a regulation beclowning

At Engadget.com one David Lumb beclowns :

In March, the FAA noted that over 100,000 hobby drone owners had registered their machines since the year began, bringing the total in the US over 770,000. Owners have filed their non-commercial UAVs with the agency ever since the DoT passed a law in December 2015 that made registration mandatory. But a Washington, D.C. court has struck down that legislation, freeing just-for-fun drone owners from notifying the government of their purchases -- for good and ill.

The Department of Transportation passes laws! One can argue that a regulation can have the force of law but the difference between the two is significant and important.  Unelected bureaucrats "passing laws" maybe somewhat accurate but that isn't how the system is supposed to be.

Imagine a cop directing traffic. He holds out his hand to signal the traffic from the side street to stop and waves in the other direction for traffic to start. Imaginary David Lumb, on the sidewalk, then announces that "the cop has passed a law mandating the flow of traffic! Who knows what other vast power over mere men that cop has."

The FCC is a fine example of unelected bureaucrats transforming an arm of the government into something beyond it's purview. Previous to FDR, the FCC (and its predecessor the FRC) was mostly about the technical aspects of radio : are the licensee staying in their frequency? what is their allowable broadcasting power? are the paying their license fee?  In the 1936 election over 90% of newspapers opposed FDR and in retaliation he propagated regulation to prevent newspapers from owning radio stations. The president made his priority clear with a single sentence memo sent to the FCC chairman : "Will you let me know when you propose to have a hearing on newspaper ownership of radio stations."

In addition, they introduced the fairness doctrine and its predecessor the Mayflower Doctrine.  In 1939 the FCC ruled against John Sheppard and the Yankee Network stating that "The licensee has assumed the obligation of presenting all sides of important public questions, fairly, objectively and without bias" (from the book American Broadcasting and the First Amendment by Lucas A. Powe, jr, 1987 p110)  The FCC took it upon itself to decide what is and is not a "important public question" and if it is presented fairly.  Sheppard kept his broadcasting license by promising to never editorialize.

Robert Reich : Tyranny Detective

Tyrant Detective Robert Reich always gets his tyrant; mostly because he lowers the bar so everyone qualifies.

Robert Reich, has come up with a little video where he explains 

"Historically, tyrants have tried to control the press using 4 techniques that, worryingly, Donald Trump is already using."

1. Berate the media and turn the public against it. Trump refers to journalists as “dishonest,” “disgusting” and “scum.” When Trump lies—claiming, for example, “massive voter fraud” in the election, and that he “won in a landslide”—and the media call him on those lies, Trump claims the media is lying. Even televised satires he labels “unfunny, one-sided, and pathetic.” 

2. Limit media access. Trump hasn’t had a news conference since July. (His two predecessors had news conferences within days of being declared president.) He’s blocked the media from traveling with him, and even from knowing with whom he’s meeting. His phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which occurred shortly after the election, was first reported by the Kremlin. 

3. Threaten the media. During the campaign, Trump threatened to sue the New York Times for libel in response to an article about two women who accused him of touching them inappropriately years ago, and then another that revealed part of his 1995 tax returns. He says he plans to “open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.” 

4. Bypass the media and communicate with the public directly. Trump tweets incessantly, issues videos, and holds large rallies—all of which further enable him to lie directly to the public with impunity. The word “media” comes from “intermediate” between the powerful and the public. The media hold the powerful accountable by correcting their misstatements, asking them hard questions, and reporting on what they do. Apparently Trump wants to eliminate such intermediaries. 

Historically, these 4 techniques have been used by demagogues to erode the freedom and independence of the press. Donald Trump seems intent on doing exactly this.

Let's look at his 4 criteria and see of Robert Reich thinks Obama is a tyrant: 

1) berate the media - The Obama admin called Fox News illegitimate. I recall Obama on the Daily Show bashing the media for being focused on shiny objects. (as an aside, why should the media be free from criticism? They often truly deserve it.) I'm not sure if he ever committed the unforgivable sin (and the hallmark of all the worst tyrants) of calling a televised satire "unfunny." 

2) Limit media access - Obama kicked some reporters from less fawning newspapers off his plane during the campaign while claiming a lack of room. There wasn't room on the plane for a NY Post reporter but Glamour magazine? Sure. The Obama admin tried to exclude Fox from pool interviews and when the other news orgs balked everyone's interview time was reduced (see link above). Obama's EPA head Lisa Jackson used the nom-de-plume "Richard Windsor" to evade FOIA requests.

3) Threaten the media.  The Obama admin referred to reporter James Rosen as a co-conspirator to get a warrant to monitor his email over time because he had written an article based on a source in the State Dept. and then they tried to keep the warrant a secret. Note the selective prosecution of leaks. Obama's appointment Ann Ravel of the FEC wants posting of a video to youtube with a political point of view to be subject to FEC regulations. Obama has said the Citizen's United case was wrongly decided. Keep in mind that when asked "It's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, so vote for X, the government could ban that?" the response from the Obama administration was "Yes"

4) Bypass the media and communicate directly with the public. Yeah Obama has held rallys, TV speeches, radio addresses, TV infomercials * and posted to twitter.

Following is my attempt at being a tyrant in a single sentence :

Because some reporters are awful, lying incompetent hacks (#1 berate the media) I think the law should be changed by Congress so there should be one standard for libel for everyone instead of a separate standard for a "public figure" (#3 Threaten the media) and I'm going to exercise my free speech rights to post this on my blog (#4 Bypass the media and communicate directly with the public) but I will refuse to do a press conference (#2 Limit media access).

