Contact: red_ankle@mac.com

WWW Mac-a-ro-nies

Contribute:

Listening: Seduced by a New Age song

Just a little bit of Wyndham Hill type music goes a long way with me. New Age, sew-age. When exposed to anything more mellow than Mark Cohn or India Arie, my ears try to close themselves. So, I was surprised when I found myself liking a song by the singer Iron & Wine yesterday. I was seduced as much by the video that accompanies the song, "Naked As We Came," at the iTunes Music Store, as by the song itself. Perhaps more.

Simon at Webmink is responsible for whatever has happened to me since I became aware of Iron & Wine at his blog.

I'm not going to describe the video because I want you to form your own opinion.

View the vid and hear the song. Let me know if I am succumbing to easy listening syndrome.

Reasonably related

•The Iron & Wine website, courtesy of Sub Pop Records.

•Don't have iTunes? You can hear an audio clip at Amazon.

News: Texas education miracle wasn't

Education in Texas was the recipient of boxcar loads of attention a few years ago. When it was in the news, it played to the tune of a mariachi band. George W. Bush rode into the White House, or at least into the Supreme Court, partly because he claimed mastery of one of the major domestic dilemmas in the country -- the failure of our schools to teach and graduate more literate people. Bush then appointed the man he claimed had shepherded the Texas education miracle, Rod Paige, U.S. secretary of education. Now, cue the violins. The truth about the alleged miracle has emerged. The 'miracle' seems to have consisted of frauds on several levels.

The Houston Chronicle reports the Texas has the highest proportion of dropouts in the country, and, it is not improving.

For the second straight year, Texas has the lowest percentage of high school graduates in the nation, according to a U.S. Census Bureau study released Tuesday.

Seventy-seven percent of Texans age 25 and older had a high school degree in 2003, the same percentage as a decade earlier, when Texas ranked 39th in the country. So while other states have seen their graduation rates improve -- a record 85 percent of Americans have high school degrees -- Texas is treading water.

Defenders of the situation have tried to blame low graduation rates on the state having a large population of Hispanic immigrants. But, knowledgeable sources disagree, pointing out that 85 percent of Hispanic students are American born. Additionally, they say that the high rate of Hispanic dropouts, about 40 percent in cities such as Houston, shows the educational system is failing 34 percent of the state's population. There isn't a moderate achievement, not to mention a miracle, with such a level of failure occurring, they say.

Education officials understated the dropout rate in Texas by not acknowledging most dropouts. But, why would educators want to make a mockery of their commitment to education? The Daily Texan asked an expert.

'The dropouts become absolutely necessary because what they are trying to do is get the [test] numbers up, not improve the education of the children,'' Rice University researcher Linda McNeil said. ''What this system sets up is it rewards the principals who get those kids out of the building.''

It's called a ''leaver'' code system, and it's used to disguise dropout rates, said Maria Robledo Montecel, San Antonio-based director of the Inter-cultural Development Research Association.

School districts in Texas can use any one of about 30 ''leaver'' codes to explain a student's disappearance. About 20 of the codes, ranging from pursuit of a GED to imprisonment, exempt a student from being counted as a dropout, which, along with standardized test scores, is used to determine a district's annual accountability rating by the Texas Education Agency.

The TEA claims only 1.3 percent of Texas students dropped out in 2001-2002. The others, just 'left.' An independent group pegs the figure at 39 percent.

But, claims of fraud don't stop with falsified dropout numbers.

HOUSTON, June 25 - Three years after Rod Paige left his job as schools superintendent in Houston to become the federal secretary of education, his successor and several of his closest associates are stepping down, some amid questions about how business dealings have been conducted in the district.

The New York Times reports that associates of school board members and administrators were awarded profitable contracts by the Houston school district. A school board member quit when her husband was not awarded an additional contract for architectural work after investigators began probing the situation. Other officials have left claiming a need to spend more time with their families.

The revelations suggest a pattern and practice of dishonesty.

In the seven years that Dr. Paige was superintendent, Houston reported such gains in student achievement that George W. Bush's supporters hailed the progress in the 2000 presidential campaign as a Texas miracle. It helped Dr. Paige earn his cabinet seat and enabled the Bush administration to use Houston as a model for the No Child Left Behind education act. With Dr. Paige's departure for Washington, Ms. Stripling, a onetime teacher, was named to replace him. In 2002 the Broad Foundation, based in Los Angeles, awarded Houston a $1 million prize as the best urban school district in the United States.

But in 2003, a state audit of records at 16 middle and high schools in Houston showed that more than half the students who should have been reported as dropouts in the 2000-2001 school year had not been. Those findings were followed by the discovery that Houston had also failed to report thousands of schoolhouse crimes, raising doubts about the district's credibility with all kinds of data and attracting nationwide attention from the news media. . . .

We are all familiar with the adage, 'if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.' Yet, when people in high places try to sway us with tales of miracles, we are sometimes succeptible. The false impression of a very successful educational system in Texas, crafted by a coterie of interested parties, misled a nation. We should not allow ourselves to be fooled again.

Reasonably related

I learned about this topic from Dirtgrain, a teacher and blogger who regularly researches and writes about issues in education. You can read his weblog here.

EW interviews Michael Moore

Relax, Republicans. This entry is about an interview of Michael Moore that apppeared in Entertainment Weekly. That is right, entertainment. Where y'all say Moore (pictured) belongs. So, put away those 'Fahrenheit 9/11 is entertainment, not information,' talking points right now. First, some information. It has become popular among Right Wingers to say F9/11 is a failure. The facts suggest otherwise.

The surprise was that Fahrenheit won the Palme d'Or in Cannes. That it survived a bruising fight between Disney and Miramax. And most of all, that it soared to the top spot at the box office with $24 million and broke all kinds of records. By June 28, Fahrenheit was the highest grossing non-concert, non-IMAX documentary of all time, (besting Moore's last movie, the Oscar-winning Bowling for Columbine), and the only one to ever win a box office weekend.

That's right, F9/11 is the only documentary, or 'mockumentary' if you prefer, to ever gross the highest receipts for a weekend. The film is not a failure. So, one wonders why it is a smash. A person with an opinion about its success is Michael Moore. He offers three reasons why the movie is popular.

•Fahrenheit 9/11 humanizes the people involved, including the Iraqis.

•One side of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has already been told by Big Media. He is telling the other.

•The film provides the first opportunity to see casualties in Iraq, getting past the cleansing imposed on footage and still photos from the occupation by the government.

But what of the hatred? How does it feel to be held in contempt to the extent that people try to make a living from criticizing you? Moore says he can handle it.

