See Chris’ post about Smorty here.

Technorati Tags: smorty

Ottawa, Canada - The Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) applauds Prime Minister Stephen Harper for taking a stand against exempting one religious group from the requirement of photo identification when voting.

“Prime Minister Harper is right to demand that all voters, regardless of their religion, be equal before the ballot box,” said Alastair Gordon, CCD President. “Permitting or accommodating the anonymity of a full Muslim veil or burqa at a polling station undermines the integrity of our electoral system.”

On April 19, Sun media reported that “Elections Canada has begun to contact Muslim organizations to gauge their feelings on how to accommodate veiled women if photo identification becomes necessary to cast a federal ballot… Sameer Zuberi, with the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, said he spent 30 minutes on the telephone with an Elections Canada representative on Tuesday.” Following this consultation, Elections Canada appears to have bowed to sharia standards, agreeing to exempt women with face coverings, including full burqas, from the accepted practice of photo identification to which all other voters are, and should be, subjected.

“The risk is that once such a principle is accepted, we will face radical demands for its consistent application in other areas of our lives,” added Gordon. “Having said that photo ID is not required for one religious group for a transaction as important as voting, the same demand for sharia privileging can be made for driver’s licenses, passports, airport security passes, and other accepted mechanisms of personal accountability and public safety.”

A bedrock principle of our successful democracy is that people are open and identifiable. That openness has helped create the relatively safe, tolerant, pluralistic society that we enjoy today. Cloaked voting clearly breaches this principle.

“By agreeing to bend our electoral system to sharia demands, we not only undermine our democratic system, but create a precedent that will have potentially deadly consequences if extended into areas of public safety and national security,” added Gordon.

The Canadian Coalition for Democracies expresses special concern about reports that some public officials’ might favour a “solution” calling for fully-veiled voters to raise their veils exclusively to female electoral officials for identification purposes. Any such approach would constitute a grossly unacceptable enforcement of sharia gender sensibilities and inequalities by government personnel and processes. It would undermine gender equality and electoral integrity, and represent a constitutionally unacceptable affront to the human rights of male officials barred from the performance of their duties on this account.

Source

Technorati Tags: democracy, voting, islam

WTF Podshow? Is Adam Curry’s pink jumper too tight?

“We believe technology is ready for primetime, and Dvorak is the man for the job,” said Ron Bloom, CEO and Co founder of PodShow. “Typical technology channels are really just listings of programming, featuring boring talking heads or uninformed rants. PodShow TECH will feature personality driven content with a healthy dose of attitude… fair, but not necessarily impartial… accurate but also exciting.”

Personality driven content? Holy crap what a load of bullshit that is.

First of all, the idea that “technology is ready for primetime” isn’t a new one. ZDTV / TechTV / G4-TechTV / G4 thought that and look how well that worked out.

Secondly, to say most tech channels are listings and boring talking heads is bullshit. TWiT has done more for podcasting and technology than anything Curry has ever touched including the most popular shows on Podshow, GeekBrief (which I love) and whatever the hell Adam Curry’s podcast is. None of Leo’s shows are boring or uninformed.

Cali, as much as I love her, sells herself as a cute perky host with a jones for tech. That’s her niche and I think she does it well. She’s quite informed and knowledgeable. Let’s not kid ourselves, though. GeekBrief is as much about style as it is about substance. There’s nothing wrong with that, but the idea that suddenly Podshow is going to move from the flamboyant Curry and the perky Cali to a more “edgy” and “personality-driven” format and that the person who’s going to lead that personality charge is JOHN C. FUCKING DVORAK (who I also love) is ludicrous. You don’t go “old media” to create revolutionary new media. Dvorak is as “old media” as it gets, and despite his knowledge of the industry, he’s not the kind of guy I’d want leading my new media technology venture.

The minute I heard this, I thought that Dvorak was hired for who he knows more than who he is. Adam Curry may have unintentionally said the same exact thing in a quote on the news release:

“In life, technology is no longer in the back row seat; it is now taking center stage… PodShow TECH will reflect that change,” says PodShow President and Co founder Adam Curry. “John is the perfect anchor, combining his legendary insight, on-camera personality and extensive rolodex to help us keep the channel fresh, informative, entertaining and relevant.”

