peristaltor

The December 4 episode of On The Media got me in a huff, yet again. They interviewed another media/newspaper professional. He spoke of "progress" developing a revenue stream for news in an era of collapsing papers. And he focused again on financial dogma dredged from the turn of the last century; revenue from advertisements and subscriptions.

I must be blunt. Both concepts must be ass-raped. Hard. With a 50 grit dildo.

I've already mentioned why paying for news with ads is bad. I'll be mentioning it again and again, I can assure everyone. In a nutshell, what happens to the intrepid reporter that stumbles upon the Story of the Century only to find the trail of evidence leads directly to the news outlet's chief advertiser? Those stories get squashed, or buried. Or the reporter gets fired. What ever way it happens, the story fails to become news. Large revenue sources become their own way of saying "Shut up." Trust me, this happens. I'll be mentioning a few actual instances where it happened to disastrous consequence in later posts.

That leaves subscriptions, ( which suck, suck, suck. )

Addendum, the Next Day: I was mulling this post at work today and had a thought (one most likely caused from the fasting I needed to do for a damned blood draw): Maybe the newspapers have got this all wrong.

I know, I know, that much should be obvious.

What I considered was not that newspapers are trapped in an old business model that just doesn't work today, but that maybe they ( need not look to the kindness of strangers. )

I'd like to introduce everyone to David Brock, author of Blinded by the Right and The Republican Noise Machine. In Blinded, he introduces himself as a progressive and idealistic young lad who had a rude awakening during his college days in Berkeley. He went to cover Jeane Kirkpatrick's speech to the college, and was deeply disturbed when protesters interrupted her until she was forced to leave the stage:

The scene shook me deeply: Was the harassment of an unpopular speaker the legacy of the Berkeley-campus Free Speech Movement, when students demanded the right to canvass for any and all political causes on the campus's Sproul Plaza? Wasn't free speech a liberal value? How, I wondered, could this thought police call itself liberal?. . . . The few outspoken conservatives on the faculty, and the Reagan regents, raised their voices in support of Kirkpatrick's free speech rights. The liberals seemed to me to be defending censorship.

(David Brock, Blinded by the Right, Three Rivers Press, 2002, p. 4.)

This and other incidents burned in his mind, Brock turned from liberal and progressive issues and became a cheerleader for the Other Side. ( He rose in prominence, changing the course of American history as he ascended. )

fabunobo posted with a pic of his Halloween costume the other day:


If you Love It!,
share props and adulation at his LJ.

Here's the thing: I didn't get it. At all.

Really.

And I see that as a good thing.

I'm bragging here. I have so distanced myself from commercial "news" media that not one pip of this silly story made it on my radar. Commercial "news" exists only to keep people in their seats staring at the blinky box through the commercials. ("That beverage in your hand can kill you! Stay tuned to find out how.") The thought of a 6-year-old maybe dangling from a gas bag hurtling across the sky is OJ-in-a-Bronco news. Yes, people find themselves riveted to the tube. But do they learn anything, anything at all?

I kept tripping on mention of Balloon Boy in the internets afterwards, but didn't pay much attention, apparently. Thought it was an ad campaign (which it kinda was). Not until I saw fabunudo's get-up did I finally ask The Wife and a friend what was up. Last night. I got the eye-roll on that one.

But here's the thing: All that time I wasn't following the exploits of a media-manipulative UFO crackpot family in Colorado, I was learning things that were far more likely true. Strangely -- and I say this with a tinge of pride in our American PBS system -- NPR didn't even mention this well enough for me to find it on Morning Edition. The podcasts to which I subscribe gave me my first hint before I broke down and asked The Wife: Clark Boyd at The World's Technology Podcast played the 5th Dimension's "Beautiful Balloon" as a hint of what he wouldn't be covering. And just today, the crew of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe gave me a 5-minute recap of all the details I need to know about the woo-woo father's stunt.

What's weirder still, some of my friends constantly come to me for quirky tidbits of info. Usually I can help them. They have no idea why I prove this repository of general knowledge . . . yet they think I care one whit when they try to update me about the latest from Dancing with the Stars or America's Got Talent. I know obscure but somewhat trivial detail because I don't follow that crap. For me, it's that simple.

