Thursday, June 23, 2005

The Black Sun Legion Crushes The Emperor's Enemies


Real life bud Mark of The Conservative Zone has a post today about a Truly Epic Battle we fought last night. He and I get together on Wednesday nights down at the Memphis Battle Bunker to play a table-top wargame with 6mm figures called Epic: Armageddon. It's inexpensive to get into (thankfully for me, as I'm very, very broke) and Mark has a large enough army to spare me some needed troops. I call my troops of Marines the Black Sun Legion. Our banner is blood red with a single black circle in the center: the black sun of the Emperor's retribution rising over the field of our enemies' blood. Whee!

We both field armies of Space Marines, the elite troops of the Empire of Man. Very tough, but middling powerful. And their forces tend to be on the smaller side, numbers-wise. There are also the Imperial Guard (the grunts and artillery); the Orks (think of an army of Hulks: big, green, stupid and love to smash); the Eldar (very advanced aliens with fast, elusive vehicles); the Chaos Space Marines (traitorous Marines who turned to the dark side, like demons in armor); and some other, less common enemies. Space Marines are hard to use well, as they are very strong but not hammer-strong. They are, as I've been trained, a scalpel, not a hammer. They are the troops you send in for do-or-die missions against a specific objective. Eldar can out-maneuver them and Orks can just overwhelm them with numbers, making victories hard to achieve. But Space Marine v. Space Marine is double-tough. Broad, fronted battles aren't their forte.

Our forces were 5000 point armies, which is pretty danged large! We each had about 16 separate forces in our armies we could use, made up of anywhere from one to 40 units each -- troops of all kinds, bikes, anti-aircraft, gunships, tanks, artillery, transports. That's a lot of troops and vehicles running around blasting away at each other. We've been playing forces half that size up to now, but lately the lure of the "mega army" has been too great. Mark is getting new toys for his army and I need to be counter-balanced in size to keep things competitive. Our battlefield table was four feet by eight feet of store-provided fields, woods, roads and hills.

Anyway, I've been slowly learning and finally began to earn victories of my own this month. Last night, though, was a wowser. Mark has been recently working on an "Epic Tactics 101" primer and he shared it with me. Big mistake! I've been watching and learning from his playing style, but somehow seeing it in print crystallised some things for me. Seeing his analyses laid out so clearly was like seeing into a window. When we met last night, I was clear on some things.

When we first started playing I had vowed not to make the kinds of mistakes in the game that I make in real life. First and foremost was to not second-guess myself into inaction. I do that all the time, in the real world. I think of it as being too smart for my own good. If I let myself get overwhelmed by fear, I'll talk myself out of anything. So, I vowed to always follow my instincts and not overthink them. Second, was to be bold. If an opportunity presented itself, but had lots of risk attached, I wouldn't hesitate. I'd jump all over it. Last night, I reaffirmed that philosophy and it paid off.

In the very first turn, I sent a squad of very powerful Terminator Marines straight into the heart of his troops, to attack one of his two detachments of tactical marines, the ground troops that are the backbone of any Marine army. The result was to crush and break those troops and send consternation to Mark. He now had a detachment of Terminators in his own backfield to deal with, a crippled line, and scrambled plans. He's used this trick with me a number of times, and I felt ready to turn the tables. He was also trying out a new troop unit and strategy, so he didn't need the extra headache my tactic gave him. It was right out of his Epic Tactics primer. Hee, hee....

At the end of the first turn, I had a broad, strong front in the center of the battlefield, which is a good thing. Normally, I have too wide a front line, too easily breakable and too thin to provide support to the forces next to them. He ruthlessly exploits that defect every time. This time, except for a garrison I had wide to the left, I worked to keep my forces together in the middle. It was working. He either had to go around them, or leapfrog that line with other forces.

