Dumb

From Columbia Journalism Review:

The Associated Press retracted two government-issued photographs last night after a photographer in Texas alerted the agency that the photos in question appeared to be doctored.

Bob Owen, chief photographer of the San Antonio Express-News, notified the AP that the photos of two deceased soldiers, who died in Iraq on Sept. 14, were nearly identical. Upon examining the photos, Owens noticed that everything except for the soldier’s face, name, and rank was the same. The most glaring similarity, Owen told CJR, was that the camouflage patterns of the two uniforms were “perfectly identical.”

Apparently the Army did the photoshopping.

Via Majikthise.

Flags

What the... look, I don't valorize the flag, but c'mon people, the guy is clearly either an idiot or doesn't believe any of the shit that comes out of his mouth:



... in other words, if Bush is going to metaphorically drape himself in the flag, the least he could do is display the fucking thing properly.

Hacktackular Part Two

This time, hering's editorial on DeFazio's sponsorship of a new bill aimed at oil and gas companies gets a much closer examination.

Hering:

You can’t go wrong blaming the oil companies for the current troubles with fuel. Apparently that’s what Congressman Peter DeFazio figures.

Is that possibly because oil companies have something to do with it? Hering never considers the notion - which is the same thing he's accusing DeFazio of. Oops.

He claims that the oil industry is hoarding untapped oil resources by not bringing millions of acres of federal oil and gas leases into production. To hammer home that point, he and other Democrats have introduced a bill that would force lease holders to perform or give up their leases.

This hoarding claim sounds pretty far out. Actually, what it sounds like is an attempt to find somebody to blame so that the people won’t blame him and other Democratic opponents of off-shore drilling for the price of gas.

No it doesn't: It's a basic element of supply and demand. If one can artificially keep supply low, the price for a good will increase. See, for example, diamonds. Simply spending years and years doing studies is great cover for not drilling. Also of note? That oil companies are raking in record profits, which is counterintuitive. If things are so tight, with such consequences for people (think increased food and energy costs) how can companies justify adding pure profit? Shouldn't they - as good Americans - be willing to sacrifice along with the rest of us?

The jump that Hering makes - from DeFazio's bill to opposition to offshore drilling - is a pretty far-fetched one. Opposition to off-shore drilling is longstanding, and is due to environmental reasons (note that even the Republican Florida House Speaker, Marco Rubio, is opposed to off-shore drilling), not scarcity ones. Off-shore drilling, given current technology, is guaranteed to pollute beaches and kill wildlife. And, as Rubio notes, drilling off-shore won't produce in any substantial capacity for at least a decade. Does Hering mention any of this? Of course not - it's far too convenient to ignore any contrary evidence.

DeFazio points to a congressional committee’s report claiming that the millions of acres of unexploited federal oil and gas leases could sharply increase domestic supplies of those commodities and, of course, wipe out a big share of our energy imports. Well, you have to wonder, if that’s so and the dastardly oil companies won’t do their duty, why doesn’t the government just cancel those leases and hire someone to produce those copious amounts of oil and gas? [emphasis added]

Two words: Dick Cheney.

One more word: Arbusto.

A few more words: Oil and gas industry donations go overwhelmingly to Republicans. We're talking on the order of 70-80% in the last decade.

Hering would make a terrible, terrible detective. All this evidence, and he somehow missed it...let me put it another way: The Bush Administration and its members have a long and detailed history of supporting the oil industry to the detriment of the public good. There is no reason, in fact, to think they would do something like what Hering suggests.

The American Petroleum Institute has a more plausible explanation.

See my previous post for why this statement is absurd and completely incorrect.

The industry points out that companies pay lots of money — “billions” in the API talking points — for the right to explore on federal land.

OK - given this, the proper question to ask is this: Do companies stand to make more by paying these billions and then securing supply? And yes, that makes sense - it's called an investment. What do you think advertising is? How about working the stock market by buying and then simply holding on to a resource or stock, just because doing so affects the value of other existing holdings?