I remember being glued to the White Bronco as it happened. Did my paying attention get OJ apprehended any faster? Nope. Not by one second. Lesson learned.

Raw news footage is just that, raw. Like raw food, it isn't ready for consumption. Basically, news should be finished before it is plated and served.

So, that's my story. I ask you: Is your life better because mention of this (*ahem*) inflated hype took up you time? How much time would you say was lost to this and similar stories, if any? Importantly, what do you think you weren't learning about in the time it took to relate this developing breaking story as it unfolded?

And think further: How many stories of this caliber but lacking the quirkiness of the Balloon Kid did you follow to no avail? How many spoonfuls of crap got shoved down your throat before you realized you were being duped by the "news?"

From this rant:

It's not that I'm cavalier about safety. I'm just a sucker -- so to speak -- for the facts. And the fact is: No child has been poisoned by a stranger's goodies on Halloween, ever, as far as we can determine. Joel Best, a sociology professor at the University of Delaware, studied November newspapers from 1958 to the present, scouring them for any accounts of kids felled by felonious candy. And...he didn't find any. He did find one account of a boy poisoned by a Pixie Stix his father gave him. Dad did it for the insurance money and, Best says, he probably figured that so many kids are poisoned on Halloween, no one would notice one more.

Well, they did and dad was executed. That's Texas for you. Another boy died after he got into his uncle's heroin stash and relatives tried to make it look like he'd been killed by candy. And that's it.

Now look at how the fear that our nice, normal-seeming neighbors might actually be moppet-murdering psychopaths has turned the one kiddie independence day of the year into yet another excuse to micromanage childhood. (Emphasis mine.)

The Wife and I theorize the fear of tainted home-made treats was started by Big Chocolate. Hershey's, M&M Mars, those guys gained millions in the sealed candy market, probably by simply starting whisper campaigns in the 1970s that snowballed into mass paranoia.

So, hey, let the kids off the leash. Let them wander and grow. Sure, they might skin their knees on occasion. Everyone does. That's how we learn about hard surfaces and the importance of traction.

That parental micromanagement leash: it's embarrassing to all involved.

( Oh, and in other news, this year I got into the spirit! )

Just a few days ago I mentioned a comment I made to my local NPR station. A few days after, I actually received a reply!

Your email conveying some concerns about business support of public broadcasting in general and (our station) specifically was forwarded to me. I would be very glad to speak with you and answer any questions that you may have.

Cool!

I've been putting in extra hours at work lately, so I didn't get a chance to sit down and compose a reply to J. until just now. I outlined my concerns about how corporate and business sponsorships cause what I call the Sugar Daddy Effect; even without direct threats of withdrawing support, sponsorships lie in the back of a reporter's mind, perhaps subtly steering the inquiry of any ongoing investigation away from a sponsor's interests. No reporter wants to wear the label of That Guy Who Costs Us Millions With His Big Mouth, do they?

Here's one paragraph, for a taste:

For example, consider the local television news and the overwhelming ad saturation provided by automobile dealerships. I've notice very few minutes from those outlets devoted to, say, tackling fuel efficiency requirements, something (your station) does very well by comparison. Considering the poor efficiency of most new vehicles, and the tendency for auto shoppers to notice this right away should they be made aware of it, this SDE makes perfect sense.

Here's the funny part, though: I had about five paragraphs lined up outlining what I see are the dangers of news organizations receiving corporate support . . . when I realized the guy receiving this email would be the station's Director of Corporate Support.

The farmer got letter of concern noting that hens might be disappearing, and they sent the fox to investigate.

I realized my gaffe, that I have probably been punked, and asked in a final paragraph for this guy to forward my notes to someone without so glaring a conflict of interest. I'll keep you posted if I receive anything else.

NPR

Resting upon the tablecloth one sees a clear, round receptacle, perhaps made of glass. Within it appears to be half-filled with a clear liquid shot through with translucent, rounded and clear blocks, perhaps ice.

