R.I.P. Hulu

Maybe the headline is a little dramatic, but it seems that Hulu's transition to a paid subscription model in 2010 is going to lead us back from the age of watching TV online into the glorious new well-charted realms of downloading TV online and then watching it. It's an extra step for most people, but it doesn't play the same blasted car ad again and again.

Hulu's advertising flexibility aside, for the record I feel Hulu will probably survive online as a subscription service - the video quality is nice enough and the speed speedy enough that I doubt everybody is going to abandon our old friend when it gets too big for its britches. Still, anybody who knows their way around a torrent pretty much has no excuse for paying for broadcast television shows that you can't even download (unless Hulu makes some significant changes). We'll see. Well, those of us who don't forget about the site entirely in six months will see.

Yellow journalism and FNC

Fox has ridden the coattails of the Tea Party protests since their inception - anchors promoted the events on their shows, attended the events, and the network discussed them with an ideological singularity that could only have come from higher edict. In short, the Tea Parties became an ideological bulwark for Fox - both a justification of and a continuation of the newfound protest spirit of the conservative wing of the Republican party. The network even put out a full-page ad falsely accusing its competitors of not covering the events, hardly a desperate move when the network's diehard viewers wouldn't be caught dead watching CNN long enough to watch them refute the claim:



News networks attempting to influence the news for their own benefit is nothing new, though it's something we like to imagine has ended in modern journalism. Fox finds itself in a unique situation - its cavalcade of cartoon commentators allows it to indirectly (and directly) promote events while maintaining the illusion that these protests are entirely the spontaneous actions of Americans. The network is able to attend the events and attempt to influence public perception of them further through coaching and slanted reporting, and finally actively insinuate bias against networks who don't report the story they way they do. All of our networks are run by megacorporations, indicating that certain stories will not be told and certain angles not covered, though Fox's explicit promotion and direction of the corporate agenda (in this and other stories) is more directly alarming and transparent.

Apple explains why AT&T had nothing to do with (everything to do with) Apple's rejection (non-rejection) of Google Voice for the iPhone

Those looking to read a nice duplicitous release could do worse than "Apple Answers the FCC's Questions", in which Apple trips all over itself attempting to explain how its rejection (though Apple denies the term, saying the App has not been rejected, just not approved, and that Apple "continue to study" it) of Google's communication service Google Voice meets the needs of its consumers and, not coincidentally, the telecommunications giant which has the exclusive deal to provide service to the iPhone. Naturally, they then begin to explain exactly what AT&T had to do with the rejection (uh. . . everything):

Answering the question "Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications?"

Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter.

...

Then answering the question: "Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)?"

There is a provision in Apple’s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T’s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T’s permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T’s customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T’s cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.

Slick, Apple - slick.

Link

Relevant editorial: Apple's Animal Farm

Indefensible - Lowlights from the Inspector General Report

After writing and rewriting this introduction dozens of times, I realized that I've already opined on torture at length so it may be best to let this reading speak for itself.

Those who defend the use of torture as "enhanced interrogation" should read the selections posted by Salon's Glenn Greenwald of actual methods used by CIA interrogators.

The entire article reads like a sort of twisted set of Mad-Libs. Remember, "terrorists" (really just a blanket term for Arabs in many circles) couldn't destroy our freedom or our values no matter how much they supposedly hate them. Still, we've done a pretty good job of making the whole war moot by trying to beat them to it.

Further readings:

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Five Things You Should Know About the ‘Torture’ Memos

Musicians to press Obama on end to "sonic torture"

Gitmo detainees released with sneaky, infuriating language

Innocent Uighur Gitmo detainees released to Bermuda, plan to open restaurant

Four former Gitmo detainees were released after seven years to one of the few countries willing to take them - Bermuda, where they plan to open the first Bermudan Uighur restaurant. America (meaning of course the Bush administration) had determined that these prisoners constituted no threat to the United States, clearing them of all wrongdoing, and in fact asserted that they shouldn't even be called "enemy combatants."

Cue the reams of bulletheaded, ignorant conservatives who will claim that these prisoners must have been guilty or they wouldn't have been arrested, and that Obama is releasing terrorists to tropical vacations. These individuals fled oppression from their governments only to be captured by the U.S. in Muslim nations as terror suspects. The least we can do after holding them illegally for nearly a decade is put them somewhere where they can't undergo the same treatment.