Uh huh… That rolodex is a secondary thing.

Podshow has done right by its content creators, but Curry and Bloom have proven themselves to be a bunch of delusional asses with this release.

I did want to hit on one other thing, though. Personality-driven niche content doesn’t always play well. I brought up the comparison to Food Network in the title of this post. Here’s why.

In February, a notoriously brilliant man named Anthony Bourdain (if you don’t know him, wake the fuck up people) wrote the following…

I actually WATCH Food Network now and again, more often than not drawn in by the progressive horrors on screen. I find myself riveted by its awfulness, like watching a multi-car accident in slow motion. Mesmerized at the ascent of the Ready-Made bobblehead personalities, and the not-so-subtle shunting aside of the Old School chefs, I find myself de-constructing the not-terrible shows, imagining behind the scenes struggles and frustrations, and obsessing unhealthily on the Truly Awful ones. Screaming out loud at Sandra Lee in disbelief as she massacres another dish, then sits grinning, her face stretched into a terrifying rictus of faux cheer for the final triumphant presentation. I mourn for Mario..and Alton…Bobby and yes–even Emeril, nobly holding the fort while the TV empire he helped build crumbles like undercooked Bundt cake into a goo of Cheez Wiz around him.

Imagine Tech shows with cute girls, “edgy” content (think guitar riffs as that’s said) and “big” personalities.

It’s been done, guys, and it never works.

via Podshow.com

Last month, I brought you the story of a Nashua New Hampshire man who was arrested for taping the police on his property. He was charged with violating the state’s wiretapping laws which prohibit the recording of someone without their consent.

Police chief Timothy Hefferan has decided to drop the charges because the case was not winnable in court (completely ignoring the fact that it’s utterly ridiculous).

Despite still feeling strongly that Gannon broke the law, Hefferan said the single reason his department will not continue to prosecute the case is because it wasn’t winnable in court.

“The citizen complaint has no bearing on the outcome of my decision as far as what to do with the charges,” Hefferan said by telephone yesterday. “It was solely based on the facts of this case and not anything to do with the complaint.

“We sustained the allegation that the officer was discourteous to a member of the public. I’m admitting that, and I want to be above board on these things. We will take the necessary action with our employee. And, like we would normally do, we would never discuss the nature of that action might be.”

Gannon said from his home yesterday that the news was a “big weight off (his) shoulders,” but added that he still has outstanding issues with the police department that he wants resolved.

“This is huge coverup and has been from the beginning,” said Gannon. “I’ve seen these things on TV and you never think they really happen, but I’m in a big one right now.”

Oh yeah. Did you catch the important part of that section? The part where the police actually were jerks?

Oh, and despite the charges being dropped, Gannon will not have his recording equipment returned to him.

Hefferan said Gannon would not be able to recoup any of the videotapes or any of the recording equipment that police confiscated during their investigation.

“That material is still illegal. It would be like returning drugs to somebody because you can’t prove it. Plus, you’d have to have the consent of those involved and Detective Karlis has not consented.

“The department will maintain and destroy the evidence according to the normal protocol.”

Gannon is still considering suing the department for Karlis’ and other officers’ behavior and for Hefferan’s claims that the department won’t return the evidence.

I’m so glad this is a free country. Really. When you put signs up all over the place saying “Smile, you’re on jackass camera!” that should be enough of a warning. Apparently, the police officers who arrested Gannon aren’t that alert or intelligent, or in other words, perfectly suited for their job.

Technorati Tags: nashua, new hampshire, michael gannon

Jill Greenberg, the woman who thinks it’s artistic to make kids cry by torturing them and photographing it, is none too pleased with Thomas Hawk calling her out publicly for abusing children in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

So unpleased was Mrs. Greenberg that she contacted Thomas Hawk’s employer.

I wish I were kidding.

Despite the fact that Thomas made the post on his own time on his own blog, this insufferable bore decided to go after him at his place of business.

