Style Weapons

I didn’t hear the full debate – I caught bits and pieces over the radio via am border stations, by virtue of a very cold night and the extended wavelength it grants. Bits and pieces, because the reception was uneven, switching back and forth between stations (in my truck, then at home) as the signal waxed and waned.
Because I had no visuals to distract from the actual content, I didn’t conclude that Kerry had won the debate. I didn’t know it was a game, so I didn’t keep score. I was listening – not watching facial expressions, or counting the seconds of pause or wondering what was in the notes I didn’t know Kerry was writing. I was just listening to the words.
Little of what I heard surprised me. I’ve been following the candidates too closely over the past couple of months for that. I heard portions from both that I knew were scripted, framed with the expected “talking points”. It was all relatively predictable.
Except for this. I was in the truck, and I remember sitting up straight in my seat and looking at the radio in disbelief. I couldn’t believe what I had just heard. Hugh Hewitt can’t believe it either and he’s inviting further commentary. And like me, he’s not so sure that Kerry won this debate. No one is talking at all about the content of Bush’s remarks. It’s all about delivery. Kerry had “better style”. Smooth and polished. “On the offensive”.
Now that a couple of days have passed, the discussion is moving to the details of Kerry’s statements, the contradictions and factual errors – the things I noticed at the time because reception was sketchy and I was trying hard to listen. The questions are coming from unfamiliar and usually friendly places.
Style mattered in the post Cold War decades, when Clinton debated Bush, when Dole debated Clinton. Smooth delivery and facial expression and reaction mattered when Bush debated Gore (*sigh*). Style got you before the camera, a night in the Lincoln bedroom, invited to the important parties. Average Americans in peacetime focused on fashion, on affluence, on upward mobility, and when those things are important, style is important.
Then, Islamic terrorists flew three commercial jets into the heart of the free world. And they scored style points, huge style points, style points to end all style points…. even if the actual substance of the attack boiled down to taking advantage of a few sleepy security screeners and an uncomprehending crew. They framed their argument in spectacular, riveting, technicolor style. Wow. People sat up and paid attention. It was “just like a movie”.
Yet, even before the morning ended, the substantive weakness was realized. Without camera coverage, or eloquence, or focus groups to poll, the last intended victims – ordinary citizens – interrupted the message, ovewhelmed what little substance there was, and slammed it into the dirt in a field in Pennsylvania. The era of “style over substance” felt the impact.
John Kerry didn’t.

“the United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons.�It doesn’t make sense.“

Nuclear weapons are substance. They may represent the very epitome of substance. No one has ever had to debate the finality and deadly effectiveness of a nuclear weapon to enhance its military authority.
Caught in the tortured convolution of his logic centers, Kerry doesn’t comprehend this.

“You talk about mixed messages.”

Nuclear weapons as “messages”?
John Kerry would be commander in chief of the most powerful military the world has ever known. He will defend his nation with resolve and dedicate himself to winning the war against Islamic terrorism.

“We’re telling other people, “You can’t have nuclear weapons,” but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon…”

He pledges that he will support the military with all the resources required to get the job done. He has the experience, has the means, he has the will to achieve victory.

” that we might even contemplate using“.

Just let him be very clear with the enemies of the United States about one important principle – that there are some weapons that the President only keeps around for show.

Perfection

Hours before the game, he approached a ticket booth. “Is this the House of Ruth?” he asked.
“This is it.�
“This is it, just like that? This is her house?”
“His,” the ticket seller said.
“His?” Roger asked.
“His.”
“Ruth was a woman,” Roger stated.
“Ruth was a Babe, but he wasn’t no woman.”
“That’s not true,” Roger said, “but it doesn’t matter. I’ve come to save the Yenkiss.“

Eve And Steve.

Not what you think this is about, either.
A few years ago, the paleoanthropologists got together with molecular geneticists and made a startling discovery – that all modern humans descend from a common female ancestor, who originated in Africa. They named her “Eve”, which, while not entirely original, was clever and easy to remember. (Though I wish I were a fly on the wall when the wailing began that the choice of this particular name might dovetail a little too conveniently with the competing theory in Genesis – but I digress…)
The discovery was based upon studies of mitochondrial dna – located outside the cell nucleus and inherited only from one’s mother. A more thorough discussion of mitochondrial dna and how it is used to track evolutionary branches is here. (Heh – check it out. I’m such a mind reader.)
Once the genetics geeks got their hands on mitochondrial dna they were hooked. In addition to finding “Eve”, they went to work on a timeline showing when dogs emerged from wolves, and wolves from older versions of wolves and so forth. They’ve been using it to plot these evolutionary timelines for species divergence, crime solving, disease research ever since. It’s a slick little tool.
Or it would be, if that part about “only inherited from the maternal ancestor line” were true.
Oops.

