I will be teaching a freshman comp course at Rocky this fall in conjunction with an introductory business course. This means, for one thing, that this site probably will go dormant again for a while. More significantly, it means I am in the market for ideas to marry the two courses.
One possible avenue is a literary approach to business. Possible titles that have occurred to me, or that have been suggested to me, include:
Babbitt
Death of a Salesman
Liar's Poker
Bartleby the Scrivener (a must!)
an essay by Thoreau
Studs Terkel's "Working"
The Jungle
Dead Souls
Barbarians at the Gate
Any thoughts? I can't think of much literature that takes a positive view of business, but I may be overlooking something.
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Jan Falstad's column today reminded me of the time at the Gazette when I was assigned to write a story about a Qwest public affairs officer who was retiring. Turned out that he had no listed phone number with the company.
Get that. The guy who's in charge of telling people about the phone company can't be reached by telephone. Even the propaganda ministry in the Soviet Union would have been impressed by that lock-tight grip on information.
Get that. The guy who's in charge of telling people about the phone company can't be reached by telephone. Even the propaganda ministry in the Soviet Union would have been impressed by that lock-tight grip on information.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
The Missoula Independent has a long piece on the private prison in Shelby. The story doesn't break much new ground -- I suspect the reporter was hoping to find something that wasn't there -- but it does shed light on the paradox of private prisons.
I'm ag'in private prisons for two reasons:
1. The power to hold people under lock and key is among the most awesome powers any human can hold over another. Just as a matter of principle, people who hold that power ought to be held to the strictest possible standards and should be accountable directly to the people. It doesn't take an Abu Ghraib to understand what can go wrong in a poorly run prison.
2. The thing that makes free enterprise so great at grilling burgers and cranking out toasters is that the incentives are right. Businesses that mistreat customers and employees wind up with no customers and no employees. Free enterprise rewards good work. In a private prison, as the Indy points out, the incentives are all wrong: The customers (prisoners) can't opt out, and in a place like Shelby, it can be pretty tough for the employees (the guards) to opt out, too.
Moreover, it's in the stockholders' best interest to have more people serving longer sentences with less rehabilitation and less supervision. Prison is the one place where the most satisfied customers are the ones who are least likely to return.
The only way to keep these perverse incentives from doing real harm is by strict government control. And if you have to pay for that, why have private prisons at all?
UPDATE: In his comment below, JR seems to have missed the entire point of my post. Perhaps I wasn't clear, or perhaps he is being deliberately obtuse.
In the first place, agriculture is, of course, a heavily subsidized industry, from price supports to disaster payments to guaranteed loans to food inspections to government-mandated marketing, even to the farm-to-market roads that crisscross the country and that no private company would ever have dreamed of building.
Second, to the extent that it is allowed to, free enterprise works in agriculture because, again, the incentives are right. Producers who grow bigger and better crops sell them more successfully. Nobody has to tell anybody what to do, yet everybody wins. Those incentives don't exist in private prisons.
Third, Abu Ghraib is, in fact, a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Evidence is unclear whether private guards behave better or worse than government-employed guards, but what is clear is this: If a private company were accused of doing what government employees have done at Abu Ghraib, it would be stonewalling every step of the way. It would do everything within its considerable power to assure that not one word leaked out, and it would fight subpoenas and grand juries all the way into bankruptcy. Government can try to cover its tracks, too, but never as thoroughly as a private company.
For a truly chilling example of what can happen, read this Harper's piece from August 2003 about Correctional Medical Services, the nation's largest provider of prison medicine. Money quote:
"[P]rivate companies such as CMS feel no responsibility, and have no legal obligation, to account to the public for what goes on inside their facilities. So, while CMS receives about $550 million of taxpayer money each year, the company chooses not to provide any accounting of how that money is spent or even how much of it is spent--and how much unspent, to be pocketed as profit. And although lawsuits over the years have revealed discredited health-care professionals working in CMS facilities, the company refuses to reveal the names of its doctors and nurses for verification or to provide any account of how many have been disciplined or had their licenses revoked in other states. With CMS responsible for so many patients nationwide, it is fair to say that the practice of medicine in prison has reached an unprecedented level of inscrutability--indeed, secrecy."
SECOND UPDATE: Jackie Corr e-mails: Private prisons and what comes with them have no place in a free society. None!
Accountability comes first when it comes to the protection of the rights of all, including prisoners.
As one story after another has pointed out, the prosecution of contractors in the Iraq torture scandal will be much more difficult then if they were legitimate military personnel. It's unclear what laws can be used to prosecute a civilian contract employee.
For example: What we do know is the Justice Department sent Lane McCotter, former director of the Utah Department of Corrections,to Iraq as a "corrections advisor" with a private contract. He was was involved in the running of Abu Ghraib prison during the torture sessions. McCotter has since resigned and is no longer in Iraq.
