The Laughing Wolf

In the ancient ways, and the modern of many non-traditional religions, it is a day to remember and honor the dead. This year, we have many to honor as a group: those who have given their lives in the line of duty, be they soldiers, firemen, or many of the others who gave of themselves for the safety and freedom of others. Remember them, honor them, and remember those who have passed from our lives as well.

Do this not in sorrow, but in joy. Think of how they have enriched your lives, remember the laughter they have brought, dwell on the joy that knowing them and being with them brought to you and the world, remember the good of them and that they have done. Be not sad that they are gone, for they are not. No matter your beliefs, they are with you still in memory green, and the good they did can guide and comfort you yet. My own beliefs are that what awaits is beyond what we expect and is so much better than we could ever dream.

This day I will clean and begin preparing my home for the winter ahead. I will light the candles say prayer for the dead. My pumpkin, seen above, will be lit at dusk as a beacon and I will have candy for any children that come by. I will do all I can to fill my home with joy, amusement, and good things for the cold days ahead.

Whatever your faith, I offer you a wish for peace and joy, the blessings of your beliefs, and a hope for better days ahead for all. Blessed be.

-30-

« ...howl's done

The nightmare I think was the result of idiocies such as the recent “drug” suspension of the student who shared his asthma medication with his girlfriend when she had an attack at school; the lack of brain function exhibited by a superintendent and others in a recent case where a student was suspended for drawing a picture of soldiers killing Taliban members, not too surprising given that his father and other family members are soldiers (see Misha for details), the bureaucratic bungling that has kept firefighting equipment out of action in California (see Citizen Smash for details), and a host of other similar events (see A Small Victory for some additional details).

In the nightmare, I was taking part in the restaurant inspection from hell. I was being grilled by a health inspector who was hot and bothered by the fact that we could not prove that the steak seasoning mix was fresh and unadulterated since it both was not in an airtight container (bit hard to use) and not under 24/7 video surveillance. This was just one part of the raving and I was getting the restaurant in trouble because I dared ask questions, answered the bureaucrats questions, and challenged him on issues of science and practicality. Officialdom run amok. It was not the most pleasant part of last night. Why can’t I dream of starlets and such like normal guys?

The vision is one I first had years and years ago. In it, I am in a C-130 with the ramp down. We are low, less than 500 feet off the ground, and in the mountains. There is snow on the ground, a few rocks and a few evergreens. I and my team are ready to jump, no reserves as if the main doesn’t open there is no time for anything else. Somehow, I know the jump is not what kills me, but what comes later as we move in to deal with some bad guys and get some good guys out. This mission will be my last.

You know it is a dream or vision if for no other reason than that you are not freezing and you can hear, and those who have flown in a Herc will know what I mean. Interesting because I have never served my country in uniform. Also interesting in that there is no way I could do it now. Twenty years ago not a problem, but today it would be with knee and shoulder problems and being generally out of shape.

Anyone else ever had a clear vision of their death, and held it for more than 10 years?

-30-

« ...howl's done

The phone is a Samsung V205, and the service is T-Mobile. Quick note is that T-Mobile service was not available and what was available would not let me send the pictures in Oak Ridge or Knoxville. It wasn't until I returned to a T-Mobile area that full digital returned.

This is a part of the site for the new Spallation Neutron Source. Much more extends back to the right. Most of it is underground, including a good bit between the camera and the building.

An inside view of a drift tube being prepared.

One of the superconducting segments of the LINAC

Some nanotechnology that was passed around, with the business parts being a bit small for camera resolution. Remember that the nano parts have to be placed on something larger so we can handle it.

A unit that can be clipped to a pocket, lapel, etc. that uses nanosensors.

Just wanted to share a bit.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Once there, we were given a series of presentations, most of which focused on various aspects of nanotechnology and wearable robotics. The nanotech lectures were very good overall, and it is interesting to see the progress that has been made. When I first began to cover the topic, and got to take part in a hands-on workshop at Cornell, the promise was there but getting things done was still in the future. The future is here and we even got to look at some nano-devices that can be used for a variety of purposes. Nano is still mostly promise, but the promise is starting to be realized.

The wearable robotics session was quite good, and it was interesting and amusing to find reporters and scientists talking about books and stories such as Starship Troopers, The Forever War, and The Man In The Gray Weapons Suit. Heinlein and company had indeed nailed a number of the problems down, but they are being met. Wearable robotics are still a ways away because of power, control, and sensing, but with luck and some good funding, not too far away.

The final part of the day were presentations on, and tours of, the Spallation Neutron Source. This is a facility being built at Oak Ridge that will provide neutrons for scientific experiments in the way that facilities like the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne create X-ray beams. The SNS as it is known, will allow scientists to study materials, including nanomaterials, in ways not currently possible. It will also allow other scientists to study the neutron itself along with some large-scale activities such as cosmology.

The facility is under construction, but major sections are already built and in place. In fact, we were told that we were some of the last people to tour the linac and beam production end because portions are already being powered up and tested. It was fascinating to see the drift tubes, superconducting segments, and more being put in place. If I get the chance, in the next few days I will try to post some pictures made with the camera phone.

I skipped a banquet last night to go have dinner with some friends. Knoxville is home to Mark Maxwell, one of the best science artists in the world, and it was a pleasure to have dinner with him and Anita. Afterwards, we went back to their home and studio, and I got to see some of his latest work and works in progress. He has finally gotten a major painting that he is doing just for him to the point of being finished, and it sums up a lot of my feelings about Apollo – and NASA. Melancholy, but powerful.