For decades biologists have assumed that mitochondria – the cells’ power stations – are inherited solely through the maternal line.
Mitochondria in the sperm from the father were presumed to be destroyed immediately after conception, leaving behind only those from the mother. But Marianne Schwartz and John Vissing from the University Hospital Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, have discovered that one of their patients inherited the majority of his mitochondria from his father.
[…]
The researchers think inheritance of paternal mitochondrial DNA is probably very rare. But the findings will have implications for a number of branches of biology. Evolutionary biologists often date the divergence of species by the differences in genetic sequences in mitochondrial DNA. Even if paternal DNA is inherited very rarely, it could invalidate many of their findings. It will also have implications for scientists investigating inherited metabolic diseases.

Damn. Well, that sucks, doesn’t it?
But let’s not let that get anyone down.. regroup, refocus and charge!

Using a computer model, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology attempted to trace back the most recent common ancestor using estimated patterns of migration throughout history.
They calculated that the ancestor’s location in eastern Asia allowed his or her descendants to spread to Europe, Asia, remote Pacific Islands and the Americas. Going back a few thousand years more, the researchers found a time when a large fraction of people in the world were the common ancestors of everybody alive today – while the rest were ancestors of no one alive. That date was 5,353BC, the team reports in Nature.

No word on whether or not they’ve named the lucky dude, but I’m guessing “Adam” is high on the list.

Sniping At Snipers

It was inevitable, I suppose. The Canadian Armed Forces has been infected by the loathing and envy of the country they represent.

Hailed as heroes in early 2002 by the U.S. military, the six Canadian marksmen were later given highly coveted Bronze Star medals – awards normally reserved for American soldiers who display extraordinary heroism during combat.
However, sources close to the investigation say the snipers were treated with much less than high regard when they returned to their Canadian bases, both in Afghanistan and back home.
“They were treated as outsiders and sort of turncoats,” said one source who didn’t want to be identified.
“At least three of these guys have since quit the army over their treatment.”

Hat Tip – Damian Penny
Background here.

100K

It appears that the odometer on SDA is poised to turn over the 100,000 visitor mark sometime later today.
It seems like the right time to acknowledge and thank some people – picking a name at random from the sidebar one day at Scrappleface led me to Outside The Beltway. What better gateway to the blogosphere? It’s safe to say that while there are many writers who have influenced the evolution of my blog, James Joyner is most responsible for inspiring it. So, if you must blame someone, blame James.
When I decided it was time to move my commenting addiction to my own bandwidth, Kevin Aylward agreed to do the tech work and, shortly afterwards, invited me to guest blog at the wildly popular Wizbang – at a time when few had even heard of a strangely named little blog from Saskatchewan (????).
And of course, the Commissar has been inexplicably generous in sending readers my way. Danka, Comrade. More naughty photos are on the way.
As have others too numerous to mention (but they’re on the side bar), as well as the regular readers and commentors who pass along links and ideas.
I’m not sure how I’ll celebrate. I do know though, that cherry ice cream is on the menu. Thanks, Jeff.

Busted

Paul, at Wizbang, catches an“expert” creating “proof” that the discredited TANG memos could have been produced on a typewriter, and has advice for him.

Here is a hint for the good Professor– If you are going to forge documents DON’T LEAVE THE EVIDENCE on your webserver.
And if you don’t think that TH nailed him, feel free to download the PHOTOSHOP DOCUMENT he was working on when he created the forgery.
Not only did he forge the document but he let the work in progress in an open web folder.
And Professor, if you are reading this- and I know someone will mail it to you, I have downloaded your entire website as evidence and I saved screen caps of it, so don’t bother delete it. I also had an interesting phone call with the head of your department. You might give him a call.

The entire post is hilarious as the updates continue… the good professor trying to play catchup, editing his pages, adding disclaimers, while the blogosphere crushes him like a skunk on the dotted line….
update – Wizbang does a little digging and finds a familiar name attached to the photoshopping professor – CBS producer Mary Mapes

CBS Draft Story: “Fake, But True”

Who says that a competitive marketplace encourages the best and brightest to rise to the top? Less than a month after the forged TANG memos blew up in their faces, CBS is defending a story by Richard Schlesinger on “Reviving The Draft”.
Nevermind that Schlesinger overlooked telling his audience that his star “mom on the street”, Beverly Cocco, heads up an advocacy group called People Against the Draft. To advance his piece, Schlesinger used the content of an email hoax.
Bill at INDC Journal tracked down Schlesinger, CBS spokeswoman Sandra Genelius, and producer Linda Karas, for an interview. The responses must be read to be believed.