First she tries to discredit me as an insane person with personal problems who she doesn’t even think has kids (even though in my blog post about her I clearly state I’ve got four children, have photos of my four children up on flickr and elsewhere on my blog etc.) She tells this to a professional publication American Photo (whom I’ve asked for a retraction from and who never contacted me to verify her claims even though they pulled quotes from my same post that referenced that I had four kids).

Next, Jill tracks down my employer, an unrelated third party who has absolutely zero to do with my personal views and opinions and tries to apply pressure to get me to pull my post. She literally calls my boss this morning who has absolutely zero to do with any of my blogging. (By the way Jill, I blog from my own laptop on my own time). The last company who thought that they could intimidate me by involving my employer, an unrelated third party, went by the name PriceRitePhoto. I don’t think they are in business anymore but feel free to Google them to read the story.

And then her husband tells me that in his opinion I’m committing libel. I’m committing libel for having an opinion that what Jill is doing to these kids constitutes abuse. That to emotionally work these kids up is abusive. My opinion Robert Green. He goes on to tell me that if I want to discuss this further that I get a lawyer.

Read the whole thing here. Thomas makes some great points including that about the hypocrisy of someone saying torturing kids is free speech but criticizing someone who does it isn’t.

Well done, Thomas. Don’t back down buddy!

Technorati Tags: jill greenberg, photography, stupidity, hypocrites

You may remember me posting about the “mom and pop” ice cream joint that wasn’t too pleased with accepting credit cards. Here’s the followup:

CREDIT CARD SIGNS

We apologize to any of our customers that have been offended by our signs regarding credit cards and minimium purchases. They have been updated. We are a small mom and pop ice cream company and have “asked” our customers to use their credit cards for purchases over $10. Most people don’t realize Visa and Mastercard charge us when you use your credit card. For example, if you buy a small ice cream with one crushin’ and charge it, the fees can be as much as 15%. We don’t want to raise our prices, but EVERYTHING is more expensive; gas, insurance, workman’s comp, TWC and we felt this was an area we could cut costs. If you have don’t have cash, feel free to use your credit card. We are only trying to hold off price increases.

Well, they still leave all the BS in, but at least they aren’t being jerks about accepting credit cards anymore. Guess they got a call from Visa or Mastercard informing them that their policy could get their ability to take credit cards yanked altogether.

Hey, guys. Here’s a suggestion.

Accept debit cards.

Most people who pay with a credit card are really paying with a debit card. I know for a fact the processing fees on pin-based transactions are lower than that on credit cards.

Just a thought.

Oh, and if your company is charging 15%, you may wanna consider finding a new company.

And one more thing… 13 locations is an awfully big mom and pop…

Just sayin’.

Amysicecream.com via Consumerist

Technorati Tags: amy’s ice creams, consumerist

The thug in charge of the Transit Strike in December has been sentenced to ten days in prison and a $1,000 fine for violating New York City’s Taylor Law, which prohibits public employees from striking.

In a statement, Toussaint said before the court: “We were engaged in civil disobedience, we did so because we had to. It is the (Transit) Authority that is the chief law breaker in the transit system.”

Toussaint called the work stoppage a “defensive strike” to thwart the MTA’s attempt to create a two-tiered pension system.

Terry Meginniss, a lawyer for Transport Workers Union Local 100, added that “jail sentences do not serve any kind of purpose but vengeance.”

The judge will hear more arguments Wednesday regarding the $3 million in union fines and the automatic dues check-off for union members, Toussaint will be cross-examined tomorrow by MTA lawyers.

The union’s secretery treasurer Ed Watt, the no. 2 TWU official, received a $500 fine. The No. 3 member, Darlene Lawson, also got a $500 fine.

There was one light moment during the hearing when attorney Neil Abramson, representing the MTA, asked Toussaint if he was familiar with the agency’s accounting pratices.

“Two sets of books,” Toussiant [sic] quipped, referring to revelations in 2003 that the MTA kept a public and private set of financial figures.