A couple of quick travel notes for Knoxville. I can’t really recommend the Holiday Inn Select downtown. It took two tries to get a decent room, I can’t detect any wi-fi I can tap into, there is no high-speed access, today was the first day they got the wakeup call right (hour early each morning), poor service on the part of several staff, and more. Yet, I can say that two staffers made up for a good bit, Jenny and Kim. If not for them, I might have bailed.

What I can recommend is the Downtown Grill and Brewery. Food is average, but the beer is excellent. Their porter is one of the three best I have had.

The briefing is continuing, but I have to head out today. Wish I could stay, but plan to take care of a few things while I am here.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Rather than wallow in the words, I want to describe one particular thing he did that really made things come alive. He had us play a multi-player, multi-class war game. Bur not just any war game, it was a game set in Europe and we became the leaders of Europe. I was Minister of War for the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and it may have started out Austria but it was damn well a growing empire when the game was called.

So what, you say? Anyone can play a canned war game? Yep, they can. But we did not. Everyone of us had to do research. How many miles of railroad did each country have at the given time? How long to build a mile of railroad in the time? What was the GNP? On what was the currency based? What was the exchange rate between different currencies? How was the government set up? Did they have telegraph? If so, how many miles, etc.? What alliances, if any, did each country have? Who were their allies and enemies? Heck, I think we even got into textile production figures during this time. All of this was in addition to researching troops, ships, weapons, and all the other “normal” things in a war game.

Once all the data was gathered, we set up our initial positions, laid out infrastructure, made alliances, and started the game. It only lasted a few days because we disrupted other classes with it, bursting in on them with things like “Oh my god, the French just sank the English fleet!” (Don’t ask. Bad luck of a war game) Other teachers did not like the Cap’n and this just gave them more ammunition. He was familiar with the students. He was untraditional. He failed to respect moldering seniority. He was innovative. He got results.

Yes, he did that. You see, we learned something far more valuable than just the net worth of Austria, or how to sack Switzerland in two days (Yea!), or even the importance of logistics in campaigns. We learned something beyond rubies and pearls: How to formulate and ask the right questions, and how to go look up the answers. We learned research. We learned how to learn.

I won’t even go into the other things, about how he gave me confidence in myself and set me up for some of the more interesting things I have done in my life. For what he did for almost all of us (save the person who blew up their fleet) was give us a love of learning so that we could go do it on our own. No wonder some of the other teachers hated him.

The sad thing is, the Cap’n left teaching after his baby daughter was born. The teacher politics and such played a role, but the real driver for him was that he could make more money as a security guard than as a teacher. That little girl became his world, and doing right by her his top priority. So he left. A very sad commentary on the esteem in which we hold teachers, and the rate of pay when being a security guard at a department store pays more.

Thanks Cap’n. Thanks for all you did. We hated you with a passion for that damned term paper, and for the tests. But you prepared us well for the largest tests of all. Thanks really isn’t enough.

NOTE: For those interested, the secret to our military success in the Empire was the fact that I had a hand in laying out the rail lines. I created something called a modified star pattern that allowed every major city to be directly connected to each other, and then ran lines to the border of neighboring countries near their rail lines. Net result was that we could move troops and supplies faster than anyone else, marshal on the border, attack, link to enemy rail, and then engage in mobile warfare. Our troops got there fustest with the mostest, and we put a heck of a skeer in friends and enemies alike. :) The other thing we did were sealed orders, so that if certain contingencies happened, we could react even if the “leaders” were in another class. We did well in the game, and according to the Cap’n, we would likely have conquered Europe well before the planned end of the game. Tactics and strategy are good, but think logistics as well.

-30-

« ...howl's done

In recent months, there has emerged a new creature on the scene. I rather suspect they have been around for a while, just not in such great numbers or in such an obvious state. They are like politicians in that they suborn the needs of the Country and the needs of the Citizens they are supposed to represent, but not necessarily to personal gain. Rather, their focus appears to be on advancing a political party. Admittedly, they do gain by it in terms of stature and power, but not to the extent of normal corruption. In some cases, they suffered loss for the good of the party in question.

Yet, the fact remains that they have put the interests of a given political party ahead of the best interest of the nation. In so doing, they have violated solemn oaths, formal and informal, unless they have sworn something different from the rest of us. For none of the oaths, from the Pledge to those of office, say a damn thing about political parties.

We do not pledge allegiance to the party; we do not swear to serve, protect, and defend a party; and, we do not go around quoting “The needs of the party outweigh everything else.”

Why, therefore, are they doing this? It is not just limited to one party, either, though the Democrats seem to have a strong edge in this right now. Anyone and everyone who lies and takes other actions to give aid and comfort to our enemies in order to wrangle a partisan political advantage has forsworn themselves and forsaken all duties to the Republic and to the Citizens.

These partiticians are a worse enemy to the Republic the normal venal corruption. Just as corruption needs to be weeded out, so to do these traitors to the public trust. Keep that in mind during all the elections that are going on, and do your duty as a Citizen. After all, it is the future of your nation and of your children that is at stake.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Much of this comes from a meatpacking scandal which is reported to have made even Teddy Roosevelt sick when he read it. The exposure of the scandal, which may have made portions of the population unwitting cannibals, resulted in significant changes to federal law and federal powers by regulating food and the growing food industries. The test was, and is, that the greater good is served by protecting those who come forward or otherwise provide information that aids the public good. While I am not a lawyer, and will defer to the excellent Volokh Team and even Evil Cardinal Puppylieu on this, it is presented this way in most journalism history classes.

