised her girlfriend that she was strictly lesbian). In the end, everyone “unpartners” and DJSmooth names himself a “slave owner” with his slave being Trixxi, who is more than happy to have someone “own” her. They open a Second Life BDSM club and live happily ever after.

Making Your Avatar Look Hot
Since I’m writing this from the perspective of a straight male, I’ll offer these tips to other straight guys if you’re thinking about signing up with Second Life in the hopes of meeting women in this particular virtual world:

• Make your avatar look as unnatural as possible. Give him shoulders that look sickeningly broad. Give him legs that look so muscular that he’s undoubtedly a steroid freak. Give him hair that would make an emo band envious. Give him as many piercings as possible. Be sure that he has a waxed chest because a lot of straight women in Second Life hate chest hair; the pre-pubescent look is very popular. And top it all off with more tattoos than you can shake a stick at. Whatever you do, don’t make him look realistic. And no matter what, never make your avatar look unique. Conformity is important here.

_____________________________________




_____________________________________

• Be obnoxious. If you can act immature, do so. For some reason, many straight women in Second Life love men who act like seventh-graders.

• Tell them that you’re a DJ. Even if you’re not, just tell them that you are. Your sex appeal will skyrocket. Tell them that you’re a DJ in real-life and you’ll have it made.

• Tell women that you’re rich. The vast majority of straight women in Second Life who are looking to meet men want to know that you have lots of money. They also want to know that you’re willing to spend it on them: big virtual homes, expensive virtual cars, and lots of virtual land. Upon my first arriving in Second Life, a woman asked me, “Where’s your house?” When I told her that I didn’t have a house in Second Life, her response was, “It was nice meeting you.”

• Finally, tell them that you’re married in real-life. It was disturbing to see how many women wouldn’t even talk to men in Second Life if the men weren’t married in real-life. Some women wore it as a badge of honor to “date” and partner only married men.

If you’re a guy who’s looking to meet women in Second Life, and if you’re a guy who wants women to like you for not acting like an asshole, there is a little bit of hope: those women can be found in Second Life. The only catch is that we call those women lesbians.

ECONOMICS
The economy in Second Life is probably the most capitalistic, freest market that you’re going to find on the face of the Earth. You can make virtual goods to sell or you can just buy Linden dollars (Linden Labs’ version of in-world play money) to spend. If you decide to make stuff to sell, just be aware that some merchants in Second Life are whiners. In fact, they’ll blame you for their own failures.

____________________________________________________

A Second Life store near a beach club.
____________________________________________________

Just before I called it quits in Second Life, a brouhaha broke out amongst a few merchants in which some merchants were whining because other merchants were charging less for their goods and thus making more money than the merchants who were charging more (they were viewing sales in terms of seller-side instead of consumer-side). The former merchants thought that the latter should voluntarily raise their prices to make things “fairer.” The latter merchants basically told them to go pound sand. Either way, get used to this. Second Life is full of people selling merchandise who have no familiarity with the world of retail sales or economics trying to survive in a cut-throat economy. Add to that an entitlement mentality and you find yourself with a situation that leads to thousands of shouting matches.

The economics of Second Life also lets us to see who the hypocrites are. You notice them very quickly because they preach the virtues of socialism and economic regulations while urging people to buy as much of their merchandise as possible to maximize their own profits. These people have the theory that capitalism and profits are evil unless it benefits them and no one else. This is just proof that you can’t remove the real-life, tangible world from a pixelated virtual world because human beings are running the entire thing.

ATTITUDES & PERSONALITIES
While the issues that I discussed under the relationships section were a close second to this, this section was ultimately the biggest reason why I quit Second Life. I have to deal with enough of this stuff on a regular basis in the real world, mainly at work, so my time in Second Life was supposed to be relaxing if not fun. But when you have several kinds of negative personalities on the Second Life grid (the “grid” being the map of existing areas to which you can travel), there were several times that my time online was neither relaxing nor fun.

The Drama Queens
These folks aren’t necessarily women, either. The drama queen can be male or female and they’re constantly making a mountain out of a molehill. Some of them just gossip about other people but others actually save entire instant message conversations and paste them for others to see (which is actually a violation of the terms-of-service) in order to create conflict.

The Attention Whores
Similar to the drama queens, the attention whores come in male and female versions. You notice them quickly: as soon as you stop talking to them or stop noticing them, they freak out.

The Power-Trippers
From what I saw during my time in Second Life, these were usually males and they usually fell into two categories: club owners and “police officers.” Second Life virtual clubs look a lot like real-life clubs: laser lights, glitter balls, and music. These virtual clubs are basically just a place to socialize and listen to music if you have your music stream option enabled. If you get too many people in a club, however, you’ll experience lag. I have a pretty kick-ass iMac and even I experienced lag a few times. Prepare yourself if you go.

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

Anyway, a lot of guys who own Second Life clubs—and it was usually always guys who fell into this category—had issues with control. They own the club and they want you to know it. They set the rules, they decide who can enter and who can’t, and one guy even had the idea that once you walked into his club, he somehow “owned” you and everything that you would do while there.

I can’t help but think that these guys are trying to compensate for a lack of first-life worth. Their lives suck in the tangible world, so they want to be important in the virtual world. In a few cases, it actually works. Sadly it’s because of what I mentioned earlier in my critique when I talked about what many women in Second Life are drawn to. In this case, if you say you’re a club owner, all of a sudden you’re “cool”—and when you’re a student at Degrassi Junior High, you want to be cool, no?

“Police officers” are the second lot, and I use quotation marks because they’re not really real police officers—that is, they have no real law enforcement ability as they’re not under contract with Linden Labs. There have been multiple reports of these “cops” acting in inappropriate ways and justifying their actions by having “a badge” that they themselves made. Again, these guys want power any way possible and for them, threatening people in a virtual world with their pixelated handcuffs and pixelated guns gives them what they need.

Stalkers
Even though I never had a problem with someone “stalking” me in Second Life (basically just following you around, asking your friends about you, never leaving you alone, etc.), I know several people who were routinely stalked. I figure that I wasn’t stalked because I wasn’t rich, I wasn’t a DJ, and I wasn’t married in real-life. My value in Second Life was, for the most part, pretty rock-bottom. Still, I would not want to be the victim of this kind of harassment.

••••

I will say that Second Life isn’t the spawn of Satan that some folks in the mainstream media would have you believe. In fact, when you think about it, they’ve brought a virtual 3-D world to the masses.

