Moron-Proofing Social Security

If you think that Americans can't be trusted to invest in private Social Security accounts, read this article by Douglas Kern:
"We have moron-proofed our society. We have sanded off the rough edges of most sharp corners in American existence. From welfare to mandatory helmets to childproof caps, we've trapped stupidity in a tight little cage. Why can't we do the same for Social Security? "

Here, here!

Read the whole thing.

Blogger Influence Raises Ethical Questions

This AP story addresses the question of whether blogs should be held to the same ethical standards as journalists:

"Jonathan Dube, managing producer at MSNBC.com and publisher of CyberJournalist.net, modified the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics and urged fellow bloggers to adopt it. The principles: Be honest and fair. Minimize harm. Be accountable.

Longtime blogger Rebecca Blood circulated guidelines that call for disclosing any conflicts of interest, publicly correcting any misinformation and linking to any source materials referenced in postings.

"It seems pretty clear to me that having some kind of standard contributes to an individual blogger's own credibility," she said."

First, alot of influential journalists don't adhere to the code of ethics above. Second, the free market of ideas determines a blogger's credibility - not some phrase or list of ethical behaviors. If a blogger continually spews forth trash that is quickly debunked or refuted by other bloggers, than people will naturally tend to move away from that blogger. However, if a blogger exposes some big story or calls a journalist or other blogger on a misstatement, then that blogger's credibility rises and he or she will receive more trust or attention provided that he or she doesn't later betray that trust.

Since there are limited numbers of major news sources, the journalists at these outlets need a standard of conduct because they have a wider audience that depends solely on these sources for their information. Blogs are an alternate source of information that has to be actively sought out by the reader. As the advent of cable news has loosened the grip of the Big 3 networks on information, so will blogs loosen the grip of the NYT, LAT, and WaPO provided that they prove their worth through the free market.

Wait a sec, why am I working so hard to articulate this? Just read Blog!

Salazar Goes to Washington

Kathryn Jean Lopez from National Review shares a cab with Ken Salazar after the inauguration:

"So, anyway, yesterday evening, near frostbitten, I grab a cab to get to a Foggy Bottom thing. Cab driver picks up a man in a cowboy hat around one of the Senate buildings. Nice gent, he makes small talk. Where you from? and all. I, of course, assume dude in cowboy hat is a tourist.

“I’m a United States senator,” he tells me when I, of course, assume he’s a here visiting for the inaugural. Ooops. The Colorado part doesn’t come out right away so I’m still looking under the cowboy hate running off freshmen in my head. (During the only downtime of the day, thank you.) I have to confess to NR, and I get a look, like “oh, other side.” So now I have it narrowed down...not enough. Gets better. He says he is from Colorado and then all I can think is, man, Pete Coors lost that one, man. Can't remember to who--brain freeze.

So, of course, it turned out to be Ken Salazar."

Denver TheatreBlogging

Raise your hands if you think Naked Boys Singing will be a hit in Denver.

I've never seen this show, although I walked by the theatre in New York all the time. Given the smaller theatre community in Denver and the more conservative nature of middle America in general, I can't see this one drawing the crowds here.

However, I have been wrong about these things many times in the past. You also have to admit the concept is pretty funny, too.

Regardless, this one is sure to draw some controversy.

Inaugural Impressions

Had to watch my kid while my wife was at an audition. While I answered emails, I watched the coverage of the inauguration parade. A couple of observations:

1. The coverage seemed to be as much about the protesters as about the parade. One of the networks put the number of protesters at 10,000. Andrea McDonald from NBC stated that this was nothing compared to protests that she had seen at previous inaugurations.

2. Chris Matthews is an idiot (like you needed me to say it). He's interviewing Kelly, the guy who won The Apprentice this past fall, and he asks the crowd of young people behind him, "How many of you voted for Kerry, but are here to support the President anyway." They all looked at him like he had five heads. Why not just ask who supported Bush and who supported Kerry? They all seemed to be friends with Kelly, who stated he was a Republican from Wyoming so who does Matthews think they voted for? Of course, he didn't let them answer the question.

3. It pains me as a Texas Aggie to see President Bush give the hook 'em horns sign when the tu marching band goes past. I know his daughter went there and all, but does he have to give support to a university that is in a town that most likely went for Kerry? What do you want to bet that 43's presidential library ends up right next to 41's in College Station. Fortunately, '41 stepped up and gave a great big Gig 'em Aggies to the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band when they went by. It was also good to see the Ross Volunteers, the official honor guard for the state of Texas.

