Posted by Gary Farber at 03:19 PM in Culture and Stuff, Food and Drink, Travel, Versifying, Why Are They Saying Those Things? | Permalink | Comments (32) | TrackBack (0)
by Gary Farber
My name is Gary Farber. You killed my father. Some of you are familiar with me, and some are not.
Who the hell am I?
I'm the FNG as an Obsidian Wings front-page blogger.
But!
My first appearance at Obsidian Wings was via a post by Katherine R. on December 16th, 2003, when she linked to a post of mine, and named it Post Of The Week. This attracted my attention to Obsidian Wings, with its first set of bloggers, Moe Lane, Katherine R, and Von.
Set the Wayback Machine, Sherman!
Posted by Gary Farber at 10:55 PM in Books, Nothing Else Fit, Weblogs, Why Are They Saying Those Things? | Permalink | Comments (45) | TrackBack (0)
By Lindsay Beyerstein
Osama bin Laden is speaking out against climate change:
"The effects of global warming have touched every continent. Drought and deserts are spreading, while from the other floods and hurricanes unseen before the previous decades have now become frequent," bin Laden said in the audiotape, aired on the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera.
The terror leader noted Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and painted the United States as in the thrall of major corporations that he said "are the true criminals against the global climate" and are to blame for the global economic crisis, driving "tens of millions into poverty and unemployment."
What a devilishly clever plan to destroy the world.
Bin Laden surely knows that if he rails against climate change, Americans will reflexively champion global warming. Temperatures will soar, decadent Western civilizations will bake and crumble and their parched ruins will be swept away by rising seas. The earth will be scourged by famine, pestilence, war, and plagues too numerous to name. At last, Bin Laden will seize his chance to usher in the medieval Caliphate of his dreams.
Don't let the bearded villain get away with it. Call your member of congress today and demand action on climate change.
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein at 04:59 PM in Humor, What Would Brian Boitano Do?, Why Are They Saying Those Things? | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)
By Lindsay Beyerstein
Michael Kinsley will never live down his latest column, a rant against fact checking:
"Fact checking" is a tradition of some publications, mainly magazines, in which one set of employees, called fact checkers, is called upon to reconfirm every fact in an article by another set of employees, called writers, generally by finding these facts in newspapers, which don't have fact checkers. During a blameless journalistic career, in which I have sometimes had occasion to mock this practice, I have always resisted criticism from colleagues that my real problem is with the facts themselves. But I'm beginning to think they may be right. Who can take facts seriously after reading the daily "Corrections" column in the New York Times? Although the purpose of this column is to demonstrate the Times's rectitude about taking facts seriously, the facts it corrects are generally so bizarre or trivial and its tone so schoolmarmish that the effect is to make the whole pursuit of factual accuracy seem ridiculous. [WaPo]
Kinsley proceeds to list several minor errors that recently triggered Times corrections. These include misidentifying the brother of the president of Ecuador, Patricio Fabricio Correa, as "Fabricio Patricio Correa," and referring to the long-distance phone service Voxox as "Vovox."
Of all the bizarre things to complain about... The problem isn't stupid corrections, it's the stupid mistakes that need correcting. Better fact checking could have prevented those errors. (Maybe a fact checker would have caught my error, above.)
Kinsley continues:
The fad for elaborate and abject corrections, and factual accuracy in general, is based on the misperception that when people complain about the media getting it all wrong, what bothers them is that the newspaper identified the mountain inside Denali National Park as Mount Denali (as it is "referred to by many," the Times defensively put it the other day) and not by its official name of Mount McKinley, which "has not been officially changed." [emphasis added]
I'm speechless. Does Kinsley really think that concern for factual accuracy is a fad? Does he realize that he's handed his critics a stick to beat him, and anyone who cites his work?
The Times is scrupulous about these details because it aspires to be the newspaper of record. The paper doesn't always live up to its own high standards, but at least it has a policy of publicly correcting itself when it falls short.
Rigorous fact checking is a way that a wealthy institution like the Times distinguishes its product in a competitive media market. Few smaller outlets can afford multiple layers of quality control. No matter how carefully a writer checks her own work, it's no substitute for the scrutiny of a trained professional editor. Because, by definition, you don't see the mistakes you don't see. The Times' attention to detail is a true public service because those of us who lack copy editors can check names and dates against the Times with relative confidence.
Narrow factual accuracy isn't sufficient for high quality journalism, but it's still necessary.
[via Mother Jones]
Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein at 04:27 PM in Nothing Else Fit, Why Are They Saying Those Things? | Permalink | Comments (63) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: fact check, Michael Kinsley, New York Times
by von
As much as I support Jim Jon Henke's attempt to convince the RNC to distance itself from the lunatics at WorldNetDaily -- also supported by Megan McArdle -- it isn't likely to work that way. Unless and until WND does something epically idiotic, the RNC will only keep its distance. It won't disown. That's because a good portion of WND readers are Republican voters and a party can't afford to insult its supporters -- no matter how insane they may be. [UPDATE: AARRGHHHH. It's Jon Henke, not Jim Henke. If it's any consolation, Jon, I've also called Publius by the wrong (first) name .... and he's my coblogger.]
I realize that's a tough pill to swallow, but a party accepting a degree of insanity in its supporters is sometimes rational. Insanity is an issue-by-issue occurrence for most people.* A birther may have quite reasonable views about, say, tax issues or the environment, even if they can't see (or think) straight about President Obama's birthplace. It's not necessarily all crazy all the time.
