Ah, 1999.

|

Jules Crittenden makes a great point about the latest Iraq poll which finds 48 percent of Americans think the war is going well. But, 54 percent want the troops to come home:

Count me in that 54 percent. I want the troops to come home, too. After we win these wars. After their tours as part of the ongoing US-Iraqi strategic alliance are up. Much as troops come home every day from Germany, Japan and Korea. Who are these people who don’t want soldiers to be able to come home anyway?"

I think we'll be seeing a lot of troops coming home starting next year. Does that put me in Cindy Sheehan's camp?

|

How did the Atari 400 rank No. 5 on the all-time worst keyboards lists? Definitely should've be No. 1 or No. 2. Click here to see the rest.

My childhood computer didn't make this list. Spent a lot of hours on that comptuer. A lot of hours.

|

Here's a blog from a University of Georgia professor that keeps up with how sex is used in advertising. Pretty interesting.

|

Great political ad from Mike Huckabee and Chuck Norris. Here are more Chuck Norris facts.

|

Three years ago, Australia's prime minister won re-election. The headline and lede from the New York Times read:

Australians Re-elect Howard as Prime Minister

Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, who went into the country's election with a good-luck message from President Bush, was decisively re-elected Saturday, according to official returns.

Today, the prime minister lost:

Bush Ally Defeated in Australia

Australia’s prime minister, John Howard, one of President Bush’s staunchest allies in Asia, suffered a comprehensive defeat at the hands of the electorate on Saturday, as his Liberal Party-led coalition lost its majority in Parliament.

Siding with Bush is only important if you lose an election.

And in 2004, the New York Times made sure (in the third paragraph) that we all understood Howard's re-election had nothing to do with support for the war in Iraq:

Iraq loomed in the background during the campaign, but Australian political analysts cautioned that the voting was not a referendum on the war. The main issue was the economy, and that is booming.

But in the third paragraph today's article, the the Times goes ahead and connects the dots for its readers:

Mr. Howard’s defeat, after 11 years in power, follows that of Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, who also backed the United States-led invasion of Iraq, and political setbacks for Tony Blair of Britain.

So, when Howard won, it had nothing to do with Iraq. When he lost, it was the same Iraq war backlash felt by other world leaders who sided with Bush.

The New York Times is still awaiting the election results of Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroder.

|

"As God as my witness, I thought Turkey's could fly."

Happy Thanksgiving weekend!

|

The early seasons of "Sesame Street" have been released on DVD. According to Virginia Herrernan in the NY Times, the show stands in stark contrast to today's saccharine fare:

The he show rolled, and the sweet trauma came flooding back. What they did to us was hard-core. Man, was that scene rough. The masonry on the dingy brownstone at 123 Sesame Street, where the closeted Ernie and Bert shared a dismal basement apartment, was deteriorating. Cookie Monster was on a fast track to diabetes. Oscar’s depression was untreated. Prozacky Elmo didn’t exist.

Nothing in the children’s entertainment of today, candy-colored animation hopped up on computer tricks, can prepare young or old for this frightening glimpse of simpler times. Back then — as on the very first episode, which aired on PBS Nov. 10, 1969 — a pretty, lonely girl like Sally might find herself befriended by an older male stranger who held her hand and took her home. Granted, Gordon just wanted Sally to meet his wife and have some milk and cookies, but . . . well, he could have wanted anything. As it was, he fed her milk and cookies. The milk looks dangerously whole.

Live-action cows also charge the 1969 screen — cows eating common grass, not grain improved with hormones. Cows are milked by plain old farmers, who use their unsanitary hands and fill one bucket at a time. Elsewhere, two brothers risk concussion while whaling on each other with allergenic feather pillows. Overweight layabouts, lacking touch-screen iPods and headphones, jockey for airtime with their deafening transistor radios. And one of those radios plays a late-’60s news report — something about a “senior American official” and “two billion in credit over the next five years” — that conjures a bleak economic climate, with war debt and stagflation in the offing.

The old “Sesame Street” is not for the faint of heart, and certainly not for softies born since 1998, when the chipper “Elmo’s World” started. Anyone who considers bull markets normal, extracurricular activities sacrosanct and New York a tidy, governable place — well, the original “Sesame Street” might hurt your feelings.

|

Film critic Kurt Loder points out what's wrong with De Palma's "Redacted":

The movie's implication is that such horrific incidents are not unusual, but that they're covered up by the military and the craven mainstream media. This is possible, of course. But the contention is unpersuasive in this particular case, since all five of the soldiers involved were arrested and charged, and three have been tried and sentenced to 90, 100 and 110 years in prison — information the movie declines to convey. The alleged ringleader of the group, Pfc. Steven D. Green, was discharged from the Army before the crime was reported by another soldier three months after it happened; Green will be tried in a federal court in Kentucky, and prosecutors are reportedly seeking the death penalty. (Green is a high school dropout with a record of drug and alcohol problems that was disregarded by the Army when he enlisted; he had already been identified as having "homicidal ideations" while serving in Iraq, and he was discharged after 16 months because of an "antisocial personality disorder." The Army's alarmingly lax recruiting standards are an important issue, but De Palma — convinced that it's the unjust war itself that turns young soldiers into monsters, not the problems they bring with them to the battle — doesn't address it.)

|

Video showing that many "undecided voters" at CNN's Democratic debate were political activists.

|

Great article in the WSJ about the debate over today's high school kid's dancing.

