That'd be a great idea!

Assuming, for me that is, that newspapers or magazines ever realize that my blog exists.

Posted by: Jimmie at June 8, 2004 11:10 AM

Voter turnout will play a key role in this election. If people not only vote today, but also take friends with them, call people, email people or take a minute and post something to a message board or blog about why it's important to vote for Andy Rosenberg, we could be sitting here tomorrow with a new Congressman and have rid ourselves of Jim Moran. Jim Moran is an embarrassment and is, as The Washington Post puts it, "not fit for the office."

Posted by: Vote Tuesday at June 8, 2004 10:41 AM

Unfortunately, while I work in the 8th District, I live in the 10th. And I like my guy (Frank Wolf).

Posted by: James Joyner at June 8, 2004 11:12 AM

"the poster boy for corruption and anti-Semitism"

Don't forget wife-beating.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg at June 8, 2004 11:34 AM

Or colleage beating for that matter...

I've got the same problem as James, I work in the disctrict but live in another. As a former resident of the voting disctrict I vowed to do what I could to swing things around.

Posted by: Kevin at June 8, 2004 12:48 PM

I'll have to stand next to James on this one. Work in District 8, live in District 10, and happy with Wolf.

You'd think that the folks who live in District 8 would tire of having a laughingstock as their Congressional Representative.

Posted by: Boyd at June 8, 2004 12:54 PM

NBC 4 is reporting that turnout so far has been light in the primary.

Posted by: Vote Tuesday at June 8, 2004 01:52 PM

I believe Matt Labash's prediction from 2002 is becoming more and more prescient each day:

True, we still cannot touch J. Lo. But with the speed at which she is marrying through the population (Affleck will be the 32-year-old's third husband), odds are that we will all get a shot.

link

Posted by: Christopher Cross at June 8, 2004 02:18 AM

I think by the time someone's past marriages get into triple digits the allure has kind of faded.

But that's just my opinion.

Posted by: McGehee at June 8, 2004 10:24 AM

I think we should cut the guy some slack, who knows how any of us would react if our kid had a staring role in a snuff film. I agree (even as someone who does not support Bush), that he is a little out there, and has been even before his kid was killed, but damn, as a father I have sympathy for him...

Posted by: David Scott Anderson at June 7, 2004 04:10 PM

I think the guy needs some serious grief counseling... or a muzzle.

Posted by: Laurence Simon at June 7, 2004 04:21 PM

Just curious how long we are supposed to cut this guy some slack for his outlandish views of who is responsible for his son's death? I sympathize for the guy because I have never experienced anything close to what he must be going through, but everytime he opens his mouth he is using his son's death to further his own belief.

At what point do we start to say this man is just hell bent on furthering ANSWER's cause and will use anything, including his son's death, to obtain that goal.

Posted by: Mike at June 7, 2004 04:25 PM

I agree Mike, but everytime it is covered here and elsewhere, it just gives him a forum, dontcha think?

Posted by: David Anderson at June 7, 2004 04:28 PM

I tend to give people slack until they start hanging out with Stalinists...but that's just me...

Posted by: Christopher Cross at June 8, 2004 02:28 AM

The irony of this is, if this were a Zero Tolerance policy school and he needed to take the Ritalin there, he'd probably be suspended or even arrested.
I'd say "damned if you do", but that would imply religious bias. /sarcasm

Posted by: Jon at June 7, 2004 01:34 PM

"The detective told me if I did not medicate my son, I would be arrested for child abuse and neglect."

Translation: If I don't drug my son into a sheeplike state that makes life easier on the school's teachers, they'll arrest me for child abuse and neglect.

And my wife wonders why I'm so dead set against sending our son to public school.

Posted by: physics geek at June 7, 2004 02:47 PM

Yeah- It takes a Village to raise a kid.. really it does.

Posted by: Paul at June 7, 2004 03:53 PM

Well I am with you all on this one. And it is even worse here in Costa Rica where there is a National Ministry for the Protection of Children. Believe it or not you can be put in jail for raising your voice at your kids. I kid you not. I am all for protecting the children. There have been enough articles written recently about Parents abusing their kids to the point of murder while authorities ignored the situation, but some of these things go way too far, and this is one of them.
And while I never bought into the Takes a Village, thing. I do recall a time when I was growing up, that any adult in my nieghborhood who saw us doing somthing wrong would send our asses home and call our Mothers or fathers to let them know what we were up to. Today, many parents are more likely to tell the person to mind their own business, and that is sad.