Source: NY Newsday

Technorati Tags: twu, toussaint, strike, nyc, new york, transit

Oh sure, you all know who she is. Annah Boyer was the woman who laid into me like some whipping boy because I dared call LifeGem, the company that turns dead people into jewelry, ghoulish…

Anyway, she had the stones to write me another e-mail. Yep, they never go away…

Dear Insignificant Thoughts:

Apparently someone has been doing something called “crawling the web” and emailing folks from my CPR address! I have received a million “out of office replies” but yours is the first odd posting I’ve seen. I googled myself (because I’m getting married soon and wanted to see if our wedding website was up) and saw this terribly odd posting on your blog, with my name and CPR’s name on it! My apologies, and I hope that you don’t think badly of the CPR Institute. I’m sure we’d appreciate it if you’d take that down (since I’m the membership director, I assume I get some googles) but our IT guy says this happens to a lot of people and because my email address is out there, anyone can mail from it. Do let me know if there is any information I can provide to help remove my name and association with CPR from this, ahem, “odd” conversation? You can contact me at any time using the information below. Thanks so much!

Best,
Annah Boyer
Membership Director
International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution
(CPR Institute)
www.cpradr.org

Apparently, Annah thinks I’m an idiot, so I had to put her in her place:

I have no problem with the CPR isntitute, but your e-mail was published in accordance with the site policies. Here’s a piece of advice. Next time you want to claim you didn’t send an e-mail, try making sure you didn’t send it from an inside corporate IP. The e-mail stands, since not only did that e-mail come from an inside CPR address, your current e-mail came from exactly that same address. Spammers and mail stealers are smart, but they aren’t that smart.

All the best with your wedding.

Vincent M. Ferrari
Webmaster
Insignificant Thoughts.com

You know, I would have had more respect for her, and probably even would’ve removed the post altogether if she had just said, “I screwed up and shouldn’t have wrote all that. Sorry.” Instead, she handed me a line of crap.

Sorry girlie. The post stays because just like the disclaimer on every page says, all e-mails sent to this domain are considered for publication.

Oh, and I think I speak for all of us when I say Congratulations on your upcoming wedding, Annah. I’m proud to be the top search result on Google for your name!

Technorati Tags: annah boyer, lifegem

From My Way News:

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a congressional election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations. Democrats clamored for a vote in the Senate, too.

By 62-2, the House Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports. The landslide vote was the strongest signal yet that more than three weeks of White House efforts to stunt congressional opposition to the deal have not been successful.

Bush has promised to veto any such measure passed by Congress. But there is widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP fears losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall’s elections.

The White House said the president’s position was unchanged.

“This is a national security issue,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis, the chairman of the House panel, adding that the legislation would “keep America’s ports in American hands.”

American ports should be in American hands. Lewis is 100% right. Let’s not forget that DP World actually enforces an embargo of Israeli goods in the Middle East. Frankly, any company that’s a party to such an agreement or action is not fit to do business in this country (don’t bring up the Cuban or Iraqi embargo; those aren’t embargoes set up because we don’t believe that either country has a right to exist in the first place, mmmmkay?)

Lots on the left are all offended by this sudden outpouring of what many have deemed jingoism, pointing out that there was no opposition to a UK firm operating the ports before DP World took them over. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I can speak for myself when I say I had no idea that any of our ports were controlled by foreign companies, and had I known, I wouldn’t have liked it then either. It’s not about UK, Arab (the buzzword flying around the left wing of the blogosphere and even some more soft-bellied right-wingers), or anything else that can be generated here, it’s a very simple concept that Jerry Lewis put into very simple words.

Keep American ports in American hands.

It really isn’t much more complicated than that.

Technorati Tags: Dubai Ports World, homeland security, ports, congress

Yahoo! unbans Allah!
Thank god for that!
By John Oates
Published Wednesday 22nd February 2006 15:47 GMT

Yahoo! has reversed its decision to stop people registering Yahoo! IDs which include the letters “allah”.

The Reg was contacted yesterday by a reader - Ed Callahan - who was having trouble registering his mum - Linda Callahan - for a Verizon email address - provided through a Yahoo! portal.

But Yahoo! got in touch with us this morning to say it is now accepting Yahoo! identities which contain the letters “allah”. The Callahans will be overjoyed.