But I still had a bit too much of my troop strength along the flanks, which isn't as good. Mark is really good about keeping his center line strong and supported. But with so many of his troops off the board at the start (either waiting in gunships or waiting in orbit in drop pods for later turns) he didn't have his usual depth and coverage. So, I took another risk. I had a Thunderhawk gunship full of two detachments of Assault and Devastator Marines sitting on an off-table airfield that I had also planned to use later in the game. This unit is pretty powerful; it can be flown in and landed anywhere in the battle. He had only his other force of tactical marines holding down his center and I saw an opportunity to smash those troops and open up the whole center to my army. In strategic terms, this would be A Good Thing Indeed.

At first, I dithered and anguished about the risk. I had previously tried a similar stunt, only to have his troops shoot the gunship out of the air, killing everyone and everything before they could do anything, a wasteful and harmful loss. I fretted about it happening again. Then, I remembered: Take the gamble, if it will pay off handsomely. And this gamble would, if it worked. I brushed away my indecision and went for it.

It worked. Totally. He'll tell you I had a moment when the enormity of what I'd risked and its payoff sank in, and I had to catch my breath. That's the fun side of these kinds of games: the ability to immerse yourself in them. If that gamble had gone wrong, the game likely would have ended before the second turn was over. Instead, I was far, far ahead now.

I completely wiped out his center. What on-table strength he still had was now on the flanks of the board, though they were powerful units. On my right flank, deep in my territory, he had sent one of his two gunships of troops to harry me, in response to my Terminator assault earlier. They did little damage, but I had to waste some important troops just trying to kill them in return. I had little luck in that, but did eventually force him to retreat them back to the airstrip off the board. Still, some troops that might have been useful elsewhere got tied up.

He had some units in drop pods still to come. Drop pods are orbital reentry vehicles full of troops that can be landed anywhere on the board and will release a deadly weapon (the Deathwind) on anything under them when they land. It was my first time facing them, and frankly I was scared about it. He could wait until the very end and just drop the lot right onto my backfield -- where my troop strength was minimal -- and do great damage, claiming some important victory points in winning. But there are limitations, too. These troops have to come in at a predetermined time and place; no changes allowed. The shape of the forces on the battlefield can be anything when they finally arrive and it might not help him at all. And they come in so late in the game that they can't do much once they get there.

But, at the end of the first turn, I dominated the battlefield. Completely. Mark's efforts were in a shambles and he was flummoxed. It was great to see. But as turn two started up, he went to work methodically trying to turn the tide. He had some luck there. He was able to break through my left flank late; I didn't have much strength there to repulse that assault. He used his gunships to great effect, chewing me up with strafing runs. He worked hard with what he had to deny me an advance and to chip away at full-strength units to hobble their effectiveness. It worked. He also tried the Terminator Marine-in-the-backfield trick, which I'd expected, but in a slightly different way. I didn't have the needed power to handle the Terminators, and I also had plans to attend to with troops elsewhere, so he was able to hack away at several formations. I made a gamble here, too, that he could be defeated elsewhere in the battlefield even as he attacked me in the rear (ha ha), in a way that didn't give him too many of the victory points and gained me lots of important ones. It sorta worked, but at a very high cost.

I should also mention the role of luck in this game. Like so many paper-and-pencil, table-top simulation, and card games of war, there's a need to replicate the role of chance in battle. Great victories and defeats have often hinged on small moments of luck. To introduce that random element, dice are used in Epic to determine outcomes. It's imperfect, but necessary. In this game, I had great luck in the first turn, but Mark's luck improved in the second and into the third. Dice rolls kept Mark's gunship of troops off the board for another turn. They also let his troops rally at the end of turns while keeping too many of mine broken and unusable.

By the time of turn three, I was still dominating the middle and his end of the battlefield, but he was sowing trouble all across my home territory and marshalling lots of troops from off-table to join the fray. When the drop pods arrived, he managed to nearly destroy my largest force in a single action; even before the dropped troops got into battle. His Terminators were still there, too, and his left-flanking maneuver was quite successful. But I was running wild across his area, and he needed to waste time dealing with me. By the time he could focus on his actions with the Terminators and dropped Marines, the time allotment for the game was almost over. He had a lot to kill and clean out, mostly remnants of detachments he'd beaten up earlier, but not quite enough time to do it. Also, I had some incredible luck with troops that should never have been able to take the attacks they did. It wasn't enough to stop him, much less defeat his forces, but he was slowed down.

