Blogging Against Racism: Follow Up

Just wanted to follow up on my Mother's piece (and follow up) by posting a link to the complete list of those who participated. There's over 250 there, so I couldn't even begin to pick out the best ones, but there is a wealth of different perspectives, so dive on in.

There Must Be Something in That Durham Water

Despite doing everything possible to blow a ten-point lead in the last four minutes. Duke managed to win with a miracle shot at the buzzer. Again. Nobody does this kinda stuff more often. Probably becuase nobody handles winning with as much class as Coach K. Instead of jumping up and down like an idiot, (looking at you, asst. Coach Collins...) he immediately goes to commiserate with and congratulate the Va. Tech kids, who played out of their heads and probably deserved to win. As someone once said, "act like you've been there before." Of course, it's easier when you have been there many times before.

(Yes, I know it's nearly required to hate Duke. But I came by my honorary Cameron Crazy status honestly. Going to high school with a school's all-time leading 3-pt shooter [soon to be #2, damn you J.J. Reddick] can do that.)

Tee Hee (Poking the MFY's with a stick)

It's not nice to revel in others misfortune. Unless the 'others' are Emperor PalpatineGeorge Steinbrenner. Apparently, the Yankees lost money last season. Lots and lots of money:

The final numbers won't be crunched for a few months, but it's believed the final number will be roughly $80 million when all is tallied. According to Forbes magazine, the Yankees lost $37.1 million in 2004.

And what did this money get you? The most embarassing collapse in the history of sports; an ill-gotten gold glove for DJ; a SS/3B named Slappy McBSMVP; and a starting rotation with a combined age of 327. But hey, Giambi got himself off the sauce, so we all can be thankful for that.

Plus, never fear, Kyle Fanrsworth is here...

I Disagree, I Think. But It Has a Certain Appeal.

XWL has some thoughts on how to deal with political corruption. (BTW, I can't believe no one has responded to Fox News' "Criminilization of Politics" meme from a few weeks ago with the notion that that's what happens when one "Politicizes Criminals". Actually, I'm sure someone has made that joke before, I just haven't seen it yet.) An executive summary:

Rather than rooting it out, stomping on it, and going through with the trouble and expense of prohibiting it, I say do the exact opposite.

Empower voters by allowing them to publically trade their votes for cold, hard, tax-free cash. From dog-catcher to President, why should lobbyist and politicians be the only ones benefitting from the trade in votes.

I say it's high time to democratize corruption. Expand the largess to the little man. With real monetary incentives for every possible vote participation levels would sky rocket.

Intriguing. Impractical. But would it really be worse?

The Althouse Link o' the Day

Who did not play "The Building Game" in undergrad? (For those who didn't, it's basically a 'can you top this' of buildings on campus where one has had relations). At a certain point, there's an element of risk vs. reward involved. This could happen. Personally, I'd LOVE to find the blog post from, ahem, the other side of that door.


(Via: Althouse, cross-posted at 6'2".)

Guest-Blogging Follow Up

Pooh: In response to a question about the extent of racism in Anchorage, my mom had this to say

In response to the question, "Is racism a big problem in Alaska?" I think it's about the same as elsewhere in the US. The main targets here are Alaska Natives, who comprise about one fifth of the population. The outward signs are violence against Native women, abundant stereotypes, and neverending "jokes" about Eskimos and Indians. Results are such things as high dropout rate and low achievement in schools, incredibly (and I do mean it's incredible) high incarceration rate among Alaska Native males, and other signs that life is tough if you're an Alaska Native. Other people of color are disadvantaged in these areas as well, but not as badly.

An advantage that Anchorage has is that there are no ghettos. If you look us up on the US Census web site and click onto specific neighborhoods, you'll see that there are some all-white neighborhoods, and that they're the ones with the highest incomes. Similarly, there are neighborhoods and schools that are largely people of color. But with a couple of exceptions (my son's alma mater being an example), the high schools tend to bring everyone together and my daughter reports a pretty high level of tolerance at her former HS.

Your experience as a person taken to be other than Caucasian sounds, unfortunately, typical. I feel for you! Check out our web site, particularly the Links section, for possible info about organizations in your area.

But Wait, There's More!

Just when I thought that my level of pissed-offedness with the whole Sony thing had reached its apex, they have done it again:

In an earlier post I described how MediaMax, a CD DRM system used by Sony-BMG and other record labels, behaves like spyware. (MediaMax is not the same as XCP, the technology that Sony-BMG has recalled; Sony-BMG is still shipping MediaMax discs.) MediaMax phones home whenever you play a protected CD, automatically installs over 12 MB of software before even displaying an End User License Agreement, and fails to include an uninstaller.