How the receptacle got to be in this half-filled condition is hard to say; though, if one assumes the blocks are of ice, one might be able to rule out evaporation. The globules clinging to the receptacle's side appear to be condensation, a phenomenon most often associated with colder objects, not warmer.

That the globules form a line just at the level of the receptacle's internal fluid suggests that the glass has sat for some time at this level and has gathered atmospheric water to the colder portions of the exterior, so much so that the globules have started to run down the side of the receptacle, dampening the tablecloth with a ringed mark.


CNBC

Not only is the glass half full, there's every reason to suspect it might fill up fast. Liquidity literally gathers to this glass, clinging to the opportunities afforded just outside the main action and pooling at the base. Naysayers may cry foul, wondering what forces apparently drained half the glass's resources; but we here maintain this bearish attitude serves only to besmirch an otherwise apparently robust vessel with plenty of room for refreshing and profitable containment.


FAUX NEWS

Are restaurants poisoning their patrons? Though unconfirmed, the very real possibility of a clear and deadly fluid in a clear and seemingly innocent "glass" -- or is it just cheap plastic? -- must be investigated.

Suggestions of poison arose when obvious and deplorable leakage was spotted by our intrepid reporter, evidence that the seemingly refreshing fluid within had dissolved the glass, shooting it through with undetectable pinholes and allowing the liquid death to spread. What was once a strong and reliable vessel seems to have been compromised from within, allowing half of its resources to empty through these holes and stain the very fabric of the table.

If so, this glass may shatter, spreading the poison it contains. We should not, we cannot rest until this growing threat is further investigated.

. . . .

We've just learned that the glass holds water. This information does not change things, though. Why in a busy restaurant is a half-empty glass allowed? There must be a waitress nearby doing something other than her job. I'm thirsty just thinking about this deplorable situation.

Ah, that grand time of the year when the local public stations staff the phones and wait for you to call in your donation, all the while interrupting the otherwise fine programming they constantly tout with outright begging more befitting of the Calcutta poor. I did my duty. I sent in my pledge. Later, I will actually fill out and mail the check.

This year, though, something new! A comment box, one that appeared just after I gave my info in the Required Fields.

Why not? Here's what I wrote:

I am very concerned that the PBS system -- your station included -- has eroded its integrity as an entity free from commercial influence by agreeing to air "enhanced sponsorhips," what should be called openly "commercials."

At what level would we have to donate to rid the local air of this corruption? To whom would I speak to even broach the topic?

And yes, I am serious.

You see, public radio and television used to be, well, ( public. )


Addendum, October 14, 2009: There are many reasons to separate commercial interests from our source of news, chief among them Faux "News":

It's clear that in 2009, Fox News is no longer in the business of journalism. Fox News isn't trying to inform people, it's trying to misinform them. That's not journalism. It's propaganda. But as long as the press continues to hold up the façade of journalism, Fox News will try to hide behind it.

Fascinating.

solarbird gives what appears to be an excellent (but way over my head) analysis of the current market rally in her journal today. One of the many links had the quote in my subject line, Mark To Myth Losers: Americans posted by Karl Denninger.

He gives a frightening run-down on how many losses from foreclosures and defaults the banks are failing to report, often against the regulations requiring such reporting:

The bottom line here folks is as I have been hollering about for over two years: Banks and other institutions are carrying paper at FAR beyond its reasonable fair-market value - or that which it will EVER realize under any reasonable set of assumptions going forward.

Bluntly, we have institutionalized accounting fraud and the so-called "regulators" that are supposed to put a stop to and even prosecute these acts are willfully and intentionally ignoring them. The cities and towns across America are the big losers where these practices cause blight through intentional neglect while these "banks" claim to be in far better financial condition than is in fact the case.

In addition, this willful disregard for the truth means that these bankrupt institutions remain in the system as "zombies", unable to perform their critical role in credit intermediation. (Emphasis, this time, by the author)

This can't end well. My question is simple: Why is this info hidden only in the bowels of the intertubes? This indicates our current economic troubles are going to be far worse than the cheerleaders on the telly are suggesting.