Oh, and those people I mentioned attacking the president for releasing innocents - the ones with a disrespect for the rule of law, an inability to interpret reality, irresistible racist, fascist compulsions and partisan Tourette's syndrome? Get Parkinson's, stick your arms in a wood chipper, move underground - anything to keep you from typing. I have this thing against ignorant, hateful creeps. I hope you understand.

"Gitmo Four" released to Bermuda (DailyMail)

Carlson: Let Kim Jong-Il Visit America

In a highly compelling opinion piece in the Washington Post, Peter Carlson suggests a highly unusual (and likely controversial) way to ingratiate America to the egotistical North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il: let him visit. Much of the piece is taken up by a recounting of the bizarre visit of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to the West.

In 1959, Nikita Khrushchev, the eccentric and unpredictable Soviet dictator, was misbehaving, rattling his nukes and threatening West Berlin, which he described as a "malignant tumor." Negotiations over the city's fate proved fruitless, so Ike tried a different strategy: He invited Khrushchev to visit the United States. Khrushchev, who loved to travel, immediately accepted, replying that he'd like to ramble around the country for "ten to fifteen days."

The fat-bellied, thin-skinned, cranky communist dictator's resulting road trip through the wonderland of '50s America turned out to be one of the most bizarre diplomatic journeys in history.

Why not? Jong Il is a well-known western pop culture enthusiast - let him see a show, hobnob it with celebrities and ride a roller coaster with an appropriate height limit. We've already proven that we catch more flies with honey than with vinegar in our interrogation techniques, and what good can come from isolating Jong Il from the nations he's threatening, thereby dehumanizing them in his eyes? Who gives a patootie what conservative pundits will say - this is the fate of the world we're talking about, Jong Il's the leader of one of the last few really dangerous countries threatening the world and there's no possible downside.

Peter Carlson - Give Kim Jong Il the Khrushchev Treatment

"Ketchup" equals "American," unless it's Heinz

Somehow I missed this last month - Conservative "pundits" (including the desperate liar Sean Hannity) attacking Barack Obama for ordering a hamburger with "fancy" dijon mustard and no ketchup. We expect this from Sean, who has of late become more and more of a puppet for the ramblings of the syphilitic dementia that will eventually take his life, but what's Laura Ingraham's excuse?

Link

Sigh. . . unless he does something newsworthy (like offer to be waterboarded), I promise that I will ignore Sean Hannity from now on. Watching the guy isn't so much like watching a car crash as experiencing an unusually painful bowel movement, and about as relevant.

But I offer the following unscientific Google-ing:

Results for "Sean Hannity is a tool": 660
Results for "A screwdriver is a tool": 186

Just a little frightening. . .Obama to allow Gitmo executions without trials

From the New York Times:

The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial.

The provision could permit military prosecutors to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation techniques. It could also allow the five detainees who have been charged with the Sept. 11 attacks to achieve their stated goal of pleading guilty to gain what they have called martyrdom.

The proposal, in a draft of legislation that would be submitted to Congress, has not been publicly disclosed. It was circulated to officials under restrictions requiring secrecy. People who have read or been briefed on it said it had been presented to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates by an administration task force on detention.

Obama's already outlined his procedure of "indefinite preventative detention," a fascinating, scary way of saying "illegal imprisonment without trial or sufficient evidence." It's already too late for Obama to become the human rights President, and I suspect that our country is already on a path where a respect for the rule of law and the Bill of Rights is no longer considered an asset in political circles. Naturally, the terrorists won when we began to compromise our own ideals and values on a massive scale in the name of keeping America "safe." No good American should want this kind of "safety." It's largely imaginary in the first place and requires the destruction of nearly everything that makes our country great and unique.

The proposal would ease what has come to be recognized as the government’s difficult task of prosecuting men who have confessed to terrorism but whose cases present challenges. Much of the evidence against the men accused in the Sept. 11 case, as well as against other detainees, is believed to have come from confessions they gave during intense interrogations at secret C.I.A. prisons. In any proceeding, the reliability of those statements would be challenged, making trials difficult and drawing new political pressure over detainee treatment.

In a nutshell, President Obama wants to allow "evidence" obtained under illegal and unreliable torture methods to be considered statements of guilt worthy of execution (read note below), without any semblance of a lawful trial. Obama, having taken steps to begin closing Gitmo purely as a formality, has decided to turn it into an illegal execution factory.

NOTE: It seems that executions will not occur based solely on evidence obtained under torture, but a guilty plea on the part of the "defendant." This is still frightening as an inmate incarcerated for several months, often subject to inhumane or illegal torture and techniques for breaking them down, cannot be considered a reliable source for information. Allowing the government to execute based on a mere confession obtained through whatever methods they decide are legal is questionable at best, a prelude to totalitarianism at worst (and that's no exaggeration).

