Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Great minds think alike. But at different speeds.

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 23, 2009

Blogola

Blogola

Glenn Reynolds quotes Shannon Love as follows:

If we’re going to regulate speech based on inducements to bias why stop with mere financial relationships? I think we should require all media sources to reveal all possible sources of bias starting with the political affiliations of the publishers and reporters. After all, the media sells stories they advertise as accurate and objective. Shouldn’t consumers have ready access to the information they need to decide if those claims are true?

Politics is more important than money.  If you buy a toaster based on a biased recommendation, you’re only out the cost of a toaster.  If you vote based on a biased political recommendation, you could lose your freedom.   If the government has both the duty and the ability to protect you against bias in product recommendations on blogs, why doesn’t it have the same duty and ability to protect you against biased reporting on political matters?

Good thinking.  But then, hey, full disclosure, right? — I’m a little biased.  That’s because in January of 2005 I wrote this on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®:

Last week Instapundit took the unusual step of opening comments on the ethics of Blog-payola.  I wrote this:

I am pretty agnostic on this.  I think it is hopeless to anticipate a standard of behavior in Blogovia.  It won’t happen, and I am not sure it should.  No one is free from bias of some sort or another.  Being paid to express an opinion is not so different from being affected by your likelihood of getting tenure, or a promotion, or maintaining your anonymity, or getting a choice committee assignment, or for that matter stroking or offending the right or wrong people in the world of blogs, politics, one’s profession or with N.Z. Bear.

The only real difference I can see is that one form of blogola is liquidated, but the other sources of bias can be and of course are in some cases far stronger.

Consumers of blogs have to simply be skeptics. Those who disclose more, and more accurately, will be more trusted on that account. At the end of the day, all you have is your persuasiveness, your intellectual honesty, and — in my case — a good looking picture at the top of your columns.

Okay, I know — not everyone can have such a picture. But you work with what you have. You get my point?

This line of argument led to the publication of this op-ed by me, now far less agnostic, in the New Jersey Law Journal two years later.  Amazingly, you still can’t see the article for free on the Law.com site, which it explains the time delay:  That’s how long it took Shannon to get the routed copy of the Law Journal out in Chicago!

Posted in Oppression | Leave a Comment »

I didn’t make him for you

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 22, 2009

Wired.com says the sky is falling because Apple is, surprise, letting business considerations govern who does and doesn’t get to sell stuff for iPhones, and under what conditions:

Free Press, a group that advocates the idea of an open internet — that is, one in which consumers have the right to browse the web and run internet applications without restrictions — is the latest of several organizations to call out Apple for its inconsistencies. Free Press alleges that Apple crippled SlingPlayer, a TV-streaming application for iPhone, so that it would only work on a Wi-Fi connection; the initial version worked with a 3G cellular network connection as well as Wi-Fi. The SlingPlayer restriction is inconsistent with Apple’s approval of the Major League Baseball application, which provides live-streaming of sports events on both Wi-Fi and 3G connections, the group said.

“That strikes us as odd and potentially nefarious because it really represents a carrier picking and choosing applications for consumers as opposed to letting consumers decide which videos they want to watch,” said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press. “It’s exactly the sort of thing you’d expect in an internet experience that’s controlled by the carrier.”

Yeah, it’s exactly the sort of thing you’d expect from a business that is in the business of, uh, business.  Instapundit, seizing on the title of this piece, “How Apple and AT&T Are Closing The Mobile Web,” understandably says he “doesn’t like the sound of this” — which, of course, is exactly why that title was chosen.  But it’s okay, Glenn.  It just sounds like free enterprise.  That’s a sound you like almost as much as a puppy in a blender!

The anti-Apple screed segues into a legitimate look about the real technological limits the mobile web is approaching, in terms of network capacity.   But it completely elides the difference between “the Internet” and “the mobile Web” and “what you can put on an iPhone.”  I mean, come on:

“If you’re going to allow video to stream on the 3G network, you can’t pick and choose which video services operate,” Scott said. “You have to let them all operate, otherwise that’s not the internet.”