(I'd like to point out that while I support having a single standard for libel I am opposed to changing the standard to where the defendant has to prove something is true instead of the complainant having to prove the truth is on their side. I think the value of free speech tends to outweigh the burden of having to present the truth. Also there is the very real idea that something can be true without having proof right at hand. Technically, this puts me at odds with the UK and France where the defendant has to offer proof that what the published is true. Does this mean they are as big a tyrant as me?

* at the TV infomercial link above to the NY Times is headlined "Infomercial for Obama Is Big Success in Ratings" and, while I could have sworn the NYT was interested in the corrosive effect of money in politics, there is absolutely zero mention of it – not even a mention of how much was spent.

------------------------
Update Feb 10, 2017 : I forgot this important evidence as to why Reich thinks Obama is a tyrant. Back in 2008, during the campaign, a reporter was asking him a question and he responded with "Why Can't I Just Eat My Waffle?"  (#2 limiting media access)
------------------------
Update Oct 11, 2017 : It could be that Robert Reich doesn't like people of color; after all Obama is black and Trump is orange.

Propaganda : Smash Capital Now

click to embiggen

The text (which is difficult to read from the scan) :

Know thy enemy:
he does not care what colour you are
provided you work for him;
he does not care how much you earn
provided you earn more for him;
he does not care who lives in the room at the top
provided he owns the building;
he will let you say whatever you like against him
provided you do not act against him;
he sings the praises of humanity
but knows machines cost more than men;
bargain with him, he laughs, and beats you at it;
challenge him,
and he kills.
sooner than lose the things he owns
he will destroy the world.
SMASH CAPITAL NOW
read The Black Dwarf

The referenced Black Dwarf was a British alternative newspaper published between 1968-1972,
I bet the first draft ended with "BUY the Black Dwarf" (price in 1968 : 2 shillings)

To be honest, that Che ring looks awfully aspirational.

---------------------------------

An example of propaganda to divide.

The jeremiad applies to perfectly to communist governments, like Che's Cuba, with the exception of "he will let you say whatever you like against him"

I wonder if Capital in place of Capitalists because they actually oppose the use of capital or if it was a way of dehumanizing their target?

From an economic point of view it seems that smashing capital equipment and relying on human labor would make everyone poorer. For example, people working on a sugar farm in Cuba would get more done with the use of trucks than if they had to lug everything on their backs. Since capital allows them to produce more it drives the price down making it more accessible and higher production can allow them to make more money even with a lower price. Capital also frees labor to do other things.

It seems a piece of capital like a printing press would be useful rather than workers laboriously drawing each copy with a pen.

The War on Metaphor

A tweet from Richard Horton (‏@richardhorton1) who is the editor in chief of the UK medical journal the Lancet and totalitarian crankypants :

 [link to a BBC story about an NRA official saying "This is not a battle about gun rights,'' Mr Porter told attendees on Friday, saying it was "a culture war".]

Classic war on metaphor… Oops, did I say war? He is campaigning against … oops a campaign is a war metaphor too. He's targeting …ah, no.  He's going to the barricades to … nevermind. 

He even recognizes and identifies it as a metaphor! Unlike some people who don't understand (or pretend not to understand) that a metaphor is not literal, he identifies that a figure of speech is being used but unfortunately that makes him sound like even more of a book burning totalitarian.

First metaphors are jailable, then similes, then allegories, then onomatopoeia and then, well, he'll just make up a reason after you're in jail.

Speaking of war, guess who wrote a book called Health Wars? The very same Richard Horton.

How Orwellian : "Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas"

The headline at the Washington Post reads :

Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas

One who just skims the headlines might be led to believe that the event organizer had organized the attack. Not so.

The line of thinking is similar to Garry Trudeau's suggestion that Charlie Hebdo staff "incited" their own murders. The notion is that Pamela Geller organizing an event caused people to attack it. Would they ever claim a broad group of adults lacked moral agency?

It seems only if they encounter a contradiction between what "everyone knows" / "things you can't say" and reality. The solution seems to be to rephrase reality so that "everyone knows" factoid can stay standing.

Like the previous post suggesting that media outlets that ostensibly show a Mohammed cartoon but censor it are signaling compliance, there is another signaling going on : to signal "I'm not one of 'those' people."

It says "*I* follow the social rules." If you can't say "some muslims refuse to accept the American level of freedom of expression" then the source of agency must be elsewhere. 

It seems to be a social set of rules. Trudeau's punching up/punching down distinction stands out because Trudeau appoints himself as the person determining which way is up.

People with guns executing unarmed people in a magazine office? Ah, well the people with guns are members of a minority group (note that this can override the circumstances of a specific individual). They can keep adding criteria to analyze until they reach the destination they want.

from Ace of Spades :

1. To speak of Islamist violence, or to suggest there is a problem in Islam, is racist, and hateful, and irrational, and "islamophobic."
2. It is so predictable that Islamists will kill you if you say something "anti-Islamic" that victims of murder attempts can be said to have brought their attacks on themselves.

It depends on who says it. These are social rules with the consistency of High School cliques. 

Immediately after the Boston Marathon Bombing, Esquire's Charles P. Pierce (who, by the way, is an idiot) wrote :

Obviously, nobody knows anything yet, but I would caution folks jumping to conclusions about foreign terrorism to remember that this is the official Patriots Day holiday in Massachusetts, celebrating the Battles at Lexington and Concord, and that the actual date (April 19) was of some significance to, among other people, Tim McVeigh, because he fancied himself a waterer of the tree of liberty and the like.

