"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves."
- Albert Einstein
Consumers Union says energy best spent where business holds less sway
AUSTIN - Ordinarily at the start of a legislative session, Lisa McGiffert would be walking the halls of the Capitol telling lawmakers why it was important they restore funding for children's health insurance.
Though her office is just two blocks from the seat of state government, the Consumers Union advocate is not engaged in this year's big debate about whether Texas should restore funding for health insurance for poor children and Medicaid. Instead, Ms. McGiffert is pushing states around the country to require hospitals to disclose their infection rates.
"Instead of staying in one state and focusing on all health issues, we are focusing on a few health issues nationally," she said.
After a quarter-century of lobbying in Austin, Consumers Union's Southwest office is giving up day-to-day policy combat here and redeploying its resources to states where its message has more resonance.
[...]
"The first sign of madness is you keep doing the same thing over and over again," said Reggie James, director of the Austin office. "We wanted to stop being mad."
It is comforting to know that Texas is so...er...user friendly!
In the aftermath of 9/11, conservatives bottled up their frustrations over some of President Bush's policies. Then they muted their criticism during the presidential campaign. But now it is spilling out in all directions--and the White House had better pay attention.
On Friday Rush Limbaugh, a staunch Bush supporter, took two separate opportunities to warn the president that he faced conservative opposition on some key issues that could hurt his chances of passing the rest of his second-term agenda. First was federal spending, which "is surging out of control," according to the Heritage Foundation's new "Mandate for Leadership." The other was immigration, which, Mr. Limbaugh told his listeners, "could break up the Republican-conservative coalition" à la Ross Perot. "We cannot maintain our sovereignty without securing and protecting our borders in an era where terrorists around the world seek entry to this country," he said.
Later that day, I spoke with Mr. Limbaugh backstage before he discussed immigration at a private meeting of 400 leading conservatives here. He told me his comments had been prompted in part by a wire story he had read that morning quoting Mexico's Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez as saying his country might turn to international courts to block an Arizona law, passed by voters in November and taking effect this week, that bars illegal aliens from welfare benefits and requires proof of citizenship and a photo ID to vote. Mr. Derbez said the measure could lead to "discrimination based on [an] ethnic profile," and expressed sadness that exit polls found two-fifths of Arizona voters of Mexican descent had backed the measure (which passed with 56% statewide).
I really don't have much to say about this, it just gives me pleasure to see Republicans eating their own. Lord knows it is a habit Democrats engage in all too often.
Animal rights activists could face five years in jail for targeting firms linked to animal research facilities under new government plans.
The amendment to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill covers suppliers such as construction firms or cleaners working for animal research firms.
Measures to stop harassment of animal research facilities and their employees are already in the bill.
Now don't get me wrong, in spite of my association with animal rescue groups (such as Bunny Buddies and the House Rabbit Society) I am not at all for the destruction of property (or anything else come to think of it). I think that those that resort to such measures should expect the full weight of the law to come down upon their heads. But I can't help but contrast this with the objections to hate crime laws. After all, can it not be said that the laws that are already on the books are quite sufficient to punish such law breakers? Are we not raising the value of property higher than the value of a human life? Are we not granting property a special privilege??
Is there any right winger out there that dare be consistent? If so feel free to tell me what you think.
It's been quite a while since I checked out Hal Moroz's "The New Knighthood" so I decided to check it out last night. As usual the group provided a great deal of amusement and horror.
I ran across this little missive by Hal himself. Seems that he has "heard" that two post offices in Texas were forced to remove posters that said "In God We Trust" the national motto. Hal was horrified: (warning: may need to join group to read msg)
From: "Attorney H.R. Moroz" Date: Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:04 pm Subject: In God We Trust ...
WRITE IT ON THE BACK OF YOUR ENVELOPES
I THINK THIS A GREAT IDEA.
You may have heard in the news that a couple of Post Offices in Texas have been forced to take down small posters that say "IN GOD WE TRUST,"
The law, they say, is being violated.
Anyway, I heard proposed on a radio station show, that we all write "IN GOD WE 'TRUST " on the back of all our mail. After all, that is our national motto, and it's on all the money we use to buy those stamps. I think it is a wonderful idea.
We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed.
If you like this idea, please pass it on and DO IT. The idea of writing or stamping "IN GOD WE TRUST" on our envelopes sounds good to me.
It has been reported that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having "In God We Trust" on our money! and ! having God in the pledge of Allegiance.
Could it be that WE just need to take action and tell the 14% to "sit down and shut up"?
Now let us take a moment to remind ourselves that Hal is a lawyer, and not just a lawyer but a former Judge.
