Monday’s Mini-Report

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Remember when we were counting on Moqtada al-Sadr and his forces to lay low while U.S. troops tried to bring some semblance of stability to Iraq? Never mind: “[I]n a message sent to an anti-American demonstration today in Najaf, Sadr urged Iraqi security forces to stop working with American troops, saying Iraqis should fight the ‘occupiers’ rather than join them. Alluding to reports that Iraqi Army and police were fighting alongside U.S. forces against his Mahdi Army fighters in the town of Diwaniyah, Sadr said, ‘Don’t walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy.”

* On a related note, today is the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. A Washington Post reporter tracked down the Iraqi who took a hammer to Saddam’s statue, who feels a lot differently today. The end of Saddam “achieved nothing,” Khadim al-Jubouri said. “We got rid of a tyrant and tyranny. But we were surprised that after one thief had left, another 40 replaced him. Now, we regret that Saddam Hussein is gone, no matter how much we hated him.” Hearts and minds….

* Spectacularly bad idea of the week: “Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse. Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.” I find it hard to imagine how any why anyone would take this seriously.

* Radio host Don Imus is trying to recover after referring to the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos.” Today, appearing on Al Sharpton’s radio show, Imus said, “Our agenda is to be funny and sometimes we go too far. And this time we went way too far.” The two reportedly butted heads during their on-air discussion — during one exchange, Imus said he can’t win with “you people,” which didn’t go over well.

* On a related note, Newsweek editor Howard Fineman appeared on Imus this morning with an odd perspective on the controversy: “[I]t’s a different time, Imus … it’s different than it was even a few years ago, politically,” and added that “some of the stuff that you used to do, you probably can’t do anymore.” It used to be acceptable to call young African-American women “nappy-headed hos”? When was that, exactly?

* Newt Gingrich is the latest to call on Alberto Gonzales to step aside as Attorney General. Asked on Fox News whether Gonzales should resign, he replied, “I cannot imagine how he is going to be effective for the rest of this administration,” adding, “I think the country, in fact, would be much better served to have a new team at the Justice Department, across the board.”

* Speaking of Fox News, the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol once again promoted the notion of a war with Iran yesterday morning, suggesting that the British hostages Iran held brought us to the brink. “We came closer to war with Iran this week,” Kristol said, complaining that the U.S. was “very passive.” Juan Williams then questioned, “Well, what was the alternative? To go in and strike them while the hostages were there?” Kristol said, “Yes.”

* The White House has never really received all the flack it deserves for nominating Bernie Kerik to be the Secretary of Homeland Defense.

* If a world-class violinist was playing in a subway station for spare change, would you notice? Does it matter?

* The State Department knows Pelosi didn’t violate the Logan Act with her trip to Syria — and should say so.

* Bush is still sending injured troops into battle. Remind me, who supports the troops?

* Tom DeLay still thinks liberals are like Hitler. He’s not kidding.

* Now here’s a Connecticut columnist who isn’t pulling any punches when it comes to Joe Lieberman: “He has to assume no one is paying attention. Otherwise, there’s no way Joe Lieberman could maintain his record of dissembling, prevarication and misrepresentation he’s been peddling about Iraq for the past four years. His new statements flatly contradict his old ones. He tells us things are finally turning around — but he said that a year ago, and two years ago. He has no credibility left.”

* And finally, during a photo-op at the White House last week, the president nearly caused a serious accident by attempting to plug an electrical cord into the hydrogen tank of a hybrid car. “I just thought, ‘Oh my goodness!’ So, I started walking faster, and the President walked faster and he got to the cord before I did,” Ford CEO Alan Mulally said. “I violated all the protocols. I touched the President. I grabbed his arm and I moved him up to the front,” Mulally said. “I wanted the president to make sure he plugged into the electricity, not into the hydrogen This is all off the record, right?”

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

“….the president nearly caused a serious accident by attempting to plug an electrical cord into the hydrogen tank of a hybrid car.”

I want President George W. Bush to live a long and happy life forever and ever and ever. I would never want him to blow himself into little chunks of blackened flesh by his own hand in what would have been the most retarded self-inflicted suicide in the history of the world.

Even if it saved us all from horrible suffering and painful death for many, many creatures on this earth.