Part of the software that MediaMax installs is a driver meant to interfere with ripping and copying from protected discs. I had believed that MediaMax didn’t permanently activate this driver—set it to run whenever the computer starts—unless the user accepted the license agreement. As it turns out, this belief was wrong, and things are even worse that I had thought.

In the comments to our last MediaMax story, reader free980211 pointed out that the driver sometimes becomes permanently activated if the same protected CD is used more than once, even if the user never agrees to the EULA. This wasn’t apparent from my earlier tests because they were conducted under tightly controlled conditions, with each trial beginning from a fresh Windows installation and involving only carefully scripted operations. I’ve performed further tests and can now confirm that MediaMax is permanently activated in several common situations in spite of explicitly withheld consent.

(emphasis mine). I'm no expert on IP law, but "[t]his is trespass, plain and simple. No software should ever install itself on a user’s computer without some notification to the user and opportunity to decline." Honestly, in my mind, this is even worse than the other one. At least with the rootkit, you had agreed to a EULA, and were on notice that something was being installed on your computer. This one doesn't even give you that chance, and:

This may be an annoyance to music fans—unless you disable the driver, you’ll have a hard time playing any MediaMax-protected titles, let alone copying them to your iPod—but it’s also a security risk, since the driver is loaded as part of the Windows kernel and has the ability to control virtually any aspect of the computer’s operation. We don’t know whether the MediaMax driver contains any vulnerability that can be exploited to do further damage, but the way it is installed creates a dangerous precedent.

(emphasis mine, again). So after unknowingly installing something which 'phones home', there's also a sign post to hackers that says "In here fellas!" Not to get tinfoil-hatty, but this is starting to seem a little Big Brotherish...

In Related News, Rush Hour Traffic Accidents Were Down 75%

CrackBerry's Network may be getting shut down. At least temporarily. Nobody tell my techno-fearing Pops about this, as his mini-meltdown when his stops working will be mildly humorous to both me and the uber tech-savvy SlarRat.

Jean Schmidt Says "More Violins on Television"

In trying to find a piece I had read earlier in preperation for previous post, I stumbled across this gem from Norman Ornstein (big ups to Michael Crowley at The New Republic for "induct[ing me] into the church of Norm"). I could easily have titled this post "Chutzpah, pt. III" based on this quote from Schmidt's first ever floor speech on Sept. 6:

"This House has much work to do. On that we can all agree. We will not always agree on the details of that work. Honorable people can certainly agree to disagree. However, here today I accept a second oath. I pledge to walk in the shoes of my colleagues and refrain from name-calling or the questioning of character. It is easy to quickly sink to the lowest form of political debate. Harsh words often lead to headlines, but walking this path is not a victimless crime. This great House pays the price."

Three guesses as to her second floor speech. As Roseanne Rosanadan might say, "Oh, that (Murtha) is different. Never mind."

The Basis of Morality

Occassionally, I'll get into a big discussion with my former roommate, The Pastor, about the nature of morality. Needless to say, we approach the problem from opposite viewpoints, him being a pastor and me going to hell for my heathen ways. It's a frustrating discussion to have, because if you dig long enough, one's rationale is almost inherently circular. As one very smart commenter puts it:

I follow my unprovable moral axioms because I believe, on moral reflection, that they are morally compelled. If this sounds terribly circular, that's because it is, but I don't see[why] that should be problematic.

To me, it both is and isn't problematic. It's not because, for day-to-day life it works. At the same time, I'm discomforted by having so much based on such an inherently paradoxical belief. (On a certain level, I'm also disappointed that the limits of my own reason require me to accept belief without any sort of empiricism.)

All this is by way of a longwinded introduction to a series of posts at Volokh asking for responses on this issue, both from a religious and non-religious perspectives. (As well as a 'fight the hypothetical' complaint thread. My profs used to say that if you want to fight the hypothetical, pay more tuition. Law profs tend to be dorks. Make of all this what you will.)

There's quite a few very articulate responses from very smart people who seem to have put a lot of thought into the matter. There is also mine...

Guest Blogging Against Racism: My Mother

Pooh: via Bitch, PhD, I discovered that today has been designated 'Blogging Against Racism Day'. As my mother heads up an organization known as Healing Racism in Anchorage, I figured it would be good to have her share some thoughts on the matter. My own thoughts on the matter can be found here.