We saw this during the Bush years, when Democrats were down on their luck. (Not quite a far down on their luck as Republicans are today, but pretty far down.) For example, McArdle relates an exchange that she had with a liberal correspondent who seemed pretty reasonable .... until he/she revealed his/her fear that President Bush might become "El Presidente" via some (undescribed) coup. Similarly, in one poll, nearly half of Democrats thought it very likely (22.6%) or somewhat likely (28.2%) that "[p]eople in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the [sic] United States to go to war in the Middle East." These are all crazy beliefs, and yet the folks who held them probably didn't have equally crazy views about everything. They were probably well within the Democratic mainstream on most issues -- indeed, probably within the mainstream mainstream on most issue.
None of this is to excuse WND. It represents everything that I think is wrong with the modern Republican party. None of this is to excuse the birthers. They're wrong, and there is more than a whiff of racism emanating from too many of them.** But I do think that Henke's most recent challenge is unrealistic. Like the Democrats did with their crazies, the RNC will distance itself from its crazies -- but it won't disown them. (Yet.)
Still, I applaud Henke for keeping the pressure on. The next time WND says or does something nutty -- which probably won't be long -- he'll have more ammunition to get it out of the tent. And that would be a good thing for both Republicans and the country.
Posted by von at 05:18 PM in Why Are They Saying Those Things? | Permalink | Comments (304) | TrackBack (0)
by hilzoy
"I agree, in a perfect world - Glenn, in a perfect world, yes. And if you could also guarantee me, that this wouldn't become a show trial, and wouldn't be put, and created so that we had nightly debates about it, that is the ideal way to handle this."
Posted by hilzoy at 05:21 PM in Why Are They Saying Those Things? | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack (0)
by hilzoy
"It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal. (...)
Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised -- with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers."
Posted by hilzoy at 12:08 AM in Why Are They Saying Those Things? | Permalink | Comments (104) | TrackBack (0)
by hilzoy
If we go into Iraq, how many casualties do you expect to see (on the side of the US and our allies)
John Hawkins: "Probably 300 or less"
Charles Johnson:"Very few"
Henry Hanks: "Less than 200"
Laurence Simon: "A Few hundred"
Rachael Lucas: "Less than three thousand"
Scott Ott: "Dozens"
Glenn Reynolds: "Fewer than 100"
Tim Blair: "Below 50"
Ken Layne: "a few hundred"
Steven Den Beste: "50-150"
"John Hawkins: If and when do you see the United States hitting Iraq? How do you think it'll work out?
Tim Blair: It all depends on Iraq’s fearsome Elite Republican Guard. Why, those feisty desert warriors could hold out for minutes. Dozens of US troops will be required. Perhaps they’ll even need their weapons."
Posted by hilzoy at 09:36 PM in Why Are They Saying Those Things? | Permalink | Comments (101) | TrackBack (0)
by hilzoy
"You know, all three of us spend a lot of time covering politicians and I don’t know about you guys, but in my view, they’re all emotional freaks of one sort or another. They’re guaranteed to invade your personal space, touch you. I sat next to a Republican senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here."
Posted by hilzoy at 02:13 PM in Why Are They Saying Those Things? | Permalink | Comments (64) | TrackBack (0)
by hilzoy
"STAPLETON: OH, everything under the sun that you can possibly think of.
And what she has said and what she did say in her speech was, just alone, getting out there and working with candidates and for candidates to get the right people in office who have those same ideas and ideals, and energy independence and who will work for stronger national security and more support for..."
Posted by hilzoy at 02:33 AM in Why Are They Saying Those Things? | Permalink | Comments (111) | TrackBack (0)
by Gary Farber
The ObWi Bay Area Bloggers & Bullsh*t League of Earth = ObBABBLE's first meeting is proto-organized and is hereby announced. Name likely to change, as is everything else. Frequency to start will be monthly, but subject to further detail and change; possibilities of every other weekend subgroups may occur, or may not.
If you're free and interested in a get-together this weekend, in the Berkeley/Oakland area, probably near either the Rockbridge or Ashby BART stations, who prefers Friday nights, who prefers Saturday brunch/afternoon, who prefers Saturday evening, and who prefers Sunday brunch/afternoon?
My own preferences are, very mildly, earlier over later, but any work for me.
One respondent has replied Friday night, Saturday brunch/afternoon, Saturday night, Sunday brunch/afternoon. Various others, others; I'm not going to summarize all here and now.
Feel free to answer the same question about next weekend, generally, and in future.
Other comments and suggestions on the topic and related issues welcome.
If there were a regular gathering every month, any idea how often you might be interested?
(Obviously, that wil depend on how much fun or interest you find when you show up.)
If there were something every two weeks, would you ever show up?
There's no need to make any plans to lock in stone, and such are always inadvisable and don't work for long, in any case. I'm asking for feedback for future reference.
Location is currently being determined. Suggestions still welcome, but my own preference is as short a distance from the intersection of College Avenue and Alcatraz Avenues as possible; failing that, as close to either Rockbridge or Ashby BART station's as possible.
Failing that, we'll see.
Final announcement to be made by Tuesday evening, if not sooner; Wednesday 5 p.m. Pacific time, at the latest, if necessary.
One suggestion has been Lanesplitter Pizza Pub, 3645 San Pablo Avenue, Emeryville, CA. They've not yet been communicated with to find out what they think of the idea, so far as I know.
Does anyone have any feedback on this place as regard their preferences, or other suggestions either closer to College and Alcatraz, or preferences for someplace better, in your view, at an equal or greater distance?
Discuss below, rather than the most recent open thread, or prior.
I'm appointing myself coordinator. Jacob Davies and RAL are currently co-organizers. Check with me for further details.