Yes, there have been problems in the past with the exchanging of child pornography, but to blame Second Life as an entire platform for the criminal acts of a few individuals would be like blaming the entire Internet for it, too. With that said, it’s not an environment that I could see myself returning to visit on a regular basis anymore. After two years it took its toll on me. Rather, many of the people in it took a toll on me.

My hope was that it would be some kind of positive outlet for an otherwise negative, mundane, real-life tangible world. The possibilities of creativity and imagination lured me in, but the specters of conformity and bullshit drove me off.

This post wasn’t designed to tell you what to do with your own decision on whether or not to try Second Life. By all means, if you want to check it out, go for it. If you like it and decide to use it regularly, more power to you. If anything, I’d be the first person to tell you to give something a try before making a decision on it. Don’t knock something until you try it—except for suicide, of course.

I tried Second Life. I lasted for a little over two years, but this weekend I came to a decision to click File ➞ Quit for what was probably the last time.

Ω

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

“The Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.” —President Barack Obama after admitting that he did not know the details of the Professor Gates arrest

“In some ways, this is every black man’s nightmare and a reality for black men.” —Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick

“I think the Fraternal Order of Police endorsed McCain—if I’m not mistaken.” —White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs after being asked about a possible backlash from police groups given that Obama has received praise from the law enforcement community up to this point

“I think now it’s about conflict resolution and I don’t think that the officer is at all being coöperative in any kind of extent of resolution to this. I think he’s been defensive at best by saying, you know, even on the show I saw yesterday, he refuses to give an apology. So as the [Cambridge] mayor just eloquently stated my father has said that he’d participate in whatever the next step must be and if the officer is saying that he won’t, I think that maybe he needs to extend his sensitivity training.” —Elizabeth Gates, daughter of Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

••••

When this story first broke, I was going to comment on it but I held off because I didn’t want to adopt the shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later mentality that was prominent throughout the eight years of George W. Bush (and no pun is intended with Dick Cheney’s “hunting” incident).

President Obama, however, has no problems following in Bush’s footsteps and quickly commented on Professor Gates’ arrest even though he admitted that he didn’t have the facts pertaining to the incident. That being the case, he still had no problem saying that the Cambridge police “acted stupidly.”

Now that the police incident report has come out, and given that hundreds of news stories are out, I have to add my voice to the many who have said that it more likely that Obama was the one to have acted stupidly (no doubt upsetting his sheepish followers).

Before I do, I feel the need to preface it by saying that I’m usually critical of bad police. Whether it’s a cop who drinks while on duty or an entire police force that selectively targets gay bars for full-scale raids on the anniversary of the Stonewall riots, I could easily be accused of being anti-police.

The truth is, I’m not. I’m simply in favor of good cops. I hate bad cops for two reasons: (1.) the idea of taking advantage of your position to violate the very concepts that you supposedly stand for is morally and ethically wrong, and (2.) I actually had a corrupt cop in my family many years ago.

It’s not something that I’ve ever mentioned in any of my other posts over the last four years, but I felt the need to mention it so that it didn’t seem like I was being selective with my support of law enforcement.

••••

In the late-1930s, my great-great uncle was a police chief in a neighboring town. Unfortunately, he didn’t use his position to protect and to serve.

Due to his position—and God knows it wasn’t because of his looks—women loved him. He had power, he had a uniform, and he had a wife; he was the prime candidate for female pursuers.

He wasn’t too careful, though, because he got one of his girlfriends pregnant. And, being the kind of guy that he was, he solved the problem the only way that he knew how: he killed her.

Since forensics in the late-1930s weren’t what they are now, he literally got away with murder. Everyone in the town knew that he did it. Everyone in the town where the girlfriend lived knew that he did it. The problem was that no one had any hard evidence to pin the crime on him.

He ultimately became the black mark—if not the black sheep—of the family. His son refused to even speak about his father. To this day, I can’t even find out what the girlfriend’s name was because so few people want to remind themselves of his existence.

••••

When I first heard the story of Professor Gates, my immediate thought was that he was the victim of power-hungry police. When I learned that he was black, I thought that he was the victim of racist power-hungry police. Then the police report came out and explained that the arresting police officer, James Crowley—who incidentally teaches a class on avoiding racial profiling after having been hand-picked by a black police commissioner—radioed his communications center to let them know that the subject whom he was to investigate (Gates) was “very uncoöperative.”

Here’s an excerpt of Crowley’s report:

When I arrived at [redacted] Ware Street I radioed ECC and asked that they have the caller meet me at the front door to this residence. I was told that the caller was already outside. As I was getting this information, I climbed the porch stairs toward the front door. As I reached the door, a female voice called out to me. I turned and looked in the direction of the voice and observed a white female, later identified as Lucia Whalen. Whalen, who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the residence, held a wireless telephone in her hand and told me that it was she who called. She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of [redacted] Ware Street. She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry. Since I was the only police officer on location and had my back to the front door as I spoke with her, I asked that she wait for the other responding officers while I investigated further.

As I turned and faced the door, I could see an older black male standing in the foyer of [redacted] Ware Street. I made this observation through the glass paned front door. As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me. He replied “no I will not”. He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was “Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police” and that I was “investigating a report of a break in progress” at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed “why, because I’m a black man in America?”. I then asked Gates if there was anyone else in the residence. While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer. I assured Gates that I was responding to a citizen’s call to the Cambridge Police and that the caller was outside as we spoke. Gates seemed to ignore me and picked up a cordless telephone and dialed an unknown telephone number. As he did so, I radioed on channel 1 that I was off in the residence with someone who appeared to be a resident but very uncooperative. I then overheard Gates asking the person on the other end of his telephone call to “get the chief” and “what’s the chief’s name?”. Gates was telling the person on the other end of the call that he was dealing with a racist police officer in his home. Gates then turned to me and told me that I had no idea who I was “messing” with and that I had not heard the last of it. While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me. I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at [redacted] Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police.

••••

Police don’t always know what kind of situation they’re going to walk into when they’re dispatched for a call. In this case, the dispatcher received a cell phone call from someone who saw a person wedging their way into a house. In this case, it was Gates; Crowley didn’t know that when he received the dispatch order from the dispatcher. He had no idea if Gates was or wasn’t an intruder. He had no idea if there were more people in house. He had no idea if anyone was carrying a concealed weapon.

