Jeremy wrote:
] 26 percent of Repulicans say CNN is credible. 45
] percent of Democrats say CNN is credible.

How much of this is genuine realization of the problems with sensationalistic infotainment, and how much of this is simply an example of the increased stratification of American politics. Whether you are left, or right, you know you've drunk the koolaid when you decide that CNN is controlled by your enemies.

The Republicans have been ramming home the "liberal media" message for years. In other words, don't get your information from the news media, who are mostly lying because they are trying to sell you toothpaste, get it from us, because we're mostly lying because we're trying to sell you an ideology. Is it really surprising that this message has caused 70+ percent of their side to question CNN?

In recent years the left appears to have joined in the fracas. It hasn't been going on for as long, nor is there a "conservative media" meme backing it. There is simply the presumption that the news media, CNN especially, promotes corporate interests because they just another evil corporation. The CNN represents the "right wing" to people who are so far left, and so distrustful of success, that can't see halfway around the political spectrum.

I agree, CNN is not a great source of information. CNN has an agenda. But I don't see any of the above as actual progress. People aren't really realizing that the news media is playing them. They are switching to less objective, less honest sources of information who are playing them even more, with more sinister goals, and they are getting worse, not better, at thinking critically about the information they are being presented.

RE: Fewer Republicans Trust the News

Elonka wrote:
] ] But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the
] ] same--still a restriction on the right to travel, still an
] ] instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women
] ] the will of a totalitarian state.

Of course, Israel is now building one of these.

Israel is not a totalitarian state. The constant, loud, mindless bashing that they have received from the left for last few years has all but eliminated any possibility for thoughtful discussion of their policies. One expects, reflexively, that any critical comment about Israel will immediately be followed with spewage of blind hate. You turn it off. Maybe you've already stopped reading. If so I can't say I blame you.

Reagan was the cultural icon of America in the 80's. I grew up in Canada, and yet I recall Reagan far more clearly then any Prime Minister. As I grew up, he was the person who defined my understanding of what a national leader is. When rule passed to Bush, it seemed strange to me. Unnatural to see another face on that podium. No later President has matched, in my mind, the cultural presence that Reagan had. I may have preferred Clinton's policies, but I did not see him as a symbol of America in the way that Reagan was. There was something special about that man. He fit his time and his place perfectly.

As we reflect on his passing its important that we take the time to reinforce the lessons that his life, and this period of time, taught us. It is unfortunate that it is so hard to do that today without feeling like you're taking a political shot. The Berlin wall was constructed for security reasons, and clearly it did more harm then good. We cannot view the construction of another wall as progress. We ought to recognize a scar when we see one. We've had them before. If we ignore it... allow it to become an institution, it will be with us for decades. It will be a dark reminder, as the Berlin wall was, of everything screwed up about the planet our children will inherit.

RE: Ronald Reagan's 'Tear Down This Wall' Speech

] Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose subordinates
] have written confidential legal memorandums seemingly
] approving of torture, told a Senate committee today that
] President Bush had "made no order that would require or
] direct the violation" of either the international treaties
] or domestic laws prohibiting torture.
]
] The administration has responded to the memorandums by
] saying they were merely legal opinions offered at the
] beginning of formulating policies. Mr. Ashcroft said that
] "first of all, this administration opposes torture."
]
] He said the "kind of atrocities displayed in the
] photographs are being prosecuted by this administration."

The New York Times - Bush Didn't Order Any Breach of Torture Laws, Ashcroft Says

k wrote:
] [ Interesting commentary on what i've taken to calling the
] "Torture is OK!" report... -k]

There has been a lot of discussion of this report; the quotation underlined by this and other commentators being the focal point of a great deal of hand wringing. The thing is that this is a lawyer providing recommendations. He has essentially been asked "how can we do this and keep it legal" and he is throwing out everything that he can think of. The lawyer is obviously wrong on this point. I don't really fault him. I've been wrong professionally before. Everyone has. If only all of our work could be subjected to the kind of peer review he is getting here.

The question at hand is whether or not the President followed through on this recommendation. If the answer is yes, then we have a fairly significant bone to pick with the Whitehouse. If the answer is no, then there really isn't a story hear, other then the one initially suggested, which is that the administration actually did ask a lawyer to brainstorm on ways that they could torture people legally.

There is substance to that latter issue. We know that we've been employing torture, not just at Abu Gharib, but all over the place. I'm reminded of that spook who testified in Congress that "Its very important that the American people understand this. After 9/11 the gloves came off."