This basic premise has been upheld many times, with one famous case being that of the Pentagon Papers. The papers showed that the Government, specifically the Executive Branch, was lying to the public on several key issues. These lies were designed to prevent full public debate and negate the ability of Citizens to make informed decisions. It has even been argued by some that it was an attempt to impose a dictatorial decision on the people, though that begs many questions about many other activities as well.

The problem here is that the leak of this memo meets none of the established criteria for protection.

The memo in no way reveals truly new material. It does not expose any harm or potential harm to the body politic or the population as a whole that was not already known, discussed, and acknowledged. In point of fact, it exposes information that could by its revelation harm the body politic and the public good.

Memos such as this should be generated on a fairly regular basis in any organization, to identify weaknesses, strengths, and to debate the need for change and the best mechanisms to facilitate positive change. As Cardinal Pupplieu noted the other day, the revelation of the memo can have a chilling effect and reduce the likelihood that such memos will be generated. If this were a company, that would be one thing since the forces of the market will reward or punish as need be.

The problem is, this is our military and we are at war. We are at war with an enemy that has sworn to destroy us and our culture, and with whom there can be no truce or compromise. That is not our decision, but theirs. This fact has been missed or ignored by many who seem to feel that we can negotiate, we can compromise, or that we can buy off the enemy.

Our military needs to change. That has been the cry from left and right for some time, and what is more it has been a cry from within the military for at least 20 years that I know of. The face of warfare is changing as it has never changed before. Not even WWI, which saw the end of maneuvered ranks and mass formations, can compare to the changes taking place today. That such change has started can be seen in the lightening campaign to take Baghdad, which was the fastest campaign with the fewest casualties in history. Not only were there few military casualties, there were very few real civilian casualties, and it was possible to select action such that civilians could be largely spared. Compare this with any war in history, particularly WWII, to see the difference.

These changes need to continue. The threats and tactics of the past are just that. We no longer face Napoleonic troop blocks and horse cavalry; we no longer face the Wehrmacht and the blitzkrieg; and, we no longer face the massed divisions of the Cold War. Now, that is not to say that some of the more recent threats are no longer there, but the likelihood of massive waves of troops pouring through the Fulda Gap are a bit less likely now. Even if they weren’t, the means of opposing them have changed. In light of these advances and changes, and a new enemy that fights in a very different way, there is a clear need for change.

Some of this need for change has already been the subject of public and private debate. This will need to continue and the Citizens will need to make informed choices and recommendations to the military that serves and protects it. Yet, there is also a need for internal discussions and change, and that was the point of the memo. The information in it reveals not just the obvious and old news of problems, but discusses HOW and WHAT is needed in the way of change.

I rather suspect that the memo was leaked for partisan reasons. That is not to say for party reasons, but it could also be that someone who is watching their particular ox get gored wanted it floated to protect said ox. Alas, my personal suspicion is that this was a party-based leak, which makes it even more reprehensible. It some ways, however, it really does not matter.

What does matter is that the leak of the memo did not serve the public good. It in no way exposed a problem, corruption, or other accepted standards of reasonable action. What it did do was to expose critical workings to our enemies in a time of war. It hampers efforts to prosecute that war and to make the changes that will be needed not just for it but to meet any future threats as well. It gives aid and comfort to our enemies during a time of armed conflict.

That is treason.

Whomever leaked this should be identified, charged, and tried for treason. Particularly if the motivation for leaking was some form of partisanship.

Which brings us to the question of the reporters and outlet who ran the story. The law here is, to my mind, somewhat less clear. That said, however, I think that they might should be, simply because the law is the law and needs to be evenly applied. The special treatment given The Press is not absolute, though many in The Media fail to understand or appreciate it. It is their contention that they hold to a higher law, a higher set of standards that transcend any other obligation, much on the order of the priesthood and the sanctity of the confessional.

Years ago, when I first entered the field of journalism and communications, I made a personal decision that I would not write or run any story that would unduly place those defending our country in harm’s way. When I discussed this with others in the profession, I was stunned at the ferocity with which this decision was received. I was told in very clear terms that this was wrong, that my duty to the public and to the profession transcended any other oaths or allegiances and it was my duty to report no matter what.

I rejected that viewpoint completely and utterly, and with strong contempt. Ethics can be very slippery to deal with, and there are issues with which I still wrestle, but there are things that are clear and unambiguous. The fact is that I am not supranational, nor am I a part of any organization that is such. The profession of journalism and/or membership in The Media does not make one a supranational entity. We are each citizens of our own countries, and while I admire many of the standards to which journalism aspires I am also not blind to the failings of same. I have never been able to stomach treating all reporters from anywhere in the world as if they held to these same standards, when it was clear they did not. Yet, others seem to have no such trouble, and do clearly see themselves and the beliefs and agendas they pursue as placing them above the rabble and above the law.

I would love to know if the reporters and editors at USA Today gave any serious consideration or deliberation to what they were doing. Did they think of the potential damage revelation would do? Or, did they simply see partisan hay to be made out of it? Did they think of how this could or would effect future deliberations or change? Or did they simply see a chance to strike a blow at an old enemy in an undeclared war? Did they give any thought towards their responsibilities as Citizens? Or did they only think of their “obligations” to “journalism?”

