Media Criticism

Did Jordan Take A Bullet For The Team?

Where’s the video tape?

That was the question emanating from the blogosphere all last week. As many have pointed out, while we’ll take scalps occasionally, the Eason Jordan affair wasn’t about taking scalps (though I plead guilty to calling for his head if the tape showed the allegations to be true). It was about honesty and accountability.

Somehow, now that the chum of Jordan has been thrown to the sharks of the web, there may be a hope among many that the calls for the release of the tape, or a transcript (which may be much less damaging, for reasons I’ll explain in a minute) will die down.

Many are noting that if the tape exonerated, or mitigated Jordan’s alleged comments, it would have appeared by now. That’s true, but it misses a big part of the story. I don’t think that this was just about the MSM protecting one of their own. I think that it may be about protecting itself, or at least many members of it.

I have to wonder if that tape would show (and perhaps more starkly and much more graphically than a black and white transcript) not just Jordan’s words, but the approving reception of them by his Davos cohorts? The nods of recognition, the lack of any challenge, perhaps even murmurs of appreciation, until Rony Abovitz and Barney Frank spoke up. Gergen may have appeared concerned, and eventually changed the subject, but how long did it go on, and who was cheering Eason on? Was Iowahawk closer to reality than we thought? Who else will this tape embarrass (or should embarrass), and reflect poorly on?

Somehow, I suspect that if we were to see that video, it would provide much more than a brief glimpse into the soul of Eason Jordan. It might reveal the depths of the anti-military (and anti-American, or at least anti-Bush) sentiment in his colleagues as well, in an unguarded moment when they forgot that others were watching. And perhaps it’s their hope that by sacrificing Jordan, the rest of them can continue, incognito and unharried, in their undeclared war against the hyperpower.

Whether my speculation is correct or not, I don’t think that we should take Jordan’s resignation as a victory–it’s perhaps a distraction, and we should continue to demand the tape.

[Update at 2:30 PM EST]

A commenter claims that the remarks were off the record. How strange, then, to have an official videotape of a meeting that was supposed to be “off the record.”

[Another update a couple minutes later]

Bill Roggio has similar thoughts.

Science And Society

The Core Of The Issue

In the midst of deconstructing Michael Behe’s latest channeling of Bishop Paley, Ron Bailey agrees with moi about the Intelligent Design controversy (not surprisingly), and identifies the real problem:

It is not the role of public schools to confirm the religious beliefs of their students. Parents who want their children to benefit from the latest findings of science would reasonably be irked if evolutionary biology were expunged from the public school curriculum. There is another way around this conundrum. Get rid of public schools. Give parents vouchers and let them choose the schools to which to send their children. Fundamentalists can send their kids to schools that teach that the earth was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC. Science geeks can send their kids to technoschools that teach them how to splice genes to make purple mice. This proposal lowers political and social conflict, and eventually those made fitter in the struggle for life by better education will win.

My comment was:

if science is a religion (in the sense of a belief system, which I think it is), then is it a legitimate subject for public schools? As I’ve said previously, this is largely a symptom of a much larger problem–the fact that we have public schools, in which the “public” will always be at loggerheads about what subjects should be taught and how. But given the utility of learning science (something that I employ every day, whenever I troubleshoot my computer network, or figure out what kinds of foods are good or bad for me), I think that it is an important subject to which everyone should be exposed. But if I were teaching evolution, I would offer it as the scientific explanation for how life on earth developed, not a “fact” or “the truth.”

The problem arises when some scientists, blind to their own faith and its tenets, come to believe that their beliefs represent Truth, and that those who disagree are fools and slack-jawed yokels. And with that, I come full circle in once again agreeing with Hugh that the media does a disservice to the debate when it doesn’t respect the beliefs of those who feel that their children are being indoctrinated away from their faith.

We will never resolve this conflict as long as so many continue to insist on a “one-size-fits-all” school system.

[Update a few minutes later]

Along those lines, here’s a pretty scary story (though not a new one, to anyone who’s been paying attention), or at least it should be for parents with kids in public schools:

According to benchmarks for middle school education, the top objective for the district’s math teachers is to teach “respect for human differences.” The objective is for students to “live out the system-wide core value of ‘respect for human differences’ by demonstrating anti-racist/anti-bias behaviors.”