The way I learned to deal with this is that there are two Michael Moores. There's the one the rightwing lunatics have created. The fictional Michael Moore. The one that they just make stuff up about. And then there's me. So whenever I read something about me, I have a good laugh. I enjoy reading the exploits of the fictional Michael Moore who has a penthouse on Fifth Avenue and has, in the Daily News today, a hot tub on his balcony. Did you know that? I read that and I thought, That would feel good. (Laughs.)

While reading the several pages of the interview, I found myself really connecting with Michael Moore for the first time. I have appreciated his objectives as a film maker on an intellectual level throughout his career, but remained emotionally distant. That changed. In EW, Moore seems bewildered by some aspects of people's behavior that also bewilder me. For example, the lying -- often for no identifiable purpose. Why would someone want to claim the film maker has a hot tub on a balcony? Why not a gold toilet? Or a calvacade of call girls, on, well, call? Or, better yet, no lie at all? The film is said to humanize the not so collateral damage in the invasion of Iraq, both for Americans and Iraqis. The interview humanizes Moore.

Read the post Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore interview, touted as the most thorough yet, in this week's edition of Entertainment Weekly.

Health: Waiting for mad cow disease rules

Six months have passed since the federal government announced it would pass legislation to curb practices that result in mad cow disease. But, nothing has happened. Some observers began to express skepticism, doubting the Bush administration intended to enact the rules it initially opposed. (The beef industry also claimed that no changes to the status quo were needed.) But, perhaps the doubters are in error.

Today, after appearing indifferent to reform as recently as last week, the FDA announced it has changed its tune.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Food and Drug Administration later this week will publish details on long-delayed safeguards aimed at protecting the U.S. food and animal feed supply from mad cow disease, the agency's top official said on Wednesday.

"There's going to be a suite of them (rules) out this week," said acting FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford.

The FDA said on Jan. 26 it would ban animal blood in cattle feed, as well as ensure that dietary supplements and cosmetics are kept free of materials from "downer cattle" -- animals too sick or hurt too walk.

Those of us who have maintained an interest in the controversy were wondering if we would ever see results. The FDA's entrance into the situation after a cow from the Pacific Northwest was identified as suffering Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) was slow. Spokespersons first said the food supply was safe. Only later, after the practices that result in the malady, including feeding animal parts and feces to cattle, were publicized, was there a move away from defensiveness.

The Oregonian wrote about the rules that appeared to be a phantasm last week.

The measures -- among them a call to stop calves from being fed cow's blood -- were announced Jan. 26 by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and then-FDA Commissioner Mark B. McClellan.

. . .At the time, the FDA said the rules would take effect upon publication in the Federal Register. But publication never happened.

FDA officials this week confirmed the rules had not taken effect. And a call Thursday to acting FDA Administrator Lester Crawford was referred to an agency spokeswoman who said she could not say when the new rules might be instituted.

That no new FDA protections are in place provokes concern among government officials and consumer advocates.

Consumer advocates fear the administration, never enthusiatic about changing the rules governing slaughter and usage of cattle, has been influenced by the industry to ignore the proposed changes now that the media has moved on to covering other controversies.

Carol Tucker Foreman, a former USDA assistant secretary and current director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America, referred this week to the "mysterious, disappearing rules" and criticized the FDA for being lax.

"It's not unusual for a department to say we're going to put out some proposed rules and then have some time pass," Foreman said. "But for the (Health and Human Services) secretary and the FDA commissioner to call a press conference to announce it and then to disappear from the face of the Earth is pretty . . . unusual and irresponsible."

Crawford's statement may be a response to that recent grumbling. However, even if the proposed legislation is enacted, it stops short of a reliable mad cow disease policy according to some. They support adopting the standards enacted in Europe.

The American measures will include:

•Restricting brains, spinal cords and other tissues known to harbor the highest concentrations of brain-destroying agents from FDA-regulated foods, dietary supplements and cosmetics.

•Prohibiting materials taken from dead or so-called "downer cattle" from FDA-regulated foods, dietary supplements and cosmetics.

•Ending the use of poultry litter collected in hen houses -- typically comprising feces and contaminated feed -- in cattle feed.

•Prohibiting the use of mammalian blood as a protein booster for young cattle.

We should know whether the FDA will act within a week.

Politics: John Edwards is an endorseable choice

I have been a reluctant trooper in regard to this year's presidential election. Unlike most people in the blogosphere, I have never heartily supported any candidate. When John Kerry emerged as the last man standing in the Democratic Party, I accepted that I would vote for him. However, of the two Johns, my preference would have been John Edwards. One of the reasons I admire Edwards (pictured) is he has lived a challenging life, rising from working-class origins to become a very successful trial lawyer. Kerry's wealth and status are largely inherited. Another reason, I prefer Edwards is his uncompromising support for civil rights. Silver Rights explains.

It appears Edwards will be more open about his opposition to some traditional Southern values. Right Wing talk radio host Les Kinsolving discovered Edwards will not balk at offending 'heritage' supporters recently.

SALEM, N.H. - Democrat presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, denounced the Confederate flag on Wednesday, Jan. 21, calling it "divisive" and "a symbol of oppression to some Americans."

He also declared that the Confederate flag which flies on the state capitol grounds in Columbia, in his native South Carolina, should be removed.

. . .My answer is that the Confederate flag, which is a symbol of oppression to a lot of Americans, is a divisive symbol and should not be flown in a place like it's being flown in South Carolina, in front of the state capitol. It shouldn't be flown on public grounds like that. That's my position and I stand by it.

The interviewer got nowhere with trying to manipulate or trip up the pugnacious trial lawyer turned politician.

But, how will Edwards' principled stand play with relatively conservative white voters? In my experience, many of those people like a bit of wink-and-nod from leaders to reassure them the status quo is not really being disturbed.

Edwards has also refused to wink in regard to the hot button issue of affirmative action. He emphasized his support of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding affirmative action programs in higher education this summer.

"The court reaffirmed America's commitment to equal opportunity and justice," Senator Edwards said. He cautioned, however, that the 5-4 ruling "underscores the importance of nominating and confirming justices committed to upholding civil rights."

. . .Senator Edwards filed a friend-of-the-court brief with 11 other senators urging justices to uphold the admissions policy. The senators argued that affirmative action policies at universities throughout the country play a significant role in remedying racial disparities. The senators' brief was one of more than 60 submitted to the high court in support of the University of Michigan.

Again, a politician has taken a principled stand that many of his constituents may oppose. The fact Edwards is a Southern politician taking that stand makes him even more vulnerable than he would be otherwise.

Edwards' unequivocal support for civil rights could cost him a some votes among Democrats who are also participants in or sympathizers with the neo-Confederate movement. However, it could also help Kerry with a part of the electorate he has failed to get enthusiastic support from -- racial minorities. Time Magazine recently considered Kerry's lack of appeal to African-American voters.

