| |
Friday, March 18, 2005
Cheer Squads
With just about everyone in the blogosphere linking and talking about the Texas legislator who wants to pass a law banning Sexy Cheerleading, my first thought was for all the innocent perverts who are going to get the wrong results when they do searches for pr0n with key words like "sexy, high school, cheerleaders." They are going to get nothing but blog posts they will have to wade through. Anyways, this is the story. The Friday night lights in Texas could soon be without bumpin' and grindin' cheerleaders. Legislation filed by Rep. Al Edwards would put an end to "sexually suggestive" performances at athletic events and other extracurricular competitions.
"It's just too sexually oriented, you know, the way they're shaking their behinds and going on, breaking it down," said Edwards, a 26-year veteran of the Texas House. "And then we say to them, 'don't get involved in sex unless it's marriage or love, it's dangerous out there' and yet the teachers and directors are helping them go through those kind of gyrations."
Edwards, by the way is a Democrat (yes, there are apparently a few of those left in Texas), as a gentle reminder that prudery and wanting to impose moral standards on everyone else is not limited to one party. Now, I'm a big fan of the "bumpin' and grindin'" especially at the collegiate level -- it makes me feel slightly less perverse when they are over the age of 18. I think the legislation is dumb, moronic and ultimately useless. I have every reason to hate this kind of crap. Legislating moral standards is a sad joke. It's a waste of time. Useless. Etcetera. And yet... I have a 2 1/2-year old daughter. I'm not afraid of her seeing the stuff. I fear her performing it. I am going to be a good overprotective father. The idea of my little girl "shakin' it" makes me shudder. I shouldn't be too worried about her being a cheerleader -- unless she really decides to piss off the wife (and that would be the way). Still...
No Consequences, No Reform
Nasty truth about the UN and whistleblowers of corruption. If the United Nations were part of the U.S. government, say the Defense or Energy Department, Rehan Mullick's report of corruption and mismanagement of the Oil-for-Food program would have been a warning shot fired across the bow of a lumbering bureaucracy. He was crying "Fraud!" loud and clear, and doing so on his own dime. Somebody would have noticed -- or if no one did, he could have gone to Congress or the media to get some attention, and investigations most likely would have followed. And under federal whistle-blower protections, he might even have kept his job.
But the United Nations isn't an American bureaucracy, and it has its own ways of dealing with whistle-blowers. Mostly, it fires them. Almost all U.N. staff members work under contracts of two years or less, and they carry no legal assurance of renewal. An angry supervisor need only wait for the rebellious staff member's contract to lapse, and then not renew it. And although a supervisor's retaliation for whistle-blowing is officially prohibited under U.N. rules, enforcement comes only in the form of penalties against the offending supervisor -- not job reinstatement for
the whistle-blower. A bunch of examples. Want to know why every UN mission seems riddled with sex scandals and how oil-for-food occurred -- there's no incentive or reward for telling the truth. Only punishment.
If It's A Bad Idea, Then You Can Bet...
Eastlake is looking into it. While not in the papers too much, Eastlake, my fair and broke little burb, is trying to figure out new ways to get money rather than make more cuts in the budget. So what are they considering? Why a Mayor's Court so they can start getting a bigger cut of the traffic ticket cash. The PD in its new series on the regionalism in the area, has taken a look at Mayor's courts for the disparity in certain sentences -- like DUIs. Ohio has yet to abolish these things, because too many municipalities are practically dependent on the revenue the bring in to them (*cough* Willoughby Hills *cough*). They are facing more stringent reporting requirements. Many cities would probably be reluctant to abandon their courts because they generate income from traffic tickets. Members of the courts commission agreed that mayors' courts are marred by a perception of bias -- mayors oversee budgets and so have an interest in filling the municipal coffers with traffic fine money. But commission members heard strong opposition to dissolving mayors' courts in counties that rely on them to handle minor cases, Judge Wolff said. After the commission cast doubt on the fairness of mayors' courts, the Ohio Supreme Court began requiring them to register and report on their caseloads. Some courts hired magistrates to hear cases instead of mayors. The hope, is that with reporting requirements, many municipalities will simply eliminate the courts rather than comply with the time, costs and effort in following the procedures. Not to mention just not starting one of their own. To be honest, I'd be suspicious, just because I'd like to know where Eastlake is planning to get the money to cover the start-up costs? The News-Herald had an editorial against the Eastlake proposal for a Mayor's Court. Given the circumstances, it would not be at all unusual if city leaders were to come up with some good ideas - and perhaps some bad ideas as well. One scheme that has already been floated is starting a mayor's count - for one reason only - to raise revenue.