Most of all, did they think of what this could do to journalism. The military is not the only organization facing significant change. The limitations of The Press, that heavy, expensive, cumbersome piece of equipment, are gone. The dividing line between Citizen and member of the Fourth Estate, is gone. The law has changed significantly, and in addition to The Media there are blogs, whistelblower laws, and more in place. The Law no longer has an either/or choice. With modern technology, every person has the chance to be a journalist, for a day or for a career. What this will mean to special treatment for members of The Press remains to be seen, but already many organizations are opening up the formerly restricted areas to a much broader definition of member of The Press. That is going to continue, and to accelerate.

The opportunity presented by these actions to clarify law and to change tradition are extraordinary, and there are people on all sides who would love to seize it. I am one of them, and it is my hope that the suggestion of Cardinal Puppylieu is taken up here as well as in the Plame affair: subpoena the reporters. Neither case meets the normal standards of journalistic protection, much less the established basis of legal protection. Both appear to have been done for partisan reasons, so let’s find out which partisans and for which reasons. Both, with the memo clearly leading, pose damage to our ability to fight the war in which we find ourselves. All of these things need to be addressed and legal and ethical standards created or upheld.

Moreover, journalism as a profession needs to look at itself and its codes. What is more important, a perceived right or prerogative, or duties to Country, truth, and self? Do the rules and codes of journalism abrogate oaths and duties to our own country? Did this case ever even get considered in terms of anything other than pursuing a story?

The New Media needs to think about this as well. Each of us as individuals will have to make decisions about what we write, report, and discuss. How will you handle such things when they come up? The odds are that as the New Media grows, that some of us will face similar issues and questions. Start thinking about that now, because it will always be about more than the immediate. If you don’t think now about what lies beyond, then you will not be ready when the time comes.

« ...howl's done

While a few had emergency backup sites, and a few others joined in, the attack brought significant parts of the blogosphere to a halt. Just as newspapers and magazines have emergency printing options in place, and broadcast outlets (usually) have emergency broadcast facilities, each of us as bloggers needs to look at this as a call to make such plans.

My own emergency site, like so many others, is over on blogspot because it is easy and it is free. The problem here should be obvious: it is another single-point failure waiting to happen. What we need to look at is agreements with other domains and providers, such that mirror sites or emergency backups are in place and – more importantly – known to the readership. Given that few blogs make any money, and are done on a shoestring, these options need to be free or nearly free to be practical. Give it some thought, and I am sure that we can come up with something.

We also need to consider something that most old media would find totally unacceptable: we need to share. For example, if I am up and my Blogfather is down, you can bet that he will have full posting privileges here posthaste, and that I would likely give the same to all members of his team. Having two blogs under one roof is not a novel idea, merely an expansion of the group blog concept. This would in no way work for old media, but it is a strength of the new that we need to exploit.

Some have said that this also shows the need to migrate to different hosts, and that idea does have some merit. It was good that Winds of Change and some other sites were on different hosts and served as clearing houses for information. Yet, some reprehensible comments by one provider show the danger to free speech that can and does exist. Bloggers in particular are going to need to go for providers that have extremely strong commitments to the ideals of free speech, and are prepared to back those to the fullest.

In that regard, I would once again like to thank Hosting Matters. They are an excellent host in my experience, and their response to this attack was both outstanding and professional. They did all they could, and it is unfortunate that those upstream of them were not as responsive or professional. More importantly, they have stated and continue to state, despite threats to their bottom line, their strong support for free speech through their policies. Thank you.

At this point, I would urge you to go read this post and this post over at Winds of Change. There is a lot of good information there, and some good suggestions. While I am not a techno-geek, a lot of people in the online community are, and if we all work together and the providers work with us, a number of good security measures can and will be developed. Make no mistake, this is not Hosting Matter’s fight, or the provider’s fight, it is OUR fight and we need to ram it home on all fronts.

Along those lines, it may be foolish or ignorant of me, but I do plan to file some form of civil action against the individuals behind this attack, and any who abetted them, if they are ever identified. Yes, it probably will go nowhere, but it may also rob them of some flexibility, some operating capital, and resources. Even if I never get anything out of it, the light shown on these cockroaches and the blocking of avenues is well worth the time and effort. In any war, always pursue all avenues of attack simply to keep the enemy reacting to you and to deny them free movement.

Meantime, I very much like the idea put forward yesterday on various forums and at his sites, by Steve at Little Tiny Lies. It is obvious that Internet Haganah has hurt the murdering, cowardly scum so I agree: Let’s support them. Steve has put forward two ideas, one involving hitting the tip jar (always a good idea) and the other in helping distribute the information from this site over so many different hosts that it is impossible to go after all of them (or at least damned difficult). I like both ideas, and will do what I can when I can as a means of pursuing yet another avenue in the war.

Another avenue is the one I started yesterday: A listing of as many emergency backup blog sites as possible. I have started it on my emergency site, and if you have such a site submit it here in the comments. I will make my master list available to any and all bloggers so that it can be posted as many places as possible. That way, when DDOS and other attacks happen again -- and they will -- we can stay up and running as much as possible. SEND THOSE ADDYS IN!

In this age of Wi-Fi and such, we should have and must make use of all the options possible to make sure that such attacks can only hamper the free flow of information. This new media has many strengths to go with its weaknesses, and we need to use our strengths, and find fixes for the weaknesses, so that the ignorant, the intolerant, and the totalitarians everywhere can not block us. That is a worthy challenge, and one we need to take up immediately

-30-

« ...howl's done

The TSA has long gone about things backwards, in order to be seen as “doing something” about the problem. The problem is, it is unlikely that many of the weapons came through passenger security in the first place. Many within the field have long maintained that they came in through ground crews, caterers, and others who had access to the planes, and did not have to go through security or security screenings on hire. It is why for many months after 9-11 that plane crews often did searches of the aircraft before passengers boarded.