McCotter was forced out of the Utah prison system in 1997 following the case of a schizophrenic inmate who died shortly after being strapped to a restraining chair for 16 hours. McCotter later became an executive of a private prison company whose Santa Fe, New Mexico jail was investigated by the Justice Department in 2003 for healthcare, sanitary and safety deficiencies. After New Mexico, McCotter showed up in Iraq as a private contractor.
I'm ag'in private prisons for two reasons:
1. The power to hold people under lock and key is among the most awesome powers any human can hold over another. Just as a matter of principle, people who hold that power ought to be held to the strictest possible standards and should be accountable directly to the people. It doesn't take an Abu Ghraib to understand what can go wrong in a poorly run prison.
2. The thing that makes free enterprise so great at grilling burgers and cranking out toasters is that the incentives are right. Businesses that mistreat customers and employees wind up with no customers and no employees. Free enterprise rewards good work. In a private prison, as the Indy points out, the incentives are all wrong: The customers (prisoners) can't opt out, and in a place like Shelby, it can be pretty tough for the employees (the guards) to opt out, too.
Moreover, it's in the stockholders' best interest to have more people serving longer sentences with less rehabilitation and less supervision. Prison is the one place where the most satisfied customers are the ones who are least likely to return.
The only way to keep these perverse incentives from doing real harm is by strict government control. And if you have to pay for that, why have private prisons at all?
UPDATE: In his comment below, JR seems to have missed the entire point of my post. Perhaps I wasn't clear, or perhaps he is being deliberately obtuse.
In the first place, agriculture is, of course, a heavily subsidized industry, from price supports to disaster payments to guaranteed loans to food inspections to government-mandated marketing, even to the farm-to-market roads that crisscross the country and that no private company would ever have dreamed of building.
Second, to the extent that it is allowed to, free enterprise works in agriculture because, again, the incentives are right. Producers who grow bigger and better crops sell them more successfully. Nobody has to tell anybody what to do, yet everybody wins. Those incentives don't exist in private prisons.
Third, Abu Ghraib is, in fact, a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Evidence is unclear whether private guards behave better or worse than government-employed guards, but what is clear is this: If a private company were accused of doing what government employees have done at Abu Ghraib, it would be stonewalling every step of the way. It would do everything within its considerable power to assure that not one word leaked out, and it would fight subpoenas and grand juries all the way into bankruptcy. Government can try to cover its tracks, too, but never as thoroughly as a private company.
For a truly chilling example of what can happen, read this Harper's piece from August 2003 about Correctional Medical Services, the nation's largest provider of prison medicine. Money quote:
"[P]rivate companies such as CMS feel no responsibility, and have no legal obligation, to account to the public for what goes on inside their facilities. So, while CMS receives about $550 million of taxpayer money each year, the company chooses not to provide any accounting of how that money is spent or even how much of it is spent--and how much unspent, to be pocketed as profit. And although lawsuits over the years have revealed discredited health-care professionals working in CMS facilities, the company refuses to reveal the names of its doctors and nurses for verification or to provide any account of how many have been disciplined or had their licenses revoked in other states. With CMS responsible for so many patients nationwide, it is fair to say that the practice of medicine in prison has reached an unprecedented level of inscrutability--indeed, secrecy."
SECOND UPDATE: Jackie Corr e-mails: Private prisons and what comes with them have no place in a free society. None!
Accountability comes first when it comes to the protection of the rights of all, including prisoners.
As one story after another has pointed out, the prosecution of contractors in the Iraq torture scandal will be much more difficult then if they were legitimate military personnel. It's unclear what laws can be used to prosecute a civilian contract employee.
For example: What we do know is the Justice Department sent Lane McCotter, former director of the Utah Department of Corrections,to Iraq as a "corrections advisor" with a private contract. He was was involved in the running of Abu Ghraib prison during the torture sessions. McCotter has since resigned and is no longer in Iraq.
McCotter was forced out of the Utah prison system in 1997 following the case of a schizophrenic inmate who died shortly after being strapped to a restraining chair for 16 hours. McCotter later became an executive of a private prison company whose Santa Fe, New Mexico jail was investigated by the Justice Department in 2003 for healthcare, sanitary and safety deficiencies. After New Mexico, McCotter showed up in Iraq as a private contractor.
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Samizdata's editorial policy spells out its way of dealing with comments: "Samizdata.net editors are God and God moves in mysterious ways. If you have an article, comment, rant or smart-arse rejoinder that you would like to contribute to Samizdata.net, e-mail it to us and we might publish it suitably edited. Or not."
City Lights is having problems with rogue comments again. I am both sympathetic and a tad snarky about the problem. Ed's troubles help assuage my envy when all he does is refer to one of my posts and gets three times as many comments as the actual post does. His troubles also make this piece this piece of virtual real estate feel a bit less lonesome.
From a broader perspective, comments appear to drag down a lot of blogs. Anonymous, unfiltered, uncensored: Comments sound like a great engine of the First Amendment. But they can become so overwhelming that some bloggers, like Instapundit, don't allow them at all, and others, like Roger L. Simon, have so many comments that only the most determined fans ever slog through them all. When readers have to be their own editors, all they can do is either ignore comments, suffer through them all, or sample a random few and hope to catch the wheat rather than the chaff.