"Fuhrer's Law": The Bush Memos and Treason

A provocative article deserves a
provocative image, dontchathink?

What a doozy today. In perhaps one of the most significant stories of our lifetime (their words and mine), new details have come to light about the memos written by John Yoo while serving as a legal advisor to President Bush and the Executive Branch. Alternet's Naomi Wolf puts it most simply (and alarmingly):

In early March, more shocking details emerged about George W. Bush legal counsel John Yoo's memos outlining the destruction of the republic.

The memos lay the legal groundwork for the president to send the military to wage war against U.S. citizens; take them from their homes to Navy brigs without trial and keep them forever; close down the First Amendment; and invade whatever country he chooses without regard to any treaty or objection by Congress.

...

The memos are a confession. The memos could not be clearer: This was the legal groundwork of an attempted coup. I expected massive front page headlines from the revelation that these memos exited. Almost nothing. I was shocked.

John Yoo (a man who, incidentally, is eligible for war crimes trial) was instrumental in helping to consolidate presidential power and rationalize some of the most extreme breaches of justice and U.S. law perpetrated by the Bush administration over the last eight years, among them the justification of torture and limitation of habeus corpus, presidential power to override the fourth amendment through domestic surveillance, and worse. Constitutional scholar Michael Ratner explains:

What Yoo says is that the president's authority as commander in chief in the so-called war on terror is not bound by any law passed by Congress, any treaty, or the protections of free speech, due process and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The First, Fourth and Fifth amendments -- gone.

What this actually means is that the president can order the military to operate in the U.S. and to operate without constitutional restrictions. They -- the military -- can pick you or me up in the U.S. for any reason and without any legal process. They would not have any restrictions on entering your house to search it, or to seize you. They can put you into a brig without any due process or going to court. (That's the Fourth and Fifth amendments.)

The military can disregard the Posse Comitatus law, which restricts the military from acting as police in the the United States. And the president can, in the name of wartime restrictions, limit free speech. There it is in black and white: we are looking at one-person rule without any checks and balances -- a lawless state. Law by fiat.

I won't dignify the allegations of treason made later, mainly because I don't have to - they stand completely by themselves. What was done here was treason, pure and simple - a lawless, irresponsible administration laying the groundwork for the systematic elimination of checks and balances in America. Though the Department of Justice later rejected Yoo's assertions that Congress had no check or balance against the president, history has shown that President Bush proceeded in these areas as if Yoo's memos were valid legal counsel. Ratner puts it best:

"This would be the president making war against the institutions of the United States."

Further Readin':

The memos and summaries on Wikipedia
Salon's Gary Kumiya on the torture memos
Mark Mazzetti, New York Times on interrogations

A telling quote from my state's alternative paper

From The City Weekly:

Chuck Shepherd, compiler of the syndicated column News of the Weird, has long chronicled the recurrence of the middle name "Wayne" among men arrested for murder. His latest list includes 224 with that middle name. "I suspect that aggressive-personality fathers during the 1950s and 1960s did in fact hopefully and disproportionately name their boys after that era's icon of ruggedness, John Wayne. Beyond that, I dare not venture."

Hmm. . . would it be particularly controversial to note that people who emulate John Wayne as a model of manhood tend to be insensitive, macho-minded morons? The type of people that would raise their children badly as a matter of consequence and lead them toward trouble? In this day and age those people are particularly depressing, even when their children don't grow up to become serial rapist pedophilic clowns.

BaghneQ!!!

Gotta love those 7-Eleven clerks. The one in my neighborhood is, in all honesty, named Raj and greets customers with a "Thank you, come again!" No trace of irony.

But 7-Eleven is an equal-stereotype employer, so it's heartwarming to learn that clerks from two of the chain's locations in Colorado Springs were able to identify the weapon an unidentified man used to rob their registers - a Klingon Bat'leth, no doubt stolen from a dead nerd.*

Now, I'm sure I wouldn't know a Bat'leth when I saw one, confusing it with its diminutive twin the Mek'leth, also very Klingon. Unfortunately, the report states that the weapon itself was smaller than a Bat'leth, meaning that it might be the other after all. If I'm more right than these guys on Klingon trivia I might just have to jump off of a bridge.