I also want a pony.

  • Our wonderful Deciderator came very, very close to being included in the next issue of “The Darwin Awards”…

    Good thing he believes in creationism. That probably saved him.

  • Why don’t Tim O-Reilly and Jimmy Wales work on a more pressing code of conduct — one for print, radio and TV pundits and “personalities.” Blogs are at least two-way streets where commenters have the ability to fire back and correct. The MSM offers only limited and off-the-radar opportunities to do just that. The recent Imus flap is testament to the need for some ethical standards for these people in their bully pulpits. Blogs may still have that “wild west” character to them, but the MSM and the mouths that roar within it like O’Reilly, Coulter, Imus, Kristol and others can create a far more sordid landscape.

  • We should be thankful that the guy who can’t use a Segway didn’t blow himself (and others) up.
    Why?
    Because Cheney would order the press to report it as a terrorist attack, he’s delare Martial Law & probably imprision many leading Democrats as his first act as “President-for-Life.”
    The press would cheer.

  • Re Moktada’s recent statements: we’re, obligingly, sending them more targets, with Bush’s misbegotten “surge” (3 minutes in planning, 10 yrs in execution, looks like). And, parallel to calling on attacks on the occupant (an idea that’s already quite popular), he’s also calling on Iraqis to stop killing Iraqis. If he’s successful in that, it’ll raise his standing even more.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Re: blogging “rules” proposed by, of all things, O’Reilly: What petorado said, @3.

    Also, regarding this quote from NYT:
    “Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.”

    I wouldn’t bet my last dollar that, as soon as we got rid of the anonymity, everyone on lefty blogs — bloggers and commenters alike — would end up on terrorist watch, no-fly lists. Let them work at flushing us out.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “We came closer to war with Iran this week,” Kristol said,

    Am I the only one who feels it sounds *wistful*? As in “such a great opportunity lost…”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Re Bush’s brush with the hydrogen car:
    my second thought (once I firmly tamped down the instinctive, but unworthy, one) was that, perhaps, hydro/electric cars need a lot of work still, if something like that is possible. Because, if it’s possible, then we’ll be hearing of a lot of people who’ve blown themselves to smithereens, by plugging the wrong bit into the wrong hole. Through being drunk. Through being absentminded. Through sheer stupidity (what happens if?)

  • “….the president nearly caused a serious accident by attempting to plug an electrical cord into the hydrogen tank of a hybrid car.”

    And Cheney lurked behind a bush (har) and snarled “Curses, foiled again!” the pResident being blown apart by a “green” car would have been scuttled those meddling environmentalists!

  • Well, it seems to be turning into a fairly nice day, doesn’t it?

    It stopped snowing here—FINALLY!!!—and the “ad-missing-link-istrator” almost blew itself up with electrified hydrogen (shades of the Hindenburg—why did that guy stop him? I’ll never buy a Ford again…).

    If I’m like Hitler, then what does that say about Tom DeLay?

    And yes—you all better damned well believe I’d notice a world-class violinist having to play in a subway.

    Moqtada is still trying to figure out why the enemy of his enemy is his enemy. I’m pretty certain I have the answer for him. Bu$$$hCo….

  • I’d notice a world-class violinist playing in a subway, but if I were on my way to work, I probably wouldn’t stop. I’d just mutter to myself as I passed, “Hmm. That sounds downright world class.” See, that’s what commuters do. That’s why we drive right past bloody — even fatal — traffic accidents. We’re on our way to work and the Highway Patrol is taking care of the cleanup. We just mutter to ourselves as we pass, “Hmm. That guy looks downright dead.” Sad….

  • I’m not a fan of Don Imus by any means. And though my political beliefs are far closer to those of the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton than to those of Imus. My feelings are that these two people might not be the best choice to dress anyone down on the subject of race. They’ve both had their own brushes with racism. Reverend Jackson, when he referred to Jews are “Hymies” and New York as “Hymietown.” And Reverend Sharpton with the “Tawana Brawley” incident.

  • A big “thank you” to whoever posted the link to the The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party on the site out of Cornell (l tried but couldn’t relocate your comment). It’s an extensive compilation of material that provides a macro view of what the religious right aims to achieve — and has achieved — in the U.S.