When I looked at this case I tried to put myself in the shoes of both Crowley and Gates. And, truth be told, I at first put myself in Gates’ shoes: that of an innocent home-owner who was being put through the wringer by a power-mad cop. Then as the story unfolded, I put myself in Crowley’s shoes: going into an unknown situation where you might or not be ambushed. In fact, any apprehensions that Crowley might have had before going on-scene at Gates’ home might have been heightened by Gates’ immediate defensive behavior, as well as his quick accusation of racism.

••••

President Obama wasn’t willing to wait to comment on this story. He wasn’t willing to make firm comments on the protests in Iran—protests in which people were shot and killed in the name of democracy—but this time around he was willing to shoot his mouth off even though he admitted that he didn’t have all the facts. And as if that weren’t enough, his press secretary, Robert Gibbs—whose behavior as an arrogant prick is nothing new—tried to make a racial issue even bigger by turning it into a racial and political issue by suggesting that police organizations just don’t like Obama as evidence in their support for John McCain during last year’s election.

Now that he’s realized he screwed up, he’s attempted to make nice by saying that this was simply a “teachable moment” and that he, Gates, and Crowley can come to the White House for a few beers.

I just hope that they don’t drink too much because I’m not sure if alcohol poisoning is covered under Congress’s socialized healthcare plan.

ReferencesBurns, Alexander and Carol E. Lee. “Police, White House Exchange Barbs.” Politico.com. 24 July 2009.

Chen, Edwin. “Obama Says Police ‘Acted Stupidly’ in Arresting Gates.” Bloomberg.com. 23 July 2009.

Cooper, Chase Edwards. “Raid ‘Em, Cowboy.” The American Philosophy Company. 4 July 2009.

——. “Sex, Lies, and Computing.” The American Philosophy Company. 25 Nov. 2008.

——. “Sticking to the Script.” The American Philosophy Company. 1 July 2009.

Crowley, James. Cambridge Police Department police report, incident #9005127. The Smoking Gun. 16 July 2009 (posted on July 23, 2009).

“Gates’ Daughter Calls Cop Uncooperative.” CBS News. 24 July 2009.

“Is the Gates/Crowley Affair a ‘Teachable Moment?.”” Chicago Tribune. 24 July 2009.

Salsberg, Bob. “Black Officer at Gates Home During Arrest Said Scholar Acted Strange, Supports Arrest.” Chicago Tribune. 24 July 2009.

Saltzman, Jonathan and Andrew Ryan. “Police Unions Call for Apology from Obama, Patrick.” Boston Globe. 24 July 2009.

Weir, Richard, Laurel J. Sweet and Benjamin Bell. “911, Police Tapes Key in Gates Case.” Boston Herald. 24 July 2009.

Ω

UPDATE: JULY 27, 2009
The 911 tape from the caller was released and it turns out that she never mentioned the skin color of anyone involved until the 911 dispatcher asked her for the descriptions of the men.

All That They Can Leave Behind

Just be sure that you’re doing your part to save the planet because it’ll help offset U2’s carbon footprint of their 2009 tour.
___________________________

While Bono’s attempted hug dodge of then-president George W. Bush is becoming the talk of the Internet, I’m more amused at how Bono’s celebrity status somehow exempts him from criticism from many U2 fans, given that his image seems to be a bit of a façade. Consider these:

Bono is famous for preaching to governments, asking them for debt-relief of third-world nations. In order to recoup those losses, these governments would then have to raise taxes on their own people.

But when it comes to taxes for Bono and the other three guys in U2, it turns out that they’re not too interested in paying them if they can get out of it. Financial Website Bloomberg.com reported:

[Adviser to the Tax Justice Network Richard Murphy] points to the band’s decision to move its music publishing company to the Netherlands from Ireland in June 2006 in order to minimize taxes. The move came six months before Ireland ended an exemption on musicians’ royalty income, which is generally untaxed in the Netherlands.

“This is somebody who’s exceptionally rich taking the opportunity to shift his tax burden to somebody else, but then asking governments around the world to spend that tax take in the way that he would like,” Murphy says.

U2’s move to the Netherlands is wrong, says Dick Molenaar, senior partner at All Arts Tax Advisers, a Rotterdam-based tax consulting firm for artists and musicians. “Everybody needs to pay his fair share of taxation to the government, and therefore we have roads and education and everything,” he says.

During the 1990s, U2 used nonexecutive directors who were resident in an offshore tax haven to limit the amount paid by the four band members—in addition to Bono, they’re lead guitarist The Edge, 45, whose real name is David Evans, bass guitarist Adam Clayton, 46, and drummer Larry Mullen, 45.

Another thing that Bono is famous for is his stance on helping the planet and putting an end to global warming. He once remarked that “[c]limate change will most effect the poorest people: the people who do not have the resources to deal with the coming changes.” These changes, say the climate-change-awareness people, are undoubtedly due to human beings (you know, never mind that the Earth was actually warmer than it is now until around the year 1300). And as such, one of the biggest culprits is carbon dioxide.

So now that U2 is out on tour, how much CO₂ is Bono and the boys pumping into our fragile atmosphere? Let’s take a look. A Guardian story from July 10, 2009, reports:

“Looking at the 44 concerts, U2 will create enough carbon to fly all 90,000 people attending one of their Wembley dates (in London) to Dublin,” Helen Roberts, an environmental consultant for carbonfootprint.com, told the Belfast Telegraph. Put another way, U2’s CO₂ emissions are reportedly the equivalent to the average annual waste produced by 6,500 British people, or the same as leaving a light-bulb running for 159,000 years.

But, says one U2 fan, hypocrisy is okay as long as it makes us feel good:

Though U2 may yet announce that they are paying to carbon offset their world tour—they would need to plant 20,118 trees a year, according to Roberts—at least one fan has argued that the environmental damage is worth the price. “The carbon footprint of this might be quite large, but the spiritual rewards to the audience of this are those that enhance a life,” Mark Reed wrote in a review for the Final Word website. “If all life were bread and water, then there would be nothing to lift mankind above the amoeba.”

I guess as long as you give people a “spiritual reward,” you can say whatever you want to and do the opposite.

Ω

A Black Eye for Women

During my senior year in high school, one of my classmates beat his girlfriend—another fellow classmate—so severely that she had to go to the hospital and was out of school for a week recovering. Upon her return, she wore sunglasses for another week until all the bruising healed.

What struck me the most was that many of my classmates viewed her more negatively than they did the boyfriend. It was almost as if they were angry at her for somehow making him look bad by coming back to school with the bruises.

