30 March 2006 @ 12:26AM >> An evangelical Christian group is welcomed to San Francisco by the city’s noble statesmen:

Assemblyman Mark Leno [...] told counterprotesters at City Hall on Friday that while such fundamentalists may be small in number, “they’re loud, they’re obnoxious, they’re disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco.”

[...]

Earlier this week, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning the “act of provocation” by what it termed an “anti-gay,” “anti-choice” organization that aimed to “negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city.”

So, because the group might not agree with the politics of the people who run America’s most tolerant city, they should just get the hell out. (I’d hate to think of the reception they’d get if San Francisco weren’t so tolerant.)

Christian Gallion, a 15-year-old in town with his Assembly of God youth group from Humboldt County, shrugged off being called “fascists” by counterdemonstrators.

“It doesn’t bother me,” Gallion said. “It’s a beautiful city, and we don’t have anything against the protesters.”

The adults who run San Francisco could probably learn a little something about tolerance from this 15-year-old boy.

29 March 2006 @ 1:42PM >> Saying the paper published a “fatally flawed” story on Abu Ghraib, New York Times public editor Byron Calame explains the problem:

The March 11 article profiled a man who said he was the hooded Abu Ghraib prisoner famously photographed about two years ago, standing on a box with wires attached to his extended hands. The article included an interview with the man, Ali Shalal Qaissi, a one-time neighborhood mayor under the government of Saddam Hussein and now a self-styled activist for prisoners’ rights in Iraq. He had been invoking that symbol of the torture at Abu Ghraib in helping to push lawsuits on behalf of the prisoners.

...so naturally, the Times bought his story.

It turned out that The Times had the wrong man. And clear evidence of the error had existed in an unnoticed 2004 Times story.

To the credit of The Times — and to the benefit of readers — editors did not allow the embarrassment to impede a timely and very open exploration of the mistake. When the online magazine Salon quickly disputed Mr. Qaissi’s story after the article ran in The Times, the paper immediately reported on the challenge on March 14 and promised its own investigation. In a front-page story published a week after the original article, The Times reviewed the mistaken identity and Mr. Qaissi’s life in recent years. And an extensive Editors’ Note the same day acknowledged the original article’s shortcomings.

This openness, however, didn’t involve fully exploring some journalistic practices that raised questions in my mind about the handling of the story.

Searching out what has already been published about a subject — “checking the clips” in newsroom parlance — is part of the blocking and tackling of journalism. When someone claiming to be the person behind such a powerful symbol is going to be displayed on Page 1 of The Times, extraordinary care is necessary. And the absence of any intense competitive or deadline pressure left time for extra care.

Is it possible that the story was “too good” to be fact-checked?

Although the initial reporting was sloppy, as Calame points out, the way the Times handled the scandal beyond that is commendable. Calame comes off as a straight-shooter, too. Hopefully his quality-control suggestions will be adopted. But without a competition of ideas and viewpoints inside the newsroom, these sorts of errors in reporting will continue. People tend to ignore the mistakes that further their own arguments, so if the newsroom is ideologically monolithic, the mistakes that favor the dominant ideology will likely continue.

Intellectual diversity can bring about a balance that helps keep everyone honest. If the Times really wants to improve its reporting, it doesn’t just need to perform more rigorous fact-checking, it needs to create a newsroom environment in which new perspectives challenge the most closely-held assumptions of the current employees.

28 March 2006 @ 3:16AM >> My very first post to Brain Terminal, on August 22nd, 2001, covered Microsoft and its effects on the software industry. As a software developer who witnessed the rise of Microsoft from within the industry, I saw how the company’s dominance stifled innovation in virtually every market the company touched. Microsoft could simply announce a product—even if the company never actually intended to ship that product—and “freeze” the market as risk-averse technology purchasers held off on buying existing third-party products while waiting for Microsoft’s vaporware.

Now it appears that Microsoft’s size is stifling innovation within the company itself. And that is prompting some employees to start calling publicly (but anonymously) for the firing of Microsoft’s top management.