Slowed enough that when, at the end of turn three, we checked for victory conditions, I was ahead 3-0! I was stunned. It was the second time I felt like my decisions had led my troops to victory, messy as it was. But it was the first time I felt like I'd made a decisive win. It was great. I'm beginning to believe, as Mark once suggested, that I can really do well at this. I used to enjoy chess and boardgame wargames when I was in my teens and twenties, which is why I enjoy Epic. It has the same "general with an army" feel to it. There are lots of rules and exceptions to learn, but that's coming, and I can feel my mind sharpening because of it.

Next Wednesday, we're hosting a "mega battle" at the Battle Bunker. That's where anyone is welcome to bring a small force. If you want to play, but don't have an army there are lots of folks who will share their troops so you can join in. Two sides are created and lined up against each other on a very long battlefield. Then they have at each other! Melee until one side loses enough, or everyone has to go home. If you're curious, come on down and either watch or join in. The fun is due to start around 6PM. The Battle Bunker has drink and snack machines, but we will order pizzas if enough people want in.

Thanks to Mark, by the way, for addicting me to "battle crack." At least it gets me out of the house once a week.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Money Talks


While googling around for something else, I ran across this webpage from Open Secrets about political contributions from Tennesseans to national political campaigns in 2004, the last election cycle. It's eye-opening!

Tennesseans gave to Republicans over Democrats by a three to one margin. Twenty one million to seven million. Ranked nationally, Tennessee was number two of all fifty states in percentage giving to Republicans; number 49 to Democrats. Nashvillains outgave Memphians two to one; Knoxville equaled Memphis. Excellent news for the coming Senate race to replace retiring Bill Frist.

In county terms, all but twenty five of Tennessee's counties gave to Republicans at almost two to one or better. And most of that twenty-five are the thinly populated counties of West Tennessee.

The candidate with the most out of state contributions? Democrat Harold Ford, Jr. by a three to one margin over his closest competitor, Lamar! Alexander. In fact, Ford received more out of state money than the next five Republicans! That's something for Tennesseans to think about as Ford runs for Frist's Senate seat.

Something to remember when you start reading all the Ford adulation and boosterism of the state's newspapers. For those not from Memphis, the author of that free Ford ad is Bartholomew Sullivan, a Great Society Democrat. Notice, too, that Sullivan uses extensive, uninterrupted Ford quotes. You typically see this from a reporter seeking to praise or damn a person with their own words.

Anyway, something for the folks opposed to Democrats and Harold Ford, Jr. to keep in mind this coming season.
Word of the Day & a Bonus


Thanks to Blogcritics for hipping me to Wordsmith's A.Word.A.Day. As a langauge geek, I'm a sucker for this sort of thing.

Today's word also comes with a bonus quote from John Milton: "Those who put out the people's eyes, reproach them for their blindness." Words to heed for Memphis local media and the wacky anti-what-ya-got? Left.
Quote of the Day


"I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad."
Who said that? Would you believe Senator Dick Durbin? Of course, this was about President Clinton when he was attacking Iraq.

I know, I know. That was different....

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Joke of the Day


Via Jerry Pournelle:

Dirty Magazines

Soon after being transferred to a new duty station, my Marine husband called home to tell me he would be late - again. He went on to say that dirty magazines had been discovered in the platoon's quarters and they had to discipline the whole squad. I launched into a tirade, arguing that many men had pictures hanging in their quarters at our previous post, so his new platoon should not be penalized for something trivial.

My husband calmly listened to my gripes and then explained, "Honey, dirty magazines: the clips from their rifles had not been cleaned."
Better Than ONE is Many


Once again, Mick at Fishkite unleashes one of his patented link-filled, meticulously detailed posts wherein he devastates Bono and his mushy-headed feel-good anti-Americanism. Mick shows how Americans are far more charitable than Bono seems to think we are, then turns it all back on the central question with crushing authority.