I myself know very little Klingon - just enough to avoid embarrassing myself in public, by inadvertently insulting a nearby Klingon's mother while clearing my throat (this has also happened in Germany). In Klingontown I am often forced to order a sandwich by speaking English in a very masculine manner to nearby vendors while furrowing my brow. They understand alright ("NO GAKH WORM," I say very clearly for comprehension. "NO GAKH BLOOD. IF I TASTE GAKH BLOOD I WILL SHED YOURS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?").

Anyway - kudos for these geeky clerks for behaving cooly at Bat'lethpoint.

(The word used in this post's title apparently means "SPOON!!!" in that most venerable of sci-fi languages, a dictionary of which I found online. I have no idea what the capital 'Q' is all about.)

* Of course, Star Trek is hardly obscure enough to qualify as truly nerdy; I mock its fans merely out of habit.

American Muslims and civil rights - Al Arabiya News

More than a year after he was dismissed from his job at a Pennsylvanian nuclear laboratory and had his security access revoked by the Department of Energy for ill-defined reasons of "national security," Dr. Moneim El-Ganayni has returned to his native Egypt and is finally speaking out about the abuses and discrimination he received at the hands of an overzealous government, reports El Arabiya.

Dr. El-Ganayni, a naturalized American citizen, feels that he was dismissed to silence his criticisms of the treatment of Muslims in America. The fact that he was never prosecuted for any crime, as well as the absolute dearth of any real evidence on the part of the DOE, certainly seem to point that way.

An annual report issued by CAIR about the state of Muslim civil rights in the U.S. found that 52 percent of rights violations in 2007 involved legal or immigration cases and hate propaganda. A survey by the Pew Research Center found that 53 percent of Muslim-Americans believe the government “singles out Muslims for increased surveillance and monitoring.”

Presumably those 53 percent of Muslims were pulled into dark vans immediately after taking the survey and questioned by Minuteman Project volunteers with bad haircuts.

Egypt-US physicist slams US govt discrimination, speaks out from Egypt about civil rights abuses (Al Arabiya)

It's alright - we'll find somebody else to live vicariously through

It is with an anarchic sense of glee that I post this image of 14-times gold medal winner and Face of America Michael Phelps bonging it up at a South Carolina party. The article, from UK taboid NewsoftheWorld, is exactly as sensationalistic and trashy as you'd expect from, well, a UK taboid, using the most colorful of descriptive language and quoting anonymous sources who say things like:

“He looked just as natural with a bong in his hands as he does swimming in the pool. He was the gold medal winner of bong hits. Michael ended up getting a little paranoid, though, because before too long he looked like he was nervous and ran out of the place.”

I guess we'll find out whether we'll be seeing some more truly awful magazine covers in 2012 - Olympic regulations place a four-year ban on drug use. Presumably because he might win another dozen and some-odd medals and create a new generation of Cheeches and Chongs.

Video gamers depressed drunks, alone forever

If you read the media reports on a BYU School of Family Life study concerning college students and video games, it's very likely that you saw a headline like the one above, or a Scary Image like the one at the top of this story. But the findings don't match the spin.

A BYU undergrad undertook a study attempting to pinpoint gaming's role as a mediating factor in other antisocial behavior (weakened relationships, drug and alcohol use). In a nutshell (read the story using the link above for more), the study found a modest correlation between some negative relationship and life outcomes and regular gaming.

Unfortunately, the world media has taken a study measuring a mere correlation and tried to force a connection that sociological research has yet to measure (and in fact conflicts with several other studies). Headlines like BYU Study: Hello video games, goodbye family/friends (Network World) hardly elevated the discourse, allowing this incident to serve as a prime example of the public at large misinterpreting and dumbing down research.

Kotaku commenter Ascanus gives a rundown on some of the difficulties with the study, meaning less that a survey such as this isn't relevant than that conclusive research needs to be done before confident conclusions can be reached.

The fact that BYU's news team decided to call their report "Report: Video Gamers May Be Virtually on Their Own" before renaming it, and included hysterical, stereotypical images like the one I've posted above led me to send a message to the BYU NewsNet with the following message:

I have significant issues with the "Video Gamers May Be Virtually on Their Own" feature on BYU's main page. A link to the survey [see below] and adherence to sociological principles of statistical significance and mediating factors in the reporting would have helped. (I should mention that I don't necessarily have a problem with the research team or their methods, but the reporting and slant in the study.)