4. Finally, the cost. I wrote here about the cost of the inauguration and the criticism associated with it. Fortunately, the Washington Times exists to provide another voice inside the Beltway. This article analyzes the cost of the inauguration and puts it in line with past inaugurations:

"But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent."

and

"President Johnson didn't eschew pageantry in 1965, racking up a $1.6 million bill for inaugural festivities despite the Vietnam War, historian Robert Dallek told Reuters."

Unbelievable Media Bias at ABC

The gents at Powerline have picked up on an ABC News web link that lets readers inform them of military funerals on January 20th. The intent is to "balance" this story against that of the inauguration.

Here's the link to the ABC News website.

Here's what I submitted:

Name: ABCNews
Phone: 1800ABCSUCKS
Email: abc@aol.com
Your Story: The only funeral I know of is for the main stream media - abc included.

Let the BlogSwarm begin!!!

Hat-tip: FreeRepublic

Hit Piece on Owens

Over at The Corner, there is talk of a Denver Post hit piece on Governor Owens.

No details as to when or what it will focus on, but I am sure the RMA will have sufficiently fisked it by noon on the day it hits the papers.

Blog

Just finished Blog this morning.

Although I already knew quite about the blogosphere, Hugh presented some great ideas on how to use blogs in Corporate America. I just finished creating a new blog: my company's nameBlog.blogspot.com. Not sure what to do with it yet, but at least I know I have it.

What was interesting was that I tried to create: Company Name.blogspot.com, but the address wasn't available. When I typed this into the browser address, I got a message from Blogger that the URL wasn't on the server. Someone's a step ahead of me.

The Reds and The Blues

Lileks has his usual insightful commentary on this WaPo story on the Red Sea of America:

"Maybe what often bothers the Blue staters isn't the ire of the Maroonies; in the end, it's the relative indifference. We think of you, all right - just not as much as you think about yourselves. And probably more than you think about us. Take care; love, Red. "

Golden Globes and Inaugural Balls

A lot has been written recently on the costs of President Bush's 2nd Inaugural Ceremony. Most major media and the left are calling for Bush to cancel the events and spend the money on tsunami relief of on the war in Iraq. I wanted to link to some of the stories, but there were just too many of them to choose. Go ahead, click here for the Google search.

It is also Hollywood-pat-yourself-on-the-back season, starting with the Golden Globes tonight. I had heard that the presenters, nominees, and winners receive goodie bags and other expensive gifts. During last year's Academy Awards, winners received a goodie bag worth about $110,000. Nominees received a goodie bag worth about $45,000. These figures according to this Seattle Times article.

Let's just say that the goodie bags are the same this year and cost $110,000. On the Academy's website, there are 24 categories (it sure seems like more when you are watching). $110,000 x 24 = $2,640,000 in fun for the winners. Nominees, let's assume there are 4 per category (some categories have more and others have less) total: $45,000 x 24 x 4 = $4,320,000. Altogether, that's $6,960,000 for goodie bags. That doesn't include goodie bags for presenters, which I don't know how much those are worth, but for the Golden Globes, the estimate is around $38,000. There are 35 presenters so that equals: $38,000 x 35 = $1,330,000. Again, I don't know what winners and nominees get, but I'm sure it adds up.

Between the Golden Globes, the Academy Awards, the SAG Awards, the Emmy Awards, and the Grammy Awards, and every other possible other awards show, I don't think it is much of a stretch to conclude that the total amount given in goodie bags is near $10,000,000 per year. These happen every year, so over 4 years, it's close to $40,000,000. This is just on goodie bags. Not the pre-parties, the actual shows themselves, or the after parties.

The funny thing is, no one is asking that the awards shows be postponed and that the money saved on goodie bags be sent to tsunami victims.

Blogosphere Round-Up

It's snowy and cold today, so if you're staying warm inside, here's a roundup of what's going on in the blogosphere:

Powerline and Hugh are continuing to dissect the Rathergate Report.