That’s why I wasn’t shocked when a friend sent me an e-mail with a link of the new Chris Brown apology. Brown beat his girlfriend Rhianna and not only made a videotaped apology, but he’s been forgiven by hundreds of fans.

What struck me most in this case was that the majority of negative comments weren’t from women—they were from men. In fact, the majority of positive comments were from women.

I figured that I’d post a few here for your viewing pleasure. Please be aware that I didn’t cherry-pick these comments. I didn’t have to; they’re all there in their we-forgive-Chris glory. Click on the link to the video to see for yourself.

For the last few years I’ve argued that if you’re a man who wants a woman to be attracted to you, you need to treat her like shit. I’m not happy about that, but it’s true. And it’s been evidenced over and over again.

Here’s a message to those of you who might consider yourselves feminists: Men aren’t as big a threat to your beliefs as your fellow females are.

EDIT: After mulling it over, I’ve moved this comment to its own spot because I’m not sure if it’s positive or negative. Actually, I’m not sure what language it is.

Ω

Wanted: Narcissist

I don’t have a Twitter account and I admit to it. I don’t have a MySpace or Facebook profile, either, which means that, given that it’s 2009, I’m essentially “not with it.”

To be honest, I view Twitter with more disdain than the other two, which might sound odd because having seen many MySpace profiles I’ve come to the conclusion that some people shouldn’t be allowed to work with HTML code whatsoever.

That aside, Twitter is a bit different because not only is it designed to be more narcissistic—it’s actually supposed to tell everyone what you’re doing at any given minute of any given day—than the other two, it does so in a way that is based on the premise that we need to limit ourselves in terms of expression: 140 letters or less.

We’re constantly hearing about the “dumbing down” of our culture, and Twitter is a wonderful way to help this movement along. Instead of expecting someone to introduce something, write about it, build upon it, make their point, and wrap their topic up in a conclusion, Twitter now lets people pull off a brief sound bite and carry on.

Our cultural push to make Twitter as popular as humanly possible is helping it happen. Almost on a daily basis I’ve heard “Twitter this” or “Twitter that.” Even C-SPAN is now scanning Twitter posts for viewer input, in place of the usual e-mails that they used regularly. Now their Washington Journal guests get to hear one- or two-sentence quips instead of three or four well-written sentences to which they must respond.

Before I continue, I need to mention that I’m not blaming the guy who started Twitter. He didn’t force anyone to pick up on the fad. (And yes, I think it’s going to be a fad; MySpace was said to be amazing and people thought that it would have staying power but now it’s on its way out. As for Twitter, 60 percent of all Twitter sign-ups quit after only 30 days.) Twitter’s creator simply offered a service and others liked it. It’s akin to texting: no one forces people to text and type things like “kewl,” “u” for “you,” “ur” for “your,” or “2” for “to”—people do it themselves.

On one hand our society laments about the poor writing skills of our students and quickly blames teachers, but then we simultaneously encourage the use of a tool that ostensibly aids in eroding the ability to write properly. We no longer have to present our topic; we can simply fire off a one-sentence comment on it and move on to the next topic.

Why do we do this? Well, because it’s popular. In fact, this reason is one that I see given quite often as to why everyone should be on Twitter 24 hours a day, seven days a week: everyone is doing it so you should, too.

This is why I wasn’t really surprised to learn that Best Buy recently listed these two requirements for being considered for the position of Senior Manager/Emerging Media Marketing: have a bachelor’s degree and have a Twitter account with at least 250 “followers.”

I can understand that Best Buy wants someone with a college degree. I can understand that they want someone in “emerging media” to know how to use Twitter. What amazes me is that they’re so focused on the popularity factor (at least 250 followers) that it seems to trump the ability of the applicant. The exposure is the be-all and end-all.

It’s not hard to get “friends” on MySpace; some people have thousands and tens of thousands because they sit at their computer and just send out friend requests all day. Having a certain number of Twitter followers doesn’t mean that your ability at something is greater than someone else who might have half that number. I wonder what might happen if in a year or two Twitter falls in popularity. Will this senior manager be given the boot?

I can imagine the new qualifications for Best Buy’s CEO position: must like pizza and be good at Halo and World of Warcraft.

ReferencesAlbanesius, Chloe. “Many New Twitter Users Not Coming Back for More.” PC Magazine. 29 Apr. 2009.

Kavur, Jennifer. “How Many Twitter Followers Does it Take to Get a Job?” ComputerWorld Canada. 10 July 2009.

McDonald, Loren. “Twitter: Email with a 140-Character Limit?” MediaPost. 15 Jan. 2009.

Ω

Had She Only Been Aborted...

Seventeen-year-old Cheyenne Cherry killed a kitten by putting it in a 500-degree oven and letting it cook to death. Not only does she wear it as a badge of honor, but she was quoted as yelling, “It’s dead, bitch!” at a group of animal rights activists who protested at the courthouse.

From the Daily News:

A heartless kitty killer hissed angrily at animal rights activists Wednesday, grinning widely as she took credit for stuffing the helpless pet into a 500-degree oven.

“It’s dead, bitch!” snapped an unrepentant Cheyenne Cherry, sticking her tongue out after a plea bargain that will put her behind bars for a year in the May 6 killing of tiny Tiger Lily.

Cherry, 17, was confronted after her guilty plea in Bronx Supreme Court to charges of animal cruelty and attempted burglary in the May 6 killing at her former roommate's apartment.

Tiger Lily was left to die inside the blistering oven after Cherry and a 14-year-old friend trashed the apartment of Valerie Hernandez, destroying furniture before stealing DVDs and food.

After her arrest, Cherry told police the cat killing was “just a joke.”

[...]

Cherry is not new to animal crimes.

She was busted last year for using a BB gun to dog-nap a teacup Yorkie with her boyfriend. She was also arrested for robbing a man of his iPod at gunpoint.

This piece of shit is threat to society as a whole. It’s just too bad that we can’t stick her in a 500-degree oven for a few hours, too.

ReferenceBlock, Dorian. “Teen Cheyenne Cherry Taunts Animal Activists After Guilty Plea for Killing Kitten in Oven.” New York Daily News. 16 July 2009.

Ω

You Could Already Be a Loser!

A few months ago one of my coworkers got an e-mail from a guy in Zaire who wanted her username and password. The e-mail was written in poor English and was clearly sent from an e-mail address located in Zaire given its “.zr” suffix. The e-mail explained that my coworker’s e-mail account would be deleted if she didn’t send the nice con man her private information.

