Monday, August 24, 2009

7 Awesome Acts of Nature (That Science Can't Explain)

We may look down on all the primitive peoples who are confused by lightning and think thunder is the voice of the gods, but the truth is to this very day there are natural phenomena that our scientists still don't being to understand.

We're talking about events that are witnessed by thousands, photographed, well-documented and yet are utterly baffling. Such as...

#7.
Naga Fireballs

What would you do if you were walking along a tropical river at night and it suddenly began burping up egg-sized balls of red light? It happens every year in October along the Mekong river (the same one featured in classic Vietnam movies like Rambo II and the flashbacks from Rambo III). The phenomenon is known as the Naga Fireballs, and experts agree that it is "just weird as shit."


"'Weird as shit,' I said, I don't understand what other questions you could have."

What happens is this: starting under water, tens to thousands of glowing red lights are seen rising out from the bottom of the river, then lifting hundreds of feet into the sky before disappearing.

It literally appears that the river is spitting out flaming M&Ms. They have never harmed anyone, and don't even seem to touch anything let alone set anything on fire. However, both of those facts were probably unavailable to dull the ferocity of the pant-crapping that took place when the event was first witnessed.

The Naga Fireballs are viewed by thousands of people every year, and a healthy number of videos documenting the phenomenon are hosted on YouTube, which is the most reliable scientific journal on the Internet next to Wikipedia.

So, What do the Smart People Think is Happening?

The number one theory suggests that fermented sediment in the river, things such as decomposing remains and animal waste, release bubbles of self-immolating gas that rise to the surface and combust. That's right, the best explanation science has come up with for the Naga fireballs is essentially that it eats too much meat. Suspiciously absent from this theory is a reason why the phenomenon occurs around the same time every year. Unless the Mekong eats a regimented diet of Activia yogurt, those meat eaters among us have to be somewhat suspicious of such a regular rate of expulsion.

The locals are simply unwilling to accept any scientific explanation for the Naga Fireballs, preferring to preserve a sense of mysticism. Scooby-Doo could roll up in the Mystery Machine and uncover a giant underwater cannon shooting phosphorous balls into the sky and he'd probably be told to fuck off. Also, they would probably eat him.

#6.
Star Jelly

It is no surprise that shit falls from the sky during a meteor shower (that's pretty much 90 percent of the definition). But sometimes what rockets to the Earth is not what you would expect. Rather than a big hunk of stone or metal, sometimes people find what looks like a jellyfish that splattered down from outer space.


Or a ballistic space dildo.

There have been reports for over a century of people finding what the Germans call sternenrotz (which literally means "star snot") in conjunction with meteors falling from the sky. It's usually clear or yellowish, smells awful and disintegrates after being handled, much like one of our erections. Despite being described thoroughly in numerous newspaper and police accounts for over 150 years, no one has ever really been able to study it in depth because the substance falls apart too quickly to allow for a sample to be obtained.

Case in point: in 1950, four Philadelphia police men found a six-foot lump of star jelly outside of town. When they tried to pick it up, it dissolved into "odorless, sticky scum." No doubt they all took a shower afterward and couldn't look each other in the eye ever again.

So, What do the Smart People Think is Happening?

Most scientists are more than happy to say witnesses are full of shit and leave it at that, but some at least try to explain it. The glob found by the policemen in Philadelphia was a half mile away from the Philadelphia gas works, so some assert that it was a discharge of some sort (which is simultaneously plausible and just as unlikely as space boogers).

Other theories have included bird vomit, frog spawn vomited up by other animals and generally a bunch of other vomit-related ideas. The goo could also be mundane types of algae slimes that people just happen to notice around the time of a meteor fall. By far the most ball-crushingly awesome theory claims that star jelly is the remains of atmospheric beasts, mythical creatures that some claim float around in the atmosphere. Why we're not constantly scraping such creatures from the windshields of airliners is not explained.

#5.
Blue Jets and Red Sprites

While they may sound like two squads of a gay relay team, blue jets and red sprites are actually the names of what occurs above the clouds during a lightning storm. Only visible from space or from an airplane (or from a space airplane), these things look like the exhaust ports on a Megazord and we are totally putting them on our Christmas list.

Sprites and jets are always associated with lightning storms. Sprites are red most of the time and happen as high as 50 miles off the surface of the ground, while jets shoot directly out of the tops of storm clouds, sometimes traveling as far as 30 miles up into the Ionosphere.

So, What Do the Smart People Think is Happening?

Top minds are pretty sure the phenomena has something to do with whatever is causing the lightning we see in every storm, but beyond that, they don't seem to know. They know the sprites kick off as a result of a lightning strike on the ground, but the jets seem to fire whenever they goddamn please.

Jets also sometimes come in the form of the imaginatively named gigantic jets, which can shoot up as high as 43 miles above the cloud cover and look like something you uppercut your opponent into after a spirited game of Mortal Kombat. For now, science is content to shrug its shoulders and see what else is on The Discovery Channel.

#4.
Earthquake Lights

As far back as 373 BC people have claimed to see weird lights in the sky during earthquakes, and sometimes for minutes before the shaking actually starts, as seen in this video:

They seem to occur in China quite often, probably because the government only permits people to see a rainbow if they are moments from cataclysmic natural destruction. The lights were also witnessed during the recent earthquakes in Peru.


"Hey, check out the rainbow!"
"Yea, that's cool. The garage just fell on grandpa, by the way."

So, What Do the Smart People Think is Happening?

There are a number of theories surrounding earthquake lights, but unfortunately none of them are very conclusive. One suggests that the imminent earthquake releases gases that are electrically charged in the air, while another says that the tectonic stress fucks with the magnetic field of the earth and creates an aurora.

Yet another claims that the ground beneath contains a lot of quartz, which sparks up like Blanka from Street Fighter 2 when shaken by a tremor. Not one of these theories has a shred of evidence to back it up, though, so really we would accept any theory as long as we can tie it to some kind of fighting game reference.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17679_7-awesome-acts-nature-that-science-cant-explain.html
Sphere: Related Content

Back to God Damned School Special

According to the Wal-Mart flier, it's almost time for young people to return to school. Personally, I'll be happy to get them off my lawn and out of sight.

It occurs to me that a great deal has changed since I was a lad and preparing to return to the classroom.

Take the school knapsack for example.

Back in my day, this was standard issue for a young man heading off to school:

knapsack old v6

Wholesome, decent, all-American knapsacks for decent, red-blooded boys.

