The Chinese media is redefining the English language. According to the People's Daily online, "The majority of Japanese people opposed Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's stance on China, according to a survey result released Tuesday by Asahi Shimbun newspaper on Tuesday.

"Some 48 percent of those who responded in the telephone survey said they do not agree with the premier's political attitude to China while 35 percent said they support Koizumi on the issue and 17 percent refused to give a clear answer, the daily said."

A majority means half or more. Good job, guys. Also, I must say I was entertained by the fact that it was reported that people "refused to give a clear answer." In most polls, that category generally is undecided or lack of knowledge, but I now have a picture in my head of 17% of respondents acting like the mother of Michael Jackson's accuser on the stand, going off on tangents that have nothing to do with the question asked.

I ran across a guest commentary in the Oregon Daily Emerald from May 24, in which the writer said that stories like Newsweek's Quran flushing report, based on actual allegations, but taking authority from the words of a respected anonymous source who turned out to be completely wrong, are examples of why the government should have the ability to censor media during wartime. The article is pretty simple and straightforward, but so amazingly off-base in its assumptions and its blind trust in the Bush administration (and who the hell signals out Scott McClellan for praise? The guy still gets battered by Helen Thomas, who seems to be decomposing during each press conference).

An excerpt:

"The Newsweek staff made a profound error in judgment by publishing an unsubstantiated rumor by an "anonymous" source. In my opinion, errors like this make a strong argument for press restrictions during times of war. When issues of national security are at stake, irresponsible news reporting such as this has serious consequences."

Can we talk about irresponsible government decision-making in a democracy, please?

And while we're at it, anyone have opinions on anonymous sources? I say that the rule of thumb, in general (making exceptions for extraordinary circumstances or times when the anonymity is seen to carry no risk), should be that anonymous sources should not be used just to bash individuals or provide quotes without any new information; additionally, they should not provide sensationalist stories without on-the-record interviews with other individuals that help support the anonymous source (this is important especially during this time when the media is under attack for not revealing sources in relation to the Valerie Plame CIA case). In general, the main role of anonymous sources should be to bolster stories in ways that only insiders could, at times when insiders are not willing or unable to go on the record (how else would people in the government or military ever leak information? Think of what anonymous sources have done positively in the past: Watergate, Pentagon Papers, etc).

My old compatriot from Boys State, Gordy Carlson, has a new site up and running. I won't tell you what it is about, but I think the address gives it away: "Liberals are just better"

This is not sad, I swear...


:: how jedi are you? ::

American Idol politics? This from an e-mail exchange I had today...

Not me: So I just had a random thought. I am serious about this, by the way. You hear about how on American Idol gets about 70,000,000 votes. In the pres election, there were 122,293,332 total votes cast (this is popular vote), but a smaller percentage of that was the "youth vote." In fact, I bet that a smaller number than 70,000,000 votes were cast by youth. But you clearly cannot say that "youth do not like to vote" because they flock to American Idol. I guess what I am wondering how the youth vote movement could take all of this "American Idol voting excitment" and channel it into a real increase in the youth vote block. What do you think?

Me: Well, you can vote multiple times in American Idol, which obviously massively skews the numbers. Seeing as the show draws about 10-20 million viewers, I would say that is a better judge of how many people may have voted. Either way though, it is an interesting question. And I think political groups like the Bus are already doing a lot to emulate American Idol's strengths (competition, entertainment, gossip, controversy, choice, etc). The problem in many cases is that unless you cover up the serious topics, politics is much less conducive to casual voting than a music show--the opportunity cost of voting responsibly is much higher, and is also harder to disguise as not being a form of work.

Other point is the age difference: idol targets people who are obsessed with singers and entertainment, including a huge bloc of under-18s. That same bloc exists in politics, but is in the mid-20s because of the difference in subject matter and higher knowledge requirements.

One of the biggest things, though, that makes it hard for American Idol-type enthusiasm to transfer? The lack of choice in politics. If American idol broke into pre-competition battles between the Democratic rock singers, and then between the R&B Republicans, viewership would plummet because half the viewers would have no interest at any given time. Then, if only the best rock singer and best R&B singer competed over and over again, don't you think people would get tired? The key to American Idol, beyond the music and entertainment, is the format of elimination. If politics was more gradual in its selection process, and not party-dominated, then Idol would serve to provide a more impartible model. As it is, many of those who don't vote do so because their favorite singer never even got a chance to compete.