Because black voters are more opposed to President Bush than is almost any other voting bloc, John Kerry's first move to secure their enthusiastic support might have been simply to follow Hippocrates' instruction: do no harm. But when he appeared before the National Conference of Black Mayors in April, Kerry chose to speak not about their concerns but about his plan to make the U.S.'s chemical plants more secure — leaving the audience underwhelmed. And when Kerry's campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, listed his top election strategists, it revealed that the group of six was all white, angering black activists who feel the Democratic Party takes African Americans for granted. Noting that Bill Clinton was sometimes called America's first black President, Kerry said earlier this year, "I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second." Responds a senior Clinton Administration official who is black: "That ain't gonna happen. He's not going to out-Clinton Clinton, and if he tried, he would look phony."

. . .Though a Democrat, Massachusetts state representative Byron Rushing has said he will not campaign for Kerry until he sees a strategy that will energize black voters. "People want to like Kerry. People want to be enthusiastic about him. But for whatever reason, they're not," says Julianne Malveaux, a Washington-based black activist and writer who attended a recent Florida retreat for African-American political consultants.

According to Time, Kerry has been close to two black Americans in his life, one as a child and another as a young adult. Though that record is probably more diverse than one would find for many white Americans, it describes a person not exactly cognizant of the experiences people of color have. If he is to win the one in five Democratic voters who is African-American that Al Gore did, he must find a way to appeal to people he may rarely even think of. And, the problem does not stop there. Kerry, a patrician New Englander, has shown no particular knowledge of Hispanic or Asian voters, either.

Edwards, however, has achieved his political success in a part of the country still openly riven by issues of race and class. He was forced to face racial issues head on during his rise to prominence. Most importantly, he has not blinked. I believe many of the civil rights supporters Kerry needs to attract are aware of Edwards' advocacy for their cause.

Kerry will not win the degree of approval from supporters of civil rights he would have by hiring Donna Brazile as his campaign manager, but he will shore up an increasingly doubtful constituency by having selected John Edwards as his choice for vice president.

Reading: Asimov's Foundation fumbles

The science fiction writer of the last generation who has been in the public eye lately is Ray Bradbury. His rather silly complaint about Michael Moore's use of 'Fahrenheit' in the name of his movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, has gotten more ink than it deserves. I don't believe there is a copyright violation issue. Furthermore, the nod to Bradbury's novel, Fahrenheit 451, can be perceived as a compliment. But, the sci-fi writer who has had my attention for the the last two weeks is Isaac Asimov. Though I have read some Asimov over the years, I did not approach the Foundation cycle until now. I may have picked up the first book because I was stymied by Ursula Le Guin's Hain cycle. However, Asimov's Foundation books have their frustrations, too.

Asimov began the cycle in the early 1950s, when he was in his early twenties.

The time is millenia into the future. Humans have colonized the galaxy and reached an inventive zenith in which technology is well-dispersed, and mainly nuclear. Technological civilization is in decline, though few realize it because the process of decay is so slow. At the edges of the Empire, worlds have drifted back to using fossil fuels and wood as energy sources. The royalty of the Empire is not interested in seeing, hearing or saying any evil, that is, any acknowledgement that all is not well. Enter one Hari Seldon, the superhero of the Foundation series. He is a psychohistorian, a psychologist who can foresee the future by studying aggregates of people and determining their likely responses to stimuli. His goal is to soften the decline of the Empire into barbarism for 30,000 years he believes is inevitable. He plans a recovery that will take only 1,000 years. Seldon manipulates the emperor into setting up his dream laboratory -- a planet where he can develop his theory to his heart's content.

Seldon and his followers are exiled to Terminus, a planet at the far reaches of the galaxy that they develop from scratch. The exile serves the government's purpose by eliminating dissenters who might disrupt the status quo. It serves Seldon's purpose by giving him free reign over a population that, at first, is fully dedicated to his ideas. The initial rationale given for the existence of the Foundation is that it will research and publish an encylopedia containing all of the knowledge of mankind. But, by the end of Foundation, the first book of the series, that rationale is revealed as a pretext. The Foundation exists to keep technology alive and innovative. While the Empire loses its technological sophistication, the Foundation will gradually spread its technology to surrounding planets. The initial method for spreading technology is religion. In return for inventions of the Foundation, other planets agree to allowing 'priests' from the Foundation to 'minister' medicine and other science.

It isn't long before some rulers of barbarous planets reject Foundation technology rather than have their power threatened by Foundation priests. The method for transferring technology shifts to traders. The traders engage in mercantile capitalism, without the threatening trappings of religion. However, they will become a threat -- to the Foundation because of their independence. Another threat precedes them. Seldon can only predict matters involving large groups of people. Psychohistory does not apply to individuals. Therefore, he misses the emergence of a mutant leader 300 years into the Seldon Plan. The Mule grasps power over much of the Foundation's reach by controlling the minds of leaders of various governments and factions. Foundation and Empire chronicles the Mule's impact on the Foundation and the inevitable clash of what remains of the Empire and the Foundation.

Another set of protagonists in the Foundation series is a secret second Foundation that considers itself the ally of the first. Seldon's plan has been for the Second Foundation, consisting of the mentally powerful, to be the leaders of the technologically superior Second Empire. Leaders of the original Foundation rebel against the notion. They consider themselves the true heirs to Seldon's vision. In Second Foundation, the two groups finally meet. The result is a resolution that appears to consolidate the power of the first Foundation, while eliminating the second.

Though the plots of the three novels may sound complicated in description, they are not when actually reading the books. There is a group of leaders who are either on the wrong track or despotic. A single man rebels against them, and orthodoxy, and gets the next step of the Seldon Plan right. The first of the righteous renegades is of course, Hari Seldon. He reappears in holographic form time and again to confirm that events are proceeding as he predicted.

Some aspects of Asimov's futurism are puzzling. Despite the passage of time, human life expectancy hasn't increased. People still get the same diseases and there no are cures or even restoration of missing limbs. Smoking, likely one of the habits any advance society will find a less harmful substitute for, is prevalent. Nor is there is any caution about the dangers of nuclear power. Women get little attention in the novels, and then stereotypically. Bayta, the heroine of Foundation and Empire, achieves the distinction because of the Mule's romantic attraction to her. In Second Foundation, her teenaged granddaughter is a kind of good luck charm for the male characters. The sexual stereotyping is particularly noticeable if one has been reading Le Guin. Her early books, written during the same period, explore the role of gender in future societies. Asimov seems to believe sex roles are fixed. There are also no nonwhite characters in the three Foundation novels I read.