I commented in cargoweasel's LJ today. Looking back, I typed hastily and in anger, something that led me to make a comment that frightens me some hours later. For that, I apologize.

I'm reminded of Sam Kinneson (sp?) and his very early stand up. On spousal abuse, he said (in so many words) I don't condone wife beating . . . but I UNDERSTAND IT!!!

Well, when violence strikes from a perceived area of interest, people take notice. By now, all have heard of the census worker hanged in Kentucky with the word "fed" written on his body. Many have pointed out that the rage leading to this attack can be rightly attributed to the right-wing noise machine attempting to mobilize their base, all part of their effort to undermine in any desperate way any momentum the perceived left has made in the last few months.

What happens when that violence becomes more commonplace? What is the most appropriate response?

You see, I feel that is, as Zappa used to say, the crux of the biscuit. The right feel they are, well, right. They feel their positions on issues have been ordained by The Creator of All. They feel the violence they undertake -- be it the hanging of a substitute teacher or the gunning down of a doctor or the shooting of a black guard in a museum -- is justified as punishment for the fact that someone dared defied their god.

The left . . . what response have they? And herein lies the rub.

While looking into the matter, I've learned that the left tends to view more than just two sides of any given issue, tending instead to immerse themselves in the complexity and nuance, details that defy simple vilification. The left tends also to eschew violence, be it torture, assassination, what have you. There are many reasons for this. Despite the lessons Jack Baur may teach, torture, for example, doesn't get good information from the tortured. It almost never does. Think about it: If someone is willing to die for his cause, what is a little pain (in the short term) going to prove? In the long term, his information is probably of no value. Really, this should be obvious, given the lessons other countries have to offer. If Israel has abandoned torture as a means of interrogation, it's a good bet they tried it and failed to see the value. Lesson learned.

So when the right targets the left, what defense does the left have, well, left?

I was debating a good friend on such an issue years ago. He felt my position on (IIRC) global climate change was pussy-esque. He didn't agree on the very premise, and tried the ol' "Why don't you kill yourself?" ploy. It's a classic. If people are the biggest cause of global warming, one argues, why don't those that care about the issue off themselves?

Ah, I pointed out, not so fast. If a person cares enough about the issue, he or she should take down the biggest polluters, the biggest carbon output sources, as quickly as possible, all while living as carbon-free a lifestyle as they can manage. Down go the Hummer drivers, for starters. The coal plant operators get it next, followed by anyone who lobbies for Big Oil, Big Auto, what have you. This will reduce the pollution much more quickly than simply reducing the number of people who are striving to make a difference. As solutions go, it's an effective and compelling argument.

And that's the problem.

Any issue can be reduced to Us v. Them. It could be Kanye jumping onstage being a dick or the neighbors massing troops on the border. It doesn't matter what it is, really. What happens when Them just get too visible, too successful? What happens when Them starts a'winnin'? The knee-jerks in all of us reach for a handy blunt instrument and a nearby melon to crack. And if we swing and connect, score! Our side wins a round.

But we don't. Our side ultimately can lose in so many ways.

I will say if I as a lefty get targeted by melon-seeking object-swinging righties, I'll use whatever means at my disposal to defend me and mine. That's not even an issue. Go, Second Amendment!

But when it comes to avenging a teacher in Kentucky, I really have to calm the fuck down and remember that, given time for the issue to ferment, that stupid, stupid, stupid act is likely to do more damage to Beck and Bachmann and the rest of the paid rabble rousers . . . as long as we never let them forget it.

A book I loved, Annie's Box by Randall Keynes, has been made into a movie, Creation. It tells Charles Darwin's story through his and his families personal writings, giving deep insight into what happened in a life that lead to probably the most influential scientific theory of all time.

I will not, though, be seeing it in the theater as I had hoped, at least not in the United States:

US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

The distributors have pussied out. Who cares what other people believe? Let those that want to see the movie see the fucking movie. Nope.

The end of the Telegraph article says it all:

Early reviews have raved about the film. The Hollywood Reporter said: "It would be a great shame if those with religious convictions spurned the film out of hand as they will find it even-handed and wise."