Any thoughts on either view?

James Kirchik, a senior at Yale, has a solid piece in the gay newspaper The Washington Blade about the problems with law schools banning military recruiters for DADT. He argues that by setting up an unassailable position of opposition that forces gay men and straight men who don't want to be seen as homophobic to abhor the military, schools are not only stifling debate, but are also keeping good men and women out of the military. He states that:

"BY MAKING HOMOPHOBIA the reigning issue in the debate over military recruitment, gay activists have fostered a form of group-think that necessarily compels all gay people — and all straight people who do not want to be thought of as homophobes — to support their cause.

This tactic turns off many potential allies, who are equally supportive of gay rights and a strong national defense.

Sometimes issues affecting gay and lesbian Americans are more nuanced than morally absolutist activists would like them to be.

While I may find “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” to be unjust, it is more important that my straight peers have the opportunity to serve their country and defend the freedoms that gay activists have also fought so courageously to enshrine."

I just ran across the contact list for my fellow counselors when I worked at Outdoor School back in 2000. I thought, just for fun, I'd list them and their "names" that were used with the 6th graders who attended the week-long program.

Ninon Anker-Lagos "Estrella"
Christina Baker "Rafiki"
Allison Barisich "Pez"
Jenny Bedell-Stiles "Colt"
Lisa Blank "Summit"
Laura Gayton "Gnute"
Jessa Harger "Leveye"
Heather Jones "Calypso"
Racheal Kasprzak "Juniper"
Ria Marshall "Chia"
Randi Messer "Waves"
Reagan Pittman "Artemis"
Meaghan Savery "Kythe"
Jennifer Summering "Bumble Bee"
Colleen Wearn "Caldera"
Joseph Anady "Dragosani"
Scott Beck "Mud"
Jacy Brunkow "Sage"
Paul Powell "Mo"
Brian Wagner "Chasm"
Clark Young "Pawprint"

Oh, those were the days... I hated my campers.

Slate's Chatterbox ran an interesting result of a reader poll a few days ago; readers were "given" 25 dollars and asked to allocate them among the NY Times columnists to indicate how much they would be willing to pay to read each one, and then the totals were averaged out to rank the popularity of the columnists. Of course, this means, first of all, that there is bad news. In the near future, the NY Times is going to start charging to read all the columnists, supposedly at a price of $45 a year. I wonder if there is a way to download music and Frank Rich's new column of P2P at the same time...

The results of the poll were this (though Timothy Noah acknowledges that the 1000 votes he got in 4.5 hours overwhelmed him, and he ended up only counting the ones that came in during the last .5 hours):

Paul Krugman: $6.90

Thomas L. Friedman: $4.10

Frank Rich: $3.92

Maureen Dowd: $3.42

Nicholas Kristof: $2.35

Bob Herbert: $1.42

David Brooks: $1.39

John Tierney: $0.31

I think this strongly represents both the liberal leanings of the NY Times readers, and the additionally liberal leaning of those NYTimes readers who also read Slate. I for one, have never read Tierney, who is the new conservative columnist, and I only so often read Herbert or Dowd, who I got tired of long ago. But I especially like Brooks' and Rich's writings, especially their social commentary and ability to ask interesting questions. Brooks I know is despised by much of the left, quite unfairly I believe. Not only is he a fascinating writer, but he is a captivatingly assertive and entertaining speaker, even when you completely disagree with him. While I like Krugman, I agree with Noah that he loses quality when he strays from economics into liberal ranting, which even gets on my nerves (another reason why Dowd is off my must-read list). I enjoy Friedman, but find that he often repeats himself on a variety of themes, and has lost much of the importance in his writing that once made him a star. Finally, Kristoff is a tough case. I've known of him for years, as I've read both of the books on Asia by the Pulitzer Prize-winning team of himself and his wife, Sheryl WuDunn. He often turns out fascinating pieces on Asia, and is the voice of Sudan's dispossessed, but he has occasionally written some columns about American politics that have made me cringe or just yawn.