INDC: “Probably the main concern with the story is that the e-mails that are shown in the piece are false; they’ve been debunked on various internet sites long ago …”
Schlesinger: “The fact is, they were going around. I know several people that got them, and it’s gotten people all riled up. Whether or not there’s any reality to there being a draft, is almost besides the point. Do I think there’s going to be a draft? No. But it’s an issue that people are talking about.”
[…]
Karas: “The truth of the e-mails were absolutely irrelevant to the piece, because all the story said was that people were worried. It’s a story about human beings that are afraid of the draft. We did not say that this (e- mail) was true, it’s just circulating. We are not verifying the e-mail.”

“We are not verifying the e-mail”.
What does that mean? They didn’t bother going to the trouble of fact checking and didn’t know it was a hoax? Or that they knew, and deliberately withheld that information from their audience, even though it was cited as reponsible for the “fear” they are reporting?
Is there a third explanation that I’ve overlooked, that validates this response as evidence of the thinking of intelligent, professional journalists?
There’s a long list of media observers who have accused CBS of pro-Democrat bias. There are websites – rathergate.com and ratherbiased.com – devoted to exposing it. But reading Bill’s interview, I’m no longer sure that bias is really at the root of CBS’s problems. These responses indicate something quite different is going on, for they are devoid of any cleverness or obfuscation. We saw hints of that in the defense by Dan Rather of the forged memos. “False, but true”. They actually believe that a hoax is valid basis for a news story, so long as the response to it is “genuine” or that some people believe it to be true. It’s a wonder we don’t get monthly updates from CBS based on press releases from the Flat Earth Society.
I realized this morning, that I’ve seen this sort of “logic” before – in the dog world. Dog breeders usually enter their field as rank novices, without training, accreditation or passing muster with an employer. They buy a dog (or two or three), go to a few shows, start making puppies and learn as they go. As might be expected, a few of these people have trouble getting velcro to work. They approach dog breeding with the intellectual quality of an excited moth sighting a light bulb.
When the puppies that result reflect the mediocrity any reasonably knowledgable breeder would have predicted, they rejoice in their quality. When others beg to differ, they can’t see the shortcomings, they can’t understand why their results are questioned. With beauty so conveniently located “in the eye of the beholder” they rationalize that it is the beholder who is lacking.
They don’t progress, they repeat past mistakes and if they’re stubborn enough to stick it out a few years, develop a reputation as serial losers.
This type of dog breeder is so well known, that we even have a name for them.
We call them “stupid people”.
The more explanations of this type I read from employees of CBS, the more I realize that they don’t sound like crafty politicians or spin doctors at all. They sound like the clueless twits we read on doggie email lists.
It’s not bias at all. Someone at CBS is going out of their way to hire stupid people.

Bush Lied, Holsteins Died

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told voters in America’s Dairyland on Monday that President Bush had a secret plan that would hurt milk producers after the election.
[…]
Kerry said he would fill milk bottles at his uncle’s dairy farm as a young boy. “I have a great sense of the land,” Kerry said. “I really do. I’m tired of small family farmers getting squeezed.”

The details are a little murky, but it seems the “secret Bush plan” is to drive the cows of Wisconsin into a river.

Kerry told the town hall that voters shouldn’t be wary of changing horses midstream when the horse is drowning. Kerry also poked fun at reports that the Bush campaign insisted that the debate podiums be set relatively far apart so Kerry’s five-inch height advantage won’t be so apparent.
“May I also suggest that we need a taller horse?” he said. “You can get through deeper waters that way.”

John “great sense of the land” Kerry – unaware that horses can swim.
hat tip – Canadian Comment.

Sushi And The Case For Beef

CTV News reports on the latest Liberal Nanny State Law.

Ontario gourmands are smacking their lips in protest over a new provincial regulation banning the use of fresh fish in raw dishes.

You voted for them.

Affecting such menu items as tartare, ceviche, cold smoked fish and the popular Japanese delicacy sushi,

I interrupt this post with a disclaimer. I believe the only fresh fish appropriate for human consumption is caught on a red and white spoon and cooked in a pan over a campfire or on propane barbeque. That said, I have eaten at a sushi bar.

…the province has enacted a new regulation that forces chefs to use fish that’s been previously frozen.

Once. I had salmon. Cooked salmon.

Ontario Ministry of Health officials are concerned that, otherwise, unwitting patrons could be served with a portion of a parasitic roundworm …

Unwitting? As opposed to the “witting” patrons paying 5 times what it’s worth to be served with a portion of raw fish?

Ottawa sushi chef Hiro Iida told CTV News he has been making sushi for fifteen years — following centuries-old techniques.

Ahem. And where did centuries of raw fishing eating get you?
Let’s see… paper houses?
The non-invention of the fork.
Massive drycleaning bills.
Fancy writing. cert.jpg That nobody can read.
Poor rhyming skills.
I hate to point out the obvious, but the introduction of North American beef to the Japanese diet, and the 20th century emergence of Japanese technology, productivity and industry are not mere coincidence.