There is something to be said for all those elitist, arrogant, mainstream editors pruning letters to the editors at newspapers. It sure saves me, as a reader, a lot of time wading through worthless crap. And people like Ed's nemesis Prof. Hibbs probably never show up on the letters page at all. Now that sounds like a better world.
From a broader perspective, comments appear to drag down a lot of blogs. Anonymous, unfiltered, uncensored: Comments sound like a great engine of the First Amendment. But they can become so overwhelming that some bloggers, like Instapundit, don't allow them at all, and others, like Roger L. Simon, have so many comments that only the most determined fans ever slog through them all. When readers have to be their own editors, all they can do is either ignore comments, suffer through them all, or sample a random few and hope to catch the wheat rather than the chaff.
There is something to be said for all those elitist, arrogant, mainstream editors pruning letters to the editors at newspapers. It sure saves me, as a reader, a lot of time wading through worthless crap. And people like Ed's nemesis Prof. Hibbs probably never show up on the letters page at all. Now that sounds like a better world.
Friday, May 21, 2004
The Volokh Conspiracy makes a point similar to one of my regular themes: The liberal vs. conservative divide has more to do with culture and partisanship than with actual differences in policies. Well, actually, I am distorting Volokh's views a tad to make them fit with my own. You should probably just go read what he said.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
I've become a big fan of watching the British Parliament on C-SPAN. Those guys understand the art of political debate. Watch them go at it for a while, then compare it our pallid imitation of political discourse, and you begin to think that maybe the Revolutionary War wasn't such a hot idea.
Last night I watched Tony Blair answering questions from the House of Commons, weaving paragraph after paragraph of perfectly turned prose, every comma in place. The rhetoric got pretty lively, and Blair took some hard shots from the opposition. Occasionally, the camera would switch from the opponent to Blair as he waited his turn to respond. I expected him to look angry or concerned or at least thoughtful, but instead he was grinning. Clearly, he not only welcomed the public challenge, he positively relished it. You gotta love that. No spinning flak, no prearranged questions, no memorized nonresponses -- just the sheer joy of competing in the public arena. When did American politics stop being fun?
By the way, Blair said one thing that struck me as news, besides the condom protest that did make the news. He was asked whether, after the June 30 turnover of power in Iraq, the Iraqi government would have full sovereignty, including control over prisons and oil fields. Blair said that it absolutely would.
In this country, I have never heard anyone even suggest that the June 30 turnover would be much more than a formality, sort of a glorified student council form of government. Was Blair sandbagging? Does he know more than we do about what will happen? Is some split looming between us and our best ally?
Last night I watched Tony Blair answering questions from the House of Commons, weaving paragraph after paragraph of perfectly turned prose, every comma in place. The rhetoric got pretty lively, and Blair took some hard shots from the opposition. Occasionally, the camera would switch from the opponent to Blair as he waited his turn to respond. I expected him to look angry or concerned or at least thoughtful, but instead he was grinning. Clearly, he not only welcomed the public challenge, he positively relished it. You gotta love that. No spinning flak, no prearranged questions, no memorized nonresponses -- just the sheer joy of competing in the public arena. When did American politics stop being fun?
By the way, Blair said one thing that struck me as news, besides the condom protest that did make the news. He was asked whether, after the June 30 turnover of power in Iraq, the Iraqi government would have full sovereignty, including control over prisons and oil fields. Blair said that it absolutely would.
In this country, I have never heard anyone even suggest that the June 30 turnover would be much more than a formality, sort of a glorified student council form of government. Was Blair sandbagging? Does he know more than we do about what will happen? Is some split looming between us and our best ally?
Bad mistake in this week's Outpost. Somehow, the printer picked up two pages from the May 6 issue, putting them where this week's Page 8 and Page 21 should be. The most confusing part for readers will be encountering a page full of a two-week old Calendar of Events. The correct Calendar begins here.
On the other hand, unless I missed it somewhere, this story is a bit of a scoop.
On the other hand, unless I missed it somewhere, this story is a bit of a scoop.
Delivery day used to be my favorite day at The Outpost. Now I think it's the hardest.
For about four years, I delivered 140 stops every Tuesday. I'm slow -- about 14 stops an hour -- so it was a 10-hour day. When we were delivering the Montana Senior News or Lively Times, or had an insert, the day could run to 14 or 15 hours.
I liked it. I got some honest-to-goodness exercise -- in the car, out of the car, in the car and out -- saw the city from Lockwood to Shiloh Road and encountered the customers up close. The phone didn't ring and the computer didn't freeze up. I listened to jazz, railed at Limbaugh, cruised to "All Things Considered." When I was teaching journalism, I polished lectures while driving. When I was teaching German, I sang German songs out loud just to sharpen the tongue.
