Quotulatiousness

June 28, 2010

Monty’s salute to President Obama at the G20 talks

Filed under: Economics, Government, Humour, USA — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:08

Monty, in his daily “Financial Briefing” post, has his own G20 protest:

The meeting of the G-20 is the big news, but “big news” in this case means no news, really. The whole point of the conference appears to provide world leaders with an opportunity to frown and look concerned. What other purpose it serves I don’t know. The peaceful hippies seem to be enjoying themselves, though. Toronto cops arrested about 500 yammering idiots, but failed to heed Mayor Daley’s advice to lump them up a little bit before letting them go. (That would be Richard J. Daley, who viewed beating up hippies as vigorous and healthy outdoor exercise, not his pissant kid Richard M. Daley.)

But hey, on the bright side: everyone agreed to “cut debt”! Yay! It’s just that easy, apparently! Monty, a financial-industry gadfly and obscure vulgarian from some trailer park in Jesusland, heckled the gathered august personages by shouting “You incompetent, moronic, cheating, lying, prevaricating, thieving, low-down, whiffle-headed, asshole spendthrift fucksticks!”. He was forcibly removed by security. When reached later for comment from his jail-cell, Monty said that his remarks “[W]ere delivered in the heat of the moment, but do accurately reflect my beliefs.” He also invited President Barack Obama to come to his cell and kiss his ass. President Obama could not be reached for comment.

The arrest count reportedly went over 900, but the most frequent allegations of police brutality were from some of the media people who were arrested. Jesse Rosenfeld, a Guardian reporter, was observed being punched by police while they were handcuffing him. The National Post had two of their photographers arrested, while all the newspapers seemed to have encountered police discouragement to them filming or photographing events after the violence broke out.

The Toronto Star notes that search warrants are for pussies, not real police officers:

John Booth said the officers, who entered through an unlocked door, sidestepped repeated requests to show him a warrant. He said they alternately promised to produce it later, claimed to have showed it to someone else, or simply said no.

“At first I actually said, ‘This isn’t a joke, right?’ Because I honestly couldn’t even understand where this was coming from,” he said. “They understood, as the interaction went on, that it was looking less and less likely that I had anything to do with what they were talking about. They were inadvertently discovering — ‘Oh, okay, thanks for telling us that there’s two apartments,’ like that was so enlightening. Yeah, well, you should’ve known that before you came into my house.”

The Booths say they will not sue. But they have filed a complaint to the province’s police review office in an attempt to hold the planners of the raid accountable; John Booth said he does not blame the junior officers who conducted it.

June 26, 2010

The ungentlemanly art of reporting

Filed under: Media, Military — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:39

Paul Wells looks at the methods employed by now-famous reporter-to-the-generals Michael Hastings:

Hastings is blunt about the fun a reporter on short-term assignment can have when he doesn’t have to worry about the repercussions of what he writes. “My job was basically: Ride the buses and planes with the candidates, have big lunches and dinners on the expense account, get sources drunk and singing, then report back the behind-the-scenes story.”

Then there is this paragraph. The sentence with the bad word is the most interesting to me as it will be to you, but the whole paragraph, with its tensions and contradictions, is worth considering:

   The dance with staffers is a perilous one. You’re probably not going to get much, if any, one-on-one time with the candidate, which means your sources of information are the people who work for him. So you pretend to be friendly and nonthreatening, and over time you “build trust,” which everybody involved knows is an illusion. If the time comes, if your editor calls for it, you’re supposed to fuck them over; and they’ll throw you under a bus without much thought, too. (I should say that personal friendships can actually develop, despite the odds.) For the top campaign officials and operatives, seduction and punishment of reporters is an art. Write this fluff piece now; we’ll give you something good later. No, don’t write it this way, write it that way. We’ll give you something good later.

This deserves to stand as one of the great bits of journalistic self-flagellation and revelation, only a notch below Janet Malcolm’s famous confession that “Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible.”

H/T to Taylor Empire Airways for the link.

Was the “fake lake” outrage itself fake?