Compare that to the contents of an average young man's knapsack today:

knapsack new v6

God damned sad if you ask me. But the knapsacks speak for themselves.

http://crabbyoldfart.wordpress.com/

Sphere: Related Content

The Entertainment Value of Snuffing Grandma

http://www.joebageant.com/.a/6a00d8345162ed69e200e55296611c8834-pi

A nation of children roots for the Mafia
 

By Joe Bageant

Every day I get letters asking me to weigh in on the healthcare fracas. As if a redneck writer armed with a keyboard, a pack of smokes and all the misinformation and vitriol available on the Internet could contribute anything to the crap storm already in progress. Besides that, my unreasoned but noisy take on this issue is often about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit. None of which has ever stopped me from making a fool of myself in the past. So here goes.

There ain't any healthcare debate going on, Bubba. What is going on are mob negotiations about insurance, and which mob gets the biggest chunk of the dough, be it our taxpayer dough or the geet that isn't in ole Jim's impoverished purse. The hoo-ha is about the insurance racket, not the delivery of healthcare to human beings. It's simply another form of extorting the people regarding a fundamental need -- health.

Unfortunately, the people have been mesmerized by our theater state's purposefully distracting and dramatic media productions for so long they've been mutated toward helplessness. Consequently, they are incapable of asking themselves a simple question: If insurance corporation profits are one third of the cost of healthcare, and all insurance corporations do is deliver our money to healthcare providers for us (or actually, do everything in their power to keep the money for themselves), why do we need insurance companies at all? Answer: Because Wall Street gets a big piece of the action. And nobody messes with the Wall Street Mob (as the bailout extortion money proved). Better (and worse) presidents have tried. Some made a genuine effort to push it through Congress. Others expressed the desire publicly, but after getting privately muscled by the healthcare industry, decided to back off from the idea. For instance:

  • Franklin Roosevelt wanted universal healthcare.
  • Harry Truman wanted universal healthcare.
  • Dwight Eisenhower wanted universal healthcare.
  • Richard Nixon wanted universal healthcare.
  • Lyndon Johnson wanted universal healthcare.
  • Bill Clinton wanted -- well we can't definitely say because he made sure that if the issue blew up on him, which it did, Hillary would be left holding the turd. Is it any wonder that woman gets so snappy at the slightest provocation? First getting left to hold the bag on healthcare, then the spots on that blue dress.

So why did American liberals believe Obama would bring home the healthcare bacon? Because they live in an ideological cupcake land. It's a big neighborhood, a very special place where "Your vote is important," and "by electing the right candidate, you can change our beloved nation." Most of America lives in that neighborhood, even though they've never personally met. It's a place where the shrubbery and flowerbeds of such things as "values" and "hope" bloom. Hope that our desires coupled with the efforts of a good and decent president can affect "change." Evidently these voters never heard the old adage, "Hope in one hand and piss in the other, and see which one fills up first."

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2009/08/the-entertainment-value-of-snuffing-grandma.html

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's Elf

Sphere: Related Content

Liberals Have Guns Too, Ya Know...

So, the latest way the wing-nut right has found to get everyone's attention is to show up heavy at healthcare town hall meetings. I don't know what loaded guns have to do with healthcare reform, but there they are, AR15's hanging on the shoulders of men in baseball caps, 9mm semi-automatic pistolas strapped, Bruce Willis-style, on their upper thighs. All loaded for ... what? Bear? Deer? Muskrats? Dingos?

Dunno. But there they are, loaded for something - prancing around with their hardware fully exposed with a, "mine is bigger than yours," swagger. And "I got a honkin' bad, uncircumcised assault rifle." (With flash supressor.)

Right wingers are always fretting about how liberals are on the verge of taking their guns away. Which makes me wonder if they realized how many liberals out here are just as well armed as they are? Because we are. And, take it from me as a life-long liberal, I know liberals far better than right wingers do and taking your guns away is not on the mainstream progressive agenda.

So, we liberal gun owners don't lay awake nights, stroking our guns, waiting for black helicopters to sweep in with storm troopers there to wrench our guns from our "cold dead fingers." We know that's not about to happen, at least as long as we don't abuse our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. (Civics Lesson: Every right in the constitution can only exist as long as those granted those rights don't abuse them... like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater --- or shooting up town hall meetings... just saying.)

Right wingers seem to think that only their kind appreciate the heft of a well-made gun. Wrong. As I already noted, many liberals own guns, often more than one. And, if I could dare to speak for fellow liberal gun-owners, here's how we view our firearm(s):

We view our gun the very same way we view the fire extinguisher we keep in case there's a fire. I'd feel pretty foolish, even irresponsible, if a fire broke out in our kitchen and I didn't have an extinguisher right at hand before it spread and burned our house down. Likewise, I'd feel pretty foolish if someone broke into my house in the middle of the night and I didn't have a way to protect myself and my family. (Knock wood, I've never had a fire or break-in, but both can and do happen, and I'm ready for either.)

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/23431

Sphere: Related Content

Lieberman: ‘There’s No Reason’ To Deal With The Uninsured Until After The Recession

http://thinkprogress.org/theme/images/logo.png

Last week, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), the most conservative member of the so-called bipartisan "Gang of Six" working on the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill, stated that he preferred that Congress deal with reform incrementally. "I think the only way it will happen is we need to break it down into smaller parts than we have now and put it through one at a time," he said.

Today on CNN, Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT), an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats, embraced Enzi's idea. "Great changes in our country often have come in steps. The Civil Rights movement occurred, changes occurred in steps," he argued. Lieberman added that Congress should address the nearly 50 million uninsured at some point down the road:

LIEBERMAN: Morally, everyone of us would like to cover every American with health insurance but that's where you spend most of the trillion dollars plus, or a little less that is estimated, the estimate said this health care plan will cost. And I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy is out of recession. There's no reason we have to do it all now.

Later, host John King asked Lieberman if he would vote with the Democrats if the reconciliation process is used to pass health care. "I think it's a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform," Lieberman said, adding, "It's just not good for the system. Frankly, it won't be good for the Obama presidency." Watch it:

Noting that the insured currently pay for the uninsured through rising premiums, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) challenged Lieberman's approach. "We've got to bring down the cost of health care," he argued. "It's difficult to do that by ignoring those who don't have health insurance today." A New York Times editorial today agreed:

If nothing is done to slow current trends, the number of people in this country without insurance or with inadequate coverage will continue to spiral upward. That would be a personal tragedy for many and a moral disgrace for the nation. It is also by no means cost-free. Any nation as rich as ours ought to guarantee health coverage for all of its residents.

Yet, Lieberman still sides with the Republicans on health care reform.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/23/lieberman-uninsured-recession/

Sphere: Related Content

Breaking News

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, August 21, 2009

Obama's gang signs

Sphere: Related Content

Barack Obama: Change We Can Deceive In --A critique from the Left

Citizens For Legitimate Government is a multi-partisan activist group established to expose and resist US imperialism, corpora-terrorism, and the New World Order.