Also, he admits to using API talking points. How about some original research? How about some kind of independent source instead of the industry trade group?

I'm really tired of the media equating the most powerful source with the most legitimate voice.

According to the institute, in many cases the so-called idle leases are not truly idle. “They are under geologic evaluation or in development and could be an important source of domestic supply.”

This is completely irrelevant - Hering is just implying DeFazio does not take that into account. In fact, as DeFazio's website makes clear:

Oil and gas companies, however, are not required to demonstrate diligent development. Because of this, oil and gas companies have been allowed to stockpile leases in a non-producing status, while leaving millions of acres of leased land untouched. H.R. 6251 directs the Secretary of the Interior to define what constitutes diligent development for oil and gas leases.

DeFazio evens allows for the possibility that the definition of "diligent development" will still allow oil companies to drag their feet on moving towards production, this continuing to keep supply artificially low.

Heck, even the text of the bill just asks for a good-faith effort.

In case you thought I was done with Hering, I'm not:

Exploring for oil, though, is a chancy proposition met by failure more often than success. Remember the oil company trucks that crawled around the mid-valley some 30 years ago, thumping the ground in a fruitless hunt for oil or gas-bearing strata deep underground?

No, Hasso. The answer is no. No one remembers that but you. Also? No one cares. Why is this even in the editorial? It's irrelevant trivia - so someone unsuccessfully looked for oil in the mid-valley? So what? How does that even relate to the issue at hand, much less prove any kind of point?

The industry invokes common sense: “If the company finds resources in commercial quantities, it will produce the lease.”

Since Hering is so free-market, I can only assume even he doesn't believe that, and is therefore trying to feed the rubes a line. It's far more 'common sense' to manipulate supply to earn more money than it is to develop every known field as fast as possible.

I have to give it to Hering, though: He has a way of reducing everything into cliches that sound good as long as you don't think about them too much.

But often there are delays, which can be 10 years or more, for environmental and engineering studies, permits, installing platforms and other gear, not to mention litigation and regulatory disputes.

Such delays are accounted for in the DeFazio bill through the use of the "good faith effort" language. Either Hering didn't read it (it's less than one page long) or he ignored it, which makes him something of a liar by omission. I don't really care which it is - neither should be acceptable behavior for an editor.

The industry points out something else: Two-thirds of federal lands and 85 percent of the continental shelf are off-limits or face severe restrictions, and there’s no way to tell if there’s any oil or gas there because exploration has not been allowed.

Mayhap there is a reason for this? Reading Hering, you would never know.

As long as we must rely on fossil fuels to keep our economy going, we ought to develop everything we can.

Like I noted above, cliches that sound good until you think about them. What's the 'argument' he's making here? That we should burn oil as fast as possible. That he has managed to find a way to express that sentiment and still sound sane is a testament to his abilities as a writer and rhetorician. That it's an idiotic sentiment is, apparently, not much of a concern for him.

It sounds positively stupid and selfish at the same time to urge the Saudis to produce more oil while we refuse to look for oil even in places where we think we have some.

Um, no. It sounds like we give half a shit about our environment - and are perfectly willing to be hypocrites. (Also, it might sound like drilling oil in a desert doesn't harm the local environment to near the same degree, but I could be wrong.)

This has to be one of the worst editorials I have ever read in terms of total willingness to shill for private industry - and willingness lie and mislead one's readers to do it. I know Lee has a reputation as a conservative company, but this should really be beyond the pale. If there's even a shred of interest left in working for public enlightenment and the public good, the Democrat-Herald will issue a retraction and an apology and start having someone else pen the editorials.

Hering: The heat is making me cranky

I've never seen Hering use so many exclamation points as he did today.

On the other hand, I have seen him pen editorials that are as banal.

Take this one, for example:

Editorial: Recall maneuvers

The maneuvering about the on- and off- and on-again recalls against various members of the Lebanon School Board sound a little too calculating and manipulative.