When asked whether she’s worried about eating raw fish, Ottawa restaurant-goer Kristen Smith laughed. “No,” she said, jokingly dismissing concerns of food-borne parasites. “Wasabi kills it, it’s strong. And we need to build up our tolerance, too.”

Yeah, that’s what they all say, ’til they find worms in their poopie.
Then, they want a law.

Me and Mr. Meyers

Editoral director of CBSNews.com, Dick Meyers, was a guest this afternoon on the Murray Wood Show (Rawlco Radio – 650 CKOM), explaining the decision of his network regarding the use (or rather, non-use) of beheading images on television. While explaining his own difficulty struggling with the issue, and propensity to “err in favour” of disclosure, his rationale included the fact that the images were beyond the realm of good taste and they served as propoganda.
?
I called in, and suggested that his explanation would make more sense, had the contraversy over supressing “propoganda” images of Nick Berg’s murder not been played out over the backdrop of Abu Graihb and the weeks of tasteless prison photos that amounted to nothing more but different camera angles.
(Sorry, there are no transcripts, so this is from memory).
In addition to making a weak attempt to justify the use of the prison images as part of a “developing story” , Mr. Meyers actually attempted to claim that CBS had “broken the story” on Abu Graihb.
I corrected him. I reminded Mr. Meyers that the story had been actually “broken” by the Pentagon months before it made national news, had been covered in the back pages of print media, and was pretty much ignored until months later – when the photos became available.
I don’t think he was expecting that.
He seemed a little rattled. Then, the (extended) segment ended and he had to go.
Heh. Thanks, Murray.
Added to the Beltway Traffic Jam

“Jihad Has Broken”

Stewart Bell, author of Cold Terror, in the National Post;

Yusuf Islam, the British singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, was the guest of honour at a Toronto fundraising dinner hosted by an organization that has since been identified by the Canadian government as a “front” for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
In a videotape of the 1998 event obtained by the National Post, Mr. Islam describes Israel as a “so-called new society” created by a “so-called religion” and urges the audience to donate to the Jerusalem Fund for Human Services to “lessen the suffering of our brothers and sisters in Palestine and the Holy Land.”
The Jerusalem Fund is one of four “fronts” named in a secret Privy Council Office memo that was sent to Jean Chretien, then prime minister, on May 23, 2000, discussing what it called groups that “have unsavoury links with terrorism.

Via Norm Spector.

Continue reading →

National Geographic Takes It On The Tusk

French photographer Gilles Nicolet sells National Geographic staged photos. The magazine doesn’t notice.

The readers do.

On pages 78-9 (photograph above), the picture caption reads that hunters are carrying “tusks taken from an elephant found dead in the bush.” Soon after the article was published, several readers pointed out that there are faint but unmistakable numbers on the tusk on page 78 which we failed to notice before publishing the story. We now know that the tusks belong to the Tanzania Department of Wildlife. When we asked photographer Gilles Nicolet to explain, he admitted that he himself had supplied the tusks to the hunters after borrowing them from local wildlife authorities.
This was in direct contrast to what Nicolet had repeatedly assured us when we were preparing the story. As part of our rigorous internal system of checks and balances, we routinely obtain independent verification of the circumstances in which a photograph is made. In very few instances, we are unable to do so. This story was one of those cases, and we published it knowing that we were relying heavily on Nicolet’s accounts.
In light of his disturbing admission about the tusks, we immediately launched an investigation into the other photographs in the story and determined that the two on page 85 which the caption identifies as showing a successful hunter removing his spear from an elephant and then removing the tusks were actually made several years earlier and are not of the Barabaig. (See photographs below.)

And National Geographic editor-in-chief William L. Allen does the right thing.

By publishing this story, we failed our readers. We are currently reviewing our internal procedures to do our best to ensure that this type of mistake does not happen again. In addition, we are re-examining Nicolet’s only previous story for National Geographic (“Hunting the Mighty Python,” May 1997); to date it appears that all of the pictures and accompanying captions are accurate.
We apologize to our readers.

Of course, here the stakes weren’t as high. The elephant story wasn’t written to help get a donkey elected.

Cat Blogging

He wasn’t answering my emails, either, and it was really starting to bother me. So, I decided to do something to change that.

deadcatblogging.jpg

I’ve started mailing him dead cats. One or two a month.

And it’s worked. He still doesn’t answer my emails, but I no longer lie awake at night wondering why.

Hacking Xerox

If the company photocopier suddenly starts pumping out ads for penis enlargement products, there may be a reason…

Using Google hacks — requests typed into the search engine that bring up cached information on networks — hackers are discovering and using login details for networked photocopiers so they can watch what is being copied.
“You don’t have to be a genius to do this,” said Jason Hart, security director at Whitehat UK. “You can see what people are photocopying on your monitor. You just have to search for online devices on Google.”

Something like searching for passwords, I presume?

Navigation