Posted by: David Scott Anderson at June 7, 2004 04:17 PM

Unbelievable. Since when do teachers and doctors decide what is best for someone's children? It's not like the kid is being kept off of some life-saving drug here. It's not as if the child is being hurt in anyway by not taking the drug, so how is this child abuse?

Posted by: Mike at June 7, 2004 04:40 PM

This pisses me off. I was on Ritalin (legitimately back in the early 70s). I was HYPERACTIVE. Think poster-child. But, Ritalin turned me into a zombie. My parents decided the side effects far outweighed the benefits and pulled me off it - in their words - "We wanted you to be able to act like a child again - the Ritalin turned you into a lifeless kid". Instead, my parents experimented around with various diets - finally figuring out that artificial colors and flavors were the main culprit for my hyperactivity (true for many children). They made EVERYTHING from scratch and my hyperactivity became far less a problem. To force a parent to medicate their child is pure bullshit - way over the line and seriously stretches the role of what government should be capable of doing. Declaring the good intentions of the parents child abuse, no less.

If the kid is disrupting class - that is one thing - but making medication the forced solution is outrageous.

Posted by: ibejo at June 7, 2004 06:52 PM

My daughter was prescribed Ritalin when she was five. Yes, FIVE. I balked at first, but was pressured into giving it to her. Two days later, she came to me and said "Mom, I don't feel like Natalie anymore." I immediately stopped medicating her.

I had to face reprimands and lectures from school officials, her nuerologist and her teacher, all of whom thought I was being a bad parent for not giving my child a medication that I believed was doing more harm than good.

Turns out she wasn't ADD, anyhow. Go figure.

Posted by: michele at June 7, 2004 06:55 PM

I'm sure Ritalin has benefits. But, I agree with the general sentiment here. We use it as a crutch to homogenize and solve challenges and issues with our young that demand unique solutions.

But, no. In our current environment, we see the manifestation of symptoms that could result from any of a hundred psychological or physical issues and we prescribe Ritalin-like solutions.

David's comments are on the money. It DOES take a village to raise a child. But, today, try scolding a child for something... you'll very likely get an earful from that child's parents.

Tim

Posted by: Tim Macalpine at June 7, 2004 10:32 PM

Ah, the three 'Rs of ADHD trailer trash, "Racin' 'Rasslin and Ritalin" ;-)

Posted by: Bob at June 8, 2004 08:20 AM

Actually, that guy may be misinformed about the secret bunker from the insider info I was told.

Posted by: jen at June 7, 2004 11:40 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if he were misinformed, Jen. I have personal knowledge that some of the "facts" he has presented in earlier books were wrong.

Posted by: Boyd at June 7, 2004 12:38 PM

There's no doubt that that particular bunker exists, I just don't think that was the one where Cheney was located. I don't want to breach security, but I have a friend whose husband ended up as part of Cheney's security detail on 9/11 and for several weeks after - that's not where they were.

Posted by: jen at June 7, 2004 08:26 PM

This is getting ugly!
Bill Clinton must be smiling in his cigarroom

Posted by: buzz at June 7, 2004 11:10 AM

Some polls show Bush leading in the traditionally blue state of New Jersey, but that could just be becasue 9/11 was local news for us.

Posted by: Jane at June 7, 2004 12:03 PM

I can't read this piece without remembering how many times I've heard the accusation that Bush/Cheney "stole" the election last time . . . I suppose this is the way for the Dems (at least in Illiinois) to make sure that the people's voice is heard.

Of course, this will surely be corrected before the election, but one wonders how the Illinois Dems are spinning this so that they appear to be anything other than obstacles to democracy.

Posted by: BoDiddly at June 7, 2004 12:20 PM

The party just got "too cute by half" when they scheduled the convention as close to 9/11 as they did. Didn't anyone in the Illinois party realize what the law was in their own state? Come on guys, you call yourself professional politicians?