Nail clippers, strip searches, and more for the passengers were a deliberate inconvenience designed to gather news and make it clear that aggressive measures were being taken. The more inconvenience, the more complaints and news, the more it appeared that something was being done. That it was completely ineffectual in terms of actual security was drowned out by the officious voice of Washington, loudly proclaiming safety was at hand.

Well, now the officious voices in DC are embarrassed, their lack of knickers and other essential personal gear exposed for the world to see. Their lack of personal attributes is such that they are going to go after the student who cried out “The emperor has no clothes” as hard as they can. Even more so because he gave them warning, did everything he could to alert them short of tap dancing in a tutu in front of Tom Ridge, and they still could not be bothered to do their job. Now that there is exposure, everyone else needs to take a hard look and make some decisions.

First, there are a number of other methods for securing aviation that don’t require giving up all individual liberty at the airport. These models, many of which also don’t depend on a vast and inefficient government agency, deserve much more careful attention. Join in this discussion with your congresscritter, as it is your life and your liberties at stake, not just the careers of some civil masters.

Second, I would love to see a campaign right away for a full and complete Presidential pardon for Mr. Heatwole. If President Bush is serious about improving the security of our nation and in prosecuting the war on terror, then he needs to reward this courageous student, not join in the burial detail. What Mr. Heatwole did may have been against the law, it may not have been handled as professionally as some may like, but it has exposed transportation security for the sham it is, and that is the act of a true patriot.

I fear he will pay the price of many a true patriot in terms of life, fortune, and sacred honor. But his example is out there, and we would all do well to pay heed.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Hardware:
LARGE mixing bowl
Food processor or blender
Large spoon
Knife
Oven, preheat to 375 degrees

Ingredients:
1 lb dried hot NM red chili pods
1 lb dried mild NM red chili pods
20-40 peeled cloves of garlic
2 large onions, cut into wedges
4T Mexican oregano
2t Kosher salt
Water

Working in batches, place dried pods on a half-sheet pan or cookie sheet and warm for a couple of minutes in the oven to make them pliable. Remove stems and place in food processor or blender along with a small amount of water, some garlic and onion, and a bit of the spices. Pulse until smooth, adding water as necessary to get a slurry the consistency of heavy cream. Combine all batches in a very large mixing bowl and divide into thirds (or whatever works for you) for freezing. Sauce should keep for six or so months frozen. This should make 1-2 gallons of sauce.

NOTE: If you want a super smooth sauce, remove seeds from the pods. If you want something with a bit more texture, leave the seeds in.

NOTE: This sauce will stain all plastic and rubber items red. You are warned.

To make carne adovada or similar dishes, place one third of the sauce into a crock pot or stock pot. Add in 2-3 pounds of pork or beef (or lamb) cut into 3/4- to 1-inch cubes. Cook slowly for the day in the crock pot, or for several hours in a stock pot on low. When the meat is falling apart, it is done and should be fairly tasty.

You can get the dried chili pods at Suttons Bay Trading Company or any of the other fine purveyors of New Mexico red and green chilies. If you don't like hot, use all mild, or if you like it flaming use all hot. Experiment a bit and enjoy.

-30-

« ...howl's done

I will be crass enough to start with a bit of an “I Told You So.” Earlier this year, as a part of discussions on embedded reporters, I pointed out that The Media as we know it was in a fight for survival and that there would be a sharp negative swing. That swing has been in full force for most of the summer but has hit its current zenith. There will be further swings and bad things are going to happen, but the war is won for now. Change is happening.

To understand some of what is going on today, a look back at history is needed. Since some of this has already been covered in the Saving Pvt. Journalism series, I will not go into extensive detail.

The myth of the objective and unbiased media is a product of the last century. The fact is, the media was never unbiased and much of the myth – and the laudable goals within it – came about from a desperate need to avoid having certain reforms applied from outside.

Most media powerhouses come from newspapers, and newspapers come from broadsheets. This is important because most broadsheets and then newspapers were the house organs for various political parties and movements. As print media grew and expanded, many of these papers retained at least an unofficial alliance with a particular party. This, of course, shook out over the last 200 years to be primarily Democrat or Republican. Over the course of the last 100 years, this has shaken out to the point that the majority of papers that have survived have been those with traditional ties to the Democratic party or that have aligned with that part.

During this time, other things have also helped shape the modern media. First, there was the need for a code of ethics and at least token reform because of some corruption scandals. The alliance between the parties and the papers became a bit of a problem that began to hurt business, as did revelations that reporters and editors had been bought by individual politicians, mobsters, businesses, etc. The obvious partiality hurt consumer confidence, which meant that business dropped and in some cases that vigorous competition was started. To avoid these problems, and to avoid any specter of legislatively imposed reform, the media attempted to impose change from the inside.

To cut down on the potential for conflict of interest, most newspapers keep the advertising and business side separate from the news and editorial side. The idea is that major advertisers can’t control what goes in the news, and it also eliminates the problem of having news subjects feel pressured to buy an ad to get favorable coverage. This is a good and necessary step for a truly independent media, though there are often holes in this curtain. Some news operations even try to have a firewall between the news and editorial departments so that the editorial position does not affect news coverage. This has almost always been a miserable failure and is really no more than a fig leaf over a problem.