Take it away, Mom:

From reading comments by others, I see that most are in agreement about the definition of racism: a systematic use of power to advantage some (in America based on what is called "race") and disadvantage others. Or, more simply put, prejudice plus power (the ability to put the prejudice into action) equals racism. So only those in power (as a group) can be racist. Those not in power can be prejudiced, they just can't be racist. It's more than a semantic difference, because it places racism at the societal as well as personal level.

For instance, the systemic nature of racism means that white people like myself are routinely advantaged just because we are seen as white by others. Lord knows I've benefited, in obvious ways (not getting speeding tickets when I should have) to less obvious ways (getting jobs that I was qualified for, but then so were others). It also means that one can be a nice person but still behave in racist ways and say racist things. Finally, it suggests that it is meaningless to call someone "a racist," because we all are. Name-calling doesn't seem to be a fruitful plan of action in any event; it doesn't change the behavior, just draws battle lines.

The second item in general agreement in the comments I've read is that living in the US makes it nigh near impossible not to be infected by what Nathan Rutstein many years ago began calling the "disease of racism". The analogy is apt. It takes the discussion away from blame and guilt and places it in a stance of responsibility and action.

I'm a founding member of a group in Anchorage, Alaska called Healing Racism in Anchorage. We have had many a debate about whether to change our name because when people hear the
word "racism" many retreat out of fear or defensiveness, and so conversations are stopped before they begin. We have remained steadfast, however, insisting that we, and our various audiences, face and confront the word and deed. Many who object to the use of "racism" are white folks who are trying hard to be nice. Our organization's stance is that trying is a good start, but one must go deep down to understand one's unquestioned assumptions, early experiences, and "infection" by the media and society in general. When a person sees how he or she is implicated in the whole system, then, and only then, can the individual start to heal self and work with others.

It's been a long time coming (we've been working at it for 11 years), but our local school district has finally, recently, entered into a partnership with Healing Racism in Anchorage to explore with staff the effects of racism and tools for confronting and healing it. Our superintendent of schools is now a member of our organization.

Keep talking. One makes wonderful friends and has a great deal of fun in the process. On the down side, I don't think racism will ever be eradicated. As an anthropologist (though not one who knows anything about cannibals [Pooh: The genesis of today's blogging was the discussion and criticism surrounding Creek Running North posting an objectionable cartoon depicting cannibals.) I find that the evil twin of community solidarity is exclusionary boundary-building. Both seem innately human impulses. But we have to keep working and playing at doing away with this particular insidious manifestation of human nature.

"When both parties have lost public confidence, where do voters turn?"

A WaPo editorial says "A Pox On Both Parties." I couldn't agree more. I've moaned previously about how there is a certain inevitability to the lowest-common denominator attitude which rules modern politics. The sad thing is, I don't have much in the way of constructive solutions which would both work and have a snowball's chance of implementation. As facetiously appealing as XWL's immodest proposal for 'terminal limits' is on the surface, I doubt it will happen.

Perhaps a more modestless radical proposal might help at least raise the level of discourse. Norman Ornstein's suggestion that congressmen and women treat their jobs like a job, working Monday through Friday, makes a great deal of sense. My sense is that Jean Schmidt had probably never even Spoken to Jack Murtha before she savaged him on the house floor. Maybe if they had spent some time was actually working together, she would think to herself "Hey, Democrats are people too. Even if this man's proposal is wrong he deserves respect" and pause before hurling Molotov cocktails for partisan political games. And the same from the other side of the aisle. Unfortunately, the Tuesday-Thursday club is essential for the same pork-barrel politics upon which legislators rely to allow themselves to get re-elected ad infinitum. Why remove themselves from the trough that lets them vote for a pay raise, followed by a needed vacation from that most tiring work?

Its much easier to lose the trust of another than to win it back. To sooner the process starts, the better.

Pooh on Race

As tommorow, many bloggers are blogging against racism, I thought I'd get a jump, epsecially since my mother, who is more knowledgeable on the subject than myself, has provided me with a guest piece for tommorow.