By Lori Price

Barack ObamaPresident Barack Obama is selling out the left wing of his party - those who contributed $750 million to his campaign for 'change' - quicker than a Blue Cross rate rise in August. Mr. Obama won the Democratic nomination -- and the presidency -- on a wave of anti-Bush sentiment and the promise of 'change we can believe in.' But when the assertions and actions of the Obama Administration are critically examined, a conclusion can be drawn that the key difference -- thus far -- between Barack Obama and George W. Bush is their choice in breed of White House pet. 'Bipartisanship,' the bane of Obama's first eight months as president, is providing the groundwork for an extended (albeit educated, charming) Bush-light Administration. Those of us on the left are fearing a Bush-ultra Administration, wrapped in populist rhetoric, and disguised as everything but the same.

Barack Obama: Meteorological Nightmare

Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate By Mike McIntire 03 Feb 2008 When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state's freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause. Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed..." A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill... Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

Sound familiar? Just replace the words 'Exelon Corporation' with 'insurance companies' and the words 'Senator Obama' with President Obama' and here we are. 'Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction,' we learned in 2008, regarding Obama's reaction to the undisclosed radioactive leaks. In 2009, the president condemned the insurance companies for their record-breaking profits and role in the U.S. health care situation: Obama says insurance companies holding U.S. hostage,' Reuters, 14 August. In 2006, the Obama admonishment preceded the sellout, just as it likely will in 2009. Yup, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

The Exelon incident should have set off alarms in every progressive's brain from Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine. The corporate-owned media, determined to see the 'better' liberal -- Hillary Clinton -- lose the Democratic primary, waged a Hillary-bashing campaign, 24-7. This media bias was couched and defended in the enthralling possibility of the election of the first African-American U.S. president.

And so, the Exelon incident passed as insignificant -- the unnoticed fluffy cloud on a bright summer day. But to those of us in the meteorological know, we're aware of the path that a singular cumulus cloud can take. More cumulus clouds appear, then populate the horizon. Soon, cumulonimbus clouds form -- which lead to thunder, lightning and a nightmarish end to the day.

My Exelon-Obama umbrella has been with me since February of 2008, when New York Senator Hillary Clinton co-sponsored legislation to boot Blackwater and other mercenaries from Iraq and Afghanistan. Candidate Obama remained silent. Under President Obama, the mercenary industry is flourishing.

http://www.legitgov.org/price_obama_change_deceive_in_190809.html

Sphere: Related Content

Play Nice

If adults were subjected to the same indignities as children . . .

PARTY

Zoe: Dad, I'm throwing a party tonight, so you'll have to stay in your room. Don't worry, though—one of my friends brought over his father for you to play with. His name is Comptroller Brooks and he's roughly your age, so I'm sure you'll have lots in common. I'll come check on you in a couple of hours. (Leaves.)

Comptroller Brooks: Hello.

Mr. Higgins: Hello.

Comptroller Brooks: So . . . um . . . do you follow city politics?

Mr. Higgins: Not really.

Comptroller Brooks: Oh.

(Long pause.)

(Zoe returns.)

Zoe: I forgot to tell you—I told my friends you two would perform for them after dinner. I'll come get you when it's time. (Leaves.)

Comptroller Brooks: Oh, God, what are we going to do?

Mr. Higgins: I know a dance . . . but it's pretty humiliating.

Comptroller Brooks: Just teach it to me.

 

CAPITOL HILL

Lobbyist: If you fail to pass this proposition, it will lead to the deaths of thousands. Any questions?

Senator: Why are you wearing a sailor suit?

Lobbyist: My children decided to dress me this way, on a whim. I told them it was an important day for me, but they wouldn't listen.

Senator: It's adorable.

Lobbyist: O.K. . . . but do you agree with the proposition? About the war?

Senator: Put on the cap.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/08/04/080804sh_shouts_rich

Sphere: Related Content

Iraq and 9/11

Sphere: Related Content

BitTorrent: Under Attack but Needed for Innovation

http://torrentfreak.com/wp-content/themes/tf4/images/torrentfreak.gif

Written by Ernesto

Mininova, isoHunt, The Pirate Bay and other P2P sites are fighting out legal battles with the entertainment industry. Courts zealously document their contribution to copyright infringement. But copyright holders and courts ignore P2P's vital role in fostering innovation. Professor of Law Michael Carrier explains why this has to change.

Guest post by Michael Carrier, Professor of Law at Rutgers Law School in Camden.

BitTorrent: Attacked by Copyright Holders, Crushed by Courts, but Needed for Innovation.

The Pirate Bay and other P2P sites continually find themselves on the defensive. Copyright holders repeatedly threaten and sue them. Courts zealously document their contribution to copyright infringement. But copyright holders and courts ignore P2P's vital role in fostering innovation. I would like to change that.

In my book, Innovation for the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law, I examine (1) why copyright holders continually seek to quash new technologies, (2) why courts fail to appreciate P2P, and (3) why we should lament these developments.

First, I trace the long history of copyright holders reacting with alarm to new technologies that threaten their business models. John Philip Sousa bemoaned the introduction of the player piano, which would lead to "a marked deterioration in American music." Jack Valenti warned that the market for copyrighted movies would be "decimated, shrunken [and] collapsed" by the VCR. And the recording industry, lamenting a decline in CD sales, has sued numerous P2P services.

In fearing the potential of the new business models, copyright holders offer a classic example of market leaders that fail to appreciate disruptive innovation. A decade ago, the recording industry responded to Napster, which was striving to be "the online distribution channel for the record labels," not by striking a deal that would have seamlessly transported the industry into the digital era, but by suing it. While the record labels may have won the battle in shutting down Napster, they began to lose the war, as former users migrated to other P2P networks.

Nor are copyright holders the only ones that fail to appreciate the new technologies. Courts also do. Why? Because of an innovation asymmetry. Courts downplay the future benefits of new technologies and overemphasize copyright owners' present losses. Copyright owners offer evidence of losses from infringement on a silver platter.

In contrast, non-infringing uses are less tangible. It is difficult to put a dollar figure on the benefits of enhanced communication and interaction. And when a new technology is introduced, no one knows all of the beneficial uses to which it will eventually be put. I offer numerous examples of this (including, just to pick two, the telephone, which Alexander Graham Bell thought would be used to broadcast the daily news, and the phonograph, which Thomas Edison thought would "record the wishes of old men on their death beds"). This asymmetry, combined with costly litigation (which ensnares small technology makers in a web of complex tests and unaffordable lawsuits) explains why courts do not sufficiently appreciate P2P.

