Players should celebrate Nick Wright and Joy Taylor

I listen to sports talk radio whenever I can. Stories about sports are my escape.and favorite conversation topic.

And I was very, very impressed with the original thoughts from Nick Wright and Joy Thomas, who guest-hosted The Herd for at least the past two days.

Among the gems I heard in a limited amount of time, all paraphrased:

Nick: "I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments. 'It could lead to something,' is a bad argument."

Nick: "I don't want my kids celebrating after making a play. But I don't want them getting cortisone shots either. Pro athletes and children are different."

Joy: "Just because pro sports can be watched by kids, doesn't mean they should be catered to them. Lots of things can be seen by kids without being for kids."

(I'm open to correction if I misinterpreted their points.)

I was impressed with their on-air compatibility and insights. I hope to see and or hear a lot more of them.


  

   

Thune's bullying of Facebook far worse than anything Facebook did

Imagine that Democrats ran Congress and investigated the Fox News "fair and balanced" claim. They'd say they're protecting you from false advertising.  

But nobody would believe it. We'd grasp the truth instantly: the Democrats are bullying and harassing a news outlet just because it has a right-wing slant. 

Supporters of the First Amendment, whether left, right, or libertarian, would condemn such an attack on free speech. Even if they hate Fox. 

Fortunately, that's all hypothetical. 

This, however, isn't: Senate Republicans are questioning Facebook for how it provides news. Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune said, "It's a matter of transparency and honesty and there shouldn’t be any attempt to mislead the American public." 

How did Facebook "mislead" the public?  

According to Gizmodo, Facebook uses algorithms to determine content for its "trending news" section. Humans oversaw the process to avoid duplication, promote breaking news, and ensure the news sources are mainstream.  

So there was bias in preferring non-ideological news sites to ideological ones.  And the human overseers  had their own conscious and unconscious biases.

That's the scandal: Facebook might be biased because it's run by humans. As if that's unusual. 

But Conservatives who like to feel persecuted for their beliefs are predictably feeling persecuted. Thune's investigation is his way of throwing them red meat in an election year. 

But worse than that, Thune wants to bully, harass, and possibly punish a private business for the way it provides news to its users. Apparently, if there isn't "equal time" for right-wing coverage, they're not doing it right. 

Perhaps Facebook isn't as unbiased as advertised, just as  Fox may not be fair and balanced. 

But are their boasts really deceptive? Who's being deceived? 

And who's the victim? 

That's the question we must ask before we demand the government to investigate anything, especially the practices of a free press.  

Reading something you don't like doesn't make you a victim. Neither are you a victim if a particular site fails to provide you news that you can find elsewhere. 

I'm glad for Gizmodo's story on Facebook's alleged biases. More information is always helpful to the consumer. You are free to view it as so important that you want to quit using Facebook. Or you might think it's no big deal. 

What's important is that YOU decide. And we should all stand against Thune and all who believe Congress should investigate journalistic outlets who don't present the "right" kind of news the "right" way.  

If we tolerate this inquisition, no news outlet is safe from Congressional bullying. No journalist is safe. 

And you're not safe.

Inference

A couple of weeks ago the local news reported than an area woman gone missing. Police and volunteers were involved in the search, and the report said that she disappeared shortly after having an argument with her ex-husband.

The report did not engage in speculation. Everything that was said was true. But the fact that the argument with the ex-husband was reported would cast strong suspicion on him.

Sure enough, a few days later the news announced that the search has been suspended, and that the police were questioning the ex-husband.

A day or two later, it was announced that the husband confessed to murdering the woman and led police to the place in the forest where he left the body.

Which just about everyone had already suspected, and what the news reporters wanted to have us to infer from the beginning.