The frustration I am experiencing with Le Guin's Hain cycle is the opacity of the Hain themselves. The Hain influence other planets by introducing superior technology to them, but it is not clear what their own planet is like. The frustration I've experienced with Asimov's Foundation cycle is the lack of growth in human capacities he envisions for the future in these books. Asimov places all his faith in a single sort of human, the vigorous male leader who sets less vigorous male leaders straight, achieving power for himself. Asimov's ideal is not mine.

Reasonably related

•The official Isaac Asimov Homepage.

•There are three additional Foundation cycle novels written in the 1980s and 1990s.

Film: A cool look at Fahrenheit 9/11

Ms. Lauren at Feministe has seen Michael Moore's controversial movie. Her review is one of the most unbiased I've read in the blogosphere. Though she is on the Left, she has brought an objectivity to the topic not in keeping with the usual biases of Bloggersville. She resists the temptation to dehumanize people whose politics she disagrees with. Nor does she ignore the flaws in Moore's outlook. The result is a review I suspect any reader will find thoughtful.

Spoilers ahead.

I saw the movie tonight, and as much as I would like to give a raving review, I cannot. While I agree with the basic premise of the movie, much of Michael Moore's argument is based on an emotional appeal that I inherently resist.

Unlike others who have criticized the movie, I didn't think Moore's scope was too wide. Overall, Moore's threefold thesis was clear:

1) The Bush administration is a parade of assholes.

2) Like in Bowling for Columbine, a fear-based spin on the news will make us agree to just about anything - even war.

3) War is bad.

Oddly, much of the footage of the administrative rockstars readying themselves for the camera on September 11th made Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice appear more human than appear as members of the Evil Empire. The infamous seven minutes of Bush in his photo op at the Florida elementary school recorded a reaction much like my own -- his presidency doesn't make him less human for his stunned reaction.

Unlike Moore's analysis of Bush's paralysis due to lack of informed action by his cronies, I perceived his reaction of that day as much like mine.

I am impressed with Lauren's analysis of the use of the word 'conspiracy' to refer to the relationship among Bush administration members, cronies and corporations benefitting from the invasion of Iraq. In America, the interlocking aspects of power are often out in the open. For example, evidence of Vice President Dick Cheney's profitable relationship with Halliburton is available to see for anyone willing to do minimal research. As nefarious as the interlocking relationships may be, they lack the cloak and dagger qualities of what most people consider conspiracies.

As much as I disagree with the current administration, I cannot peg them as a part of a wide conspiracy to profit from the war. A conspiracy is not a conspiracy if it is in the open. This administration is heavily tied with business interests and has acted accordingly. This administration is heavily concerned with moral comeuppance and has acted accordingly. This is no conspiracy - no conspiracy about oil, no conspiracy about millions of dollars of profit.

Let me say it again: A conspiracy is not a conspiracy if it occurs in wide open spaces.

What of my own attitude toward Michael Moore? I am neither a partisan nor a critic. I consider his films to be good food for thought, but not sacrosanct. But, I reject the Right's claim that Moore's movies are 'just lies.' The blending of fact and techniques of fiction to make a point has a long history in the arts. I believe what is being called lying is actually a form of literary license.

Read the entire review of Fahrenheit 9/11 at Feministe.

News and analysis: Jack hits the road

Jack Ryan has officially withdrawn as the Republican nominee to the Senate from Illinois. Ryan, who sought to conceal seamy allegations about his sex life, blamed his inability to remain in the race on the media. His opponent, Democrat Barack Obama, has chosen not to comment on the scandal. USA Today has Ryan's parting remarks.

"The media has gotten out of control. The fact that the Chicago Tribune sues for access to sealed custody documents and then takes unto itself the right to publish details of a custody dispute over the objections of two parents who agree that the re-airing of their arguments will hurt their ability to co-parent their child and will hurt their child is truly outrageous.

"The debate between competing visions and philosophies is a vital one one the voters of Illinois absolutely deserve. Elections, after all, are about choices. But it's clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race.

"What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign — the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play.

Accordingly, I am today withdrawing from the race."

Ryan has claimed he wanted his divorce records sealed, a very unusual step, because his son has 'special needs.' However, the material a California judge allowed to be released, a small part of the record, revealed intriguing information about Ryan himself, not the boy. Actress Jeri Ryan, his ex, alleges Jack Ryan took her to sex clubs on four occasions and asked that she engage in sexual activity while other people watched. Ryan disavows the allegations.

Party leaders were angered by Ryan's denial, up until the divorce files were opened, that the material contained any embarrassing revelations. They believe he knowingly misled them.

Despite a thorough reading of news and opinion about Ryan's predicament, I found few people who accepted his alibi for attempting to block the release of the material. Instead, the effort to shield himself with his son backfired, leading to negative assessments of Ryan's character.

Ryan's withdrawal statement also is an exercise in blame shifting, in my opinion. He takes no responsibility for having created the circumstances he finds himself in. Such an admission could attach to the unseemly behavior alleged by Jeri Ryan, his efforts to prevent the release of the material in the court files or his failure to be candid with party officials. All three opportunities to atone were ignored. Instead, Ryan attempts to shift the blame to the media. It has been clear since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), that a higher standard of conduct is expected of public officials than of ordinary citizens. The consideration they pay for receiving privileges not offered to the average Joe or Jane is having less privacy and being subject to more public criticism without grounds for complaint. Ryan, a Harvard Law School graduate, should have been well aware that as as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, he was a public figure. He should have known that being a public figure means having his behavior scrutinized by the media. I doubt he is ignorant of his legal status, so I must assume he is dissembling.

Jack Ryan left investment banking after becoming a multimillionaire. He taught at a Catholic school for boys for three years. During his campaign, youths from the all-black school were used as props in Ryan's public appearances and a television ad. I am curious to see whether Ryan returns to teaching or returns to accumulating wealth. The imbroglio over his divorce records appears to have been an effort of damage control he began years ago when his marriage was on the rocks. He knew then that he wanted a career in politics and planned accordingly -- getting his divorce records sealed. Is Ryan's supposed altruism another maneuver meant to profit his hoped for political career? Time will tell.

Blogospherics: New blogs should be better blogs

Blogger Simon at Simon's World is making an effort to revive The Truth Laid Bear's New Weblog Showcase. The contest provided exposure for new blogs. Bloggers submitted an entry and voters, from other blogs, decided which of the entries they considered evidence of the most promising weblog. Ideally, the best entry -- well thought out, researched, and capably written -- won. The ideal result occurred at least once. Mac-a-ro-nies won the contest.

Simon has described his plans for the new version of the competition.

Welcome to the New Blog Showcase Blog. After NZ Bear put his New Blog Showcase on hiatus I thought it was a shame that such a good idea go to waste. So I humbly present this New Blog Showcase blog, with the explicit aim of giving exposure to newer members of the blogosphere.