First the recall petitioners gave public notice of wanting to recall board member Debi Shimmin because her term had longer to run than two other members that the recall backers also want off the board. Then Sherrie Sprenger, the board chair, announced she would step down July 1 in order to pursue her election campaign for the legislature. That would give the recall targets a chance to appoint an ally of theirs in her place, giving them three or even four votes on the five-member board. So then the recallers filed against their main targets, Rick Alexander and Josh Wineteer as well as Shimmin. A few days later, they announced they had met with Shimmin and would no longer proceed with the petition against her. The five complaints against her in the recall petition were suddenly no longer all that grievous.

All that makes you wonder whether the long-suffering Lebanon school system would not be better off without the added acrimony of a recall campaign. (hh)

Not only does it make no sense - Things are complicated, so they should just call it quits! - it adds nothing of value to the discussion. There's no new information, no new insight, nothing. Zip. Nada. Heck, commenters on LT's blog add far more value to the discussion than this guy does.

Hering, based on this editorial, has no idea what's going on. All that's there is someone abusing the privilege of having an editorial page spot - that's valuable real estate, and readers of the DH deserve more than to read whatever ignorant musings Hering puts forth. Just because he has an opinion and a title does not make anything that comes out of his mouth worth listening to.

It's a worthless editorial.

[LCSD] The Stupid, It Burns Like the Sun.

For the first time, I was briefly glad I stopped working in Lebanon.

It happened, of course, when I read the latest Democrat-Herald story on the school board meeting from Monday.

My sense of relief was quickly tempered by my knowledge of self: I don't really care any less just because I'm not personally affected (after all, I was never really directly affected in the first place). Trees falling in the forest really do make a sound, I promise... and injustice affects everyone.

Check this out:

The Lebanon School Board voted 3-2 Monday, with Rick Alexander and Josh Wineteer dissenting, to eliminate [Crowfoot] [E]lementary [S]chool...

...

Asbestos, electrical and water problems plague the building. District officials have said it would take about $2 million to bring it up to code.

...

Last year, People Involved in Education, the nonprofit that runs Sand Ridge Charter School, had asked the district to deed the building to PIE and allow it to lease the property for $1 a year.

Alexander and Wineteer had urged the board to accept the proposal. They reiterated the proposal Monday, saying it’s a mistake to eliminate what they see as a district asset without allowing PIE to try to save it.

“We still have a structure that functions,” Wineteer said. “If we vote now to burn that thing down, we have eliminated that asset.”

So.... which is it? are Rick and Josh really so f*cking stupid as to put kids in a building full of asbestos? Or are they simply that mean?

Because that's what we're talking about here. This isn't doing things that are ill-advised but legal, or even illegal but don't put others in physical danger.

No, this is different. This is working towards putting students in a situation that is illegal because it puts students in a building with a substance that causes cancer.

Are you paying attention, Lebanon? That is what Rick Alexander is advocating, because there's no way PIE has $2 million to fix the building. (Of course, on the off chance they do, it raises a heck of a lot of questions about their accounting practices.)

Personally, I'm thinking that Rick and Josh don't really know any better - or distrust the district so much they think the district would lie about this just to screw them - on the grounds that I choose to think even they are not that mean.

To anyone with kids in the LCSD or Sand Ridge schools: How can you possibly think Rick Alexander has your best interests in mind?

F*cking cancer-causing asbestos. Seriously.

The Bush Administration's Top Ten Dumbest Legal Arguments of the Year

From Slate.... how in the world did we let this happen?

My favorite:

8. The vice president's office is not a part of the executive branch.

We also learned in July that over the repeated objections of the National Archives, Vice President Dick Cheney exempted his office from Executive Order 12958, designed to safeguard classified national security information. In declining such oversight in 2004, Cheney advanced the astounding legal proposition that the Office of the Vice President is not an "entity within the executive branch" and hence is not subject to presidential executive orders. When, in January 2007, the Information Security Oversight Office asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resolve the dispute, Cheney recommended the executive order be amended to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office altogether. In a new interview with Mike Isikoff at Newsweek, the director of the ISOO stated that his fight with Cheney's office was a "contributing" factor in his decision to quit after 34 years.