Beyond a certain size, it seems that all institutions become increasingly inefficient. Businesses at least face an incentive to be efficient: if they’re not, they risk diminished market status, the wrath of shareholders, and possibly even extinction. Perhaps these incentives will save Microsoft from its downward slide. Too bad no such incentives exist for government institutions, where inefficiency can always be papered over by handing taxpayers a bigger bill.

27 March 2006 @ 8:23PM >> Wired News reports that the Federal Election Commission has decided to treat online journalists no differently from those in print or broadcast media:

The decision means that bloggers and online publications will not be covered by provisions of the new election law. Internet bloggers and individuals will therefore be able to use the internet to attack or support federal candidates without running afoul of campaign spending and contribution limits.

“It’s a win, win, win,” Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub said, adding that the rule would satisfy concerns of campaigns, individuals and the internet community about whether the campaign finance law applies to online political activity.

[...]

FEC Chairman Michael E. Toner said the new rules give a “categorical and unqualified” exemption for all individual and group political activity on the internet, except for paid advertising.”

[...]

Bloggers would be entitled to the same exemption from the campaign finance law that newspapers and other traditional forms of media receive.

“There will be no second class citizens among members of the media,” Toner said.

27 March 2006 @ 7:50PM >> Sean Penn has an Ann Coulter doll that he uses for performing ritual mutilation:

In an interview with The New Yorker magazine, Penn reveals, “We violate her. There are cigarette burns in some funny places. She’s a pure snake-oil salesman. She doesn’t believe a word she says.”

26 March 2006 @ 1:35PM >> Step 1: Have a few drinks. Step 2: Enter subway tracks and attempt to outrun oncoming train. Step 3: Get hit by train, sue, collect money.

The New York Daily News reports:

The state’s highest court has decided the Transit Authority should be held liable for a train hitting a Queens man - even though the man was illegally trespassing on the subway tracks after a night of drinking.

The ruling by the state Court of Appeals Thursday makes Juan Soto a millionaire with $400,000 to spare.

By a 4-to-3 vote, the judges concluded that Sojo, who was 18 at the time of the 1997 incident, was “undeniably reckless” for walking near the electrified rails in Queens along the No. 7 line.

[...]

The TA had claimed that Soto had gone to a Manhattan bar with three pals, consuming six beers and a shot of whisky.

Soto’s lawyer, Brian Isaac, insisted there was no proof that Soto was drunk. Isaac conceded yesterday that his client may have had as many as seven drinks, but they were spread over at least seven hours.

[...]

A jury initially awarded Soto $1.4 million, finding the TA 75% at fault. An appellate court affirmed the decision by a 3-to-2 vote.

24 March 2006 @ 4:55PM >> The Quote of the Day, courtesy of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

If you believe everything you read in Maureen Dowd, you better get a life.

24 March 2006 @ 12:01PM >> At the same time that Yale was petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the school to continue its ban on military recruiters visiting campus, the university was also educating the unrepentant former spokesman for the Taliban at a 40% discount.

Yale’s argument against the recruiters was that, because of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy towards gays, the military is a discriminatory institution that violates the school’s non-discrimination policy and therefore can’t be allowed on campus.

It would be a lot easier to believe Yale was standing on principle if the school wasn’t simultaneously hosting an official of the Taliban, a regime that executed people for being gay and cut off the fingers of women who wore nail polish.

I guess we now know: if given the choice between supporting gay rights or supporting America’s enemies, Yale will choose the latter.

Of course, it would be nice to get the school’s perspective on this, but beyond a brief non-statement, the Yale administration isn’t talking.

So yesterday, I went to Yale to see if I could entice any university officials to speak on camera. Not surprisingly, I was met with silence, a door slammed in my face, and eventually, the police.

The video will be released in the upcoming film Indoctrinate U. In the meantime, we’ve posted a write-up and some pictures at the On The Fence Films website.

23 March 2006 @ 12:39AM >> Political correctness, British-style:

Teachers at nursery schools in Oxfordshire, England, have asked children to change the words of “Baa, Baa, Black Sheep” to “Baa, Baa, Rainbow Sheep” to avoid the possibility of offending anyone.