This lack of appreciation threatens innovation. As this site's readers are well aware, BitTorrent and other P2P protocols offer revolutionary forms of interaction and distribution. By breaking up large files into many small pieces, BitTorrent speeds up transfer, allowing the distribution of numerous works, such as home movies, independent films, TV shows, video games, educational videos, computer software, and high-resolution images. Just a few of many examples discussed on this site that have utilized BitTorrent include (1) computer manufacturer Asus, which offers fast, cheap software updates, (2) the airing of a high-definition movie in Norway, and (3) FrostWire's offering of a service that promotes music of new artists.

Courts' failure to appreciate P2P and BitTorrent threatens to stifle the development of new business models that attempt to free participants from the shackles of traditional distribution methods. Independent artists would find it much more difficult to break away from mainstream record labels if they lacked an inexpensive method of rapidly and widely distributing their work. Independent filmmakers would no longer be able to reach the masses, instead having to rely on boutique movie theaters or direct DVD mailings.

And of course, we can only see the tip of the P2P innovation iceberg.

http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-under-attack-but-needed-for-innovation-090819/

Sphere: Related Content

Blaming the Editors

Abandoned newspaper racksIt hurts to read Bill Wyman's blunt, sometimes savage piece on Five Key Reasons Why Newspapers Are Failing, but the veteran journalist says some things that need to be said. Unlike recent analyses that have mainly focused on the industry's business challenges, Wyman aims his guns squarely at the editors and reporters whom he believes fostered a culture of risk-aversion and self-absorption even as the need for change grew urgent. Although the piece is heavy on anecdotes and light on statistical evidence, we found ourselves nodding in agreement frequently as Wyman ticked off a list of editorial missteps.

Perhaps the most damning point in the 9,000-word opus is when the author lists headlines from a "recent" (actually, it was well over a year ago) features section of an unnamed local newspaper (actually, it was the Arizona Republic). They include: "Post office food drive," "Fight Crohn's and colitis," "Mom and Estában," "Healthful salsa non-guilty pleasure," and

"Great gifts for teachers." The point: "There was nothing there of remote interest [to] just about any sentient being. But that's not what the paper's editors were aiming for. The point is that there was nothing there that could possibly offend anyone."

Wyman hammers home this point repeatedly. In his view, advertisers and editors joined in an unholy alliance decades ago in which watchdog journalism was sacrificed to reliable and profitable ad contracts, stable circulation and don't-rock-the-boat blandness. As a consequence, the guiding principle in editorial departments changed from informing the public to offending as few people as possible. Causing a reader to cancel a subscription was the ultimate sin. Better to under-inform than to antagonize.

As a longtime arts critic, Wyman has some stories to back up the premise. He tells of one arts editor who instructed him to avoid negativity in reviews because readers didn't want to "hear bad things about their favorite artists over breakfast." Reviews sections in local papers are almost unfailing positive, or at worst blasé, he notes. Arts sections are filled out with snippets from those stanchions of informational blandness: Press releases.

"Let's be honest. Most newspapers in the U.S. aren't watchdogs…Most papers are instead lapdogs, and the metaphorical lap they sit in isn't even that of powerful interests like their advertisers…The real tyrant the papers served was the tender sensibilities of their readers," he writes.

http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/blaming-the-editors.html

Sphere: Related Content

What's Holding Up Holder in Firing Bushevik U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan?

Ask Dr. Cyril Wecht, a Partisan Victim

by Meg White

There is no doubt in my mind that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is a busy guy. His plate overflows with thorny questions over detainees, the Defense of Marriage Act, trafficking, discrimination, corruption and dozens of other issues spanning the capital, country and globe.

That said, there is some wisdom to cleaning one's own house before taking on the neighborhood. In that vein, Holder has no excuse for failing to have requested the resignation of U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania Mary Beth Buchanan. Nor, for that matter, having taken this long to respond to an ethics complaint filed by forensic pathologist and Buchanan victim Cyril Wecht.

Wecht is the former coroner and medical examiner of Allegheny County, PA, and a doctor and lawyer who has lent his expert opinion to autopsies ranging from John F. Kennedy to JonBenet Ramsey. An outspoken Democrat in Pennsylvania, he quickly earned the ire of the FBI and local law enforcement by investigating deaths occurring in police custody.

Buchanan's case against Wecht was politically-motivated from the very beginning. The raid that initiated the case was eventually declared unconstitutional. The mistrial's aftermath also reeked of federal folly, with the FBI accused of contacting jurors after the trial to find out how deliberations went, in preparation for a retrial.

Furthermore, around half of the original 84 charges were dropped before the trial even opened. Some of the more fantastic claims -- such as Wecht trading cadavers in exchange for lab space rental -- were never substantiated, with supposed witnesses never having been even interviewed by the prosecution. As we reported earlier this year:

Buchanan's first attempt to prosecute Wecht ended last year with a hung jury, after which the judge on the case was ordered replaced. In May 2009, the new retrial judge threw out the bulk of Buchanan's evidence -- evidence that had been swept up in "a spectacular raid" four years earlier, as the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported. To appeal the judge's ruling against her evidence, Buchanan would have needed approval from Obama Administration Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

Clearly upset at the verdict, Buchanan held a press conference in which she insisted Wecht was indeed guilty, and that if she had another chance she'd pursue him all over again.

Countless people, from the jurors on Wecht's case to conservative lawyers and other prominent Pennsylvanians to members of Congress have said the charges were unfounded and blatantly partisan. The former attorney general under President Reagan, Dick Thornburgh (who represented Wecht) told Congress that Wecht "would qualify as an ideal target for a Republican U.S. attorney trying to curry favor with a department which demonstrated that if you play by its rules, you will advance."

Now Thornburgh is advocating for an investigation of Buchanan's actions, having signed on to Wecht's formal complaint to Holder. In fact, Wecht said that some four weeks ago, Thornburgh ran into the current attorney General at a conference and Holder told him the department is following through on it.

Wecht told me in a phone interview Wednesday that he has no idea what the hold-up is, since most everything he's accused B

http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/885

Sphere: Related Content

The Landmark Forum: 42 Hours, $500, 65 Breakdowns

http://www.motherjones.com/sites/all/themes/motherjones/includes/img/logo_inside.gif

My lost weekend with the trademark happy, bathroom-break hating, slightly spooky inheritors of est.

AFTER NEARLY 40 HOURS inside the basement of Landmark Education's world headquarters, I have not Transformed. Nor have I "popped" like microwave popcorn, as the Forum Leader striding back and forth at the front of the windowless gray room has promised. In fact, by the time he starts yelling and stabbing the board with a piece of chalk around hour 36, it's become clear that I'll be the hard kernel left at the bottom of this three-and-a-half-day Landmark Forum. I have, however, Invented the Possibility of a Future in which I get a big, fat raise, a Future I'll Choose to Powerfully Enroll my bosses in, now that I am open to Miracles Around Money.