Posted by: Rance at June 7, 2004 03:08 PM

Maybe I missed this part in the article, but it seems like it didn't even address how students responded to questions about the Holocaust. I don't think that given the information in the article, it's fair to make the statement that it was "glossed over." Furthermore, as a teacher, I can attest to the fact that often times class discussions or student interest levels overall in the class can determine what students remember, regardless of whether or not a teacher makes a concerted effort to cover all the bases. Frequently, the teacher must decide between forcing facts down students' throats (of which none will be remembered) or responding to student interest and allowing students to spend more time discussing a particular issue. Thus arises the question of whether students should have to spend more time focusing on the internment camps or the Holocaust (though certainly not eliminating either). Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I think to imply that the Holocaust must have been "glossed over" is incredibly unfair to the school.

Posted by: Sharleen Mondal at June 7, 2004 07:56 AM

In my experience from discussion with US students, WWI usually beginns in 1917 and WWII in 1941...... This means, that their knowledge does not include the crucial years before the US involvment and if that is true, how can they know anything about the reasons and background for the wars?

But I fear that "modern teaching" has reached also European and German schools and I dread to ask German students some indepth questions about the Third Reich and WW2. At least the Holocaust gets a lot of airtime in history education, that is one thing you can be certain off.

And what ever happened to really learn facts and data in school instead of just "discussing" things in class. I had a teacher in geography who made us learn maps from Europe, Russia, Afrika and Northern America. learing meant here, that in the final test you got a map with just the outer marks of Russia, for example, and you had to draw a given number of rivers, mountains and of course major cities acurately into the map. And in history you have to memorize a number of dates and names, if you want to even start some serious form of discussion, right? Of course it is boring in the beginning, but once you've memorized this crucial information, you can compare and analyse much better and discussion makes more sense and fun. And that was only 15 years ago.

But looking at today's media, having a discussion without so much as knowing the basics about the topics is very much en vogue, it would seem

Posted by: Pat at June 7, 2004 09:14 AM

Addendum: while I certainly do not want to diminish or relativate the extermination of Jews in the concentration camps, I would like to point out that just for fairness reasons, that hundreds of thousand of gypsies, gays, social democrats and communists, active opposition members from German nobility or labor unions as well as prisoners of war have been murdered/exterminated as well and should be remembered (in history lessons) just as well.

Cheerio from Old Europe

Posted by: Pat at June 7, 2004 09:19 AM

Sharleen, your analysis is frightening considering that you call yourself a teacher. You, of all people, should be embarassed, not making excuses for this girl's lack of knowledge. It's disturbing that this girl confuses internment camps with concentration camps. And this trend to learning the social history of WWII instead of the military history should alarm everyone. Teachers should help shape discussion of topics in their class, not let the kids dictate where it goes.

Sure you want the kids interested in what they're being taught, but if they're not taught the entire history, how are they learning anything from their discussions?

Posted by: Mike at June 7, 2004 09:39 AM

Mike, if you read my comment carefully, you'll note that I do mention that neither the history of the Holocaust nor that of the internment camps ought to be neglected. Furthermore, I know of no teacher who does not base class discussion on prior reading of the material. I cannot speak for this particular school, but from what I know, students become acquainted with historical facts before discussing them in class, unless the discussion in meant to be preparatory for reading. Of course one cannot generalize about what happens in every classroom, so I cannot speak for the details of this particular case other than those presented in the article.

I am neither ashamed nor embarrassed about the move toward considering social history; however, I support social history when it is not at the expense of eliminating factual knowledge. Furthermore, I do not make excuses for anyone's lack of knowledge and don't see how my previous comment could have implied this; rather, I meant to explore how students might remember particular historical moments more than others. If a student cannot remember the class material, that act of forgetting is the student's responsibility. If a student found a particular historical moment more memorable than another, slighting the teacher when we have no evidence that the teacher neglected to teach the Holocaust is unfair.

Posted by: Sharleen Mondal at June 7, 2004 10:01 AM

...they are re-writing our history...

Posted by: pylorns at June 7, 2004 10:17 AM

Then after World War Two, it got kinda quiet, 'till Superman challenged FDR to a race around the world. FDR beat him by a furlong, or so the comic books would have you believe. The truth lies somewhere in between...