Yahoo! said in a statement: “We continuously evaluate abuse patterns in registration usernames to help prevent spam, fraud and other inappropriate behavior. A small number of people registered for IDs using specific terms with the sole purpose of promoting hate, and then used those IDs to post content that was harmful or threatening to others, thus violating Yahoo!’s Terms of Service.

“‘Allah’ was one word being used for these purposes, with instances tied to defamatory language. We took steps to help protect our users by prohibiting use of the term in Yahoo! usernames. We recently re-evaluated the term ‘Allah’ and users can now register for IDs with this word because it is no longer a significant target for abuse. We regularly evaluate this type of activity and will continue to make adjustments to our registration process to help foster a positive customer experience.”

Very interesting.

I wonder if they’ve ever yanked Jesus, God, Jehovah, Yahweh, Adonai, Hashem, or anything else to protect their respective religions and create a positive customer experience?

Hat tip to Jeff for pointing this one out.

Technorati Tags: allah, yahoo

For those of you who thought Cyclopes, the one-eyed kitten, was a Photoshop, Snopes.com has some info on it.

Technorati Tags: cyclopes, kitten

So, this morning I didn’t have a chance to read my “newspaper feeds” before I left the house and wrote about Cindy Sheehan gettin’ roughed up by the five-o. Well, turns out one of her supporters is actually the one who “roughed her up.”

Via Newsday:

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was roughed up at a Union Square rally on Monday, not by police officers who broke up the event, but by one of her own supporters.

Sheehan — whose eldest son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, 24, was killed in Iraq last year — was ending a speech when a group of officers surrounded 100 or so people attending the event.

As police officers arrested the event’s organizer, several of Sheehan’s assistants rushed to pull her out.

“I was speaking and someone grabbed my backpack and pulled me back pretty roughly,” said Sheehan…

Now… How many of the folks who jumped all over that story do you think are gonna print this followup?

On a related side note, Indymedia was sure to whip out the “repression” tag for this story and created the impression that it was police brutality and so on. So far, no corroborating evidence of these “facts” exists.

A few months ago, Barefoot Paul (admittedly not one of the sharpest knives in the drawer, else why would he be barefoot?) pointed out the following little tidbit of idiocy:

Why should we ponder a lie? Abortion rates were steadily declining until Bush came into office. See here.

To which I aptly responded that the data presented in that piece was not conclusive. It didn’t count a large sample of states, and couldn’t make projections for years we don’t have data for. Well, Factcheck.org, the liberals’ favorite site when it comes to proving everyone wrong has dissected that sample from that same opinion piece and found it sorely lacking as well…

The Birth of a Bad Statistic

The claim that abortions are rising again can be traced back to an opinion piece by Glen Harold Stassen, an ethics professor at Fuller Theological Seminary. His article originally appeared in a web and e-mail publication of Sojourners, a Christian magazine, in October 2004. Several other outlets, including the Houston Chronicle, also ran a similar piece co-authored by Stassen and journalist Gary Krane. The articles generated a good deal of discussion on a number of both liberal and conservative blogs.

Describing himself as “consistently pro-life,” Stassen reported that he “analyzed the data on abortion during the Bush presidency” and reached some “disturbing” conclusions. “Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed,” he said. “Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.”

Stassen’s broad conclusion wasn’t justified by the sketchy information he cited, however. Furthermore, a primary organization he cited specifically as a source for historical data now contradicts him, saying abortions have continued to decline since Bush took office. More about that later.

Hark! What’s this, I see?

Cherrypicking Data

A close reading of Stassen’s article makes clear that he didn’t even pretend to have comprehensive national data on abortion rates. He said he looked at data from 16 states only — and didn’t even name most of them.

Stassen said that in the four states that had already posted statistics for three full years of Bush’s first term, he found that abortion was up. Twelve more states had posted statistics for two years of Bush’s term – 2001 and 2002 – and here the picture was mixed. According to Stassen, “Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6 percent average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3 percent average).” A version of the piece in the Houston Chronicle reported instead that four saw a decrease with a 4.3 percent average.

That’s very interesting. A close reading makes that clear? Not to Barefoot Paul, it doesn’t!

This has nothing to do with Bush although indications are that the trend of declining abortion rates is reversing itself under his watch. It’s still nowhere near where it was prior to Clinton. You’ve already been given 2 cites with the hard numbers. A simple Google search of “abortion rate decline” will provide plenty more.

