HunterThinks.com

Iran president vows no retreat on nukes - Iran- msnbc.com

2008-08-02T16:44:00.000-05:00

MSNBC is spreading more propaganda. The headline states that Iran "vows" to seek nuclear weapons, "Iran president vows no retreat on nukes".

But Iran's president did not "vow" to make weapons, and the article itself does not even claim that is what he said.

First, the article admits that Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons: "The West accuses Iran of seeking to build nuclear warheads under cover of a civilian power program. Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, denies the charge."

Next, MSNBC quotes Iran's president as stating that Iran will not retreat from its "nuclear right." If Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, then this nuclear right must mean nuclear energy.

Which is exactly what the articles tells us next: "Enrichment can provide fuel for power plants, which Iran says is its aim, but also material for bombs if refined more."

In MSNBC's universe, which is apparently devoid of logic, if Iran seeks nuclear power, and that nuclear power, once had, can be converted into a nuclear bomb with additional work, and if Iran explicitly states that they are not working on nuclear weapons, and if Iran explicitly states that they have a right to nuclear power, then what Iran was really saying was that Iran is trying to build a bomb.

Under that fantasy, Japan is building a bomb (55 reactors). And so are Switzerland, Slovakia, and Mexico. They all have more reactors than Iran, which has zero reactors.

Propaganda and deliberately misleading the public only makes this tense situation more difficult.

Shame on you, MSNBC.

Spreadshirt.com sold my email address to spammers

2008-07-22T18:43:00.003-05:00

Like everyone else, I receive too much spam email. To help fight that spam email, I create a unique email address for each company I deal with. When I ordered from Spreadshirt.com, for example, I gave them a unique email address s_shirt@hunterthinks.com. If someone sends spam to that email address, then only one company could have sold my address to the spammer--Spreadshirt.com.

I have been doing this for years, and most companies have not sold my email address to spammers. Spreadshirt.com, however, has sold my email address, and I know they did because I have received spam emails sent to the email address that only they had.

Do not order from Spreadshirt.com--they will sell your email address. What is to prevent them from selling your other information, too? In fact, why will they not sell your credit card information to identity thieves?

Clearly, instead of making money by selling t-shirts, they would rather sell customer information to email scammers.

Iraq official presses U.S. for pullout plan - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com

2008-07-08T13:43:00.000-05:00

Iraq official presses U.S. for pullout plan - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com: "National security adviser says any security deal must contain timetable"

Iraqi leaders are publicly demanding a timetable for troop withdrawal. Over the past seven years, when an American, however, has demanded a timetable for withdrawal the Bush administration attacks the timetable as foolish or even favorable to the terrorists. Yet, last week the Prime Minister of Iraq demanded a timetable, and the national security advisor demanded one today. Are the Iraqi leaders asking for something that will help the terrorists? I doubt it.

Consider the following typical statement from President Bush when he was at a 2005 press conference with the Prime Minister of Iraq: (emphasis added)

There's not going to be any timetables. I mean, I've told this to the Prime Minister. We are there to complete a mission, and it's an important mission. A democratic Iraq is in the interest of the United States of America, and it's in the interest of laying the foundation for peace. And if that's the mission, then why would you -- why would you say to the enemy, you know, here's a timetable, just go ahead and wait us out? It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you're -- you're conceding too much to the enemy.

The above quote is from 2005, but the policy has not changed; President Bush said only three weeks ago: "There should be no definitive timetable. I am confident that [British Prime Minister Brown], like me, will listen to our commanders to make sure that the sacrifices that have gone forward won't be unraveled by drawdowns that may not be warranted at this point in time."

If it is true that timetables help the enemy, then the Iraqi leadership is supporting a policy that helps their enemy. That is absurd. The truth is that timetables, per se, do not help or hurt the enemy. The fact that the leaders of Iraq are calling for a timetable helps to prove this point. The Bush administration, and the right-wing press, need to stop asserting such a ridiculous claim.

In fact, now that the Iraqi government has called for a timetable, we must provide one because President Bush essentially promised to make a timetable if the Iraqis asked for one. (Thank you to Michael DeCrane for reminding me of this. See also Vote No on JOE (Knollenberg))

For the Iraqis, the main goal of the timetable is the complete withdrawal of US troops. Iraqi national security advisor, Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, said yesterday, "We're unambiguously talking about their departure." The President promised to leave when the Iraqis asked the troops to leave:

The Iraqi government wants the troops to leave and it wants a timetable for the withdrawal. President Bush promised to leave when asked, so he is honor-bound to provide a timetable.

Finally, President Bush's heated rhetoric about timetables is hypocritical: in 1999, Governor Bush demanded that President Clinton set a timetable for withdrawing from Kosovo.

Know your propaganda techniques

2008-07-06T15:40:00.001-05:00

It is not a secret that the US government uses aggressive propaganda techniques. Furthermore, even when the US government is not directly manipulating the major news organizations, the media tends to support the official position. If the news organizations and the government are sometimes misleading the public, what can we do?

The first step to fight the propaganda is to know when we are being mislead. A recent Washingtonpost.com article provides an excellent example of blatant propaganda: Post 9/11 dragnet turns up surprises - Washington Post- msnbc.com.