You “can’t”?  Otherwise, what again?  Oh — “it’s not the Internet.”

What a bunch of babies it is, this “Internet” you speak of, Wired.

Posted in Gelt, Nuvo-Techno, Scientificus | 1 Comment »

Pleasingly alive

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 21, 2009

Instapundit:

WANT TO LIVE LONGER? Consider being “slightly chubby.” “People who are a little overweight at age 40 live six to seven years longer than very thin people, whose average life expectancy was shorter by some five years than that of obese people, the study found.”

Sew buttons!See, there’s something to “robust” after all!

Next conquest:  Link between male pattern baldness and disposable income.  W00t!

Posted in Jocularity, Narcissus Rex | 1 Comment »

Inconvenient thoughts on Iran

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 19, 2009

Exciting times regarding Iran, right?

But I keep wondering why everyone forgets that it’s not as if they’re looking to put Shimon Peres on the Peacock Throne here, you know?  Mr. Roach agrees:

I can’t get too pumped about what’s going on in Iran. Perhaps on balance Mousavi would be better for the United States and the Iranian people. It’s hard to say. But lots of angry people in the streets does not mean he’s a great guy with a great plan to support a more liberal and decent regime in Iran. Muqtadr al Sadr used to get the crowds out too. Indeed, so did Khomenei. It’s just as likely, considering the people and history involved, Mousavi would spend much of his energy oppressing his erstwhile oppressors if elected. This is the way politics runs in the Third World.

We are talking about an Islamic poltical party in an Islamic state. Almost no one talks about how Mousavi ran the show in Iran in the 1980s as Prime Minister when Iran was America’s mortal enemy, and his track record then–-when Iran was supporting kidnappings of Americans in Lebanon and attacks on US ships in the Gulf–-is chiefly why the Iranians like him. Why should we think his vague anti-corruption platform means we’ll have a friendly regime there? Why do neocons lose their judgment every time some “color revolution” comes down the pike?

(Via A Guy.)  Well, look, the enemy of my enemy is still my friend.  If nothing is going to help with Iran until something gives, maybe something giving will help.  And it’s not as if the State Department, or the Obama Administration — which are tacitly, and not so tacitly, supporting destabilization of this regime right now — are neocons.  Hardly.

Do we say that we wish the Soviets had not been humiliated in Afghanistan now that we know we ultimately helped build up the Taliban movement by our support?  I am not sure what the answer to that is, but it I think it’s no.

Instability can be a scary place, and sometimes after the fact we wish we could go back to where the trains ran on time and we didn’t have to hear the screaming.  Sometimes — say, regarding Iraq — that wish gets a little too urgent and impatient and is, ultimately, terribly immoral.

You know, to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs, yes?

On the other hand, Roach is right about one thing:  Let’s not get all dewy-eyed about the next Persian prince.  It’s not likely that we’ll be comparing him to Lech Walesa, much less Thomas Jefferson, for all that long after he gets his turn… if indeed it comes to that at all.

Posted in Oppression, Orient, Stragety | 1 Comment »

You brute!

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 17, 2009

Obama, it turns out, isn’t even different about being different, especially as regards the… different:

“When a president tells you he’s going to be different, you believe him,” said John Aravosis, a Washington-based gay activist.

You do?

What if he says, “This time it’s for real” or “I’ll call you”?

In fact, it turns out John Aravosis is all kinds of apoplectic about the things going down in his world (via Insty).  Here he’s particularly outraged that Barney Frank, being all gay and all, doesn’t agree with The Agenda:

Our senior most gay member of Congress actually said that had Obama argued in court that DOMA is unconstitutional, that would be akin to George Bush not going to court to, for example, get a warrant to spy on Americans. Get it? Defending gay people is like spying illegally. But comparing us to incest and pedophilia, using what I’m told was pretty much the original brief the Bush administration used against us years ago, is somehow a sign that we’re better than the Republicans – by repeating their arguments in court.

