Times Change: The Wall Street Journal Now Top-Selling Daily

"Wall Street Journal surpasses USA Today as No. 1"
The Associated Press, via Breitbart.com (October 14, 2009)

"The Wall Street Journal has surpassed USA Today as the top-selling daily newspaper in the United States.

"The Audit Bureau of Circulations won't be releasing its latest figures until Oct. 26, but the Journal said Wednesday that it gained about 12,000 subscribers in the April-September period, compared with a year earlier.

"That puts its average Monday-Friday circulation at 2.02 million.

"USA Today, which has long been No. 1, said last week that it had its worst circulation decline ever, dropping 17 percent to 1.88 million.

"Audit rules allow newspapers to count some online-only subscriptions. The Journal, a unit of News Corp.-owned Dow Jones & Co., is among the few major newspapers that charge for access to much of its Web site. USA Today does not...."

The AP explains that it isn't that the Wall Street Journal is doing so well:

"...For the most part, however, the Journal's new status as No. 1 is the result of a steep decline at USA Today. Like most major dailies, the Gannett Co.-owned newspaper is struggling because of the recession and the flight of readers to the Web...."

That's most likely part of the explanation.

I also think that the "flight of readers to the Web" is due at least in part to people discovering that traditional news media has printed not so much "all the news that's fit to print," as "all the news we feel like printing."

The article gives a pretty good look at what's happening to USA Today and the Wall Street Journal - from the viewpoint of old-school journalists.

I discuss my take on what's happening to traditional news media in America in another blog. One that's considerably more 'apathetic' than this one.

Sort-of-related posts, from Another War-on-Terror Blog:

• "What is an Information Gatekeeper?"
  (August 14, 2009)
• "Somali-American Rally in Protest Against Terrorism in Minneapolis Today: Probably"
  (July 3, 2009)
• "Journalism in the Information Age, Or Nothing Says 'No' Like a Brightly Burning Motorcycle"
  (June 24, 2009)
• "North Korea, American Journalists, the Internet, and Power to the People"
  (June 16, 2009)
• "The New York Times, Insularity, and Assumptions"
  (October 21, 2008)
• "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People"
  (June 27, 2008)

Going With the Stream; Setting Up False Devils

Thoughts for the day:

"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it."
G. K. Chesterton, "Everlasting Man" (1925)

"Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice."
G. K. Chesterton, Illustrated London News (ILN) September 11, 1909)

Both via The American Chesterton Society.

"All's Quiet on West 23rd" - With a Legend Like This, Who Needs Facts?

If you're an American, and around my age, you probably remember "All's Quiet on West 23rd" - a song sung by quite a few singers, vocal stylists, and people who had a contract with a record company. The song was about as ubiquitous as "It's a Small, Small World." It felt like that, anyway.

"Everybody knows" about the cruel, heartless indifference with which apathetic people ignored the piteous cries of a helpless victim while - - - you get the idea.

That's the legend. Although Catherine 'Kitty' Genovese was killed, and did cry for help, the rest of what "everybody knows" leaves quite a few facts on the cutting room floor.

But that doesn't matter. As the legend of West 23rd spread across the land, "I don't want to get involved" became a catchphrase, apathy became a four-letter word, and people were worked up something fierce about being against crime and indifference and things like that.

We got "good Samaritan" laws out of that mix, I think - and being reminded to look out for your neighbors is, again I think, a basically good idea.

That March, 2009, post used some research that I'd done the year before: And pretty boring stuff it is, too. It's two discographies, telling about two performances of the song:

• The Jades
  (May 1967)
• Julie Budd
  (1968)
• The Jades
  (1970) (45, with Love of a Woman) (with Whistle A Tune)

Related posts:

• "Catherine 'Kitty' Genovese Did Not Die in Vain"
  (March 13, 2009)
• "Florida Teen College Student Online Suicide - No Joke, No Fake"
  (November 22, 2008)

Clear Language, Insincerity, and a Thought for the Day

"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink."
George Orwell, The Quotations Page

'Nuff said.