--Abe Simpson

Posted by: Christopher Cross at June 7, 2004 01:58 PM

It takes a Village II

Posted by: Paul at June 7, 2004 03:56 PM

Before anyone gloats about the quality of your public school education...

How many of you know that thousands of German and Italian Americans were also forced into internment camps operated by the INS during WWII?

Do you know that thousands of Germans, Italians, and Japanese from Latin America were deported to the United States and placed in the internment camps here?

Did you know that many of these people were imprisoned until late 1947 -- two years after the war had ended?

Did you know that most of those who were sent to the United States from Latin America were not allowed to return there?

The WWII internment camps that existed for West Coast Japanese Americans is only part of the story. How would you have felt to be a second or third generation Peruvian of Japanese heritage who was kidnapped, sent to a camp in the U.S. for five years, and then eventually shipped off to Japan where you're viewed as a foreigner?

Posted by: Fritz at June 7, 2004 06:05 PM

Fritz,

Everything you said is relevant and important with respect to the nature of the internment camps during WWII.

As for its relevance IN World War II--eh, far less important. At bottom, things like Rosie the Riveter and the varying details you speak of are trivia.

Interesting trivia, but trivia nonetheless. I don't expect a high school education to impart the details of the interment camps--it's enough to know they existed and why. Anything more detailed than that basic acknowledgment can/should be covered in a college level course. Teaching of WWII should at least cover the major events of the war.

History doesn't just "happen"--and it is for that reason that knowing about Patton, Rommel, the Battle of the Bulge, etc etc is far more important than knowing that Lucky Strike gave up it's green for the war effort...

Posted by: Christopher Cross at June 8, 2004 02:36 AM

Unfortunately you find this kind of teacher like Ms. Russom everywhere in the world. While it is certainly a hard and tough job to teach children, it is also a privilege and people like Russom seem to abuse this privilege just in order to push their own agenda. I never had a problem with a teacher (at least not in the higher classes) who was clearly supporting a certain party or certain political idea if he seperated his points of view from the basic teaching. You can always teach the material at hand which is necessarry to learn first in order to make up your own mind before entering into a discussion. In that discussion you can than claim that the history books, the current governement or whatever majority is thinking a) about the topic while you as teacher are thinking b) for reasons c,d, and e. That is fair enough. But what this teacher does is indoctrination, nothing else, and it has no place in school, not even in an "elective course".

Strangely enough it is usually the left teachers who step over the line mostly. A few years ago in my old school the 17 year old daughter of our state's prime ministers was verbally attacked and insulted in class by her teacher for things her father did as a politician and which the teacher did not like. The teacher was sacked shortly afterwards and while I thought that everyone would agree that this behaviour was totally out of order, some lefties still cried havoc over the sacking of the teacher being totally overreacted. And I thought that this Nazi idea of "familiy punishment" has ceased to exist in the cultivated western world...... silly me!

Oh, yeah, btw: why wouldn't Ms. Russom include some of the interesting younger revolution like the ones in Hungary, Techoslovakia or East-Germany where people rsiked a lot to get rid of their Sozialist leadership

Posted by: Pat at June 8, 2004 11:40 AM

The Google cache has the obscured text http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:hvZ4ibFTzg8J:www.pantopia.biz/+pantopia&hl;=en

Posted by: mog at June 7, 2004 11:24 AM

What good does that do? None of the graphics are cached. :(

Posted by: Boyd at June 7, 2004 12:31 PM

Believe me you're not missing anything...

Posted by: Kevin at June 7, 2004 12:35 PM

That presumes you know just how low my standards are, Kevin.

Posted by: Boyd at June 7, 2004 01:17 PM

Thanks. I nearly didn't bother with a second caption as the picture was a tough one for me to think of captions for. When all else fails slam some politician.

Posted by: Rodney Dill at June 7, 2004 03:18 PM

Actually I was going to go with your first caption until I saw the second at the last minute.

Posted by: Kevin at June 7, 2004 06:03 PM

He was an older guy, maybe mid-40's...

Ahem. Mid-40s is still young, I'll have you know.

Damn whippersnappers...