It is mentioned in the study that the team found only a modest relationship between increased levels of gaming and antisocial behavior. However both the titling of the story and the related content (shots of a disgruntled, caffeinated gamer holding a controller in an unusual way) seem sensationalistic and stereotypical. It left license for the mainstream media to jump on the story, which of course they have done, concocting ever-more vivid headlines and further removing themselves from any data in the story. This seems irresponsible as it leads people everywhere to false conclusions (the story was picked up worldwide) and colors their impression of BYU.

For the reporting on this feature to adhere to journalistic standards it would need to address previous data indicating that the gender gap between gamers is not very great when computer and online games are considered, as well as studies indicating that mild-to-moderate gamers reported stronger bonds with the friends they "game" with. The misleading title, writing and accompanying images would also need to be fixed.

Again, the reporting on the study (or survey - I searched the journal mentioned but couldn't find the article so I don't know the methodology used) doesn't seem to match the obvious editorial slant taken in the story. Even the professor who headed the study has urged moderation in making rash conclusions as a result of the study (http://kotaku.com/5139973/utah-prof-backpedals-says-study-doesnt-prove-gaming-is-bad-for-you). I'm sure that Professor Walker would like this resolved, as well as people who find this type of research interesting but don't want it to become a platform for misleading coverage and analysis.

Dustin Steinacker

The representative (Joe) responded quickly with a link to the study (which was linked in the article but not visible due to what I assume is a slight blue-black colorblindness on my part) and some related clarifications. The study is more well thought-out than I thought, but the stark differences with other similar studies prompt my concern. That said, this appears to be a decent study done reasonably well with the resources a single student had available. Though I don't believe the student did all of the important research (contrasting "social" games you play with people in the same room with more solitary online or single-player experiences would have been helpful, and the Likert scale they used is technically sound but awkward), I now have issues only with the slant taken with the headline and accompanying photos.

80-year-old shot by police posing as drug dealers

From (jacksonville.com):

"The family of Isaac Singletary is suing in federal court, claiming his civil rights were violated and police used “unnecessary and excessive force” in shooting Singletary four times.

Singletary was known to run drug dealers off the yard in front of his Westmont Street property, and his family has said Singletary did not know the men pretending to be drug dealers were actually police."

When police officers don't identify themselves and dress up as criminals, overzealous citizens everywhere are in more than a little danger. This isn't an issue of self-defense (as long as they seemed to be in danger) but of the legitimacy of undercover or sting operations.

Related link: Reason Online - "Collateral damage" of the war on drugs

First-week Obama reforms and miscellaneous tidbits

This needs no introduction. I'll start with the most important:

This week, President Obama signed an execution order closing Guantanamo Bay and secret CIA prisons, and enforcing the Army Field Manual for interrogations, citing the "false choice between our safety and our ideals" offered by the previous administration. European governments commended him for this action, as they've been ferrying our "enemy combatants" over their airspace for years. Obama will, of course, have to address the damage done by imprisoning people without charges, as well as what to do with those about whom a legitimate case could be built. Huge step in the right direction. (Viewers interested in some of the rationale for keeping Gitmo prisoners behind bars may enjoy/get riled up at this little aside.) Thankfully, the CIA promises to withhold the new rules on suspected terrorist detention and interrogation "without exception, carve-out, or loophole."

Large steps were taken to bring back transparency in government and reversing FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) restrictions enacted by John Ashcroft under Dubya, taking the attitude that information should be released on a timely basis by governmental agencies without waiting for a public request, in stark contrast to earlier policies encouraging information to be withheld unless no possible objections could be found.

Obama also blocked some (but not all) of the "last-minute environmental decisions" of Bush, including looser regulations and a removal of the gray wolf form the endangered species list.

Rush Limbaush and Sean Hannity decided to start putting a U.S. President under scrutiny for the first time since 2000. As Limbaugh seems desperate to prove that he's not a racist in his opposition of Obama (something the American people can probably accept), he freely admits that he wants Obama to fail and damage the country with his left-wing policies. SITYS. I guess he was only joking when he criticized Democrats for wishing death on Bush's shortsighted policies; Republican Kool-Aid cares not for race, as long as you're wearing the right hat!

Immigrants Rights Groups voiced their concern that Obama will raise the level of discourse concerning illegal immigration rather than just signing a reform bill. Americans have been notoriously fickle on their views of immigration, even considered in the aggregate: a large Gallup poll found a vast majority of Americans either glowingly supporting or concerned about immigration depending on the questions asked. How can Obama use his "power of words" without patronizing Americans who may not agree with him? (For the record, I support full amnesty for individuals with no record of violent crimes, a permanent streamlining of the immigration process and then tightening the border. I doubt that will be on the table.)