Related post:

• "Feeling Ungood About Doublethink? Here's Help"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (March 23, 2009)

Wizard of Oz Hanging: Munchin Swings or Stagehand Hangs or Something Like That

I see the rumor is at it again: "wizard of oz hanging" (Amicable (July 27, 2008)).

There's an interesting assortment of links at the post "wizard of oz hanging :: snopes.com: 'Wizard of Oz' Munchkin Suicide" (RSS Alligator (July 28, 2008)). Since a rather annoying pop-up with a dubious URL appeared when I visited that page, as well as some that were stopped by my browser, I can't recommend going there.

However, here are two links that related to the suicidal stage hand or lovelorn munchkin:

• "Wizard of Oz, The - Hanging Munchkin"
  Easter Egg Archive
• "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz Website"
  (There's an FAQ section on the page: you'll find it if you scroll down a bit.)

Both of those links agree with the Snopes.com evaluation of the hanging person of Oz: It's a story that's been around for a long time, but really isn't true: "Hanging Munchkin" (Snopes.com (August 10, 2006)).

Snopes goes into the history of this rumor. The original version, that it's a hanging stagehand, is more plausible, since the scene with Dorothy, the Tin Woodman, the Cowardly Lion, and the Scarecrow among the talking apple trees was filmed before the scenes with the Munchkins.

The Snopes page includes a sound clip from "The Ultimate Oz" laserdisc set, by Oz expert John Fricke. The sound clip is in *.ra format, so you may not be able to play it. Pity. Snopes also provides a viewable video clip in resolution that's considerably better than what you find on YouTube is a bit enlightening.

Here's a Photobucket video of 'hanging munchkin.'


Photobucket video
0:25

I see the object in the background - and it does look a great deal like a bird's wing being stretched.

I suspect that one reason I'm able to identify the object is that I live in central Minnesota, within a mile of a lake and swampland. Birds, from hummingbirds to herons, stop by: giving me a bit more experience than people who live in more built-up areas.

I'm strongly inclined to go with Snopes on this one: That looks like a bird, not a hanging human being of any size. Although I'll admit that the YouTube version has low enough resolution to let someone thing they see a hanging man or woman or munchkin. Or something like that.

"Hanging Munchkin Scene Wizard of Oz Nodemise.com

YouTube Video
0:08

However, I would like to suggest another explanation for that mysterious shape in the film. It's the edge of an alien spacecraft that MGM was hiding on the set. As is obvious from the spectacular special effects of "The Wizard of Oz," MGM must have been using alien technology.

The actors and stage crew were aware that something very strange was going on at the back of the set, but have no conscious memory because they were brain-buzzed by the aliens just after the take. Of course, that removed all recollection of the alien spacecraft, Splifbbugg's brief appearance after the cameras were shut down, and the regrettable death of Vnipzligg, Splifbbugg's assistant.

It was, of course, subconscious manifestations of memories of Vnipzligg's demise that started the 'hanging stagehand' rumor. Sadly, Vnipzligg tripped on his way out of the spacecraft, became entangled in the rigging that held the Cowardly Lion's tail, and wasn't cut down until it was too late.

I shouldn't have to say this, but it's best to be careful: That business about Splifbbugg and Vnipzligg is just make-believe.

But don't let that stop you from seeing "The Wizard of Oz" (IMDB.com).

Today's Youth - Warning! Philosophical Rambling Ahead

I didn't get much sleep earlier, so between sleep deprivation and lots of coffee I'm in a rare state of mind.

You may not feel like reading this whole post, so I'll boil it down to a headline:

Things Change: Deal With It

Someone brought up the state of today's youth in an online discussion Thursday ("Are the Youth Of Today Hopeless?" BlogCatalog discussion thread (started July 17, 2008)). (In case you're wondering how the discussion came out, I think the majority answered 'no.')