Posted by: Boyd at June 6, 2004 07:03 PM

Do you think he's screwed up because he can't speak English, because he's old, or because he was buying alcohol very early on a Sunday?

Posted by: Sharleen Mondal at June 6, 2004 07:19 PM

And he paid with quarters!

And I also resent that older guy crack! Damm youngin's no respect any more!

Posted by: Marc at June 6, 2004 07:20 PM

Sharleen: D), all of the above.

Body, Marc: "Older" as in "Older than me." Guy probably had at about 10 years on me, and I feel plenty old (regardless of the calendar).

J.

Posted by: Jay Tea at June 6, 2004 07:36 PM

You'll always be a whippersnapper to me, Jay.

Posted by: McGehee at June 6, 2004 08:16 PM

Nice catch Boyd, I was thinking how I would respond before I even finished reading the post. I'm mid forty's and I just finished beating my 14 year old daughter (my youngest) at Tennis, not that I'm any good, and she's just starting.

I always tell her that old age and treachery overcome youth and skill.

Posted by: Rodney Dill at June 6, 2004 08:32 PM

I think you are being to hard on the guy... Usually by the time I'm buying booze with with quarters at 7 in the morning, my English ain't too good neither.

Posted by: Paul at June 6, 2004 10:10 PM

Funny, all I can think of is that I haven't bought a quart at 7 in the morning with a bunch of quarters since college...and I had to stand in line because the late shift from the candy factory was letting out. Quite a few of them didn't speak English very well either as I recall.

Posted by: Timmer at June 7, 2004 06:20 AM

In other news John Kerry is protesting the US illegal occupation of Mars and offers a plan to hasten our withdrawal.

I keep the Mars link on my portal page at work. I like to check the progress every few days. It's amazing to see pictures of such clarity from the surface of another planet.

Posted by: Marble at June 6, 2004 10:43 AM

He doesn't disagree with the mission to Mars, just how it was carried out. feh...

Posted by: Kevin at June 6, 2004 05:42 PM

Engineers have been conducting experiments in a test bed facility at the Jet Propulsion Lab to see how steep a slope the rover can climb on sandy and rocky surfaces.

WTF? Didn't they do that a year ago??????

Posted by: Paul at June 6, 2004 10:14 PM

Exhaustive testing for every contingency is not feasible. I'm sure they tested to rovers to specification, but now that they have a specific situation where they want to be able to get the rover back out of the crater, they will see how far the can push it beyond spec, or try various alternate approaches, like using the digging tool as a climbing tool.

Earlier on the Spirit had problems because the longest test was something like 9 days, and after 18, (I probably got the number of days wrong) the flash memory got too full and caused problems. You can only do exhaustive testing if you have all the time and money in the world, which NASA does not have.

Posted by: Rodney Dill at June 7, 2004 07:27 AM

Oliver overplayed that hand dramatically.

The VRWC did not accuse Clinton of rape, a woman did. Gawd Knows the ink Anita Hill got because of the "seriousness of the charge."

The fact his wife is a criminal was not just a whacky accusation. She still can't explain how she did many of the things she did. (or where the billing record were)

Ken Starr was not a "partisan" until James Carville started that line of defense.. It is like the old lawyers saying, "When the facts are against you, argue the law. The law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts and the law are against you, attack the other lawyer." When Clinton lied under oath, both the facts and the law were against him.

And Oliver knows he was not impeached for a sexual affair. He lied to a court under oath.

And the most laughable is that members of the VRWC "threw his friends in jail" as if they did not commit crimes, we just jailed them because they had a 'D' behind their name.

More moonbat denial of reality from the left.

Posted by: Paul at June 6, 2004 09:55 AM

You are right on about this. As a person who leans left, I think it best to stick to legitimate issues, rather that go off on conspiracy theories and what have you. From what I read of most of that, it is nonsense.

Posted by: David Scott Anderson at June 6, 2004 12:55 PM

Okay, I understand he got some legs from the PBS thing, but why does this snarky idjit continue to be treated as some sort of totem? I mean, jeez, just the Brittant BS should stomp him.