So, she was going to do it. If I hadn’t overheard her reading the e-mail aloud, I wouldn’t have been able to quickly shout out, “Don’t send him your information. That’s a scam!”

A few weeks later I was watching my local television news when a story came on about a woman who received an e-mail from “her grandson” who needed $2,000 because he was falling on hard times. She sent the money to the man, but there was one little red flag in the story that never seemed to go up for the woman: She didn’t even have a grandson. She sent the money anyway.

As it turns out, these people are not the only ones to be suckered by e-mails. In fact, according to a new survey, some people aren’t even sure why they click on some of the e-mails that they do.

From the poll:

• 82% of the respondents were aware of e-mail bots, but many considered themselves immune to them.

• 52% admitted to having clicked on spam offers

• Of those 52% who click on spam offers, 12% were actually interested in the stuff being offered

• 13% said that they weren’t sure why they clicked the spam

• 6% said that they “wanted to see what would happen.”

Yes, 13% simply did not know why they clicked their mouse and 6% just clicked the spam offer for the hell of it, possibly putting their computer in danger of viruses and spyware.

Since we have these people out there, I’m making an offer to everyone reading this: I have a large piece of oceanfront property in Nebraska and I’m willing to sell it for only 50 cents an acre. Who would pass that up? You don’t want to. You know that you want to buy this land. So do it.

To buy this piece of beautiful Nebraska oceanfront property—which overlooks the magnificent Wyoming Ocean—just send me your name, address, Social Security number, and all your credit card numbers.

You didn’t pass up the offer for your inheritance from Crown Prince Shaka Zulu, those impotence pills, or that Russian mail-order bride, so don’t let this one get away!

ReferenceCheng, Jacqui. “12% of E-Mail Users Have Actually Tried to Buy Stuff from Spam.” Ars Technica. 15 July 2009.

Ω

For Some, Even "Free" is Too Expensive

I’m showing my age here, but when I was in ninth grade, the once-mighty Metallica held a free listening party on the cusp of the release for their now-legendary “black album” (the real title of the CD simply being Metallica). The free listening party was held at New York’s Madison Square Garden, but even though no one had to pay a single cent to enter and be blown away by the new offering from a band that had turned into American metal icons by the late-1980s, people still complained.

Some were upset because even though they had a chance to hear a new CD for free, the band didn’t play for free.

I mention this story because I noticed it happen yet again on a Website called Scribd. Scribd is a bit like Issuu in that any Joe Sixpack with a PDF converter can make their own e-magazine or e-book and upload it for the world to see—for free. However, I quickly noticed that “free” isn’t free “enough” for many readers. They want all of Scribd’s books to be downloadable in the format of their choice. Hell, they probably want it to be brought to them in a leather-bound edition on a silver platter.

Such was the case when I clicked on the Scribd page for Chris Anderson’s controversial book Free: The Future of a Radical Price. Comments left on the Scribd page for Free called Anderson a hypocrite because it was only viewable on Scribd’s embedded browser; readers couldn’t download it or print it. Therefore—they somehow reasoned—the book wasn’t “free.” For them, reading it on the Internet was costing them in some way.

Others refer to Anderson’s book on Scribd as a bait-and-switch scheme; one calls it “false advertising” (since Anderson’s book is about making information available for free, which he does here); one commenter goes so far as to suggest that his/her “freedom” is being limited simply because he/she has to read the book online. Few seem to understand that the information itself is being given out for free; the majority want it to be delivered their way for free. Give it a few more weeks and we’ll no doubt have people calling for a free movie version of the book so they don’t have to actually read anything.

This is the case in America today. We’ve turned into a bunch of spoiled, selfish, self-absorbed, narcissistic fat-asses who can be given an inch and then want a mile.

And I won’t charge you for this bit of information.

Ω

"Guiding" Light

The fourth edition of The American Heritage Dictionary defines the term “democracy” as the following:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political unit that has such a government. 3. Majority rule. 4. The principals of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

I offer this because it is supposedly at the heart of a soon-to-be released book by Alex S. Jones entitled Losing the News: The Future of the News That Feeds Democracy from Oxford University Press. The description of Losing the News is as follows:

What is wrong with the news?

To answer this dismaying question, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Alex S. Jones explores how the epochal changes sweeping the media have eroded the core news that has been the essential food supply of our democracy.

At a time of dazzling technological innovation, Jones says that what stands to be lost is the fact-based reporting that serves as a watchdog over government, holds the powerful accountable, and gives citizens what they need. In a tumultuous new media era, with cutthroat competition and panic over profits, the commitment of the traditional news media to serious news is fading. Should we lose a critical mass of this news, our democracy will weaken—and possibly even begin to fail.

The breathtaking possibilities that the web offers are undeniable, but at what cost? The shattering of the old economic model is taking a toll on journalistic values and standards. Journalistic objectivity and ethics are under assault, as is the bastion of the First Amendment. Pundits and talk show hosts have persuaded Americans that the crisis in news is bias and partisanship. Not so, says Jones. The real crisis is the erosion of the iron core of “accountability” news, a loss that hurts Republicans and Democrats alike.

Losing the News is a vivid depiction of the dangers facing fact-based, reported news, but it is also a call to arms. Despite the current crisis, there are many hopeful signs, and Jones closes by looking over the horizon and exploring ways the iron core can be preserved.

Dan Rather, who stood behind CBS’s use of fraudulent documents while George W. Bush was dictator-in-chief, gives Losing the News a glowing review, which leads me to believe that I’ll bypass this if I see it on the shelf at my local Barnes & Noble. That aside, I caught an interview with Mr. Jones on C-SPAN’s BookTV this weekend and found it a bit odd that this book was even written.

Why do I say this? Well, it’s based on a contradiction: democracy must be saved, but the people who make the democracy shouldn’t have a say in what happens.

During the BookTV interview, Jones elaborated on his love of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer as well as printed newspapers and magazines. He lamented over the obvious decline of print media with the growth of the “new media” on the Internet.

What I found troublesome was at one point during the interview, he said that while the Internet can be a powerful thing, our society needs to be “guided” in the right direction toward print media. He explained that while people might let the Internet overtake print, we shouldn’t just let it happen on its own.

Here’s the contradiction that makes me question the basic premise of this book: If the book has been written under the guise of “saving” democracy, how can Jones also become upset when the members of that same democracy—in this case, the United States—are the very people who have decided that print is no longer what they want?