The question is one which people who aren't young ask from time to time. Here's my take on it: a comment from that discussion thread, after some chainsaw editing.

Today's Kids! I Tell You, it's The End!

One of the great philosophers of the Golden Age of Greece thought that the youth of his 'today' were hopeless:

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
Attributed to Socrates (469-399 bce, by Plato - and still disputed
(quotationsbook.com/quote/44998)

My guess is that Socrates, or whoever said that, was quite correct. That's what children and youth often are like. And, that's why it takes so long to train us to be grownups. That's right - us. I haven't been a youth since around the time of the Apollo Program, but I went through that mangle, just like everyone else who survives to adulthood.

If Socrates (or whoever) was worried about civilization as he knew it coming to an end, he was completely correct.

His civilization is gone. Kaput. But not exactly finished. I'll get back to that.

A lot has changed in the roughly two dozen centuries since that Greek deplored the state of his society's youth.

Things haven't changed much.

I'm pretty sure that 'civilization as we know it' is coming to an end right now. The key phrase is as we know it. I've learned enough about history and humanity to know that, although human nature seems to be fairly constant. What makes different times and places so different is that each culture works out different ways of dealing with their humanity - and generally changes those ways over time.

The End of Civilization as We Know It

I don't think today's youth are "hopeless." Occasionally lazy, irresponsible, self-centered, shallow, uncontemplative, and impatient - but we're all like that, more or less, on our way to growing up. And after we've gotten there, truth be told.

And, civilization as we know it is coming to an end. But it's not because of those kids. The America I grew up in doesn't exist any more. There is an America, but it isn't the Hula-Hooping place I grew up in.

The Greece of Socrates has been gone for thousands of years. But the parts that worked, and the parts that added beauty and reason to life, have lasted - and are a part of today's world.

There's an interesting, and rather tongue-in-cheek, page about this general topic at "Anxiety Culture: 8000 years of (civilization-threatening) anti-social behavior". It gives a little perspective just what this 'youth crisis' really is.

Seven New Deadly Sins!!! (No, But it Made a Good Story)

Short version: A second-tier Vatican official got interviewed by L'Osservatore Romano, a Vatican newspaper. He talked about "new forms of social sin" in our era. A few hours later, traditional news media was spreading the word that the Vatican had a list of "new sins."

You gotta admit, "Vatican Declares New Sins!" or "Seven Deadly Sins Replaced!" make good, attention-grabbing headlines.

I'm not as hard on the news media's cluelessness as some are. Many reporters trying to cover religious news, particularly Catholic news, seem to be as ill-suited to the task as art critics would be at the Super Bowl. Brilliant people, but with little-to-no knowledge of what they're reporting on.¹

You've probably seen something like this:

• "Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?" Times Online (UK) (March 10, 2008)
  "Drug pushers, the obscenely rich, environmental polluters and “manipulative” genetic scientists beware – you may be in danger of losing your mortal soul unless you repent.
  "After 1,500 years the Vatican has brought the seven deadly sins up to date by adding seven new ones for the age of globalisation. The list, published yesterday in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, came as the Pope deplored the 'decreasing sense of sin' in today's 'securalised world' and the falling numbers of Roman Catholics going to confession."
• " Vatican official: New sins on horizon" CNN (March 14, 2008)
  "Fifteen hundred years after the Roman Catholic Church introduced the original list of seven deadly sins, a Vatican official last week suggested an updated roster for a new age.
  "Although it doesn't reflect a change in official doctrine, the expansion of sins brought on by technology and science aligns with Pope Benedict XVI's emphasis on communal rather than individual piety, observers say."