The fair and impartial distribution of justice is never mentioned in these situations. It's always about raising money.
But laws should not be enforced merely to raise money - although that is a byproduct of law enforcement, because people who commit traffic offenses normally are charged fines and court costs. However, the court system does not look at its activities as fund-raisers. The income is used to offset expenses.
...
Suggesting that Eastlake start a mayor's court for no reason other than being a money-maker is a very bad idea. Members of the council and administration should put their thinking caps back on and come up with some other ideas that will not have a negative impact on the administration of justice in the city.
It would be ideal, as a matter of fact, if the state legislature were simply to outlaw mayors' courts, just as it took court duties away from justices of the peace.
There are cities and villages that still operate mayor's courts - Willoughby Hills, Fairport Harbor and Grand River among them - and they were never intended as anything other than money pits. I have no disagreement with that. That is part of the reason the proposal for traffic cameras in Cleveland, which by the way, City Council rolled over on last week, is so offensive. It isn't about public safety. It isn't even thinly disguised as such. What it is, is just another way to try and get more money to cover the budget issues. Then, the editorial, blows it by saying that if Eastlake does this, it will hurt Willoughby, where the municipal court that hears Eastlake's traffic cases is located. Willoughby Municipal Court, under the leadership of Judge Larry Allen, is a model of efficiency. It is so busy that the city is building a new $4.6 million, 30,000 square-foot courthouse in Downtown Willoughby on a $1 million parcel of land.
The city never dreamed Eastlake would consider pulling the plug on much of its participation by establishing its own mayor's court. How can Willoughby plan for the future and have that happen? Talk about a Bad Neighbor Policy!
Would Eastlake then instruct its cops to write as many tickets as possible as part of its money-raising activities? I get that what they are saying, is that Willoughby planned this based on a budget projections that included stable revenue streams from traffic enforcement. And to be quite fair, the present building is not big enough. But if Eastlake shouldn't look to generate income and fund its budget from traffic, why should another city be allowed to rely so easily on the income? The editorial clangs the end, by essentially saying Eastlake should be subservient to Willoughby and the status quo.
Enough
It's March 18. The first day of Spring is only a few days hence. There is snow on the cars. I'm thinking of going back to bed.
When Criticized, Restrict
The EU Parliment believes no reporting is good reporting (via No Parasan). Irked by harsh news coverage of legislative perquisites, the European Parliament's leadership has quietly proposed tough restrictions to bar the photographing or filming of members when they are not involved in official duties at the institution's sprawling headquarters.
Journalists who violate the regulations could be banned from the Parliament's public buildings for six months to two years, according to internal documents from the legislature's administrative bureau, which includes the Parliament's president, Josep Borrell Fontelles, and 14 other legislators who are vice presidents.
...
The new internal rules would grant power to an obscure five-member committee within the Parliament, the Quaestors, to decide which areas of the complex are subject to a ban on photography and filming that can be established on a temporary basis.
...
That potential power worries Jens-Peter Bonde, a Danish member of Parliament and the leader of a 36-member independent group of legislators from 10 countries.
Bonde said the new rules emerged because some members of Parliament "hate it that they're taking photos when they're collecting benefits from the gravy train."