Well, we wouldn't want that, now, would we?

I've just heard a pair of interviews on the Skepticality podcast that illustrate for me very clearly what might be happening here in the United States, something that seems to be all but absent elsewhere. We here in the States can't miss it without forgoing any and all media reporting. There's a frenzy of folks up in arms to resist the "socialization" of health care (like we did to fire and police protection generations ago) by (as they confusingly put it) a Nazi President, one who may or may not have been born in Kenya, one who many of those same protesters are sure is either an closet Muslim or (worse) an atheist. Just about all of the most vocal are convinced he is a racist.

I am convinced this is not happening in a vacuum. Phenomena this wide-spread never do. They are helped along by people who know what they are doing, who know exactly what buttons to push and how often. Don't be fooled: This is a power struggle backed by millions of dollars with many more billions of dollars at stake. On that most can agree.

What is less clear is how this is happening.

To illustrate what I feel is happening now, I'd like to mention a few facts about the Columbine High School incident ten years ago, facts I found startling and surprising. Did you know:

-- Bombs were supposed to be the main killing weapons, not guns.

-- Harris and Klebold were not members of the Trench Coat Mafia.

-- Harris and Klebold were not quiet "outcasts" picked on by "jocks."

-- The morning they and so many others died at their hands, the two did not go bowling.

Surprised at any of these revelations? I was. It's amazing to note what happened ( verses what everyone outside of Littleton thinks happened. )

Over at antitheism, this little story has folks rightfully enraged. It concerns a tee shirt the high school marching band had made for itself:



Cute, eh? As much as I dismay at the strictly hierarchical ascent model, the March of Man has become an icon and thus becomes ripe for humor. This shirt works.

Not, though, according to the local wing nuts:

Assistant band director Brian Kloppenburg said the shirts were designed by him, band director Jordan Summers and Main Street Logo. Kloppenburg said the shirts were intended to portray how brass instruments have evolved in music from the 1960s to modern day. Summers said they chose the evolution of man because it was “recognizable.”

The band debuted the T-shirts when it marched in the Missouri State Fair parade. Summers said he was surprised when he received a direct complaint after the parade.

Although the shirts don’t directly violate the district’s dress code, Assistant Superintendent Brad Pollitt said complaints by parents made him take action.

“I made the decision to have the band members turn the shirts in after several concerned parents brought the shirts to my attention,” Pollitt said.

Pollitt said the district was required by law to remain neutral on religion. . . . (Emphasis mine.)

Wait, huh? How is using a well-known scientific icon taking a position on a religious issue in any way whatsoever? Keep reading.

High School junior Adam Tilley said he understood why the shirts were repossessed.

“I can see where the parents are coming from,” he said. “Evolution has always been controversial.”

Yes, Adam, evolution (in your lifetime) has "always" been controversial. Too true, that. It has also been controversial since it was proposed way back in 1859. But it hasn't been this controversial, Adam, in many, many years. Why? Because, I believe, many people have fallen down on the job quite literally, something Mr. Pollit can demonstrate. For further illustration, let's hear from one of your band mates:

“It’s not like we are saying God is bad,” sophomore band member Denyel Luke said. "We aren’t promoting evolution.”

And within this simple statement, we find the problem.

As long as these children have been alive, they have suffered under an imaginary, oppressive belief that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection somehow challenges any religious tenet. This belief enshrines the concept of a false duality, a logical fallacy that maintains if position A is right, then position/opinion B is wrong.

Note what I did right there. A is a position, while B is a position/opinion. Why did I do that? Because Darwin's theory is based upon and supported by observation and the scientific method, while the religious tenets of the faithful -- in this case, supposedly Christianity -- are based on centuries of tradition and texts dating back millenia . . . not on observable phenomena parsed into fact.

And here's where the reporter sharing that story through the The Sedalia Democrat fails: He or she failed to note that the comments made by Pollit and Denyel are factually inaccurate. Promoting evolution is not "saying God is bad."