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at June 6, 2004 01:14 PM

Why is it that everytime someone dissagrees or has a different point of view, they have to be an idiot. That kind of remark always serves to just lower the level of discourse. I respect Oliver tremendously for what he has accomplished. I dont always agree with him, though we share the same political viewpoint, but I have never seen him INSULT someone to make a point. I admire Kevin for his balanced presentation of the conservative viewpoint. He has even taught me a thing or two, and made Wizbang a regular stop for me. But then again, I have never, with exception of a few prominent republican windbags, considered anyone on the right to be an idiot... Well one Big exception, but I wont get into that in this post. To me, one of the greatest living American Politicians is the Honorable John McCain, who is probably one of the only Republicans in RECENT years, I would have voted for. But there are many I respect. I can take an oposite position without making it a personal attack on you, and to be honest it is one the reasons that the conservative right could never really appeal to me. I KNOW I am not always right, and am always willing to listen respectfully to other points of view. But it is a huge turnoff when people just go into attack mode/personal attack mode, becuase they dont agree. I NEVER saw Ronald Reagan do that, and that is why I mourne him with the rest of you, becuase he was in my opinion an honorable man. I believe that if he saw some of the things that go on now in the name of conservatism, he would say.... "Sir, have you no shame."

Posted by: David Scott Anderson at June 6, 2004 03:15 PM

To me, one of the greatest living American Politicians is the Honorable John McCain

Hmmm I looked up the definition of "Honorable" in the dictionary and it did not say "shameless camera hog" anywhere.

Maybe you have a different version.

Posted by: Paul at June 6, 2004 09:49 PM

No Problem Paul, I see you as the kind of person who would say the same thing about Jesus becuase there are so many paintings of him. But then again, Jesus was pretty Liberal wasnt he....

Posted by: David Anderson at June 6, 2004 10:54 PM

David

If you don't like the word idiot, don't make people use it so often.

You're being a jackass.

P

Posted by: Paul at June 7, 2004 02:13 AM

Well Paul, it appears that you're deliberately ignoring the fact that a common honorific for a U.S. Senator (indeed, any public official) is "Honorable."

I realize you wanted to express your feelings about McCain, but it doesn't seem fair or appropriate for you to start a pissing contest with David over something he wrote that's entirely appropriate.

Just MHO.

Posted by: Boyd at June 7, 2004 08:47 AM

Thank you Boyd. But dont worry, one of the things my Mama taught me was not to go into someone else's house and piss on the floor. I believe that the arguments most heard and respected above the din are those that are made with logic. Therefore I have no intention of getting into a flame war with Paul or anyone else for that matter. He has every right to think I am an idiot, I on the other hand am blessed that his opinion has zero impact on my life, or the opinion of those who trully know me.

Posted by: David Anderson at June 7, 2004 11:31 AM

I debated at length putting this in the comments of the original post. I felt it warranted a full post as many people were jumping to many conclusions.

As I said, Kevin has given us a ton of latitude here on Wizbang. He has never once exercised editorial control in any way even though he and I are basically on polar opposite sides of the most controversial issue in politics. (that obviously being abortion) If anything would be a litmus test for a guest blogger that would be it. He's never said a word.

I've been looking for a chance to work some kudos into the conversation for that, but it never came up. Now it did.

Traitor! Blasphemer! Turncoat! Infidel!

(to Kevin) Master, may I burn the heretic for you?

Seriously, Paul, I respect your position on this, as well as your superior expertise with graphics. (Have I thanked you yet for fixing my Boston Globe posting that blew the hell out of the page? If not, thank you. If so, thank you again.)

But I gotta disagree with your analysis. I pulled out PhotoShop and went to work on those graphics myself.

Two things tend to make me think Limbaugh's site did lift Natalie's work. First, the image size. Both graphics are 432 x 459 pixels. That strikes me as an unusual size -- it reduces to a 16x17 ratio, which works out to an 8.5w x 8h. A strange coincidence, it seems to me. But I could easily be mistaken -- for all I know, that's a standard image size.

The second observation, though, is tougher to argue. It is how perfectly the insert is aligned in both. When scaled to 8.5 x 8, the top edge of the text is aligned perfectly with the 4 7/8 mark, while the right edge is at 5 7/16 in both images. If that's a coincidence, it's stretching the bounds of credibility.