Go read the rest. Then call me and we'll drink until the pain goes away.

The Daily Barometer: WTF?

I'm seriously starting to wonder what's going on over there.

First the Barometer has to subcontract the story about Saturday's protest at Reser to a professional reporter - what's that all about?

Second, I just read this thing which I think is supposed to be an editorial... but I'm confused. Even editorials are supposed to be checked before they are published, and this is so incoherent and self-serving I am having trouble believing no one raised any objections as it went through the editing process.

Either that or the Barometer is taking too many clues from Tim Russert.

In any case, it's not pretty:

The Barometer, though it works to facilitate discussion on campus, is not a public forum. The Barometer remains independent of the university and is able to deny publication of any material submitted.

This is the opening line of the editorial. Not only is it wrong*, but starting out with this is a big 'fuck you' to just about everyone: "We'll provide lip service towards serving the community, but you can't make us do anything. Neener neener neener!"

[*While the Barometer does not take student fee dollars, it does receive plenty of financial compensation from the university in the form of free rent and utilities and the salaries of at least three professional faculty members, including Frank Ragulsky, the Director of Student Media and the primary Barometer staff adviser.]

Next, the editorial mischaracterizes the debate:

There are two sides of this debate. There are community members who have been offended by the Barometer's coverage of the "Blackout Reser" event and there are community members who are offended that their school spirit has been called into question.

I have an aversion to claiming there are two sides to an issue. There are almost always more, and I really don't like seeing the Barometer reinforce the she said/he said model of journalism, where every conflict is placed into a neat, preexisting narrative that never has more than two sides and is almost always unrealistic.

But more importantly, I'm not sure anyone is calling anyone's 'school spirit' into question. More like we are calling into question folks' refusal to listen to and learn from people of color, or to take seriously any claim that might require either introspection or a change in behavior.

Furthermore, I'm not sure "coverage" is the right word - it's more like the lack thereof combined with a set of responses from the editorial staff that seem transparently self-serving.

Material submitted by those not affiliated with the Barometer must be less than 300 words, submitted as a letter to the editor and deemed fit for publication.

Uh, unless this is a previously unannounced change in policy, the Barometer has previously run op-eds that are well over 300 words in length by students, staff and faculty alike. Either this is new or a lie - and I'd like to know which.

Some consistency here would be nice - I have long had the sense that the Barometer wants to have their cake and eat it too by claiming independence from the university community while still claiming to be the source of campus news. Frankly, it's not possible to do both - either the Barometer is a member of the campus community, meaning that it genuinely responds to community concerns, or it's not**, in which case it should stop claiming such status.

We are doing our best to continue the discussion respectfully.

Because opening an online forum in which all comments are a priori approved is the height of taking responsibility for creating a respectful space. From what I've seen, there's no communication going on there whatsoever, just extended rants that don't address each other. I believe it would be possible to create a moderated forum in which respectful, constructive discussion could take place. The Barometer has not done that.

If you, as a member of the community that we cover, feel offended or hurt by any material in The Daily Barometer, we urge you to first contact us.

We cannot represent students unless they first represent themselves to us. As of yet, we have not been asked to respond.

I don't want to discount the possibility that this will work, but I am highly skeptical. Perhaps it's because every time something like this happens, the Barometer asks people to come to the mountain, rather than actually reach out and make an effort to listen - and when people do attempt to reach the Barometer staff, they find it closed off, cliquish and unwilling to really listen (I am speaking from both personal and second-hand experience). It smacks of a sense of privilege about their place in the community, privilege that I think is increasingly assumed and not earned.

And of course there is the obligatory plug, the one that accentuates just how much the Barometer wants to be independent of any responsibility to the community and yet have the community rely on them:

As students, as student editors and those who continue to strive toward the goals of being a well-read, relevant publication, we hope that you would come to us first.

