Moving

This blog is moving. Check out Ohio Valley Politics for new posts.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Wolfowitz Gone Wild

The President of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz (you might also recognize him from his past work, the war in Iraq), is in serious trouble of losing his job due to his mixture of business and pleasure. Specifically he gave his girlfriend a promotion in the organization along with a raise far exceeding any precedent.

April 14 (Bloomberg) -- World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz's hold on his job weakened as the U.K. and Germany declined to join the U.S. in backing him.

Wolfowitz has ``damaged the bank,'' Hilary Benn, the U.K. development secretary, said today. His German counterpart, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, said he must ``decide for himself whether he can continue to fulfill his duties credibly.''

Wolfowitz claims that people just hate him because of his previous job. I don't know about you but I'd be pretty ticked off if he was my boss.

Source: Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

Abstinence Only (Still) Doesn't Work

This week the results of a Congress mandated study on abstinence only education were released. The verdict? Abstinence only students had the same amount of sex as the control group that didn't have any classes.

WASHINGTON - Students who participated in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex a few years later as those who did not, according to a long-awaited study mandated by Congress.

I'm sure the debate will continue though.

Source: Abstinence students still having sex - Kids & Parenting - MSNBC.com

Catching Up And Ratings News

I've been busy all week mowing grass but since it's raining today I'll try to get caught up on my posting.

In other news the Spotback ratings tool I've been using has exited it's closed alpha testing and is now a public beta test, meaning that anyone can use it.

I've also switched my rating tool from a slider to a star system which you can see below this post. To rate a post simply click the star rank that you think it deserves.

Friday, April 13, 2007

Cheney Gets The Bird

Air Force Two hit a bird in Chicago today as it was carrying Dick Cheney to a speaking engagement. Thankfully the plane managed to land safely.

WASHINGTON - Air Force Two carrying Vice President Dick Cheney struck a bird as the plane neared O'Hare International Airport on Friday. The aircraft landed safely.

Mechanics checked the plane while Cheney spoke at the Heritage Foundation's annual leadership conference, but the incident did not delay his departure from the airport to return to Washington.

"A bird hit the right engine of the plane upon landing," said Megan McGinn, a spokeswoman for Cheney. "He was told after he delivered his remarks."

Apparently no lawyers were hurt during the impromptu hunting trip.

Source: Cheney's plane hits bird; craft lands safely - Politics - MSNBC.com

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Don Imus Fired From CBS

I just got the MSNBC "Breaking News" email alert telling me that Don Imus has been fired from CBS.

I don't like Don Imus and I've thought he was a jerk for years but I'm still kind of sad about this. I'm a sucker for second (and sometimes even third) chances and while I found his comments reprehensible I thought his apology was sincere. While I'm not really willing to argue that he shouldn't have been fired I think it would have been enough for his leash to have been shortened and he should have been given a chance to clean up his act (or enough rope to hang himself, whichever the case may be).

It also needs to be said that we as a culture are just as responsible for these comments as Imus himself. I remember the day after Katie Couric's CBS New's debut the big story wasn't how well she did but that she had pictures of Suri Cruise. This is because in modern times it isn't enough for news to just be news, it has to entertain us as well. This is why I'm ready to forgive Imus - I don't think he meant what he said, he just tried to give the people what they wanted and went too far.

You can watch Don Imus' comment here. You'll notice in the video that Imus isn't the first person to refer to the girls as "hos".

Update (7:01 P.M.): For more on the Imus controversy I recommend this news story and for commentary with a view differing from mine I highly recommend this blog post by the Today Show's Al Roker, one of the main voices inside NBC that called for dropping the Imus simulcast on MSNBC. You can also find the CBS statement on the firing here.

Update #2 (7:40 P.M.): Media Matters has put together a good list of examples to show that the problem goes beyond Don Imus.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Bennett Comes To His Senses

Bob Bennett has finally come to his senses and has given up in his fight to stay on the Cuyahoga County elections board.

Read More: OPENERS: Bye-bye Bob

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

An Interesting Challenge

This is way off topic but I found it interesting and it's 4 A.M. (tomorrow is going to suck Update: Somehow I managed to get up pretty easily).

As Apple announced yesterday that it had sold its 10,000,000 iPod one diabetes oriented blog was challenging Apple to branch out.

Big news this week, Folks. Apple Inc. has sold its 100-Millionth iPod. Ah, those perfectly aesthetic little high-tech devices for enjoying your music, yes. Which gives me an idea... Why, oh why, do consumers everywhere get the most "insanely great" little MP3 player, while we whose lives depend on medical devices get the clunky stuff of yesteryear? It occured to me that this is never going to change unless we call on the Gods of Consumer Design to champion our cause. So... I have penned an "Open Letter to Steve Jobs" asking him to tackle the medical device design conundrum on our behalf.

The story has already been picked up by blogs like TechCrunch and it's only been up for less than a day. It's going to be interesting to see where this goes.