Don't jump to conclusions is a fine sentiment, but he does so want to disparage someone. Don't jump to conclusions about foreigners when you can jump to conclusions about your fellow citizens. There are socially unacceptable targets of venom and there are socially acceptable targets of venom.

from the NYTimes editorial by the NYT Editorial Board titled "Free Speech vs. Hate Speech" :

There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.
But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.

(As an aside, note that the New York Times Editorial Board views religions as hierarchal with followers and leaders and nary a mention of books or ideas.)

In the editorial, the Times draws a distinction between free speech vs hate speech depending on who is speaking. What is being said is pushed off to near irrelevance so the exact same thing can be said by two different people and one can be noble Free Speech while the other is odious Hate Speech.  More importantly, the New York Times appoints itself as the arbitrator of who is or who is not an acceptable speaker.

Charlie Hebdo is a publication whose stock in trade has always been graphic satires of politicians and religions, whether Catholic, Jewish or Muslim. By contrast, Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims.

The NYTimes defense of Charlie Hebdo as free speech, in contrast to Geller's hate speech, is that they have a broader range of targets. That is to say, Charlie Hebdo is not as offensive as Geller because they are more offensive to more people.

Censorship as a signal

After the attack on a Mohammed Drawing contest in Garland, Texas, the DailyMail.co.uk decided to post a photo of two policemen with a drawing of Mohammed but you'll have to take their word for it because they've covered the paper or canvas or whatever it might be drawn on with a large black rectangle. 

The caption reads "Controversial:Two heavily armed police officers can be seen securing art work following the shooting. The art competition for the best caricature of the Prophet Muhammad had been condemned by critics"

I'll note that USAToday did publish a similar photo with having to break out the censorship.

USAToday photo : a policeman in front of Mohammed cartoons 

In 2006, at the during the Danish Cartoon kerfuffle, the New York Times chose not to publish the Danish Cartoons (and still haven't) and instead illustrated the article about the controversy with a controversial Virgin Mary painting that included elephant dung and cut outs from porno magazines that led to a threat to cut public funding to a museum. (although it seems it no longer illustrates the online article)

Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili is NYTimes fit to print offensiveness 

CNN also censored the Danish Cartoons in 2006. They showed the cartoons but pixelated the face of Mohammed. It seemed pretty ridiculous at the time.

Pixelation : it isn't just for genitalia anymore!
(Or CNN thinks Mo looked like genitalia.)

One might ask why would the Daily Mail bother using the photo if you are going to censor the central element (in both the sense that it is in the middle of the composition and in the sense that it is central to the news story)? The NYTimes can at least try to claim there is only so much room on a page and editorial discretion simply led to a different image. The Daily Mail and CNN, on the other hand, are simply trying to signal that they are compliant. 

An Open Letter to Garry Trudeau

Hi Mr Trudeau,
Having read your comments about "Free Speech Absolutists" and your preference for unfree speech I couldn't help but notice that you expect the authors of Charlie Hebdo to follow the rules of other people's religions.

I assume you wouldn't hold Charlie Hebdo to a different standard than you would hold yourself so I want to encourage you to embrace your position and start following the religious rules of everyone and not just those rules that some people are willing to murder over.  (Personally, there is no chance I'll give up bacon for anything).

Anyways, I have bad news for you, the Heaven's Gate religious group believed in wearing uniform black shirts, sweat pants, and black-and-white Nike shoes but they also believed in castration and mass suicide.

Good luck with that.

Sincerely,
Col. Milquetoast

p.s. I'll leave it to someone more unkind than me to suggest you might already be ballless

How Orwellian : Garry Trudeau's "Free Speech Absolutists"

Doonsbury's Garry Trudeau's speech titled The Abuse of Satire was delivered on April 10 at the Long Island University's George Polk Awards ceremony, where he received the George Polk Career Award :

I, and most of my colleagues, have spent a lot of time discussing red lines since the tragedy in Paris. As you know, the Muhammad cartoon controversy began eight years ago in Denmark, as a protest against “self-censorship,” one editor’s call to arms against what she felt was a suffocating political correctness. The idea behind the original drawings was not to entertain or to enlighten or to challenge authority—her charge to the cartoonists was specifically to provoke, and in that they were exceedingly successful. Not only was one cartoonist gunned down, but riots erupted around the world, resulting in the deaths of scores. No one could say toward what positive social end, yet free speech absolutists were unchastened. Using judgment and common sense in expressing oneself were denounced as antithetical to freedom of speech.

Coming up with the euphemism "free speech absolutists" to criticize sounds much better than admitting that you want "restricted speech" over "free speech" because you fear the heckler's veto (or more pointedly the assassin's veto).

Imagine Garry Trudeau running a hot dog stand with a big sign that says "Free Hot Dogs!" But, he explains, he isn't a "Free Hot Dog Absolutist" so the hot dogs are $8 a piece. 

The context of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and Charlie Hebdo, fundamentally, is whether people who don't follow a particular religion (Islam) are obliged to follow that particular religion's iconoclastic beliefs (Islam's prohibition of depicting Mohammed and the prohibition of depicting living things). 

Jyllands-Posten cartoon pixelated by CNN in the same way nudity get pixelated

from the Koran :

Behold! he said to his father and his people, "What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?" They said, "We found our fathers worshipping them." He said, "Indeed ye have been in manifest error - ye and your fathers." sura 21, 52-54

The hadiths forbids the drawing people or animals : "All the painters who make pictures would be in the fire of Hell") Obeying the religious rules of everyone else's religions seems like hard work.

