Think left-wing media bias is bad in America?

A warning from our elder cousins: the BBC admitted (after it was caught in the act) sending three microphone-equipped hecklers to disrupt a Tory party political function. The BBC, in its defense, claims to be gathering material for a program(me) on the "history of political heckling," and that the hecklers in question were not BBC employees or managed by the BBC in any way.

OK, let's assume what the BBC says is true. You're filming hecklers at a Tory event--do you really need to pull the vocal ones aside beforehand, tell them they'll be part of a TV show, fit them with microphones, and send them into the crowd? Seems to me that you want to be sure there will be a to-do at the event where you have your cameras, and what better way to increase the odds than by the old plant-the-partisan trick?

I salute the cleverness. But don't think that there aren't elements in the American political landscape that will take this ball and run with it.

Some housecleaning

Internet connectivity troubles have plagued me for several days, so updates have of course been few and far between. Things seem stable now, but I'm not entirely prepared to fully unburden myself. I will, however, offer this fascinating bit for those who may have missed it.

Not very many of you out there are likely to care, but the story of the
Oxyrhynchus Papyri has really got my juices flowing. The prospect of a 20% increase in antique texts is a big deal, so much so that I am tempted to lace this writeup with catchphrases such as "Mainstream Media" or "Bolton Confirmation" or even "Activist Judiciary" in order to get the public more excited. But perhaps I should restrain myself.

Some other small stuff (as I collect it):

• Someone bothered to register a domain name for this.
  

HABEMVS PAPAM: Benedictum XVI

May God stand beside you in the trials to come, Holy Father. Goodness knows the next few days will be a stern test, especially as the media are already (this now just two hours from your elevation) wondering what the world's reaction will be to your "conservatism."

Pope Benedict, Holy Mother Church has been placed in your care. Stand fast in your convictions, and call upon the Lord for strength to shepherd your flock through these difficult times.

I love Bernie Sanders, but...

I'm not even going to delve into the whole Tom DeLay episode--it's clear that there are people out to get him at pretty much any cost, but it's equally true that he's given them an awful lot to work with. I think he needs to, at the very least, resign his leadership position. Should he be cleared, he can always be reappointed; and it certainly doesn't take a genius to come up with a spin such as, "These incessant, partisan, ad hominem attacks are achieving their goal: making it impossible for me to continue to work effectively for my party. I'm therefore stepping down until the Ethics Committee clears me of these false charges--let them do what they want to me, but I will not allow them to bring down the party America has chosen to represent it."

OK, I said I wouldn't delve into it...here's the point:

Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist Representative from Vermont, is throwing a bit of a fit at recent local coverage of the fact that he has family members on his payroll. Now, this is not illegal or even unethical by current standards (indeed, it's fairly common); but it is one of the sticks with which the left is whacking DeLay. Sanders' response could easily have been, "I have nothing to hide/These were reasonable payments for reasonable services rendered" and, since he is not under investigation, that would probably have been that. But instead, he lashed out at the tiny local newspaper, saying:

Your story was a lie, and I don't talk to people who lie.

I will never understand what it is about politicians that make them think a defiant attitude brings less attention than admitting an innocuous truth. Clearly, Sanders felt he was being painted with the same brush that is being used against DeLay; and admittedly I don't know whether the Bennington Banner has been hostile to him in the past.

But as a Banner editorial correctly pointed out, this raises the specter of press control--packing briefings with friendly reporters and the like (where have I heard this accusation lobbed before?). Sanders is a firebrand and a breath of fresh air (I enjoy hearing him spar with Alan Greenspan at Humphrey-Hawkins time, even though I disagree with everything Bernie says), but that's the kind of charm that rubs off very easily when coupled with the word "hypocrite."

Thank God they're not on the Intelligence Committee

I'm going to hold my breath here and wait...

Yesterday, during the confirmation hearings for John Bolton's appointment as ambassador to the UN, both Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) mentioned the actual name of a CIA employee whom they had previously agreed to refer to as "Mr. Smith." Here's the coverage of Kerry's part of the exchange:

It is not clear whether Armstrong is the undercover officer, but an exchange between Kerry and Bolton suggests that he may be.