Moreover, if you have to be “guided”—more than likely by the federal government—you no longer have any element of democracy. If anything, you have a situation where an authoritarian government telling the people what’s best for them.

The sentiment that Jones expresses is similar to that of newspapermen a few months ago who called for a “bailout” of the newspaper industry when it became apparent that printed newspapers were dying with the rise of the paperless Internet. These newspapermen were upset to see their industry threatened, and quickly used the same defense: they wanted government intervention to “save democracy”—even though their own democracy is the one that showed little interest in what they were offering.

I agree with Jones that much of our current news media is essentially a joke. I’ve been critical of it on several occasions, especially when I see both major news Websites as well as smaller outlets offering fluff pieces as major news stories. My local newspaper Website, for example, has begun to routinely list news on reality television shows next to stories about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as reports on the Iranian protests.

Obviously—at least for me—these stories don’t belong together. Having crap articles about mindless entertainment next to serious news is ludicrous. But unfortunately, they’re doing it because they know that it’s what their readers want. This is what their readers enjoy and whether anyone likes it or not, this demand is going to affect advertising revenue. Advertising revenue is what pays the bills and allows the Website to stay in business in the first place.

Who are these readers? The readers are the same people who make the democracy. The readers are the same ones who lost interest in the print media. And yes, sadly the readers are the ones who lost interest in hard news.

I don’t say that because I like it; I say it because it happened and it continues to happen. If, however, we have the government come in and “save” the print media field—or the “traditional” media, if you prefer—we’re actually violating the very premise of the fight.

If you need to “guide” the citizenry, there’s nothing democratic about it. As such, you shouldn’t even bother using the term “democracy.” At that point it’s no longer a democracy; it’s a nanny state.

Ω

True Lies

In a case worse than the Duke rape hoax, a former Canadian police officer has just had the truth come out after spending two decades in prison for molesting his own children: the kids admitted that they lied about being abused.

The Associated Press reports:

As if that isn’t bad enough, there’s this part of the story:

The chief criminal deputy prosecutor, however, isn’t interested in whether or not Spencer is innocent:

The ones who belong behind bars in this case are the children’s mother, former detective Sharon Krause, and prosecutor Dennis Hunter. They’re more a threat to society than anyone else in the story.

Reference“Kids Recant Abuse Claims After Dad Jailed 20 Years.” AP/ABC News. 12 July 2009.

Ω

Distress Signals

Vito Congine, Jr. served with the United States Marine Corps in Iraq in 2004. Now that he’s home, he attempted to start a new business in the village of Crivitz, Wisconsin. He purchased a building, spent $200,000 fixing it up, and wanted to turn it into an Italian restaurant. He applied for a liquor license, but that’s when he hit a snag.

The village board voted against it.

In protest, he began flying his American flag upside down, which is often used as a distress signal. Unfortunately for Congine and others who support the First Amendment, the county’s district attorney, Allen Brey, and the county sheriff, Jim Kanikula, had four officers forcibly remove the upside-down flag in time for the village’s Fourth of July parade because village residents didn’t like it.

Brey refuses to talk about, but Kanikula said that while Congine didn’t actually do anything illegal by flying it upside-down, it might upset people and that would ultimately cause a disruption. Kanikula said, “It is illegal to cause a disruption.”

To add insult to injury, the village’s president, John Deschane, remarked: “If he wants to protest, let him protest but find a different way to do it.” And that way would be what, Mr. Deschane? A way that is designed to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside? A way that you don’t have to actually hear it or see it? A way that you can ignore it and pretend that it doesn’t exist? Would that make you feel better? No doubt it would.

The thing is, life doesn’t work that way, and it shouldn’t work that way in the United States. There’s sick irony here: Congine’s not only a veteran, but he’s having his First Amendment rights pissed on for the very day that is supposed to honor him and for what he supposedly fought.

I don’t know Vito, but I do know that Vito has more balls than I ever will. He served in the military on foreign soil and was willing to die for his country. Then he comes home and he’s greeted with the same fascist tactics that the United States was supposedly fighting against.

The only things different are the names.

Folks like Allen Brey, Jim Kanikula, and John Deschane probably smiled on the Fourth of July and felt like good little Americans because they had the power to quiet someone with whom they disagreed. Now Vito Congine has a chance to remind them of something that he was fighting for while in the Marines: free speech.

If these guys thought that flying a flag upside-down was going to cause a disruption, how about a nice settlement for violating Congine’s First Amendment rights at the expense of the taxpayers?

God bless America and Vito Congine, Jr.

ReferenceImrie, Robert. “Dispute Over Flag Protest Erupts in Wisc. Village.” AP/Yahoo! News. 10 July 2009.

Ω

Their American Way

Since the Supreme Court ruling on the New Haven firefighter discrimination case didn’t go the way that they had hoped, the liberal organization People for the American Way along with supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayo—who have made skin color more important than the ability to save lives—have begun a campaign to bring down Ricci v. DeStefano plaintiff Frank Ricci by citing past “troubles” that he’s had.

But what are these “troubles,” according to them?

Well, for one, he filed suit in 1995 after he claimed that he was discriminated against for being dyslexic. They also cite a story saying that he was fired from the Middletown Fire Department because he raised safety concerns at the department, which was eventually fined for safety violations.

Now, let’s take a look at these:

• In the first case, we can easily believe that Ricci was discriminated against by New Haven officials because they’re already known for discriminating against people based on skin color. Why wouldn’t it be easy to think that they’d discriminate against a learning disability?

• In the second case, he raised concerns about safety violations. This is in a field where safety concerns are of the utmost importance.

The People for the American Way are upset over these? Seriously?!

The only thing that is made clear in this story is that the People for the American Way are a pro-discrimination, anti-ability outfit which now has a place in liberal politics that is akin to the conservatives’ Joe the Plumber.

I certainly hope that that isn’t the real “American way.”

ReferenceDoyle, Michael and David Lightman. “Sotomayor Backers Urge Reporters to Probe New Haven Firefighter.” McClatchy Newspapers. 10 July 2009.

Ω

Waiting to Exhale

A few days ago I jokingly suggested to a friend that we work on a satirical public service announcement that would urge people to stop exhaling to save the planet. Since carbon dioxide is given off when human beings exhale, and since carbon dioxide is considered a greenhouse gas, every time a person exhales, he or she is polluting the environment.

It was a joke. It was satire. It wasn’t supposed to be a prediction. But it was.

Reuters’ Deborah Zabarenko reports:

To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.