Gay Patriot dug up a story on the budget SURPLUS that the government had in December. Hat-tip: Instapundit

The Rocky Mountain Alliance continues to follow local issues and events, such as:

Clay Calhoun, Jim from ThinkingRight, and Joshua from View From a Height will be blogging Governor Owens' State of the State address on Thursday. According to Clay, they are the first bloggers in the nation to be invited to cover such an event.

Dilley Blog is a new Colorado blogger that showed up in my referral list.

As a result of my reviews of the Taffetas, some of the folks involved with the Pinnacle Dinner Theatre have taken an interest to blogging about local theatre. Watch this space for more theatreblogging.

It Has Arrived

I received my copy of Blog: Understand the New Information Revolution and How It Is Redefining the Media, the Culture, and Business yesterday from Barnes and Noble. Now, if I can only find time to read it.

Dean to Seek Democratic Chairmanship

The gift that will keep on giving every 4 years.

Taffetas Review in RMN

"The Taffetas is a confection of '50s tunes so sugared you can skip the Equal in your coffee. Four girls straight out of Muncie, Ind., are making their TV debut, singing songs so gentle they should provide cots in the top tier."

"This production shares a few elements with a 2002 rendition at the Aurora Fox, in performers Kristin Hathaway and Michelle Paul and musical director Mary Gottlieb. But it stands alone in the stunning abbreviation. Two acts, with an intermission, amount to only 70 minutes of performance time. Directed and choreographed by Nicholas Sugar, the four women - rounded out with Anita Boland and Sarah Rex - are given decent staging, and all have fine voices. But the editing leaves them with indistinct characterizations and only the barest fragments of a story. The result is a concert with a soft-soap three-piece band, consisting of songs such as Mr. Sandman, I'm Sorry and, a personal favorite, You Belong to Me."

"Things perk up in the second act, but with the cartoon-docile smiles frozen on their faces and harmonies without texture or depth, this nostalgia trip will appeal most to those who miss the days when TV didn't have all those confusing colors, politicians wearing military uniforms were actually in the military and a woman's place was anywhere her man told her to be."

"Rex marks the evening's shining glory, singing with real passion and a voice of power and clarity - it's not particularly of the period, but its proficiency is welcome here."

"The food was fabulous, but the music? Well, it had me humming The Ramones all the way home."

RMN Review of The Taffetas

Lisa Bornstein's review of The Taffetas came out on Friday morning.

In the spirit of full and fair disclosure, my wife is in the show. In addition, I have a distant relative that is friends with Lisa. So in addition to having an interest in the success of the show, I also have inside information about Lisa, which will further influence my opinion. Keep all this in mind as you read the following review of her review (don't you just love the blogosphere?):

"The Taffetas is a confection of '50s tunes so sugared you can skip the Equal in your coffee. Four girls straight out of Muncie, Ind., are making their TV debut, singing songs so gentle they should provide cots in the top tier." I wasn't alive in the 1950's but most of the songs I have heard from that era, are pretty sugary. I'm not sure I have heard anything from female vocalists of this era that really "rocked." If you want to stay in the period, your material will be pretty soft.

"This production shares a few elements with a 2002 rendition at the Aurora Fox, in performers Kristin Hathaway and Michelle Paul and musical director Mary Gottlieb.

But it stands alone in the stunning abbreviation. Two acts, with an intermission, amount to only 70 minutes of performance time. Directed and choreographed by Nicholas Sugar, the four women - rounded out with Anita Boland and Sarah Rex - are given decent staging, and all have fine voices. But the editing leaves them with indistinct characterizations and only the barest fragments of a story. The result is a concert with a soft-soap three-piece band, consisting of songs such as Mr. Sandman, I'm Sorry and, a personal favorite, You Belong to Me."

Actually, this production shares all elements of the 2002 Aurora Fox version. The script and score are exactly the same and none of the material has been edited. Maybe over the past few years, Lisa's memory of the 2002 version has faded. Maybe the tempo in the Pinnacle Dinner Theatre production is faster. Regardless, the statement that the show is an abbreviation is not accurate. In fact, the PDT version is actually longer, as the Fox's version actually cut one song and also cut some of the questions out of Taffeta Chatter. Just ask the 2 actresses that have done both productions.

"Things perk up in the second act, but with the cartoon-docile smiles frozen on their faces and harmonies without texture or depth, this nostalgia trip will appeal most to those who miss the days when TV didn't have all those confusing colors, politicians wearing military uniforms were actually in the military and a woman's place was anywhere her man told her to be."