In questioning Bolton, Kerry read from a transcript of closed-door interviews that committee staffers conducted with State Department officials prior to Monday's hearing.

"Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed from his position? The answer is yes," Kerry said, characterizing one interview. "Did John Bolton share that view?" Kerry said, and then said the answer again was yes.

Now, are we talking about a covert operative here? I'd have to say the evidence is leaning in the direction of yes--I mean, they took steps to disguise his identity, steps which two prominent senators tripped over in public, but steps nonetheless. So why am I holding my breath?

Back in 2004, conservative columnist Robert Novak "outed" CIA employee Valerie Plame, causing an uproar in the media and the Democratic camp. Wild accusations were thrown, investigations undertaken, and reporters hauled before judges. All this for a woman whose identity and employment was already well known in Washington circles, and whose influence was shown to have been instrumental in tossing her husband a key WMD-related assignment. So, given the tempest in a teapot that was, what should we expect now? An apology would be nice, but I'm not going to wait even for that.

The "Final Status" Idol

In my scholarly life, I have muddled my way through Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, though I did not find it a particularly edifying experience. Interesting that "edifying" and "edifice" are so similarly constructed, aedificare and all that...anyway, Kant did produce some genuinely insightful pieces, though these generally have a much more restricted focus than his larger works. One of these happy little reads (how strange that phrase sounds here!) is To Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch from 1795. In it, Kant mulls intelligently the possibility that the world is moving toward a developmental stage where lasting international peace can be achieved, and sets about formulating some rules about that process. He's a big fan of republicanism in this regard.

One of his first points, indeed actually the first one, has stayed with me for many years now, coloring my view of pretty much any international diplomatic event:

"First Section, which contains the preliminary articles for perpetual peace among nations...No treaty of peace that tacitly reserves issues for a future war shall be held valid."

Kant's point is that a treaty which contains the seeds of future conflict, or which glosses over differences for the sake of finalizing a document, is in the end not really a "peace treaty" at all, but simply a truce. Some would, of course, argue that all treaties are simply truces, as a state which permanently forswears its ability to make war is not acting in its own self interest...but this is another argument.

I am no expert on the Arab-Israeli conflict; indeed, it would seem that such experts are few and far between. But I confess that I wince whenever I hear the term "Final Status" discussed in relation to these diplomatic efforts. We stand at a point now fully twelve years after the Oslo Accords and we are still far away from a consensus on what "final status" means for Jerusalem, the West Bank settlements, etc.

I admit that it is extremely unrealistic to have expected a settlement to every key question. But wasn't that the promise of Oslo? Wasn't that the act for which Rabin and Arafat were awarded the Nobel "Peace" Prize? How much international effort has been poorly focused because the Oslo Accords were not seen for what they were: merely an agreement between two warring parties to sit down and negotiate in good faith. A significant step, I grant, but not nearly enough, as the intifada and endless chattering have amply demonstrated.

There is an old diplomatic saying, which I fear I must paraphrase here: "Nothing persists like the provisional." If you put something in place, however hollow or shaky or "temporary," it hangs over everything that follows. I wonder whether this tells us something deeper about the state of modern diplomacy--the ability to come out of a negotiation with an agreement is paramount; indeed any negotiation without one is a "failure." There is some media influence here: after investing themselves in the process, leaders must show results, even "face-saving" ones.

But this is not the only possible diplomatic model. To the Soviet mind, for example, diplomacy was a means of sizing up the opposition, searching for strengths and weaknesses, an opportunity to see how far the West might go in the defense of Berlin, Korea, etc. If an agreement was inked, it meant that the Soviets came to an estimate of their opponents which made an agreement necessary.

In the Mideast, we are drowning in agreements and pledges and "road maps," and yet the end still lies beyond the horizon. Bold unilateral steps, such as Sharon's Gaza pullout, are the real traction generators. So do we stop the talking? Hardly--but neither should we imbue it with a power which it lacks. "Automatic" diplomacy is at best a political crutch, and at worst...?