Yet again Hal displays an appalling lack of knowledge about the law. There is a huge difference between a post office (a federal building) displaying a declaration of belief in a certain religion and some private citizen writing "In God We Trust", or "I Love Jesus", or "Satan is our Friend" on the back of an envelope. It is funny to think that Hal and pals think that this would actually bother an atheist or agnostic, but just to make it as clear as possible, go ahead people and write whatever the hell you want on the back of your envelope, it won't bother me at all.
Still knowing the basic dishonest (or ignorant) nature of Hal and pals I wondered just what was behind this little story. Well it turns out, not much. From the most excellent website "Break the Chain":
Since September 11, 2001, many companies and institutions have been chastised for apparently choosing political correctness over patriotism and religion. Examples include outrage over Dr. Pepper leaving "Under God" off cans featuring the Pledge of Allegiance and Golden Corral leaving "God" out of "God Bless America" in a window display. The chain letters about these situations were founded on truth, but didn't tell the whole story - or at least didn't tell it well. Not surprisingly, this is also the case with this one.
The posters in question were donated to public buildings in Montgomery County, Texas by Frank P. Williamson in 2002. They feature the words "In God We Trust" over an image of a waving American flag and identify the phrase as the national motto of the United States.
In November, 2002, a United States Post Office supervisor ordered the posters removed, citing regulations that prohibit the display of any non-postal or non-government posters on postal property. The regulation mentions nothing about "electioneering" and simply maintains that nothing is to be posted in post offices that is not created or approved by the USPS or Federal government.
The decision was not in response to "people that think that anything that offends them should be removed," nor was it motivated by the United States Constitution - It was in response to a clear-cut violation of regulations that would have gotten any poster, regardless of its contents, removed. What got pulled from those Texas post offices was the improperly displayed posters, not the motto.
Should you write "In God We Trust" on all your mail? Sure, why not - It is our national motto. But, don't think you're getting one over on the system. The post office openly endorses the national motto, and its use on currency and in public buildings (if displayed according to any appropriate regulation) is still constitutional per a 1970 Supreme Court ruling. In fact, since this letter began circulating, the U.S. Postal Service has commissioned a poster similar to Mr. Williamson's to be posted in all Post offices. Break this chain. (emphasis added)
Note that last part. Not only is Hal trying to fix a problem that is a few years old, the problem was already fixed.
Well I was meaning to discuss the Ethics conference that wasn't (aka "Blogging, Journalism & Credibility; Battleground and Common Ground") but I simply don't have the time right now. Nor the desire to read through all that drek again. Allow me to point out a few problems with the conference and then move on.
The first problem is without a doubt the lack of amature bloggers. Now before I get accused of sour grapes for not being invited, hell I would not have been able to attend even if. As most of my loyal readers know I was trying to save up for an entirely different conference. Aside from that, I don't really consider myself a "media" critic. Only in so much as the media is one of the things I criticize, I like to think "A Skeptical Blog" is more broad than that, so for that reason alone I would not be a good choice. But by not including some of the larger names in blogging (such as Duncan Black (Atrios) or Bob Somerby) well already their credibility has taken a hit.
The conference is heavy with journalist, and so it appears to most people (your humble narrator included) as if the conference should be called "Journalist Deciding What To Do About Bloggers". But hey, don't believe me, take a look at this list of participants and read the comments. Pay particular attention to what The One True b!X has to say. He articulated the best objection to this little circle jerk. Also notice how his suggestions are roundly ignored.
Another problem is that some of the participants already carry the taint of unethical behavior. In my opinion, any conference that invited the likes of Jill Abramson of the New York Times, or John Hinderaker of Powerline, should probably not include the word "credible" in it's title.
If you want some real fun, head over to the conference blog and read the comments. I am not one to accuse academics of living in a ivory tower, but the disconnect between what commenter are saying and what participants are reading is striking to say the least.
One final thing. The idea of "blogger ethics" strikes me as rather worthless. I am not a journalist, hell I am hardly a writer. I do what I do because I enjoy it, not because I dream of being a Woodward, or turning the journalistic world on it's head. The best you can expect from me is accurate information, or at least as accurate as I can make it. Anyone reading this blog for any length of time knows that I am a proud Democrat and an even prouder liberal. This can't help but color the way I view the world. However I am a big believer in the saw "You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own set of facts". Anytime, anyone finds anything on this site that is factually inaccurate, I will certainly apologize, correct the mistake, and write up an entry admitting I was wrong. I won't feel too bad about this since I am only human and like everyone else, I make mistakes.