"It's been an ongoing battle for years, he said. "When we have a scandal, the first reaction is not to change the reality, but to change the possibility for making stories about it." Good system.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Blog/Pod Meet-Up
I'll try to come back to this later. I still need to get a couple brackets submitted, and have an argument with a 2 1/2-year old about why we're not watching Dora this afternoon, but basketball (did I mention that Pitt tips off at 12:40 pm). George did a great job organizing the event and having us in some different conversations. Last night was a great meet-up down at Rock Bottom. Adam has a partial list of some of the attendees. He also has a post of the discussion group that he was involved. I didn't get a chance to sit in on any of that conversation. I got involved in talking in a group with Will Kessell (congrats on the job, again), John Ettore, Mike Baker, Bruce Kratofil, Steve Fitzgerald, and I know I'm forgetting someone. We got to have a good conversation with Denise Polverine, the Editor for Cleveland.com. Denise also bought some pitchers which made the evening more enjoyable and cheaper for me. The discussion was lively, but not near as contentious as it was feared. Denise is looking to integrate the area bloggers into the Cleveland.com website. When George mentioned this last month, there was an immediate recoil by most of us. It sounded like she was interested in picking up our content for the benefit of her site, without us getting anything back (i.e., money or site traffic). From the way she talked and responded, that isn't what she is looking to do. Part of what she wants to do is work with us to link to articles -- not appropriate -- and create more of a conversation about the news and the content. It is much more forward thinking. She was very open to hearing our thoughts on this and what we'd like to see in the site (though, nothing about the actual design -- that's not in her control). After the discussions broke up, and people got to talking, George bought me a beer and took some abuse from several of us over his "$tarbucks" distaste. I can't have a good conversation about that with people who haven't seen the Underpants Gnomes.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
More on Excluding Not Exempting Blogs
Looks like I'm not the only one who is deeply troubled by the argument that the FEC should carve an exemption for blogs with regards to the BCRA. Patterico comments on remarks by Sen. Feingold, "Online journalists should be treated the same as other legitimate broadcast media, newspapers, etc. and, at this point, I don't see any reason why the FEC shouldn?t include legitimate online journalists and bloggers in the 'media exemption' rule." As Patterico observes: Are you starting to get it? This is why you don?t ask the government for permission to express your views. Because if you ask, you concede that government has the right to decide what is deemed "legitimate." And government might change its mind. As Dan Lovejoy aptly says: "Creating an exemption recognizes the validity of the law in the first place." That is why I have argued against signing the online petition asking our masters to grant us permission to speak. He continues that he has no intent to change the way he blogs, no matter what the FEC decides. I don't see myself changing my blogging and linking. I suspect most won't. There are hundreds of thousands of blogs. Bloggers aren't about to start registering with the FEC, and so they'd have to wade into the internet and track people down themselves. The FEC has no budget, time or will for that.
So why worry? Because it is an afront to the principles of free speech. Political speech is more regulated than commercial speech. The purpose of enshrining the principle of free speech in the Constitution is to allow people to freely express themselves especially regarding the government and the elected and unelected officials.
Even the staunchest advocate for campaign finance legislation has to acknowledge that free speech should be a more powerful force. Any legislation that infringes that liberty should be viewed very narrowly and bound carefully.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Beware The Bloggers, Part 698
The News-Herald web site is a joke. It's one of those hideous zwire sites that has a lousy lay-out and even worse archives. The N-H version is worse than most, because they barely put any of their content on it. So, for example, a Sunday op-ed column by Dennis Eckart is not on their site. The article was in their "Comment" section for the Sunday, March 6, 2005 edition. For those of you unfamiliar with Dennis Eckart, he was a member of the US House of Representatives for 12 years (1980-1992). After that he became a lobbyist. He spent the last few years as President and CEO of the Greater Cleveland Growth Association. He was one of the leading point men to push the 2003 attempt to get a new Cleveland Convention Center, that failed. He "resigned" in November to resume being a lobbyist in the law firm of Baker & Hostetler LLP. Amusingly enough, his description at the end of the column doesn't mention that he is a lobbyist. It simply states that "Eckart is a former congressman who now practices law with Baker & Hostetler in Cleveland." The column, in particular is a dire warning against the dangerous bloggers. It isn't online, so I won't break the whole thing down to fisk it. The first half of the column is spent recounting Watergate and how Woodward and Bernstein spent so much time and energy in traditional journalistic methods to put together the Watergate story. He then contrasts that with the whole Jeff Gannon getting access to the White House press conferences and "Rathergate." Specifically, how quickly they were exposed. I'll pick up the story here. Of course, neither Rather nor Gannon committed any crimes, but now 30 years after Watergate, it only took hours, not years, to expose their failures. With sentence structure like that, you know Eckart is a lawyer. Unlike the Watergate era, today the sources "correcting" Rather and "indicting" Gannon were neither the national media nor were they secret and anonymous. Called "bloggers" on the Internet, their new "Deep Throat" was technology and the Web, their newsprint and meeting places were chat rooms and Web sites, not parking garages nor potted plants. Most of all they moved with the instantaneous speed and force of the Internet. Most disturbingly, they were accurate. These self-described "bloggers" numbering in the thousands, can be opinionated, partisan, and sometimes reckless. And you don't even need a subscription to find them, just a mouse. Apparently the computer and internet connection are not important. Well, hopefully, Eckart will give us some of the examples of recklessness. The Gannon and Rather incidents don't fit that description. As for opinionated and partisan? Well, duh. That's the point. It's personal. It's that blogger's view. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post refers to bloggers as "citizen journalists," unafraid of "the big, arrogant, lazy and biased mainstream media" and any other organization or institution that has a vested interest in the status quo.