Filed under: Cancon, Media — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:17

Andrew Coyne says we’ve all been faked out of our boots over the “fake lake” issue:

It’s not an “indoor lake,” as the first story I read suggested. It is a reflector pool, about the size of a backyard swimming pool, only no more than two inches deep. There can’t be more than 10 gallons of water in it, tops. It is bordered by a small wooden platform simulating a dock, with Muskoka chairs casually strewn about. There’s a bank of canoes on either side, and a large screen showing some quite breathtaking high-def footage of Canadian lakeland scenes. And that’s it.

It’s not extravagant in the slightest. Modest would be closer to the mark. The government puts the cost at about $57,000, which sounds about right: about what it would cost to finish your basement. Or to be precise, it represents just over two 100,000ths of one per cent of federal spending. All in all it’s rather a pleasant spot, a small oasis of calm and comfort away from the conference churn, and shows every sign of being a hit with the foreign press.

So either we all got hoodwinked over the vast cost and outright fakery, or they’ve brainwashed Andew Coyne!

June 23, 2010

Bunch of “radical extremists”

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Media, Technology — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:09

Protest groups at the G20? No, the Heritage Minister’s sweeping characterization of the people and organizations opposed to the new copyright bill:

So when Moore warns about radical extremists opposing C-32, who is he speaking of? Who has criticized parts of the bill or called for reforms? A short list of those critical of the digital lock provisions in C-32 would include:

* Liberal MPs
* NDP MPs
* Bloc MPs
* Green Party
* Canadian Consumer Initiative
* Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada
* Canadian Association of University Teachers
* Canadian Federation of Students
* Canadian Library Association
* Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright
* Retail Council of Canada
* Canadian Bookseller Association
* Documentary Organization of Canada

While there are bound to be a few individual “radical extremists” in any organization, these particular groups aren’t known for their bomb-throwing agitator ways.

June 19, 2010

Penn still waiting for that call from Hitler’s booking agent

Filed under: Humour, Liberty, Media, Religion — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:57

An amusing interview in Vanity Fair points out that Penn Jillette would even go on Hitler’s talk show:

Is that why you don’t have a problem going on Glenn Beck’s show, because he doesn’t pretend to be objective?

Well, it’s complicated. Tommy Smothers, who’s one of my heroes, got really angry at me about it. We actually had this argument in public, on another show that’s going to be on Showtime this summer called The Green Room With Paul Provenza. Tommy attacked me for being on Glenn Beck, and he ended up saying, and I don’t think this part made it on the air, “If Hitler had a talk show, you’d probably do that too.”

And your retort?

I said yes, I would, and I would tell the truth.

Wow. O.K. then.

I’m not kidding.

Just don’t mention the part about telling the truth to Hitler’s talent bookers, and I’m pretty sure you’ll get a guest slot.

Oh, I won’t say a word. But you know what I mean, right? It does have an effect. I go on Glenn Beck as an atheist and talk about atheism. And I have people come up to me and say, “You know, until I saw you on Glenn Beck, speaking so passionately about atheism, I’d never considered that as a moral decision.” That’s incredibly powerful. These are people watching a hardcore Christian show and being exposed to an atheist point of view.

Your intentions seem genuine, but I can’t help myself, Penn. Every time I hear you’ve been on Glenn Beck, it makes me a little sick.

It makes me sick too! When people come up to me and say they love the show, I feel sick. Because I do disagree with a lot of what he says. But I also feel a little sick whenever people say they saw me on Keith Olbermann.

And yet you continue to do it. You know, there’s an easy way to stop making yourself sick.

But I think it’s important. I may be the only person who goes on Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck and says the exact same shit. I am so much more socially liberal than Olbermann will ever be. You can’t believe how pro gay and pro freedom of speech I am. I’m way out beyond anyone on the Left. And as for fiscal conservatism and small government, I’m so much further to the right than Glenn Beck. Nobody is further left and further right than me. As I’m fond of saying, if you want to find utopia, take a sharp right on money and a sharp left on sex and it’s straight ahead.

And I love Penn’s suggestion for the Obama re-election campaign in 2012 at the end of the article.

June 10, 2010

“If I had a MBillion dollars”

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Government, Humour, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:13

June 8, 2010

QotD: Remaking Gulliver’s Travels

Filed under: Humour, Media, Quotations — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 11:56

The reimagined Gulliver’s Travels is probably going to be bad. But at least we’re in for an entertaining time when Swift inevitably rises from the grave to seek revenge on everyone involved.