Priority No. 2 is where the basics come in, which is “problem solving and representation

Space

Congratulations To ESA

I guess. Ariane V (ESA’s version of the Space Shuttle, in that it’s an overpriced white elephant) had its first successful launch yesterday. A previous attempt a couple years ago was a failure.

[Update in the evening]

A commenter points out that I was too inspecific in describing the vehicle that failed:

Hehe, talk about misleading news postings. Even though you might hate the french, you could stick to facts.

The Ariane 5 G version has launched succesfully 19 times and failed once.
Ariane 5 EC-A, which is an upgraded version, was now launched succesfully for the first time, having failed once before.

So your post would be correct if you said “Ariane 5 ECA had it’s first successful launch”.

While I stand second to none in my dislike of the French, my snark was more aimed at stasist government space programs, and unjustified Arianespace triumphalism.

Administrative

Weird Comment Spam

On and off, for weeks, I’ve been getting comment spam similar to this:

<h1>You may find it interesting to check out some helpful info in the field of- Tons of interesdting stuff!!! </h1>

There’s no URL associated with it, only an email address, usually from something like absinth968@hotmail.com, or absolut4806@freemail.com, though the numbers might change.

Although MT Blacklist will remove them, they have to be done individually, because there’s no common URL or IP address to key on (fortunately they only come a few at a time, never, so far, in a flood). And also since there’s no URL, there’s no way to blacklist them in the future.

I don’t understand what the purpose is. They’re not getting any google effect, or even link through, since there’s nowhere to link to. Are they just clueless comment spammers, who don’t get the concept, or is this harassment, or what?

[Update a little while later]

Well, here’s another one:

<h1>You may find it interesting to check out some helpful info about… </h1>

This one’s from a ” jane_doe7117@work.com.”

No URL, no idea what (s)he’s talking about, or why I’m being spammed with this stuff.

General

What’s The Frequency, Kenneth?

Or, disregarding the Dan Rather reference, what’s the (time) signature? A commenter asks in this post:

Uh, pardon me for being clueless, but…..

Can someone explain to me (without using up too much of Rand’s drive-space) just what is meant by a tune’s “time”? I understand that it refers to the tune’s tempo, but the way it’s written suggests one quantity is in ratio to some other quantity…..

Yes, I flunked music appreciation in elementary school. 🙂

We can attempt to explain it to you, but you still may not get it. I’ve explained it to some very smart people, but they still couldn’t get it, even after listening to music that had clear time signatures explained to them.

The top number of a time signature is the number of beats of a measure, which is a unit of music marked off by an accented note. The accent is indicated either by the percussion, in the form of a stronger drumbeat, or by a louder note on the instruments. It’s like the accent on a syllable in a spoken word. So if the signature is 3/4, then every third beat (where each beat has an equal spacing in terms of time) will be noticeably different in some way than the other two.

The lower number is an indication as to whether the accent occurs every quarter note, or every eighth note (most signatures are either X/4 or X/8). Generally, signatures demarked in eighth notes will be more up tempo (faster) than those in quarter notes.

If you want to hear the difference, and you have access to specific types of music (you can almost surely find them on the net these days), waltzes (ONE two three ONE two three) are in 3/4 time, jigs (ONE two three four five six ONE two three four five six, spoken twice as fast as the waltz numbers) are in 6/8 time (classic example being The Irish Washerwoman). Hornpipes and reels are in 2/4 (or 2/8) as in (ONE two THREE four ONE two THREE four), and so on. Most rock and roll (and its slower progeniter, blues) is in one of these forms, though it can be in six as well.

Variations on this are syncopated beats, where the accent falls in unexpected places.