My reluctance to achieve Breakthrough Results is clearly not shared by many of my fellow Forum attendees. Even on day one, most seem positively elated to have plunked down 500 bucks for a more efficient, passionate, powerful life. "Hey, it's cheaper than therapy," a therapist-turned-real estate agent tells me. He ponders how to persuade one of his employees to pony up for the Forum. She's going through a rough patch, he explains—the recession, her marriage.

Not that being broke or brokenhearted would make her a minority in this room; several attendees talk about being between jobs, and one woman says she's on welfare. In the scribbled shorthand of my furtive notes, PW stands for "incidents of public weeping." I lose track after the PW count hits 65.

Landmark Education, a for-profit "employee-owned" private company, took in $89 million last year offering leadership and development seminars (and cruises, and dating services, and courses for kids and teens). It claims that more than 1 million seekers have sat through its basic training, which is offered in seven languages in 20 countries. Its consulting firm, the Vanto Group, has coached employees from Apple, ExxonMobil, JPMorgan Chase, and the Pentagon.

Though it's hardly a secret, Landmark does not advertise that it is the buttoned-down reincarnation of the ultimate '70s self-actualization philosophy, est. Erhard Seminars Training was founded by Werner Erhard, a former used car salesman who'd changed his name from Jack Rosenberg, moved to Northern California, and dabbled in Dale Carnegie, Zen, and Scientology before seizing upon the idea that you, and only you, are responsible for your own happiness or unhappiness, success or failure. Est's marathon Transformation sessions were legendary for their confrontational tactics (Erhard calling his students "assholes"), inscrutable platitudes ("What is, is, and what ain't, ain't"), and the pressure put on participants to bring in new recruits for the next cycle of seminars.

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2009/07/landmark-42-hours-500-65-breakdowns

Sphere: Related Content

Best anti-car texting ad ever

Sphere: Related Content

Priority Test: Health Care or Prisons?

At a time when we Americans may abandon health care reform because it supposedly is "too expensive," how is it that we can afford to imprison people like Curtis Wilkerson?

 
Mr. Wilkerson is serving a life sentence in California — for stealing a $2.50 pair of socks. As The Economist noted recently, he already had two offenses on his record (both for abetting robbery at age 19), and so the "three strikes" law resulted in a life sentence.

This is unjust, of course. But considering that California spends almost $49,000 annually per prison inmate, it's also an extraordinary waste of money.

Astonishingly, many politicians seem to think that we should lead the world in prisons, not in health care or education. The United States is anomalous among industrialized countries in the high proportion of people we incarcerate; likewise, we stand out in the high proportion of people who have no medical care — and partly as a result, our health care outcomes such as life expectancy and infant mortality are unusually poor.

It's time for a fundamental re-evaluation of the criminal justice system, as legislation sponsored by Senator Jim Webb has called for, so that we're no longer squandering money that would be far better spent on education or health. Consider a few facts:

¶The United States incarcerates people at nearly five times the world average. Of those sentenced to state prisons, 82 percent were convicted of nonviolent crimes, according to one study.

¶California spends $216,000 annually on each inmate in the juvenile justice system. In contrast, it spends only $8,000 on each child attending the troubled Oakland public school system, according to the Urban Strategies Council.

¶For most of American history, we had incarceration rates similar to those in other countries. Then with the "war on drugs" and the focus on law and order in the 1970s, incarceration rates soared.

¶One in 10 black men ages 25 to 29 were imprisoned last year, partly because possession of crack cocaine (disproportionately used in black communities) draws sentences equivalent to having 100 times as much powder cocaine. Black men in the United States have a 32 percent chance of serving time in prison at some point in their lives, according to the Sentencing Project.

Look, there's no doubt that many people in prison are cold-blooded monsters who deserve to be there. But over all, in a time of limited resources, we're overinvesting in prisons and under investing in schools.

Indeed, education spending may reduce the need for incarceration. The evidence on this isn't conclusive, but it's noteworthy that graduates of the Perry Preschool program in Michigan, an intensive effort for disadvantaged children in the 1960s, were some 40 percent less likely to be arrested than those in a control group.

Above all, it's time for a rethink of our drug policy. The point is not to surrender to narcotics, but to learn from our approach to both tobacco and alcohol. Over time, we have developed public health strategies that have been quite successful in reducing the harm from smoking and drinking.

If we want to try a public health approach to drugs, we could learn from Portugal. In 2001, it decriminalized the possession of all drugs for personal use. Ordinary drug users can still be required to participate in a treatment program, but they are no longer dispatched to jail.

"Decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal," notes a report this year from the Cato Institute. It notes that drug use appears to be lower in Portugal than in most other European countries, and that Portuguese public opinion is strongly behind this approach.

A new United Nations study, World Drug Report 2009, commends the Portuguese experiment and urges countries to continue to pursue traffickers while largely avoiding imprisoning users. Instead, it suggests that users, particularly addicts, should get treatment.

Senator Webb has introduced legislation that would create a national commission to investigate criminal justice issues — for such a commission may be the best way to depoliticize the issue and give feckless politicians the cover they need to institute changes.

"There are only two possibilities here," Mr. Webb said in introducing his bill, noting that America imprisons so many more people than other countries. "Either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States, or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/opinion/20kristof.html?th&emc=th

Sphere: Related Content

Nataline Sarkisyan and private insurance "death panels"

http://images2.dailykos.com/images/admin/WideMasthead.jpg

 title=AP/AR is is business shorthand for "accounts payable / accounts receivable". In theory, as long as AR > AP on the corporate ledger, a company is profitable and satisfies the needs of its stakeholders (business partners, customers, vendors, employees, and stockholders). So, most large companies employ teams of individuals who manage corporate risk. Guidelines and protocols are established to enable these teams to make decisions on when it makes economic sense to spend money, approve projects, and invest in research and development.

It's all about risk management. Keep this in mind as you read further — because you are a risk, not a client — to your healthcare, life, auto, and homeowners insurance providers.

Many Americans were outraged in Dec., 2007 by the case of 17 year old Nataline Sarkisyan. The short story, for those who may need their memories refreshed:

Ms. Sarkysian had leukemia, and was admitted to a California hospital for a bone marrow transplant. As is possible with such procedures, there were complications, and her kidneys and liver failed. Her brother donated a kidney. She was ready for a liver transplant (a relatively routine procedure in this day and age), but even though hers had failed, her family's insurance company would not approve the procedure by claiming it was "experimental". In other words, a bean counter at Cigna made the decision that since they had already shelled out a lot of cash for the bone marrow and kidney transplant, that the cost of a liver transplant and followup care was just too high.