My rankings would be this:

Frank Rich $6.50

David Brooks $6.00

Nicholas Kristof $5.00

Thomas Friedman $3.50

Paul Krugman $2.50

Maureen Dowd $0.75

Bob Herbert $0.50

John Tierney $0.25 (only because I haven't read him)

Here is the article link: Rankings

Anyone know a good essay that responds to allegations from papers like these?

"But the Left’s long dominion over the university—the last place on earth that lefty power would break up, conservatives believed—is showing its first signs of weakening. The change isn’t coming from the schools’ faculty lounges and administrative offices, of course. It’s coming from self-organizing right-of-center students and several innovative outside groups working to bypass the academy’s elite gatekeepers."

I haven't seen a good defence of colleges against conservative accusations and claims of the growing conservative student insurgency in recent times, anyone know of any?

Wondering why I haven't posted in a few days? Look out the window if you are in Portland. You see that sun? Yeah, that's my excuse.

I spent an hour studying Chinese syllables in the pinyin system today; I get the feeling I'm in for what is going to be a massive educational undertaking if I want to one day become fluent in Mandarin. Wish me luck.

The "articulate" black man. About a year ago, a friend proposed to me that there were certain words that were only used to describe a certain type of person, often due to an otherwise nonexistent respect for such people. One of the words he pointed out was "articulate" when used to describe a black man who could speak English eloquently. For whatever reason, I didn't want to believe that journalists and politicians were that predictable (me, naive?) so I did a LexisNexis search which was inconclusive. A majority of the references were to blacks, but there were also numerous references to other people, mostly white. Yet recently I've kept running across the articulate black, and am starting to become more convinced that the word is almost exclusively reserved for a well-spoken black man. In the January issue of Columbia College Today, it was noted that after Sen. Barack Obama's decisive election victory, President Bush called to tell him "You're one articulate fella."

Now I wonder, being not so well-versed in race relations or in sociology, does this sort of classification indicate racism? does it perpetuate racism? can i be articulate?

How odd it is to be a high-powered Ivy league student, looking back on past PR, journalism, and political jobs, and to find oneselves thoroughly intimidated, in the midst of internship applications to the likes of the mayor's office, by a concurrent attempt to find a restaurant job. It doesn't matter if you have a sterling GPA and saved children in Guatemala when you are looking to be a waiter--it entirely depends on whether you walk into the right restaurant, the one that is just happening to be in need of an inexperienced 21 year-old to serve customers. My main choice, the Alameda Brewhouse, just shot me down because they already have too many people lined up for work. Now I have to start making rounds of the neighborhood. Bugger.

And now I head home, leaving Scotland behind ...

Frank Rich continues to impress with his recent spate of columns on Conservative social hypocrisy and recklessness. Today he talks the classic Senate movie "Advise and Consent," and talks about the evolution of the 30-year war against homosexuality. Just How Gay Is the Right?

The NYTimes is starting a new series on class in America, the first article weighs in at a lowly 6 full pages. It's a fascinating read that claims class mobility is actually decreasing in the United States, despite the common perception that mobility has increased. Class in America

Review of Freakonomics, the best-selling new book by economist Steven Levitt, which seeks to find the answers to questions no one ever considers. I can't wait to read this myself, as I've been following Levitt's blogging at his homepage. Here's the book review: Freakonomics

And Nicholas Kristof talks about a new book by a former Episcopal bishop that explores how the Bible has been misused and misinterpreted by conservatives on issues such as women, death, and sex, in past centuries Liberals and the Bible

I was just informed my Vin Diesel link never worked. So click here, and just keep refreshing the page, for amazing facts about Vin. Vin Diesel once ate the country of Zaire for breakfast. Afterwards, he had terrible indigestion and shit out the Falkland Islands"

Darth Vader has his own blog (Darth Side). If you even have a little bit of dork in you, check it out. Especially the post about Ewok kebabs on Endor.

May I just state that whatever the verdict against Michael Jackson is, he'll have lost. The sheer amount of bad publicity and revealings of his odd nature have finally alienated him to the mass of Americans. MJ is over. And thank God. His last CD was shamefully mediocre. His only hope is to have a clothing malfunction at his final press conference, maybe JT will reprise his role from the Super Offensive Bowl.