Then there are the weird ones, as discussed in the original post. “Take Five” is in 5/4 time, which means that it goes (ONE two three four five ONE two three four five), except that it’s slightly more complex than that because of a syncopated beat right after the one and the two. You have to listen to it to understand what I mean. “Blue Rondo a la Turk” is in 9, but it’s got subaccents with variations, so it goes ONE two THREE four FIVE six SEVEN eight nine ONE two THREE four FIVE six SEVEN eight nine ONE two THREE four FIVE six SEVEN eight nine ONE two three FOUR five six SEVEN eight nine…

And the Irish have something called a slip jig, which is in 9/8, that goes ONE two three four five six seven eight nine ONE two three four five six seven eight nine…

There are many more, but I hope that helped…someone.

[Saturday morning update]

Lots more good examples in comments, but it just strikes me that one of the most well-known examples of syncopation went out to the stars on the Voyager record.

Chuck Berry’s “Johnny B. Goode” is in a fast four, and if you listen to the guitar riff that leads the song off, for the first few measures every note is right on or between the beat, but in the middle section, you’ll hear them staggered for a few measures, after which it goes straight again to finish off the intro before the vocals. Classic.

Syncopation was also a feature of the Big Band sound. The best example that jumps immediately to mind is Artie Shaw’s classic version of Cole Porter’s “Begin the Beguine.”

General

What’s The Frequency, Kenneth?

Or, disregarding the Dan Rather reference, what’s the (time) signature? A commenter asks in this post:

Uh, pardon me for being clueless, but…..

Can someone explain to me (without using up too much of Rand’s drive-space) just what is meant by a tune’s “time”? I understand that it refers to the tune’s tempo, but the way it’s written suggests one quantity is in ratio to some other quantity…..

Yes, I flunked music appreciation in elementary school. 🙂

We can attempt to explain it to you, but you still may not get it. I’ve explained it to some very smart people, but they still couldn’t get it, even after listening to music that had clear time signatures explained to them.

The top number of a time signature is the number of beats of a measure, which is a unit of music marked off by an accented note. The accent is indicated either by the percussion, in the form of a stronger drumbeat, or by a louder note on the instruments. It’s like the accent on a syllable in a spoken word. So if the signature is 3/4, then every third beat (where each beat has an equal spacing in terms of time) will be noticeably different in some way than the other two.

The lower number is an indication as to whether the accent occurs every quarter note, or every eighth note (most signatures are either X/4 or X/8). Generally, signatures demarked in eighth notes will be more up tempo (faster) than those in quarter notes.

If you want to hear the difference, and you have access to specific types of music (you can almost surely find them on the net these days), waltzes (ONE two three ONE two three) are in 3/4 time, jigs (ONE two three four five six ONE two three four five six, spoken twice as fast as the waltz numbers) are in 6/8 time (classic example being The Irish Washerwoman). Hornpipes and reels are in 2/4 (or 2/8) as in (ONE two THREE four ONE two THREE four), and so on. Most rock and roll (and its slower progeniter, blues) is in one of these forms, though it can be in six as well.

Variations on this are syncopated beats, where the accent falls in unexpected places.

Then there are the weird ones, as discussed in the original post. “Take Five” is in 5/4 time, which means that it goes (ONE two three four five ONE two three four five), except that it’s slightly more complex than that because of a syncopated beat right after the one and the two. You have to listen to it to understand what I mean. “Blue Rondo a la Turk” is in 9, but it’s got subaccents with variations, so it goes ONE two THREE four FIVE six SEVEN eight nine ONE two THREE four FIVE six SEVEN eight nine ONE two THREE four FIVE six SEVEN eight nine ONE two three FOUR five six SEVEN eight nine…

And the Irish have something called a slip jig, which is in 9/8, that goes ONE two three four five six seven eight nine ONE two three four five six seven eight nine…

There are many more, but I hope that helped…someone.

[Saturday morning update]

Lots more good examples in comments, but it just strikes me that one of the most well-known examples of syncopation went out to the stars on the Voyager record.

Chuck Berry’s “Johnny B. Goode” is in a fast four, and if you listen to the guitar riff that leads the song off, for the first few measures every note is right on or between the beat, but in the middle section, you’ll hear them staggered for a few measures, after which it goes straight again to finish off the intro before the vocals. Classic.

Syncopation was also a feature of the Big Band sound. The best example that jumps immediately to mind is Artie Shaw’s classic version of Cole Porter’s “Begin the Beguine.”

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!