This will work a little differently to the Bear's old system. The qualification criteria remains simple: your blog must be less than 3 months old. Submit your post to me at simon@showcase.mu.nu and I will put it up. Each post will remain for 7 days from the day I post it. At this stage I will leave the comments open for now. Comments are NOT moderated but I will exercise my discretion to delete and ban anyone who doesn't follow the simple rules of common courtesy. I also reserve the right to close comments on particular posts or all posts at my sole discretion.

I strongly encourage people with blogs to link to those posts they enjoy. Or if you have something more you want to add, or disagree with, or whatever. Bloggers live for linkage and giving newer members of the blogosphere a taste of that is the aim of this site. All I ask is you also link back to the post here at this site as well as at the original.

I have mixed feelings about blog contests, probably because I have mixed feelings about blogs. I'm the person who will come on to a thread where bloggers are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulation and douse them will a ice cold bucket of virtual water. That H2O is called reality. The truth is most bloggers do not rock. And, the public is largely unaware of blogs. Only about 11 percent of Internet users have read weblogs, and those sporadically or only at the behest of friends or family. Researchers for the Pew Foundation have studied the authors and the audience.

A mere 2% of Adult Internet users maintain Web diaries or Web blogs, according to respondents to this phone survey. In other phone surveys prior to this one, and one more recently fielded in early 2004, we have heard that between 2% and 7% of adult Internet users have created diaries or blogs. In this survey we found that 11% of Internet users have read the blogs or diaries of other Internet users. About a third of these blog visitors have posted material to the blog. Most of those who do contribute material are not constantly updating or freshening content. Rather, they occasionally add to the material they have posted, created, or shared.

Furthermore, most blog entries are poorly written, completely unresearched, confuse fact and opinion and are bastions of copyright violation. But, what of claims blogs are better sources of news than print or broadcast media one hears bandied about? Pure malarkey. As imperfect as the media is, it is leagues ahead of blogs in providing reliable information. Even the best blogs provide very little information, relying on being conduits of opinion, instead. With the exception of a few bloggers who do some reporting, most notably Josh Marshall, of Talking Points Memo, little development of news occurs in the blogosphere.

My experience as a journalist has doubtlessly biased me. However, I believe it has biased me in the right direction. I believe quality matters.

My reservations about a revived New Weblog Showcase are based on what blogs really are, instead of unrealistic bloggers' delusions. The blogosphere has developed into a place where a few people with grandiose, often bullying personalities, have gathered sycophants to them. The networks of sycophants trade links back and forth among themselves. Based on this totally artificial construct, bloggers in the networks develop a sense of importance completely out of touch with their actual status in society. The members of a given network also regurgitate the brain droppings of their 'great leader' on demand. As a result, the blogosphere is an echo chamber of the know-nothings much of the time. Not long ago, I was engaged in a conversation with a blogger who was a part of a group that had spread a lie. He kept insisting that since X number of bloggers had linked to the falsehood and helped circulate it, that meant the lie was true. Stupid, you say. If the thing said is false, a million bloggers linking to it can't make it true. Absolutely. But, that is the kind of sophistry the organization of the blogosphere lends itself to. Information too often takes a back seat to misinformation and disinformation, and too many bloggers fail to grasp the difference. Instead, they rely on networks that reinforce their mistakes.

The risk with this contest is that it will become another way for the networks to support their participant, regardless of the quality of entries submitted. Awful entries will win votes because they have been smiled on by one of the larger networks. Excellent entries will fall by the wayside because the independent bloggers lack cheering sections. The results will say everything about the organization of the blogosphere, and nothing about thinking and writing well.

So, it is with ambivalence that I link to Simon's New Weblog Showcase and urge people who qualify to consider participating. There are independent bloggers who post entries that are well-researched and ably written. But, based on what I've observed in the blogosphere, we are a minority. If new bloggers adhere to basic standards of journalism, I welcome them. However, there are more than enough bad bloggers already.

To learn the qualifications for the new contest, visit Simon's blog.

Politics: We do know Jack. . .Ryan

The other shoe has dropped for Jack Ryan, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Illinois. It is a brogan. The material Ryan (pictured) fought to keep sealed in his divorce records is salacious and smells of spousal abuse.

The Sun-Times reported the court's decision last week.

A Los Angeles judge on Thursday ordered some of the sealed records from the 1999 divorce of Republican U.S. Senate nominee Jack Ryan and Hollywood actress Jeri Ryan opened for public scrutiny -- even though they "may be embarrassing" and "damaging."

. . .The papers in question were filed in 2000 and 2001 during custody hearings following the Ryans' 1999 divorce. Lawyers for Jeri Ryan, star of TV's "Boston Public," initially opposed closing the records, arguing that Jack Ryan was only worried about political embarrassment, but she later joined her ex-husband in calling for some of the documents to be removed from public view.

At the time, Ryan tried to brazen the situation out, claiming there was nothing embarrassing in the files. However, that claim has quickly eroded, as sleuths unearthed damaging allegations about the candidate's behavior. During the custody proceedings, Jeri Ryan described Jack Ryan's interesting inclinations.

I made clear to Respondent that our marriage was over for me in the spring of 1998. On three trips, one to New Orleans, one to New York, and one to Paris, Respondent insisted that I go to sex clubs with him. They were long weekends, supposed 'romantic' getaways. . . .

"The clubs in New York and Paris were explicit sex clubs. Respondent had done research. Respondent took me to two clubs in New York during the day. One club I refused to go in. It had mattresses in cubicles. The other club he insisted I go to. . . It was a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling. Respondent wanted me to have sex with him there, with another couple watching. I refused. Respondent asked me to perform a sexual activity upon him, and he specifically asked other people to watch. I was very upset. We left the club, and Respondent apologized, said that I was right and that he would never insist I go to a club again. He promised it was out of his system.

"Then during a trip to Paris, he took me to a sex club in Paris, without telling me where we were going. I told him I thought it was out of his system. I told him he had promised me would never go. People were having sex everywhere. I cried, I was physically ill. Respondent became very upset with me, and said it was not a 'turn on' for me to cry.

"In September 1998, I told Respondent it was not just Paris, I had been unhappy for years. We briefly tried counseling, but it did not work. . . I told him I was in love with another man, whom I fell in love with after our relationship had fallen apart that spring.

She says the continual pressure from her husband to participate in public sex resulted in emotional turmoil.

Ryan is the Great Republican Hope for the Senate, needed to retain control. Party leaders are attempting to shrug off the allegations of shady sexual behavior and psychological abuse of his former spouse. It has been falsely claimed the judge in the case, Robert A. Schnider was appointed by former California Gov. Jerry Brown, a liberal. Though Ryan is running as a pro-life and pro-family candidate, the implications of his abuse of his spouse are being ignored. Some people are even casting aspersions on Jeri Ryan's credibility. William Saletan, writing at Slate, isn't drinking the Kool-Aid.