Modern media has also been shaped by the muckrakers. This started when various papers and outlets began running stories on problems, most notably in the meat processing and packing industry, resulting in legislation and other reforms. This is where the notion of the crusading journalist truly was born and has led to the modern notion of change or advocacy journalism. Rather than being truly neutral, the idea is that the reporter is to be a crusader to affect change on government and the world.

This also ties in with the swing towards a very liberal bias in higher education and both real and perceived problems with the Republican party. This began to show in the late 50s and early 60s and was reinforced by the civil rights movement. The massive social changes that occurred during this time highly polarized the country on many levels, and did the same thing with The Media.

The problem was, however, that The Media had both economic and political filters that threw it towards a more liberal position. There was the whole idea of advocacy journalism. Then, you added in the fact that no paper or other outlet dependent on mass readership or support wanted to be seen as connected with oppression and such. Those that took extreme or even moderate conservative stands saw readership/viewership and advertising dollars shrink. In small towns or other limited markets, this was not a life-or-death situation, but in larger markets it was. The result was that the more liberal publications thrived while the conservative publications were reduced.

When one factors all of these things into play, it means that an entire profession found itself with views, and an impetus for those views, that was increasingly far removed from that of the “average” person. This cycle, particularly in terms of education, has continued.

The net result is that a power structure emerged within the media that was very far to the left in comparison with most, with strong historical links to the Deomocratic party, and that like all in power came to enjoy its perks and see them as divine rights. Those rights have recently been challenged, and the counter attack has been ugly.

The counter attack has also been a mistake.

The embeds were a huge success. Go back and read the earlier posts on this subject, but the short version is that a large number of reporters have now seen that soldiers are not baby burning psychopaths or mindless drones or any of the other crap espoused by the counter culture. They found that much of what they had been told was not true, and their reporting reflected it.

As I predicted, the embeds became pariahs in many newsrooms and moved to other beats and coverage. Thus began the negative reporting from Iraq and elsewhere. The negative and ignorant reporting, which has been exposed by the new media – including the blogosphere – to the point that even The Media has had to start admitting it and covering it.

It is important that you look at the negative coverage. Look at the organizations and who was involved: reporters, producers, and editors. Then take a look at the reporters, producers, and editors who were part of or involved with the embed program. Exactly how much overlap do you see? Just as I predicted, the embeds were moved out of the way, so the old school that is at war with the government and the military could try to go back to business as usual.

Also business as usual is the political coverage. The rampant bias in the media has never been more clearly shown. From coverage of Bush, WMD, and related issues to the California recall, The Media has shown its true colours, and the limits to its power.

For just one example, take a look at the papers that did the hatchet job in the last days of the campaign. In California, the L.A. Times has had long historic ties to the Democratic party and to all appearances reverted from a “journalistic” outlet to a party organ. Outside the state, others that jumped on it also have similar strong ties and can be considered to be almost house organs of a political party.

And it blew up on them.

The L.A. Times reputation, such as it was, now lies in tatters. With one stroke, they have effectively negated any claim to objectivity, balance, or fairness. The public has seen exactly how biased they are, and how far they were willing to go to promote a specific party and/or the ideals of the party. The result is that they are now seen in about the same light as the old Pravda. The backlash has not been as noticeable against the others, but it is there and it is growing.

The Media has seen most of its major campaigns to retain and expand the power it has, and all the lovely economic and social perks that come with it, fail.

The negative coverage in Iraq has reached a point where the average viewer hears or sees stories pointing out how negative it has become. They hear politicians jump ship from The Media on this and point out how it is costing American lives and harming efforts to restore Iraq and wage the War on Terror. They are thus being linked in the public mind to the terrorists and pro-terrorist supporters.

The exact same thing is starting to happen to its WMD coverage. The extremely biased (or just plain piss poor) coverage of the interim report has been exposed to the point that, again, The Media is having to acknowledge it and begin to cover it. The viewer/reader grows further disenchanted and untrusting.

Pick a few other topics: Bush Lied, detention camps, etc. They have all failed, and rather spectacularly so. The Media faces the fact that it now has competition. News is no longer the province of the rich and powerful. Rather than expensive presses and broadcast equipment, home computers and inexpensive digital cameras can get the news out. Moreover, this can be done by almost any income level.

In earlier posts, I have talked about the theory of media specialization. I think that part of what we are seeing is a variant of that in terms of media technology. We have gone in the last 200 or so years from large and expensive presses that could do limited numbers, to large presses that could do vast numbers, to small inexpensive presses and printers that can do reasonable numbers. Just as this revolution has been underway, we see the broadcast media go through something similar, from huge limited cameras in the early days to broadcast-quality camera that can fit in the palm of a hand and can be afforded by almost anyone. Then you have to factor in the new distribution method of choice: The Internet.

With the Internet, you bypass the need for printing plants and distribution routes. Instead, you post your news and the people who want to share it with others print it out on their own. With the Internet, you no longer need studios, powerful transmitters, and tall towers. Instead, you can put your voice or video files up and instantaneously they are viewable around the world. With the right set-up, you are even interactive without the need for the space of a studio audience.

The result of these technological advances is that everyone can be a journalist. Just as publications mature into areas of specialization, now individuals can and do cover what goes on in their block, their neighborhood, or even their town. Rather than the outlets specializing, we have the reporters focusing on a specialization.

This is true even in the blogosphere. Pundits tend to focus on their areas of expertise. While I write on many things, my main focuses have tended to be the media and journalism, and space and space commercialization. Look at other bloggers and you will see the same thing.