But, odds are that you haven't seen this:

• "Media muddle over new seven deadly sins" CathNews (March 14 2008)
  "The Episcopal Conference of England and Wales has dismissed reports that a new list of seven deadly sins has been approved by the Vatican.
  "Zenit reports the conference released a statement clarifying an interview published by L'Osservatore Romano with Bishop Gianfranco Girotti ... - regent of the tribunal of the Apostolic Penitentiary - saying it was misinterpreted in the media as an official Vatican update to the seven deadly sins.
  " 'The Vatican has not published a new list of seven deadly sins, this is not a new Vatican edict,' the statement said."
• "The Forum: Not 'new sins' but an old media blind spot" Catholic World News (CWN) (March 11, 2008 )
  "When he finished his interview with L'Osservatore Romano, Archishop Gianfranco Girotti probably thought that his main message had been an appeal to Catholics to use the sacrament of Confession. Little did he know that the English-language news media would play the interview as a newly revised list of sins.
  "Archbishop Girotti, the regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, spoke to the Vatican newspaper about 'new forms of social sin' in our era. He mentioned such transgressions as destructive research on human embryos, degradation of the environment, and drug trafficking. Within hours, dozens of media sources were suggesting that the Vatican had radically revised the Ten Commandments, issuing a list of 'new sins.' "

Actually, the CNN report did pretty well, pointing out that "it doesn't reflect a change in official doctrine...."

For starters, the Church's focus has been and is on practicing the seven holy virtues: the healthy state, not the dysfunctional sinful state. This table may help a little.

The traditional seven deadly sins	The seven holy virtues
Lust	Chastity
Gluttony	Abstinence
Avarice	Temperance
Sloth	Diligence
Anger	Patience
Envy	Kindness
Pride	Humility

What the lower-level Vatican officials had actually been talking about was how new technology and socio-political conditions make it possible for people to foul up on a larger scale. And, they were focusing on wrong behavior involving groups, as well as individuals.

Finally, here's a list of those new "seven deadly sins"
(remember, these aren't official):

Genetic modification
Carrying out experiments on humans
Polluting the environment
Causing social injustice
Causing poverty
Becoming obscenely wealthy
Taking drugs

---

¹ The biggest problem that most reporters have, writing stories like this, may be the currently-fashionable notion that "sins" are a set of rules, determined arbitrarily, which can be changed at any time. The Catholic Church's idea, that "sins" and "virtues" are objective realities, is something that they may never have encountered.

Bread Kills! Who Knew?

"Bread Kills!"

Funny!

From
"More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users."
and
"Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests."
to
"Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute."
and
"Most bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling."

- although I think the last one may be debatable.

Good for a laugh. And, might be a good anodyne for the next scare story you hear on the news. You know, the sort of thing where we're warned that nylon socks cause memory loss, or dental floss is a decapitation hazard.

Excuses, Excuses: Really Stupid Excuses

worst_excuses_edit.jpg

Excuses so bad, they're funny. That's one big graphic, 750 pixels wide by 1860 high.

Some of my favorites:

• "Vanishing Twin." (Tyler Hamilton)
• "I was told that I should shoplift. My director said I should try it out." (Winona Ryder)
• "Nude Massage." (Chuck Robb)

Wikipedia Neutrality Challenged: Another Wiki Reality Check?

"Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe'" "The Register" (February 6, 2008)

Wikipedia's "Conflict of Interest Noticeboard" is supposed to deal with one-sided or biased articles.

There's just one catch.

The creator and administrator of the "Conflict of Interest Noticeboard," Jossi Fresco, is a disciple of Prem Rawat (previously known as Guru Maharaj Ji). You may have heard of Prem Rawat under his preferred title: "Lord of the Universe."

According to "The Register" article, Wikipedia may have a "neutral point of view," but seems to treat some articles more neutrally than others.

Sugarless Gum Gives You the Runs* Sorbitol is a Health Risk, Sort of

"Severe weight loss caused by chewing gum"
British Medical Association journal, "BMJ" (January 12, 2008)

This could start another health scare.