Six years ago, Republicans demanded that Bill Clinton be investigated and impeached for having sex with an intern and covering it up. Now their nominee for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, Jack Ryan, is brushing off his then-wife's allegations that he repeatedly pressured her, despite her protestations, to have sex with him in front of other people. Instead of denouncing Ryan, many Republicans are defending him.

Like me, Saletan is particularly skeptical of Ryan's effort to hide behind his now nine-year-old son. Ryan claims that the very unusual effort to keep the divorce records sealed is all about Alex. But, it is doubtful that the topic will be news by the time the boy is old enough to understand it. Furthermore, the information is not about Alex in any way. There are situations that might embarrass a minor child. For example, if the boy had been fathered by someone else, or has a hidden medical condition, that might qualify as information that he should be shielded from until the right time. But, a father's penchant for going to sex clubs is all about Jack, not Alex. Saletan tracks Ryan's plan to hide behind a child's rompers back several years.

At a press conference Monday, Jack Ryan said he had fought to keep the divorce records sealed in order to "keep information about [my] child … private." He ducked most questions, claiming, "It's not helpful to our son." According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Ryan mentioned that his son had "special needs." Ryan didn't mention the "political aspirations" he had raised in his 2000 filing when he complained about Jeri Ryan making their marital troubles public. And according to the Chicago Tribune, "in September 2000, Anne Kiley, an attorney for Jeri Ryan, said in a court filing that one of Jack Ryan's attorneys had told her a few months earlier that Jack Ryan wanted parts of the file blacked out, removed, or sealed because he was 'concerned [it] would negatively impact his political aspirations.'

I don't believe Ryan is concerned about the impact on his son at all. He looked about for a pretext for keeping the divorce records sealed. The best gambit available was to imply that material in them is damaging to the boy. It is not. Ryan lied.

Jack Ryan has what the late writer and secret homosexual John Cheever referred to as 'difficult proclivities.' Instead of exercising control of his desire for public sex, Ryan attempted to bully a wife who did not share his interest into participating in it. Once he realized that his marriage was ending, he put a plan to hide the allegations into action. Not only is Ryan's current behavior continuing abuse of Jeri Ryan, it is abuse of the public trust. Ryan has revealed himself as lacking basic decency. Not because of his 'difficult proclivities,' per se, but because of his refusal to acknowledge them and take responsibility for the embarrassing situation he is in because of a lack of self-control.

I have considered only one aspect of Saletan's fine dissassembly of Ryan's 'defense' in Slate. Read the entire article.

Reasonably related

We last discussed Jack Ryan in regard to his race against Barack Obama. Read "Politics: Obama's campaign tense, touching."

News and analysis: Downfall of a governor

Connecticut's chief executive may soon be trading Brooks Brothers suits for stripes and his name for a number. He will be resigning from office under an ominous cloud today. The man some people thought might someday become president of the United States will be lucky if he avoids prosecution. Rowland's closest associate pled guilty to federal charges in regard to trading state contracts for profit in March. The governor's house of cards tumbled fast.

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland will announce his resignation Monday night, amid a federal corruption investigation and a growing move to impeach him, two sources told The Associated Press.

. . .Rowland, 47, a Republican easily re-elected to a third term in 2002, admitted late last year that he lied about accepting gifts and favors from friends, state contractors and state employees.

State and federal authorities have been investigating those allegations, and a special House committee also has been considering whether to recommend Rowland's impeachment. The committee was scheduled to begin its third week of hearings later Monday.

The announcement comes several days after the state Supreme Court ruled that the legislative panel could compel the governor to testify.

Rowland was once the nation's youngest governor - he was 37 when first elected in 1994 - and considered a rising star in the GOP. He is a former chairman of the Republican Governors Association and was rumored to be considered for several positions in the Bush administration.

Rowland's situation interests me partly because of his use of executive privilege to try to hide his malfeasance. On the national level, we are seeing corrupt Pres. Richard M. Nixon's supposed trump card reemerge as a barrier to the release of information the public has a right to know. The chief executive, George W. Bush, and his staff, including a national security advisor, cite it as grounds for not revealing information that would confirm events preceding and during the invasion of Iraq. Rowland is somewhat novel in attempting to apply the same evasion to unseemly decisions at the state level. His bad decisonmaking was quite personal, despite its political implications. Free lodgings here, there and everywhere. Unpaid work done on a vacation home, including installation of a hot tub. Gratuitous boxes of boxes of Cuban cigars. Rowland would have been the eighth governor ever impeached and removed from office if he had not caved in to pressure. Considering the paucity of similar cases, I don't believe we can call the use of executive privilege to hide malfeasance by governors a slippery slope initiated in national politics, but the issue is worth considering.

The blogosphere being the partisan place it is, some people will wonder if I am writing about Rowland because he has been considered a Great Republican Hope. I am not. I have also expressed concern about the activities of Oregon's favorite son, Neil Goldschmidt, while he was in various offices. Goldschmidt carried on a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl while he was in his thirties and mayor of Portland. With the help of well-placed friends, he was able to keep the rape of a child secret for nearly 30 years. Continuing investigations reveal the man Goldschmidt used as the victim's handler was compensated by the then governor intervening in regulatory affairs on his behalf. Goldschmidt is a Democrat.

The commonality between a Rowland and a Goldschmidt is hubris. Both are men who were told they were special and always given their way from a young age. The plums of society and approval of millions were conferred on them. Along the way, they began to have such a strong sense of entitlement that any 'good fortune' they could avail themselves of struck them as their just due.

Freeway Blogger strikes again

Yes, the blogger who really is different has a put up a new sign reflecting his views about the 'conquest' of Iraq by the United States. The Scarlet Pimpernel places personal billboards with short, pithy statements alongside highways and over overpasses. Thousands of drivers see them.

Here's a billboard I made yesterday to protest the use of torture as U.S. policy. The text, shown with the hooded figure from Abu-Gharaib, reads, "If this was our policy. . . We're losing a hell of a lot more than just a war."

Visit the Scarlet Pimpernel at his site. And, tell him to be careful erecting those signs. He is taking much greater risks than folks do posing those feckless felines for cat blogging.

Around the blogosphere

•Bush, Iraq and kid gloves

Blogger and composer Richard Einhorn at Tristero is surprised that editorial writers at the New York Times used mild language when saying George W. Bush dissembled about the invasion of Iraq. Understandably, Einhorn would have preferred those nice middle-class men and women at the top of their field be forceful, even bold. He would probably settle for honest.