Read the open letter: Diabetes Mine: An Open Letter to Steve Jobs

The Westboro Baptist Church: A Giant Cycle of Hate

I just finished watching "The Most Hated Family in America", a BBC documentary about the Westboro Baptist Church, on YouTube and realized something, by hating these people we only make them stronger. And not only does it just make them stronger, it does so in multiple ways.

Isolation

By isolating them from the rest of society we've enabled them to form a tight knit community that's hard to leave. All the younger members know is the church because the outside world shuns them. We need to show them that just because they were born in to the church doesn't mean they they don't have a choice to leave it.

Just because we don't accept the message doesn't mean that we totally reject the people spreading it. To do anything less would be hypocritical.

Controversy = Headlines

Just as the cone shaped bra generated attention for Madonna so do the "God Hates Fags" signs for the WBC. Their outrageous tactics are little more than publicity stunts whether or not they choose to believe it. Have you noticed that they most often hold pickets near events like disasters (things like the Sago Mine explosion) and soldiers funerals that would normally draw in local TV reporters at the very least? They want attention and they'll do whatever it takes to get it.

Any Publicity Is Good Publicity

A little while back I wrote a post about a WBC picket at Ted Strickland's inauguration and received a comment from someone claiming to be a member of the Phelps' family. Initially I doubted that it was real but shortly after I noticed I was getting a ton of visitors coming from godhatesfags.com, the church's website (that was an interesting day). It turned out that I was linked to in their news page with the text:

God hates Strickland - He's turned Ohio over to the fags - - watch the wrath of God deal with you hags!

My reaction at the time? I was thrilled. I thought I had managed to tick them off. Now I realize that I reacted just like they do. I, like them, was just happy to have been able to provoke a reaction. Did it really accomplish anything? No. That didn't stop me from feeling that it did.

You can watch "The Most Hated Family in America" on YouTube.
It's divided into seven parts: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7

Monday, April 09, 2007

Blogger's Code of Conduct?

The tech end of the blogosphere has been up in arms lately over some death threats left in the form of comments. As a reaction some people have come up with the following draft of a "Blogger Code of Conduct".

We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation.

1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog.

We are committed to the "Civility Enforced" standard: we will not post unacceptable content, and we'll delete comments that contain it.

We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to that:
- is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
- is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,
- infringes upon a copyright or trademark
- violates an obligation of confidentiality
- violates the privacy of others

We define and determine what is "unacceptable content" on a case-by-case basis, and our definitions are not limited to this list. If we delete a comment or link, we will say so and explain why. [We reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]

2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.

3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.

When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the blogosphere, we make every effort to talk privately and directly to the person(s) involved--or find an intermediary who can do so--before we publish any posts or comments about the issue.

4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.

When someone who is publishing comments or blog postings that are offensive, we'll tell them so (privately, if possible--see above) and ask them to publicly make amends.
If those published comments could be construed as a threat, and the perpetrator doesn't withdraw them and apologize, we will cooperate with law enforcement to protect the target of the threat.

5. We do not allow anonymous comments.

We require commenters to supply a valid email address before they can post, though we allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than their real name.

6. We ignore the trolls.

We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us or our blog, as long as they don't veer into abuse or libel. We believe that feeding the trolls only encourages them--"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Ignoring public attacks is often the best way to contain them.

I strongly disagree with points 3 and 5 and somewhat disagree with point 6. Blogs need to have anonymous comments and, to an extent, public discussion. Hopefully they'll come up with something better before they actually try to get bloggers to implements it or else it'll probably fall flat.

Source: O'Reilly Radar > Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

Can't Keep A "Failure" Down

It seems that Google's efforts to remove so called "Google bombs" may not be working. Performing a Google search for "Failure" once again pulls up www.whitehouse.gov/president as the first result.

H/T: Google Notebook Manager in JavaScript…Bookmarklet Soon? - CyberNet News

Sunday, April 08, 2007

A Founding Freedom

I've often expressed my dislike of the so called "Religious Right" on this blog and as there is a "Blog Against Theocracy" movement going on this weekend I think it's a good time to explain those feelings. This is a post I've been planning for some time but I'm trying to throw it together today to be a part of this movement. I apologize in advance if it doesn't quite work out as planned.

Think back for a minute about who the first people to settle in America were (hopefully your thinking of the pilgrims because I don't want to have the whole Viking debate). Why did they come here? Because they wanted to practice their religion without being persecuted. The framers remembered this when they set up the separation of church and state to ensure that no religious group would feel oppressed in the United States.

Just think about it, over 200 years ago a group of people came here because they didn't want the government to tell them what religion they could subscribe to. Now flash forward to present day where we've got the 10 commandments in federal courts and James Dobson on the radio telling us not to vote for someone because they aren't Christian enough. What the Hell happened? Where was I when God started endorsing candidates?

When did it become alright for religious figures to tell people who to vote for? I'm fine with people choosing a candidate based on their values as long as they make the decision themselves but when we have some religious groups that are nothing more than thinly veiled political action committees claiming to act in the name of God I have a problem.

Our country has became that which we had hoped to avoid. The founding fathers envisioned a place where people of all religions could coexist, not just people who believe in Jesus.

Read More: Blog Against Theocracy