“Gulliver”, “Jack Black meets Jonathan Swift?”, The Economist, 2010-06-05

Consumer debt doesn’t follow the script

Filed under: Economics, Media, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 07:49

Or, in a demonstration of individual rationality, doesn’t follow the script where consumers sacrifice themselves and go even deeper in debt to spark further economic recovery:

While some pundits out there might have you believe that the US economic recovery remains solidly on track, Friday’s May jobs report threw a spanner into those notions, and the latest reading on consumer credit offers little evidence that the crucial consumer intends to share with Uncle Sam the burden of bolstering the economy.

The Federal Reserve’s report on April consumer credit today shows total credit outstanding rose a little less than $1 billion, following a revised $5.4 billion drop in March; March credit was originally reported up $2 billion.

Within the details, the item that jumps out most is the decrease in revolving credit, which fell at a 12% annual rate and declined for the 19th straight month. Revolving credit outstanding has fallen 14%, or roughly $138 billion, since autumn of 2008. Non-revolving is roughly flat since late ‘08.

It would help if the pundits would settle on one of the two diametrically opposed roles that consumers are “supposed to” assume. At an individual level, consumers are being lashed for their profligate spending and borrowing habits, and excoriated for their unprecedented levels of personal debt. This is bad, the pundits say (and I don’t disagree): individuals and families should not be taking on so much debt and efforts to reduce outstanding debt are praised. However, consumers as a group are expected to spend, spend, spend in order to help pull the retail sector back into healthy growth.

So if they do the right thing as individuals, they’re doing the wrong thing for the economy as a whole? Perhaps the emphasis on consumer-led recovery is mistaken, especially given the levels of debt that consumers have already taken on.

May 17, 2010

He comes not to praise Canadian universities, but to bury them

Filed under: Cancon, Education, Law — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 18:37

The Guardian summarizes an article by Robert Martin:

A mighty steam organ of an article, adorned with the title University Legal Education in Canada is Corrupt Beyond Repair, blasts forth in the October 2009 issue of the scholarly journal Interchange. It’s the handiwork of Robert Martin, professor of law, emeritus, at the University of Western Ontario.

Martin warms up with a little tune about university students: “Each fall, a horde of illiterate, ignorant cretins enters Canada’s universities. A few years later, they all move on, just as illiterate, just as ignorant and rather more cretinous, but now armed with bits of paper, which most of them are probably not able to read, called degrees.”

Then, in deeper tones, Martin sounds off about universities: “Canadian universities are closed and fearful institutions, which actively enforce uniformity on their members.”

[. . .]

Martin brings everything to a rousing conclusion that, one way or another, pretty much explains everything:

“There are two phrases that can be used to describe every law faculty in Canada. The phrases are: ‘feminist seminary’ and ‘psychotic kindergarten’.”

I guess it’s safer to say things like this after your active teaching career is behind you . . .

May 9, 2010

“Canada sucks” says Heather Mallick

Filed under: Britain, Cancon, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 11:18

Seeking to aid the poor folks in Britain currently struggling under the unaccustomed weight of a “hung parliament”, Heather Mallick advises them to avoid having anything to do with Canadian precedent:

Right now, Canada sucks, and all because we have a hung Parliament and no one’s done anything about it for years. We are ruled by Stephen Harper, a hard-right hick with a grudge who after serial elections cannot get a clear mandate from the voters.

When you have a hung Parliament, you try to form coalitions. We have formed none. We remain hanging, like a dry-aged haunch of venison out back of the garage. Our MPs hurl figurative faeces at each other in the House of Commons and then go to monkey sleep under their minute Parliamentary desks, dreaming of democracy.

Apparently, I was having delusions when the Liberals and NDP tried to team up with the support of the Bloc . . . didn’t happen. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. I stand corrected.

Excellent campaigning. If only our hateful pseudo-human prime minister would meet a nice granny in Kamloops and hurt her feelings. Actually, Harper would knee her in the groin and block her hip replacement, he’s that personal in his hates.