However the idea that I have to follow an ethical code to blog is simply funny. I am not a professional journalist, writer, pundit, or political observer. I don't make money at this, and if I ever do, you won't have to worry about me disclosing because I will be yelling it from the rooftops. If you want to take a gander at the code of ethics I follow well take a look below:
At a joint meeting in March of 1993, the officers of the International Brotherhood of Magicians, and the Society of American Magicians agreed to establish a Code of Ethic for its members and the fraternity of Magic. The following was ratified in May of that year and signed jointly at their National Conventions in July by IBM President "Obie" O'Brien and Sam President George Schindler. Here is the document:
All members of the Society of American Magicians and the International Brotherhood of Magicians agree to:
1) Oppose the willful exposure to the public of any principles of the Art of Magic, or the methods employed in any magic effect or illusion.
2) Display ethical behavior in the presentation of magic to the public and in our conduct as magicians, including not interfering with or jeopardizing the performance of another magician either through personal intervention or the unauthorized use of another's creation.
3) Recognize and respect for rights of the creators, inventors, authors, and owners of magic concepts, presentations, effects and literature, and their rights to have exclusive use of, or to grant permission for the use by others of such creations.
4) Discourage false or misleading statements in the advertising of effects, and literature, merchandise or actions pertaining to the magical arts.
5) Discourage advertisement in magic publications for any magical apparatus, effect, literature or other materials for which the advertiser does not have commercial rights.
6) Promote the humane treatment and care of livestock used in magical performances.
I promise I follow each scrupulously!
Ok, I won't be updating on Friday, I am simply too busy. But starting next week, and probably going through the entire week, I will be redoing my critique of the first season of Penn & Teller's "Bullshit". Since reviewing the shows for my paper I have noticed some mistakes I made when trying to do this real time. I have no way of taping from my Direct TV set-up (something I plan to correct in the near future) so I had to watch the show a few times, and even then I made some mistakes. It does not change the basics of any of the criticism I level at P & T, but I do strive to get things right. Plus I think I will be able to include some clips from the show to illustrate my points, which is always worth doing.
One last thing, thanks for the emails (and comment) welcoming me back to blogging. I am looking forward to getting into the swing of things.
Well I'm back. After a too long hiatus I have decided to start blogging again. I can't believe I missed it as much as I have.
And what a time to start up again! The bloggerverse is all a' twitter over the subject of "Blogger Ethics". Oh the humanity!
Of course by now everyone knows that journalist/pundit/p.r.flack Armstrong Williams accepted a quarter of a million dollars from the Department of Education in order to push G. W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" act. This has (rightfully so) caused an uproar in journalism circles. Personally I don't see what the big deal is, if you don't know by now that the right wing is ethically challenged then you get what you deserve when you listen to their self-serving drivel. I do agree it was a stupid waste of taxpayer's money since Armstrong probably would have shilled the act in any case. Now at this point you might ask yourself, "Gee what does this have to do with Blogger Ethics"? And you would be right to ask...but don't look here for an answer because I have no idea.
Yet the Wall Street Journal seemed to think it had everything to do with Blogger ethics. They managed to accused two well known lefty bloggers of being unethical for accepting money from the Howard Dean camp. I would link to the article but it is no longer available.
The WSJ got this tidbit from none other than Zephyr Teachout one of the people working with Joe Trippi on Dean's internet outreach. On January 10th Zephyr wrote an article called "Financially Interested Blogging" in preparation for "Blogging, Journalism & Credibility; Battleground and Common Ground", a conference on blogging ethics that is put on by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at the Harvard Law School, the American Library Association’s Office of Information Technology and the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government (we will talk more about this conference later). In the article Ms. Teachout made this startling statement:
On Dean’s campaign, we paid Markos (Moulitsas of the Daily Kos) and Jerome Armstrong (of MyDD) as consultants, largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean. We paid them over twice as much as we paid two staffers of similar backgrounds, and they had several other clients.
While they ended up also providing useful advice, the initial reason for our outreach was explicitly to buy their airtime. To be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment -- but it was very clearly, internally, our goal.
Bloggers accepting money to say positive things about a political candidate?? Say it ain't so!
Of course, what Teachout left out was the fact that Jerome shut down MyDD for the duration of his contract with Dean, and Markos put a disclaimer on the front page of Daily Kos letting everyone know that he was working for Dean.
Even worse is that second paragraph. "To be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean...but it was very clearly, internally, our goal". This paints an entirely different picture than the one reported by the Washington Times. It seems to me that this would be the same as someone paying me to fix their car, but "very clearly, internally" the money was paid to kill his wife. Later, after I fix the car, this person runs to the police saying "I gave this cat money to kill my wife". Well that might be what he intended to pay for, but if he tells me it is to fix his car, where is the fault on my part?
Zephyr might have intended to give money to Markos and Jerome to say positive things, but as far as I can tell, they were hired for technical expertise. So Markos and Jerome get a pass.
Zephyr on the other hand, seems to be the only person that has acted unethically.
Tomorrow: The ethical conference that wasn't.
Edited: To fix hyperlinks. Can you tell it has been awhile since I blogged?