The first 150 words of the article are ominous, and free. You have to pay to read the rest. That teaser links sorbitol, a sweetener in sugarless gum, candy, and drinks, to some really disgusting - and unhealthy - symptoms.

I remember when cyclamates were banned. It was the sixties, when everything caused cancer. That time, the ban was based on bogus research involving massive overdoses. As (Buddy Hackett, I believe) said on the Tonight Show, 'only two mice died: one exploded, his butt blew off and killed the mouse behind him.'

The cyclamate FDA ban was a boon for the saccharine industry: at that time, consumers looking for non-sugar sweeteners were pretty much forced to buy saccharine, and put up with that miserable after-taste. That's non-trivial, for diabetics who have a hard time adjusting to a sweet-free diet.

---

*You probably don't have to stop chewing sugarless gum and eating sugar-free sweets: Just get a grip on how much you scarf down.

A news article about the British sorbitol study, "Study: Excessive Sugarless Gum Chewing Linked to Severe Weight Loss, Diarrhea," passes on a few facts that put the threat in perspective, once you do some basic math:

• The young woman in the study went through over 14 sticks of sugarless gum a day
• The middle-aged man chewed 20 sticks of sugar-free gum each day, and topped it off with 200 grams of sweets

(200 grams is just over 7 ounces - American candy bars run about 1.5 ounces to 3- or 4-ounce "king size" bars)

That British study is important for doctors, but shouldn't affect too many people's behavior. I hope. The young woman was starting a new stick of gum each hour, assuming she sleeps eight hours a day. The man was dropping the equivalent of 2 king-size gut bombs into his system daily. Even without sorbitol, I'd expect problems.

How to Read the News: Or, Missouri Teen Suicide, Lori Drew, and Victims

"Neighbors shun Missouri family over Internet hoax and suicide; police step up patrols"
Minneapolis Star Tribune (December 6, 2007)

The Star Tribune of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, offers another view of Megan Meier's suicide last year: and some information that hasn't been widely published before.

The article also serves as an example of why it's a good idea to read the news carefully. It also, in my opinion, shows how a community can protect itself, when a finely-tuned and sensitive legal system doesn't.

The article's main story line gets sketched out in this series of selected quotes:

"Almost Tribal?"

" ... But the suicide of a teenage girl _ and allegations she had been tormented by a neighbor over the Internet _ have brought a reaction that is old, almost tribal, in its nature."

" 'It's like they used to do in the 1700s and 1800s. If you wronged a community, you were basically shunned. That's basically what happened to her,' said Trever Buckles, a 40-year-old who lives next door to the Drews."

"Drew became an outcast after she participated in a hoax in which a fictional teenager by the name of 'Josh Evans' exchanged online messages with 13-year-old Megan Meier. Megan received cruel messages from Josh that apparently drove her to hang herself in her closet in 2006.

"Through her lawyer, Drew, a mother of two in her 40s, has denied saying hurtful things to the girl over the Internet, and prosecutors have said they found no grounds for charges against the woman. Nevertheless, the community reaction has been vengeful and the pressure on the Drews intense."

"Clients have fled from Drew's home-based advertising business, so she had to close it. Neighbors have not seen Drew outside her home in weeks...."
(Star Tribune)

But isn't Lori Drew the woman who drove a fragile teenage girl to suicide? The "Star Tribune" has, or implies, an answer:

"Only ... Polite Messages"

"A teenage employee of Drew's named [name withheld by this blogger] said she created the 'Josh' account on MySpace after a brainstorming session with Drew and her daughter, according to a prosecutor's report. Drew said the girls approached her with the idea, and she told them only to send polite messages to Megan.

"[name withheld] sent Megan many of the messages from 'Josh,' and Lori Drew was aware of them, prosecutors said.