Wait a minute, if using the word “black” to describe sheep in this children’s song is supposedly offensive to black humans, then wouldn’t changing it to “rainbow” just end up offending everybody?

This isn’t the first time nursery rhymes have fallen victim to the British PC campaign. In 2003, the Mothercare store chain in England began selling cassette tapes and CDs featuring a new version of Humpty Dumpty in which there was a happy ending. The new version said that “Humpty Dumpty opened his eyes, falling down was such a surprise, Humpty Dumpty counted to 10, then Humpty Dumpty got up again.”

[...]

Most have argued that “Baa, Baa, Black Sheep” has nothing to do with race. The nursery rhyme dates back to the mid-1700s and is related to a tax imposed on wool by the king [...]. Black wool was apparently taxed at a lower rate than white wool.

Sounds like the white sheep should find a lawyer. They’ve got a discrimination case on their hands.

Stuart Chamberlain, manager of the Family Center in Abingdon, England, and the nearby Sure Start Center in Sutton Courtenay, told the Oxford Star weekly newspaper that the nursery schools had changed the words of “Baa, Baa, Black Sheep” to follow stringent equal-opportunity rules.

“No one should feel pointed out because of their race, their gender, or anything else,” he said.

Not even sheep.

---

Update: The veracity of this story is being disputed by Parents and Children Together, a charity that runs some of the nurseries cited in the article linked above. However, it appears that no such denials have been issued by the Family Center or the Sure Start Center.

22 March 2006 @ 2:16AM >> TV Newser reports that the publishers of the Gallup poll have dropped CNN as a partner. The reason, as stated in a memo by the CEO of The Gallup Organization:

CNN has far fewer viewers than it did in the past, and we feel that our brand was getting lost and diluted combined with the CNN brand.

Ouch.

Not willing to take such a humiliating public dumping without spitting back, CNN responded:

[Gallup CEO] Jim Clifton’s statements are not only unprofessional but in every respect untrue.

Breakups can be rough. Let’s hope the boiled rabbits are kept to a minimum.

And now, for the conspiratorially-minded:

A small fire broke out in the Atlanta studio of CNN Headline News this afternoon.

Nobody f*cks with Gallup.

20 March 2006 @ 10:25AM >> In the three years since the Iraq war started, 2,317 American military personnel have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. In a war that’s constantly compared to Vietnam, it is quite illuminating to note that in a single month of fighting during the Vietnam war—May 1968—2,316 Americans lost their lives. Every soldier’s life is precious, and I generally recoil at treating people’s lives as mere statistics. But, since our media tries relentlessly to portray the Iraq war as today’s Vietnam, it is left to folks like me to provide the context that the establishment media leaves out.

Speaking of context, here’s a little more.

17 March 2006 @ 11:40AM >> One of the reasons the nation is so divided politically is that we can’t even agree on the exact nature of the War on Terror. Some people recognize it as a war, others see it as a law enforcement matter, and some believe the whole thing is a sham. More >>

16 March 2006 @ 11:50PM >> In an e-mail:

Two boys in Boston were throwing a baseball around when one was attacked by a rabid Rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy picked up a large stick, wedged it into the dog’s collar and twisted it, snapping the dog’s neck.

A reporter from the Boston Globe who witnessed the whole incident rushes over to interview the brave boy.

The reporter pulls out his laptop and starts typing. The headline reads: “Brave Young Red Sox Fan Saves Friend From Vicious Animal.”

“But,” the boy interjects, “I’m not a Red Sox fan.”

Tapping the delete key, the reporter replies, “Sorry, but I saw you playing baseball, and since we’re here in Boston, I just figured you had to be.”

The reporter’s fingers start flying around the keyboard again. The new headline: “John Kerry Fan Rescues Friend from Horrific Dog Attack.”

“But I’m not a Kerry fan, either,” the boy responds.

The reporter, looking dejected, says, “Sorry young tyke. Since you’re not a Red Sox fan, I figured you were at least for Kerry.”

“Well, I’m sorry to say that’s not correct,” the boy replies. “I’m a Texas Rangers fan and I really like President Bush.”

Relieved, the reporter finally has his angle for the story: “Arrogant Little Conservative Bastard Kills Beloved Family Pet.”