First, nice veiled reference to Bush's aircraft carrier landing. I thought this was a theatre review, not a political commentary. Also, nice statement about male chauvenism in the 50's.

"Rex marks the evening's shining glory, singing with real passion and a voice of power and clarity - it's not particularly of the period, but its proficiency is welcome here." Earlier, Lisa complained about the tunes being too soft, now she criticizes a voice not being of a particular period. She's right, but she should make up her mind - fit the period or deliver songs with power and energy.

"The food was fabulous, but the music? Well, it had me humming The Ramones all the way home." Last time I checked, the Ramones weren't popular in the 50's. If it was a hard rocking musical you were looking for, this wasn't it. But then again, it was never billed this way. Let's face it, the people that go to dinner theatre were actually alive during the 50's. Is this a great work of musical theatre, probably not, but it fits the target demographic perfectly.

It's Lisa's job to be honest about the shows she reviews, but it is also my job to take her, and any other journalist, to task for inaccuracies or unfair statements.

I can't wait until John Moore reviews the show.

How Many Iraqi Civilians Have Died?

This morning's RMN contains a letter to Dave Kopel objecting to one of his articles. I'm going to reprint it below because these links tend to die in a few days.

"News media critic Dave Kopel, despite having written some well-researched books on various topics, still amazes me with the logical contortions in his column, such as his recent complaint that our country is losing the propaganda war in Iraq (Jan. 1).

Kopel cites as an American success the "unreported" fact that 140,000 refugees have returned to Iraq. This would be a success indeed, were it not for the equally "unreported" fact that an estimated 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the American invasion. (The Economist Web site has a good summary of this estimate here: http://tinyurl.com/5lejm.) Note that this estimate did not count Fallujah, a scene of heightened violence even before American forces effectively flattened the city. Note also that the U.S. has displaced an estimated 200,000 residents of Fallujah, creating a massive internal refugee problem.

This takes considerable shine off of any sense of accomplishment we should feel about returning Iraqi refugees. How can Kopel claim we're losing the propaganda war when these facts are routinely reported on TV around the world but not in America? Either Kopel has not done his homework, or he is more interested in pursuing his own agenda. Both seem likely. Kopel's column stands as its own bad example of what it purports to criticize: value-challenged punditry and the generally lazy and immoral nature of media in the U.S. "

The 100,000 civilian deaths number is where I want to focus first. I give the author props for including the link to the Economist story. However, subsequent articles have pointed at the problems with the study that prompted the 100,000 figure. Fred Kaplan at Slate wrote a very comprehensive piece on this study and its shortcomings:

"...Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless."

Read the whole thing. Also Iraq Body Count, which tracks reported casualties put the number closer to 17,000. They also have a response to the study above. The argument against this lower figure is that many of the deaths may be unreported. But the same would be true for the people who died during Saddam's reign. If Saddam had reported all the people he had killed, the number in the Lancet story would have been calculated differently.

Secondly, the author of the letter claims that these figures are not reported in U.S. but are reported around the world. Doing a simple Google search on "100,000" "civilians" "Iraq" I come up with 231,000 hits. The most popular are link to stories in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and CNN. All of these are major American news sources.

The fact that any civilians have been killed in Iraq is a tragedy, but using an inflated number to criticize the administration or other journalists makes the author of the letter as guilty of propaganda as anyone else.

The Electoral Vote Challenge

Over at Will Pitt, the challenge to the electoral votes from Ohio is being liveblogged. I found the link at DemocraticUnderground. I'm sure that there are some conservative bloggers doing the same, but I haven't found them yet.

Regardless of the politics of the blogger, the way this scene is being liveblogged is the way news should be distributed in our instant-news world.

On the subject of the challenge, it appears that none of the Representatives or Senators are challenging the results, but are saying that there were flaws. So what will the Democrats do after the next election when they get stomped again. Now the issues have been debated, no action will have been taken, and they continue to whine and cry. Here's my suggestion: Spend time winning the election and less time whining about it!

UPDATE: How long will it take the blogosphere to debunk all of the Ohio voting issues Barbara Boxer cited in her speech before the Senate today?

Can't. Let. Go.