I was surprised when I first saw the article I referenced and spent quite a bit of time vetting it myself. If you really care about this issue, it would be wise to do the same.

Obviously not enough time. After the posting (at 9:26am) I shot it down a mere 17 minutes later with the same argument Factcheck.org is using in this very piece. But they don’t rely merely on vague “inconsistencies” in their piece. They continue to dissect this piece that Barefoot spent so much time vetting because this issue meant so much to him:

Besides the fact that Stassen claimed to have data only from 16 states, the Guttmacher Institute said it is likely that many of the states Stassen picked have higher abortion rates historically, have a higher concentration of population subgroups that tend to have more abortions, and see abortion rates rise more quickly when they do go up. Stassen himself named only Kentucky, Michigan, Pennyslvania and Colorado among the 16 states he says he studied, but his co-author on the Houston Chronicle article listed each state in a separate article posted on the Internet.

The Guttmacher Institute found that two of the states Stassen used had unreliable reporting systems. In Colorado , for instance, where Stassen claimed that rates “skyrocketed 111 percent,” the reporting procedure had been recently changed in order to compensate for historic underreporting. Guttmacher also found Arizona had an inconsistent reporting system.

So much for that… Ahh, but the final nail in the coffin comes here:

The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher analyzed available government data “as an interim measure until another provider census can be conducted” according to a news release. The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have reliable state reporting systems.

What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide – by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which is the number of women having abortions relative to the total population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That’s not as rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a decrease nonetheless.

Now we know why Barefoot Paul is barefoot. He has to keep his shoes off lest his feet not fit in his mouth. Just a piece of advice to those willing to comment here. Don’t say something stupid or make a claim you can’t back up because I never forget what’s said in the comments section and I will smack you around with the truth whenever it comes out.

Source: Factcheck.org

You might remember a story I posted on the 16th of May. It was about a woman in Seattle who was pretty angry that her plate had caused someone to complain to the state because the message John 3:16 on a vanity plate was seen as an endorsement of religion.

As it turns out, the state has decided that the woman who complained needs to just cope because the plate is 100% legal:

The Department of Licensing yesterday dismissed a complaint against a vanity plate imprinted with “JOHN316.”

“The plate is not offensive under our rules and was never in danger of being canceled,” said Licensing Department Director Liz Luce.

And that’s that. I guess there’s hope for common sense after all. I wonder how the plaintiff in that case feels? Maybe we should just pray for her to come to her senses. She’ll love that.

Source: Seattle Post Intelligencer

Rep Sanders, who’s story was on this very site, has apparently lashed out at the Bennington Banner, calling their story a lie:

The way Rep. Sanders has reacted to the revelatons, we think, indicates that he realizes how the situation looks. He claims the story was a lie, although the information came from public government records and was confirmed by his own staff, and he does not refute any of the facts in our report.

If Rep. Sanders believes the payments are on the up and up, a completely acceptable practice, he should come out and say so, instead of threatening not to speak with the media.

Yep. But he knows they’re shady and underhanded, they look bad, and he’s caught red-handed. So instead, he accuses everyone, including the public records which are filed by him, and his staff whom he has on the payroll.

One more paragraph of interest from the editorial appears at the top, and is really at the heart of Sanders’ problem:

None of this is illegal. The story did not state, or imply, that Rep. Sanders broke the law by hiring family members. An Associated Press story in Thursday’s paper points out that employing relatives is common practice among the nation’s lawmakers. It says about four dozen senators and representatives have hired family members for their campaign and political groups.

Of course, just because something is common practice and doesn’t break the law, doesn’t mean it’s totally kosher.

Which is what they actually said last week, but in his heart of heart, Sanders knows what he did doesn’t look right so he just calls it a lie (which it isn’t) and threatens to stop talking to the press.

Not exactly the actions of a guy with a clear conscience, are they?