He has a cool chart, too!

Friday, June 10, 2005

Thought for the Day


If teachers can't be trusted with test and class grades, why do you trust them with your children?
Harry 'n' Howie


Via JustOneMinute blog comes,this exchange between morning radio host Don Imus and Harold Ford, Jr. Just a taste,talking about DNC Chair Howard Dean:
I think perhaps Governor Dean sometimes gets a little excited at the mouth, and says things that are simply not true. It may reach a point where if he can't find a way to kind of control some of his comments, and temper his comments, it may get to the point where the party may need to look elsewhere for leadership, because he does not speak for me, and I know he does not speak for a majority of Democrats and I dare say Republicans in my home state.
Looks like the kids at the Memphis Flyer have their work still cut out for them, getting Ford to quit moving to the middle.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Eerily Familiar?


Does this sound familiar?
The Fords, however, hotly denied any association with [him], claiming they had never met the man who has worked as an undercover informant in the ... investigation in Nashville.

"I don't know [him]. I've never seen him and never met him," Harold Ford said in a telephone interview from Washington. "I don't know anything about him other than what I've read about him in the newspapers."

JOHN FORD SAID he also did not know [him], but described him as a "crook" who "lied to impress the FBI and the U.S. attorney's office."

"If [he] said he handed me something himself, he's a damn liar," the state senator said. "He didn't."
John Ford spouting off this week as he goes back to court?

Nope. That's from twenty five years ago!

Blake Wylie has done some digging and unearthed some stories from Nashville's Tennessean from 1979 and 1991 about disgraced former State Senator John Ford, his brother former US Representative Harold Ford, Sr., and nephew Harold Ford, Jr., who now holds the US House seat and is running for the US Senate.

Ford family problems have ever been with us, in the same form, over and over and over again. It's all there in Blake's post.

Not only that, he reminds of another frighteningly bizarre incident from Ford's past, one where his bluster and threats seem to have failed him:
Ford, who was married at the time, was visiting a woman in a Memphis apartment, when a man forced his way into the home, raped the woman and forced Ford and the woman to pose in the nude as he photographed them.

Ford refused to discuss the incident, even after an assailant was arrested, and the matter was seldom discussed again.
Any readers remember that incident and the details?

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Oh Poo


I have to attend to real life yet again today and tomorrow, so blogging will be light to not at all until Thursday. Got stuff to do this afternoon, going out tonight and gonna be away from the keyboard all day tomorrow. Sorry, but fear not. I may squeeze in something late night.

There's tons of links in the sidebars, so that oughta keep ya busy. Or just revisit some of the blogs I've linked in the posts below.

Or visit Strong Bad and read his emails.
Buddhist Engineering Koan


In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, theory and practice are not the same.
Holy Crap!



What Homestarrunner.com character are you?

Strong Bad

You are a funny little character in a mexican wrestling mask that says "holy crap" a lot. You created Trogdor, the BURNINATOR!!!

Personality Test Results

Click Here to Take This Quiz
Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests.



YouThink.com - Quiz - Personality Test

Monday, June 06, 2005

D-Day Today


Today is the anniversary of D-Day, probably the single most important battle of the European Theater in WWII. Murdoc wonders how today's press would have covered that event.

My suggestion for how it might look:
EISENHOWER DEFENDS "MEAT-GRINDER" STRATEGY

5000 Dead in Single Day's Battle
Senator "Appalled" at Death Toll
Military Experts Criticise Timing, Location of Attack

Following months of Pentagon denials of an unprecedented military buildup along the English Channel coastline, despite press reports and eyewitness claims that detailed the massive influx of men and materiel, Allied military forces launched an attack today on the French coast against heavily fortified German positions.