    “If a world-class violinist was playing in a subway station for spare change, would you notice? Does it matter?”

    Damned straight! A great musician is a great musician no matter what or where he/she plays. The fact that this one’s playing a Strat makes him that much more noticeable — and sweeter. Not everyone has an ear for music, though — my lovely wife is attuned to visual art but music just doesn’t compute unless it has a raunchy 6-string.

  • Except for the Darwin Award laugh, I think the last item makes a great point that isn’t highlighted here (but I hope all the manufacturers have become aware of.) Why on earth did Ford make a hybrid hydrogen/electrical car where a casual consumer can kill himself by accidentally plugging the power into the hydrogen, or possibly vice versa? If this is possible, that model needs to be revised immediately to make the plugs so incompatible that no one would be able to get it wrong, much less cause an explosion should they do.

    (BTW, Bush is a f***ing idiot.)

  • Newsweek editor Howard Fineman appeared on Imus this morning with an odd perspective on the controversy: “[I]t’s a different time, Imus … it’s different than it was even a few years ago, politically,” and added that “some of the stuff that you used to do, you probably can’t do anymore.” It used to be acceptable to call young African-American women “nappy-headed hos”?

    Yeah, but he’s giving the conservatives a good lesson on this: you can think people are something, but you can’t say it, and be able to win. No one’s opinions are changing- the example people like Imus set for conservatives is, don’t get caught. It’s not at all a hard lesson to learn.

  • Spectacularly bad idea of the week: “Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse. Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.” I find it hard to imagine how any why anyone would take this seriously.

    I would. I think the first thing one must remember is: did anyone think that Wikipedia would be taken seriously, when anyone without any qualifications and without any restrictions could contribute (and possibly deface)? This is still an issue, yet there are studies that demonstrate that Wikipedia is more reliable than some encyclopedias that use the print model. Further, it’s power in being able to instantly adapt and update (unlike books) is self-evident.

    Similarly, did anyone take blogging-as-journalism seriously? Again, the similar effect that Wikipedia thrives on is being utilized here. Anyone can start a blog and say anything, with no restriction and no qualification necessary. But there is no doubt that bloggers are powerful, useful, informative journalists and commentators in many ways where the print media has failed.

    Similarly, I don’t see what is fundamentally wrong with a collaborative attempt at forging a code of conduct with the intention of restoring civility in debate. I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support the restoration of civility of debate. We can only be served well by its reintoduction.

    The details, however, are inevitably going to be flawed. (Just like there are blogs that aren’t worth the electrons they are printed on and Wikipedia is vulnerable to defacing, albeit briefly).

    One shouldn’t rely on the New York Times to form a judgement of such an endeavor. When it comes to such things, old-school organizations such as the Times have proven time an again that they don’t get it. I only read a couple paragraphs into the article before I found the kind of misused terms that prove the authors don’t have a clue what they are writing about.

    Anyone who has spent a minimal amount of time in comments sections and on message boards knows that normal adults can act like teenagers and teenagers can act like small children like there is some mysterious immaturity field in effect. However, those conversations would never devolve in that way if they were conducted face-to-face. There is a code of conduct that well-adjusted, socialized individuals know well and observe when they conduct themselves among strangers, acquaintences, friends, and family.

    I have much more to say about this but I need to go home, and I don’t want to miss the attention this will get between now and then. I’ll finish my thought later tonight hopefully.

  • There is a code of conduct that well-adjusted, socialized individuals know well and observe when they conduct themselves among strangers, acquaintences, friends, and family.

    All this tells you is that mal-adjusted, un-socialized indviduals don’t know how to behave. (Why’s everyone lookin’ at me?)

    Call me a pessimist, call me a misanthrope, but “normal” people don’t sit down at a computer and suddenly turn into raging arseholes. They were always arseholes and the computer has given them an outlet. The coward/passive-aggressive shit who made threatening prank calls in the dead of night has “evolved” into what we call a troll.

    Take CBR as an example, I’ve yet to witness some of the nuclear-powered flame wars common in other blogs. Why? Because the readers are civillized, even when they disagree. Even when they’re frothing mad. Also, CB is very good at moderating his site and troll-squashing.