The article is about the US government's efforts to fingerprint thousands (millions?) of people outside the US even if they are not suspected of a crime. This article masterfully demonstrates a number of effective techniques. I recommend reading the article first, then coming back to this blog post to study the techniques.

Propaganda technique 1: use ingroup/outgroup bias

Ingroup/outgroup bias is the natural, psychological bias we all have that favors people we perceive as part of our group: the "ingroup." Similarly, we all disfavor people that we perceive as being in the "outgroup." The article sets the stage by invoking this strong bias: "[T]he U.S. government has been fingerprinting insurgents, detainees and ordinary people in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa . . ." The readers of the article are not from Afghanistan, Iraq, or Africa, so the people fingerprinted are part of the outgroup. Notice that the very first sentence admits that "ordinary people" are being fingerprinted, but by placing those "ordinary people" in the outgroup, the reader is less concerned by the obvious violation of their rights.

Propaganda technique 2: vilify

As readers, we are more likely to support fingerprinting bad guys than fingerprinting good guys or "ordinary people." To make it easier for us to accept violating the rights of others, the article builds on the outgroup bias and explicitly turns the outgroup into villains. Those that are fingerprinted are "insurgents" and "detainees" and "[t]hey have criminal arrest records in the United States." It is easy to support fingerprinting these terrible people. Notice that the government did not know that they were criminals until after they were fingerprinted. If the article described these people as "mothers, fathers, and workers", would you support the fingerprinting program as much?

Propaganda technique 3: use pejorative words, even if they are unnecessary or conclusory

All of the propaganda techniques are enhanced by the proper use of inflammatory words. Instead of saying that someone has an "arrest record", the article tells us it is a "criminal arrest record", as if they could have a "civil arrest record" or a "bake-sale arrest record." Adding the word "criminal" vilifies the outgroup more effectively.

Instead of proving something true, good propaganda will simply state the conclusion that it wants the reader to have. According to the article, the government fingerprinted a "suspected militant fleeing Somalia." He was "fleeing"? How do we know that? "And the man stopped at a checkpoint in Tikrit who claimed to be a dirt farmer but had 11 felony charges in the United States, including assault with a deadly weapon." (Emphasis added.) According to this sentence, if the US government charges you with a crime (but does not convict you), then you cannot possibly be a farmer. Notice how subtle it is to use conclusory words.

Propaganda technique 4: draw on highly emotional events

The point of propaganda is to influence what people think without using reasoning. It is obvious then to use highly emotional events to influence people. "The fingerprinting of detainees overseas began as ad-hoc FBI and U.S. military efforts shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." This directly connects the fingerprinting of the evil outgroup terrorists with the 9/11 attacks. The natural emotional response will be to support the fingerprinting because the evil terrorists caused the program to happen.

Propaganda technique 5: acknowledge counter-arguments but minimize them

If the propagandist ignores counter-arguments, then some readers will have lingering doubts. The best way to deal with this is to acknowledge the counter-argument, but to defeat it. The straw-man argument is very effective: state the counter-argument in a weekend form (a straw man) and then knock it down. In this article, "civil libertarians" (an outgroup) "raise concerns", but those concerns are vague. But do not worry about civil liberties, fingerprinting "is a boon for the government and the bane of privacy advocates." (Emphasis added.) Notice that fingerprinting is not the bane of "ordinary people" or law-abiding citizens or your family: it is the bane of the "privacy advocates" (an outgroup--are you a "privacy advocate"?). Therefore, any privacy problem here is minimal.

Propaganda technique 6: avoid providing evidence

Even if a claim can be substantiated with hard, easy to find data, avoid using it. A claim backed by data is a claim backed by reason. Propaganda is an appeal to emotion. Consider this amazing paragraph from the article:

"The bottom line is we're locking people up," said Thomas E. Bush III, FBI assistant director of the Criminal Justice Information Services division. "Stopping people coming into this country. Identifying IED-makers in a way never done before. That's the beauty of this whole data-sharing effort. We're pushing our borders back."

How many people were locked up? Where? By whom? What were they charged with? Were they convicted? How many people did we stop from entering the US? This is simple data to provide--if the program is actually working.

Propaganda technique 7: create improper connections between claims and evidence

If two ideas are close together in an article, then the readers will naturally connect the two ideas--even if the connection is nonexistent. The article has the following two paragraphs:

Already, fingerprints lifted off a bomb fragment have been linked to people trying to enter the United States, they said.

In a separate data-sharing program, 365 Iraqis who have applied to the Department of Homeland Security for refugee status have been denied because their fingerprints turned up in the Defense Department's database of known or suspected terrorists, Richardson said.

The first paragraph says that we rejected entry to bombers. The second paragraph implies that the total number of rejected bombers is 365. But that is not the truth. We have rejected a 365 applications from "known or suspected terrorists", and the article previously admitted that this list is not very accurate. These two paragraphs, however, convey to the reader that we rejected 365 applications based on irrefutable fingerprint evidence from bombs.

For each technique listed above, the article contains many more examples. As far as I can tell, every single sentence uses one or more of the techniques: it is a tour de force of propaganda.

