The White Sox crushed the Red Sox today, in the opening game of their American League Divisional Series. This is the first home playoff game that the White Sox have won since 1959. The score by manufacturing runs and by hitting home runs. They shutdown the potent Boston offense and scored against three of the four pitchers pitcher the Red Sox used in the game. One game does not a series win, much less a World Series Champion, make. But today was a great day to be a White Sox fan.
October 4th, 2005
|
Sports, MLB/MiLB |
5 comments
Via Atrios, Boing Boing points out that Congress is making noises about requiring the broadcast flag in digital content. The broadcast flag would prevent you from copying shows from one machine to another. You could not, for example burn a copy of a show to DVD for personal use. You could not transfer a movie from your Tivo to your laptop so that you could watch it on the train or take it with you on vacation. The broadcast flag treats you like a criminal, intent on selling bootleg copies of the latest FOX sitcom on the black market. It’s insulting, and it gives media companies something close to absolute control over how you enjoy your entertainment. And, of course, it forces you to pay extra for things that have always been free.
And, of course, since it is a terrible idea, my representative is among those leading the charge. Cory Doctorow has a list of Congress critters you can contact to express your displeasure over the matter.
October 4th, 2005
|
Legal Issues, Media |
4 comments
Real reporters do not work for FOX:
He went on to recount his six-year tenure at Fox. “At the time I started at Fox, I thought, this is a great news organization to let me be very aggressive with a sitting president of the United States (Bill Clinton),” Shuster said. “I started having issues when others in the organization would take my carefully scripted and nuanced reporting and pull out bits and pieces to support their agenda on their shows.
“With the change of administration in Washington, I wanted to do the same kind of reporting, holding the (Bush) administration accountable, and that was not something that Fox was interested in doing,” he said.
“Editorially, I had issues with story selection,” Shuster went on. “But the bigger issue was that there wasn’t a tradition or track record of honoring journalistic integrity. I found some reporters at Fox would cut corners or steal information from other sources or in some cases, just make things up. Management would either look the other way or just wouldn’t care to take a closer look. I had serious issues with that.”
The Bloomington native encountered a markedly different culture when he jumped to NBC/MSNBC in June 2002. “One of the first things that happens is you’re given a 50-page manual of standards and practices … and you immediately sense this is an organization that cares very deeply about journalistic integrity.”
October 4th, 2005
|
Politics, Media |
6 comments
I don’t have anything intelligent to say about Miers at this point. I suspect she is right wing, but not insane, on issues of presidential power and business regulation. I also suspect that she is going to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. But I haven’t had a lot of time to look into her record, such as it is. I am sure I will have more to say as more information comes out about her. But I do know that this pick epitomizes Bush’s decisions making process.
It is pretty clear that Miers real qualification is that Bush likes her. In much the same fashion that Cheney gained Bush’s confidence and got himself anointed Vice President, so did Miers, who was supposed to be running the Supreme Court search, get herself appointed to the Court. Bush is, fundamentally, a weak person. He has never had to suffer the consequences of failing by himself. He paid no real price for his dereliction of duty in the Guard. None of his business failings have cost him anything — there was always one of Daddy’s friends to bail him out, and another of Daddy’s friends to give him yet another chance to ruin a business. Since Congress has been under the control of the GOP, he hasn’t had to face serious scrutiny of his actions. He has even had a cult of personality built up around him that has protected him from the displeasure of activists on the right.
That is not a life that has instilled in Bush an appreciation for talent, or skill, or intelligence, or dedication. Bush has never had to have any of those things. What has mattered in his life are connections. His name has provided him with a ready made stable of people willing to do almost anything for him or say almost anything to him in order to get ahead. Bush hasn’t ever had to hire for quality, nor take his responsibilities seriously. The reason an unqualified hack like Brown can get appointed to a critical position like the head of FEMA is the same reason that a crony like Miers: because Bush likes who he likes, and has never had to consider the fact that who he likes might not be a good choice for the job.
The right wing crying about being betrayed by Bush is amusing. It as if they thought the evidence of his entire life was some grand political head fake. They expected the flighty, weak, coddled child of too much privilege to suddenly become a Great Man, despite all the evidence to the contrary. They voted for an empty suit, and they are now surprised when the empty suit turns to other empty suits for support and approval. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad for the country.
October 4th, 2005
|
Politics, Legal Issues |
9 comments
For smart guy, Matt Yglesias is certainly missing the boat here:
Sure, I would expect African Americans to be displeased with Bennett’s remarks and saying something that will predictably upset someone or some group of people is an insensitive way to behave. But so what? By this token it was insensitive of Armando and, indeed, Garance to write posts criticizing my post. Sensitivity notwithstanding, however, there’s still a substantive issue here. It is, in fact, the case that African Americans have a drastically higher incidence of committing crime than do non-black Americans. Some have attributed to Bennett the view that this is a genetic characteristic of African Americans; that’s an absurd thing to believe, but not something Bennett said (as far as I know). The high African American crime rate is in part a consequence of economic factors, in part a consequence of cultural ones, and in part a consequence of simple discrimination in crime reporting and arrest rates.
First, Bennet thought of blacks when he thought of crimes, despite the fact that poverty, maleness, and living in the South also make people statistically more likely to commit crime. That is, at a minimum, suggestive. But more importantly, Bennet didn’t say that killing all blacks today would reduce crime. He said that aborting all black fetuses would reduce crime. Those fetuses would have no effect on the crime rate for fifteen to twenty years. Bennet wasn’t thinking about today — he was thinking about the future. And the only way that makes sense is if there is something inherent in being African-American that makes you more likely to commit crimes.
And that, plain and simple, is racism.
October 4th, 2005
|
Politics, Culture |
21 comments