The gloves came off. This is what they mean. Trial baloons where sent up about this in 2001 and not widely accepted, but they went forward here anyway. There has been a lot of discussion about the right/wrong/value/legality of this versus other methods that we typically employ.

Thats the discussion I think we really ought to be having. Should we torture people? Is it effective? Does it save lives? Its not a simple question.

RE: Talking Points Memo

[ I like TMW. Hadn't seen this one.

"I'm *more* not as bad as Saddam than you are!" Perfect. -k]

This Modern World: Defining Deviancy Down

Prepend http://freecache.org/ to your url and archive.org will cache it for you. No more problems with slashdottings...

Internet Archive: FreeCache

] The Hollywood Bowl indicates the cultural activities,
] while the two stars represent the County's motion
] picture and television industries.
]
] The cross represents the influence of the church and the
] missions of California.

The right wing is hopping mad right now because the ACLU of SoCal has gotten the board of LA County, under threat of suit, to agree to remove the cross from their seal.

The argument that they are making is that the seal represents the influence of the Spanish Missions on the history of California. That makes sense to me. Los Angeles was founded by Spanish Missionaries (along with San Francisco, San Diego, and everything in between).

To be sure, the Catholic Church is hardly "established" in the LA government. Regardless of the facts of this case, I don't believe that the ACLU ought to be going around suing crosses off of public land and city seals. There are simply more important civil liberties battles to be fought, especially in a place like L.A.

I like the ACLU because they defend my civil liberties. I like them because they uphold the Constitution. We need an institution in this country that defends the people against civil liberties encroachments by the U.S. Government. People don't have the resources to defend themselves as individuals. Only an independent organization can do that effectively.

When I first saw the right smear them as "liberal radicals" I was a little surprised. Aren't constitutional rights something that all sides of the political spectrum have an interest in? Haven't I seen the ACLU defend far right interests? Why does this perception exist?

The right has three problems with the ACLU, all three of which I suppose they must care about more then any other civil liberty which the ACLU must defend. Two of these problems are expressed in a popular joke:

"How does the ACLU count to ten?"
"1,3,4,5,6,7,8"

This thing spreads around the right wing. People laugh because they think they are supposed to make fun of the liberal radicals at the ACLU. They understand the part about 2, but not about 9 and 10. They don't even know what the 9th and 10th amendments are, anyway. So they pass the joke on. Har Har

9 and 10 are omitted in this joke for a very sinister reason. 9 and 10 have to do with unenumerated rights being held by the states and the people. States Rights. People often talk in philosophical terms about states rights and come to the conclusion that they make sense. What is good for Tennessee is not necessarily good for California. Furthermore, states serve a useful role as laboratories of democracy, where new policy ideas can be evaluated on small scales.

Unfortunately, what the right means when it takes about states rights is segregation. The federal government came into the South in the 50's and 60's and forced them to stop discriminating against black people. Older conservativ... [ Read More (0.9k in body) ]

Seal - Los Angeles County

Does anyone know of a good cover of Paint it Black by the Rolling Stones? This is a brilliant song, one of my all time favorites, but when I listen to it the 1960's instrument and production technology always bothers me. The frequency spectrum isn't fully utilized. A modern Industrial or Metal band could take this song and really fill up the sound-space with it. I wonder if anyone has?

I did some digging on Google but I mostly came up with questionable references to songs that did not seem to be commercially available.

Anyone know of anything?

] Using extra-Constitutional tools in the Padilla case has
] not necessarily accomplished anything more than seasoned
] FBI agents and Assistant U.S. Attorneys could have done.
] But what it has done is create a losing dilemma for the
] Justice Department. In a case like this, where all of the
] evidence has been either tainted by torture or tainted by
] poor process, the only options are to detain Mr. Padilla
] indefinitely as an enemy combatant or release him onto
] the street.

This is a jumping point to some interesting discussions of the Padillia case. There are links and links and links to follow. Read the Slate article quoted here at the least. (It links back to another article by this author.)

Basically, the evidence that we have against Padilla was obtained illegally, so its not admissible. Which means they can't make a case about him in open court. Assuming they will loose the Supreme Court case they are probably going to have to ask for special Congressional authority to continue to hold him.

INTEL DUMP - The messy messy Padilla case

] Editing documents in groups can be a challenge.
] Versioning systems like subversion or cvs help your group
] to keep a consistent copy of your document, but don't
] provide realtime collaboration. Wouldn't it be great to
] edit the same document, live, in realtime, together with
] everyone in your group?

SubEthaEdit - Collaborative Editing Software for OSX