14 March 2006 @ 10:29AM >> The Washington Times reports that Saddam Hussein sure talked a lot about a weapons program he supposedly didn’t have:

Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration’s argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone.

In addition to the captured tapes, U.S. officials are analyzing thousands of pages of newly translated Iraqi documents that tell of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa in the mid-1990s.

The documents also speak of burying prohibited missiles, according to a government official familiar with the declassification process.

[...]

“The tapes show that Saddam rebuilt his program and successfully prevented the U.N. from finding out about it,” he said.

There also exists a quote from the dictator himself, who ordered the tapings to keep a record of his inner-sanctum discussions, that Mr. Tierney thinks shows Saddam planned to use a proxy to attack the United States.

“Terrorism is coming ... with the Americans,” Saddam said. “With the Americans, two years ago, not a long while ago, with the English I believe, there was a campaign ... with one of them, that in the future there would be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction.”

[...]

So far, the tapes do not shed light on what ultimately happened to Saddam’s large stocks of weapons of mass destruction. None were found by the ISG, whose director, Charles Duelfer, filed a final report in 2004.

Some pundits and recently retired military officers are convinced that Saddam moved his remaining weapons to Syria. They cite satellite photos of lines of trucks heading into the neighboring country before the invasion and the fact Saddam positioned his trusted Iraqi Intelligence Service agents at border crossings.

This news reminds me of a little-noticed Chicago Tribune analysis released at the end of last year:

After reassessing the administration’s nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege. Example: The accusation that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs overlooks years of global intelligence warnings that, by February 2003, had convinced even French President Jacques Chirac of “the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq.” We also know that, as early as 1997, U.S. intel agencies began repeatedly warning the Clinton White House that Iraq, with fissile material from a foreign source, could have a crude nuclear bomb within a year.

14 March 2006 @ 9:33AM >> The Washington Post profiles David Gregory, NBC’s White House correspondent:

After six years on the beat, Gregory is emerging as the Sam Donaldson of the Bush years, the outspoken, aggressive, smart-aleck correspondent serving as a symbol for conservatives who detest the press and liberals who want reporters to crusade against the White House.

It is true that Gregory has been aggressive—perhaps overly so and maybe even rude—but comparing him to Sam Donaldson? That’s just mean!

13 March 2006 @ 2:02AM >> Dr. Wafa Sultan has tremendous courage. And she’ll probably be killed for it.

The New York Times reports that a fatwa has been issued against this psychiatrist from southern California for “blaspheming Islam.” And now, her answering machine is filling up:

One message said: “Oh, you are still alive? Wait and see.” She received an e-mail message the other day, in Arabic, that said, “If someone were to kill you, it would be me.”

Her crime? Criticizing radical Islam.

She knows to take these threats seriously.

Dr. Sultan grew up in a large traditional Muslim family in Banias, Syria, a small city on the Mediterranean about a two-hour drive north of Beirut. Her father was a grain trader and a devout Muslim, and she followed the faith’s strictures into adulthood.

But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.

“They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, ‘God is great!’ ” she said. “At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god.”

She recently found the spotlight on herself for speaking out against terrorism:

An angry essay [on an Islamic reform web site] by Dr. Sultan about the Muslim Brotherhood caught the attention of Al Jazeera, which invited her to debate an Algerian cleric on the air last July.

In the debate, she questioned the religious teachings that prompt young people to commit suicide in the name of God. “Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?” she asked. “In our countries, religion is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched.”

But it was a February appearance on Al Jazeera that led to her present danger:

Speaking of the Holocaust, she said, “The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling.”

She went on, “We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.”

She concluded, “Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.”

This is not the sort of criticism that certain people take lightly. And with modern communications carrying Dr. Sultan’s words around the globe, we see that Sharia law is in effect even against this woman in southern California. It doesn’t matter whether the aggrieved are in Egypt, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. To them, Sharia law applies anywhere. That’s the lesson of the cartoons.