Obama is now held to the job of reforming entitlements (SS and government healthcare, among others), a task about which he's been characteristically vague. I predict it's very unlikely he'll arrive at a satisfactory solution to this problem, one that existed long before Bush. Raising requirements or mandatory contributions will be unpopular, and "universal health care" may turn out to be nothing more than a reshuffling of the numbers. Let's hope I'm wrong and next month's economic summit bears some sort of practical fruit.

Obama still needs to do his part to reverse the lapses of civil liberties in America. I'd like to see something done immediately about NSA-sponsored spying on American citizens and journalists, as well as legal immunity for telecom corporations complicit in illegal wiretaps and unconstitutional surveillance. Bush first insisted that warrants were required for every instance or surveillance. This later turned out to be either a lie, or something Bush wasn't paying attention to during those boring cabinet meetings. Whoops! (For further information on the NSA whistleblower in the above link, I highly recommend his Wikipedia page, which goes into detail on the electronic tracking, sham psychological evaluations and demotions he was forced to undergo as he attempted to reform the system.)

Still, I'll be more interested in what Obama does as he really settles into office. These early decisions are fairly uncontroversial; coming out in opposition to torture, war and corruption is hardly controversial. Will Obama continue his winning streak or will he falter when he runs out of Bush flops to fix? Will his scant few years of experience in the corrupt Washington waterworks turn out to be an asset or a fatal flaw?

Find out next week, in another exciting edition of. . . sorry, I was on autopilot there for awhile.

Drudge's big scoop. . .

You'd think the big story would be the fact that Obama redid his oath of office out of Constitutional concerns, but it seems Drudge has found his scoop, one of his occasional shout-outs to the paranoid fears of his more fringe-y audiences (sarcasm added).

Newspaper bailouts: beyond parody

So, we have this neat new thing called the Internet that provides up-to-the-minute free expression throughout the world, effectively making traditional ink-on-paper methods for getting your news more than outdated unless, y'know, a monitor hurts your eyes or you can't work your way around a URL.

The best webcomics are now better than the best newspaper comics, blog insight often penetrates deeper than mainstream media analysis, and "web publishers" can post as often as they like the very moment they have something fit for publication.

Now that we know our history, it's pretty much the definition of futility that a few isolated voices have proposed what amounts to a bailout of the newspaper industry. I know it's often a habit for Internet journalists (of which I am not, not really) to blow things out of proportion and rant at length, so I'll make one thing clear: most people aren't this stupid. The article says that much (though most of the people quoted have the wrong reason for not supporting a bailout). But some people are that stupid.

Bush, Cheney wrote thousands of letters to families of fallen soldiers

From the Washington Times, something a little more upbeat:

For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.

Their mission: to comfort the families of soldiers who died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and to lift the spirits of those wounded in the service of their country.

. . .

"People say, 'Why would you do that?'" the president said in an Oval Office interview with The Washington Times on Friday. "And the answer is: This is my duty. The president is commander in chief, but the president is often comforter in chief, as well. It is my duty to be - to try to comfort as best as I humanly can a loved one who is in anguish."

Bush shoe-thrower 'tortured into writing letter of apology'

Photo Credit: Welt Online

The Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at George Bush was tortured into writing a letter of apology, his brother said today.

Muntazer al-Zaidi was wrestled to the ground after throwing his shoes during a news conference held by the US president and the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, on 14 December.

The investigating judge in the case said last week that Zaidi, who will stand trial on 31 December, was beaten around the face and eyes. Zaidi's brother, Uday, said the journalist suffered worse injuries, including a missing tooth and cigarette burns to his ears, and would sue.

In the interest of verity, al-Zaidi's brothers have previously said that he suffered a broken arm in jail, a statement that for whatever reason turned out to be false.

But what damage could possibly be done to the new Iraqi government and the United States when it comes to light that agents of the new regime tortured a journalist for a semi-violent, yet ultimately harmless gesture directed at the U.S. President? (After all, he's only being charged with "insulting a foreign leader" and not "attempted murder." My roommate points out that this may be one of the few brushes with reality ol' Dubya has ever been confronted with.) And how suspicious are Prime Minister Maliki's further statements regarding the "investigation"?:

Maliki said Zaidi admitted in the letter that a terrorist had induced him to throw the shoes. "He revealed … that a person provoked him to commit this act and that person is known to us for slitting throats," Maliki said, according to the prime minister's website. The alleged instigator was not named.

"A terrorist!" Golly!