The bean counter at Cigna effectively sentenced Nataline Sarkisyan to death. Even after Cigna reversed course following a public outcry, it was too late. Ms. Sarkisyan passed away the evening that Cigna finally agreed to cover her procedure.

So, what was the value of Nataline's life to the risk managers at Cigna? I did about two minutes worth of research, and found the following:

   

According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), estimated charges for liver transplantation are:

   Estimated First-Year Charge: $314,600
   Estimated Annual Follow-up Charge: $21,900

To Cigna, the cost of Nataline's transplant was like buying a Nintendo Wii. When you buy a Wii, it's not so much the initial investment in the game machine, but the ongoing followup costs in purchasing games and other hardware add-ons. The risk managers at Cigna who made the decisions in Nataline's case weren't so much looking at the cost of the initial transplantation procedure, but the annual cost of followup care and medication.

Nataline was 17 years old. The average lifespan of a woman in America is 79.1 years. So, rounding off, for actuarial purposes she had the potential to live another 62 years. In effect, the costs of the transplant and her first year care ($314,000) were chump change to Cigna. Plus, there were already "sunk costs" - business jargon for payouts already made for her prior procedures. So what was the value of Nataline's life to Cigna?

The cost of her followup care for the next (projected) 62 years: $1,302,000.

When I first heard the story of Cigna's denial of coverage for Nataline, two thoughts entered my mind. Why doesn't the hospital just do the damn procedure, then sort out the financial details afterwards? The second thing: where are the screaming hoards that descended upon Terri Schiavo's deathbed in Florida back in March of 2005? Wasn't Nataline's life just as important? Wasn't Cigna (in effect) removing her feeding tube by denying coverage?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/11/764866/-Nataline-Sarkisyan-and-private-insurance-death-panels

Sphere: Related Content

Sit tight

Have any Grey Poupon?

Sphere: Related Content

How Much Do Protests Matter? A Freakonomics Quorum

 
By Stephen J. Dubner

By Stephen J. DubnerIran's citizens take to the streets en masse after a disputed election. Gay men in Salt Lake City hold a kissing protest. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church voice their anti-just-about-everything views to military funerals and elsewhere.

Beyond the media attention they inevitably garner, what do protests actually accomplish?

We rounded up a few people who have thought a lot about this topic — Chester Crocker, Bernardine Dohrn, Donna Lieberman, Juan E. Méndez, David S. Meyer, and Howard Zinn — and asked them how much protest matters in this day and age, and why.

Here are their answers.

Howard Zinn is professor emeritus in the political science department at Boston University, and author of the book A People's History of the United States.

"Testing is always a gamble, but one worth taking, because if you don't take the risk, you will be stuck with the status quo and I suppose we all agree: the status quo is extremely undesirable."

Do protests work? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes very soon, sometimes there is a long-term effect. Sometimes you can see a direct connection between the protest and the result, and sometimes it's difficult to trace.

What this means is that you must not desist from protesting because you don't see an immediate result. What immediately looks like a failure may turn out to be a success. Testing is always a gamble, but one worth taking, because if you don't take the risk, you will be stuck with the status quo and I suppose we all agree: the status quo is extremely undesirable.

Some examples:

There was protest when the founding fathers concluded their work in drafting the Constitution in Philadelphia because there was no Bill of Rights. With the protests threatening the successful ratification (the vote was close in major states: New York, Massachusetts, Virginia) the Founders agreed they would add it, and they did in 1791.

The anti-slavery movement had to keep protesting for decades, from the 1830's to the early 1860's, until it had an effect on Lincoln and the Congress, first with the Emancipation Proclamation, then with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

The nation-wide strikes in the 1880's resulted in winning the eight-hour work day in many places. The demands of the Populist movement resulted in regulatory legislation in various states and resulted in national reforms years later in the New Deal measures to help farmers.

The sit-down strikes of 1936 to 1937 led to recognition of the C.I.O. unions and contracts and better wages and conditions.

The wave of protests in the early 1930's — by the Unemployed Councils blocking evictions; by the Tenants of organizations winning rent control in the Bronx, for instance, but also other places — led to the New Deal measures that helped the poor.

The various protests against racial segregation, taking various forms, are well known — the Montgomery bus boycott, the sit-ins, the various demonstrations in the South — and all led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and various Supreme Court decisions that effectively ended legal racial segregation in the South.

The protests against the Vietnam War certainly helped Lyndon Johnson come to his conclusion in early 1968 that he would not run for president again, that he would begin negotiating with the North Vietnamese, and that he would not send more troops to Vietnam as General Westmoreland had requested.

The protests of G.I.'s during the Vietnam War — desertions, fragging, public disclosure of massacres — helped build public opinion against the war; and if you study the Pentagon Papers you will see how often the officials in Washington worried about public opinion, and why Nixon promised an end to the war, though it took years.

After the Vietnam-Watergate era, the protests of disabled people certainly led to the Disabled Persons Rights Act.

The feminist movement of the 1960's and 1970s undoubtedly led to affirmative action for women, moving more women into better positions in the economy.

There is much more historical evidence, but I am running out of space and time.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/do-protests-matter-a-freakonomics-quorum/

Sphere: Related Content

Neo-nazi hate blogger paid by FBI to incite, says attorney

 
082009picture-28.pngHal Turner, the blogger and radio personality, remains jailed pending charges over his recent online rants, which prosecutors claim amounted to an invitation for someone to kill Connecticut lawmakers and Chicago federal appeals court judges. But behind the scenes the reformed white supremacist was holding clandestine meetings with FBI agents who taught him how to spew hate "without crossing the line," according to his lawyer, Michael Orozco.

"Almost everything was at the behest of the Federal Bureau of Investigation," Orozco said in a 45-minute telephone interview from New Jersey. "Their job was to pick up information on the responses of what he was saying and see where that led them. It was an interesting dynamic on what he was being asked to do."

Lawyer: FBI Paid Right-Wing Blogger Charged With Threats (wired.com, via Oxblood Ruffin)

Los del Dramatica have a lot to say about this. May he serve 420 years in jail.

The Southern Poverty Law Center saw this one coming. Did COINTELPRO ever really end?

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/08/20/right-wing-hate-blog.html

Sphere: Related Content

A celebration at FreedomWorks Headquarters...

cartoon-freedomworks-party

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Cosmic Joke Funnies

cartoon-palin-bachmann-joke

Sphere: Related Content

Letting the Banking Rats Out of the Bag

LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.

banking hearing
AP / Susan Walsh

Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis prepares to testify on Capitol Hill in Washington before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on June 11.

By Robert Scheer

The good judge smelled a rat.