I mean, jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, people, how hard is it to call a local university and get a correcting quote from a professor conversant in Darwin's theory? How hard is it to pull something simple from Stephen Jay Gould's writings? By not correcting that student's statement, the reporter lets the statement stand in the public record unchallenged by fact.

And that unchallenged statement will stand in the eyeballs of every reader as a subtle cue -- "evolution challenges religion," it will whisper. Sometime later, perhaps in a bar, perhaps at a family gathering, someone who read that and many, many other stories like it will pipe up in the discussion, perhaps to mutter, "Yeah, evolution is fine for you to believe; but I believe in God, and evolution challenges that."

Yes, that person will be wrong, wrong, wrong, for more reasons than I can cram into a simple LJ entry like this one. Yes, that person has every right to be wrong, that I acknowledge; but wouldn't it be better if he or she was at least presented the factually accurate position by people paid to present factually accurate positions?!?

Christ on a rubber crutch, I am sick of these battles. They are so very, very avoidable. All we need to do in the public sphere is specify that "facts" are those nagging statements that can be supported time and time again by directed, objective observation. It's that simple.

And, I know, it's also too much to ask.

Sigh.


Addendum, The Next Day: Via Pharyngula comes a new report on how well each state teaches evolution in its schools. Missouri's C grade might explain both the mistaken parental outrage at the shirt attacking any religion, and the fact that those complainers failed to realize how outdated the Progress of Man image really is to the science of evolution today.

Timely!


How does your state rate?

Some shit rag called the Investor's Business Daily put themselves on the front page all around the English-speaking world when they suggested that physicist Stephen Hawking probably would have died had he been from the UK, since socialized medicine is, as they write, an exercise in rationing:

The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof are legendary. The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror movie script.

That above link, though, has been sanitized by this little introductory tidbit: Editor's Note: This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK.

Oopsie-daisy. Turns out that iconic Hawking accent is simply due to the fact that his voice synthesizer was built here in the States. Oh, no one was happy about the mistake -- especially Prof. Hawking. "I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS," Hawking told The Guardian. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

So with that little dust-up so very fresh in the news, how does our own home-grown media treat the same disease that all but felled the Professor? Why, they avoid the issue altogether. Here we have a local woman whose friends have to put together a non-profit foundation and arrange fund raising activities to help "pay for medical treatment and support."

That's right. People have to raise money themselves or rely on the charity of their family and/or friends if they want to get adequate medical treatment. And what of people who refuse to -- or more likely, simply cannot, due to their relatively unknown status -- whore themselves to the alter of public sympathy? Why, I suppose they can suffer and/or just fucking die.

And, despite the very timely nature of the story's airing, nowhere in the local commercial media do we see even a mention of Prof. Hawking's more civilized medical care brought to him thanks to the more ethical and enlightened policies of his home country. Nope, the coverage is all "rah-rah, let's help Melissa with her bills by eating and drinking" while pointedly ignoring the obvious solution, bringing the US out of the Dirty Dark Ages.

Without good reporting, without the good, accurate and useful information we need to make informed decisions as individuals and as a country, we find ourselves continually fucked harder and deeper and longer. It makes me down-right stabbity angry.


Addendum, September 1, 2009: Though slightly off-topic from the rant, I like this video.

A fascinating article outlines our nation's long history of conservative outrage:

So the birthers, the anti-tax tea-partiers, the town hall hecklers -- these are "either" the genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube? The quiver on the lips of the man pushing the wheelchair, the crazed risk of carrying a pistol around a president -- too heartfelt to be an act. The lockstep strangeness of the mad lies on the protesters' signs -- too uniform to be spontaneous. They are both. If you don't understand that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can't understand America, where the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, and where elites exploit the crazy for their own narrow interests.

I really had no idea the froth and blather reached as far back as the article mentions. I should have known, though. I really should have known.

I have an iPod. Not the fancy, wheel-controlled or touch-screen equipped money pits, but a simple iPod Nano (without the proprietary DRM earbuds). It does what I want of it. It provides audio content while costing less than my $60 limit, the amount of cash I am willing to spend on any gadget I bring to work.