The Great Mel Martinez Dust-Up of 2005

[Note: I had a much more involved version of this prepared for publication yesterday, but Blogger ate it. That’ll teach me.]

With all that’s been going on in the world, this story frankly flew right beneath my radar; but it appears that the media is making a big deal of it now that the author of the infamous memo has been revealed as a lawyer in Sen. Mel Martinez’s (R-FL) office. There seems to be a bit of glee in the coverage of this, insofar as some right-wing bloggers have impugned the authenticity of the memo, suspecting a Democrat “dirty trick.” Now that this line of reasoning has been discredited, has the mainstream news establishment regained something of what it lost in the Rathergate fiasco?

Several points occur to me:

• I’ve read the memo, and it doesn’t strike me as that bad. Certainly not the most flattering thing for the GOP, but the only real problem I see is the “great political issue” bit, which does undermine claims that the Congressional intervention in the Schiavo matter was not strictly motivated by principle. The rest of the sentiments, even the “Ted Bundy” bit, are quite in line with other public Republican pronouncements on the matter.
  
• Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has called for an investigation into the matter, saying, “Those who would attempt to influence debate in the United States Senate should not hide behind anonymous pieces of paper.” Uh, maybe I’m missing something here, but what part of the case is illegal or even unethical? Aren’t such “talking point” papers prepared by both sides, every day, for every issue? This, and Martinez’s Sergeant-Schultz reaction, are political in nature: the GOP is embarrassed that it is seen to be playing politics, and the Dems smell blood in the water.
  
• But the outrage in other quarters is more difficult to fathom. Gasp! Our politicians have been caught red-handed…playing politics, of all things!
  

And should the mainstream media be reveling? So elements in the blogging community jumped the gun in calling the document a fake. You are the mainstream media—you have a lot more to explain on Rathergate than a few conspiracy theorists have to explain for this.

Forgive me some more Papal reflections...

[This should be it for a while, at least until the Conclave announces a successor.]

• It was very nice to see Laura Bush and Condoleeza Rice wearing mantillas at the funeral today. Respectful and traditional.
  
• It was less nice hearing that Bush (surprise!) was booed at the Papal funeral. Nice that you chose to use a solemn event celebrating the life of the Pope to voice your disagreement with Bush policies. Geez, protest somewhere else if you really want to, but don't crash a funeral.
  
• The whole thing about the Pope's will and his apparent consideration of resignation has me scratching my head. The text says no such thing, and I suspect that this is a misunderstanding from a media establishment that can't understand why someone wouldn't simply give up in the face of advancing age and medical suffering. The mentions of the "Nunc Dimittis" and the sentence, "I hope that He will help me to recognize the time until when I must continue this service," seem to involve a fundamental misapprehension: the tone of the will is clear, as the Pope asks God, in essence, "When the end comes, let me recognize it as the end and know when to give up the fight."
  
  
  

Monkey Jump!

OK, my apologies for occasionally changing the thrust of these pages to cover my progress in Go. But this is a moment to remember: today I made my first monkey jump (saru-suberi) in game play. I'd only learned about it an hour or so before, and it's probably well above the level I should be studying at. But since one of my major weaknesses appears to be the inability to effectively reduce enemy territory, it seemed appropriate.

In this situation, black's first move of the combination (#1) seems to be risky since it's right behind a large white wall and several steps away from connecting with black's main group. But interestingly, the stone at 1 cannot be cut off. White's attempt to do this is illustrated by the succession of numbered moves. After black 7, white loses the three stones on the top line and may not (in the example at least) even be able to live with the remaining stones.

I saw this opportunity when driving between two white groups in an endgame situation. Neither the group on top nor the one beneath had "descended" into contact with the edge, and when I made the key move, white could only defend one of his groups against the monkey jump. I lost the game, but my attack on white's territory made things a whole lot closer.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

P2P, Betamax, and Gun Control: Strange Commonality

On March 29, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster., on whether the makers of peer-to-peer file sharing software are partially responsible for copyright violations made by the software's users. The argument of the entertainment industry seems to be that P2P companies, in their business models, counted on users engaging in illegal activity; and therefore, the manufacturers should be secondarily liable for damages.