I have to side with your gut, Paul -- my highly-untrained opinion says it's a tweaked version of Natalie's original graphic. And the phrase "plausible deniability" goes back to the original point -- that's a legal defense, and "it isn't illegal" is an incredibly poor defense. It's usually an admission of moral or ethical failings.

But you're right on one point -- we should give Limbaugh a chance to respond to these charges. He very well may rise to do right by Natalie. And as Hunter S. Thompson once wrote, "the scum also rises."

J.

Posted by: Jay Tea at June 5, 2004 11:17 PM

I've got to disagree with Paul's analysis of the drop shadows. Both images appear to me to have the shadows placed on the same sides: right and lower.

Posted by: noodleman at June 6, 2004 12:01 AM

Extremely busy today, so I missed the chance for a lengthy comment. Diversity of opinion is welcome, especially when I'm right :-).

Posted by: Kevin at June 6, 2004 02:12 AM

Jay and noodle

Gentlemen, you are free to disagree with me on my opinions. You are not however allowed to disagree with an obvious fact. That is defying logic, not me.

Look at the drop shadow in the top and left sides of both boxes. There are dots there that were not there in Jess's version. It is not a matter of opinion. A different drop shadow tool was used.

======

Jay

it reduces to a 16x17 ratio, which works out to an 8.5w x 8h. A strange coincidence, it seems to me.

Duh! Reduced to the exact ratio of the original art work. (mag cover) That's like saying an 8 x 10 reduces to 4 x 5 so it must mean something. You are finding the obvious and trying to call it atypical.

And our collective hunches are probably right. They probably took Jess's art work and manipulated it then reused it. But-- Isn't that what Jess did with the Life mag to begin with?

Taking work and repackaging it is a hallmark of the blogosphere. Granted it was not an incredible amount of work but they did do it.

Certainly they could have gone and gotten the mag and recreated it. That is why I said they basically stole an idea. And I'll repeat what I said earlier- If stealing an idea and repackaging it is banned then we can just shut the blogosphere down.

Paul

Posted by: Paul at June 6, 2004 09:40 AM

Paul, I'm not gonna argue about the drop points -- that's a term of art I am completely unfamiliar with. What I was trying to express was that both pieces took two separate images (the cover and the beginning of the article) and synthesized them together. I'm tossing my flag based on both of them using EXACTLY the same pixel-dimension pasteboard, and EXACTLY the same alignment of the two separate pieces.

As far as "stealing and repackaging" -- Limbaugh's people did less "repackaging" on the image than when GM took a Chevrolet Cavalier, stuck a wreath and crest on it, jacked up the price 10 grand, and called it a Cadillac Cimarron. All they did was the equivalent of changing the hood ornament.

"Stealing and repackaging" is, indeed a crucial element of the blogosphere. So, however, is calling out those who do it without attribution, and giving credit to where it is due.

The lack of accoutability in big media is one of the driving forces of the blogosphere. I've lost count how many distortionists, fabulists, and plagiarists have been busted by bloggers. Now that big media is noticing the bloggers, though, and attempting to capitalize on the swelling popularity. Now more than ever bloggers have to stick to their roots, their strengths, and keep themselves honest.

J.

Posted by: Jay Tea at June 6, 2004 12:44 PM

Jay I don't completely disagree.. I just think the piling on was overboard.

Paul

And yeah- The Cimarron sucked BIG TIME.

Posted by: Paul at June 6, 2004 12:58 PM

Well, I dont know anything about Photoshop or any of the technical details involved in doing what was done. One could argue that with the publicity Natalie has gotten from this, it has worked out to be a good thing. I cant bring myself to listen to Mr. Limbaugh, but I will visit next week and see if there is an update here. It will be interesting to see if he addresses the controversy, since he rarely admits error.

Posted by: David Scott Anderson at June 6, 2004 01:02 PM

You can't screw around with ethics. One of the problems with recent politics which bugs the increasingly few people not committed to a political party (like me) is that principles are so fluid. If Al Franken had done the same thing many people would be up in arms denouncing him.

But it's always hard to chastize a friend or think that this friend is not totally up to our own standards. So both parties have a tendency to overlook and rationalize it when their people step over the line.