"Was there some sort of ghost that performed these actions?" New York federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff demanded to know Monday in rejecting a deal that would let Bank of America off the hook in yet another banker bonus scandal. The Securities and Exchange Commission had charged the bank with covering up for outrageous bonuses given out at Merrill Lynch as the bank acquired the failed stockbrokerage, and now it was letting the bank off the hook with a chicken-feed fine.

"Do Wall Street people expect to be paid large bonuses in years when their company lost $27 billion?" the judge asked, and Lewis J. Liman, the lawyer for Bank of America, assured him they do: "My God! Bonuses on Wall Street? It is not a matter of surprise."
 
But for those of us less sophisticated in the ways of Wall Street, it is a surprise that Merrill Lynch executives were rewarded for failure at the same time Bank of America was using $45 billion in taxpayer funds to take over the brokerage house. Six hundred ninety-six executives who helped run Merrill into the ground were granted more than a million bucks each. 

BofA lawyer Liman attempted to put an egalitarian spin on this government-sponsored welfare for the superrich by pointing out that all told, another 39,000 Merrill employees averaged only $91,000 in bonuses, but the judge wasn't having it: "I'm glad you think that $91,000 is not a lot of money; I wish the average American was making $91,000."

That's the point; the average American is paying for the banking debacle not only in taxes for the bailout but with lost jobs and homes. Yet the SEC, which is supposed to be protecting the ordinary citizen's interests, decided to give BofA execs a bye. The question is why Bank of America and Merrill failed to inform their shareholders that such payoffs were part of the deal. The details of the bonuses were known to BofA CEO Kenneth Lewis and other top bank executives but not mentioned in the merger agreement or proxy statements sent to the company's shareholders for approval.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090811_robert_scheer_august_12_column/

Sphere: Related Content

Tons of Imperial Fun: Hellfire Hillary Pours Oil on Somalia's Fire

There is apparently no path blazed by George W. Bush that Barack Obama will not eagerly follow. Surges, assassinations, indefinite detention, defense of torture, senseless wars and rampant militarism -- in just a few short months, we've seen it all.

To this dismaying record of complicity and continuity, we can add an increasing direct involvement in the horrific, hydra-headed conflict in Somalia, whose latest round of fiery hell was instigated by the American-backed invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia in late 2006. Under Bush, U.S. forces were deeply and directly enmeshed in the murderous action, dropping bombs on fleeing refugees, "renditioning" other refugees to the tender mercies of Ethiopia's notorious prisons, and even sending in death squads to clean up after missile strikes and bombings. (For background, see "Silent Surge: Bipartisan Terror War Intensifies in Somalia.")

The result of that intervention has been the deaths of thousands of innocent people, the displacement and ruination of hundreds of thousands, and the creation of what many experts call the most dire humanitarian crisis in the world today. It has also resulted in the empowerment of violent sectarian groups and criminal gangs, who have stepped forth to fill the gaps of the fledgling state that the American-Ethiopian "regime change" operation destroyed.

So what do we see from the administration of "hope and change"? We see -- wait for it -- a new "surge" of direct American involvement in the war, with Obama's most ferocious war hawk -- sorry, his top diplomat -- Hillary "The Obliterator" Clinton leading the charge. As Jason Ditz at Antiwar.com reports, Clinton has pledged to double the recently announced supply of American weapons to Somalia's "transitional government" -- a weak reed cobbled together by Western interests from various CIA-paid warlords and other factions, and now headed, ironically, by the former leader of the aforementioned fledgling state overthrown by Washington. (Yes, it is hard to tell the players without a scorecard -- or even with one. But if you follow the weapons and the money, you can usually tell who is temporarily on which side at any given moment.)

Clinton, bellicose as ever, accompanied the shipment of 80 tons of death-dealing hardware with a heavy dose of the wild fearmongering rhetoric we've come to know so well in this New American Century. As AP reports, she declared that the radical faction al-Shabab, now leading the insurgency against the transitional government, has only one goal in mind: bring in al Qaeda and destabilizing the whole entire world.

Yes, dear hearts, once again the survival of the planet -- not to mention the sacred American way of life -- is under imminent threat from a gang of evil maniacs; a threat requiring the urgent enrichment of the U.S. arms industry -- sorry, I mean the urgent intervention of American know-how. For as the history of American foreign policy in the last 60 years has clearly shown us, there has never been an internal conflict in any country of the world that was not actually, deep down, a direct threat to all the sweet American babies sleeping in their cribs.

 
Sphere: Related Content

Robert Novak Was a Liar



Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995
By Robert Parry

Washington's punditocracy is in mourning over the death of right-wing columnist Robert Novak, with many warm remembrances about his outsized personality and his supposed love of reporting. But Novak often served as a dishonest propagandist and would have been condemned in a healthy journalistic world.

For instance, not only did Novak disclose the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame in 2003 – in line with a White House campaign to discredit her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the deceptions behind the Iraq invasion – but Novak continued a jihad of lies against Wilson and Plame for the next several years.

In one such attack on March 22, 2007, Novak reprised right-wing myths that had been disseminated about the Plame-gate case to protect the political flanks of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other participants in the anti-Wilson campaign.

Despite containing a litany of lies, Novak's column was uncritically published in the Washington Post's editorial section, which even cribbed from Novak's disinformation for use in the Post's own ugly attacks on Wilson, whose principal sin appears to have been that he was the first Washington insider to accuse Bush of having "twisted" the WMD intelligence on Iraq.

The March 22 column stands out as a particularly notable measure of Novak's dishonesty because it came almost four years after Wilson began challenging Bush's false claims about Iraq allegedly seeking yellow-cake uranium from Niger. Novak's article was not some early rendition of a story that wasn't fully understood; it was a premeditated act of lying in defense of a cover-up.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/081909.html

Sphere: Related Content

Huffington Post + Facebook = the Future of Journalism

 http://www.thebigmoney.com/sites/all/themes/wpni/images/tbm-logo-2.png

Should we be giddy or terrified?

By Chadwick Matlin

I am no fan of the Huffington Post. Its journalistic ethics are questionable—see Nico Pitney prearranging a question with the White House and HuffPost's repurposing of other sites' intellectual property; its thirst for page views often overshadows any cultural standards—see "Ashley Greene NUDE PHOTOS: Naked Pics of Twilight Star" and "Sisters or Mother and Daughter? Hot Hollywood Moms (PHOTOS, Poll)." Its aesthetic, all capital letters and stock photography, may as well be from 1999—see the home page that Slate's Jack Shafer immortally called "ugly like a bleeding naked mole rat painted DayGlo." The site is anathema to what I hope to see from the future of journalism.

I'm sharing my HuffPo distaste so you know that I don't take the following statement lightly: On Monday, Huffington Post unveiled the future of journalism.