My first real experience with racism was at about 11. I was fortunate enough to have made the cut for a hockey travel team going to what was then Yugoslavia. Hockey has never been an especially diverse sport, there being many all-white teams even at the NHL level. However, on this team there was one young black kid, J. While in Yugoslavia (Zagreb, so now Croatia), it seemed none of the locals had ever seen a black person. They constantly walked up to J and touched his hair (he had a mini-fade at the time). While there did not seem to be anything malicious in these actions, I remember feeling vary uncomfortable for him, to be singled out in this way. He had a non-confrontational demeanor, so nothing untoward happened. But I always wondered how that made him feel. (Of course being an 11 year-old boy, I did not ask...)

The next real incident was a few years later, in high-school. I attended an "alternative" school. Open campus, no bells, no detentions, an emphasis on personal repsonsibility. Unsurprisingly, the school was exceedingly liberal. It was also very white, with probably 80% of the student body being caucasian.

A fairly unique part of the school's culture where the murals in the halls. A student could propose artwork for a section of wall, and if it was found to be acceptable to a joint student-faculty commitee, the student could procede to leave his mark. A kid a few years older than me had lost an eye at a young age in an accident. Despite this, he became a very talented artist. In an effort to express his frustration at the strange looks and remarks he was subjected to, he proposed a mural.

The piece was entitled 'racism'. On a backdrop of a rolling field. A group of several amorphous, Simpson-like figures stood in a circle. Some where tall and thin, some short and round. One was red, another blue, another polka-dotte yet another plaid. The one thing they had in common was an orange circle in the middle of their chests. They were standing in a circle. Around a similarly amorphous figure with a yellow triangle instead of an orange circle. This figure was being lynched. At the top, in simple letters, was a single word: "Racism".

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this mural was highly controversial, and was eventually removed. But I always thought that it expressed in simple, visual terms the sheer irrationality of hatred based on something as immaterial to human interaction as skin color. I wish I had a print just as a reminder and possible object lesson.

LOOK OUT FOR THE SHARK...

I really can't say too much about tonight's Lost, except for its never a good sign when a character on death's door mumble/whispers "I love her" in the tease. Oh, and bullshit on Kate's backstory, she was so much more badass as a bankrobber.

update: and that's what I get for posting just before the episode ends...good cliffhanger, and I am mammothly enthused for the first Ekosode next week. A big Boom.

Update #2: NO NEW EPISODES TIL JAN?!?!? I hate network TV...

Here, Spammy Spammy Spammy, Here...

As those of us who use blogger know, comment spam is a huge issue. For an example, look at the comments to the last post here (where I have posting, but no editorial priviledges, so I can't, like take it down, even though all three members are off the poker due to having jobs and such. Ah, the easy days of Law School...). Of course the whole word verification thing has largely removed the issue. However, they seem to be getting more clever. Yesterday, I got an email from "Lauren" with the heading "Spartan Total Warrior." I opened it because it could have been from Lauren whose blog I visit and comment on occassionally, though how she would have gotten my email, I don't know. Of course, it wasn't from her:

Hi,
I just found your Xbox blog entry: link and I think you may be of some help to me. I'm reaching out to you on behalf of M80 & Sega regarding Spartan Total Warrior. This award-winning game is the first console title from the Total War series. Since you are a fan of Xbox, I thought that you might be interested in posting the press release or a review of the game on your blog? You seem like a reputable influencer, so I think you'd be a big help to us.

Please let me know if you're interested!

Thanks!

Lauren

Almost got me there. Except, the blog post in question is more a rumination on my fluctuating rotundity and the effect that has on my wardrobe, with the sum total of XBOX related material being:

During lawschool, this did not present much of a problem because my morning clothing decisions were generally A) Go to class? Bullshit, I'm eating pop-tarts and playing XBox today. (Hence the weight bouncing). B) Which hoodie goes with these ratty jeans?

But it doesn't hurt to ask does it? Especially if I'm "a reputable influencer".

So for those keeping track, I am now a felonious, reputably influencing, beer drinking mormon. My life is a mad-lib.

Chutzpah, pt. 2

Ladies and Germs, Ruben Patterson:

"I don't think my role of playing 13 or 15 minutes a game is acceptable," Patterson told the newspaper this week. "I deserve to play 25-plus minutes, but if they want me to play 12 minutes [like he did in his last game against New York], then they can just put me on the inactive list. I mean, those are rookie minutes."

So, I'll ask, who is the Eric of Patterson's posse who's job it is to keep him from doing stupid, career-wrecking shit? Though this being the Blazers, I'm sure he listens more to his own Turtle. Fellas, this is your meal ticket, step up your game.

OOOPS! (or, Who Knew that Shoe Leather Tasted that Bad?)

Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings has a piece called Intellectual Honesty Watch in which right-wing bloggers, eager to be the first to heap scorn on Joe Biden's call for Iraqi withdrawal apparently missed the memo that Biden's plan = GWB's plan. Here's the kicker:

Now: imagine for a moment that the bloggers I just quoted actually sat down and thought about Biden's plan, concluded that it was a bad idea, and that this reflection explains their posts. In that case, you'd expect them to respond to today's White House statement with horror and alarm. After all, it's one thing for the Senator Powerline calls "the Delaware windbag" to adopt a plan. He is in the minority party, and has no real influence over policy. It's quite another for the President of the United States, our Commander in Chief, to embrace a policy that "gets the entire war on terror fundamentally wrong", and shows that people who adopt it "cannot ever take charge of American security" and "are unfit to direct this country's foreign policy". The thought that Bush, who does direct America's foreign policy, is 'unfit' to do so, since he 'gets the entire war on terror fundamentally wrong', should be terrifying.

And yet, oddly enough, not one of these worthies has seen fit to comment on Bush's embrace of Biden's plan. And it's not lack of time: they have somehow managed to fit in posts on Whoopi Goldberg, Cindy Sheehan, the Carnival of the Cats, and all sorts of other momentous topics. But somehow the fact that our President is, by their standards, unfit to direct our foreign policy seems to have escaped their notice.

Am I going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they haven't seen the 'Bush plan' news story? Not a frickin' chance, especially in the case of instapundit considering that he acts as something of a news aggregator. Remember, just because you read it on the internet, doesn't make it true. Conversely, just because you don't read it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Is this surpising? No. Sad? Yes. Likely to repeated on a near daily basis by both political wings? Absolutely. C'est la blogosphere.

Tis the Season...For Making Movie Lists...

XWL has completed the exhausting task of listing out his 54 favorite movies/films. Or is it his 54 best? The two concepts are similar but not equal. I love Heartbreak Ridge, but I would never describe it as a great movie. I have a hard enough time filling out a top ten, so 54 must be draining.

On the other hand, Scott Lemium over at liberal hothouse Lawyers, Guns & Money asks what movies do you hate? (A warning: 'misogyny' is broadly defined over there, and they see it as a bug, not a feature.)

Ambivalence, Iraq and My Cynicism

This story caught my eye, for obvious reasons:

Barring any major surprises in Iraq, the Pentagon tentatively plans to reduce the number of U.S. forces there early next year by as many as three combat brigades, from 18 now, but to keep at least one brigade "on call" in Kuwait in case more troops are needed quickly, several senior military officers said.

Pentagon authorities also have set a series of "decision points" during 2006 to consider further force cuts that, under a "moderately optimistic" scenario, would drop the total number of troops from more than 150,000 now to fewer than 100,000, including 10 combat brigades, by the end of the year, the officers said.

And I am deeply ambivalent about the import of this news. My first, viscerally cynical, reaction is to say "just in time for the mid-term elections." But that's both too facile and violates my stated personal ethic of not giving too much weight to the intentions behind actions. Sooooo, what do I really think?

It's fabulous that 60,000 people won't be off in some desert acting as targets any jackass with some dynomite and a box of nails. But what about the 100,000 that are left? We are already stretched too thin in Iraq, our soldiers playing whack-a-mole, with the moles fighting back.

The fact of the matter is that we are over there. How we got there doesn't especially matter at this point. That's a sunk cost, and though it's worthy of discussion, it shouldn't affect our decision about what to do now. I tend to agree with Murtha's point that our troops are a catalyst for insurgent activities, so removing that stimulous might help. At the same time, there is a sizable insurgent presence which will not go away just because our troops do. And the Iraqi infrastructure is not yet at the point where they can handle the problem.

Sadly, the best solution is probably more troops, for now, not less. If we're going to occupy, then lets occupy. Let's remove insurgents from villages and stick around and make the town safe. If we provide actual safety, infrastructure can emerge. And we'll be out sooner. But that will never happen, because it involves either the Dems or the GOPs propsing the measure first. And if you thought Murtha got slammed, wait til someone says we need more troops...

I feel like I'm talking about Iraq too much. Or is it that other people aren't talking about it enough?

Jay, the Turk Wants to See You...

Has a player every been cut during a game? Jay Feeley might just find out...(6:05 left in OT, he's 0-3 in the 4th and OT)

BTW, I still think Tom Coughlin is a bad coach, and an a*****e.