Ethics

Sorry folks, the image that defined our times was fake. Though, I suppose it's poetic that such an image would turn out to be a sham. I suppose, deep down, we all knew it was too good to be true, but believing it was too much fun. Props to the discussion at JWZ for clearing this up.

Steve Safran at lost remote writes on how to save blogs from ourselves. I suggest you get your little butt over there and take a read:

It only seems fair. I've written How to Save CNN and How to Save MSNBC. Time for a little hair of the dog. Following Cory's lead, here's how we can save weblogs from the creeping suspicions that are starting to hurt us all. [Link] >

Bill O’ Reilly: Bias, propaganda, and the kitten eating, anti-American, Jesus haters of the radical-left: that is the subject of this evening’s talking points memo.

Over the past 48 hours, Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society has once again come under fire for providing asylum to numerous anti-American kitten eaters. As usual, the mainstream left-wing media, including CNN and the New York Times, are refusing to cover the scandal. However, unlike the liberal media, Talking Points believes that all Americans have a right to know what really happened behind the blood stained closed doors of the Berkman Center.

An Australian team of Tasmanian Devils re-enacts the slaughter occurring behind the closed doors of Berkman. In my judgment, this video captures the true horror of the unfolding scandal in ways that words cannot. (Via Joi Ito) Warning: This movie contains disturbing images. Viewer discretion advised.

Today, I renamed a month old post that jokingly accused Rebecca Mackinnon of kitten eating. While I was checking referred logs today, I suddenly realized that the satirical post, titled "Rebecca Mackinnon: Kitten Eater (and she's rumored to hate both America and Jesus, too. She's also a rapper.)", was in fact appearing near the top of any google search for "Rebecca Mackinnon". Rebecca never mentioned the post to me, and I think she would have thought it was funny. Nevertheless, it just seemed wrong to allow "hates America and Jesus" to appear at the top of the search -- regardless of the fact that it is an obvious joke (apparently, there is a large segment of the population that doesn’t understand the concept of joking). Rebecca is a woman of robust moral fiber, and doesn't hate America or Jesus (though the jury is still out on the kitten eating though).

Then again, I may have just had too much coffee today... The new headline is "Anonymous Whistleblower Accuses Berkman Fellows of Ceremonially Feasting Upon Live Kittens"

The reader might be wondering, "why is the man on the left smiling"? Well, the smiling man is named Michael McManus. He writes a syndicated column titled (ironically, as we shall soon find out) "Ethics & Religion" for over 50 national news-papers. He has also just gotten zapped by Salon for being on President Bush's payroll. He wrote several columns supporting Bush's queer-fearin' agenda without disclosing to readers that he was under Department of Health and Human Services payroll.... Or wait, let me put that better: he did not disclose that he was a spinless sellout that was willing to masquarade as an authority when he was little more than an advertisment -- a brand name to be bought out by the highest bidder. So to the hypothetical reader's opening question, I respond, "good use of the rhetorical question, dear reader".

Those of you who, like me, have been reading news (I got bored of minesweeper too) might know that Mcmanus is not alone. The Bush Administration also payed $240,000 to Armstrong Williams, a conservative African-American pundit, to help promote the "no child left behind" gizmo-act-word-thingy; and $21,000 to syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher. McManus, is the third -- and his smile is a charm, isn't it?

So why am I making a fuss? Simple: they didn't reveal their conflicts of interest. Did they act in accordance with the law? Of course, and that is why I named them "douche-bags of liberty". Here is a neat tidbit: President Bush has spent over 250 million on PR. Which, to put it in perspective, is double that of Clinton's PR bill during the great BJ affair of the late ninties. I've always wondered how Bush survived; I guess I know.