Whether we’d like to admit it or not, we are currently in the middle of a war that could last 50 or 100 years. Or much less, depending on who gets their hands on nukes. That’s the chilling future Western civilization faces. Unless, of course, there are more brave people like Dr. Sultan who are willing to stand up, be heard, and—most likely, unfortunately—sacrifice themselves for a more hopeful future, one in which the power center of Islam is driven by people of peace.

Maybe there are a billion Muslims who want to peacefully coexist with the rest of the world, but a billion pacifists can’t defeat a million fanatics if the peace-loving among them won’t stand up for what they believe is right. True pacifism means sacrificing yourself for peace, not keeping your mouth shut and hoping the fanatics magically disappear. Pacifism is laying down your life to increase the chances of peace for those who remain. Outside the facile pacifism of the flabby West, the way of the true pacifist is no easier than the way of the warrior.

Dr. Sultan is a warrior for peace. She understands that her words may have committed her to death. Yet she spoke, because she knew it was right, and she hoped that it would encourage others to stand up and do the same. We’ve seen a shocking number of Muslims sacrifice themselves by blowing themselves up or flying themselves into buildings. Let’s hope there are more Dr. Sultans in the Muslim world than Mohammad Attas. Only Muslims can reform Islam. And only Islamic reform or Western submission will end this war. What’ll it be?

11 March 2006 @ 6:17PM >> Apparently, George Clooney doesn’t think enough issue-oriented films are being made. So, he’s promoting a competition called “Film Your Issue” for budding filmmakers aged 18-26.

If the “VIP judges” of this competition are any indication—they include outspoken liberal Clooney himself, a Democratic senator, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, a relic newsman who finally admitted his own liberal bias years after retiring, two current TV newsreaders, and a handful of other journalists and “social activists”—one can assume that the Film Your Issue competition is looking for issue-oriented films from a certain perspective. No surprise there.

But it might be kind of fun if the judges themselves were surprised by receiving films that did something other than reinforce their pre-existing worldviews. So, while I am too over-the-hill to submit any of my own work, I’m hoping there are some aspiring young filmmakers who might be inspired to enter.

Prove that leftists aren’t the only ones who can master the medium!

10 March 2006 @ 1:02PM >> Yesterday in Los Angeles, Indoctrinate U reached a major milestone. (For those of you new to this site, Indoctrinate U is a feature-length documentary project analyzing political correctness and attempts to enforce uniformity of thought on college campuses.)

On The Fence Films executive producers Stuart Browning, Blaine Greenberg and I watched the very first end-to-end assembly of the footage that will eventually comprise the film.

Although there are a few bits missing, and a few others that need to be tightened up a bit, it was quite exciting to finally see something that’s beginning to resemble a finished product after 2+ years of work.

We’ve got a few more months to go before the film is polished enough to be ready for release. We are also likely to hold the film until the school year starts again in the fall. And, of course, the amount of time it takes to hammer out a distribution deal may affect all of this.

Still, it is good to finally see something that’s beginning to resemble a finished product after all this work.

10 March 2006 @ 1:32AM >> Peggy Noonan attempts to diagnose the problems with Hollywood:

What happened to the Oscars is what happened to the Olympics. They became common. They made themselves common. When the Olympics were held every four years, they were a real event. It was something to look forward to and be surprised by: The Olympics are on this year. Four years was enough time for a whole new cast of athletes, what felt like a whole new generation, to come up. Enough time for history to have passed, to have yielded up new geopolitical realities, new reasons to applaud and hope for this nation or that one.

Everyone watched. It was a success. So they decided to get even more success by making the Olympics every two years. It’s not an event now, it’s an expected thing, part of the usual tapestry. It’s more common, less special. Viewership is down.

In the same way, the Oscars used to be the big awards show. Then another came by, and another: Golden Globes, People’s Choice, Independent Spirit, Foreign Press.

Movie stars put on their gowns and tuxes all the time now. It must be embarrassing—I mean this seriously—to spend half your year accepting awards on TV, and for what is already highly compensated work.

It’s like what happened a few years ago, when network programmers found that “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” was an overnight sensation. So they put it on four nights a week. And it stopped being a sensation.

[...]