Source: The Bennington Banner

Desiree Goodwin has lost her discrimination case against Harvard University:

Library Assistant Loses Suit Vs. Harvard
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press Writer

Monday, April 4, 2005

(04-04) 16:58 PDT BOSTON (AP) — Harvard University did not discriminate against a library assistant who claimed she was repeatedly turned down for promotions because school officials saw her as “a pretty girl” whose attire was too “sexy,” a federal jury found Monday.

Desiree Goodwin, who is black, also claimed that Harvard passed her over because of her race and gender. She had been seeking damages for emotional distress and lost wages.

“One of my friends said to me, no matter how it turns out, standing up for yourself is a victory in itself,” Goodwin said after the verdict.

Note to Desiree’s friend: You’re wrong.

Anyway, now that the case is over, it should be interesting to see what happens to Goodwin on the job. She’s already admitted that she’s looking for employment elsewhere. Wonder if she’ll update her clothing selection for whatever new position she takes?

Source: AP via SFGate

Apparently the Harvard applicants who surreptitiously peeked at their admissions status aren’t willing to concede they did anything wrong. In fact, who’s fault is it, according to them?

One applicant questioned how it was unethical to view information that was intended only for you, if you have no intent or ability to change it.

He argued that Harvard and ApplyYourself, a Fairfax, Virginia-based online application and notification program company used by all the schools, are also responsible because they did not adequately protect the information.

I hate to inform this MBA Wannabe (which would probably explain his irrepressible idiocy), but making something easy to do doesn’t make it legal or even ethical to do so. For example, if I leave my keys in my car with the car running and the doors unlocked, and you see this, you don’t have a right to steal my car just because I made it “easy” for you.

Just because the information may have been easy to obtain, doesn’t mean you had a right to obtain it. Even the shiftiest among us would have to agree that Harvard’s stance on this is common-sense correct:

It seemed to us you would have to have pretty bad judgment or pretty bad ethics not to know you were doing something wrong.

Amen. But then again, these guys are MBA’s, and most MBA’s in the business world really don’t know a hell of a lot about anything anyway; a fact people who have dealt with them fully understand. At least some of these prying eyes can take comfort in the fact that they were accepted before they were rejected. I hear that’s standard process in Massachussets anyway.

Source: The International Herald Tribune via Techdirt

Never let it be said that I don’t post followups when I’m wrong. I wholly admit that this time, I was wrong about the debates.

Yesterday I made the following prediction:

And, just for shits and giggles some thoughts beforehand:

a: Does anyone believe that there really are people out there who, less than thirty days out of the election, have not made up their mind?

b: Does anyone really believe that the questions won’t be mostly liberal attacks on Bush or criticisms of Bush

c: Like last time Kerry’s voting record will not be mentioned at all while his Vietnam service of four whole months will be mentioned repeatedly.

d: That Gibson will be about as far and impartial as Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken?

e: That if Bush wins, we’ll hear about last week and Kerry winning / or next week and how he isn’t out of the woods yet, and if Kerry wins we’ll hear about the trouble Bush is in for next week, or how that was two impressive performances?

A. I still think people have their mind made up and the idea that anyone is undecided 27 days out is ludicrous to me, so this stands.

b. They weren’t, there were some pointed questions aimed at both sides. Very good ones, I might add. Granted some might have been more appropriate for a twenty-plus year senator than a 4 year President, but they were all pretty good and Gibson picked a great range of questions.

c. His voting record still wasn’t mentioned except by the President, but I guess in the reality of the situation, normal people don’t care about voting records. People who read this site and who follow the issues do, but we’re not the average citizen. We are way more politically informed than anyone else, and what matters to us probably doesn’t matter to the rest of the country. If it did, we could predict elections.

d. Gibson was very fair, and his collection of questions was outstanding. No one got off easy last night.

e. Remains to be seen, but I think in the post coverage that so far, everything is spun off as either Kerry winning or Kerry losing. In other words, Bush can’t win, regardless of whether he does or not. Still remains to be seen, though, and since the papers on the weekend are mostly fluff and bullshit we won’t really know until next week, and the final debate is Wednesday so we’ll be hearing about that debate by the time the reaction to this one starts to be known. In other words, we may never know.

There.

Never let it be said I don’t followup when the followup hurts me. I have no problem admitting I was wrong, and in this case, I admit I was wrong.