Usually somewhere around mid-afternoon, I would fall into some sort of easy groove -- pleasantly tired, my mind free from the office, caught up in the endless routine -- stop, count, load the rack, count the spoils, toss them in the back. I felt like I could go on forever. Sometimes it seemed like I did.
Best of all, when the papers were gone, I was done. A couple of tacos, beer on the front porch, dozing on the couch. The working man's reward. The office could wait until tomorrow.
Now my route is about 75 stops. With a Thursday delivery date, we can't wait until 7 or 8 p.m. to get all the papers out, so I can't deliver as many. I never hit that afternoon groove. Instead of an easy lope down the backstretch, I'm kicking for the finish line. I get done between 4 and 5 -- too early for a small businessman to head for the house. I go to the office, tired but not done in, and make a bank deposit, check the e-mail, try to return a phone call or two.
Tonight I have to get subscription renewals out and get payroll done. I'll putter around, waste some time -- what else is blogging for? -- and yearn a bit for when the days were longer but not quite so hard.
For about four years, I delivered 140 stops every Tuesday. I'm slow -- about 14 stops an hour -- so it was a 10-hour day. When we were delivering the Montana Senior News or Lively Times, or had an insert, the day could run to 14 or 15 hours.
I liked it. I got some honest-to-goodness exercise -- in the car, out of the car, in the car and out -- saw the city from Lockwood to Shiloh Road and encountered the customers up close. The phone didn't ring and the computer didn't freeze up. I listened to jazz, railed at Limbaugh, cruised to "All Things Considered." When I was teaching journalism, I polished lectures while driving. When I was teaching German, I sang German songs out loud just to sharpen the tongue.
Usually somewhere around mid-afternoon, I would fall into some sort of easy groove -- pleasantly tired, my mind free from the office, caught up in the endless routine -- stop, count, load the rack, count the spoils, toss them in the back. I felt like I could go on forever. Sometimes it seemed like I did.
Best of all, when the papers were gone, I was done. A couple of tacos, beer on the front porch, dozing on the couch. The working man's reward. The office could wait until tomorrow.
Now my route is about 75 stops. With a Thursday delivery date, we can't wait until 7 or 8 p.m. to get all the papers out, so I can't deliver as many. I never hit that afternoon groove. Instead of an easy lope down the backstretch, I'm kicking for the finish line. I get done between 4 and 5 -- too early for a small businessman to head for the house. I go to the office, tired but not done in, and make a bank deposit, check the e-mail, try to return a phone call or two.
Tonight I have to get subscription renewals out and get payroll done. I'll putter around, waste some time -- what else is blogging for? -- and yearn a bit for when the days were longer but not quite so hard.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Cal Thomas says he didn't see adultery or alcoholism going on when he served in the Army in the mid-1960s. My guess is that Cal didn't get invited out much. In my military stint a few years later, I saw plenty of alcoholism. If adultery came up short, it wasn't for lack of trying.
I would imagine that today's Army is a much straighter outfit that when I served (in fairness to Cal, it was probably a straighter place when he served than when I did, too). But let's not kid ourselves about military service. Drinking and whoring goes back at least as far as the Romans. In Jaroslav Hasek's comic novel of World War I, "The Adventures of Good Soldier Schweik," just about everybody is drunk just about all of the time. The night before he enters the service, if memory serves, Schweik hits 25 bars. "But, mind you, I never had more than two drinks in any of them," he says the next day.
To blame the failings of guards and interrogators in Iraq on the advent of women in the armed services is a stretch. Even the best armies -- and ours is certainly the best that ever existed -- are exceedingly blunt instruments. To ask them to excel at tasks like nation building is asking an awful lot.
I would imagine that today's Army is a much straighter outfit that when I served (in fairness to Cal, it was probably a straighter place when he served than when I did, too). But let's not kid ourselves about military service. Drinking and whoring goes back at least as far as the Romans. In Jaroslav Hasek's comic novel of World War I, "The Adventures of Good Soldier Schweik," just about everybody is drunk just about all of the time. The night before he enters the service, if memory serves, Schweik hits 25 bars. "But, mind you, I never had more than two drinks in any of them," he says the next day.
To blame the failings of guards and interrogators in Iraq on the advent of women in the armed services is a stretch. Even the best armies -- and ours is certainly the best that ever existed -- are exceedingly blunt instruments. To ask them to excel at tasks like nation building is asking an awful lot.
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
I've been getting lots of copies of this e-mail:
IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES.
AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OF OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES
THEREFORE MAY 19TH HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED "STICK IT TO THEM DAY" AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY.
THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT.
WAITING ON THIS ADMIINSTRATION TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THAT THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED TWO WEEKS AGO?
REMEMBER ONE THING, NOT ONLY IS THE PRICE OF GASOLINE GOING UP BUT AT THE SAME TIME AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, TRUCKING COMPANIES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES WHICH EFFECTS PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED. THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING MATERIALS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC. WHO PAYS IN THE END? WE DO!
WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY, WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN.
SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD. FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE MAY 19TH A DAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SAY "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"
How silly is this? Even if the numbers are right, what would it prove? If we're determined to walk for a day, then we shouldn't be shooting ourselves in the foot. Seems to me the only way to cut gasoline prices is to burn less of it. What day you burn it on doesn't matter a bit.
IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES.
AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OF OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES
THEREFORE MAY 19TH HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED "STICK IT TO THEM DAY" AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY.
THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT.
WAITING ON THIS ADMIINSTRATION TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THAT THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED TWO WEEKS AGO?
REMEMBER ONE THING, NOT ONLY IS THE PRICE OF GASOLINE GOING UP BUT AT THE SAME TIME AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, TRUCKING COMPANIES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES WHICH EFFECTS PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED. THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING MATERIALS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC. WHO PAYS IN THE END? WE DO!
WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY, WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN.
SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD. FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE MAY 19TH A DAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SAY "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"
How silly is this? Even if the numbers are right, what would it prove? If we're determined to walk for a day, then we shouldn't be shooting ourselves in the foot. Seems to me the only way to cut gasoline prices is to burn less of it. What day you burn it on doesn't matter a bit.
As often happens, Jay Rosen makes more sense than anybody else in the debate about whether mainstream media should have shown graphic images of the Berg beheading.
The odd thing about this discussion is that the terrorists and many war-supporters are on the same side: They both think the beheading video should be widely disseminated. The war bloggers think the video will reinforce American beliefs about the justice of our cause (and divert attention from the prison scandal); the terrorists think, I suppose, that however much Americans may bluster about their commitment to the war, the video will in fact terrify us and discourage private investment in Iraq, which in turn will slow reconstruction and make conditions more favorable for breeding new terrorists.
Which side is right? I have no idea. But it's strange to see the media attacked for hating America because they refuse to give the terrorists what they want by showing the video.
The odd thing about this discussion is that the terrorists and many war-supporters are on the same side: They both think the beheading video should be widely disseminated. The war bloggers think the video will reinforce American beliefs about the justice of our cause (and divert attention from the prison scandal); the terrorists think, I suppose, that however much Americans may bluster about their commitment to the war, the video will in fact terrify us and discourage private investment in Iraq, which in turn will slow reconstruction and make conditions more favorable for breeding new terrorists.
Which side is right? I have no idea. But it's strange to see the media attacked for hating America because they refuse to give the terrorists what they want by showing the video.
Saturday, May 15, 2004
The new issue of Harper's magazine has a long article by a Canadian journalist who spent time with Iraq insurgents in and near Falluja. It's a gripping tale that reminds us of why we never want to know too much about our enemies -- it makes them too hard to kill.
The most touching portrait is of an insurgent who is highly conversant in Western culture, is a stickler for Arabic grammar and is so popular with kids that they head toward his lap whenever they see him. He says he fights Americans not because he admired Saddam (he didn't) nor because he supports Al Qaeda (he doesn't) but because he's angry that Americans are killing Iraqi civilians and because he believes the Koran commands him to repel occupying forces of nonbelievers. Makes it kind of hard to think that official American policy is to kill him.
The most touching portrait is of an insurgent who is highly conversant in Western culture, is a stickler for Arabic grammar and is so popular with kids that they head toward his lap whenever they see him. He says he fights Americans not because he admired Saddam (he didn't) nor because he supports Al Qaeda (he doesn't) but because he's angry that Americans are killing Iraqi civilians and because he believes the Koran commands him to repel occupying forces of nonbelievers. Makes it kind of hard to think that official American policy is to kill him.
Seldom Sober (a plausible claim) takes the usual blogosphere swipes at established journalism. Nothing new there. What's interesting are the comments actually defending the press. My favorite:
"Good Lord. Another 'blogs are better than Big Media' post. Someday you'll look back and realize how ridiculous you sounded back in '04.
"You know, they sell little plastic doctor kits at Toys 'R Us, but just because I can buy one and play with it doesn't make me a surgeon."
"Good Lord. Another 'blogs are better than Big Media' post. Someday you'll look back and realize how ridiculous you sounded back in '04.
"You know, they sell little plastic doctor kits at Toys 'R Us, but just because I can buy one and play with it doesn't make me a surgeon."
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Over at Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds is rounding up posts arguing that the media are emphasizing the Abu Ghraib story over the Berg beheading because of the hope that the prison story will hurt Bush more. Glenn does this sort of thing a lot, which is painful to see, because he really is a smart guy on a lot of topics. But news judgment isn't one of them. A few quick points:
1. Newspapers (with a few exceptions) didn't show pictures of the beheading out of an old editors' rule: Never make customers throw up their breakfast over the newspaper. It makes the ink run on the classifieds. When everything's available on the internet, maybe the rule has outlived its usefulness, but it's a rule that's been applied pretty uniformly since photography was invented. Pretty hard to blame it on liberal bias.