Since about half the planet’s climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[...]

The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions; since rich people emit more, they are the ones likely to reach or exceed this cap, whether they live in a rich country or a poor one.

For example, if world leaders agree to keep carbon emissions in 2030 at the same level they are now, no one person's emissions could exceed 11 tons of carbon each year. That means there would be about a billion “high emitters” in 2030 out of a projected world population of 8.1 billion.

By counting the emissions of all the individuals likely to exceed this level, world leaders could provide target emissions cuts for each country. Currently, the world average for individual annual carbon emissions is about 5 tons; each European produces 10 tons and each American produces 20 tons.

The emphasis above is mine. It’s to show that this study is pushing the idea of monitoring every single person in the country for how much carbon dioxide they give off.

For those of you who don’t want the government in your lives, no matter your ideology—for instance, conservatives want government out of the schools and liberals want the government out of the bedroom—you haven’t seen anything yet if this study’s proposals are adopted.

You haven’t seen government intrusion until you consider the possibility of your government tracking and monitoring how much carbon dioxide you emit.

What’s even better is that throughout this story they talk about the “rich” but they conveniently don’t define “rich.” Hell, depending on how this group defines “rich,” every person in the United States might be “rich”—and every person just might end up paying a massive carbon emissions tax simply for exhaling.

ReferenceZabarenko, Deborah. “New Climate Strategy: Track the World’s Wealthiest.” Reuters AlertNet. 6 July 2009.

Ω

Into the Fire

I didn’t take any time to say anything about the recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision on the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, in which city officials in New Haven, Connecticut, threw out the results of a job promotion exam for the city fire department because none of the black candidates who took the test scored high enough to qualify for a management job in the department.

City officials panicked when they saw the results and feared a discrimination suit from those who didn’t meet the required score. They had not planned on a lawsuit from the white and Hispanic firefighters who did score high enough.

The result was a massive discrimination and affirmative action firestorm (pun intended). The result was a close decision in which the Court’s conservatives saw it one way, and the Court’s liberals saw it another.

While I’m happy to see the result, what worries me is that it was a close vote. In fact, what worries me even more are the reasons given by those who have decried the Court’s decision. Not once have I heard any of the dissenters say one damn word about qualifications. Over and over and over again they’ve touted the routine terms of “fairness” and “diversity.” The superficiality is the most important thing for them.

In May, Salon’s Joan Walsh didn’t want to mention anything but the candidates’ skin color. She lamented that the United States’ paid fire departments are “disproportionately not just white, but Irish Catholic” and that in New York, the “majority of New Yorkers are black or Latino, and only ten percent are firefighters.” She not once mentioned ability.

This was also the case on TV and the radio. On KMOX, a gentleman expressed concern over the types of questions that were used (e.g., multiple choice versus true and false versus fill-in-the-blank versus essay). His argument was that certain kinds of questions are unfair to certain ethnicities. I’ve heard of question topics having a bias, but now we’re getting to a point where we’re supposed to think that whites and Hispanics have an advantage when multiple choice questions are asked? Seriously?

Getting back to my point: This job was for a fire department position. The fire department is part of the emergency services field, along with the police force and EMS. These are jobs in which split-second decisions have to be made. These are jobs in which physical standards have to be met simply in order to do the job properly. These are jobs in which a person’s skin color or sex do not matter because the outcome—saving a human being’s life—must be the most important thing. The bottom line is the only thing that matters.

A burning building doesn’t care if it’s being doused with water from a hose which is held by a black man, white man, or Hispanic man. The fire doesn’t care if it’s a man or a woman. An automobile wreck won’t be any less or any more fatal depending upon what color the first responders’ skin is. A heart-attack patient won’t respond differently because of a paramedic’s skin color. A police officer responding to a bank robbery won’t be any more successful or any less successful just because his or her skin happens to be a certain shade.

Sadly, the critics of the recent Ricci ruling have no interest in saving lives. They’re only interested in image. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as much: “Firefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow,” she said, and explained that “blacks and Hispanics make up almost 60 percent of New Haven’s population, and that this should be reflected in the higher positions of the city’s fire department.” Ability be damned.

Ginsburg said, “The court’s order and opinion, I anticipate, will not have staying power.”

The notion of the field of emergency services being based on the ability to save lives won’t have staying power, either. I only hope that if any of the dissenting justices or the critics of this ruling ever need a firefighter to save them from a bad situation that they have the balls to tell the first responders that they’ll wait for a rescuer who has a particular skin color.

After all, saving lives isn’t the important part of the job anymore, is it?

As an aside, it’s quite ironic that throughout this ordeal the people who usually call for America to be a “color blind” society have been the loudest to tout the virtues of using skin color to make decisions.

ReferenceWilson, Nick. “Supreme Court Rules 5-4 for White Firefighters.” Courthouse News Service. 29 June 2009.

Ω

Raid 'Em, Cowboy

In an apparent “celebration” of the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, Ft. Worth police along with the Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission (TABC) raided a newly-opened Ft. Worth gay bar called the Rainbow Lounge, rounding up patrons and putting one in the hospital with a critical head injury.

According to multiple reports, the law enforcement officers forgot to bring their breathalyzer equipment but did remember to bring their billy-clubs, extra zip-tie handcuffs, and several police transport vehicles (a/k/a paddy wagons). They arrested people for “walking funny” and literally busted heads. In fact, one patron is still in the hospital with bleeding on the brain after allegedly being beaten by up to six police officers.

A photo that’s making its rounds on the Internet is also adding fuel to the discussion, since it shows an officer wearing a “State Police” shirt—even though Texas doesn’t have an actual state police force. Some people have suggested that this is the outfit worn by the TABC, but if that’s true, I’m curious as to why they don’t have “TABC” across the back.

Perhaps “Anti-Gay Task Force” doesn’t fit as nicely.

References“DFW Gay Community Upset After Bar Raid.” CBS 11. 29 June 2009.

Nash, Tammye. “Halstead Promises Thorough Internal Investigation, Asks Those Who Witnessed Raid to Contact Department.” Dallas Voice. 1 July 2009.

“US Attorney’s Office Will Review Raid at Fort Worth Gay Bar.” The Dallas Morning News. 4 July 2009.

Ω

Hang 'Em! Hang 'Em High!

It’s both amusing and frightening to watch my fellow Americans act clueless with respect to certain laws when they’re more concerned with emotional knee-jerk reactions.