When questioned about an invasion strategy that relied upon throwing massive numbers of men against entrenched fortifications on open coastline manned by a militarily superior force -- a strategy some critics have described as "inhumane" -- the Pentagon spokesman reacted angrily....
You get the idea.... It's not about the invasion, but about the wrong behind it.
Lileks Diversifies or Gives In, Depending


I have been a huge fan of James Lileks (pronounced LYE-lex) personal blog The Bleat. I sometimes joke that he's the writer I'd like to be when I grow up. Here's a bit from today's post:
That was Saturday, more or less. Hauling up bags, dumping cedar chips, rearranging the lighting, then standing outside in the Jolly Green Giant posture beholding my work and savoring the cedar aroma. Went inside, showered, finished up Doom 3. Yes, I saved earth from Hell. You’re very welcome. I listened to old radio, watched “Man on Fire” – essentially, a Charles Bronson revenge movie set in Mexico with a fine lead actor and supporting cast, a brisk enough script, a Heart-Tugging Relationship between a sullen man at the end of the line and the young child actress who gives him reason to have an emotion worth repressing again, and the usual ADD direction from Tony Scott. It’s a graphic novel, really – complete with subtitles to emphasize the dialogue, even though the dialogue is in English. Nice touch, but you can only do it once. Also watched the spiffed up reperfected version of THX 1138, the second half of which can be FF’d without missing a thing. Bottom line: it's bad to be shaved, drugged, and living in a totalitarian dystopia. I'm glad George cleared that up for us.

Tonight I’m with Gnat while my wife is at a movie, and that means I’ve been playing board games and doing puzzles while trying to work. Which means no work has been done. I’ve banged this out in the few minutes while she watches Spongebob (let me tell you, if have the slightest headache, Spongebob’s laugh is enough to make it a very large one.) This is also the night where I'm trying out Adobe GoLive CS, which has proved itself useless for on-the-fly editing; on my 1ghz G4 latop it has about a two second lag between typing a letter and seeing it appear on the screen. It’s a column night too. Also the start of the Screedblog, where polarizing grumpy reactionary drivel can be placed in a cordon sanitaire, leaving the Bleat as neutral ground where we can all get along. I advise those disinclined to like my screedish side to avoid it, since the spotty quality, haphazard reasoning and predictable conclusions will only serve as a depressing reminder of what I have become. On the other hand, it may be amusing to see what a jackass I can really be. Everyone’s a winner!
Effortlessly funny and slyly jabby. Once in a while, I wonder what it would be like to put him and Dennis Miller in the same studio. Their politics are similar, but they both have that amazing ability to pull from the air cultural references that are perfectly suited.

So, for a while now Lileks (no one seems to call him James or Jim) has had a tendency to apologise when his politcal side gets wound up. He'll block off his screeds from the rest of that day's Bleat with an apology and a warning. Today, he's made the break with the beginning of Screedblog. Here's a sample:
Kicked, stepped on, and splashed urine. Splashed. The word suggests that someone waddled over with a brimming pot of urine and gave the vat a heave-ho, just to motivate the detainee. Stories like these must be told, of course, if only to show what the media finds important, and remind us how good things are going. I can imagine in late 2001 asking a question of myself in 2005:

What’s the main story? The smallpox quarantine? Fallout from the Iranian – Israeli exchange contaminating Indian crops? A series of bombings in heartland malls?

"Well, no – the big story today has to do with soldiers mishandling terrorists' holy texts at a detention center."

Mishandling? How? Like, you mean, they opened it up without first checking to see if it was ticking, and it blew up –

"No, they handled it in a way that disrespected it. Infidels are supposed to use gloves."

Oh. So we lost, then.