Huffington Post has released a new feature called HuffPost Social News. It's a partnership with Facebook that tracks what Huffington Post articles you and all of your Facebook friends are reading, commenting on, and voting on. It uses a technology called Facebook Connect, Facebook's most unheralded weapon in the battle for ownership of everything we do online. Connect basically serves as a conduit between Facebook and another Web site, allowing data to be sent between the two. Facebook sends profile information. In return, the site sends details on what the user is doing. Web sites, of course, have always tracked what pages their users visit. Now HuffPost is broadcasting that information to all of your friends. It has become a loudmouthed Big Brother.

Once a HuffPost reader logs into Huffington Post with her Facebook account—more on how she does this in a second—the site starts tracking everything she does on any huffingtonpost.com page. The site is also tracking all of her Facebook friends who have also logged on to Huffington Post. All of this can be seen by you and your friends on a page that looks like a mashup of Huffington Post and a Facebook wall feed. This makes for an intriguingly muted kaffeeklatsch: Everybody knows what everybody's reading, but nobody necessarily has to talk about it. A layer of news has been placed on top of the social network. Now not only can you know what your freshman-year roommate did on Friday night, you also can find out what she read right before she left the house.

It's the personal element that makes HuffPost Social such an intriguing and promising experiment. The point of reading news is not just to keep abreast about what's happening in the world, it's to keep up with what your friends know is happening in the world. Reading and watching news is an inherently social process; to have a debate, you have to have a shared set of facts. (Or at least that's how it's supposed to work.)

http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/impressions/2009/08/18/huffington-post-facebook-future-journalism

Sphere: Related Content

The Good War by Ted Rall

Sphere: Related Content

The Beloit College Mindset List for the Class of 2013

Mindset List 2013

If the entering college class of 2013 had been more alert back in 1991 when most of them were born, they would now be experiencing a severe case of déjà vu. The headlines that year railed about government interventions, bailouts, bad loans, unemployment and greater regulation of the finance industry. The Tonight Show changed hosts for the first time in decades, and the nation asked "was Iraq worth a war?" 

Each August since 1998, Beloit College has released the Beloit College Mindset List. It provides a look at the cultural touchstones that shape the lives of students entering college. It is the creation of Beloit's Keefer Professor of the Humanities Tom McBride and Emeritus Public Affairs Director Ron Nief.  It is used around the world as the school year begins, as a reminder of the rapidly changing frame of reference for this new generation. It is widely reprinted and the Mindset List website at http://www.beloit.edu/mindset/ receives more than 300,000 hits annually.

As millions of students head off to college this fall, most will continue to experience the economic anxiety that marked their first two years of life just as it has marked their last two years of high school. Fears of the middle class--including their parents--about retirement and health care have been a part of their lives. Now however, they can turn to technology and text a friend: "Momdad still worried bout stocks. urs 2? PAW PCM".

Members of the class of 2013 won't be surprised when they can charge a latté on their cell phone and curl up in the corner to read a textbook on an electronic screen. The migration of once independent media—radio, TV, videos and CDs—to the computer has never amazed them. They have grown up in a politically correct universe in which multi-culturalism has been a given.  It is a world organized around globalization, with McDonald's everywhere on the planet. Carter and Reagan are as distant to them as Truman and Eisenhower were to their parents. Tattoos, once thought "lower class," are, to them, quite chic. Everybody knows the news before the evening news comes on.

Thus the class of 2013 heads off to college as tolerant, global, and technologically hip…and with another new host of The Tonight Show.  


The Beloit College Mindset List for the Class of 2013

   Most students entering college for the first time this fall were born in 1991.

  1. For these students, Martha Graham, Pan American Airways, Michael Landon, Dr. Seuss, Miles Davis, The Dallas Times Herald, Gene Roddenberry, and Freddie Mercury have always been dead.
  2. Dan Rostenkowski, Jack Kevorkian, and Mike Tyson have always been felons.
  3. The Green Giant has always been Shrek, not the big guy picking vegetables.
  4. They have never used a card catalog to find a book.
  5. Margaret Thatcher has always been a former prime minister.
  6. Salsa has always outsold ketchup.
  7. Earvin "Magic" Johnson has always been HIV-positive.
  8. Tattoos have always been very chic and highly visible.
  9. They have been preparing for the arrival of HDTV all their lives.
  10. Rap music has always been main stream.
  11. Chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream has always been a flavor choice.
  12. Someone has always been building something taller than the Willis (née Sears) Tower in Chicago.
  13. The KGB has never officially existed.
  14. Text has always been hyper.
  15. They never saw the "Scud Stud" (but there have always been electromagnetic stud finders.)
  16. Babies have always had a Social Security Number.
  17. They have never had to "shake down" an oral thermometer.
  18. Bungee jumping has always been socially acceptable.
  19. They have never understood the meaning of R.S.V.P.
  20. American students have always lived anxiously with high-stakes educational testing.
  21. Except for the present incumbent, the President has never inhaled.
  22. State abbreviations in addresses have never had periods.
  23. The European Union has always existed.
  24. McDonald's has always been serving Happy Meals in China.
  25. Condoms have always been advertised on television.
  26. Cable television systems have always offered telephone service and vice versa.
  27. Christopher Columbus has always been getting a bad rap.
  28. The American health care system has always been in critical condition.
  29. Bobby Cox has always managed the Atlanta Braves.
  30. Desperate smokers have always been able to turn to Nicoderm skin patches.
  31. There has always been a Cartoon Network.
  32. The nation's key economic indicator has always been the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
  33. Their folks could always reach for a Zoloft.
  34. They have always been able to read books on an electronic screen.
  35. Women have always outnumbered men in college.
  36. We have always watched wars, coups, and police arrests unfold on television in real time.
  37. Amateur radio operators have never needed to know Morse code.
  38. Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Latvia, Georgia, Lithuania, and Estonia have always been independent nations.
  39. It's always been official: President Zachary Taylor did not die of arsenic poisoning.
  40. Madonna's perspective on Sex has always been well documented.
  41. Phil Jackson has always been coaching championship basketball.
  42. Ozzy Osbourne has always been coming back.
  43. Kevin Costner has always been Dancing with Wolves, especially on cable.
  44. There have always been flat screen televisions.
  45. They have always eaten Berry Berry Kix.
  46. Disney's Fantasia has always been available on video, and It's a Wonderful Life has always been on Moscow television.
  47. Smokers have never been promoted as an economic force that deserves respect.
  48. Elite American colleges have never been able to fix the price of tuition.
  49. Nobody has been able to make a deposit in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).
  50. Everyone has always known what the evening news was before the Evening News came on.
Sphere: Related Content

Blog Archive

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Search This Blog

Subscribe Now: standard

Add to Technorati Favorites