You’re missing my point if you read past the first line (I just could resist pasting the whole thing) (you can learn about the actual legal issue here):  Aravosis is livid that this offensive political view is being espoused by “Our senior most gay member of Congress.”

Let me get this straight:  Gayness is supposed to lead to a specific political outlook?

If so, then is there anything wrong, after all, with opposing a candidate for office because he’s… that way?

Or maybe I’ve finally found a topic that can actually cause me to write words defending Barney Frank.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Posted in Narcissus Rex, O Mores!, Oppression | 1 Comment »

The semitic canard

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 14, 2009

Instapundit:

IN LIGHT OF MY EARLIER POST about how it’s not Rush Limbaugh hollering about “the Jewish Lobby,” a reader emails:

Rush has been downright forceful in defending Israel, yet I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Jew defend him.

It is frightening and sobering for me, as the child of Holocaust survivors, to see my co-religionists align with pals of unambiguous anti-semites like Rev. Wright.

I let my wife choose to raise our kids as protestants, rather than have them risk the fate of my grandparents.

Oh, puh-leeze.  How nice that Glenn’s reader has found an excuse for assimilation.  He “let his wife raise [their] kids” (his non-Jewish kids) as Gentiles.  Was he going to divorce her or make them want to adopt his inferiority complex if he ever “heard a Jew defend Rush Limbaugh”?

And–please–he hasn’t “ever heard a Jew defend” Rush Limbaugh?

He’s never “heard” of Mark Levin?  Michael Medved, who used to sub for Rush before he had his own radio show?  Bernard Goldberg, who left the Party (i.e., CBS) and became a modern-day Whittaker Chambers vis-a-vis the “drive-by media“?

How about Ron Coleman, since he’s looking so very hard?  There are plenty of names between those actually famous Jewish conservatives and myself.

I’m generally disappointed with the politics of American Jewish liberals.  With their votes and their money, they are arguably as important a conceptual blog within the Democratic Party as unions or blacks.

But this is largely a myth.  These Jews are all too often Jews in heritage, not practice or commitment, and like Glenn’s anonymous correspondent, their children are more likely than not Jews in name only.

The thng about liberal Jews isn’t that their religion interferes with their politics. It’s because politics is, for most of them, their only source of religion.  Issue for issue, their votes are not defined in any identifiable way by the the sensibility of Judaism, but rather the sensibility of Jews, mostly idealized old lefties who abandoned Faith and embraced Progress.

But whether they’re liberal, like most Jews, or conservative, like the reader Instapundit quotes, they should do the Jews a favor and stop “crediting,” blaming, their politics on their heritage.   It will be a big favor for both.

Posted in Faith and Works, Politics and Poker | 27 Comments »

House of cards

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 14, 2009

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion:

Let me see if I have the logic straight. Harshly criticising someone makes one morally if not legally responsible for the violent actions of those who share similar beliefs, and who may have heard the criticism. So Krugman and Robinson must be liable for the lunatics referred to in [this] search:

kill-bush-search

Posted in Liberal punks, Medialites, Politics and Poker | 1 Comment »

Colors on my hip

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 14, 2009

72nd Street Station

I got a new BlackBerry.  Yeah, it’s the Curve 8900.  Has 3.2 MP camera.

Some pic!

Posted in Metropolis, Nuvo-Techno | Leave a Comment »

The decline of the Loud Right

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 9, 2009

I am resolutely tired of politics.

Now, matters of policy and governance and statecraft and law remain, as they have been throughout my life, of great importance to me.

But I am bored and disgusted with politics, certainly with politicians, and to a great extent with people who are either obsessed with politics or whose public output is in the main dedicated to politics.

Some people, such as Patrick Ruffini, have the ability to pull this sort of thing off with real style and dignity.  I can’t get on board even a fraction of his initiatives because of my exhaustion with the whole thing, but the way Patrick does it all, I respect the whole thing of it. And for me, Rush Limbaugh is Rush Limbaugh.  He’s an American institution.