In the aftermath of Lori Drew’s conviction—a conviction that had absolutely nothing to do with her bullying a 13-year-old girl who eventually committed suicide—a federal judge has tentatively thrown out the convictions. That’s because the charges were for “computer fraud” since nothing else would stick in court. The prosecutor knew two things: (1.) the public wanted blood and didn’t care how they got it, and (2.) the “fraud” charge was the only thing that would stick, thus public opinion was more important than the legal system.

The problem was that if the fraud charge—which was leveled against Drew because she signed up for her MySpace account using a fake name—stuck, it would also mean that millions of people who have signed up for Internet accounts of any type would then be subject to the same jail term simply for using an alias. And many times they used an alias just to avoid spam or being tracked for additional advertisements in the mail.

But, judging by the comments left on ABC News’ Website, the American people don’t give a damn about the law. They want blood; they want someone to hang; and they don’t want to let the law get in their way.

I applaud the judge for actually looking at what happened and seeing that if this conviction would stand it would have massive implications for Internet users across the nation who have never even considered bullying anyone. This conviction had nothing to do with justice and it had nothing to do with what Lori Drew did to Megan Meier. It had to do with a mob of people wanting to see someone punished even if it meant a slippery slope to do so.

Ω

Sticking to the Script

© Lawrence Manning/Corbis
___________________________

Having paid attention to politics for several years, I already knew that most politics were a sham and were staged (remember Jeff Gannon?). That’s why it didn’t shock me when it was announced that a recent “town hall meeting” with President Obama was as scripted as a soap opera. In case the video is taken down at some point—either because Real Clear Politics does it voluntarily to save space or because the Obama administration threatens them—I’m going to post an interesting back-and-forth that recently took place between reporters Helen Thomas and Chip Reid and Obama’s press secretary Robert Gibbs:

Reid: The concept of a town hall is to have an open, public forum. This sounds like a tightly controlled audience and list of questions. Why do it that way?
Gibbs [obviously annoyed]: How about we do this: You can ask me that question tomorrow based on what questions were asked rather than preselecting your question based on something that may or may not come true.
Reid: Why preselect? Why not just open it up to people and allow any question to come in?
Gibbs: Well...I...uh...Chip, I think if you get on your computer, and your e-mail address—did you send in a question?
Reid: I think that would inappropriate; this is for the public.
Gibbs [more agitated than before]: Well...I’m sorry; I’m confused. Are you not a member of the public?
Reid: Well, I think that if you were going to allow questions from the press, you have us in a prominent position there and allow us to ask questions. You haven’t done that.
Gibbs: Let’s not get into the notion of where you’d be sitting if I let you ask a question.
Reid: Well out of shouting range.
Gibbs: You could e-mail.
Reid: Would you put my question in?
[Gibbs shrugs his shoulders in an “I don’t know” way.]
Reid: I don’t think so.
Gibbs: Maybe. Have you e-mailed?
Reid: I mean, this is an open forum for the public to ask questions but it’s not really open. It’s not open.
Gibbs: Based on what?
Reid: Based on the information that your staff gave us on how the audience and the questions are being selected.
Gibbs: The questions are being selected by people that e-mail on Facebook and Twitter.
Reid: No they’re not. They’re not deciding what questions you get into.
Gibbs: I appreciate again—
Reid: It just feels tightly controlled, unlike his town meetings all through the campaign [indecipherable].
Gibbs: I appreciate the preselected questions on your part. Um...
[unknown questioner]: How about dissenting views?
Reid: Yeah, how about that?

At this point, Gibbs attempts to change the subject.

Gibbs: I think that’s a...a...very safe bet. But again, let’s uh...how about we do this: I promise we will interrupt the AP’s tradition of asking the first question. I’ll let you ask me a question tomorrow to whether you thought the questions to the town hall meeting that the president conducted in Annandale based on—
Thomas: That’s not his point. His point is the control. We have never had that in the White House.
Gibbs: Uh...
Reid: Not this White House.
Gibbs: Yeah, I’ll let you amend her comment.
Thomas: And we have had some but I’m amazed at you people who call for openness, and transparency and you control—
Gibbs: You haven’t even heard the questions.
Reid: It doesn’t matter. It’s the process.
[Gibbs laughs]
Reid: Even if there’s a tough question, it’s a question coming from somebody who was invited or who was screened or the question was screened.
Thomas: [inaudible]
Gibbs [flustered]: Chip...Chip...I’m...I’m...I’d...let’s have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meeting. How about that? I think you’d be—
Thomas: We’re having it now.
Gibbs: I’ll be happy to have it now.
Thomas: It’s a pattern.
Gibbs: Which question did you object to at the town hall meeting, Helen?
Thomas: It isn’t the question.
Gibbs: What’s a pattern?
Thomas: It’s a pattern of controlling the press.
Gibbs: How so? Is there any evidence currently going on that I’m controlling the press? Poorly, I might add. [laughs]
Thomas: Your [inaudible] engagements are prepackaged.
Gibbs: How so?
Reid: And controlling the public. That’s the—
Thomas: By calling reporters the night before to tell them they’re going to be called on?! That is shocking.
Gibbs: We had this discussion ad nauseam.
Thomas: Of course you would because you don’t have any answers.
Gibbs: Well...uh...because I didn’t know you were going to ask a question, Helen.
Thomas: Well, you should have.
Gibbs [to Thomas]: Have you e-mailed your question today?
Thomas: I don’t have to e-mail it. I can tell you right now what I want to ask.
Gibbs: I don’t doubt that at all, Helen.

This packaged crap doesn’t end with politics, though. Science is taking a cue from it, too. Just a few headlines away from the press conference story I found a story from The Telegraph entitled “Polar Bear Expert Barred by Global Warmists,” in which a polar bear expert of 30 years named Dr. Mitchell Taylor was told that he would not be allowed to attend a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group in Copenhagen because his studies blame warm water currents from the Pacific Ocean for Arctic warming instead placing the blame on carbon dioxide, which is the popularly-accepted cause.

Taylor was told that his exclusion was because his views were “counter to human-induced climate change” and were “extremely unhelpful.”

Is there anything that isn’t scripted anymore? Politics...science...what’s next?

ReferencesBooker, Christopher. “Polar Bear Expert Barred by Global Warmists.” Telegraph. 27 June 2009.

“CBS, Helen Thomas Challenge Gibbs on ‘Controlled’ Town Hall Meeting.” RealClearPolitics. 1 July 2009.

Ω