Although Trudeau says :
"one editor’s call to arms against what she felt was a suffocating political correctness. The idea behind the original drawings was not to entertain or to enlighten or to challenge authority—her charge to the cartoonists was specifically to provoke…" 

That is not true.  The Jyllands-Posten cartoons were inspired by the fact that artists were afraid to illustrate a book by Kåre Bluitgen on Mohammed because they were afraid of violence. A group that successfully threatens others into following that groups religious rules instead of their own is not what I would call a  "powerless, disenfranchised minority" that should be immune from satire. One could even say it could "challenge authority."

A Jyllands-Posten cartoon Trudeau claims "was not to entertain or to enlighten or to challenge authority…[but] specifically to provoke"  Other than the muslim perception of blasphemy what is provocative about this?

"one editor’s call to arms against what she felt was a suffocating political correctness."

The Editor of Jyllands-Posten was Fleming Rose who is male.

"Not only was one cartoonist gunned down"

An attempted assassin was shot while he was trying to kill one of the cartoonists. I'm not aware of one of the cartoonist being shot although several were threatened.

"No one could say toward what positive social end"

Imagine every single cartoon ever done by Garry Trudeau being judged as to "what positive social end." If he gives a speech with significant factual errors does that negate some of its "positive social end"? 

More from Trudeau :

By punching downward, by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech, which in France is only illegal if it directly incites violence. Well, voila—the 7 million copies that were published following the killings did exactly that, triggering violent protests across the Muslim world, including one in Niger, in which ten people died. Meanwhile, the French government kept busy rounding up and arresting over 100 Muslims who had foolishly used their freedom of speech to express their support of the attacks. 

Incitement means to encourage someone to act illegally. Like telling Person A telling Person B that Person C deserves to die and that Person B should kill him. Note that in the United States there is the Brandenburg Test (intent, imminence, and likelihood).  In contrast, Person A telling something to Person B and Person C responding by murdering Person A or murdering 10 people in Niger not incitement. It is Person C being a murderer. 

Using his definition of inciting would mean that a Birmingham Baptist Church in 1963 getting bombed would have been incited by the church itself. 

He doesn't specify what about this issue of Charlie Hebdo he mentions appears to be "hate speech", "punching downwards" or "attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings." The cover is following the religious customs of the magazine and not Islam because following the religious rules of everyone is difficult.

Update : a little more here 

people shouldn't get their understanding of the world from comedians

There is a reason why people shouldn't get their understanding of the world from comedians.

Clip from George Carlin : What Am I Doing In New Jersey? (1988)

Appropriately, this bit was after a long list of things he doesn't like.

Transcript :

Keep in mind, these Reagan people are the ones that were going to get the government off our back. Remember that? That was the rhetoric of the 1980 campaign : "We'll get government off your backs and out of your lives". Yeah but they still want to tell you what magazines you can read and they still want to tell you what rock lyrics you can listen to and they still want to force your kids to pray in school and they still want to tell you what you can say on the radio. The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, decided all by itself that radio and television are the only two parts of American life not protected by the free speech provisions of First Amendment to the Constitution. I'd like to repeat that because it sounds vaguely important.

The FCC, an appointed body, not elected, answerable only to the president decided on its own that radio and television were the only two parts of American life not protected by the free speech provisions of First Amendment to the Constitution. Why did they decide that? Because they got a letter from a minister in Mississippi. A Reverend Donald Wildmon heard something on the radio that he didn't like. Well Reverend, did anyone ever tell you there are two knobs on the radio? … Of course, I'm sure the Reverend isn't that comfortable with anything that has two knobs on it.  But hey Reverend, there are 2 knobs on the radio. One of them turns the radio off and the other one changes the station. Imagine that Reverend, you can actually change the station. It's called freedom of choice and it's one of the principals this country was founded upon. Look it up in the library if you have any left when you finish burning all the books.

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) began 1934 and it's predecessor organization the Federal Radio Commission was formed in 1926. The Supreme Court had dealt with the FCC as early as 1943. 

Interestingly, the 1943 Supreme Court case was specifically about the FCC overreaching and claiming powers not specifically granted by the legislation. The Supreme Court decided 5-2 (with 2 Justices not taking part) that FCC regulations were not limited to just the technical aspects of broadcasting but they could also regulate other aspects including content.  The 5 Justices in the majority were all appointed by FDR. One of the dissents was appointed by FDR and the other dissent was the sole Justice on the Court appointed by Herbert Hoover.  The  Rev. Donald Wildmon mentioned by Carlin was born in 1938 and was 5 years old at the time (and he may not have been a reverend yet).  It is possible he may have been a precocious letter writing at 5 year old but I have my doubts.

From the majority opinion :

True enough, the Act does not explicitly say that the Commission shall have power to deal with network practices found inimical to the public interest. But Congress was acting in a field of regulation which was both new and dynamic. 'Congress moved under the spur of a widespread fear that in the absence of governmental control the public interest might be subordinated to monopolistic domination in the broadcasting field.' Federal Communications Comm. v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 137, 60 S.Ct. 437, 439, 84 L.Ed. 656. In the context of the developing problems to which it was directed, the Act gave the Commission not niggardly but expansive powers.

In other words, "screw what the law actually says we'll just pretend it says what we want it to say."

In a 1953 case the Supreme Court described the bounds of FCC regulation as "the vaguish, penumbral bounds expressed by the standard of 'public interest.' "

Again, from the majority opinion in 1943 :

We come, finally, to an appeal to the First Amendment. The Regulations, even if valid in all other respects, must fall because they abridge, say the appellants, their right of free speech. If that be so, it would follow that every person whose application for a license to operate a station is denied by the Commission is thereby denied his constitutional right of free speech. Freedom of utterance is abridged to many who wish to use the limited facilities of radio. 