And, hey, you know — there’s Frank J.  He demonstrates how to be an absolute right-wing nutter without taking yourself in the slightest bit seriously.

OK, so I love Stephen Green, too.

But I’d have to say that a slight majority of others whose “feeds” I keep tripping over, mainly bloggers but also talk radio guys, who try to do what these guys do in their respective roles, just can’t.  By slight I mean slightly more than 99.9%, that is.

And this is what led me screaming from #TCOT.  And, finally, I unsubscribed tonight from PJTV’s annoying emails, because, let’s face it, PJTV is obviously done with me so I can stop pretending to be interested rather than appalled, but if I didn’t tell you who on earth would notice?  I do appreciate the free lavalier mike they gave me, though.

I am tired of the crassness and the grossness, but also, substantively, I have had it with the Loud Right’s politics.

I am tired of the Loud Right’s reaction, as in reactionary-ness.  Sonia Sotomayor — that‘s a nomination to go to war over?  What on earth does the party that lost gave away everything think it’s going to get that’s a better, more mainstream nominee than Judge Sotomayor from the party, however undeserving, to which it gave everything?

I’m tired of the Loud Right’s petty, vindictive obsession with personal assassination in politics.  Every photo of every member of Obama’s family has to be the occasion for nastiness?  The President has to be called “Barry”?  Every policy disagreement has to be cast as a venal, wicked or brainless move by the other side?

And I’m tired of a still corrupt and fundamentally unreformed Republican Party that still sends me mass mailings that read as if I were a mental retard, when in fact, well, I’m brilliant, okay?

If my far-more-famous-than-I political-blogger friends really read my blog, I think a lot of them would de-link me over this.  Luckily, they don’t.  But they’ve managed to make me embarrassed to be a conservative blogger.  I mean, not that embarrassed obviously; it’s me we’re talking about here.

But, enough, really.  Give it a rest.  Try building something, whaddya say?  Something America might want besides negativity, anger and desperation.

UPDATE:  I’m not the only one!  Hat tip to my mom.

Posted in Politics and Poker | 7 Comments »

Out, damned blog!

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 7, 2009

Unknown

On one of my favorite topics, anonymous blogging — James Joyner (via Glenn) is unhappy with one particular bit of outage:

While I generally find the practice of revealing people’s secrets to the public distasteful, there are times when it’s appropriate.  Public officials who are abusing their power is the most obvious case.   Here, however, there is no public benefit achieved. Whelan is simply annoyed that Publius had been “biting at my ankles in recent months” and critiquing his blog posts.

Jeopardizing a man’s career and family relationships over something so petty is simply shameful. Anonymous Liberal (which, I’m given to understand, is not his given name) hits the nail on the head:

It’s really difficult to put into words just how despicable and childish this behavior is. This is a man who was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General. He’s currently the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. And he’s acting like a six-year-old.

[…]

The reality is that if you don’t think your work product can withstand the scrutiny of a few anonymous bloggers, than you have no business publishing it. And if your ego can’t withstand being criticized by people who write under pseudonyms, then you’re far too insecure to be blogging for a living.

Well, I’d say something different: If your career, life or whatever can’t stand the pressure of being held responsible for your words, then you’re far too insecure — literally — to publish them on line, especially when they’re at someone else’s expense.

Dont do the crime if you cant do the time

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time

There’s no “public interest” test for outing an anonymous blogger.   There is only the test of how far you can go before you show your hand, and the test of accountability in the public sphere.  And I say if you’re prepared to shoot out someone else’s lights, whether or not he is “blogging for a living,” then be prepared to have your’n popped, too.

Accountability.  In a free society, if you can’t stand behind it, I see no reason why you should be allowed to get a pass on saying it.  Put differently, you’ve got every right to say it, and every right to pay for it.

Posted in Blogophilia, O Mores!, Oppression, Social networking | 9 Comments »