So apparently on the Family Guy scale, I'm a Lois. I sure hope it is the ass-whoopin' Lois from the Lethal Weapons episode where she beats up all of New York and some Superman bad guys, goes on to grab Peter's crotch and declare, "this is mine. This is where my babies come from!" Otherwise, I'd just be depressing housewife Lois.


Which Family Guy character are you?


See what you are here: Family Guy Quiz

Rob Kremer, "scourge" of the public school system in Oregon, has a fascinating run-down on CIM/CAM testing standards in Oregon. As I have never been a fan of the standards (find me an Oregon high school student who is and I'll give you a buck), I recommend checking the piece out to get the brain juices churning.

Check out the new trailer for The Legend of Zorro. If you enjoyed the Saturday morning serial quality of its predecessor as much as I did, you'll love this:

If you are at all interested in the issue of ROTC on college campuses, check this thread out over at Phil Carter's Intel Dump. I've been arguing ROTC at Columbia with another blogger for a day or so now, and I'd love new voices.

After a long discussion about intelligent design and evolution while dining at the only good American restaurant in Scotland, The Filling Station, I ran across a splendid bit of question-raising at LeanLeft, where an "Alternative Intelligent Design Theory" has been proposed which basically posits that when man became aware of the world outside of his cave, he noticed the stars, and being unable to reach them, decided a greater power put them there. Later on, religions and deities were further developed to maintain order in societies.

I find it a fascinating take, which fits with the author's statement that the ability to discuss and question notions such as these in schools is important for furthering education. While I still believe that evolution is the only purely scientific theory of substance, meaning that it should remain the primary source in science courses, which rarely deal with theory (esp. at the high school level), I would love to see schools offering a sort of history of religions course that questions belief systems and challenges theories such as evolution by discussin non-scientific theories like intelligent design. As Prof. David Helfand of Columbia University has noted, intelligent design theory, in its more basic "God created the world" form, is not scientific because it cannot be proven right or wrong, which is what scientists like him take as a basic tenet of science, the ability to set boundaries on what is known and what is unknown.

The link to the lean left article is below:

If there is only one thing you do today, click on this link.

Vin Diesel once shat a full-scale replica of the Titanic

Why am I happy, despite having just worked a 15 hour bartending shift where I was projectile puked upon? Because critics are saying good or even great things about the final Star Wars movie, saying it is a great way to end the series, or even that it is the best movie since the Empire Strikes Back. Anyone else starting to feel a little bit like the old magic may be back for 2 final hours?

As I mentioned in a previous entry, I am a Google freak. After 4 hours of watching British election coverage today, I needed something to do. So I, umm, Googled myself. It was interesting, I swear! I found out that not only that the Google search engine is more self-promoting than I am, but that my "works" have been translated.

First, I had looked for my blog on Google in the past and couldn't get it to show up. But then I write an article about Google on my blog, and suddenly my blog keeps popping up. Now I see whose back I need to scratch.

Also, if you go here: German Falun Gong, you can find a Spectator article I wrote about the Falun Gong translated into German. sweeet.
-----

And yes, it looks like Conservatives will gain seats from Labour, and Labour will end up with a 60 seat or so majority. the big losers here are Tony Blair's reputation and the Liberal Democratics, Conservatives are somewhat winners while remaining losers, and Chancellor Gordon Brown comes out smellling of roses.

British Election Extravaganza

With the General Election tomorrow, turnout in many constituencies looks to challenge American turnout for dismality (if that isn't a word, it is now). It has become clear now that the surge in popularity the Conservative Party has enjoyed in recent months does not represent a serious challenge to Labour's hold on Parliament. While Labour's mammoth majority will erode to some degree, we will most assuredly be seeing 4-5 more years of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (vote Blair, get Brown, seems to be the justification of many Labourites).

That is not to say absoutely nothing is happening. Charles Kennedy and the Liberal Dems have made a strong showing as third party challengers, and may pick up a few protest seats. But ultimately the tug of war is between Labour and Conservatives.