So, because radio is a limited medium that not everyone can participate in at once that justifies even more restrictions on those few who are allowed to participate.  It wasn't exactly that the FCC "decided all by itself."

George Carlin was probably referring something a little more contemporaneous.  The 1978 case before the Supreme Court, the FCC vs Pacifica Foundation had its origins in a broadcast of George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" skit in 1973.  Contrary to what Carlin said, Rev. Donald Wildmon did not write the letter of complaint that prompted the case. It turns out a guy named John Douglas complained to the FCC.  He wasn't in Mississippi, he was driving back to Long Island, New York from New Haven, Connecticut and complained about WBAI-FM out of New York City.  John Douglas belonged to Morality in Media while Donald Wildmon founded the National Federation for Decency.

I suppose "a minister in Mississippi" carries a different set of stereotypes than "a CBS executive in New York" or depending on what part of Long Island he lived and where he worked "a CBS executive in New York City"

"if you have any left when you finish burning all the books"  The complaint by John Douglas was specifically complaining that the bit was inappropriate to be broadcast on a Tuesday afternoon.

Considering the case was decided in 1978 it might be a bit careless to blame the FCC "answerable only to" Jimmy Carter on "these Reagan people." Besides, I'm not sure exactly how much influence a sitting president has on the FCC ("answerable only to the president") considering they are appointed to staggered 5 year terms and a maximum of 3 members can be of the same party. But I wondered who was on the FCC Commission at the time :

FCC Commissioners when the broadcast occurred (Tuesday afternoon, Oct 30, 1973. The complaint was sent in November 1973)
Nicholas Johnson	Democrat	Jul 1 1966 to Dec 5, 1973
H. Rex Lee	Democrat	Oct 28, 1968 to Dec 31, 1973
Charlotte T. Reid	Republican	Oct 8, 1971 to Jul 1, 1976
Richard E. Wiley	Republican	Jan 5, 1972 to Oct 13, 1977
Benjamin L. Hooks	Democrat	Jul 5, 1972 to Jul 25, 1977
FCC Commissioners in 1978 (when the case was heard by the Supreme Court April 18 & 19, 1978 and when it was decided July 3, 1978)
James H. Quello	Democrat	Apr 30, 1974 to Nov 1, 1997
Abbott M. Washburn	Republican	Jul 10, 1974 to Oct 1, 1982
Joseph R. Fogarty	Democrat	Sept 17, 1976 to Jun 30, 1983
Margita E. White	Republican	Sept 23, 1976 to Feb 28, 1979
Charles D. Ferris	Democrat	Oct 17, 1977 to Apr 10, 1981

(the FCC site listing FCC commissioners shows the name, party affiliation, state and their term of service. Margita E. White's state is listed as Sweden. I assume she was born there and not that she represented Sweden.)


Carlin also refers to "these Reagan people" as those who"still want to tell you what rock lyrics you can listen to" but the PMRC, to name the most prominent group, was a bipartisan hysteria. (I thought it was hysterical hysteria because I was listening to some of the music highlighted and hadn't realized its perversity until Tipper Gore and the PMRC pointed it out. Some of the music I sought out just so I could hear it for myself.)  The "they still want to tell you what magazines you can read" I assume refers to Attorney General Meese and the Meese Report which I understand was focused less on what people read and more on the graphical elements.

While I like people who defend freedom of speech, it seems dangerous to treat it like a team sport and only boo the other team while staying silent about the censorious tendencies of your own team. The concern is that when your team does overstep the habit of staying quiet will continue.

Phillip Adams : totalitarian crankypants

Phillip Adams is an old Australian lefty with a newspaper column, a radio show, and apparently a bit of a totalitarian streak.

The target of the US war on terror should be those NRMA nutters-who outgun and outmaneuver every challenger from POTUS down.And always have

NRMA is a typo for the NRA (National Rifle Association). (Or it isn't a typo and Adams has strong feelings about the National Roads and Motorists Association)

So, Phillip wants the US government to arrest and/or bomb people for engaging in free speech, questioning ideas, and peaceably petitioning the government. Who knew that merely advocating for one's explicit Constitutional rights would get you demonized as a terrorist. 

Notice it isn't the people actually committing the murders that he wants to targeted but the NRA.  Keep quiet about my support for the Third Amendment or he might call for my hands to be cut off.

Presumably, if the NRA were less successful then Phillip might tolerate their free speech and might not want them dead. Maybe. 

I'm sure all of those who fret over civility and campaign against eliminationist rhetoric will be up in arms and demand that he be denounced. Phillip Adams will be outraged when he hears what he's been saying. Here's Phillip Adams from Sept 10, 2011 : 

It was widely accepted that her [Gabrielle Giffords] attempted assassination was triggered, no pun intended, by the verbal violence of US politics – such as the “lock ’n’ load” rhetoric of gun-totin’ Sarah Palin, whose campaign literature literally targeted political opponents, depicting them in the crosshairs of telescopic sights. 

…

While sticks and stones break bones, words can never hurt? Manifestly untrue. Politics everywhere are holistic, interconnected, and the rhetoric of right or left can produce toxic atmospheres in which lunacy thrives.

…

It’s not enough for Abbott to tell us he “doesn’t entirely agree” with vile placards being waved at right-wing rallies. He must denounce them.

…

Today, words. Tomorrow, sticks and stones. And the day after that?

By the way, "It was widely accepted that her [Gabrielle Giffords] attempted assassination was triggered, no pun intended, by the verbal violence of US politics" was written a full 8 months after the shooting – that is, long after everyone but Phillip Adams realized Jared Loughner was motivated by being coo coo for cocoa puffs.

Update :  Here is some inflammatory demagoguery I've heard more than once.