No, I think Kevin showed he stood firm on princples. That means for someone like me who reads all different sides and loves to read differing views that Whizbang has enhanced credibility -- because it's anchored in key values that don't change depending on friendship or political alliance. (In fact, I used to do the blog of the day and will do it more erratically and do whizbang using this as a peg for my first one in months).

But I will say this: I am certain if we really found out what happened we would see that an underling in charge of his webpage did this. That does NOT excuse what was done. And if the person from whose website it was lifted doesn't care, that also doesn't change what was done. There have to be certain principles and ethical standards that are defended. A little deal is a big deal because not lower the bar ANY MORE in America is what we should all be trying to do.

Posted by: Joe Gandelman at June 6, 2004 01:57 PM

While Rush may have breeched the rules, there's much bigger fish to fry. The nation is in a struggle for it's existance and the VRWC is losing a propaganda war. I would rather pile on the appeasers, the pacifists and the misguided liberals when attacking the main stream media. Instead of posting absurd statements from newspapers and commenting among ourselves, it might make sense to comment to and in the media itself and try to sway public opinion before the election in 25 weeks.

Posted by: Jane at June 6, 2004 02:39 PM

If you are expecting a man to take time on a radio show listened to by 50 million people a week and apologize for something an underling might have done, I think you are going to be sorely disappointed.

Even if it were lifted directly, which it was not, the best you could realistically hope for is a mention on the website.

Let's be realistic.

Posted by: Paul at June 6, 2004 10:05 PM

1911-2004

Rest in Peace, big guy. We will always remember you for destroying the Evil Empire and building the World's sole Superpower. We have a lot to thank you for. You've done a lot of good for this world. You were a good man.

Posted by: Ricky Vandal at June 5, 2004 05:24 PM

He was my favorite President. And though I mourn his passing, I'm happy that he no longer has to live through the affliction of Alzheimer's.

I remember, as a young man, being completely fascinated during his speeches. They called Reagan the "Great Communicator." He told stories that made me remember the stories my grandfather told my brother and I when we were growing up.

He seemed the perfect person to lead the country during a time when the Cold War was ending and our place in the world was more... concrete.

He was my favorite President.

Bon voyage, Mr. President. Thank you for leading us into a world that made me proud to be an American. You have my respect.

Tim

Posted by: Tim at June 5, 2004 06:42 PM

I'm not surprised, but I still am saddened. I always thought he was wonderful, even though I was too young to vote for him. I was lucky at that age because when you're young, you don't have a party preference and the president is simply a great man.

In my older eyes, I was right - he was a great man!

RIP Gipper

Posted by: Marble at June 5, 2004 06:49 PM

Freed of his affliction at last. Bon voyage, Ron -- and thank you.

Posted by: McGehee at June 5, 2004 07:19 PM

While I rarely agreed with his politics. I admired his courage and commitment. He was a Great President, and his legacy will live on. Goodbye Mr. President, and rest easy.

Posted by: David Scott Anderson at June 5, 2004 10:01 PM

More reactions to Reagan's death.

Posted by: Mike Hirshberg at June 6, 2004 01:55 PM

I moved the picture post to the top of the page (for the rest of the day) and linked to this one for commentary.

Posted by: Kevin at June 5, 2004 05:52 PM

I have collated some tributes on my blog- including one from Thatcher

Posted by: Adrian Warnock's UK blog at June 5, 2004 08:47 PM

Wow, we're really close in age. I was 18 in February 1986 so I didn't get a chance to vote for Reagan either. But I have a great picture of me and my college buddies counting the electoral votes for Bush Sr. in Nov. 1988 (Reagan's third term).

Posted by: Eric Lindholm at June 5, 2004 09:55 PM

I was working as a photographer for my home town newspaper back in Michigan the day Reagan was shot. My boss and I grabbed our stuff and hit the street. One of the first group of people we asked their opinion for...we were floored:

"I hope he DIES!" These two women had five kids with them, and one of them was very pregnant with another. They were black, and they hated Reagan's guts, you could see it in their eyes. Such hatred for a man who just took office only two months prior just seemed incomprehensible to me.

So today's LLL reaction to Reagan's passing doesn't surprise me one bit.

Posted by: Macker at June 6, 2004 02:28 AM