Canada has a Conservative minority government right now that does have a core belief. It’s that Canadians deserve a good stomping, all of them. Conservatives can’t stand people, particularly if they’re female, or second-generation Canadian, or educated, or principled, or not from Alberta, which is the home of the hard-right belly-bulging middle-aged Tory male. Watch them at the G8, ostensibly fighting for women’s health internationally while blocking abortions for raped Congolese.

Harper cannot get a real majority. If the centre-right Liberals and the centre-left New Democrats would form a coalition, Harper would be toast and we’d get started on what we need: national day care, TGV trains, an economic strategy, a green strategy, oh a strategy for anything, a plan is all we seek.

Some lovely drive-by characterizations there. Of course, most Brits know little about Canada (and many of them know things that aren’t true), so this little diatribe isn’t likely to cause anyone to change their mind on any issue of substance. And just as well . . .

May 5, 2010

Facebook obliterates the entire notion of “privacy settings”

Filed under: Technology — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:03

As someone noted the other day, when it comes to Facebook and their constant twiddling with privacy settings, you can just copy-and-paste the last outraged story you did and change the date. That being said, the latest Facebook changes are pretty bad:

“Connections.” It’s an innocent-sounding word. But it’s at the heart of some of the worst of Facebook’s recent changes.

Facebook first announced Connections a few weeks ago, and EFF quickly wrote at length about the problems they created. Basically, Facebook has transformed substantial personal information — including your hometown, education, work history, interests, and activities — into “Connections.” This allows far more people than ever before to see this information, regardless of whether you want them to.

Since then, our email inbox has been flooded with confused questions and reports about these changes. We’ve learned lots more about everyone’s concerns and experiences. Drawing from this, here are six things you need to know about Connections:

  1. Facebook will not let you share any of this information without using Connections. [. . .]
  2. Facebook will not respect your old privacy settings in this transition. [. . .]
  3. Facebook has removed your ability to restrict its use of this information. [. . .]
  4. Facebook will continue to store and use your Connections even after you delete them. [. . .]
  5. Facebook sometimes creates a Connection when you “Like” something. [. . .]
  6. Facebook sometimes creates a Connection when you post to your wall. [. . .]

Overall, you’d have to assume that nobody in the Facebook architecture group has ever needed or even wanted to keep certain information private. Every change they make seems to make it harder and harder to restrict where your personal information will be accessible, and it’s not as though there haven’t been complaints: Facebook just carries on as if nobody cared.

I’ve still got a Facebook account, although I find I’m using it less and less (ironically, many of you reading this will have come here because of a link from Facebook . . .). Lack of ability to fine-tune the privacy settings is certainly one of the reasons I don’t use Facebook as much as I once did.

May 4, 2010

Introducing the Greaves Underdog Strategy

Filed under: Britain, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 07:04

Occasional commenter Chris Greaves sent me this link, saying

Read down towards the bottom:

“Duffy told the Mail she wasn’t impressed. “Sorry is a very easy word, isn’t it,” she was quoted as saying, adding that she would not be casting her vote for Brown — or anyone else — in the election.”

Herein lie the seeds for the Greaves Underdog Strategy:

* If you are the underdog, insult as many bigoted voters as you can reach; it inoculates them against voting, thereby reducing the overdog’s lead.

Gordon Brown is right on track . . .

May 3, 2010

“Remember when reporters had guts?”

Filed under: Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 13:16

Frequent commenter “Lickmuffin” sent this interesting link, suggesting:

This is sort of related to your “White House threatens to yank the ovaries out of those who would criticize The One” post [. . .] same tactics, really. And considering how reporters have become such wusses — perhaps they’ve all been hit with the German girlification spray — I believe it is accurate to say that all of them, especially the “males”, fear for their ovaries.

The White House post is here and the “girlification” post is here, in case you didn’t see them before.

Michael Malone is wondering where all the real reporters went, and remembers what it was like when he started in the field:

Remember when reporters had guts?

In the late Seventies, when I was just out of college, and even before I began my career as a journalist, I worked in public relations at Hewlett-Packard Co.

[. . .]

Simon broke insider stories, published internal strategy memos and pre-introduced secret projects, all with seeming abandon . . . leaving corporate PR departments, like us at HP, scrambling to do damage control and plug the leaks.