They're oblivious no longer. A new resolve by school officials in this booming Dallas suburb to crack down on sexually suggestive dancing -- and skimpy clothing -- has sparked a rancorous debate over what boundaries should be set for teenagers' self-expression. Argyle joins a long list of other schools around the country that have banned the hip-hop inspired dancing known as "grinding" or "freak dancing."

... The dancing dispute is proving tougher to resolve. "Our community needs to show these students how much we value them by not allowing them to devalue themselves," says Spencer Jefferies, father of a sophomore girl, who supports Mr. Ceyanes's efforts. Others disagree. "We never had a problem before," said one of the more outspoken parents, Barbara Roberts. She says she spent $400 for her 17-year-old daughter's dress only to have her leave the dance after a few minutes because it was such a dud.

Students defend their style of dancing, blaming the disagreement on the same sort of generation gap that turned Elvis Presley's swiveling hips into a public controversy in 1956. Some Argyle teens say they realize grinding might look erotic, but they insist it's just dancing, not sex. "We don't think of it that way," says Ferrin Bavousett, 17. "When we dance, we don't mean, 'Hey, after the dance you want to go to La Quinta?'" referring to a nearby motor hotel.

Yeah, it's hard to object to this and not sound like a prudish parent. But, come on -- these kids are dancing together like strippers giving a lap dance! Can't we find a little common ground here?

|

Interesting article about the disinterest of email for the younger generation:

Those of us older than 25 can't imagine a life without e-mail. For the Facebook generation, it's hard to imagine a life of only e-mail, much less a life before it. I can still remember the proud moment in 1996 when I sent my first e-mail from the college computer lab. It felt like sending a postcard from the future. I was getting a glimpse of how the Internet would change everything—nothing could be faster and easier than e-mail. Ten years later, e-mail is looking obsolete.

According to a 2005 Pew study, almost half of Web-using teenagers prefer to chat with friends via instant messaging rather than e-mail. Last year, comScore reported that teen e-mail use was down 8 percent, compared with a 6 percent increase in e-mailing for users of all ages. As mobile phones and sites like Twitter and Facebook have become more popular, those old Yahoo! and Hotmail accounts increasingly lie dormant.

A couple of months ago, I had to tell a student that I really didn't check my MySpace page that often and was unaware that she'd been posting stuff to it. I then (politely) told her that the best way to contact me was via email -- since I really didn't need yet another place to go to look for messages (I've already got three email accounts.) Guess I shouldn't have a MySpace page if it's only for show.

I've also got a friend who seems to really like text messaging me on my cell phone. He'd love to have long conversations via text message, but lately I just ignore the text and send an email in reply. I'm so old school.

|

When you're ready to throw in the towel.

|

From Craigslist, some advice from a public defender:

When you come to court, consider your dress. If you’re charged with a DUI, don’t wear a Budweiser shirt. If you have some miscellaneous drug charge, think twice about clothing with a marijuana leaf on it or a t-shirt with the “UniBonger” on it. Long sleeves are very nice for covering tattoos and track marks. Try not to be visibly drunk when you show up.

Consider bathing and brushing your teeth. This is just as a courtesy to me who has to stand by you in court. Smoking 5 generic cigarettes to cover up your bad breath is not the same as brushing. Try not to cough and spit on my while you speak and further transmit your strep, flu, and hepatitis A through Z.

I’m a lawyer, not your fairy godmother. I probably won’t find a loophole or technicality for you, so don’t be pissed off. I didn’t beat up your girlfriend, steal that car, rob that liquor store, sell that crystal meth, or rape that 13 year old. By the time we meet, much of your fate has been sealed, so don’t be too surprised by your limited options and that I’m the one telling you about them.

(Hattip: Instapundit.)

|

So CNN chose to close the debate with a ridiculously inane question to Hillary -- "pearls or diamonds?":

Specifically, a CNN spokesperson confirmed to me that the network chose that question and asked her to ask it.

But in the network's defense the spokesperson also says that the girl wasn't "forced" to ask it. She submitted the question in advance -- it was her question -- and voluntarily agreed to ask it. CNN selected the question and asked her towards the close of the debate if she wanted to ask it. She said yes.