2. The Berg story, dramatic as it was, was basically a one-day story. When bad guys do bad things, that's news. But that's all it is. The only follow-ups concern vague allegations by the victim's parents and speculation about what the heck Berg was doing over there in the first place. Not very strong stuff. Until, and unless, we catch the guys who did it, there won't be much more to report. The prison story has "legs" (and the photos are more publicly presentable). We will continue to see developments in this story for months to come, and its tentacles are almost certain to spread. Has it been overplayed? I think so. But it's big news and will remain so.
3. The fact that the Berg beheading drove up web traffic does indicate something about public interest in the story. But at least some of the interest is voyeuristic. Newspapers aren't ever going to get that business.
4. One aspect of the prison story actually says something good about newspapers, although they will never get credit for it at Instapundit. In my experience, newspapers pretty consistently play up stories that require some sort of public response. I don't think it really makes much difference which party benefits from the story -- whether its impeachment of a Democrat or prison abuse blamed on a Republican. This habit that newspapers have of writing a lot about stories that require some sort of public decision is precisely the role the Founding Fathers envisioned for the press. And it's a job the press does pretty well.
1. Newspapers (with a few exceptions) didn't show pictures of the beheading out of an old editors' rule: Never make customers throw up their breakfast over the newspaper. It makes the ink run on the classifieds. When everything's available on the internet, maybe the rule has outlived its usefulness, but it's a rule that's been applied pretty uniformly since photography was invented. Pretty hard to blame it on liberal bias.
2. The Berg story, dramatic as it was, was basically a one-day story. When bad guys do bad things, that's news. But that's all it is. The only follow-ups concern vague allegations by the victim's parents and speculation about what the heck Berg was doing over there in the first place. Not very strong stuff. Until, and unless, we catch the guys who did it, there won't be much more to report. The prison story has "legs" (and the photos are more publicly presentable). We will continue to see developments in this story for months to come, and its tentacles are almost certain to spread. Has it been overplayed? I think so. But it's big news and will remain so.
3. The fact that the Berg beheading drove up web traffic does indicate something about public interest in the story. But at least some of the interest is voyeuristic. Newspapers aren't ever going to get that business.
4. One aspect of the prison story actually says something good about newspapers, although they will never get credit for it at Instapundit. In my experience, newspapers pretty consistently play up stories that require some sort of public response. I don't think it really makes much difference which party benefits from the story -- whether its impeachment of a Democrat or prison abuse blamed on a Republican. This habit that newspapers have of writing a lot about stories that require some sort of public decision is precisely the role the Founding Fathers envisioned for the press. And it's a job the press does pretty well.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
The Missoula Independent doesn't think much of Brian Schweitzer's performance in the gubernatorial debate. It's not the first hint I've heard from the alternative press that Schweitzer may be losing ground. Vincent's a Democrat's Democrat; in trying to reach out to Republicans, Schweitzer was certain to alienate hardline party members. That's a price he probably could afford to pay. But he needs outfits like the Independent on his side.
Granted, Independent readers probably don't have the greatest voting record. But there are the lot of them, and they are the people Schweitzer's GOP gambit ought to appeal to. This race could get interesting.
Granted, Independent readers probably don't have the greatest voting record. But there are the lot of them, and they are the people Schweitzer's GOP gambit ought to appeal to. This race could get interesting.
I posted some thoughts a week or two ago about journalists and religion. Now Columbia Journalism Review has published a whole article (and a good one) on the topic.
It reminds me of when I was a Southwest Conference sportswriter. That was the Bible Belt, and it was common for athletes interviewed in the lockerroom to credit whatever success they had to the Lord (to their credit, they never blamed God for their dropped passes and penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct). Whenever an interview took this turn, I saw reporters setting their notebooks aside.
It struck me as odd. If a player attributed his success to, say, an eighth-grade coach, or to a change in diet or exercise, that would go right in the paper. But God as an explanation for human achievement was somehow out of bounds. You'd almost think the Supreme Court had ruled that God had no place on athletic fields (at least not those of public schools).
It reminds me of when I was a Southwest Conference sportswriter. That was the Bible Belt, and it was common for athletes interviewed in the lockerroom to credit whatever success they had to the Lord (to their credit, they never blamed God for their dropped passes and penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct). Whenever an interview took this turn, I saw reporters setting their notebooks aside.
It struck me as odd. If a player attributed his success to, say, an eighth-grade coach, or to a change in diet or exercise, that would go right in the paper. But God as an explanation for human achievement was somehow out of bounds. You'd almost think the Supreme Court had ruled that God had no place on athletic fields (at least not those of public schools).
On talk radio yesterday the talk was all about the beheading of an American. Sean Hannity linked to the video and wanted to know, Why won't the elite media show this? Where are the Muslim clerics apologizing for this? The Democrats are politicizing American abuses, but where's the outrage over this? Michael Reagan asked the same questions.
I really must live on another planet. This line of thinking makes absolutely no sense to me. People whom we don't know, over whom we have no authority, and against whom we are waging war, commit an act of ruthless brutality. Therefore ... what? It's OK to brutalize unrelated Iraqis? We should lower our standards to theirs? We should enlist them in the military so we can court martial them? What's a little rape when you've got beheadings going on? Somebody help me out here.