Sometimes, however, I make the opposite inference from what the news intends. A case in point is Scott Pelley's report on 60 Minutes on last year's failed raid on South Africa's Pelindaba Nuclear Facility. Some details:

• the facility had portable, highly enriched uranium that could be used to build 12 nuclear bombs
• the employee who fought off some of the raiders wasn't even supposed to be there. He was just keeping company with his fiance, another employee, who was filling in for a parapalegic employee who had gotten drunk at the Christman party.
• the Security Office was three minutes away, but did not respond to the call for help for 24 minutes
  
• the South African government won't speculate as to who was involved or their motive
  
• ten months after the fact, the police still hadn't interviewed the primary witness.
• The U.S. has expressed concern and offered to help with security.

It seems that Pelley wants us to infer not only that this was in part an inside job (which I also believe), but that South Africa wants to cover up its own incompetence and that the it is easier than we think for TERRORISTS TO ACQUIRE ENRICHED URANIUM.

But what do I infer? That this was an undercover CIA operation, and that the South African government knows it and resents it but has its hands tied.

• If the raid was intended to be successful, then the CIA could make off with enriched uranium and suggest to the American people that Osama bin Laden has it. This would further "justify" the U.S. government's bid to acquire more power and eliminate our remaining liberties.
  
• The CIA, with unlimited resources, is more likely than someone like Osama to infiltrate the facility, or to investigate and blackmail security officers.
  
• Even if the raid is unsuccessful, it would embarrass South Africa and increase the perceived need for the U.S. to exercise greater hegemony in Africa.

I infer all this just as I inferred that the ex-husband did it. But the inference about the ex-husband makes me normal. My inference about the CIA makes me an anti-American conspiracy nut.

Soundbite Idiocy

Who knows whether Charlie Gibson's World News Tonight slants the coverage of the McCain and Obama campaigns, perhaps taking the most inane soundbite over the most profound observation. In any case, today the ABC show contrasted what the two were saying about the economy. In a morning speech, McCain said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong; later in the day he said the economy is in serious crisis.

In the Obama soundbites, he was grandstanding on McCain being out of touch: Can you take a chance on McCain, who has voted against the minimum wage 19 times?!?!

Makes me wonder: does this mean Lehman went bankrupt because the minimum wage was too low?

Does this mean homebuyers are now facing foreclosure because the minimum wage was too low?

I mean, even if the minimum wage had been eleven dollars/hour, who on that wage could get the financing to buy a house in the first place? Even with the easy credit and lax rules?

And has not the minimum wage increased over time in spite of McCain's no votes? What in the world has the minimum wage law got to do with the economic crisis? Is Obama winning or losing votes with such nonsense? Or is ABC News taking him out of context and neglecting his more substantive points?

In any case, one or the other (or both) called for more "common-sense regulations" of Wall Street and Washington. But our financial woes can be traced back to central planning. A quasi-governmental agency, the Federal Reserve, can no more be "correct" in setting the interest rate than a government agency can be correct in setting the price of shoes or computers or anything else. But the entire economy reacts to the Fed's inflationary policies, and the "free money" the Fed pours into the economy leads to speculation in stocks, then real estate, then oil, and round and round it goes until there's a bust.

And neither Obama nor McCain has a clue. That much is apparent, whether or not ABC News is fair in its coverage.

Da' Tara Wins Belmont Stakes

Bloomberg has the headline right, even if its story focuses on Big Brown.

Da'Tara led the Belmont Stakes - the longest race in the Triple Crown - from beginning to end, in 96-degree heat. And it began to pull away just when the other horses would make their move. It was clearly the best horse on Saturday, and it annoys me how little credit the horse has received.

That said, Big Brown's race in the Belmont Stakes was the biggest flop in a major sporting event that I've ever seen. For "most overrated athlete," the new champ has to be Big Brown, replacing the last "inevitable" Triple Crown winner, Smarty Jones.

Foot injury, not training for three days, being taken off steroids, uncomfortable heat, the "buzz" which these Triple Crown hopefuls must sense - who knew these things would add up?

That said, as a casual observer (that is, not one who normally watches horse racing), it appeared to me that jockey Kent Desormeaux fought too hard at the beginning to get Big Brown out of the crowd and into the outside #3 position. It's a long race and he had plenty of time to get there by taking advantage of gaps as he did in the Preakness. Trainers are also suggesting that the jockey didn't let his horse run, and that by the time the Desormeaux did want Big Brown to cut loose, he was unwilling to do so.