As you may have heard by now, the girl said on her MySpace page that she was forced to ask this question and that she would have preferred to ask one about Yucca Mountain. She said this in response to the storm of criticism and ridicule the question has since received.

And it looks like the girl is right: Though she did submit the question, CNN did select it and ask her to pose it.

Hillary's rivals are accusing CNN of going soft on the frontrunner, and they're pointing to this question, among other things, as proof of this.

Seems like this is a bit overblown -- but I don't understand why the producers chose to waste time with that question in the first place.

To point out how incredible it is that MySpace led to this story would be trite, I guess. You know, media convergence and the self-publishing revolution and all that. (But, it is pretty incredible.)

|

Very good overview of the French public service strikes from the Economist.

|

A correction from the Associated Press:

In a Nov. 13 story, The Associated Press incorrectly reported that Paris Hilton was praised by conservationists for highlighting the problem of binge-drinking elephants in northeastern India. Lori Berk, a publicist for Hilton, said she never made any comments about helping drunken elephants in India.

Draw your own conclusions.

|

Great column from a high school teacher in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Dana Goldman takes aim at the "prosperity church" movement -- where preachers effectively tell their constituents that God wants them to be rich. Her column starts with a quote from The Rev. Creflo Dollar, the leader of Atlanta's World Changers church: "Without a doubt, my life is not average. But I'd like to say, just because it is excessive doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong."

Goldman points out:

Eating too much and having a nice car are neither secular sins nor spiritual crimes. But what if people around us have nothing to eat and no mobility beyond their two legs? A 2006 census of the homeless in Atlanta showed almost 5,400 people with no place to lay their heads (a situation the Gospel of Luke tells us Jesus struggled with) — and that's just within the city limits.

Even if Jesus was speaking metaphorically about his own homelessness, as Dollar has said, we still look to his teachings — and those of Muhammad, Moses, Martin Luther King Jr., the Dalai Lama and countless other religious leaders — for a guide to a moral life. As we begin to learn before kindergarten, morality isn't just about avoiding 'wrongs' like stealing or lying, but choosing what's most right in complex situations. Do I help a friend in need even if she got herself into this mess? Do I speak out if my boss says something racist, thinking I won't mind since I'm white? Do I choose self-proclaimed excess even when many around me have little or nothing at all?

Religion isn't necessary for ethical behavior, but it sure does help. When we look to biblical and living elders for advice on how to fill our lives with meaning, community and joy, very rarely do their answers involve big houses or big bank accounts. And while Dollar suggests that his wealth shows good standing with God, that insults those who have intentionally chosen middle-income helping professions — like nurses, social workers and teachers — because of their relationships with God.

Well said.

I fear that many in our culture have supplanted traditional spiritual pursuits -- helping others, practicing kindness, being selfless -- with the pursuit of money and wealth. And now they have churches that reinforce this view. That's too bad.

|

Sorry for the poor quality of the photo, but I found this to be an interesting scene.

The women by the bus are sending off the Georgia Perimeter College soccer team as they head to the national finals in Texas. These two female students got a little rowdy and are -- let's say, "performing" -- for the male team members. In the foreground sits a muslim student dressed in a full burka -- with nothing but her eyes showing. I wonder what she thought of this show?

In the background, of course, is the American flag. As Yakov Smirnoff would say, "What a country!"

|

Donda West, performing artist Kanye West's mother, has died during plastic surgery. That she died while undergoing a "tummy tuck" should prompt us all to think about our culture -- where some value their appearance more than their life.

|

Good Norman Mailer appreciation column from Arianna Huffington. But, the most revealing quote is from the first comment on the post.

|

Nice touch, Google. Thanks Veterans.

|

My alma mater East Carolina just lost a football game to 1-8 Marshall. The loss means the Pirates won't likely play for the C-USA championship this year. Read more about my disappointment at my Pirate blog.

|

Good stuff. And here are more quotes from "The Meaning of Life."

|

Here are pictures of President Bush's recent visit to wounded war veterans at a rehab center in San Antonio. The pictures are hosted on the Huffington Post, so you can post comments.

Read a few of the comments. Very insightful.

|

Interesting report on the fake journalism that emerges from Palestinian news reports -- and the Western complicity in airing their footage:

Which brings us to a problem more complex than the fairly straightforward observation that Palestinian journalists play by a different set of rules in which this kind of manipulation of the “truth” is entirely legitimate. What do Western journalists do with these products of propaganda? Do they know these are fakes or are they fooled? Do they tell the cameramen working for them and using their equipment that filming such staged scenes is unethical and unacceptable? And if they do, why do cameramen who have worked for them for years – Talal worked for Enderlin for over a decade when he took these rushes – continue to film these scenes. And how often do our journalists run this staged footage as real news?