Me, July 24, 2003:

Insignificant Thoughts:

I’d have to admit… Kobe Bryant is in pretty big trouble. When taking into account the woman’s story about the assault, well, it matches her actions afterward very well.

She was only in the room for a couple of minutes. Hotel guests heard the hubbub in the room. She came out crying. She immediately told co-workers what had happened. She went to the police that night with her parents. She had bruises and torn clothing consistent with a sexual assault. Finally, she’s made no effort to come out publicly and make a spectacle of herself.

She’s either telling the truth, or the most cold, calculating liar ever. But that’s not my point.

Tom Leykis, a shock jock often referred to as a misogynist, actually aired the name of the accuser on his nationally syndicated radio show. That’s right folks, her name is out there. Somewhere…

And the activists are not happy about it. You see, activists would love it if a woman could make charges, true or false, in complete anonymity, so as to avoid “being raped again,” a saying often used to describe what happens to women they “come out” and accuse someone.

But while it may be true that a woman who is asked to prove that she was raped may be suffering and might have a legitimate reason to not have her name plastered into the paper, what protection is afforded the man?

What protection, for example, existed to keep Kobe Bryant’s name out of the papers? Off the radio? Off the evening newscasts? Within a day of the charge, we knew the whole story, and the nation became fixated on what Kobe did or didn’t do. He will lose endorsements over this, true or otherwise. He will have this clouding his character for years to come. In fact, whether he’s guilty or not, this case is well on its way to being decided in the court of public opinion.

And we still don’t know anything about the accuser. Her name. Her personality (although we know about the drug overdose, that’s pretty much it). In fact, there are laws in place that keep her name off the wires.

What about Kobe?

Let’s assume for a minute he’s found not guilty. Now what? He has the term rapist applied to him for the rest of his life by organizations like NOW who will claim in perpetuity that Kobe got off because he was a star. Nothing will ever satisfy them with the exception of the wholesale destruction of this man.

What if he’s guilty? Well then, I hope they throw the damned book at him.

The fact is, the law protects the accuser. But the law should protect the accused also. If these accusations are false, the damage done is still irreversible. The stigma of Kobe being a rapist will never go away regardless of any decision any court in Eagle County makes. And while Kobe’s character is being dragged through the mud, we don’t even know who his accuser is, or anything about her. It’s completely unfair.

And with all due respect, if you don’t think a PR advantage that huge in the so-called court of public opinion is unfair, then you’re probably one of the people who’ve already made up your mind that Kobe is guilty anyway.

You know you wrote something good when it remains as true a year later as it was when you wrote it.

Sometimes you find an answer by accident after you ask a question…

Why isn’t Kerry campaigning at military bases at all?

Among Veterans: Bush 58% Kerry 35%

48% Have Family or Friends in Iraq or Afghanistan

Do you know anyone currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Yes 48%
No 51%
RasmussenReports.com

Thursday August 05, 2004–A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that military veterans prefer George W. Bush over John Kerry by a 58% to 35% margin. Those with no military service favor Kerry by ten percentage points, 51% to 41%.

The potential grassroots impact of the war issue is highlighted by the fact that 48% of Americans say they know someone who is currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Among these voters, Bush currently has a ten-point advantage in the poll. Fifty-four percent (54%) of veterans know someone serving in these war zones.

When it comes to perceptions of the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is likely that information from family and friends has a bigger impact than news coverage.

Overall, 47% of voters believe that Bush would make a better Commander-in-Chief than John Kerry. Forty-five percent (45%) take the opposite view and say Kerry would do a better job. This closely reflects the overall voter preference in the race for the White House (on the nights of this survey, Kerry attracted 48% of the total vote to 45% for Bush).

Veterans prefer Bush as Commander-in-Chief by a 60% to 33% margin. Fifty-four percent (54%) of veterans give the President good or excellent ratings for handling the situation in Iraq. Overall, just 43% of voters give the President such positive ratings on Iraq.

The national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports August 3-4, 2004. The sample included 216 military veterans. Margin of sampling error for the full sample is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

So much for the road to the White House going through Vietnam…

Source: Rasmussen Reports