The New York Times: Bizarro World Edition

Man oh man, the New York Times has truly outdone itself. It seems the editorial staff has decided to go out on a real limb and opine that Bush may have been. . .dishonest about the war rationale. No, he's not a liar. Just, you know. . .dishonest:

Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide.

No shit, Sherlock.

And what does the Times suggest? Now that countless thousands of Iraqis have died, well over 800 Americans too, and terrorism has increased mightily? Read it and weep, my friends: President Bush should apologize to the American people. . . .

I am not surprised. For all the talk one hears about the liberal media, the media isn't. I don't believe most newspapers have editorialists who are as far to the Right as most of the blogosphere is either. Instead, there is a tendency to hew to a middle-of-the road policy that leans more to the Right than to the Left. Furthermore, this is a situation involving people of power. People who can strike back if displeased with coverage of them. The writers at the NYT slipped on their kid gloves and made sure they fit before they penned the piece. In addition, be prepared for a 'but it doesn't matter' follow-up by at least some of the editorialists now that the admission Bush lied about why Iraq was invaded has been made. After the heeing and hawing, the status quo will be declared not all that wrong.

I speak from experience. My first job out of college was as an editorial writer for a large newspaper. Looking back on the time, I believe I was unqualified for the job. Youth, naivete and opinion writing should not be allowed to mix. But, at least I had a backbone. The editorial writers at the NYT probably lost theirs on the way to success. It is enough to lead a person to re-read Babbitt.

Visit Einhorn's blog to read the rest of that entry.

•Outsourcing and 'inherent' abilities

If any of the journalism reviews have analyzed something that has caught my eye, I am not aware of it. It seems to me that there is less international news about other countries in major newspapers now that Iraq dominates foreign news. Though news from Iraq is foreign news, it is focused on the occupation by the U.S. Filling the foreign news hole with articles about the war may have squeezed out pieces about other foreign countries. Domestic news gets first priority at all newspapers. So, if there is limited space, I think non-war related foreign news likely gets left out. Could just be a personal impression. I wonder.

The Wily Filipino, Benito Vergara publishes a blog that chronicles news in Asia, especially in the Philippines, as well as in the U.S. He has been thinking about outsourcing.

We Internalize Storylines

While doing some surfing for yet another long-simmering project completely unrelated to the St. Louis one, I came across this report on outsourcing labor to the Philippines. The customer service / call center business is already well-known; the projection that the "aggregate growth rate" for this particular niche would grow by 50 percent to $864 (million?) doesn't look too farfetched at all.

The description of the Philippines' advantages over other Asian countries is rather interesting, though, as it could be read in funny ways:

In Asia, the country is in the best position to gain a large share of e-services contracts in view of the following reasons: affordable quality human resource; affinity to Western culture; strategic location; hospitable lifestyle and expanding infrastructure.

Or, if you will: low salaries, hostility to labor unions, a legacy of colonialism, and the desperation to do anything for cash

But there I am grousing needlessly about what is apparently a genuine economic boom that actually doesn't stink of sweatshop-style exploitation, so I should be a little more positive. I do like the way the dry and rigorous economist language gives way to culturalist explanations of Filipinos' seemingly natural affinity for, in this case, the animation industry:

Demand for Filipino e-services in this area is also enormous in view of the inherent ingenuity, creativity and artistry of the Filipinos. Aside from their artistry, Filipino animators stand out from the rest of the world for their multi-cultural orientation that enables them to internalize storylines and concepts for better artwork and faster execution.

This isn't unfamiliar either: "inherent" cultural traits are also retroactively employed to "explain" Filipinos' supposed "aptitude" for nursing, housecleaning, singing, and so on -- only a shade removed, really, from physical, i.e., racist, characteristics employed in similar fashion, such as small hands (the better to assemble tiny computer chips with) or more flexible backs (the better to pick asparagus with).

Still, there's something quite resonant about that "multi-cultural orientation," one that could be construed a kind of strategic rag-picking engendered by the colonial experience. And that part about internalizing storylines! It's almost... poetic.

One of the aspects of so-called diversity training that makes me wary of it is that it often relies on the kind of reductive stereotyping Vergara is referring to. That occurs when people are listing the 'strengths' of various cultures, ethnicities and races. The supposedly natural ease (subservience?) of Asians. The alleged superior physical strength (brutishness?) of blacks. The presumed guile (sneakiness?) of Jews. Claims like these are packaged as compliments in that situation, sometimes by not being explicit about precisely what is being praised. But, they rely on reclaiming outdated notions about being able to look at a person, group or country and know what the abilities of the individual or individuals are. Meant to be complimentary or not, that is stereoytyping.

Really related

Richard Einhorn and Benny Vergara are energetic people who maintain fine blogs and careers in interesting and stimulating fields. You can buy Einhorn's recording, Voices Of Light, at Amazon. You can order Vergara's book, Displaying Filipinos: Photography and Colonialism in Early 20th Century Philippines through links on his blog.

Fiction bonus: "The Depressed Person"

My memories of short fiction are usually of outstanding collections. But, occassionally, a specific story will lodge itself in my brain for years to come. That occurred with a short story called "The Depressed Person," by David Foster Wallace, in Harper's a few years ago. The story is well-written and entertaining. But, those were not the reasons it became a cause celebre at Harper's. Wallace caught considerable flack from some readers because he portrayed the depressed person as a sniveling, shallow woman oblivious to everyone else's problems. That was in 1998, and the story is still with me. I'm sure many of the other original readers recall it, too.

I've been reading Harper's forever. That controversy was one of the top five or so over the years. Ironically, many of the letters from depressed persons were so abusive they added support to the alleged 'unfair portrayal,' instead of mitigating it. Wallace was accused of insensitivity toward people having emotional problems. Most people have experienced short bouts of situational depression at one time or the other, so I don't believe those of us who defended Wallace are cold-hearted. We just found the story to be both accurate and funny, though perhaps a bit over the top.

You must read this story. It is hilarious. I've located a full reprint online. I'll start you off.

The Depressed Person

The depressed person was in terrible and unceasing emotional pain, and the impossibility of sharing or articulating this pain was itself a component of the pain and a contributing factor in its essential horror.

Despairing, then, of describing the emotional pain itself, the depressed person hoped at least to be able to express something of its context -- its shape and texture, as it were -- by recounting circumstances related to its etiology. The depressed person's parents, for example, who had divorced when she was a child, had used her as a pawn in the sick games they played, as in when the depressed person had required orthodonture and each parent had claimed -- not without some cause, the depressed person always inserted, given the Medicean legal ambiguities of the divorce settlement -- that the other should pay for it. Both parents were well-off, and each had privately expressed to the depressed person a willingness, if push came to shove, to bite the bullet and pay, explaining that it was a matter not of money or dentition but of "principle." And the depressed person always took care, when as an adult she attempted to describe to a supportive friend the venomous struggle over the cost of her orthodonture and that struggle's legacy of emotional pain for her, to concede that it may well truly have appeared to each parent to have been, in fact, a matter of "principle," though unfortunately not a "principle" that took into account their daughter's feelings at receiving the emotional message that scoring petty points off each other was more important to her parents than her own maxillofacial health and thus constituted, if considered from a certain perspective, a form of neglect or abandonment or even outright abuse, an abuse clearly connected -- here she nearly always inserted that her therapist concurred with this assessment -- to the bottomless, chronic adult despair she suffered every day and felt hopelessly trapped in.