Michael Moore has sent out his latest email barrage. This one encourages a U.S. Senator to stand up and object to the results of the electoral college:

Tuesday, January 4th, 2005

Dear Members of the U.S. Senate,

Welcome back! The 109th session of Congress has just begun. I'm watching you on C-SPAN right now and you all look so snap-happy and clean-faced. It's like the first day of school all over again, isn't it?

I have a favor to ask of you. Something isn't right with the vote from Ohio. Seems a lot of people didn't get to vote. And those who did, thousands of theirs weren't counted.

Does that seem right to you? I'm just asking. Forget about partisan politics for a moment and ask yourself if there is a more basic right, in a democracy, than the right of the people to vote AND have ALL their votes counted.

Now, I know a lot of you wish this little problem of Ohio would just go away. And many of you who wish this are Democrats. You just want to move on (no pun intended!). I can't say I blame you. It's rough to lose two elections in a row when the first one you actually won and the second one you should have won. And it seems this time around, about 3 million more Americans preferred to continue the war in Iraq and give the rich more tax breaks than those who didn't. No sense living in denial about that.

But something isn't right in Ohio and more than a dozen members of the House of Representatives believe it is worth investigating.

So on Thursday at 1:00pm, Rep. John Conyers of Detroit will rise and object to the vote count in Ohio. According to the laws of this land, he will not be allowed to speak unless at least one of you -- one member of the United States Senate -- agrees to let him have the floor.

A very embarrassing moment during the last session of Congress occurred in the first week when none of you would allow the members of Congress who were black to have the floor to object to the Florida vote count. Remember that? You thought no one would ever notice, didn't you? You certainly lucked out that night when the networks decided not to show how you shut down every single member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

No such luck this year. Everyone now knows about that moment of shame. Thank you? You’re welcome.

But this Thursday, at 1:00pm, you will have a chance to redeem yourself.

Congressman Conyers and a dozen other members of Congress have some serious questions about how the Republican secretary of state in Ohio (who was also the state’s co-chair of Bush’s reelection campaign) conducted the election on November 2. The list of possible offenses of how voters were denied access to the polls and how over a hundred thousand of their votes have yet to be counted is more than worthy of your consideration. It may not change the outcome, but you have a supreme responsibility to make sure that EVERY vote is counted. Who amongst you would disagree with that?

If you would like to read more about the specific charges, I ask that you read these two links: “Senators Should Object to Ohio Vote” —by Jesse Jackson and “Ten Preliminary Reasons Why the Bush Vote Does Not Compute, and Why Congress Must Investigate Rather Than Certify the Electoral College”. I am asking everyone on my mailing list to send you a letter joining me in this call to you to do your job and investigate what happened before you certify the vote.

It only takes one member of the House and one member of the Senate to stop the acceptance of the Electoral College vote and force a legitimate debate and investigation. Do you know why this provision is set in stone in our nation’s laws? I mean, why would we allow just two officials in a body of 535 members to throw a wrench into the works? The law exists because nothing is more sacred than the integrity of the ballot box and if there is ANY possibility of fraud or incompetence, then it MUST be addressed. Because if we don't have the vote, what are we left with?

C'mon Senators! Especially you Democrats. Here is your one shining moment of courage. Will you allow the gavel to come down on our black members of Congress once again? Or will you stand up for their right to object?

We will all be watching.

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com

P.S. My whereabouts this week: I will be on the Today Show Thursday morning, Jay Leno on Friday night. And... the People's Choice Awards are this Sunday night, live on CBS at 9pm! Can we defeat the superheroes Spiderman, Incredibles and Shrek for best picture? A documentary??? Whoa... tune in...

Interesting to note that he slides the People's Choice Awards in there at the end. As usual, Michael Moore is all about Michael Moore.

Too Good To Be True

FreeRepublic has a thread discussing the capture of al-Zarqawi in Iraq. Drudge has the link to the Itar-Tass story.

Let's assume this is true, I can't imagine that the guy who cuts off the heads of the innocent went down without blowing himself up. Unless they nabbed him in his sleep, I would think he would prefer death over capture, but I thought the same for Saddam (after his sons went down in a blaze of gunfire).

I'm not inclined to believe this, but the great thing about the blogosphere is that we can report it, express our skepticism or optimism, and then either confirm or retract the story before the MSM even begins to think about the next news cycle.

UPDATE: See, Drudge already has the post that the story isn't true. So no need for corrections or retractions that will never be seen after the original story has run.