Then there's the "fix" option. What if a great horse is healthy enough to race, but not to win? I could see insiders talking him up, making him an overwhelming favorite - and then secretly betting against him. I'm not suggesting this is what happened here, but I believe it is plausible in the same way an NBA referee can bet on 100 games he officiated before getting caught.

In any case, I think there's too much wishful thinking in the media these days. The next time a horse enters the Belmont with a chance at the Triple Crown, I'd watch the race to see what happens, but I wouldn't believe the hype.

The only flop bigger than Big Brown on Saturday was the media. First, by overrating Big Brown, then by dissing Da' Tara's victory and making the whole story about Big Brown.

Take everything the media says with a grain of salt - in sports and everywhere else.

I'll be looking to see if Da' Tara's next race will be televised.

The Case For War Was Always and Obviously Weak

Anyone who hasn't watched the Bill Moyers special Buying the War should do so. It's a solid record of the decline of the republic. But even though the mainstream media failed to report the truth, there are three points that can never be under-emphasized:

1. Even if Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations was believable (and I believed it at the time), all it did was present a convincing case that Saddam was a bad person; it did not present a convincing case for war.

2. Iraq was never an imminent threat, and did nothing to provoke a Congressional Declaration of War, without which military action would be illegitimate.

3. The reasons outlined by the Bush I Administration for not invading Iraq were never refuted.

It is for these reasons that invading Iraq was clearly wrong and clearly nuts - no matter what the mainstream media reported. Given the fact that we had a nutjob in the White House, it was primarily the responsibility of Congress to stop him, not the mainstream media.

Finding Truth When There's Too Much Information

This is my latest at the Partial Observer.

Power of Perception

Over the weekend, ESPN Classic ran a program on the Five Reasons You Can't Blame Scott Norwood for losing Super Bowl XXV.

Buffalo lost that game, 20-19 to the New York Giants, and Scott Norwood was the Bills kicker who missed the game-winning field goal at the end. His name is now part of Super Bowl lore.

But it's funny how the legend grows. Few people at the time blamed Norwood for the loss. He was asked to make a 47-yard field goal on grass, something he'd never done before and at the time it was a less-than-50% shot for even the best kickers. Norwood was an accurate kicker at close range but had the shortest range among all kickers.
To the extent that the game was Norwood's fault, it was because he just wasn't good enough to do what he was asked to do, which is far different from "choking" or folding under pressure.

All of this was known sixteen years ago. The Bills would have been lucky if Norwood made the kick, so much so that he would have deserved MVP honors if he had made it.

So why, now, is the perception that Norwood blew it so prevalent that ESPN puts together a program to debunk this view? Why does something so obviously and demonstrably false become common knowledge?

Perhaps for the same reason that an error in a tied game six of the 1986 World Series is blamed for the Red Sox losing the entire series, or a dropped touchdown pass in the third quarter is blamed for the Cowboys losing Super Bowl XIII. Mistakes and failure make the events even more dramatic.

The worst play in Super Bowl history was John Kasay kicking the ball out of bounds with a minute left, giving Tom Brady the ball at the 40 yard-line with a minute left in Super Bowl XXXVIII. That was overshadowed that year, however, by Janet Jackson's boobie.

Today, much of the media is doing a pretty good job blaming the Bears' loss yesterday on their quarterback Rex Grossman, even though the Colt's defense made more experienced quarterbacks look ordinary in this year's play-offs. The perceptions could run Grossman out of Chicago.

If this is the way the sports media can influence people, it's scary what the news media can do, on issues that are actually important.

Why Didn't They Report the Lies?

Why weren't Bush's lies in the State of the Union not front-page news the following day in the New York Times and Washington Post, and the lead story on the major networks' new programs?

Why did it take Keith Olbermann to point them out a whole week later?

This just increases the perception that the MSM is too much a part of the Establishment to be trusted.