**If the Barometer is not a member of the campus community, if it is not the campus paper, then it should be truly independent of the university, which means it needs to handle its own accounting (which is currently done someone who is paid at least partly by student fee money), it needs to pay rent for use of the on-campus space, it needs to pay its own utilities, and it needs to pay the salaries of its advisers if it wants to keep them. The Daily Emerald down at the University of Oregon does all those things and is, therefore, truly independent of the university. The Barometer is not, and should not be allowed to claim that status.

I've been waiting for years for that conversation to happen.

***Final note: Another way to look at this is that the staff really has no idea of how the public views the paper. If I were the newspaper, I would start a campaign to educate the campus community on the basics of journalism. It might serve to soften the response because all too often, it seems like the staff is doing what they think is right based on journalism standards - standards the larger community is unaware of.

On being called a coward by Hasso Hering

...well, not directly. He does pull the old "some" canard, which should be a journalism no-no. Moreso he is going after LT and the idea of anonymous blogging in the first place.

Anyway, this editorial is getting old, but I've not really had a chance to think about it or weigh in, and I wanted to.

Hering:

The Lebanon dispute about a web log or blog is essentially about cowardice.

[recites some context about LT and Kim Fandiño]

This is the universal problem with the online universe. On some sites it is easy to post commentaries anonymously. You can say anything, true or not, and there’s nothing anybody can do about it. [Italics added.]

FULL STOP.

Did Hasso really just ignore libel and slander laws, not to mention laws governing harassment, to make his point?

Yes he did.

Lies by intentional omission (because even I believe Hering knows what libel is) are still lies, and have no place in a newspaper.

The Internet thus becomes a perfect tool for weasels who like to slam other people but are too shy to tell the world who they are. They may be the same kind of people who throw stuff at bicyclists from a moving car, knowing that their victim cannot catch them. Figuratively, they are pleased to wound people while remaining safely out of sight.

Hasso calls them weasels. I call them the Founding Fathers. See, for example, Publius and the history of the Federalist Papers, which provided some much-needed context for the Constitution and were printed anonymously.

Notice how he also implies that it's somehow a crime if anonymous words wound someone - never mind the truth or falsity of said words. If Hasso can't look you in the eye, you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say.

Moving on:

At Lebanon’s school board meeting this week, a lawyer said he represented the blogger or bloggers in this case and was ready to defend his, her or their rights of free speech, or words to that effect. Wonderful! Let’s drag the noble First Amendment down to the level of the anonymous blogger, why don’t we!

Nobody doubts that citizens have the right of free speech, no matter what their opinions. But the principle of free speech implies responsibility too. Bloggers who refuse to bear responsibility may make people wonder whether free speech is such a good thing. (hh)

Har. See my point about the Federalist Papers. Also, Hering should do some - any - research on this topic; anonymous speech, including blogging, has significant protections under the First Amendment. For Hering to so openly mock this idea implies that (a) he has no clue as to the history of protected, anonymous free speech in America and (b) he's a fucking fascist idiot.

Also (c) that people say stupid shit all the time using their real name. Responsibility, which is definitely not the same thing as people knowing one's identity, is no guarantor of quality. Hering should know better than anyone.

Worse, (d): That Hering, a newspaper editor, doesn't believe all that strongly in free speech. His claims regarding responsibility are a poor cover for his manly anger at someone's refusal to...what? Duel with pistols at dawn? It would be comical if he weren't so serious.

"Coward?" "Weasel?" Really? I know I frequently use, um, sophomoric terms, but I'm a crappy blogger; he is a newspaper editor, and should leave the ad hominem attacks where they belong - which is not on the editorial page.

This is by far the worst editorial I have ever read by Hering. He is either forced to lie to make his point or is completely ignorant about a fundamental aspect of public speech in this country. Either is completely unacceptable for a newspaper editor; can SOMEONE over at Lee - be it at the DH, GT, or corporate - sit up and take notice?

Please?

What would it take?