"On Oct. 16, 2006, there was a heated online exchange between Megan and [name withheld], who was posing as Josh. A few other MySpace users joined in, calling Megan names. It ended when 'Josh' said the world would be better off without Megan...."
(Star Tribune)

Shocking! A modern community shunning a woman and her family, and for practically no reason at all. Lori Drew, it seems to me, is being painted as a victim of circumstance. The implication is that Ms. Drew's employee is the guilty party, and implicated Ms. Drew.

What's Written: And What's Not Written

My favorite line in the article is "prosecutors have said they found no grounds for charges against the woman." As a writer, I admire how the Star Tribune, by omitting a detail, imply that there is no evidence that Ms. Drew is the leader of the "Josh" project.

Other articles discussed motive, means, and opportunity for Ms. Drew's involvement: and that no charges were filed because the harassment of Megan Meier was done over the Internet - a realm that the American judicial system is only beginning to deal with.

Facts, Possibilities, and Self-Defense

Two final thoughts:

1. I think it's remotely possible that Lori Drew is not guilty of hounding Megan Meier until the teenager hung herself in her closet. However, I also think that, based on publicly available information, it is very unlikely that Ms. Drew is not responsible for the deliberate online deception of Megan, which led to her taking her life.
2. I believe that, in general, the people who share a town with Lori Drew are acting reasonably. By cutting their ties with Ms. Drew, they are minimizing the chances that Ms. Drew will decide to attack members of their own families. This assumes that Ms. Drew is motivated by the occasional discomfort that comes with her current status.

It is a near-certainty that Lori Drew decided to deceive Megan Meyer by inventing a fictional boyfriend, and then decided to torment the vulnerable teen by having the "boyfriend" dump her in a very cruel way.

I acknowledge that Megan Meier decided to hang herself with a belt in her closet. However, I think that there is very little doubt that Lori Drew is responsible for strongly encouraging Megan to do so. And, I think that it is not safe to treat someone with an ethical system similar to Lucretia Borgia's as if she's a typical member of the community.

Other posts about the online predation of Megan Meier:
"Megan Meier's Tormentor: Knowledge is Power"
(December 6, 2007)
"Megan Meier's Online Predator Has New Problems"
(December 6, 2007)
" 'Murder?' Not Legally, but Megan's Still Dead"
(December 4, 2007)
"Ersatz Boyfriend Kills With MySpace"
(November 13, 2007)

This Has Detailed Statistics: It Must be True

Or not.

You may have encountered something like this, in a blog or elsewhere: "If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look something like the following."

What follows is a list of statistics which, at a quick read, seem plausible.

Snopes.com, in "Aisle of Man"(1), compares the statistics in this sample, collected in 2001, and compares them to the real world.

Granted, things have changed in the last six years: but not that much.

And the moral of this is: Check your facts before posting.

(1) Yes, that's the spelling - if it's within quotes and misspelled here at Apathetic Lemming of the North, the odds are very good that the original source used the alternatively-correct spelling.

Blogs, Facts, and "I Saw an Article"

The U.S. Navy carrier Lincoln almost ATTACKED a Newfoundland Lighthouse in 1995!!

And I HAVE PROOF!!!

"Divert your course," a Washington blog post, dated August 1, 2005, reveals the ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT, released by CANADIAN AUTHORITIES!

If you don't believe it, a photocopy of an ACTUAL NEWS STORY is posted HERE!!!

This is how it ends:

"AMERICANS: This is the Aircraft CARRIER US LINCOLN, the second largest ship in the United States Atlantic Fleet. We are accompanied with three Destroyers, three Cruisers and numerous support vessels. I DEMAND that you change your course 15 degrees north. I say again, that's one-five degrees north, or counter-measures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of his ship.

"CANADIANS: This is a lighthouse. Your call."

THE PRIDE! THE ARROGANCE! WHAT KIND OF BULLYING FOOLS DO WE HAVE IN THE MILITARY?!!!

---

Now, take a deep breath, count to ten, and think happy thoughts.

This post, up to the short gray line, is bogus. Only the links are real.