An interesting theory. Too bad it's been tried before, unsuccessfully, by the same entertainment companies. In the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Sony Corp. v Universal City Studios, Inc. (464 U.S. 417) (often called the "Betamax" decision), the Court held that the manufacturers of VCRs could not be held responsible for copyright infringement because, in part:

The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses.

A lower-court ruling that such legitimate purposes should be "commercially significant" and "non-infringing" seems to be at the core of the debate currently before the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the entertainment industry has also adopted another method of attack, namely to support legislation that would make it a crime to "induce" someone to commit an act of copyright infringement. The prime bill, the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 , appears to have died in committee, but may well be reintroduced later down the line.

The thing that immediately struck me when I read about these cases was their applicability to the gun-control debate. I mean, the sale of firearms to hunters is "commercially significant," and the underlying activity is licit. And yet to my knowledge this has not been a major thread of the discussion. On the other hand, the number of deaths attributable to VCRs is probably minimal.

---

UPDATE: The Supreme Court announced its decision on MGM Studios v. Grokster on June 27th. In a 9-0 verdict, the justices reversed a previous appellate court finding that suggested Grokster was not liable for piracy-related damages.

The Wall Street Journal comments on the case and its relation to the Betamax ruling:

In that 1984 decision, the Court had found that Sony couldn't be held responsible because individuals might use its VCR technology to infringe copyrights. But the current Court sensibly ruled that Grokster was very different. Unlike VCR makers, its business model was almost entirely dependent on illegal behavior, which Grokster tacitly endorsed or at least took no action to prevent.

While I'm sure various forces on the web will be incensed at the Court's decision, the Journal notes a truly bright side: "[I]t will probably be the end to the truly nutty attempts in Congress to solve the piracy problem in ways that really would infringe on the fair and legitimate use of digital technology." We can hope, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.

Stepping Back Into Action

Just coming back from a devastating weekend. I understand that it may be difficult for many, even many Catholics, to understand; but the passing of His Holiness was very far from an emotionally neutral event for me—I feel like I’ve lost someone very close. I cannot do his legacy justice, and I’m not qualified to try, so I will simply have to leave it at that.

That said, I think I can only offer some bits of “blitz” commentary today:

• Most of the news networks carried pope-related coverage today as His Holiness’s body was moved to St. Peter’s for viewing. Accompanying this was a series of Latin chants (though one section requiring response seemed to be in Italian). Most channels left this alone, but CNN for some odd reason chose to have an interpreter do a voice-over into English of the Latin-to-Italian translation being broadcast on Italian TV. For those confused, CNN basically aired a video feed with Latin chant overlaid with Italian speech overlaid with English speech. It was very disturbing, as if the direct translation was necessary to understand the majesty of the spectacle.
  
• And on a purely ranting note, I am sick to death of the various networks using terms like “conservative” and “liberal” to refer to a man whose mission was to oversee traditions laid down centuries before these terms had any meaning. The Church is not a creation of the modern age, and viewing it through such a lens can only distort the image.
  
• On a more political topic, I came across this article in the Washington Times relating to a “civil war” between the Democrat’s centrist Leadership Council and the leftist “Democratic Wing” led by Howard Dean over at the DNC. Now, I happen to be of the opinion that the Democrats will only achieve national electoral success if they begin to address their message to moderate America; but on the other hand, how seriously should a voter take a party that is attempting to fine-tune itself for the stated goal of achieving that success? I suspect any “rebranding” efforts will only be successful if they are very careful, informing the electorate about why Democratic policies are correct for them…wholesale changes to the platform run the risk of undermining credibility.
  

I Guess It's Something.

If nothing else, at least the Vatican now has common ground with the Sedevacantists.

Vale, Ioannes Paulus Magnus

From the Tridentine Mass:
Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi? Calicem salutaris accipiam, et nomen Domini invoacbo. Laudans invocabo Dominum, et ab inimicis meis salvus ero.
What return shall I make to the Lord for all He has given me? I will take the chalice of salvation, and I will call upon the Name of the Lord. Praising will I call upon the Lord and I shall be saved from my enemies.

Pax vobiscum.