To arms, citizens,
Form your battalions,
Let's march, let's march!
That impure blood
May water our furrows!
...
Tremble, tyrants and you traitors
The shame of all parties,
Tremble! Your parricidal schemes
Will finally receive their reward! 

Not only does it call for violence it also refers to the "enemy" tyrants and traitors as having "impure blood" which is a creepy bit of racial demogoguery. We can only hope Phillip Adams will do something about it before it kills us all.

Update II : On reflection, if Adams considers the NRA to be terrorists then perhaps his opinion about terrorists should be explored. 

In a column in the Australian July 12, 2005 titled "Britain had this coming" Adams explains :

And let's be clear about it: the people who died in the subway tunnels and on the bus were victims of the Iraq war. They died because of Blair's London Bridge, the one he built from the Thames to the Euphrates
.…
We say that what's happening in Baghdad and now London is inevitable, that the invasion has not liberated democratic forces but detonated more hatred, much of it directed against US hegemony and hubris.

Adams appears to think that terrorists lack an agency of their own and only react to outside stimulus.  I think this means Phillip wants to examine the NRA's root causes and conscientiously avoid doing anything that might provoke the NRA or its members into engaging in more of that free speech he finds so odious.

Update III : Phillip's twitter tirade includes "National Ratbags. National Racists. …The charnel house of Charlton Heston … those NRMA(sic) nutters" with all this incivility and "verbal violence" it raises the question : it seems Phillip is trying to provoke someone into murder, does he have a victim in mind? (assuming he believes his own writings)

Erasing the Past part 2

(This post is continued from Erasing the Past part 1)

---------------------------

Michelangelo's Last Judgement and Il Braghettone (the breeches maker) (1564)

drawing by Il Braghettone after Michelangelo (on left) and a detail of Michelangelo's Last Judgement with the clothed version of the figure (on right).

Daniele Ricciarelli (c. 1509 – April 4, 1566), better known as Daniele da Volterra, was an Italian mannerist painter and sculptor who, after Michelangelo's death, was was hired to cover the genitals in Michelangelo's Last Judgment with vestments and loincloths. This earned him the nickname "Il Braghettone" ("the breeches maker")

During restoration between 1980 and 1994, some of Il Braghettone's censorship/coverings were removed.

---------------------------

A fig leaf for copy of Michelangelo's David (1857)

A plaster cast of Michelangelo's David was given to the South Kensington Museum (now the Victoria and Albert Museum). Supposedly, Queen Victoria was shocked by the nakedness of the figure so a fig leaf was commissioned to be affixed to the statue during Royal visits. Interestingly, while the museum has other nude statues, it seems only David had received a fig leaf.

The statue of David is larger than life size at 17 feet tall (5.17m) and the fig leaf is equally large at 30cm x 40cm x 17cm and stored on the back of David's plinth.

a fig leaf for David

Here is a photo of the statue of David with the fig leaf attached circa 1858. So, the answer is yes, you can bowdlerize a statue.

---------------------------

Trotsky, L.B. Kamenev and A.B. Khalatov disappear (1920s)

Trotsky (saluting while in military cap to the right of Lenin), L.B. Kamenev (who was in glasses and beard to the left of Lenin), Artashes Khalatov (the bearded man who was standing in front of the child and Trotsky) an unknown man between Lenin and Trotsky.

Original from the 1920s with Lenin at the center

If the USSR had lasted longer eventually Lenin probably would have been the only person left in the picture. 

Besides being airbrushed from photos, there were other consequences to a totalitarian society. Lev Borisovich (L.B.) Kamenev was kicked out of the Communist Party several times, was readmitted after a public displays of contriteness and in 1936 he, along with 15 other Old Bolsheviks, was interrogated, told that he and his life and his son's life would be spared if he confessed, he was subject to a show trial and (contrary to the previous promises) executed.

Leon Trotsky was expelled from the Communist Party in 1927, deported from the Soviet Union in 1929 (deported doesn't seem like the right word for getting kicked out your own country – exiled might be better), and killed by a Soviet NKVD agent with an ice ax to the head in 1940.

A.B. Khalatov, the man in charge of the Soviet state publishing house Goszidat, was executed in 1938.

---------------------------

Lenin and Gorky and others (1920)

before includes Vladimir Lenin (center), Maxim Gorky (behind Lenin), Lev Mikhailovich Karakhan (far left in hat & beard), Karl Radek (with cigarette), Nikolai Bukharin (cigarette in hand), Mikhail Lashevich (in uniform), Maxim Peshkov (behind pillar), Sergei Zorin (hat), Zinoviev (white tie), M.N. Roy (black tie & jacket), Maria Ulyanova (Lenin's sister) and Abram Belenky (foreground in sunhat) 

detail of above photo to better contrast to the edited photo below

Everyone except Lenin and Gorky have either been cropped or airbrushed away. 

Note that some of the posts supporting the porch fence have been repaired by the retoucher but have been poorly drawn making them appear unevenly spaced.

Scans from The Commissar Vanishes p74-75. The top photo is from an album given to foreign delegates to the Second Congress of the Communist International July 19, 1920 taken at the Uritsky Palace. 

What happened to the people in the photo?