When new, this little gadget did all that was promised and more. Funny thing though: Its functionality ( stopped right at the threshold of 'more.' )

Addendum, the next morning: Oh, and I completely forgot the strangest part, the part that leads me to believe there is a programing error in the pod's OS. There are only two slider switches on the Nano, Power On/Off and Shuffle On/Off. Shuffle off plays items roughly in the order you select on the sync page (see entry for infuriating limitations) -- but plays MP3s, then MP4s, Apple's proprietary format. Switch to Shuffle On -- you're going to love this -- and the unit only plays MP4s, ignoring any MP3s currently loaded.

What's more, this is the second Nano I've owned. I mentioned the shuffle switch weirdness (and some other strangeness) at the Mac store to a floor guy, prompting him to take my old one to the back and declare it FUBAR in ways no one in the back claimed to understand. He gave me a new unit . . . which does exactly the same thing.

Once I can write off as a unit malfunction. Twice and we have a design flaw.

Major Addendum, August 17, 2009: It looks like the latest iTunes upgrade (to 8.2.1(6) ) has corrected the ordering problem! By gum, the darned thing is now playing the order I want!

Now to get them to fix that podcast Autofill and we're on the verge of normalcy!

I'm sorry, but I'm still on this telly, telly, everywhere tear. It's something that is pretty much turning into an obsession.

In case you missed it, yesterday, I moaned about a television in waiting rooms that I legally couldn't leave or turn away from either the sound or the image. I was spared the trauma by a helpful receptionist, but had I been forced to be there later in the day things could have gotten water-torture ugly.

Why this antipathy? I'm seeing more and more evidence that these ever-present flicker screens ( are causing perhaps grievous harm to our collective ability to think. )

A friend of mine did something noteworthy the other day, and forwarded me a copy. He wrote his local eatery with a complaint:

Why does the Bothell, Washington Qdoba have Fox news on the only TV? I would think that offends more people than it pleases. The food is good, but I can't eat in a place with that contemptuous and contemptible garbage on.

They responded (to their credit), but without saying anything (to their detriment):

Thank you for your e-mail regarding Qdoba #2089. We appreciate your taking the time to provide us with your feedback and will be following up with the restaurant management to assure they are aware of your concerns. Please don't hesitate to contact our Guest Relations department at 1-888-497-3622 anytime you have a comment or concern you want us to be aware of. Our representatives are available Monday through Friday, 7am to 4pm PT.

I guess they did say they would contact management, and that might be something. The local Qdoba nearest my work plays something other than Faux. Maybe programming decisions are left to the local management. Maybe that will change. One can hope.

---

This morning, though, I realized that he noted the wrong problem. The issue isn't with Faux News on the tube, ( it's the fact that there is a tube to watch. )

Okay, folks, I'll be honest; I've been waiting for a device like Amazon's Kindle for quite some time. Small, portable, readable, and -- perhaps best of all -- connectable directly to the internet for content. It's cheaper than a laptop, uses less power (I assume), has a direct-light readable screen, and could solve one of the nagging problems faced by the newspaper industry today: It could lower the high cost of printing papers.

According to an episode of On The Media, however, ( the Kindle might be destined for the dustbin. )

Not familiar with the James Randi Educational Foundation? James has worked tirelessly over the decades to debunk the bunko artists, the crap salespeople that peddle cheap gimmicks as gold, that prey upon the desperate with empty hopes. He does this by demonstrating what cheats these people are, and by offering a simple challenge: If you think you are psychic in any way, come to us and let us prove it. If you can demonstrate your psychic or paranormal powers in a double-blind test, The Randi Foundation give you a million dollars. It's that simple.

So far, no one has accepted the challenge and collected the money. Go figure.

The problem might be, though, that these flim-flam artists don't really need Randi's cash. They make pretty good money peddling lies and deceit to their generally pretty strong followings. If they tell their legion of minions to complain about Randi, they probably will.


Via Pharyngula.

Addendum, April 12, 2009: It looks like Randi is back on the air! Woo-hoo!