The Iraq war, while a huge credibility issue for Labour, has been muted in part by the fact that only 10% of voters are still seriously angry, and also by the fact that only the Lib Dems actually opposed the war. Immigration and the EU are also big issues, and the Conservatives have done a strong job in stirring up mild xenophobia by targeting immigrants and gypsies as causes of British poverty and unemployment. But this sort of "dog whistle" politics--so-called because only certain types of people pay attention to the call--only can pick up so many votes.

The vote itself is stacked for Labour due to the urban-focused voting system that prioritizes seats in those areas, and also due to the winner-take-all elections, where it won't matter if the Lib Dems get 24% of the vote if they only come out with a plurality in a few seats.

Tony Blair himself may be the most unpopular clear winner a Western country has seen in awhile--no one trusts him anymore. On a recent episode of Question Time, he was being so mercilessly grilled by the audience that any TV viewer could see the sweat dripping from his brow. He has also been beseiged by questions as to whether he will, halfway through his third term, hand the reins over to Chancellor Gordon Brown and resign, which Brown hinted at previously. Blair has ineffectually addressed this question, and while Brown continues to remain popular with Britons, Blair is heading toward a potentially lame duck term as far as his personal prestige is concerned. Brown and Blair don't get along well, despite a hilarious TV ad filmed by The English Patient's Anthony Minghella where they sit around and supposedly have a "normal" conversation about Britain that looks painfully posed. Brown is clearly the "Labour" that many voters are casting their cynical support behind.

The Conservatives have been hobbled yet again by a leader, Michael Howard, with a limited appeal. He comes across as being too strident on issues like immigration that alienate moderate Conservatives (which Britain has many of), and lacks the charisma of Blair or even Brown. The fact that he has a Darth Vaderesque appeal doesn't help, nor does the fact that he is occasionally compared to Jose Mourinho, the famously volatile manager of the Chelsea football team. He's fought the good fight, but like Mark Latham, the former head of the Australian Labour Party, his early surges in the poll will not translate into victory on election day.

Genius! BBC.co.uk has created H2G2 (how to get to, or something), a real-world Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, with entries written and edited by readers like you and me H2G2

Wait a second, haven't we all heard of something like this before...? Yeah, Wikipedia (Wikipedia) a fabulous online encyclopedia that has been created in the same way over several years. So skip H2G2, because Douglas Adams is dead and won't mind, sitting up there sipping on a cuppa' at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, and go check out wikipedia if you ever need to know anything or are dying to write an entry on the mating habits of the aardvark (it would go at the beginning of the encyclopedia, in all possibility).

Check out this great election ad spoof for the May 5 British general election. And be careful who you go to bed with...they might never leave.

Be Careful Who You Sleep With

hat tip to Andrew Sullivan for the link

A thought and a picture. The British music chart is so ridiculously distorted that I have a hard time ever taking it seriously. Every single week, invariably the singles chart is dominated by a song that is 30 years old. Does this country really have so much interest in re-released music? I mean, the war this week was between a re-release of a remix of a Elvis Presley song, Tony Christie's showtune-esque "Is This the Road to Amaradillo?" from his greatest hits CD, and the new Snoop Dogg/JT song. Tony Christie came out on top for the 7th week in a row, making his reign the longest since 1998, when another old person, Cher, topped the charts with "Bbbbeeeliiiiieeevvveeeee." This whole spate of Elvis chart-toppers being old B-sides that aren't even very memorable just shows that while most people buy Franz Ferdinand and Green Day, every week a bunch of old people rush to the stores (or click on iTunes if they know how to use a computer) to pick up songs that were big when they were young. Of course people keep buying old music, but this whole business of rereleases constantly dominating the charts is ludicrous.

And the picture.



UPDATE: the picture didnt show up, so here is the link to some painted faces before a pagan festival. Come on, you know you are curious.

"Say Haggis!"

Tis a sad day for science fiction fans, at least for those reading the Sunday New York Times. Two articles leap out at you, one on Star Trek, one on Star Wars. While all the news might not be bad, the headlines sure are depressing.

"Is the Trek Over?"
"Is There Life After 'Star Wars' for Lucasfilm?"