- Vladimir Lenin (center - died 1924 of stroke)

- Maxim Gorky (behind Lenin - died in 1936, possibly killed by the NKVD)

What happened to those disappeared from the photo : 

- Lev Mikhailovich Karakhan (far left in hat & beard - arrested and executed in 1937)

- Karl Radek (with cigarette - arrested and killed by the NKVD while in a labor camp in 1939)

- Nikolai Bukharin (cigarette in hand - arrested and executed in 1938)

- Mikhail Lashevich (in uniform - expelled from the Central Committee in 1926, expelled from the Communist Party in 1927, died in 1928 from, it is said, either a car accident or suicide, and had his grave marker removed in the 1930s)

- Maxim Peshkov (behind pillar - Gorky's son, died 1934)

- Sergei Zorin (hat - fate unknown)

- Zinoviev (white tie - arrested and executed in 1936)

- M.N. Roy (black tie & jacket - returned to India)

- Maria Ulyanova (Lenin's sister - died 1937) 

- Abram Belenky (foreground in sunhat - arrested and executed in 1939) 

---------------------------

Grigorii Petrovsky is squeezed out (1922)

Participants at the 11th Congress of the Communist Party in Moscow, April 1922. Left to right : Emilian Yaroslavsky (alternatively spelled Yemelyan), Mikhail Kalinin, Josef Stalin, Grigorii Petrovsky (alternatively spelled Grigory), and Sergo Ordjonikidze.

Grigorii Petrovsky disappears and Sergo Ordjonikidze slides over to stand next to Stalin.

From the book on Soviet and specifically Stalin's censorship The Commissar Vanishes by David King page 83. The retoucher seems to have been unsure of where Grigorii Petrovsky's arm ends and Sergo Ordjonikidze's arm begins. Another version of this photo exists cropped so that only Stalin is visible.

Grigorii Petrovsky was the Head of the Ukrainian Central Committee, an organizer of the Ukrainian famine and in 1939 he was criticized for condoning "enemies of the people" and removed from all posts. He survived Stalin and died in 1958.

Of those remaining in the photo : Officially, Grigory "Sergo" Ordjonikidze died of a heart attack but Nikita Khrushchev claimed he committed suicide due to his conflicts with Stalin.

Mikhail Kalinin survived the purges, retired in 1946 and died that same year. His wife, however, had been arrested in 1938, tortured until she confessed to counter-revolutionary activities and sent to a labor camp.

Emilian Yaroslavsky had long been an active supporter of Stalin and had written a book titled "On Comrade Stalin" where Stalin is described as "leader of the people" and he repeatedly emphasizes the "ruthlessness of Stalin's enemies." IT seems his sycophancy paid off and he survived the 1930s and didn't die until 1943.

The altered photo's implication is that Russians can't make evenly spaced wallpaper.

---------------------------

The New Yorker and New York Times change who bombed the "Napalm Girl" (1972)

noted by W. Joseph Campbell

"Napalm Girl"

From the New Yorker in 2012 : " …shots of screaming schoolkids fleeing down a lonely road disturbingly presage the iconic news image of Vietnamese children escaping from American napalm attacks"

From the New York Times (May 12, 2012) : "…the aftermath of one of the thousands of bombings in the countryside by American planes: a group of terror-stricken children fleeing the scene, a girl in the middle of the group screaming and naked, her clothes incinerated by burning napalm." (since corrected)

On June 8, 1972, napalm was dropped near the village Trang Bang in Vietnam not by Americans but by the South Vietnamese Air Force. Campbell contacted the Times and the initial response by the NYTimes was “You are correct that the bombing in question was conducted by the South Vietnamese Air Force. However, the obituary referred only to ‘American planes,’ and there does not seem to be any doubt that this plane was American –- a Douglas A-1 Skyraider, to be precise.”

Hypothetically, if Canadian contractors had built 50.1% of the plane would the Times really refer to them as "Canadian planes?"

---------------------------

Dr. David Abraham's The Collapse of the Weimar Republic: Political Economy and Crisis (1981)

Princeton professor Dr. David Abraham's book The Collapse of the Weimar Republic: Political Economy and Crisis was found by Yale's Dr. Henry A. Turner and UC Berkeley's Gerald Feldman to contain quotations that could not be supported by his cited works.  From the New York Times Dec 23, 1984 :

For example, on page 320 of Dr. Abraham's work, an exchange is quoted between two powerful German executives - Hjalmar Schacht, a former president of the Reichsbank, and Paul Reusch, head of a heavy-industry empire based in Oberhausen. Dr. Abraham presents the exchange after saying that Germany's leading industrialists had concluded by early 1932 ''that Nazi participation in or control of the government would provide the best way out of the political crisis while providing auspicious possibilities for a profitable economic recovery.''

Dr. Abraham wrote, ''The following exhange between Schacht and Reusch was characteristic:

The Nazis are not to be circumvented. More than that, they are the positive force. We should contribute to them and their efforts and assist them in altering some of the utopian aspects of their economic policies. (Schacht) After a productive two-hour talk with Hitler yesterday, I fully and completely agree with your suggestions . . . I find myself in complete sympathy with the National Socialists, though they are a bit tactless. (Reusch) (I have begun) a collection for the purpose of supporting them and enlightening them on economic issues. (Schacht)''

The original letters are quite different. [some differences bolded above] Mr. Schacht nowhere in his first letter calls the Nazis ''the positive force.'' Nor does he say, ''We should contribute to them and their efforts.'' He instead proposes to Reusch that they help finance some economists to persuade the Nazis to abandon the ''nonsense'' in their economic ideas.

Mr. Reusch, in his actual response, does not call his talk with Hitler ''productive,'' and he is agreeing to another proposal than the one implied. Mr. Reusch does not say, ''I find myself in complete sympathy with the National Socialists, though they are a bit tactless.''

And Mr. Schacht's later statement that he has begun a collection for the purpose of ''supporting them'' does not appear in the original.
…
He conceded that quotations on pages 236, 237, 254, 268, 272, 316 and elsewhere were ''inadequate,'' ''compressed'' or ''wrong.'' He also granted, after a reporter examined two of his notecards, that he had made errors in transcribing his notes into his text, as well as in notetaking.