The free press has never been so free.
But is it? And at what price? Someone cue the ominous music. Bloggers create competition in the media marketplace by competing for recognition on the strength of their research, ideas and opinions. This is good. So, the bloggers that do rise in credibility and hits, do apparently actually provide real service and back up what they say. Here's the other thing that is the major coin of the realm in blogging: trustworthiness. In other words, accuracy and being a reliable resource. Without that, the blog is just another ranting hole. But simply having a laptop and an opinion doesn't make you a sage. Bloggers have no editors, no corporate owners, no tradition of fairness, balance and equal access.
They also don't have "ratings periods," filters, high overhead costs, nor any reason to be fair or balanced. They do, however, have this thing called hyperlinks. The way for any reader to go back to the source materials to verify what they are saying, and to see what kind of spin the blogger added. For example, I could say that Dennis Eckart left Congress after being censured. But that would be a lie, and the link to the Congressional bio merely shows he was a career politician (elected to the Ohio House of Representatives at age 25), who has since cashed in as a lobbyist. If I didn't provide the hyperlinks, then there is always Google and search engines. A lack of links without explanation usually serves as a pretty good indicator that there is something more going on. Speaking of fairness, balance and equal access. Now might be the right time to mention that the official group that Eckart is part of in Baker & Hostetler is called the " government policy," a sub-category of the Tax, Personal Planning and Employee Benefits group. According to the list of clients, B&H " does not identify specific Tax, Personal Planning and Employee Benefits clients." They do broadly indicate that they have clients in the businesses of: "Media and communication companies" and "Newspaper publishers."
It's with that kind of knowledge, one might be a little skeptical about criticism and complaints -- especially without any examples of the conduct feared.
The result is a new marketplace of information that has never been more free or less filtered and around which we, as consumers of this menagerie of information, must constantly exercise the caution of "buyer beware." Accuracy can be overwhelmed by speed. Relevance can become a casualty to bias.
Taking your news "straight" is not for the lazy nor the faint-hearted. If you don't believe me, just ask Jeff, Gordon or Dan.
Let's see, bias and sloppy reporting. Oh yeah, now I remember seeing such an example. It was in the New York Times. In a piece about bloggers in Iraq. Jeff Jarvis did a good job with that one. A reporter put into print, speculation that they could be funded by the CIA without any substance. How sad that these assertions were made without anything to back them. Let me help Mr. Eckart. A Norwegian blogger has exposed an attempt by other bloggers to circulate a fake story as actual fact. It's not surprising that such attempts are made. What is important is that they can still be countered. Shame Eckart doesn't actually try to explain what to look for in blogs to get past the stuff he fears. Nevermind an actual example.
Monday, March 14, 2005
March Madness
Come on, how much posting can you expect from me over here with the NCAA Tournament about to get underway. Feel free to join the PSB bracket, if direct link doesn't work, go through the Front page and look up the group "Pitt Sports Blather.
|
|