Here the evidence provided by the Al Dura affair suggests that, in some sense, journalists are “in” on the public secret. When representatives of France2 were confronted with the pervasive evidence of staging in Talal’s footage, they both responded the same way. “Oh, they always do that, it’s a cultural thing,” said Enderlin to me in Jerusalem. “Yes Monsieur, but, you know, it’s always like that,” said Didier Eppelbaum to Denis Jeambar, Daniel Leconte, and Luc Rosenzweig in Paris.

|

It's the Chattahochee River just North of Atlanta early this morning -- and yes, it does still have water in it.

|

Interesting read on rethinking the newspaper at the San Jose Mercury News. While I'm at it, I've been meaning to link to this American Journalism Review piece on the changes already underway at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Good inside baseball stuff, if you're interested.

|

The writers and actors from "The Office" explain their motives behind the Hollywood strike via YouTube. Rather compelling points.

|

From the Journal of Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, an article entitled "Mood management during the menstrual cycle through selective exposure to television":

Examines how women's menstrual cycle affects their preference for various genres of television programs along with ratings of their affective dispositions. Variations in women's preferences for comedy and suspense drama television programs; Evidence of mood-management through selective exposure to mass media entertainment.

And you thought this subject wasn't properly researched.

|

Great interview with Bono in Rolling Stone. He's the odd celebrity who actually has a well-thought-out opinion on most issues. After disagreeing with most of the post-9/11 response from the Bush Administration, he had this to say:

I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't.

I think people as reasoned as Tony Blair looked at the world and didn't want to be Neville Chamberlain, who came back from meeting with Hitler with a piece of paper saying "peace in our time," while Hitler was planning to cross the channel from France.

Don't hear many celebrities being that clear. Keep reading the interview. He brings an interesting perspective to the problems in Iraq because of the Ireland occupation.

Hattips: Instapundit and Tim Blair.

|

Harvard University's Center on the Press, Politics and Public Police has released a 51-page report (PDF) on coverage of the upcoming election. This finding is hardly remarkable:

Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.

The authors of the study, the Project for Excellence in Journalism, offered several explanations (besides liberal bias) for the discrepancy. Nonetheless, an interesting finding.

Perhaps more interesting is this bit on CNN vs. Fox News:

The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates—by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain fairing the worst (63% negative) and Romney fairing a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral.

It’s not that Democrats, other than Obama, fared well on CNN either. Nearly half of the Illinois Senator’s stories were positive (46%), vs. just 8% that were negative. But both Clinton and Edwards ended up with more negative than positive coverage overall.

So while coverage for Democrats overall was a bit more positive than negative, that was almost all due to extremely favorable coverage for Obama.

... The programming studied on Fox News offered a somewhat more positive picture of Republicans and more negative one of Democrats compared with other media outlets. Fox News stories about a Republican candidate were most likely to be neutral (47%), with the remainder more positive than negative (32% vs. 21% negative). The bulk of that positive coverage went to Giuliani (44% positive), while McCain still suffered from unflattering coverage (20% positive vs. 35% negative).

When it came to Democratic candidates, the picture was more negative. Again, neutral stories had a slight edge (39%), followed by 37% negative and 24% positive. And, in marked contrast from the rest of the media, coverage of Obama was twice as
negative as positive: 32% negative vs. 16% positive and 52% neutral.

But any sense here that the news channel was uniformly positive about Republicans or negative about Democrats is not manifest in the data.

Compared to CNN's coverage, Fox News looks rather, well, "Fair and Balanced."

We've created a frame where Fox News is dismissed as overtly partisan, when in reality several objective studies have found that it is relatively objective. Perhaps it just appears rabidly right-wing when compared to its cable news brethren.

Apart from the disparity in coverage, some other interesting findings:

In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found.

The press’ focus on fundraising, tactics and polling is even more evident if one looks at how stories were framed rather than the topic of the story. Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election, while nearly nine-out-of-ten stories (86%) focused on matters that largely impacted only the parties and the candidates. Those numbers, incidentally, match almost exactly the campaign-centric orientation of coverage found on the eve of the primaries eight years ago.

All of these findings seem to be at sharp variance with what the public says it wants from campaign reporting. A new poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted for this report finds that about eight-in ten of Americans say they want more coverage of the candidates’ stances on issues, and majorities want more on the record and personal background, and backing of the candidates, more about lesser-known candidates and more about debates.

Yes, the press is in a rut in its coverage of candidates. I think that's the problem with having the same reporter cover the same candidate for 18 months. They get burned out and start looking for new angles to cover. What we end up getting is extremely detailed reporting where every small move is detailed and explored for meaning. They miss the forest while staring at the tree bark.

|

This is cool. A collection of families from around the world with their food for one week. Man, that Mexican family drinks a lot of Coke!

|

Click here for serious laughter. Seriously, you'll be guffawing in about 2 minutes. It's funny to laugh at 1977 fashion.

|