Although David Abraham protested that his were innocent mistakes made by carelessness and not out of malice or an intention to deceive but it is difficult to understand how some of the errors were made.

---------------------------

University of Wisconsin Madison photoshopping diversity (2000)

At the University of Wisconsin Madison, Diallo Shabazz was photoshopped onto the cover of the UW admission application's cover (among other material).

University of Wisconsin Madison application photoshopped to show Diallo Shabazz at a football game he never attended 

This is the original photo that was deemed to contain an insufficient number of black guys 

Diallo did attend the University of Wisconsin Madison but if they wanted to show him at the football game then they should have invited him. While other ads do photoshop elements in or out, most ad photos are created to be illustrations while this was put forward as reality.

One can't help but wonder why other groups were not photoshopped into the photo. The implication is that a Pacific Islander or an Asian or a Native American or any number of potential groups were left out because while they wanted to show one black face they also wanted to show no groups other than blacks & whites. Or perhaps because they thought one person would serve as a token for minorities in general.

Most likely, photoshopping one face was an attempt at being sneaky while photoshopping in a representative for an ever growing list of groups would become a farce.

---------------------------

Historical fabrication in Arming America : The Origins of a National Gun Culture (2000)

In 2000, Emory University Professor Michael Bellesiles’s book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture was published to initial acclaim and won the Bancroft Prize in 2001. The prize was rescinded after it was shown that Bellesiles appeared to have fabricated evidence for his claims multiple times. An investigation by Emory University led to his resigning his tenured position at Emory.

An example (image from "Why Footnotes Matter : Checking Arming America's Claims" by Clayton Cramer)

Bellesiles claimed to quote the Militia Act of 1792 as saying : "every citizen so enrolled, shall… be constantly provided with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints" 

But the law actually says [bold added to highlight the difference from the Bellesiles quote] : "every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints…" 

Bellesiles tried to explain that he inadvertently cited the 1792 act instead of the 1803 Militia Act but while the latter includes the phrase "constantly provided" it doesn't match his quotation either.  (the 1803 Militia Act  [bold added to highlight the difference from the Bellesiles quote] : "That every citizen duly enrolled in the militia, shall be constantly provided with arms, accoutrements, and ammunition."

comparing a scan of Arming America and a scan of inconvenient source material.

An example from the Emory University report :
"The most egregious misrepresentation has to do with his handling of the more than 900 cases reported by Alice Hanson Jones. When critics pointed out that Jones’ data disagreed with his, Bellesiles responded by explaining that he did NOT include Jones’s data in his computations because her inventories, taken during the build-up to the American revolution, showed a disproportionately high number of guns! Here is a clear admission of misrepresentation, since the label on column one in Table One clearly says "1765-1790." If Professor Bellesiles silently excluded data from the years 1774-1776, as he asserts, precisely because they failed to show low numbers of guns, he has willingly misrepresented the evidence. "

Additionally, Bellesiles supposedly counted guns listed in San Francisco County probate inventories on microfilm at a Georgia archive, changed his story when the Georgia archive didn't have the microfilm, then he claimed to have read them at the San Francisco library but that the library he cited says they were destroyed in 1906, he claimed to have read probate records in courthouses that hadn't housed those records in years, falsely claimed travel narratives didn't mention guns when they did, misrepresented sources, misrepresented militia records and miscounted guns listed in probate records. Many problems with Arming America are listed by Cramer, the Emory report and by Jim Lindgren's review of Bellesiles's errors. 

As a postscript, in 2010, Bellesiles's new publisher tried to rewrite history to present Bellesiles as a victim of  "an infamous ‘swiftboating’ campaign by the National Rifle Association" and not as the Emory investigation found (Emory p18) that "Professor Bellesiles contravened these professional norms, both as expressed in the Committee charge and in the American Historical Association’s definition of scholarly “integrity”…"

---------------------------

Maureen Dowd's Dowdification in the New York Times (2003)

Dowdification as described by Best of the Web

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote :

Busy chasing off Saddam, the president and vice president had told us that Al Qaeda was spent. "Al Qaeda is on the run," President Bush said last week. "That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated. . . . They're not a problem anymore."

The use of ellipses in quoted material is entirely legitimate, but not when it changes the meaning. Many a blogger noted that Dowd did just that, and did so quite egregiously. Here's what Bush actually said, according to the official White House transcript, with the portion Dowd omitted in bold:

Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore.

Dowd's bowdlerization of the quote changed the antecedent of they, making it appear as if Bush had said al Qaeda as a whole was "not a problem anymore"--something no one claims--rather than that its dead and captured members are no longer a problem, something no one can deny. Spinsanity.com notes that many liberal commentators, in print and on television, picked up Dowd's misleading quote.

---------------------------

Sandy Berger steals and destroys documents from the National Archives (2004)

Former National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, pilfered 5 classified documents from the National Archives and destroyed 3 of them.

Berger's associates admit he took five copies of an after-action report detailing the 2000 millennium terror plot from the Archives. The aides say Berger returned to his office, discovered that three of the copies appeared to be duplicates and cut them up with scissors.
…
The revelations were a dramatic change from Berger's claim last year that he had made an "honest mistake" and either misplaced or unintentionally threw the documents away.

Berger was fined $50,000 but surprisingly received not even a single day of jail time.

 (This is extra dickish because his denial that he took the documents, if it had been believed, would lead to the blame falling on an innocent National Archives employee.)

---------------------------