Will this new media completely replace traditional media? Probably in about the same way that magazines did not replace newspapers, and that radio and television did not replace all print media.

What it will do is provide a new and vital check and balance to the process. The Media has shown its bias and blatant disregard for the professed ideals of journalism. It is clear that a better series of checks and balances is needed, and it is also clear from history that such should not come from the government. That is the role that the new media can play, it can force the traditional media to be honest, to do a good job, and to pay at least lip service, if not more, to those journalistic ideals.

This is going to become even more important in the days ahead, as journalism and The Media are forcing open a major can of worms. The Plame affair may well have far reaching consequences that go well beyond simply damaging a President.

For years, practitioners of The Media have enjoyed specific legal rights, and those rights have been expanded over time. From the original intent to provide as many groups as possible access to the limited number of big, expensive presses, the idea of media rights has grown such that members of the media are a special class granted rights and privileges not granted to ordinary citizens. This includes special access to events, from crime scenes to high ceremonies; special access to leaders; and special immunity in the form of protection of sources.

There is many a bad movies that shows the heroic reporter going to jail rather than reveal a source or turn over materials to the government. There are many true heroic cases where this is true, and a most recent one of note is a writer in Texas who was jailed because the court decided she was not a real reporter. Her case, and the Plame case, may well tumble the house of cards upon which this concept is based.

The original concept of Freedom of the Press was based on access to literal presses. This then began to expand in the early days of the Articles of Confederation and The Republic because “the press” acted as an important if unofficial check and balance on the system. They could and did expose corruption, treason, and more. With the advent of muckraking, this expanded dramatically, as it was clear that whistleblowers needed protection for the greater public good. Advocacy journalism has built upon and expanded this concept, such that protection of sources is a very serious subject for reporters and outlets.

Now, there are supposed to be rules for this, but the real practice has been to protect all sources regardless. The theory is that if you don’t protect all, even the real dirtbags, no one will trust you and use you. A reporter without sources isn’t much of a reporter.

I use the word rules above because there really are no true laws on the subject. For some excellent discussions of this, go check out the Volokh Conspiracy and much of the discussion around the Plame Case. Media outlets have treaded very carefully in this area, precisely because there are no laws. What you have instead are rulings and precedent, which carry the force of law.

Precedent may well be the more important of the two. What this means is that “it has always been done this way” and as such it means that if it has not been prosecuted or other legal action taken, then it is okay. There is a long precedent of honoring the protection of sources by journalists with the courts. By and large, the courts have found that in general the practice is a benefit to the public good while ruling specifically in some cases that the greater good lay the other way.

Most media outlets have been very picky about where they fought as a result. Reporters are taught to protect all sources at all costs, because that action sets precedent. The cases that really do end up going to court are usually much more selectively made. The specific circumstances, the court in question, and even the individual judge can make a difference. If the case will strengthen the concept of press immunity, then it will be advanced. If the case has other factors that will establish precedent and/or create a favorable environment even if lost, then it will be advanced. If it is simply the right thing to do, it often will be advanced.

This ties in with another concept: licensing. In all the work by the founding fathers, both with the Articles and with the Bill of Rights, a conscious decision was made to not license the press. This meant that the actual physical presses did not have to obtain permission to print anything, and was designed to ensure the free flow of information and diverse viewpoints. It then began to expand to cover “The Press” in terms of journalists, and later what would become “The Media.” It also presents a slippery slope.

When one segment of the public is given more rights than any other, it presents problems, especially if all are supposed to be equal. Yes, some are more equal than others. Journalists and members of The Media are more equal than others and that is in large measure a result of the special protections granted the media in practice. The case of the writer in Texas has opened this up for debate, and the Plame Case is going to blow it wide open.

The real problem with the Texas case is that a judge has ruled that the writer is not a real journalist and therefore enjoys none of the de facto protections of same. Not a big deal you say? Well, it is because it represents government licensing of The Press. A judge has taken it upon themselves and the government to decide who is and who is not a real reporter. This flies in the face of Constitutional and general law and practice, and I consider it one of the most reprehensible acts of moral and professional cowardice that more media outlets and media organizations have not jumped on this for that very reason.

Yet, there is a logic of sorts behind it. This may well be one of those cases that will not expand the case precedent in a way that benefits The Media. It also would expand coverage outside a very narrow definition of media and journalism, and to be honest I think that most outlets and members are very well aware of it. They are also aware that the single biggest threat to their power and position come from writers like this one in Texas. For a combination of reasons, they are not aggressively pursing this case, and in the process are allowing a very dangerous precedent to be set.

The ball is already rolling on that slippery slope, and the Plame Case may well send it crashing on down. There is no law in regards the protection of sources, only precedent. The “rules” or guidelines for the protection of sources do not appear to apply in a case such as this, but the old J-school guide of protect all no matter what may be coming into play. If this does go to court, and it should, the results will be very interesting in that it may well decide who is a journalist, are there limits on freedom of the press and in particular the ability to keep sources confidential, and if the government has the right to impose guidelines on the press/The Media.

These are profound questions that need careful consideration and answers. In an era when technology can and does literally make anyone a reporter in the traditional sense (not the elite sense of working for a major daily, magazine, or broadcast outlet), are press protections absolute? If they are not, what is the dividing line? Does the press enjoy special freedoms denied to others? If not, what does that do for freedom of the press? Does the government have the right to require or impose honest, fair, and balanced reporting on all or a select few?