Dispatches from Another Planet

From the Gazette-Times, a letter that...well, look:

The amazing amount of drinking and partying any time of day or night, mid-week or week-end, is a health danger to the students, a destructive force in the lives of their neighbors, and a safety risk to all involved. Lives are being destroyed by alcoholism, but at any time we could see a similar tragedy to the one in North Carolina.

Two things must be done immediately: The City Council should adopt an ordinance forbidding more than two adults from different families in any single-family dwelling. Second, OSU must require that all undergraduates live on campus until their senior year.

Forbidding more than two adults from different families from living together? That's just insulting - there are plenty of students for whom such luxurious conditions are simply not an option. And, of course, many of the new apartment buildings going up in Corvallis are those crazy five-bedroom townhouses that rent for well over $2000; I would like to see Mr. Weiss explain how two STUDENTS are supposed to afford that. The same goes for the dozens or hundreds of older houses with three, four, and five (or more) bedrooms that have been converted into student housing.

And requiring all undergrads to live on campus for at least three years? Please:

1. OSU does not have anywhere near the capacity to do this. Maybe when the Leg allocates enough money to triple (or more) the number of dorm rooms available, then it might be logistically possible. But...

2. It takes away freedom and agency from legal adults. If Mr. Weiss wants people to be treated like children until they are 21 or 22, then he should just say so - and be prepared to be mocked and ridiculed extensively, because that suggestion is just plain stupid.

3. Can you imagine what would happen if college students were allowed to move off-campus only upon turning 21? I think the drinking problem, such as it is now, would get much, much worse.

While this guy's concern is obviously genuine, his suggestions are - and I think this is an accurate choice of words - fucking idiotic. He just doesn't get at anything even remotely resembling a cause for the problems to which he alludes.

Not Really A New Low At All

Apparently some Christian activist-types disrupted the opening prayer in the Senate today because it was being given by a Hindu.

See the video and some transcripts from TPM Cafe.

My only question: Is this what some Christians are calling oppression and/or the trampling of their rights?

A Whole New Level of Stupid

I've been reading Jessica Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism (thanks Alison!), and it's made my usual newsreading, which already includes a large dose of feminist news, harder to stomach.

As a result, when I read this, I couldn't resist the urge to post something about it.

From the Boston Herald story:

A Boston man who failed the Massachusetts bar exam has filed a federal lawsuit claiming his refusal to answer a test question - related to gay marriage - caused him to flunk the test.

Stephen Dunne, 30, is suing the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, claiming the “inappropriate” test question violated his religious convictions and his First Amendment rights. Answering the question, Dunne claims, would imply he endorsed gay marriage and parenting.

So what's the controversial question? This, as far as I know, is the entire text of the question:

“Yesterday, Jane got drunk and hit (her spouse) Mary with a baseball bat, breaking Mary’s leg, when she learned that Mary was having an affair with Lisa,” the bar exam question stated. “As a result, Mary decided to end her marriage with Jane in order to live in her house with Philip, Charles and Lisa. What are the rights of Mary and Jane?”

Oh, for fuck's sake. Seriously? He got bent out of shape over that? If I were in a position to do something about it, I'd make sure this asshat never got a license to practice law. This incident proves one of two things: Either Dunne is incredibly stupid, or he has no respect for the law or other people (or both, frankly). Either one (especially the latter) should disqualify him from getting a license.

Allowing someone to practice law whose actions actively undermine the legal system is just about the very definition of stupid. It's about time professional associations start doing a better job looking at the actions of people who are undermining their organizations from the inside. I'm also speaking, of course, about pharmacists...more on that later.

I found the story over at Majikthise, courtesy of zuzu, who has something to say on the matter:

I mean, you did study law, right? You learned how laws work? And how court decisions work? And that knowing what the law *is* and how it works doesn't mean that you approve of the outcome. Right? I mean, just because I could tell you how the Supreme Court voted in, say, Bush v. Gore doesn't mean that I *approve* of the outcome.

Also, I didn't realize that the First Amendment was designed to prevent people from being exposed to ideas they don't like. Hm. My high school government teacher must have been slipping in her old age.