Don't get me wrong. I want us to do the right thing. I don't think there should be a policy that permits interrogators to treat the Qur'an like it was, oh, a Bible discovered in the Saudi airport customs line. But when it comes to the revelations of these Gitmo tales, I cannot care as much as they would like me to care. I cannot. Not to say we should treat the Qur’an with casual disrespect. But if an infidel touches the book with the wrong hand and people react like a two-year-old whose peas are touching the mashed potatoes, well, I understand why this matters, but when measured against the sins of headchoppery and carbombs, it pales to an evanescent translucence. Odd how the story isn’t about the rules and the precautions and the spine-cracking efforts to bend over backwards to make sure infidels get out the tongs when approaching the sacred book of the terrori – sorry, the detainees - Sorry, the murderous gynophobic gay-hating fundamentalist theocratic cultural imperialists. No, the story is the infinitesimal number of times in which the rules were breached over the course of years
On the one hand, I'm glad he's writing more now, but it also means I have two blogs to watch now. An awful burden, I know.
A Lesson in Blogging


One of the great things about blogging is that you never know who might notice what. For example, I had read this Commercial Appeal article from the weekend, but it being the standard-issue "race is a factor" stories we get all the time here in Memphis, I just let it pass without comment.

But VOLuntarilyConservative noticed a particular quote and did some Google work on the person who said it. He learned something interesting that casts a new light on the story, the reporter who wrote it, and what might have been the intention of that story. Swing by and have a look.

Blog curiousity and diversity. Gotta love it!
More on the History of Religion in America


Sometimes, not often as historical education is lacking sorely in modern American, you see reference to a phrase from the Treaty of Tripoli (1796) used as "proof" America was never intended to be a "Christian" nation. It is: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...."

However, going to the source, specifically Article 11 of the treaty, we learn something a little different.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The words "Musselmen" and "Mehomitan" are just words of the era for Muslim.

It just goes to show that going back to original sources, instead of taking received wisdom for writ, and looking at context, instead of arguing explicitly from short stretches of text isolated from that context, is preferred.

What seems, to me anyway, clearly said in this Article is that America is not a nation, as were most European nations of the time and was Britain our forefather nation, a country that had a state religion. Britain explicitly was a country whose church was the Church of England (Episcopalians to us Yanks). Britain could find common cause and history in the other Christian nations of Europe. But an explicitly Muslim nation like the Tripoli of Barbary in this treaty would by definition be antithetical and inimical to a de jure Christian nation.

The point of this article is to say that America has no State religion, and especially no Christian State religion, and therefore holds no inherent animus against any Muslim (or Judaist) nation. It is clearing ground so that two nations may meet as equals and friends, and from this enter into a treaty as equals and friends.

It doesn't say America was not founded on Christian principles or isn't a nation comprised by an overwhelming majority of Christians of innumerable stripe and denomination. We were, those principles being the moral base of the people who devised and constructed our nation and our makeup being mostly Christian. But, by keeping government out of the religious lives of its citizens, we were freed from a tremendous amount of civil strife and left free to adapt our society to whatever new religions and denominations that may arise.

That is our genius and our future.
Religious Services in the US House


I was just doing my daily reading and stumbled across this link to a Library of Congress exhibit on "Religion adn the Found of the American Republic." It has original documents about Jefferson's "wall of separation" comment in a private letter, but more important is this:
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Can you begin to imagine the howls and outrage if this were attempted today? But I think the Founders were much closer to right then than we are today. It's not freedom from religion, as many are trying to make it, but freedom of religion, free from persecution by the government for the practice and expression of our beliefs, whatever they are.

I'm perfectly fine with Nativity scenes and Christmas decorations in public buildings by either the folks who work there or by members of the public. Of course, that means a reciprocal openness to Islamic and Jewish celebrations and even the odd pagan display. I think the fears of Christians over pagan displays are overwrought, even if sometimes the non-Christian displays have a certain pointed purpose behind them beyond religious expression.

Fear of religion shouldn't trump expression. Those who fear simply need some futher education.

Sunday, June 05, 2005

The Religion of Journalism


Jay Rosen is a professor with the journalism school at NYU and a longtime blogger on the meta-issues of journalism itself. I've always enjoyed his ability to see the big picture beyond just the industry of journalism and to pick apart the various threads of his profession.