You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that viewership of the Oscars is down because movie attendance itself is down, and that movie attendance is down because Hollywood isn’t making the kind of movies that compel people to leave their homes and go to the multiplex.

[...]

If a lot of the American audience, certainly the red-state audience, assumes Hollywood hates them, they won’t go as often to the movies as they used to. If you thought Wal-Mart hated you, would you shop there?

8 March 2006 @ 12:46PM >> London’s Daily Mail reports:

Surfing the Internet is now more popular than watching television, according to new figures.

On average, adults in Britain spend more time online at their computers - 41.5 days a year - than in front of the TV.

Government figures from the Office of National Statistics show that we spend just 37.5 days a year watching television.

It is believed to be the first time that using the Internet has overtaken what was traditionally seen as the nation’s favourite pastime.

Two-thirds of the survey respondents indicated that they spend an increasing amount of time online every year.

I suspect this trend is not limited to Britain, and it will be magnified as more people come online and as high-speed broadband connections become increasingly available.

This means that establishment media audiences will continue to become fragmented, and that there is a tremendous opportunity for distributing new content online. The traditional gatekeepers will find fewer and fewer people lining up at the gates.

8 March 2006 @ 3:43AM >> My apartment and another in my building were broken into on Monday. The theft was relatively minor, but the experience afterwards reminded me what fine people work for the police department in New York City. To all of you unsung heroes, thank you.

8 March 2006 @ 2:33AM >> So this might be a good move for him.

7 March 2006 @ 2:25AM >> From Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

The world will be in the hands of Islam over the next few years.

6 March 2006 @ 1:47AM >> Denver’s CBS affiliate KCNC-TV is reporting the story of Mike Gray, an employee of the local Arapahoe County government:

The problems began last spring. Gray, 50, owns a lawn service business on the side. He was routinely driving to work in his pickup truck towing a trailer that he uses to carry lawn mowing equipment for his business. On the side of his trailer, the married father of two affixed a sign that reads “Lawn Services Done With Pride!! By An English Speaking American.”

Gray argues that he’s merely advertising a positive attribute of his business that customers find helpful. I can understand that. Go take the subway here in New York, and you’ll see that a sizable portion of the ads are in Spanish or at least advertise businesses that “habla Espanol.”

Capitalism doesn’t discriminate. If a large number of people in a given area speak Spanish, businesses will cater to them by speaking to them in their language. And why not? The purpose of a business is to make money, not to enforce someone’s notion of a societal ideal.

Similarly, Gray discovered a pool of customers who wanted to work with English-speaking businesses, for the same reason that a number of businesses here in New York cater to people who speak Spanish. It has nothing to do with bigotry or xenophobia, it’s simply because customers know that dealing with some companies can difficult enough without the additional obstacle of a language barrier. So, some customers decide to eliminate a potentially problematic variable by patronizing business that speak their language.

Because of this and another offense (he sometimes wears a hat—a gift from his son, he says—that bears the marking “U.S. Border Patrol”), the county is now threatening to fire the 16-year employee. “They claim it’s offensive and I’ve been accused of discrimination and harassment,” he said.

Arapahoe County officials told Gray the sign and hat must go or else. In a Nov. 10, 2005, letter, his supervisor Monty Sedlak wrote the following:

“Some of your conduct ... is reprehensible and discriminatory to our non-English speaking and/or Hispanic workforce. You are in violation of ... guidelines which ensure a workplace free from harassment and sensitive to the diversity of employees.”

“You are required to permanently remove your cap from the workplace. It is offensive and harassing. Your business sign, if on work premises, must be completely covered at all times. This behavior is inappropriate and any further incidents of this nature may result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.”

None of Gray’s conduct was identified in the report, leaving it reasonable to conclude that his sign and hat—by themselves—represented the “conduct” that the county finds “reprehensible and discriminatory.”

6 March 2006 @ 12:20AM >> I don’t watch the Oscars any year, so my missing it this year does not represent any form of boycott. And now that you know I didn’t watch it, please allow me to indulge myself by commenting on something about which I have no first-hand knowledge. (Isn’t that a requirement for blogging?)