The "Divert your course" link is to a Washing student's blog. State or D.C., he doesn't say. The student may not believe the story: "Divert your course" is in a "jokes" directory.

The graphic may be a joke, too. I'll let you decide, if you're interested. I'm about as certain that it's a fake as I can be about anything. I know that I could put together a "news story" like that, complete with cut-marks and blurry type. It's still a pretty good fake, though.

Snopes discusses this hoax, at "The Obstinate Lighthouse," and the U.S. Navy, "'The Lighthouse Joke'."

Apparently, the USS Coral Sea, USS Missouri (decommissioned on 31 March 1992), and USS Nimitz have been buzzing that lighthouse, too.

With all that traffic, no wonder they need a lighthouse!

I've run into the bogus news article rather frequently when bumping through StumpbleUpon. And I found it on a page on Digg where it appeared in the comments. To be fair, one of the responses to the comment read, "Stop digging this up you idiots...".

Seriously, this is a good example of why bloggers, or anyone else on the Internet, should think a little before believing what they see.

"Trust, but verify" might be a good principle to apply here. The Internet is a gold mine of information, but there's a lot of iron pyrite lying around, too.

I'd say that it's particularly important to verify information when it perfectly backs up your beliefs and is from a source you don't know, or when the story is too good to be true. It probably is.

I enjoy this story, and think that it's a good fable for illustrating hubris.

I may even re-tell it, someday.

But, when I do, I'll be sure to identify it as fiction.

---

Feelings, Blogs, and Making Sense

I'm no stranger to strong emotions. Just ask my wife.

However, I've learned to stop and think before writing something down.

It looks like someone didn't do that on an online community today.

In a discussion headed "Huge Content Theft," a blogger stated that a large number of posts from her blog had been copied (with attribution) and placed on their site.

The only URL in the victim's original post was preceded by the words,
"I'm guessing
they probably WON'T post my last
post, about THEM, on their site:"
[URL]

With those line breaks.

Reading that quickly, it's easy (for me, at least) to perceive it as meaning, "about THEM, on their site:" [URL]

I checked the only URL given in the post: it was the victim's.

I checked the URL associated with the victim's blog: it redirected to the URL given in the post.

I checked the post again. The offending party was not identified, except as "THEM" and "They"

The offending site wasn't named until quite a bit later, when I detailed what I'd found, and asked for clarification.

By then the presumably-offending party had apparently taken down all 30+ offending posts.

Oddly, the presumably-offending party was the exact same one that had been discussed on that community earlier today. Or perhaps not so oddly. The victim's blog involves a common household pet, and the presumably-offending party maintains a pirate blog of pet-related posts.

At this point, I'm taking the claim of stolen posts with a grain of salt, because:

• No offender was named until very late in the discussion
• The offender has not, in the past, taken down posts which were identified as stolen, but tacked attributions on them
• It would have been pretty quick work to notice the online claim of theft, and remove all the posts, in less than a half hour.

Stolen posts? Possible, but unlikely.

Meanwhile, people on the online community are, for the most part, reacting with passionate disgust toward the presumed offender, and great sympathy toward the member who started the discussion. Commendable, in its own way.

Dead White Males Speak

While following links in an online community, I found 11th Carnival of Principled Government: Things our (Founding) Fathers told us, part of the Question the Culture blog. The blog's subtitle is, "Who said it? What makes you think so? Why do we do what we do? When did truth become optional? Where do we go from here? How do you know it's true?"

This post is mostly a set of quotations by the likes of Samuel Adams, Joseph Story, and James Wilson: "dead white males," a phrase that seems to be all the rage in academia (I got 574 hits with it on Google Scholar). I'll get back to DWM later.

"11th Carnival of Principled Government: Things our (Founding) Fathers told us" was a fun read for me, since I still think that the remarkable collection of people two and a half centuries back, on the east coast of North America, had some very good ideas.

Also, I like to be reminded now and again that "principled government" isn't an oxymoron, like "cold fire" or "honest politician." Oops there I go again.