In this column, he looks at the received story of Watergate and how it has been mythologised into the template of thinking about journalism. He's deeply skeptical of the myth and the uses its put to by the College of Cardinals in the Church of Journalism.
Trying to understand this took me right into the religion of journalism-- a belief system and meaning-making kit that is shared across editorial cultures in mainstream newsrooms. Young people are introduced to the religion in J-school, where it also lives, but even if they skip the academies they learn it within a few years on the job.

In the daily religion of the news tribe, ordinary believers do not call themselves believers. (In fact, "true believer" is a casting out term in journlism, an insult.) The Skeptics. That's who journalists say they are. Of course, they know they believe things in common with their fellow skeptics on the press bus. It's important to keep this complication in mind: Not that journalists are so skeptical as a rule, but that they will try to stand in relation to you as The Skeptic does.

As everyone knows, there is a priesthood in journalism. Whether it has authority is another matter. The team of Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, and Woodward himself as author and investigator, are comparable to cardinals in the church. (Although Bernstein is seen as an under-achiever after Watergate.) A chain of belief connects them and their deeds to the rookie reporter, to the J-schooler sweating a Masters degree, even to the kid taking liberal arts who joins the college newspaper. (Me, class of '79.)

A young journalist, Greg Lindsay, in his very interesting open letter to the class of 2005 (May 11 at Media Bistro) gets a lot of it right. He noticed in his training an undercurrent of religious instruction. But not very good instruction. "They're desperate to make believers out of you," he writes.
That's only a part of it, and the voluminous comments add to and expand on -- even criticise -- the central thesis.

Jay also provides a link to the origin of the journalism bromide "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Turns out it's not a guiding bit of wisdom for young journalists to take to heart, but a warning about overweening self-importance.
Like a Box of Chocolates



Sunday's Commercial Appeal has a column where the editors encourage their readers to vote in a poll to see how to balance the budget for the City of Memphis. On the surface it seems like good idea, but then you look into it and the other ways they could handle this, and you see the shortcomings.

First of all, as Forrest Gump said, this is like a box of chocolates. Someone else has picked the options for you. They've assembled 18 ways to cut some money from the budget or raise revenue. But this is far from a complete list. They don't list employee cuts or salary cuts. Three options are just different ways of saying the same thing. There are a lot of programs that could be cut; public-private boards that could be closed; properties that could be sold. But since the CA is doing the listing, if it hasn't occurred to them or passed whatever test they used, then it's not a possibility. More than a few come directly and only from the Memphis Police Department, and none directly from the bloated and overpaid Mayor's office.

A better way to do this is something I've talked about several times before: The paper could, I repeat could, print a daily or weekly break out of some part of the City's budget document, by department or expenditure, and look at it in some detail. They did this several years ago, listing positions, salaries, duties, etc. It was very informative and let people decide for themselves. They could also list all the many boards, commissions, etc. that infest City government, their members, their duties, their expenses, any revenue streams they control and what they use them for. They could list all the properties the city owns -- like golf courses! -- their value and their purpose.

You get the idea: give people information and let them make up their own minds, rather than make choices for them and then ask them to choose between those choices. It's the illusion of the marketplace: you can have any of a hundred choices of culottes, but you can only wear culottes. What will happen next, of course, is the CA will present the list of their poll results -- because that's what this is -- as "Memphis Has Spoken." It's "what Memphis wants" and you'll get the usual vaporous thinking from the deep minds there about what it means, backed up by guest editorialists who agree with them. Then the paper will proceed to push those changes they agree with as somehow "approved" by Memphians. It's false authority is what it is.

But hey, Internet polls are easy to do and collate, versus lots of research and writing and interviews and digging around.
Quick Backgrounder on Miller


The TeamGOP blog has a quick backgrounder on State Senator Larry Miller, including his fearful encounter with the FBIon the morning of the Tennessee Waltz and his friendly ties with John Wilder. And it bears repeating, he was offered bribes by E-Cycle, took campaign contributions from them, and still sponsored their legislation even though he had doubts.