    However, there’s another blog I regularly visit where a day without a flame war is a rare day indeed. Different users, different blog owners with different criteria for what will get your comment deleted or get you banned. That’s the owners’ decision and no one is forcing me to go there.

    I guess my anti-authoritarian streak is showing but my first thought on reading about yet another damn set of standards was “How are you going to do it?” Followed by “What are you going to do if people don’t adhere to the standard?” This is rule making for the sake of rule making and then whinging because no one’s following the rules and nothing kills an organization quicker.

  • Anyone who has spent a minimal amount of time in comments sections and on message boards knows that normal adults can act like teenagers and teenagers can act like small children like there is some mysterious immaturity field in effect. However, those conversations would never devolve in that way if they were conducted face-to-face. There is a code of conduct that well-adjusted, socialized individuals know well and observe when they conduct themselves among strangers, acquaintences, friends, and family.

    Well then, do yourself a favor and go make your comments at Townhall.com, since they don’t let posts go up with “bad words.”

    Your “argument” only illustrates the idiocy of this idea. Go join http://www.easilyoffended.org, while I go post your post at http://www.annoyingtwits.com

  • Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.”

    hilarious — amazing really; i’m tempted to trash all my O’Reilly books due to this total shite.

    Rian Mueller: Similarly, did anyone take blogging-as-journalism seriously?

    yeah, i’d say the ones who had/have high hopes of reaching the dead tree papers &c and those who regularly are invited to appear at bloggers’ conventions or whatever. and of course, those who get paid for it. nb: dunno if CB gets paid but i still dig coming here, i dropped atrios et al. months ago.

    Similarly, I don’t see what is fundamentally wrong with a collaborative attempt at forging a code of conduct with the intention of restoring civility in debate.

    being a control freak and neither having aspirations for fame nor enabling comments, i shall continue to use my meatspace voice on my site and talk about whatever i want. but that’s just me, your mileage may vary. i visit very few political sites lately; this is one of the few.

    (BTW, Bush is a f***ing idiot.)

    do you mean the preznit is a fucking idiot? he’s worse than that as we all know.

    the answer is orange: I guess my anti-authoritarian streak is showing but my first thought on reading about yet another damn set of standards was “How are you going to do it?” Followed by “What are you going to do if people don’t adhere to the standard?”

    lol, throw ’em off the Internets of course. i shall keep on writing about whatever i like, in my natural voice.

    There is a code of conduct that well-adjusted, socialized individuals know well and observe when they conduct themselves among strangers, acquaintences, friends, and family.

    when i was a special Ed. teacher in NYC, i had a two codes of conduct cause i was good at my job and wanted to keep it but w/my friends, i was/am my naturally immature foul-mouthed self. maybe i can blame it all on my degenerate friends? anyway, i’m pretty socially maladjusted and totally nonsocialised in the straight normal world but i /do/ know how to behave to get by and speak civilly (very politely and no cursing) to shopkeepers and strangers and friends of friends, in order not to offend until i get to know them better.

    Ron Chusid: Just received news that NBC has suspended Imus for two weeks.

    w/ or w/o pay? too tired to Google, it’s almost 05,00 here.

    petorado: The recent Imus flap is testament to the need for some ethical standards for these people in their bully pulpits.

    i’m so not holding my breath for that.

    Blogs may still have that “wild west” character to them, but the MSM and the mouths that roar within it like O’Reilly, Coulter, Imus, Kristol and others can create a far more sordid landscape.

    they already have — the floodgates have been open for years already and those w/o connection to the Internets believe what they see and hear, if they’re so inclined. i’m thinking of the rush limbaugh freaks and the malkin and coulter true believers. oh, and atlas jugs whom i try to avoid at all costs.

    CB: Bush is still sending injured troops into battle. Remind me, who supports the troops?

    the ones with the magnets on their cars and the flags flying on their lawns?

    we’ve been through the looking glass for so damn long that after almost seven (?!?) years, i’m so sick of it that i hardly read news; cut down from over 200 pol blogs a day and commenting on them to about 5 and am much happier for it. just my 2p.