The first article is about the fact that the latest Star Trek show, the irritatingly insignificant "Enterprise," is coming to an end on May 13, and that next season, for the first time in 18 years, there will be no new Trek on TV. Muses co-executive producer Manny Coto in the article, "It's like there's a certain number of science fiction fans, and that's it. It's a genre that appeals to a certain type of individual, and there's not a lot of them."
"Is the Trek Over?"

The second article isn't quite so dismal. While George Lucas goes on the record saying that he plans to stop making movies permanently--""I have no intention of running a film company," said Mr. Lucas, whose new film, "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith," will be released this month. "That is the last thing in the world I'd do""--there is some news that almost bowled me over. Being in Scotland, I may have just missed this, but there are plans for two new Star Wars tv shows in the near-future. This could just mean kids cartoon shows, but it could also mean live action, possibly filling a huge hole for mainstream sci-fi fans that has been created by the demise of the Star Trek franchise. Oh, the possibilities.
"The future for Lucasfilm"
----
(Update thrown in the middle here) I just ran across another article filled with "real" science fiction writers bitching and moaning about how Star Wars made life so hard for serious science fiction purveyors who cared about things like ... science. Ursula K. LeGuin said Star Wars simply took "these very stock metaphors of empire in space and monstrously bad people and wonderfully good people and plays out a bunch of stock operatic themes in space suits. You can do it with cowboy suits as well." Ray Bradbury even had the gall to say that Lucas should have stopped after the first movie back in 1977. Has he seen Empire Strikes Back?! I realize that they have valid arguments, but generally I just feel like shouting at them to shut up and enjoy the film and their popcorn. As Manny Coto said in the Trek article, there arent a huge number of "real" science fiction fans, so these writers are dealing with a small target in the first place. Blaming Star Wars for simplifying and stupidifying science fiction is pointless--it's the realm of entertainment we are talking about here, no one has a right over "types." This is why government attempts to control what passes as entertainment strike so many people as odious; it claims a degree of judgment that no one really thinks is valid, and tries to establish that certain types of entertainment end up degrading and hurting the "better" forms of entertainment.

This article has been written so many times before I've lost count--it's like Tom Cruise's love life, which always seems to revive itself right when his new movie is coming out to capitalize (Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, wow i'm shocked). The conclusion to the article is the amazingly overdone conclusion that Blade Runner is a better movie than Star Wars. There really is no point in making that conclusion; it is like saying David Beckham is better than Tom Brady--both play something called in name "football" but are in fact separated vastly by a difference in what football means to them.

Anyway, here is that article.

"Star Wars Sucks"

-----
Frank Rich does a splendid bit on South Park and how a new conservative screed is arrogantly embracing the show for its attacks on liberals. He ties the book into a greater sense of "Olympian arrogance and illiberalism" that has pervaded the Republican Party in its overconfidence since winning another election. He moves from South Park to the cultural "cleansing" movement that seeks to ban South Park, "inappropriate" material on television, and kick Howard Stern out of the public eye. For a liberal seeking to maintain faith in the face of the FCC mafioso's attacks on good ol' dirty fun, it is an encouraging article, and one of Rich's better efforts to date. And now I really want to see the March 30 episode of South Park, which Rich describes thusly:

"In the March 30 episode, Kenny, a kid whose periodic death is a "South Park" ritual, lands in a hospital in a "persistent vegetative state" and is fed through a tube. The last page of his living will is missing. Demonstrators and media hordes descend. Though heavenly angels decree that "God intended Kenny to die" rather than be "kept alive artificially," they are thwarted by Satan, whose demonic aide advises him to "do what we always do - use the Republicans." Soon demagogic Republican politicians are spewing sound bites ("Removing the feeding tube is murder") scripted in Hell. But as in the Schiavo case, they don't prevail. Kenny is allowed to die in peace once his missing final wish is found: "If I should ever be in a vegetative state and kept alive on life support, please for the love of God don't ever show me in that condition on national television."

This is why liberals love South Park and conservatives are supposed to hate it--because it lampoons this entire culture of correctness by dint of its subject matter. But still, I am interested to read this new book Rich talks about, called South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias, by Brian C. Anderson. It should be a hoot. Fun fact: a new Pew poll shows that 56% of Americans think the conservative effort to cleanse entertainment is more damaging to the nation than the actual content being attacked.

"South Park Conservatives"