Reasonably related

•Harper's Magazine online.

•An unofficial David Foster Wallace fan site.

Blogger of the day: David Anderson

•Time does blogging

Anderson brought my attention to an article about blogging in the current issue of Time. Balanced and long, the piece reminds us when blogs began to matter.

Most of America couldn't have cared less. Until December 2002, that is, when bloggers staged a dramatic show of force. The occasion was Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, during which Trent Lott made what sounded like a nostalgic reference to Thurmond's past segregationist leanings. The mainstream press largely glossed over the incident, but when regular journalists bury the lead, bloggers dig it right back up. "That story got ignored for three, four, five days by big papers and the TV networks while blogs kept it alive," says Joshua Micah Marshall, creator of talkingpointsmemo.com, one of a handful of blogs that stuck with the Lott story.

Mainstream America wasn't listening, but Washington insiders and media honchos read blogs. Three days after the party, the story was on Meet the Press. Four days afterward, Lott made an official apology. After two weeks, Lott was out as Senate majority leader, and blogs had drawn their first blood. Web journalists like Matt Drudge (drudgereport.com) had already demonstrated a certain crude effectiveness — witness l'affaire Lewinsky — but this was something different: bloggers were offering reasoned, forceful arguments that carried weight with the powers that be.

The full five-page article is worth reading,

•Feds probe Islamic law confab

Anderson is also interested in how easy it is to get in trouble with the law these days. Turns out that a conference on Islamic law was seen as suspicious by secret agent men. (Who just might give you a number and take away a your name.) He read about it in Newsweek.

Last February, two Army counterintelligence agents showed up at the University of Texas law school and demanded to see the roster from a conference on Islamic law held a few days earlier. Their reason: they were trying to track down students who the agents claimed had been asking "suspicious" questions. "I felt like I was in 'Law & Order'," said one student after being grilled by one of the agents. The incident provoked a brief campus uproar, and the Army later admitted the agents had exceeded their authority. But if the Pentagon has its way, the Army may not have to make such amends in the future. Without any public hearing or debate, Newsweekhas learned, Defense officials recently slipped a provision into a bill before Congress that could vastly expand the Pentagon's ability to gather intelligence inside the United States, including recruiting citizens as informants."

Living in the Pacific Northwest, which is often the locus of anti-terrorism activity, has made me certain that the investigations and arrests arereal. First there were the imams and mosques allegedly linked to funding terrorism in Seattle and Portland. Then, the Portland Seven, who eventually pleaded guilty to charges they traveled to China in an effort to reach Afghanistan, where they holded to join al Qaida. A supposed terrorist training camp is said to be located in Oregon. More recently, Brandon Mayfield, a Portland lawyer, was in custody for two weeks. It was falsely claimed that his fingerprint was found at the site of the terrorist bombing that killed more than 200 people in of a train ins Spain. He says he was targeted because he is a Muslim. So, the reality of the times we live may be more vivid to us here. If I still lived in Des Moines, Iowa, these events probably would not resonate with me as much.

Anderson is wary, too, all the way from Costa Rico.

It gets more and more scary folks. What I cant figure out is how some of the more intelligent conservatives I talk with, cant figure this out. . . We have the Justice Department giving the President Legal Advice on how he can authorize torture. We have CIA agents being outed for revenge. We have FREE SPEECH zones, and people being locked up without access to legal representation. We have civil rights being selectively ignored... The Republicans got upset not long ago about a MoveOn.org add comparing Bush with the Nazis. But it may not take a Right Wing organization to draw parallels if these trends continue.

Viable cases have been made against some terrorism suspects. But, that doesn't make the abuses of investigative powers by federal agents more acceptable.

•Ugly American, send me money

Blog readers aren't Anderson's only stubborn correspondents. He recently heard twice from an email scam. Not Nigerian, but Liberian.

Subject: THANK'S FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION
Date: Sunday, June 13, 2004 6:48 AM
From: JOHNSON TAYLOR <johnsontaylor54001@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply-To: johnsontaylor540@yahoo.co.uk
To: <dsanderson11@mac.com>

Dear Sir/madam,

This request may seem strange, but if I may crave your indulgence and hope that you view this proposal very seriously. My name is MR..JOHNSON TAYLOR, the junior brother to Mr. Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia. Due to the current situations in our country (Liberia) we where forced to leave the country for Nigeria where we are currently on political asylum. My brother Ex. President Taylor on getting to Nigeria.

. . .Based on these developments, the various foreign Banks Account of my Uncle is already being investigated and that of Switzerland has already been frozen.

In view of this very unpleasant development the sum of £16.5Million pounds has been Secretly moved to a private security vault for safekeeping.

My Uncle Mr Charles Taylor is Presently in Nigeria for asylum, he has confided in me With this task of seeking a very reliable and honest person that Will receive this Fund into his/her account for the future Survival of him and his family since he cannot presently deposit Or transfer the fund on his name or that of his family members Name due to the present situation in our country. He may likely Face war crime charges as declared by the United Nations in Respect of his alleged involvement in civil war in Sierra-Leone

It is in light of this present situation that made me to come over to Europe on a different identity in search of a reliable, trustworthy individual who would be able to assist us by providing us with an account (A Fresh account just for the purpose of this transaction), so as to enable us transfer the sum of (£16.5million pounds) into that said account. You would also be required to buy properties, stocks I multinational companies and also engage in other safe non-speculative investments. In appreciation of your assistance, we have worked out the sharing ratio for mutually beneficial transaction as follows. 75% for us would further be best wishes from our corporation on your professed endeavors.

I said a Liberian scam, but who really knows? The culprit could be anyone anywhere.

Something I notice about these emails when I get them is that there is an automatic assumption that I will be sympathetic to the plight of a despot, usually one of the Right Wing sort. Is that because people in Second and Third World countries think all Americans have conservative or reactionary political values? I don't recall encountering such a perspective when I was in Africa years ago, but maybe I was talking to the wrong people. I've never gotten an email soliciting funds from someone claiming to be the second cousin twice removed of Allende or the granddaugher of Lumumba. I wonder why.

These entries are just a sample of material available at In Search of Utopia. Visit David Anderson.