From what I’ve read, the Academy Awards ceremony was light on the now-expected political lectures (George Clooney’s self-back-patting seems to be the one mild exception). Even the slate of winners was less political than some people—including me—predicted.

I was way off.

Well, I’ve learned my lesson. (No I haven’t.) I will no longer pull predictions out of thin air and present them as impending fact. (Yes I will; I just can’t help myself.) Next year, I will make no Oscar predictions. (I might.) And if I do, by then, nobody will remember this pledge. (Damn. I forgot this post will be permalinked.)

5 March 2006 @ 5:52PM >> Ed Driscoll has posted an interview with me on do-it-yourself video production.

3 March 2006 @ 12:12PM >> National Review asked a few luminaries for their Oscar predictions. In what might be a clerical error, I was included in this group. The overwhelming consensus is that Brokeback Mountain will win for Best Picture. Here’s my rationale for this prediction:

[A] number of Hollywood insiders see a vote for Brokeback as a vote against red-state America. Hollywood seems to view middle America as populated by homophobic bigots — especially those evil red-state Republicans — and after years of electoral disappointment at the ballot box, the Academy Awards are pretty much the only elections where the votes of the Hollywood elite still have any impact. So, they’ll cast their votes for Brokeback, thinking that it is the cultural equivalent of flipping the bird to middle America. And middle America, which Hollywood doesn’t seem to understand, will respond with a muffled yawn.

Other questions for the panelists included “In an ideal world, what would win for best movie?” and “How annoying is George Clooney?”

Post-Oscar Update: Well, my short-lived career as an Oscar prognosticator seems to be over: Crash wins the Academy Award for Best Picture.

2 March 2006 @ 2:25AM >> In the Yale Daily News, Jamie Kirchick writes about Yale’s “student Taliban” Rahmatullah Hashemi, Class of 2009:

In 2000, Hashemi, then 21, became a “roving ambassador” for the Taliban — Angelina Jolie for the Islamofascist set, if you will. He toured the U.S. defending the “achievements” of the Taliban, even visiting Yale. In the months leading up to Sept. 11, Hashemi had a falling out with the Taliban; he became disillusioned with their banning of neckties, chessboards and the Internet because he “wanted something good for Afghanistan.” Presumably, Taliban policy prior to its crackdowns in spring 2001, which included public torture and murder of homosexuals, veiling of women and destruction of ancient Buddhist statues, were all “good for Afghanistan.” Attempting to show intellectual growth, Hashemi told the News Monday he “really support[s]” free speech, adding, “I did and do believe in women’s rights. Yes, women should be able to vote.”

How progressive. There is little evidence to show Hashemi’s beliefs have changed much; indeed, available information indicates his views on world affairs hardly differ from ignorant conspiracy theories so common today in the Muslim world. In an article posted on the Web site of the organization sponsoring his stay in the U.S., he writes, “Seemingly, like the poor Taliban, common Americans are ignorant of the fact that their franchise state of Israel in the Middle East is serving as an American al-Qaida against the Arab world.”

[...]

In a letter to the News, Eric Knibbs GRD ‘10 wrote, “I was not aware that ideology could disqualify a Yale applicant” (”Students’ ideologies should not play role in admissions decisions,” 2/28). I believe it should not. But an applicant’s employment as an agent for a declared enemy of the United States that abetted a terrorist attack that took the lives of some 3,000 civilians is another matter.

The administration believes Yale is lucky to have Hashemi. According to the New York Times, Yale had “another foreigner of Rahmatullah’s caliber apply for special-student status.” Said former Dean of Admissions Richard Shaw, “We lost him to Harvard. I don’t want that to happen again.” Who was the applicant? A member of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath party? A protege of Robert Mugabe’s?

1 March 2006 @ 9:28AM >> The American Film Renaissance festival has announced its list of best films for 2005:

Best Picture: Cinderella Man

Runners up:

The Chronicles of Narnia
Walk the Line
Crash
Downfall
Pride and Prejudice
Batman Begins
The World’s Fastest Indian
Capote
King Kong

Best Documentary: March of the Penguins

Runners up:

Grizzly Man
Mad Hot Ballroom
Enron: Smartest Guys in the Room
Murderball