I really must live on another planet. This line of thinking makes absolutely no sense to me. People whom we don't know, over whom we have no authority, and against whom we are waging war, commit an act of ruthless brutality. Therefore ... what? It's OK to brutalize unrelated Iraqis? We should lower our standards to theirs? We should enlist them in the military so we can court martial them? What's a little rape when you've got beheadings going on? Somebody help me out here.
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
I've been trying to find something positive in the prison abuse scandal, and I thought I had it figured out. But I am disheartened after reading some of the comments here. My positive spin was that there was a lot of loose talk after 9-11 about the merits of torture as a method of eliciting intelligence and even just for the sheer vengeful satisfaction of it.
The pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, I thought, would put an end to that kind of talk. Torture in the abstract is one thing; actually looking at it, even digitally, is something else. Those grim photos seemed to reawaken the fundamental sense of decency and capacity for outrage that is at the heart of civilization. Obviously, however, not everybody got the message.
The real lesson here may be that no outrage emerged until the pictures did. The investigation was announced in January. The Red Cross apparently found problems going back to November. For the last couple of months, Harper's magazine has been printing accounts of prisoners at Guantanamo and of post-9/11 detainees in New York City. Guantanamo prisoners claimed they weren't allowed to pray or move and were subjected to forced injections. New York City detainees -- none of whom was ever even charged with a terrorism-related crime, much less convicted -- complained that their heads were butted into a wall hung with a "These colors don't run" T-shirt. An independent commission found blood on the shirt.
All of this went on with scarcely a public murmur. Much has been made of the fact that digital technology can spread photos around the globe almost instantly. But the converse may be that if there are no pictures, there is no story.
The pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, I thought, would put an end to that kind of talk. Torture in the abstract is one thing; actually looking at it, even digitally, is something else. Those grim photos seemed to reawaken the fundamental sense of decency and capacity for outrage that is at the heart of civilization. Obviously, however, not everybody got the message.
The real lesson here may be that no outrage emerged until the pictures did. The investigation was announced in January. The Red Cross apparently found problems going back to November. For the last couple of months, Harper's magazine has been printing accounts of prisoners at Guantanamo and of post-9/11 detainees in New York City. Guantanamo prisoners claimed they weren't allowed to pray or move and were subjected to forced injections. New York City detainees -- none of whom was ever even charged with a terrorism-related crime, much less convicted -- complained that their heads were butted into a wall hung with a "These colors don't run" T-shirt. An independent commission found blood on the shirt.
All of this went on with scarcely a public murmur. Much has been made of the fact that digital technology can spread photos around the globe almost instantly. But the converse may be that if there are no pictures, there is no story.
Saturday, May 08, 2004
OK, it's a bit strange, but I found this piece on the National Day of Hypocrisy to be interesting and compelling.
I particularly like the reference to Matthew 6:5-6. It's a passage I have used in arguments about the proper role of prayer in public life, but it never gets me anywhere. I'm not sure why. Jesus' message seems to be clear: Prayer is between me and God. When I use prayer to make some larger point about how holy or patriotic you are, or to make political hay about the place of religion in the public square, God stops listening. As Cool Hand Luke says, "I'm just standing in the rain, talking to myself."
I particularly like the reference to Matthew 6:5-6. It's a passage I have used in arguments about the proper role of prayer in public life, but it never gets me anywhere. I'm not sure why. Jesus' message seems to be clear: Prayer is between me and God. When I use prayer to make some larger point about how holy or patriotic you are, or to make political hay about the place of religion in the public square, God stops listening. As Cool Hand Luke says, "I'm just standing in the rain, talking to myself."
Friday, May 07, 2004
This meeting notice won't make The Outpost, so I put it here. You can read more here.
The Custer National Forest, Beartooth District will be hosting a Public
Meeting for the Beartooth Travel Management Proposal in the Big Horn Center
at the Holiday Inn Billings Plaza Hotel and Trade Center at 5500 Midland
Road Billings, Montana on May 11, 2004 at 6:30 pm. This is an information
meeting to discuss why there is a need for the proposal, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and to learn how you can become
involved. This is not a hearing on the proposal, no testimonies or
disposition will be heard or given, and nothing will be recorded.
The comment period for the Beartooth Ranger District Travel Management
Proposal is September 1, 2004. We are very interested in receiving your
written comments as they relate to this proposal. This is the first of
several opportunities you will have to participate in the development of
the Travel Management Plan for the Custer National Forest, Beartooth Ranger
District.
The Custer National Forest, Beartooth District will be hosting a Public
Meeting for the Beartooth Travel Management Proposal in the Big Horn Center
at the Holiday Inn Billings Plaza Hotel and Trade Center at 5500 Midland
Road Billings, Montana on May 11, 2004 at 6:30 pm. This is an information
meeting to discuss why there is a need for the proposal, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and to learn how you can become
involved. This is not a hearing on the proposal, no testimonies or
disposition will be heard or given, and nothing will be recorded.