Coda: this fingerprinting program is a disgrace

As described in the article, this fingerprinting program is a disgrace to the US. We are allegedly using war to spread freedom to the Middle East. Consider this passage from the article: "For example, a roadside bomb may explode and a patrol may fingerprint bystanders because insurgents have been known to remain at the scene to observe the results of their work." (Emphasis added.) Under this program, if you witness an attack on soldiers, then you can be fingerprinted. Said differently, if someone else with brown skin commits a crime, then you might be fingerprinted because you have brown skin and were in the area. Horrible.

1(800)SUICIDE needs your help

2008-06-30T22:24:00.003-05:00

After I donated through PayPal, I received an email stating, "We have no paid staff and 95% of the donations go [to] our telephone bill." Learn more at Hopeline.

Wow.

A journalist struggles with math

2008-06-30T13:36:00.002-05:00

I often get frustrated when newspapers, news websites, and media organizations (not individuals) make obvious and correctable errors. In an article attempting to answer the reader question, "Can I invest in the stock market without the aid of a stockbroker?", MSNBC stated the following: (emphasis added)

Mutual funds still carry the risk that the investment manager won’t pick the right stocks either. For every fund that beats the market average, there’s another one that fell short by the same amount. (By definition, only half of the funds can offer returns that are “above average.”) If you subtract the fees that mutual funds charge to pay the investment manager and other expenses, the average return of all funds is going to be less than the overall return of the market you’re investing in.

To see the error, imagine a small stock market that only has 100 people. If the definition of "average" is the median return on investment, then fifty investors must be below the median and fifty above the median.

Now modify our definition of the market, it has 100 people--fifty solo-investors and fifty mutual fund managers. Fifty people still must be below the median, but which fifty people? It could be any mix of solo-investors or mutual fund managers. All fifty of the managers might be below the median, all fifty might be above the median, or any other mix.

MSNBC's mistake was to not recognize that mutual fund managers are not the only investors in the stock market. It is not true that half of the mutual fund managers must be above the median and that half must be below the median. (It is true that if we compared mutual fund managers to only other mutual fund managers, then half of the managers must be below the median of the average mutual fund manager.) In fact, only 10% of all mutual funds are above the median. Said differently, 90% of all mutual funds are below the market average.

The MSNBC article overstates the performance of mutual funds, but that is not my major complaint. I think it is unacceptable that a financial advice article from a large news organization (with the resources to catch mistakes) makes such a simple error: misapplying the definition of median.

Postsecret, response

2008-06-29T06:43:00.002-05:00

From the Sunday Secrets posted 20 June 2008 at PostSecret:

"The woman cop who investigated my rape case told me I wouldn't win in court because I hadn't screamed loud enough during the attack."

Dear Made-In-Japan,

1. Never take legal advice from a non-lawyer, especially a non-lawyer who is convinced she/he knows the law
2. Get a lawyer: it is safe now to scream as loud as you can
3. Be strong; the legal process is incredibly difficult

Homosexuality and legal rights

2008-06-28T19:02:00.002-05:00

In 1998, Malaysia imprisoned the deputy prime minister for homosexual acts. He was released in 2004, and he now leads the opposition party in parliament. The police have accused him of homosexual acts again--it is still a crime in Malaysia. Malaysian opposition leader accused of sodomy - CNN.com

Do you believe that he should be put in jail for homosexual acts? Asked differently, do you believe that someone should have their legal rights (e.g., freedom) limited because they are homosexual?

Even if you believe that homosexuality is immoral, does that mean that it should be illegal? Does that mean that someone should have limited legal rights? I think it is clear that homosexuality, without anything more, should not have any impact on legal rights. A gay political leader, for example, should have the same legal rights as a straight political leader.

This is the heart of the gay marriage issue. In the 48 states that prohibit gay marriage, people are being denied legal rights simply because they are homosexual. If you don't think we should put people in jail for being homosexual, why do you think we should punish them by denying them the legal benefits of a legal relationship?

What benefits? If you are in a terrible accident and connected to life support, for example, only certain people can decide whether you should stay connected to life support. A spouse can legally make that decision--a boyfriend or girlfriend cannot make that decision.

These rights affect the children of gay parents also. Right now, if a child lives with two unmarried gay parents, only one of the adults is legally a parent. If that parent dies or is incapacitated, the other parent cannot make legal decisions. Imagine this horrible scenario: two gay parents and their child are in an accident. The child is severely injured. The legal parent is killed. The non-legal parent is OK. The child will have brain damage--but there is a 25% chance that experimental surgery will prevent the brain damage. To do the surgery, the doctors must have permission from a legal guardian. The non-legal gay parent is standing right there, but because she is gay, she cannot give permission: the child has brain damage. Is this scenario too far-fetched for you? Then think about simple medical decisions, signing permission slips for school, enrolling the child in little league, etc. The non-legal parent has limited legal authority to do any of those activities.

Why are we legally punishing people simply because they are gay?

McCain the gentleman?

2008-06-28T13:13:00.001-05:00

From McCain's Eight Most Inappropriate Jokes

In 1998, McCain was speaking before a GOP fundraiser in Washington, D.C. when he asked, 'Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father.' The joke was wrong on so many levels- for it's offense to the Attorney General, for it's offense to the president and his wife. But most of all, for his attack on a eighteen year old girl.