Fundamentally, it boils down to asking if we truly want to keep Freedom of The Press. Practically, The Media is making the case that we don’t. It has by its actions shown clearly that the concepts of honest, fair, and balanced don’t exist and therefore can’t come from voluntary adherence to a code of conduct.

Counterbalancing this in practical terms is the New Media. The idea that anyone and everyone can be and is a reporter. It is from the New Media that information has come out that has exposed the lies and hypocrisy of the Old Media. It is from the New Media that the new wave of advocacy journalism has come, in things such as Chief Wiggles toy and school supply drive or Frank’s Front Line Voices. It is from the New Media that a new set of checks and balances is emerging, both on government and on the Old Media.

This is not necessarily a good thing. Governments are notoriously sensitive to anything that restricts power and the growth of power. So to are those in unofficial positions of power who do not want to see that power go away. While our Government was founded on both official and unofficial checks and balances, a number of those safeguards have been removed and the powers of government greatly expanded. That we have unlocked them ourselves means nothing beside the fact that they have been unlocked. Just as the embeds have seen a backlash, so too will the New Media see attacks from Old Media.

Care must be taken to see that government and Old Media do not collude, or that decisions made or precedents set that would limit New Media or Freedom of the Press. For far from being the narrow special interest that those in power in the Old Media would make it, it is a right that goes to us all. We must have Freedom of the Press to prevent harm, to prevent tyranny, and to preserve the freedoms and liberty guaranteed us in this Great Experiment.

Is there cause to be worried? I would say watching the complete and utter prostitution of major media outlets to partisan political ends would indicate the answer is yes. Desperate people do desperate and stupid things, and those in power in the Old Media are desperate to preserve their way of life in the face of change. That effort may be as futile as King Canute’s command, but it does not mean that damage can’t be inflicted along the way in much the same way that kings, dictators, and others out of touch with the world did damage on their way out.

One answer to this problem lies in precedent. Precedent is being set by the actions we take in and with the New Media. Precedent can be set by effective representation and presentation with Government and the Courts, and we are indeed fortunate to have legal bloggers, with connections, such as the members of the Volokh Conspiracy and the Instapundit. This is not a call for them to represent in court, though that could end up being needed, but to continue to provide a responsible and thoughtful face to this part of the New Media to the world.

The care and responsibility we take is important. That is not to say that we need to embrace the old ways, old rules, and old shibboleths, but that we establish our own ways and rules and live by them. I rather suspect that Jefferson, Paine, and others would be confounded and upset by the rough nature of the New Media, but delighted with what it represents. New things are almost always rough, and it is with time that maturity – and stagnation – set in. There is time for that. What matters now is to establish this New Media as a responsible and effective counter to the Old in a way that expand protection for real Freedom of the Press and carry it forward into this new technological era.

There will be challenges, and they will come on many levels. The very technological nature of the New Media will bring out those who will say that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen this and that regulation is therefore necessary, just as regulation of radio and television was necessary. That same tired argument has been used to promote gun control and a host of other issues, and it will be raised here as well. Just as print media called for the regulation of broadcast to protect itself, expect to see the Old Media call for regulation of this new medium as well. That such needs to be fought goes without saying.

It really is unfair to say that the media is biased. For we are the media, both as consumers and as providers in the New Media. Let’s be precise in what we say. The Old Media has shown themselves to be biased hacks less interested in the ideals of journalism than in raw exercises in power and control. We condone that by watching them, by supporting their advertisers, and by paying them heed. We fight that by blogging, by participating in online publications and forums, and by establishing sites to counter the worst excesses by those who profane the very concept of journalism.

Be precise. Leave the broad brush for those in the Old who paint with mud and manure. Point out individual outlets, editors, reporters, and others who have abandoned any pretense at objective journalism. Shun them.

Best yet, raise a new standard high and in so doing set the precedents needed to take freedom and liberty to new levels. What happens now is literally up to each and every one of us.

-30-

« ...howl's done

My bed is leaving me because I very much want to get married, and because it is time to put the past behind me and move on to a new life. Furniture can end up defining us, making us, and limiting us. If we let it, it can drive what we do and how we do it.

This bed started life as a pile of rough lumber from a sawmill. Cherry planks somewhere close to an inch thick that had to be planed down on each side to usable wood, then joined (run across a joiner) to give smooth and square edges. Then the real fun began, when you brought the boards together to form a solid headboard and footboard, drilling holes, inserting hardwood dowels, placing glue, and then clamping them together. Slowly, sections at a time, the pieces came together to form something that was pretty.

Once that was done, everything was cut and squared yet again, then sanded. You start with about 60 grit to take out all the saw marks and such, then work up slowly to 600 grit. Then you clean and stain it, to bring out the colour. This wood was so beautiful that I refused to use anything other than natural finish on it, and the rich deep colour is the reward. It took several coats of natural finish, with steel wool between each.

Then it was ready for the lacquer to be applied. It is nerve racking work, because one little glitch and you get to sand it all back down and start over. There are between 15 and 20 coats of lacquer on the headboard and footboard, and between each coat you take the finest steel wool or 600 grit sandpaper to the finish. The end result, however, is a deep gloss coating on the wood. The siderails are waxed, because they are the most likely to get damaged or dinged, and it is easy to fix dings and such on a wax surface. Several layers of wax are on each.

The design was all mine, and incorporated things I saw at various antique and furniture stores. The height was very carefully calculated with some admonitions from The Joy of Sex in mind, and the precision did pay off, though not as o