The comment period for the Beartooth Ranger District Travel Management
Proposal is September 1, 2004. We are very interested in receiving your
written comments as they relate to this proposal. This is the first of
several opportunities you will have to participate in the development of
the Travel Management Plan for the Custer National Forest, Beartooth Ranger
District.
The Montana News Association, Donald Cyphers' quirky-to-bizarre daily take on the news, now claims to be the leading online news source in Montana. I heard a radio ad yesterday claiming 4.8 million readers, then found this article confirming the claim, if not the number.
When I heard that Cyphers had 4.8 million readers, then I figured, hey, The Outpost must have 80 million readers. But no, Cyphers ranks us somewhere in the middle of the pack. Dead last? The Billings Gazette, the so-called "source," which claims a scant 18,000 readers. It's "lights out" to Ed Kemmick's blog.
How does the Montana News do it? "The Montana News gives the credit to the Holy Spirit and is walking by the supernatural powers of the Holy Spirit."
It's not fair! The rest of us have to get by on natural powers. The FCC ought to do something.
When I heard that Cyphers had 4.8 million readers, then I figured, hey, The Outpost must have 80 million readers. But no, Cyphers ranks us somewhere in the middle of the pack. Dead last? The Billings Gazette, the so-called "source," which claims a scant 18,000 readers. It's "lights out" to Ed Kemmick's blog.
How does the Montana News do it? "The Montana News gives the credit to the Holy Spirit and is walking by the supernatural powers of the Holy Spirit."
It's not fair! The rest of us have to get by on natural powers. The FCC ought to do something.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Jay Rosen has a thoughtful post (with some less thoughtful comments) about the mini-furor over Ted Koppel's decision to air on "Nightline" the names of soldiers killed in Iraq. To me, as I note on Rosen's site, the amazing thing is that there is controversy at all. Whatever one may think of Koppel's political agenda, if any, the broadcast made only one journalistic statement: These deaths are worthy of notice. That assertion isn't even disputed. Beyond that, this was "just-the-facts" reporting at its purest. It says something about how split this country is when even merely naming war dead becomes a political hot potato.
Saturday, May 01, 2004
The GOP E-brief may have something here:
By Phyllis Ward, Lincoln
Could someone please explain why the media prints everything (Montana Environmental Information Center spokesman) Jim Jensen says as the truth when all the reporters would have to do is a little fact checking?
On March 28, the Tribune ran a story about Jensen’s idea of making his cyanide ban a part of the Montana Constitution. According to that story, Jensen said “supporters of the original ban gathered nearly 40,000 signatures in 1998, when they only needed about 20,000 to get a regular initiative on the ballot.”
A quick call to the Secretary of State’s office reveals there were 26,466 signatures gathered for I-137, the 1998 ban. That means Jensen exaggerated by about 12,000 people.
According to a story in the March 27 Helena Independent Record, “Asked where his group’s money is coming from, Jensen said backers have not yet started fund-raising.” Yet on March 4 – three weeks earlier – Jensen himself sent a fund-raising letter saying “Make a special financial contribution to help us fight to keep I-137 intact.”
By Phyllis Ward, Lincoln
Could someone please explain why the media prints everything (Montana Environmental Information Center spokesman) Jim Jensen says as the truth when all the reporters would have to do is a little fact checking?
On March 28, the Tribune ran a story about Jensen’s idea of making his cyanide ban a part of the Montana Constitution. According to that story, Jensen said “supporters of the original ban gathered nearly 40,000 signatures in 1998, when they only needed about 20,000 to get a regular initiative on the ballot.”
A quick call to the Secretary of State’s office reveals there were 26,466 signatures gathered for I-137, the 1998 ban. That means Jensen exaggerated by about 12,000 people.
According to a story in the March 27 Helena Independent Record, “Asked where his group’s money is coming from, Jensen said backers have not yet started fund-raising.” Yet on March 4 – three weeks earlier – Jensen himself sent a fund-raising letter saying “Make a special financial contribution to help us fight to keep I-137 intact.”
This arrived too late for The Outpost, but they asked that it go online, so here it is:
The Billings Police Department Crime Prevention Center and Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) invites seniors, 55 years and older, to a McGruff House information session on Wednesday, May 5, 2004. Please register by Tuesday, May 4 to 247-8594.
The Crime Prevention Officer, Shane Schaff, will explain the purpose of the program and recruit volunteers.
The event will take place:
Date: Wednesday, May 5
Time: 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm
Location: Billings Senior Center
360 North 23rd Street
The Billings Police Department Crime Prevention Center and Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) invites seniors, 55 years and older, to a McGruff House information session on Wednesday, May 5, 2004. Please register by Tuesday, May 4 to 247-8594.
The Crime Prevention Officer, Shane Schaff, will explain the purpose of the program and recruit volunteers.
The event will take place:
Date: Wednesday, May 5
Time: 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm
Location: Billings Senior Center
360 North 23rd Street
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)