Putting things in perspective

2008-06-28T07:46:00.002-05:00

Beijing airport deploys armed guards - Beijing Olympics News - NBCSports.com

Reporting often fails to put information into perspective.

"Guards with machine guns began patrolling the Beijing airport. . ." (emphasis added)

First, the story tries to scare you by using the term "machine guns." An M-16 is a machine gun. In other words, all of the National Guard troops patrolling American airports since 9/11 are carrying machine guns. In Israel, machine guns are everywhere: airports, grocery stores, outside the temples, in the temples, praying in the temples, roadblocks, everywhere. Second, China just "began" this policy. In fact, most places in China have relatively few visibly armed guards, even in places like Tian'anmen Square.

"The measures reflect the fears of Chinese leaders, who worry the Olympics might be tarnished by security threats." (emphasis added)

If the Chinese did not provide world-class security at the Olympics, how would the world react? Could it be that the Chinese are prudently increasing security instead of fearfully increasing security? When the US government bounced us back and forth between Yellow alert and Orange alert and security increased, did we call it "fear"?

"Chinese police usually are unarmed, while some airport guards carry pistols." "I think they look cool, and you rarely get to see such big guns." (emphasis added)

These sentences do help to put things in perspective. Yes, China is often heavy handed--I personally saw a trial where a man received three years of hard labor because he was storing and selling a dangerous rat poison. Nevertheless, most police in China are unarmed and they rarely use force or the threat of force.

No "flood" of Gitmo writs

2008-06-23T14:20:00.002-05:00

Some politicians and some newspapers are erroneously arguing that the federal courts will be "flooded" with requests from the 270 detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

This is absurd.

In 2004, federal courts handled 92,654 criminal cases. In addition to criminal cases, the courts handled at least 98,000 civil cases (the last year reported is 2002). In total, the federal courts handle at least 190,000 cases per year.

How can an extra 270 cases possibly be a flood?

270 / 190,000 = 0.14% increase. Zero-point-one-four-percent. "Grab the kids, Ma! A flood's a comin'!"

The courts wont be flooded with writs, but the public might get flooded with ridiculous claims by politicians and journalists.

The alleged Chinese desire to "crush" the Tibetan uprising

2008-03-22T22:25:00.004-05:00

I have seen a couple of American websites reporting that the Chinese are seeking to "resolutely crush" the Tibetan uprising. I have no doubt that the Chinese are using considerable force to stop the uprising. It is also a near certainty that the Chinese tactics are more severe and heavy handed than the tactics that would be used in Western countries.

Nevertheless, it is outrageously absurd to single out the word "crush" in this case. First, I am skeptical that "crush" is the best translation of the character used by the Chinese. MSNBC allegedly quotes the Chinese newspaper The People's Daily as using the word "crush." I looked on The People's Daily Chinese site and I found this article talking about Tibet. The article says that a Chinese official has asked everyone to help "压" (yā) the situation in Tibet. This word can be translated as "crush," but it can also be translated as "control."

Translating the word as "crush" removes the word from its cultural context and is misleading. In the US, we use the idiom "hard on crime." What does it mean to be "hard" on crime? The word "hard" doesn't have meaning here--it is an idiom and to understand the full meaning requires the cultural context. This is the same thing with "ya" in Chinese. In China, the best way to be "hard on crime" is to "ya" crime. It is fair to translate the word as crush, but it is also fair to translate it as control. In this context, the word "ya" means to fight crime vigorously by legitimate means. In the English context however, the word "crush" implies illegitimate means. To translate this word (ya) as crush is to completely distort the intent of the speaker.

Second, we Americans use similarly inflammatory and aggressive rhetoric when we talk about the "war" on terror. We are going to "hunt them down" and "eradicate" terrorists. Terrorists are "wanted dead or alive." The language we use to talk about state security is unambiguously violent and heavy handed. China views the Tibetan uprising as a state security issue, yet their rhetoric is ambiguously heavy handed at best.

It is absurd to harp on the language used by the Chinese to describe Tibet. It is much more productive to look closely at how China is acting. I am 100% positive that we will find many things to criticize. Criticizing the language they use, however, is petty and reduces our credibility.

An open letter to Slate.com about Chuck Asay

2008-03-03T11:44:00.000-06:00

Re: Chuck Asay's cartoon dated 1 March 2008, in which the final frame accuses Barack Obama of "Class Envy."

I have been regularly reading "Today's Cartoons" since you launched the feature a few years ago. I do not recall exactly when Chuck Asay was added, but I do remember that I quickly recognized his cartoons.

A little over a year ago, I was yet again aghast at his cartoon, and shocked that Slate was continuing to publish his work. I assumed I was overreacting. In my view, Asay was outrageously bigoted and jingoistic, and I could not reconcile my thoughts about Asay with my respect for Slate. I Googled Chuck Asay's name to see if other people shared my view. Of course, I found many sensible people (and many hysterical people) that agreed with me. I also found that he was "retiring" from his Colorado newspaper.

I was relieved.

I assumed that his "retirement" meant that his misleading hate-speech would soon disappear from Slate.

I was wrong.

Over the last year, I have steadily decreased the amount that I look at Slate's cartoon collection specifically because of Asay--and only because of Asay. After today's cartoon, I will not view Slate's cartoon section until Asay's cartoons are removed.

In the piece that Asay posted today, he depicts an American, who happens to be black, as having "Class Envy." This American is rich--he graduated from Harvard Law. He is powerful--he is a U.S. Senator, author, and social leader. According to Asay, which "class" is this American allegedly envious? How can a rich, powerful, young, mainstream, Christian, male American be in any other class in America than the very highest class? It's not possible: this American, who happens to be black, is in the highest class in America.

Since this American, who happens to be black, is in the highest class in America, what type of "Class Envy" does Chuck Asay think Obama has? The only reasonable interpretation is that Chuck Asay thinks Obama is envious of the "white class."

This interpretation is reinforced when one views this cartoon in the context of Asay's complete body of work. He routinely depicts women as being inferior and irrational. He routinely depicts non-white ethnicities as being inferior and freeloading off white Americans. The only consistently rational and absolutely moral people in Asay's cartoons are white, male, Christian, conservative, heterosexual, Republican Americans. When one compares today's cartoon to the rest of Asay's work, the only conclusion is that Asay is once again expressing a disgustingly bigoted point of view.

Chuck Asay has the right to think bigoted thoughts, to draw hate-filled cartoons, and to have them published. Especially since it is easy for anyone to publish his or her own content on the Web, he has near total freedom to speak his mind. Similarly, Slate has the right to publish his cartoons and to sell advertising on the web pages that show his cartoons.

I have no right to interfere with Asay's thinking and drawing or with Slate's publishing, and I am not going to sue anyone over these cartoons.

I do have the freedom, however, to stop looking at Slate's cartoon section. And, until Slate removes Chuck Asay from their new cartoons, I will not visit your cartoon section anymore.

Peace is not risky. Duh.

2007-11-28T08:22:00.000-06:00

President Bush is holding peace talks between Israel and Palestine. He eloquently stated, "I don't think it's a risk to try for peace. I think it's an obligation." 27 November 2007.

This is stark contrast to his statements less than two years ago. "[N]ot until you [Hamas] renounce your desire to destroy Israel will we deal with you." 25 January 2006.

Bush also did not "try for peace" when Arafat was alive. "Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership so that a Palestinian state can be born." 25 June 2002.

It is incredibly sad that it has taken six and one-half years for this President to understand that peace is not risky.

Art begets art

2007-09-05T14:57:00.000-05:00

The US Constitution authorizes Congress to create a patent and copyright system to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." The authors of the Constitution believed that an effective intellectual property system would encourage innovation and advancement. It is only recently that we have started to view the IP system as an entitlement to use the coercive power of the state to make a profit. Dr. Stephen Hilgartner says that the focus of the IP system has gone from encouraging innovation to controlling the use of protected property.

In my opinion, this transition is one of the reasons why we have overly protective patent and copyright laws--do we really need to grant a 75-year copyright to the owners of Battlefield Earth? To fix our misguided IP laws, we will have to return to viewing the patent and copyright system as a way to encourage innovation and stop viewing it as an entitlement system.

I think it is easy to see how patents promote new inventions: by disclosing the invention, other inventors learn new techniques and can build on that knowledge. In other words, science begets science. But it is not obvious how art begets art.

To illustrate how art begets art, I have collected some videos from YouTube. Once we begin to think of art as leading to more art, then I think we can start to design laws that promote progress rather than just enrich corporations.

This series of examples starts with the soundtrack to Beverly Hills Cop (23 years ago!), which includes a song called Axel F (or listen to a short clip). The song was a hit in the mid 80's but was a joke by the 90's.

Unrelated to the song, a Swedish guy recorded his impression of a small combustion-engine in the late 90's and it showed up in various forms around the Internet. This one is probably the most famous and I think it is still funny.

Someone decided to combine the Axel F song with the Swedish car-impersonator and the result is Axel F as remixed by Crazy Frog. So, this art is the result of two prior pieces of art. Without the Axel F song or the Swedish guy's funny noises, we wouldn't have this video. In fact, there are a couple more layers to this artistic work. The Axel F song was commissioned by the Beverly Hills Cop movie producers (itself a piece of art) and the Crazy Frog video includes animation and cinema. This one simple video has many artistic contributors. It is an excellent example of art begetting art.

But, the plot thickens. Crazy Frog is marketed to kids, and the "Frog Brothers" made an awesome lip-sync of Axel F.

Obviously, the shorter brother is the love child of either Martin or Charlie Sheen.

So the movie lead to the song which lead to the remix (the song combined with the funny noises and the video) which lead to the lip synch. Art begetting art begetting art.

But, it gets even better, these guys made a parody of the Frog Brothers!

The parody was amazingly precise. Look at the two videos side-by-side.

Art begets art. This is important because art can connect different ethnicities and cultures.

Argentinean: (It looks like they were watching it in their garage with their friends and decided to record their own version. It is bad, but still funny. They guy in the yellow shirt is more emphatic during the middle part of the video, and the little guy pretends that he doesn't know the words, but he nails most of the "bing bing"s.)

Russian: (Not as good as 15-years later, but it is still pretty good. I wish they would rotate the camera!)

Canadian: (Not bad. The tall guy has watched it a lot. The short guy has to watch the screen and imitate it.)

Icelandic: (They have their own interpretation. It's the tattooed, punk version.)

These Norwegians didn't even bother to put the music in. They are watching it on the computer and mimicking the original. (They also add guns and sex. My property professor once said that all lawsuits are about money or sex. I wonder if this is a related concept.)

British: (They add a butter knife and plastic machine gun. There is nothing quite like two teenage girls imitating crazy frog brothers while licking a butter knife.)

Girls gone froggy. (One of them falls down and runs into the light--too funny.)

Another good parody but with sisters.

Bearded guys: (The black shirt considers himself a serious actor. I think he is in a Weezer cover-band, IT department, or both.)

I don't even know what to call this. It's not exactly a parody. This guy loaded the Frog Brothers into his dance simulation game and played it. (Notice that he has over 2300 combinations and he gets fantastic or excellent each time. He has played this video a lot!)

The authors of this next video say that it is "[a] tribute to you Crazy Frog Bros. You two have made such an impact on our lives."

The last video proves my point. This series of artwork had an impact on these kids and it leads them to make their own art. Art begets art. We need to stop thinking of the copyright system as an entitlement of property rights and go back to designing laws that promote the progress of the arts. Bing Bing.

Bionormativity

2007-08-15T19:07:00.000-05:00

Katherine K. Baker is a Professor of Law and Associate Dean at Chicago-Kent College of Law and has an article titled Bionormativity and the Construction of Parenthood in a forthcoming 2007 issue of the Georgia Law Review. A thorough and fascinating article, it provides a model for understanding and analyzing the modern American legal system's regulation of parenthood.

http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/08/bionormativity.html

Correcting the error of not error correcting

2007-07-24T11:03:00.000-05:00

Carolyn Shapiro is an Assistant Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, and she published an article last year titled The Limits of the Olympian Court: Common Law Judging versus Error Correction in the Supreme Court in the Washington & Lee Law Review. In her article, she shows how the Supreme Court's certiorari process has inadvertently led to inconsistent application of some legal standards by lower courts. Additionally, she provides some logical, simple, and compelling solutions for the problem.

http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/blog/2007/07/correcting-error-of-not-error.html

Revisiting the Bus Hypothetical

2007-07-17T19:50:00.000-05:00

My latest blog is a technical analysis of a semi-famous hypothetical from law and economics. I imagine that it will be pretty boring to anyone outside of law...

Judge bans the word "rape"

2007-07-08T22:04:00.000-05:00

In the retrial of State v. Safi, the court has banned the use of the words "rape," "sexual assault," "victim," "assailant," and "sexual assault kit." A lot of people think it the judge is crazy, but I don't.

The Top Ten Moments During Closing Arguments of US v. Conrad Black, et al

2007-07-03T07:38:00.001-05:00

My latest blog post is about some funny and interesting moments at the Conrad Black trial.

Chicago-Kent Law Blog

2007-06-29T13:11:00.000-05:00

I now contribute to the Chicago-Kent Law Blog.

My latest post is a review of a law review article written by my Constitutional Law professor.

My first post was about a conference at our school covering Michael Crichton's book Next.

The Tragedy of Don Imus

2007-04-29T21:19:00.000-05:00

We witnessed a tragedy this month. Don Imus called the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos". Al Sharpton, and others, said he was racist, got upset, and demanded he be fired. Imus apologized, a lot, and went on Sharpton's radio show to apologize - again. Imus was suspended. People were still angry. Imus was fired.

The dictionary reminds us that a tragedy is when we suffer because of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances. Most people view this as the tragic story of Don Imus - he had the moral weakness of racism, and that caused him to suffer a downfall. Now, no one should ever fear the terrible fate of being called a nappy-headed ho.

A large group of people see a more serious tragedy - a tragedy that casts American pop culture in the lead role. In this story, America's indifference to the mistreatment of women in rap music and the hip-hop culture is the tragic flaw. America is suffering because we insulted a group of women that deserve our praise. Instead of singing songs that call women bitches and hos, we should cast out the demons of misogyny and sing Kumbaya. While holding hands.

That's a great story, right?

Sorry, I think both of these stories stink. Firing Imus didn't fix anything. No one is better off - no one is safer. It will not reduce the amount of actual racism in America.

I hereby make two bold predictions: first, no one will ever show their breast during the Super Bowl again, and second, no one will ever say, "nappy-headed ho" in anger on the radio again. Overt racist speech by white men on syndicated radio is not a national crisis because the amount is minimal. The civil rights movement has managed to defeat this monster. Want proof? How about the backlash against "PC" speech? There is so much pressure for PC speech that people are now rebelling against that! America does not generally tolerate public personalities that routinely use racist speech.

Want more proof that public racist speech is so small that doesn't hurt America? Imagine you can wave your magic-no-public-racist-speech-wand. Woosh. All racist speech on the radio is now gone. Isn't life great? No more wars. No more poverty. No more crime. No more racism. Woosh. I just waved my no-magic-necessary-duh!-wand. Even if all public racist speech was gone, there would still be racism. And wars, poverty, crime, and a bunch of other things that suck.

And the exact same thing goes for trying to wave a magic-no-rap-music-wand. Censoring rap music will not fix our racism or sexism problems.

I promised you a tragedy, though. The real tragedy is that we wasted a lot of time and energy firing Imus but racism still hurts us all. Look above at our definition of tragedy - we are not coping with unfavorable circumstances. Racism is still a major problem in America: education, poverty, wages, enforcement of the laws, capital punishment, etc. We have defeated overt public racism, but we have a long way to go.

And I have proof. The federal government just released a report that shows cops in America are more than twice as likely to search black and Hispanic motorists than white motorists. Even worse, cops are almost four times more likely to use force on a black suspect than on a white suspect. 4.4% of all public contacts with blacks involve force or the threat of force. 1.2% for whites. The report did not track the number of nappy-headed ho incidents.

Let me tell you the tragic story I witnessed this month. The main character is America. America has an inability to cope with the reality that we mistreat people with black or brown skin. America suffers from the division, from the derision, from the wasted minds, from the wasted talent, and from the elevation of mediocrity.

The tragedy is that America spent a lot of time firing Imus instead of actually fixing race inequality.

[Edit 14 May 2007]
This cartoon is excellent.

Suicide attacks in war

2007-04-03T23:12:00.000-05:00

The British Royal Air Force ("RAF") says that some fighter pilots may have to kill themselves by ramming their plane into "a vehicle carrying a Taliban or al Qaeda commander." The RAF believes that the British people respect the military because warriors have to make hard decisions like this.

In the movie Red Dawn, the Soviets invade America and an American teenager fighting against the Soviets blows himself up to kill a bunch of the evil communists.

Sacrificing one's life for the benefit of others is celebrated in our culture. It is also celebrated in many other cultures. Suicide bombers are celebrated by some cultures for the same reason.

Personally, I think that attacks directed at civilians are reprehensible and I do not think that a suicide bombing in a market is the same as the above two situations. Even though I think there is a difference between the two actions, some people might not see a difference.

Even Western cultures didn't differentiate between civilians and soldiers until a few hundred years ago. For thousands of years, it was ok to rape, pillage, and burn. You could kill any citizen of the enemy. It is only in recent times that our culture has adopted a rule against unnecessarily killing civilians.

A lot of Americans have a hard time understanding why there is so much support for terrorism. The major point that I am trying to make is that the difference between an honorable suicide attack and a terrorist suicide attack is very very small. It is important that Americans see that terrorists use tactics that are very very similar to our own.

Right now, America believes that terrorists are evil and deranged - this implies that they are rare. All we have to do is kill a "few bad apples" and the problem is solved. But, if we realized that terrorists are substantially similar to us, then we would not have such a silly attitude. We are not going to stop terrorism by killing a couple of people.

We are only going to reduce terrorists tactics with two things: first, spread the belief that attacks directed at civilians is wrong; second, fix the underlying issues that cause war.

The war is wrong in hindsight, but it was also wrong in March 2003

2007-03-21T09:24:00.000-05:00

Christopher Hitchens from Slate.com is proud that his support of the Iraq War has never wavered. In this piece, he does a pretty good job of explaining why we should support the war. It's so good, that the White House should hire him. But, he is still wrong.

He thinks it was scandalous that Iraq defied UN resolutions for 10 years and that the UN's credibility was at stake. Not true. First of all, many nations defy UN resolutions - Israel, Syria, North Korea, etc - and that doesn't reduce the UN Security Council's ("UNSC") credibility. Most of the time, the UNSC is good because they do nothing. With Rwanda and Darfur, it is terrible that nothing is happening, because many people are dying at sanctions will not help. But, Iraq was contained and violence was not necessary in March 2003. The best thing for the UNSC to do was to make a lot of noise and do nothing.

" The Security Council, including Syria, voted by nine votes to zero that Iraq must come into full compliance or face serious consequences." There are 15 members on the UNSC. The other 6 votes were abstentions. So, instead of voting against the resolution, they abstained to save face. "Serious consequences" didn't mean war - we know that because the UNSC didn't vote for war.

I agree with him that sending troops to the region was a good way to force the inspection process. The inspection process started up, but we invaded anyway. That means the next time we try to use this trick - "let us inspect or we will invade" - the country will not believe us. They will believe we will invade, but they will not believe that allowing inspections will stop the invasion. If you are about to fight a war, you should not let the enemy come in and do inspections!

All western intelligence agencies thought he had WMD. So what? Lots of countries have them. If we had allowed the inspections to continue, we might have discovered that he didn't have them. Ignorance is not a justification for war. And neither is universal ignorance.

"Was the terror connection not exaggerated? Not by much." So? How did the war stop or reduce terrorism? It didn't. There was no reason to think it would. There were lots of reasons to think that war would increase terrorism. The real terror "link" here is that American belligerence promotes terrorism.

"So, you seriously mean to say that we would not be living in a better or safer world if the coalition forces had turned around and sailed or flown home in the spring of 2003? That's exactly what I mean to say."

Let's pretend that Qaddafi has become more peaceful because of the Iraq war. The rest of the world is still more dangerous. We didn't invade North Korea because they had a nuke. Every other country now knows that to prevent an American invasion, they need to actually have WMD (like NK), not just pretend to have WMD (like Iraq). That is why Iran really wants a bomb.

The world is less safe mostly because other countries think we might attack them. Sad.

Lou Dobbs is mean

2007-03-13T09:31:00.000-05:00

Lou Dobbs wrote an editorial on CNN.com recently that has some serious flaws. Dobbs: Democratic hacks embrace lunacy of amnesty.

First, he spends most of the article calling people names. One has to read through all of the following before he stops insulting people and starts talking about the issue of illegal immigration.
· "Democratic hacks"
· "lunacy of amnesty"
· "partisan hacks"
· "pandering to [] special interests and corporate masters"
· "So-called comprehensive immigration reform legislation"
· "slam amnesty down the throats of the House of Representatives and their 300 million constituents"
· "lunacy of amnesty" (again)
· "shoveling the same nonsense that overwhelmed reason in the Democratic Party and the Bush administration last year" (two insults in one!)
· "march to madness"
· The supporters of the bill are "suspects" - imply they are committing a crime
· Dobbs attacks the bill and the supports of the bill by pointing out that Cardinal Mahoney supports the bill and that he "fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep secret all documents related to pedophilia among priests" Obviously, if you support amnesty for illegal immigrants then you are a pedophile.
· "But the Cardinal and other Catholic leaders are quick to embrace the laws of bankruptcy protection in order to not compensate victims of sexual abuse by members of the clergy." If you support amnesty, then you are a pedophile and a dead beat.
· "corporate lobbyists and dominant special interests . . . and [] enthusiastically helping Senator Kennedy write the new legislation." Kennedy is too lazy or stupid to do it himself. Our laws are being written by evil corporations and people that interests that are more special than your interests.
· "Senator Kennedy and his staff claim they're not being secretive about the details of the so-called comprehensive immigration reform, but they're just not willing to tell the public or other senators how the bill is being constructed." Where is the evidence of this? Never mind, let's assume it is true: how does this mean that amnesty is bad? He still has not explained why it is lunacy.
· "Notable Republicans are growing increasingly frustrated by their exclusion from the process, taking some umbrage at the immigrant advocacy groups replacing them in that process." It is so notable that he fails to note which Republicans.

The entire column has 14 paragraphs, but the first line that could possibly be interpreted to explain why amnesty is lunacy does not appear until the ninth paragraph.

He sort of says that supports of the bill are making two claims: one, businesses want to "keep wages depressed: and two, there is a labor shortage in construction, housing services, leisure and hospitality. He tries to attack these two ideas in the tenth paragraph. So, this is the first time he explains any part of his position.

But there is a non-trivial disconnect here: In each of those industries, a labor shortage leads to higher wages. Unfortunately for the EWIC and the Chamber, and really for American workers, real wages in those industries have been declining, suggesting a very real surplus, not a deficit, of unskilled labor. Yet this President and this Congress continues to push the adoption of a guest-workerprogram. It's no wonder they have matching approval ratings in the low 30s.

This paragraph has a number of problems. First, where are his numbers. The claim that wages are going down should be very easy for him to quantify. Especially because he is allegedly a journalist. Second, undocumented workers cause wages to fall partly because they are undocumented. Illegal workers have very little bargaining power so employers pay them less. So, if wages are going down in those industries, then it might be because there are too many undocumented workers. It is probably not just because of some alleged surplus of workers. In fact, this might explain why the Chamber of Commerce wants amnesty. Companies that hire illegal immigrants can pay less wages and therefore can charge lower princes for their goods. This gives them an unfair advantage over companies that don't hire illegal workers. Companies that don't want to hire illegal immigrants could support this bill because they want their competitors to play fair. Finally, Dobbs thinks that the President and Congress have approval ratings in the low 30s because of illegal immigration. Uh, have you heard of the Iraq war?

"Real wages in the overall construction sector have fallen nearly 2 percent since the start of the decade and nearly 4 percent since the recent wage peak in 2003." So, this means that wages went up from 2000 to 2003, then down from 2003 to 2006. How does he explain that wages went up while illegal immigration was happening? Plus, how does this compare to other industries? Are wages declining or advancing in the general population?

"Construction workers in 2006 were making the same per-hour salary as they did in 1965 (measured in 1982 dollars)." Can we get a source for this information? Why not? What happened to other wages? If this is because of illegal immigration, can you please connect it to some statistics on undocumented workers? There are a ton of reason why construction wages are like this: minimum wage, the growing income gap, the growing gap in education levels, higher productivity in the industry means companies need to hire less workers (lower demand for workers leads to lower wages), etc. Why should we assume that illegal immigration caused this?

"I've said for years that we cannot reform immigration if we cannot control it, and we cannot control it unless we secure our borders and ports." Not a bad point. He is probably right about this one. But, what does this have to do with amnesty?

In fact, how do any of his arguments support the assertion that amnesty is lunacy? They don't. He rages against illegal immigration by Latin Americans, but he doesn't explain why amnesty is lunacy. Yes, he is only complaining about Latin Americans. All of the industries he listed are get their undocumented workers from Latin American countries. Notice that he didn't get too upset about skilled industries like computers or health care that hire cheap undocumented workers from Europe and Asia.

Dobbs didn't get enough chances to insult people in the first twelve paragraphs, so he uses the last two to throw out some more insults.

So sad.