  • I’m for leaving it the way it is. If they want to regulate blogging, the I agree with comment @2 that the MSM needs to allow for discourse and counter arguments, instead of spewing the adminstration gospel without reality check. IF and only IF they can get back to reality and be REAL journalists who fact check, then they can point a finger at Blogging, until then, they need to mind their own business.

    By the way…. O’Reilly….. “Look who’s talking”

    Personally, I don’t like all the cussing and foul language on some posts, but I rather have it uncensored, because then I can choose to either skip that post, or read it. I want to at least have the choice. I don’t have to like everything I see. 🙂

  • The Answer is Orange wrote: Call me a pessimist, call me a misanthrope

    Okay…you’re a pessimist and a misanthrope. 🙂

  • The Bell thing would have had a different outcome if it had been New York (Washintonians are philistines), and he’d been playing as people went home after work, not while they were rushing to get *to* work.

  • Let’s keep up with the sending-wounded-troops-back-to-Iraq story. It’s important.

  • I’m trying to pin down the reason for the concern about the Blogger’s Code of Conduct, and from the comments so far I think it is largely based on the misconception that this is something that’s going to be law or something. As if this were being considered by Congress. That isn’t the case at all. I thought it was self-evident by the whole “collaborative” aspect of related endeavors that this would be an extention of the social norms that we all generally abide by in real life. Not as in you don’t punch a guy who looked at you wrong because then you would be arrested for assault, but you don’t react that way becase you wouldn’t want strangers to react to you. It’s an attempt to extend the social fabric to the Internet where it has been absent.

    I don’t think Tom would have been so aggressive toward me if we were face-to-face, where we tend to respect each others’ opinions more. I could be wrong but that’s been my experience from participating in heated political debates on message boards and observing extremely immature behavior on message boards. That is the flaw that is trying to be addressed here. And it isn’t being done in a top-down fashion by lobbying Congress to make a law to force everyone to act nice, it’s being done collaboratively, in a ground-up fashion – once something like this is established, it gains its acceptance simply by the number of people who think its a good idea.

    And to return to the point of details versus the idea as a whole, I also have concerns about the feasability of preventing completely anonymous comments, but that doesn’t mean you have to throw the baby out the with bathwater. Instead of reading the Times’ article one should go straight to the source and read (and participate in!) the discussion that is occurring

    Sorry, I never got back online last night and my train of thought has been derailed, but I hope I’ve made a good case, because I have to strongly but respectfully disagree with CB’s commentary. It isn’t a spectacularly bad idea. It’s a potentially flawed one but not ill-intentioned and not necessarily impossible to perfect (and retain freedom of speech.) I see one major flaw already, and that is it appears to be aimed toward technically-oriented endeavors such as collaborative programming projects, and not political blogs. This ignores the much, much harder challenge unique to us of maintaining civility in spite of a severe and strong difference in ideology. But participation can only repair that. Go read the discussion:

    http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/Blogger%27s_Code_of_Conduct

    http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Blogger%27s_Code_of_Conduct

  • Arrrgh! Blog ate my post!

    Re: Bruno: Tim O’Reilly is not Bill O’Reilly 😉

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_O%27Reilly

    Tim is notable for a lot of things in the technical world, particularly dealing with the free software movement and issues related to patent abuse (ie companies patenting utterly obvious ideas.) While I guess it could be called political, it’s completely unlike the political world of Bill O’Reilly (and us).

    With that in mind, I’d like to reemphasize my point that this code of conduct doesn’t appear to be aimed at political blogs at all. That might be a mistake which can only be corrected by joining the discussion. See my links in my previous comment. I’d like to do this myself, since I try to keep well-read and up-to-date in the technical realm (I also have a technical job which it’s relevant to, I work for Intel 😀 ) as well as read and comment here daily, I have too many responsibilities in the near term to do anything with this in the next few weeks. I would love if someone looked into this, followed my links, and asked if they intend that their code of conduct would be adopted by political blogs, if they are already writing this specifically with us in mind, and then ask about whatever other specific issues you have. But be polite and remember you are trying to get a helpful answer from a well-meaning individual.

    Thanks, and CB, Carpetbagger, if you are having a difficult time with reading all the comments, I hope you can take the time to take a look at mine in this discussion (and I hope invoking your name flags my comment for you 😉 )

  • Comments are closed.