As the kid in HP corporate PR department, I both feared Simon for the damage he could do with his breaking stories — my turf was a hugely successful calculator business — and was in awe of his reporting skills. I also wasn’t allowed to talk much with him when he came into our offices for fear I would slip up and accidentally give my counterpart another news hook.It wasn’t until years later, when I was a reporter myself (and talked with Mark) that I came to realize that all Simon was doing was just good hard reporting.

So, what does this trip down memory lane have to do with modern reporters?

This week, Chen’s house was raided by officers from California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT), a special task force of police officers and federal agents created to combat computer-related crimes — and which just happens to have Apple on its steering committee. The cops took all of Chen’s computer equipment. Meanwhile, the San Mateo County District Attorney is considering whether to bring charges against Chen. It all hinges around whether California’s journalist shield law covers bloggers. Well, speaking as someone who was an investigative reporter for one of the nation’s top ten newspapers: of course it does.

This is appalling. As Instapundit uber-blogger Glenn Reynolds has rightly noted, this is basically “gangland politics” with one side getting to use to the police as its muscle. He’s also correct in noting that neither the police nor Apple would never have tried this against, say, the San Jose Mercury-News (I know because I worked there).

I’m still not clear if Apple played the role of Mafia don and ordered up a hit on Chen (to be performed by their soldiers in the REACT mob), or if someone with authority over REACT used them to attempt to curry favour with “Don” Jobs. Either way, it’s a very disturbing development.

Either way, it will function to continue and even accellerate the subservience of the media to (certain) corporate and political interests, which is not good for the public, the media, or even the temporarily favoured entities.

May 1, 2010

Press corps afraid to criticize White House for fear of “retaliation”

Filed under: Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 08:10

Ah, the brave and intrepid journalists in the White House beat — are afraid to actually criticize the President for fear of losing access:

Just think about that for a minute. National political reporters are furious over various White House practices involving transparency and information control, but are unwilling to say so for attribution due to fear of “retaliation,” instead insisting on hiding behind a wall of anonymity (which Politico, needless to say, happily provides). Isn’t that a rather serious problem: that the White House press corps is afraid to criticize the President and the White House for fear of losing access and suffering other forms of retribution? What does that say about their “journalism”? It’s the flip side of those White House reporters who need the good graces of Obama aides for their behind-the-scenes books and thus desperately do their bidding: what kind of reporter covering the White House would possibly admit that they’re afraid to say anything with their names attached that might anger the President and his aides? How could you possibly be a minimally credible White House reporter if you have that fear? Doesn’t that unwillingness rather obviously render their reporting worthless?

April 21, 2010

Is the Tea Party movement racist?

Filed under: Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 07:44

An interesting article at the Wall Street Journal on how a charge of “racism” works, even when there’s no actual racist action involved:

Blogger Conor Friedsdorf notes that there is a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose quality to the Blow approach [. . .]

Or, for that matter, to any nonpolitical institution that aspires to become more inclusive. Imagine Kelly O’Donnell questioning a black man in a largely white company or university or country club or suburb the way she interrogated Darryl Postell. She would come off as clueless and prejudiced — as, come to think of it, she does. (Kudos to NBC for airing this revealing though embarrassing footage.)

The political left claims to love racial diversity, but it bitterly opposes such diversity on the political right. This is an obvious matter of political self-interest: Since 1964, blacks have voted overwhelmingly Democratic. If Republicans were able to attract black votes, the result would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party.

[. . .]

These charges of racism are partly based on circular reasoning. Among Blow’s evidence that the tea-party movement is racist is “a New York Times/CBS News poll released on Wednesday [that] found that only 1 percent of Tea Party supporters are black and only 1 percent are Hispanic.” Other polls have put the black proportion as high as 5% (and, as Tom Maguire notes, Blow misreports his own paper’s Hispanic figure, which is actually 3%). But with blacks constituting some 12% of the population, there’s no question that the tea-party movement is whiter than the nation as a whole.

Yet to posit racism as an explanation is to ignore far more obvious and less invidious causes for the disparity.

H/T to LibertyIdeals for the link.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress