Bloglikes - Society en-US Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:52:47 +0000 Sat, 06 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0000 FeedWriter Western lifestyles pose risk to migrants' health, says WHO report Study finds new arrivals face increased risk of developing illnesses such as heart disease

Western culture and society pose more health risks to migrants and refugees than they do to host nations, according to a World Health Organization study.

The first report on refugee and migrant health in the west by WHO Europe suggests new arrivals are at risk of falling ill while in transit to another country, but face further dangers when they arrive in a host nation because of unhealthy living conditions, poor diet and the obesity epidemic.

Continue reading...]]>
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 07:01:12 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Health Europe Society World news Migration Refugees World Health Organization
8 New Year’s Resolutions for Deer Hunters Here's a look at 8 New Year's resolutions that all deer hunters should consider this year.... Read more...

The post 8 New Year’s Resolutions for Deer Hunters appeared first on

Mon, 21 Jan 2019 05:09:40 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Hunting QDMA Bowhunting Blog New Year's Resolutions for deer hunters
Former soldier who contracted Q fever in Afghanistan sues MoD Wayne Bass says his life has been ruined after developing infection serving in Helmand

A former soldier is suing the Ministry of Defence over its failure to protect him from contracting Q fever in Afghanistan.

Wayne Bass, a private from the 2nd Battalion, the Mercian Regiment, said his life had been ruined after developing the infection while serving in Helmand province in 2011 and not being given antibiotics by the army.

Continue reading...]]>
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 03:21:48 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs UK News Afghanistan Military Ministry Of Defence British Army Helmand Mercian Regiment Wayne Bass Afghanistan Wayne Bass
Help Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:04:57 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Alabama Landlord-Tenant Law Help Sun, 20 Jan 2019 23:58:00 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Alabama Buying Selling and Conveying Real Estate Home Insurance: Help Sun, 20 Jan 2019 23:53:44 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Alabama Insurance Law Business Ownership: Use of Personal Property in Business (LLC and Partnership) My wife and I are considering starting a business in the form of a LLC with both of us (and nobody else) as members. This would be an extension of our hobbys so we are looking to use some of the personal assets we have right now (equipment, tools, intellectual property) to achieve the business goals. In parallel, we’d like to continue using the same equipment for personal, non-commercial reasons (fun! :)). Is use of personal assets in business allowed or regulated/limited in any way? Are there financial or tax consequences? What are the differences in this regard between a LLC and a partnership?
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 23:03:50 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Washington Business Law Business LLC
Court of Appeal Materials on Greenhouse Gas Challenge On Sept. 14, 2018, the Government of Ontario announced a challenge to the federal government’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which will have significant economic and environmental implications, irrespective of how it is decided. A statement of particulars was required by this date, and the province specified that the Act creates an unconstitutional tax because it is ultra vires of the federal government, and contravenes s. 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The full arguments are available here.

Given the broad public interest, the Court of Appeal ordered that any province or territory may intervene as a right. On Jan. 18, 2019, the Court of Appeal released its decision on interveners, which included many other parties as well.

The recent decision is not itself very notable. What is of interest is that the Ontario Court of Appeal has made all of the court documents related to this matter available online . This is the first time the court has done so to my knowledge, following the long-standing practice of the Supreme Court of Canada. The availability of these materials have assisted students, scholars and observers greatly in understanding the  decisions  of the court, even though they cannot be read into the decision  itself, in particular in situations where there is a dissent.

It may be that it is only because of the high profile and public interest nature of this matter that these materials have been made available in this way, but eventually this is an approach that the courts could ideally utilize more broadly.

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 22:32:52 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Court of appeal Ontario Supreme Court of Canada Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Issues
"I am providing this factual account of what happened on Friday afternoon at the Lincoln Memorial to correct misinformation and outright lies being spread about my family and me." Writes Nick Sandmann, in a statement published at CNN:
I am the student in the video who was confronted by the Native American protestor. I arrived at the Lincoln Memorial at 4:30 p.m. I was told to be there by 5:30 p.m., when our busses were due to leave Washington for the trip back to Kentucky. We had been attending the March for Life rally, and then had split up into small groups to do sightseeing.
When we arrived, we noticed four African American protestors who were also on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. I am not sure what they were protesting, and I did not interact with them. I did hear them direct derogatory insults at our school group.
The protestors said hateful things. They called us "racists," "bigots," "white crackers," "faggots," and "incest kids." They also taunted an African American student from my school by telling him that we would "harvest his organs." I have no idea what that insult means, but it was startling to hear.

Because we were being loudly attacked and taunted in public, a student in our group asked one of our teacher chaperones for permission to begin our school spirit chants to counter the hateful things that were being shouted at our group. The chants are commonly used at sporting events. They are all positive in nature and sound like what you would hear at any high school. Our chaperone gave us permission to use our school chants. We would not have done that without obtaining permission from the adults in charge of our group.
At no time did I hear any student chant anything other than the school spirit chants. I did not witness or hear any students chant "build that wall" or anything hateful or racist at any time. Assertions to the contrary are simply false. Our chants were loud because we wanted to drown out the hateful comments that were being shouted at us by the protestors.
After a few minutes of chanting, the Native American protestors, who I hadn't previously noticed, approached our group. The Native American protestors had drums and were accompanied by at least one person with a camera.
The protestor everyone has seen in the video began playing his drum as he waded into the crowd, which parted for him. I did not see anyone try to block his path. He locked eyes with me and approached me, coming within inches of my face. He played his drum the entire time he was in my face.
I never interacted with this protestor. I did not speak to him. I did not make any hand gestures or other aggressive moves. To be honest, I was startled and confused as to why he had approached me. We had already been yelled at by another group of protestors, and when the second group approached I was worried that a situation was getting out of control where adults were attempting to provoke teenagers.
I believed that by remaining motionless and calm, I was helping to diffuse the situation. I realized everyone had cameras and that perhaps a group of adults was trying to provoke a group of teenagers into a larger conflict. I said a silent prayer that the situation would not get out of hand.
During the period of the drumming, a member of the protestor's entourage began yelling at a fellow student that we "stole our land" and that we should "go back to Europe." I heard one of my fellow students begin to respond. I motioned to my classmate and tried to get him to stop engaging with the protestor, as I was still in the mindset that we needed to calm down tensions.
I never felt like I was blocking the Native American protestor. He did not make any attempt to go around me. It was clear to me that he had singled me out for a confrontation, although I am not sure why.
The engagement ended when one of our teachers told me the busses had arrived and it was time to go. I obeyed my teacher and simply walked to the busses. At that moment, I thought I had diffused the situation by remaining calm, and I was thankful nothing physical had occurred.
I never understood why either of the two groups of protestors were engaging with us, or exactly what they were protesting at the Lincoln Memorial. We were simply there to meet a bus, not become central players in a media spectacle. This is the first time in my life I've ever encountered any sort of public protest, let alone this kind of confrontation or demonstration.
I was not intentionally making faces at the protestor. I did smile at one point because I wanted him to know that I was not going to become angry, intimidated or be provoked into a larger confrontation. I am a faithful Christian and practicing Catholic, and I always try to live up to the ideals my faith teaches me -- to remain respectful of others, and to take no action that would lead to conflict or violence.
I harbor no ill will for this person. I respect this person's right to protest and engage in free speech activities, and I support his chanting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial any day of the week. I believe he should re-think his tactics of invading the personal space of others, but that is his choice to make.
I am being called every name in the book, including a racist, and I will not stand for this mob-like character assassination of my family's name. My parents were not on the trip, and I strive to represent my family in a respectful way in all public settings.
I have received physical and death threats via social media, as well as hateful insults. One person threatened to harm me at school, and one person claims to live in my neighborhood. My parents are receiving death and professional threats because of the social media mob that has formed over this issue.
I love my school, my teachers and my classmates. I work hard to achieve good grades and to participate in several extracurricular activities. I am mortified that so many people have come to believe something that did not happen -- that students from my school were chanting or acting in a racist fashion toward African Americans or Native Americans. I did not do that, do not have hateful feelings in my heart, and did not witness any of my classmates doing that.
I cannot speak for everyone, only for myself. But I can tell you my experience with Covington Catholic is that students are respectful of all races and cultures. We also support everyone's right to free speech.
I am not going to comment on the words or account of Mr. Phillips, as I don't know him and would not presume to know what is in his heart or mind. Nor am I going to comment further on the other protestors, as I don't know their hearts or minds, either.
I have read that Mr. Phillips is a veteran of the United States Marines. I thank him for his service and am grateful to anyone who puts on the uniform to defend our nation. If anyone has earned the right to speak freely, it is a U.S. Marine veteran.
I can only speak for myself and what I observed and felt at the time. But I would caution everyone passing judgement based on a few seconds of video to watch the longer video clips that are on the internet, as they show a much different story than is being portrayed by people with agendas.
I provided this account of events to the Diocese of Covington so they may know exactly what happened, and I stand ready and willing to cooperate with any investigation they are conducting.

[Author: (Ann Althouse)]

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 22:24:35 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Europe Protest Law Washington Kentucky Native Americans Catholics Lincoln Memorial Phillips Covington United States Marines Ann Althouse Insults Racial Politics Fake News Covington Catholic Covington Catholic boys Nick Sandmann
A Firearm That Sends A Text If It Is Moved Journal Sentinel:

My God.  Look at that thing!  Hey, I still haven’t heard any takers to my hard hats and ketchup challenge.

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 22:06:20 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Military Gun Control Smart Guns
The Latest Front In Russian Infiltration: America’s Right-Wing Homeschooling Movement Via Pat Hines, Think Progress:

The group and its origins sound innocuous enough. But the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) — a right-wing group founded 36 years ago — has deepened connections between America’s religious right and Russians even as the latter have been sanctioned by the United States, according to a ThinkProgress investigation.

By networking with Russians, the HSLDA — now America’s largest right-wing homeschooling association — has provided the Kremlin with a new avenue of influence over some of the most conservative organizations in the United States.

[ … ]

But at the same time that details — and criticism — of these links between Russia and American right-wing groups were emerging, the HSLDA co-sponsored a formal homeschooling conference in Moscow and St. Petersburg, ThinkProgress found. One of the conference’s other sponsors was a foundation run by sanctioned Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeev. The event featured some of the most outspoken anti-LGBTQ officials in Russia, and included a Russian official who’s currently sanctioned by the U.S. for her role in stoking Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

It’s almost impossible to know where to begin, but I’ll attempt to offer up a few points.

Home schooling has been around for as long as America has been around, and even when the head master of a local school taught children, or supervised those who did, the teacher was always functioning in loco parentis.  This is so basic, so fundamental, so axiomatic, that is makes no sense to debate with someone who doesn’t know or understand that.

In the wake of Horace Mann and John Dewey, even if parents didn’t understand what they were doing, the state assumed ownership of children and what they are taught.  Communism is founded in and based on the assumption of state ownership of mankind.  The writer has it exactly backwards.  Horace Mann brought communism to American education, not Russia, or home schooling, or anything else.

The father of the modern American home schooling movement is Rousas J. Rushdoony.  Period.  End of discussion.  There is no debate about that.  It is axiomatic, and if someone doesn’t understand that, he is too stolid and ignorant to debate.  Debating someone over American history who knows nothing about American history is a waste of time.  For a discussion of the Christian basis for Rushdoony’s advocacy for home schooling, read his many works, all of them scholarly.

I know absolutely nothing about connections between anyone who was born in Russia, or calls themselves by a Russian surname, and any American home schooling association.  I find such a connection dubious to say the least.  At any rate, suffice it to say that the fundamentals behind what is being taught in American home schools and communism is diametrically opposed at every step.  Every one.

The only divide I currently find in the American home schooling movement is between the classic home schoolers – who still appear to hold sway, albeit waning – and the much more libertarian.  The former want to see state acceptance of the curricula, attendance, activities, etc., and are willing to allow state representatives to visit unannounced to verify records.  The later aren’t so willing and see neither need nor right to do that.

The American home schooling movement isn’t the monolith that this writer seems to imagine.  It is basically bifurcated between states, with each state having multiple home schooling associations, and with some home schoolers not a member of any particular association at all.

As for Russia, inasmuch as they are still communists, I opposed them at every turn.  Regardless of who catalyzed the war in the Ukraine, the Ukrainians don’t appear to want to be part of Russia, and I believe they have as much right not to be a part of that country as the American South does not to be a part of the U.S.  To the extent that they oppose gun rights, and they still appear to strongly oppose them, I consider them to be of the same ilk as the horrible controllers in America.

Not coincidentally, the author of this idiotic article is likely a controller and opposes God-given rights, which makes him more a supporter of communism and Russia that I could ever be.  Communists are the same the world over.  There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between them.

But something strange happens later in the article that I quoted above.  The author says, “The event featured some of the most outspoken anti-LGBTQ officials in Russia.”  So is that what this is all about?  The author is finding a connection between something bad in Russia and something he considers to be bad in America, namely “anti-LGBTQ?”

Because one of the core fundamentals of the home schooling movement is that the state doesn’t have the right to deliver moral absolutes to children.  Only parents have that sole domain.  And I’m willing to bet that we’ve put our finger on the root of the issue with the author.

This isn’t about Russia, or American home schooling, or any ridiculous connection between them.  This is about who has the domain of moral instruction for children.

Read it again and tell me I’m wrong.

Prior: Home Schooling Fight In Massachusetts

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 21:55:02 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Politics Russia America Ukraine Military United States Moscow Home Schooling Lgbtq Kremlin St Petersburg John Dewey Horace Mann Pat Hines Home School Legal Defense Association HSLDA HSLDA Right Wing Homeschooling Movement Konstantin Malofeev Rushdoony
Custody and Visitation Issues: What Are My Options if My Ex Keeps Making False Police Calls I'm posting this under custody and visitation because the calls typically involve our custody schedule and the children.
My ex calls the police whenever I don't do what he wants. For example, he wanted me to switch days recently and I politely said I couldn't (which was true - we had something planned). He stated that if I did not show up at his home with the kids, he'd assume something was wrong and notify the police. I said, "The kids are okay, nothing is wrong. I'm sorry, but we are just unable to switch our visitation schedule today." He then called the police anyway and said he was scared, so they came out to my home.
Last year he called and said I poisoned the kids. That was a nightmare. Thankfully the police figured out he was lying after I let them read the texts he sent me right before his call, but before that, I had to wake up the kids and show the police they were alive and well. It was late at night, and the kids were pretty scared to be woken up by police at our house.
When I first left my ex - which was years ago - he called the police every day for more than a month. He made false noise complaints, etc. late at night when the kids and I were already in bed. The kids were babies at the time so they'd wake up and cry each time the police beat on the door late at night. My landlord also got angry about the constant police visits and said we'd have to leave if it continued.
During some of the visits, the police have mentioned getting another restraining order against my ex. This would be restraining order #3. Unfortunately the judge denied my request a few months ago so now I'm not sure what to do.
Should I visit the in-house officer and make a report each time ex makes a fake call? Should I keep trying for another restraining order? It's really stressful to deal with this.
I'm terrified to call the police myself because my ex told me that he contacted them to say I pretend he harasses me and abuses the kids whenever I'm mad at him. I have never done this and would never do this, but now I'm scared the police think I'm just some petty ex.
More details in case they matter: Ex is currently being investigated by our local PD for a child-related crime (I wasn't the one who reported him) and also has several active CPS investigations open against him (all of the calls came from mandated reporters but ex thinks they came from me). Because of all this our judge temporarily reduced his custody til our trial.]]>
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 19:06:18 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Child Custody Cps Support And Visitation
Non Sequiturs: 01.20.19 Empirical SCOTUS] * Speaking of SCOTUS, here's Ilya Somin's read of the tea leaves in Knick v. Township of Scott, an important Takings Clause case.  [Volokh Conspiracy / Reason] * Stephen Embry disagrees with Joe Patrice's suggestion that junior lawyers are going extinct, but Embry acknowledges the major effect that technology is having, and will continue to have, on legal practice and employment. [ ] * Charles Glasser looks at what might have caused the political polarization of the modern media and its consumers. [Daily Caller] * The prospect of Michael Cohen testifying publicly before Congress is making some people giddy -- but it's not without its downsides, as Joel Cohen explains. [The Hill] * What can we learn from official Washington utterances about the shutdown? Here's some intel from VoxGov, via Jean O'Grady. [Dewey B Strategic] * Not all provisions of the Bill of Rights are created equal, according to Gerard Magliocca. [PrawfsBlawg] * David Berg draws lessons for trial lawyers from the genius of Joe Jamail's use of hypothetical questions. [YouTube]]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2019 17:30:16 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Technology Supreme Court Law Scotus Congress Washington Ruth Bader Ginsburg Government Shutdown Shutdown Litigators Bill Of Rights Michael Cohen Adam Feldman The Hill Grady Embry Joe Jamail Ilya Somin Non-Sequiturs David Berg Joel Cohen Joe Patrice Takings Clause Amy Coney Barrett Trial lawyers Gerard Magliocca Takings Charles Glasser Volokh Conspiracy Reason Jean O'Grady Knick v Township Stephen Embry Knick v. Township of Scott Bar Announces Florida Discipline Sanctions [Author: Legal Profession Prof]

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 17:10:34 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Florida Law Miami Florida Bar Legal Profession Prof Bar Discipline & Process
Stayed Suspension For Premature Taking Of Personal Representative Fees [Author: Legal Profession Prof]

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 17:10:34 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Missouri Supreme Court Legal Profession Prof Bar Discipline & Process
From Divorce To Disbarment [Author: Legal Profession Prof]

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 17:10:34 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs New York Law Legal Profession Prof Bar Discipline & Process District of Columbia Court of Appeals First Department Zappin
We Have Met the Problem. Guess Who? Here is chapter I contributed to the Hackademic 2018 book, Anti-Social Media?: The Impact on Journalism and Society. I’ve used various ideas in this in other posts recently. I’m leaving the British  spelling because it just might make me seem smarter. 

In all the urgent debate about regulating, investigating, and even breaking up internet companies, we have lost sight of the problem we are trying to confront: not technology but instead human behaviour on it, the bad acts of some (small) number of fraudsters, propagandists, bigots, misogynists, and jerks.

Computers do not threaten and harass people; people do. Hate speech is not created by algorithms but by humans. Technology did not interfere with the American election; another government did.* Yet we demand that technology companies cure what ails us as if technology were the disease.

When before have we required corporations to monitor and mediate human behaviour? Isn’t that the job — the very definition — of government: to define and enforce the limits of acceptable acts? If not government, then won’t parents, schools, clergy, therapists, or society as a whole — in its process of negotiating norms — fill the role? But all that takes time. In the face of the speed and scale of the invention and dissemination not only of technology but of its manipulation, government has no idea what to do. So in their search for someone to blame, government outsource fault and responsibility, egged on by media (whose schadenfreude constitutes a conflict of interest, as publishers wish to witness their new competitors’ comeuppance).

Why would we ever expect or want corporations to doctor us? Indeed, isn’t manipulation of our speech and psyches by technologists what critics fear most? Some argue this is the platforms’ problem because it’s the platforms that screwed us up. I disagree. It’s not as if before the net the world was a choir of angels. To argue that the internet addicts the connected masses, makes them stupid, turns them into trolls, and transforms them into agents of society’s ruin is elitist and fundamentally insulting, denying people their agency, their intelligence, their goodwill or lack thereof. The internet is not ruining humankind. Humankind is still trying to figure out what the internet can and should be.

It is true that internet technology has provided bad actors with new means of manipulation and exploitation in the pursuit of money and lately political gain or demented psychology. It’s also true that the technologists were too optimistic and naive about how their powerful tools could be misused — or rather, used but for bad ends. I agree that Facebook, Google, Twitter, and company must exercise more responsibility in anticipating and forestalling manipulation, in understanding the impact they have, in being transparent about that impact, and in collaborating with others to do better. There’s no doubt that the culture of Silicon Valley is too isolated and hubristic and must learn to listen, to value and empower diversity, to move fast but think first. Do I absolve them of responsibility? No. Do I want them to do more? Yes.

The terms of the conversation

But what precisely do we expect of them? For a project underwritten by the How Institute for Society, founded by Dov Seidman, I interviewed and convened discussions with people I respect as leaders, visionaries, and responsible voices in journalism, technology, law, and ethics. What struck me is that I heard no consensus on the definition of the problems to be solved, let alone the solutions. There is general head-shaking and tsk-tsking about the state of the internet and the platforms that now operate much of it. But dig deeper in search of an answer and you’ll find yourself in a maze.

At Google’s 2018 European journalism unconference, Newsgeist, I proposed a session asking, “What could Facebook do for news?” Some journalists in the room argued that Facebook must eliminate bad content and some argued that Facebook must make no judgments about content, good or bad. Sometimes, they were the same people, not hearing themselves making opposing arguments.

In my interviews, Professor Jay Rosen of New York University told me that we do not yet have the terms for the discussion about what we expect technology companies to do. Where are the norms, laws, or regulations that precisely spell out their responsibility? Professor Emily Bell of the Columbia School of Journalism said that capitalism and free speech are proving to be a toxic combination. Data scientist Deb Roy of the MIT Media Lab said capitalistic enterprises are finely tuned for simple outcomes and so he doesn’t believe a platform designed for one result can be fixed to produce another, but he hopes innovators will find new opportunities there. Technologist Yonatan Zunger, formerly of Google, argued that computer scientists must follow the example of engineering forebears — e.g., civil engineers — to recognise and account for the risks their work can bring. Entrepreneur John Borthwick, founder of Betaworks, proposed self-regulation to forestall government regulation. Seidman the ethicist insisted that neutrality is no longer an option and that technology companies must provide moral leadership. And philosopher David Weinberger argued that we are past trying to govern according to principles as society is so divided it cannot agree on those principles. I saw Weinberger proven right in the discussion at Newsgeist, in panels I convened at theInternational Journalism Festival, and in media. As Rosen says, we cannot agree on where to start the conversation.

The limits of openness

In the web’s early days, I was as much a dogmatist for openness as I am for the First Amendment. But I have come to learn — as the platforms have — that complete openness invites manipulation and breeds trolls. Google, Facebook, and Twitter — like news media themselves — argue that they are merely mirrors to society, reflecting the world’s ills. Technology’s and media’s mirrors may indeed be straight and true. But society warps and cracks itself to exploit these platforms. The difference between yesterday’s manipulation via media (PR and propaganda) and today’s via technology (from trolls to terrorists) is scale; the internet allows everyone who is connected to speak — which I take as a good — but that also means that anyone can become a thief, a propagandist, or a tormentor at a much lower cost and with greater access than mass media permitted. The platforms have no choice but to understand, measure, reveal, and compensate for that manipulation. They are beginning to do that.

Good can come of this crisis, trumped up or not. I now see the potential for a flight to quality on the net. After the 2016 elections and the rising furore about the role of the platforms in nations’ nervous breakdowns, Google’s head of search engineering, Ben Gomes, said that thenceforth the platform would account for the authority, reliability, and quality of sources in search ranking. In a search result for a query such as ‘Is climate change real?’ Google now sides with science. Twitter has recognised at last that it must account for its role in the health of the public conversation and so it sought help from researchers to define good discourse.

For its part, Facebook downgraded the prominence of what it broadly considered public (as opposed to social) content, which included news. Now it is trying to bring back and promote quality news. At The Newmark J-Schools Tow-Knight Center at CUNY, I am working on a project to aggregate signals of quality (or lack thereof) from the many disparate efforts, from the Trust Project to the Credibility Coalition and many others. We will provide this data to both platforms and advertisers to inform their decisions about ranking and buying so they may stop supporting disinformation and instead support quality news. [Disclosure: This work and that of the News Integrity Initiative, which I started at CUNY, are funded in part by Facebook but operate with full independence and I receive no compensation from any platform.]

Are these acts of self-regulation by the platforms sufficient? Of course, not. But I argue we must view this change in temporal context: We are only 24 years past the introduction of the commercial web. If the net turns out to be as disruptive as movable type, then in Gutenberg terms that puts us in the year 1474, years before Luther’s birth and print-sparked revolution, decades before the book took on the post-scribe structure we know now, centuries before printing and steam technology combined to create the idea of the mass.

Causes for concern

We don’t know what the net is yet. That is why I worry about premature regulation of it. I fear we are operating today on vague impressions of problems rather than on journalistic and academic evidence of the scale of the problems and the harm they are causing. I challenge you to look at your Facebook feed and show me the infestation of nazis there. Where is the data regarding real harm?

I worry, too, about the unintended consequences of well-intentioned regulation. In Europe, government moves aimed at challenging the power of the platforms have ended up giving them yet more power. The so-called right to be forgotten has put Google in the uneasy position of rewriting and erasing history, a perilous authority to hold. Germany’s Leistungsschutzrecht (ancillary copyright) gave Google the power to set the terms of the market in links to news. Spain’s more aggressive link tax led to the exit of Google News from the country. I shudder to think what a pending EU-wide version of each law will do. Germany’s hate-speech law, the Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz or NetzDG law, is all but killing satire there and requires the devotion of resources to killing crap, not rewarding quality. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will leave Google and Facebook relatively unscathed — as they have the resources to deal with its complex requirements — but some American publishers have cut off European readers, balkanising the web. Anticipated ePrivacy regulation will go even farther and I fear an extreme privacy regime will obstruct a key strategy for sustaining journalism — providing greater relevance and value to people we know as individuals and members of communities and gaining new revenue through membership and contribution as a result. Thus this regulation could artificially extend the life of outmoded mass media and the paternalistic idea of the mass.

I worry mostly that we may be entering into a full-blown moral panic, with technology — internet platforms — as the enemy. Consider Ashley Crossman’s definition: “A moral panic is a widespread fear, most often an irrational one, that someone or something is a threat to the values, safety, and interests of a community or society at large. Typically, a moral panic is perpetuated by news media, fuelled by politicians, and often results in the passage of new laws or policies that target the source of the panic. In this way, moral panic can foster increased social control.” Sound familiar? To return to the lessons of Gutenberg’s age, let us recall that Erasmus feared what books would do to society. “To what corner of the world do they not fly, these swarms of new books?” he complained. “The very multitude of them is hurtful to scholarship, because it creates a glut and even in good things satiety is most harmful.” But we managed.

When I was invited to contribute this chapter, I was asked to write “in defence of Facebook.” With respect, that sets the conversation at the wrong level, at the institutional level: Journalism vs. Facebook. Thus we miss the trees for the forest, the people for the platforms. No matter what we in journalism think of Facebook, Google, or Twitter as companies, we must acknowledge that the public we serve is there and we need to take our journalism to them where they are. We must take advantage of the opportunity the net provides to see the public not as a mass but as a web of communities. We cannot do any of this alone and need to work with platforms to fulfill what I now see as journalism’s real job: to convene communities into civil, informed, and productive conversation. If society is a polarised world at war with itself — red vs. blue, white vs. black, insider vs. outsider, 99% vs. 1% — we perhaps should begin by asking how we in journalism led society there.

* I expect someone on Twitter to respond to this paragraph with a picture of the bumper sticker declaring that guns don’t kill people; people do. The sentence structures may be parallel but the logic is not. Guns are created for one purpose: to kill. The internet was created for purposes yet unknown. We are negotiating its proper and improper uses and until we do — as we are learning — the improper will out.

The post We Have Met the Problem. Guess Who? appeared first on BuzzMachine.

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 16:37:13 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Google Facebook Europe Publishing Germany Uncategorized Eu Spain Society Silicon Valley Luther BetaWorks John Borthwick Google News New York University Erasmus MIT Media Lab Google Facebook Humankind Facebook Google Gutenberg Rosen Jay Rosen CUNY Facebook Google Twitter Weinberger Emily Bell David Weinberger Seidman Yonatan Zunger Columbia School of Journalism General Data Protection Regulation GDPR Dov Seidman Ben Gomes Deb Roy Credibility Coalition How Institute for Society Newsgeist Newmark J Schools Tow Ashley Crossman
Rat magnet. fullsizeoutput_2eb4

[Author: (Ann Althouse)]

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 15:33:39 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Rats Ann Althouse photos by Meade
Termination: Neighbors Are Telling Buyers That Land is No Good. What Do I Do Sun, 20 Jan 2019 15:31:44 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Real Estate Ownership And Title "I used to love to watch her dance the Grizzly Bear/I guess she's gone to Frisco, to dance it there..." There really is a dance called the Grizzly Bear, which I didn't know until yesterday, though I've heard the lyric quoted in the post title hundreds of times. "Grizzly Bear" by The Youngbloods was in the stack of singles next to my record player in the 1960s. I happened to play this video of it:
Before they play the song, Dick Clark interviews Jesse Colin Young about it, and he says: "I'm a ragtime freak, and... this is about a dance in the 1890s called the Grizzly Bear where people used to hug each other and jump." Dick Clark is amazed: "An actual dance?" Yes, there was "a club in San Francisco called The Grizzly Bear."
Here's an NPR article from 2015, "Dirty Dancing In The Early 1900s":
[T]he Bunny Hug, the Turkey Trot, the Grizzly Bear and other so-called "animal dances" of the early 1900s... shocked America and had polite society crying shame, shame, shame....
"Wilson Banned Ball Fearing Turkey Trot," was the New York Times headline on Jan. 13, 1913. According to the report, the Inaugural Committee was told that the president-elect wanted to cancel the usual Inaugural Ball because he "feared there would be indulgence in the turkey trot, the bunny hug and other ragtime dances and thus provoke what might amount to a National scandal."... Later in the month, Wilson characterized such reports as "ridiculous," but the ball was canceled....
[According to the] 1924 book The Social Dance... "The 'Boll Weevil Wiggle' and the 'Texas Tommy Wiggle' are danced in close personal contact intended to arouse sex feeling. The 'Grizzly Bear' encourages the closest and most violent physical contact for the same purpose... The 'Turkey Trot, 'Fox Trot,' 'Horse Trot, 'Fish Walk,' 'Dog Walk,' 'Tiger Dance,' and the 'Buzzard Lope,' are all imitative of the lower animals in their sex life, sex desire, sex excitement and sex satisfaction; and these things are in the minds of the dancers who understand the meaning of the animal dances."
Oh, don't just about all dances represent sex?  Sex isn't a special "lower animals" activity. But it made me wonder whether there were "animal" dances in the 1960s when I was listening to "Grizzly Bear." Answer: Yes. There was The Monkey, demonstrated by the great Smokey Robinson (and possibly requiring censorship in the modern age):
And here's "Monkey Time" — as performed by Major Lance on "Shindig" (in perhaps 1964). Keep your eye on the dancers way in the background. I found this disturbing enough to begin to question whether it was intentionally racist at the time, but I see song was written and produced by Curtis Mayfield, so that's the end of the inquiry for me.
Anyway, the subject of this post is dances named after animals, and the possible objections to them.

[Author: (Ann Althouse)]

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 14:19:55 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Censorship America San Francisco Turkey History Dancing New York Times Smokey Robinson Npr Wilson Frisco Woodrow Wilson Lance Dick Clark Curtis Mayfield Jesse Colin Young Ann Althouse Inaugural Committee Wilson Banned Ball Fearing Turkey Trot Boll Weevil Wiggle Tommy Wiggle
Perspective on black knife crime | Letters Julian Lee, while Nick Moss thinks widely used definitions of such crimes are part of the problem. Plus letters from Alan Clark and Linda Marriott

It is acknowledged that columnists like Afua Hirsch (Rod Liddle is wrong about black deaths, 16 January) write stuff that is a reflection of their views; what is harder to accept is when those views are informed only by intellectual or prejudicial positions. Both Hirsch and Liddle arrive at conclusions about the causes of black teenage deaths (predominantly in London) without having had adequate (or perhaps any) experience of this tragedy on the ground.

Although the majority of black boys in London achieve well in school and thereafter, a few things cannot be denied: black boys in London are massively over-represented in stabbings; black-on-black violence is significantly gang-related; gangs in London are crime-focused; the age of recruitment and grooming of young people for gang activity is dropping to primary school levels. Poverty and deprivation (of life chances and opportunity) can drive boys and young men into violent criminal activity. When male role models for these boys are neighbourhood gang elders (often replacing absent fathers) and a “gangsta” culture prevails, the boys stand little chance of escaping.

Continue reading...]]>
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 13:19:07 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs London Crime Police Race Communities Society UK News Young People Gangs Knife crime Liddle Hirsch Alan Clark Julian Lee Nick Moss Linda MarriottIt Afua Hirsch Rod Liddle
The Unfinished Business of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. | Imam Zaid Shakir During these days many in this country are commemorating the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., born January 15, 1929. While most remember Dr. King for his soaring oration, symbolized by his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, delivered before a sweltering throng at the Lincoln Memorial, August 28, 1963, Dr. King was far more than a moving orator. He was a formidable intellectual, an effective organizer and a passionate advocate for the freedom of his people. These qualities combined with Dr. King’s oratorical abilities to make him an individual oppressive political powers came to both despise and fear.

For all that he was able to accomplish in the context of the Civil Rights struggle and in advancing the rights and dignity of African Americans, Dr. King realized that his work was not complete; neither in the South nor in the North, as his painful experience in Chicago underscored. To a certain extent, his unfinished work is larger than the Civil Rights struggle, that work revolves around what he identified as the evil triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism. Decisively combating these evils is a daunting challenge, some might even describe it as nearly impossible. Dr. King realized, however, that with the help of God all things are possible and he thus never lost hope that we could overcome these forces. As people of faith, this should be our firm belief.

Our Muslim community is one whose existence, contrary to popular misconception, is predicated on the establishment of peace. It is a community that came into existence as a multiracial force and lists anti-materialism as one of its foundational principles (renounce the world and Allah will love you). I believe that we have been divinely prepared to take up the torch held aloft so courageously by Dr. King and dedicate ourselves to the completion of his work. This is absolutely critical for the wellbeing of our nation and the world for as long as those evils rip through the waters of our collective humanity, the dehumanizing violence they give birth to will follow in their wake.

In his powerful but oftentimes overlooked speech, “Why I Oppose the War in Vietnam,” delivered at the Riverside Church in Manhattan on April 4, 1967, Dr. King showed how these three evils are connected and how they combine to make the United States, in his words, “…the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” The fact that such violence continues, unabated, should cause all of us to reflect deeply on why we as a society have not done more to address it. The gut-wrenching violence we visited upon Vietnam has directly afflicted Afghanistan and Iraq and indirectly defines the fate of nations like Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Palestine.

I believe one of the reasons we have done so little to arrest that violence is because we as a nation are so effective in denying its existence. In the words of a popular song, “Memories may be beautiful and yet what’s too painful to remember we simply choose to forget…” As a society, we find it far too easy and convenient to simply forget the painful horrors of native genocide, chattel slavery, Jim Crow and its accompanying brutalities, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or the next place whose name might be added to this list. Dr. King forces us to remember these horrors and the violence they birthed –through the brilliance of his oration, the seriousness of his struggle and the testimony of his death.

The following lengthy quote from Francis Fitzgerald’s vivid chronicling of the Vietnam War, “Fire in the Lake,” serves to both awaken us to the magnitude of American violence and also the tragedy of how easy it would be to replace Vietnam with Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria or Yemen and find that it would be an apt description of any of those places. She writes:

In the refugee camps and isolated villages people die of malnutrition and the children are deformed. In the cities, where there is no sanitation and rarely any running water, the adults die of cholera, typhoid, smallpox, leprosy, bubonic plague, and their children die of the common diseases of dirt, such as scabies and sores. South Vietnam knows nothing like the suffering of India or Bangladesh. Comparatively speaking it has always been a rich country and the American aid has provided many people with the means for survival. But its one source of wealth is agriculture and the American war has wreaked havoc on its forests and paddy lands. It has given great fortune to the few while endangering the country’s future and forcing the many to live in the kind of “poverty, ignorance and disease” that South Vietnam never knew before.

Still, the physical destruction, perhaps, is not the worst of it. The destruction of an entire society –“That is, above all, what the Vietnamese blame the Americans for,” said one Vietnamese scholar. “Willingfully or not, they have tended to destroy what is most precious to us: family, friendship, our manner of expressing ourselves.” … “Physical death is everywhere but it is the social death caused by the destruction of the family that is of overriding importance.”

One could realistically ask why mention these things at this time when we should be celebrating Dr. King’s life and work? Why should we even care when we can do little or nothing to change such monstrous realities? I would respond that his nonviolent opposition to the stultifying violence of our country is the very essence of Dr. King’s life and work and collectively, with the help of Allah, we can begin to change the regime perpetuating that violence. I would respond to the above queries with a different set of questions. Namely, how many more innocent societies have to be destroyed before we as a people say enough is enough? What type of world do we wish to leave our children? Is it one where the situation described in “Fire in the Lake” becomes so common that it does not even prick their consciences. Have we become so blinded by the American dream that we can no longer see the accompanying global nightmare that helps to make it possible?

Some would say that the mere mention of such issues is overwhelming for the average person and hence could well lead to a type of socio-psychiatric paralysis. One the beautiful features of Islam is that it allows us to recognize our limitations while still maintaining a principled opposition to wrong. By so doing we are able to escape becoming socio-political zombies. Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Almighty God upon him) wisely stated,

“If one of you sees something wrong let him change it with his hand. If unable to do so let him speak out against it. If still unable to do so let him hate it in his heart, and that is the weakest manifestation of faith.”

Thus, if one finds himself or herself unable to do something lawful and practical like joining with the work of the Quakers or other institutions with a long history of nonviolent anti-war activism in this country, or founding a similarly-oriented Muslim group, let him or her speak out against it at every forum and via every medium available. If even that is not possible then let them hate it in their hearts. Doing so is the least we can do to honor the life, legacy, and sacrifice of Dr. King and hopefully, it will serve as a first step in our moving to finish the work he so valiantly started.

Imam Zaid Shakir

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 13:10:38 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Politics Leadership Iraq India Religion Evil Society War Chicago Afghanistan Military United States Palestine Islam Civil Rights Manhattan Bangladesh Vietnam Martin Luther King Yemen Injustice U.S. military Social Justice King Martin Luther King Jr Muslims Jim Crow Lincoln Memorial Riverside Church Iraq Afghanistan Quakers Featured Home Featured Society Family and Community Zaid Shakir Yemen Somalia Syria Imam Zaid Shakir Anti-materialism celebrate MLK Francis Fitzgerald Iraq Afghanistan Somalia Syria
"Scott Adams apologizes for believing @CNN about the Covington Catholic Boys fake news."
Scott Adams apologizes for believing @CNN about the Covington Catholic Boys fake news. With coffee. — Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) January 20, 2019

... because I realize that my idea of what happened — which you're jumping on me about in the comments to the previous post — was influenced by listening to what Scott Adams said about it yesterday...
So do I need to apologize for believing Scott Adams? Not exactly. My post — "The man in the middle" — is carefully written based only what I know, which is what I'm always doing around here. I wasn't a tube channeling what went through Scott Adams from CNN. I protect myself from that sort of thing. But the way in which I wrote around my lack of knowledge was influenced by what Scott Adams said yesterday, and he's apparently backing off from all that.
I can't watch the first video yet, because it's a live-stream until he gets done and I entered after the relevant part.
By the way, one thing that I'm actively trying to avoid and that I'm wary of in other white people is a patronizing, sentimental attitude toward Native Americans.
UPDATE: The live stream is over now, so I'm watching the new video. First, Adams observes that on the very day when MSM were observing their own screw-up over the BuzzFeed fake news about the Mueller investigation, they were falling into another fake news story. Next, Adams admits, "I totally got taken by it," and begins what he calls "an extended explanation/apology."
He says he's now seen "extended video" and declares everything CNN reported to be "absolutely fake news." And it was the "worst kind" of fake news, because "They didn't even get the good guys and the bad guys right."
Adams believed, based on the CNN reports, that the "Native American man was awesome," because he came between 2 groups of antagonistic youths and "de-escalated" a conflict, and he called them "assholes." Scott refrains from repeating the a-word in the new video, substituting the word "jerks." Now, he says, based on longer video, "That is completely not what happened."
The most important thing that CNN did not report, Adams says, is that the African American group — the Black Israelites — were being "flat-out racist." On the extended video, you can hear them calling the Catholic schoolboys "crackers" and (repeatedly) "school shooters."
The Black Israelites denounced Democrats as "racist." "You didn't see that on CNN," Adams laughs. The black protesters were, Adams says, "overtly anti-white." "They were also anti-gay" and "used anti-gay slurs," and the Catholic schoolboys "spontaneously and unanimously pushed back against an anti-gay statement" — "They were offended." The Catholic schoolboys were smiling, "didn't look angry," and "were all well-behaved," Adams says.
CNN presented the elderly Native American man as coming between the 2 groups of youths, but, Adams says now, that "definitely didn't happen" — "He was just kind of doing his own thing... He was causing trouble. He was not looking to stop it. He was very obviously looking to cause trouble... He looked like he was escalating the situation, not de-escalating." [ADDED: I have now watched that part of the video, and I have nothing to say about what that man had going on in his head.]
Adams now interpret the boys as seeing the old man as "all part of the fun." "They were just sort of dancing around because he was dancing around." Adams stresses that the old man approached the boys — got "in their faces." The Catholic schoolboys "did not back up," which is what created the viral video image from which the fake news was manufactured.
Adams notes that CNN still has the story in fake form on its front page "Teens in Make America Great Again hats taunted Native American elder" and I'm seeing that now, at 11:30 ET:

According to Adams, in the extended video, you see a large group and only about 10% of them have MAGA hats, and, more importantly, they do not taunt the man. I guess CNN isn't afraid of libel suits.
Maybe Adams is worried about libel suits. He says, "I'm going to do a full 180 on you.... This is the most complete apology you're ever going to see from anybody. I couldn't have been more wrong about this group of kids. These kids kept their composure, stayed on the right side of every issue, avoided trouble, and never lost their smiles." But he still thinks "It was a mistake to wear their MAGA hats in public, because you know that's going to cause trouble and it probably did."
AND: Let me quote EDH (from the comments in the previous post):
Most of the kids seemed to be chanting with the drum beat, albeit in an irreverent way, but more jocular than threatening.
That's why I'd like to see what's on either end of that edited video clip, especially the genesis and termination of the encounter.
And who was the president that said "I want you to argue with them. Get in their face"?
I'll embed the 1 hour and 45 minute video, which I clicked on and watch less than a second of before clicking off:
I may watch it eventually.
OKAY: I've watched the key part of the video, and I think this is a whole lot of nothing. The men making the video remind me of religious ranters I've seen in Madison many times. Ordinary people just ignore them, and that's what I'm seeing in the video. The Catholic schoolboys group is large, and they seem to be taking in the free speech forum and doing some sort of cheers on their own, widely separated from "Black Israelites" group. Then the Native American guy enters the space and walks up to the schoolboys beating his drum. The schoolboys react by bouncing along with the beat in a way that seems to welcome the man and include him in their boisterous fun day out in the public square. Shame on the adult professionals who latched onto this as something to make into the big issue of the day. Total fake news. I ignored this yesterday, but my ignoring something doesn't have any effect on the total amount of noise. So I have to speak up and rephrase my silence into words: This is nothing.
AND: The man holding the camera narrates, accusing the schoolboys of "mockery" and so forth. But you're a fool if you watch the video and see what he's telling you to see. It's a microcosm of fake news, and big media responded and amplified.

[Author: (Ann Althouse)]

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 12:55:15 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Cnn Native Americans Catholic Madison Defamation Apologies Smiling Adams Scott Scott Adams Mueller MSM Ann Althouse Obama rhetoric EDH Maga Fake News Covington Catholic boys
“If you’re football, hockey or soccer, the insurance business doesn’t want you.” Not just football in its various forms with its known concussion dangers, but other games too face an insurance drought, especially as regards youth participation: “Overall, I think that there is a real threat to the viability of contact sports.” [Steve Fainaru and Mark Fainaru-Wada, ESPN]

Tags: football, schools, sports
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 12:01:05 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Uncategorized Football Sports Schools Steve Fainaru Mark Fainaru Wada
This week at the court

The Supreme Court will release orders from the January 18 conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m.

The justices will meet next for their February 15 conference.

The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court’s website.

The post This week at the court appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 12:00:45 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Supreme Court Law This Week at the Court
Burdens Of Management [Author: Legal Profession Prof]

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 11:11:15 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Vermont Supreme Court Legal Profession Prof Bar Discipline & Process
Consent Suspension For Alford Plea To Negligent Injuring [Author: Legal Profession Prof]

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 11:11:15 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Louisiana Supreme Court Alford Prairieville Legal Profession Prof Bar Discipline & Process
Florida Sanctions Announced By Bar [Author: Legal Profession Prof]

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 11:11:15 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Florida Law Miami Florida Bar Legal Profession Prof Bar Discipline & Process
What I Learned About Innovation from Practicing Law ]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2019 10:00:52 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Innovation Legal Profession Innovation Process The man in the middle. Said Chase Iron Eyes, an attorney with the Lakota People’s Law Project, quoted in "'It was getting ugly': Native American drummer speaks on the MAGA-hat-wearing teens who surrounded him" (WaPo).
I am touched by the charity of "They were rambunctious."
But I'm only guessing at what the video sounds like. I cannot bring myself to play it.
[A] Native American man steadily beats his drum at the tail end of Friday’s Indigenous Peoples March while singing a song of unity urging them to “be strong” in the face of the ravages of colonialism that now include police brutality, poor access to health care and the ill effects of climate change on reservations.
Surrounding him are a throng of young, mostly white teenage boys, several wearing “Make America Great Again” caps, with one who stood about a foot from the drummer’s face also wearing a relentless smirk.
Nathan Phillips, a veteran in the indigenous rights movement, was that man in the middle....
The phrase "man in the middle" resonates with me. I will never forget the day — at the rambunctious Wisconsin protests — when Meade encountered The Man in the Middle:
[O]ne man — who did not agree with the protesters — decided he would occupy the central spot. To the consternation of the others, he invited people to come talk to him one-on-one....
I started to imagine Wisconsinites coming back to the building every day, talking about everything, on and on, indefinitely into the future. That man who decided to hold dialogues in the center of the rotunda is a courageous man. But it isn't that hard to be as courageous as he was. In the long run, it's easier to do that than to spend your life intimidated and repressed. That man was showing us how to be free. He was there today, but you — and you and you! — could be there tomorrow, standing your ground, inviting people to talk to you, listening and going back and forth, for the sheer demonstration of the power of human dialogue and the preservation of freedom.
Video at the link.
Looking for posts about that man in the middle, I see that in 2013 I wrote about the phrase "man in the middle" as it appears in "Atlas Shrugged." Ayn Rand wrote:
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube.
I said:
Is this cranking you up? It doesn't work on me. I think moderation is a virtue, but in this imagery, virtue is blood, evil is poison, and moderation is a tube. You're supposed to feel this as a flashy display of reason, but it's full of emotional bluster and heavily reliant on metaphor. I'm being asked to regard myself as a rubber tube. No....
I'm not accepting this picture of life in terms of people with good blood and people with bad blood and everyone else as a bunch of tubes conducting a big old transfusion that's just got to stop....
I was talking about that Ayn Rand passage because Ted Cruz read it — along with "Green Eggs and Ham" — out loud while filibustering in the Senate. The phrase "the man in the middle" grabbed me, and I wrote:
"Man in the middle" is a phrase that feels like a call to action, because it's a phrase Meade and I have used when we talk about a man we saw as a hero for sitting down in the middle of the Wisconsin Capitol rotunda, in a crowd of sign-carrying, noisy partisan protesters, inviting them to speak, one-on-one, with someone who was not in agreement with the crowd....
Talking, indefinitely into the future... in the middle of a government building. That's what Ted Cruz is doing, but not in the moderate, surely-we-all-can-get-along mode. He's on one side, and he's reviling anyone in the middle. He's reading from Ayn Rand, saying that the moderate is evil, because the moderate is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist.
In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. Oh? But would you like it it in a box? Would you like it with a fox? Would you like it in a house? Would you like it with a mouse?
rat 1

[Author: (Ann Althouse)]

Sun, 20 Jan 2019 09:38:48 +0000 BlogLikes - Find Most Popular Blogs Law Senate Metaphor Teenagers Mouse Ted Cruz Ayn Rand Wisconsin Native Americans Rats Blood Hats Green Eggs Meade Ann Althouse Emotional Politics Dr. Seuss Using Children In Politics Wisconsin protests Wisconsin Capitol Maga Nathan Phillips Lakota People 's Law Project