I took one of my favorite quotes from the page, pulled it apart to give it a style that's easier to read on the Web, and put in in this post. I think the reason I like this particular quote is that it shows the thoughts of someone who was willing to

• Establish long-range goals, and
• Struggle for something that his grandchildren, perhaps, might see fulfilled

It's something that I have seen very little of in my life. Perhaps being having a 'long view' of things is a gift reserved for a few, or perhaps we are not encouraged to see existence that way.

At any rate, here's the (mildly paraphrased) quote:

• I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy
• My sons ought to study
  • mathematics
  • philosophy
  • geography
  • natural history
  • naval architecture
  • navigation
  • commerce
  • agriculture
• in order to give their children a right to study
  • painting
  • poetry
  • music
  • architecture
  • statuary
  • tapestry
  • porcelain

John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, 1780.

Back to Dead White Males: Despite its being a common, even popular, phrase among academicians, the source of "dead white males" seems to be obscure. Bartleby.com doesn't seem to know who coined the phrase, and neither does QuotationsPage.com. Wikipedia seems silent on the subject - in fact, the latter site heads their page dealing with the phrase with the warning, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." That's understandable: there was even a link to a page on political correctness. About the anonymous origin: I suppose that the phrase could have popped up without anyone noticing.

First ISS Sabatoge, Now Drunk Astronauts?

Maybe, maybe not: but that's not necessarily what you'll hear on the news.

"Soyuz, Shuttle Cited in Drinking Reports" is an attention-getting headline in the UK newspaper, The Guardian.

The article, from the Associated Press, appears in other news sources online, and seems to be taken seriously. In fact, I've run into television news spots that treat the "allegations" of sabotage and report of drunken astronauts by an "independent panel of outside experts" as carrying equal weight.

The difference is that the allegedly sabotaged computer component really has cut wires inside, and the experts are passing on "unverified interviews."

I'll give the AP and the Guardian credit: "unverified interviews" is a quote from the article. And, in an impressive show of openness, the online AP article gives the name and rank of the panel of experts' head.

That puts this well above the anonymous "experts say" sort of report. Someone whose name is attached to a statement is, in my opinion, more likely to be careful about accuracy, than someone who remains a safely-anonymous "expert."

I don't have trouble with the report, as understood by someone who reads to the end of the article. "While the report was vague and gave no names, panel chairman Col. Richard Bachmann Jr., provided a few details. He said the panel was told about multiple instances involving alcohol, but the most detailed involved two astronauts." puts the allegation of inebriated astronauts in perspective.

So far, it's at the 'that guy told me' level of reliability.

Colonel Bachmann was also quoted as saying "There's certainly no intent to impugn the entire astronaut corps, ... "We don't have enough data to call it alcohol abuse. We have no way of knowing if these are the only two incidents that have ever occurred in the history of the astronaut corps or if they're the tip of a very large iceberg."

The AP article gives a reason why the allegations were unverified: "Bachmann said it was not the panel's mission to investigate allegations or verify them and that NASA would have to ferret out details."

We even learn that the panel of experts interviewed people directly involved with the U.S. space program: "Fourteen astronauts, all but one with spaceflight experience, were interviewed by the panel, as well as five family members. In addition, eight flight surgeons were interviewed."

What I see as a potential problem is the alleged habit of NASA brass had a habit of disregarding what flight surgeons said, unless it was good news. If true, that's stupid and dangerous.

If true.

I suppose I should be used to this sort of thing by now, but I'm still bothered by the apparently inability of journalists to

1. See that there is a difference between allegations that have "that guy told me" as evidence and those that have physical evidence - cut wires, in this case
2. Let the masses in on that not-so-minor distinction

Oh, well, at least that sort of sloppy reporting keeps guys like me busy.

NASA's public statement is "Findings of Astronaut Health Reviews," in the NASA website's "For Media & Press section."