Link: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/

MSNBC has an article about how study subjects who were asked to evaluate facts and information that conflicted with their political views reacted in many cases by ignoring the facts.
Can anybody say the words "Framing" and "Lakoff"? This is Lakoff's basic conclusion from his studies on cognitive science and reference frames. However, this is a depressing conclusion to read. It tends to reinforce my view that it is only a matter of time before a collection of political leaders somewhere makes a series of excruciatingly awful decisions with the support of their electors and destroys the current civilizations of homo sapiens.

The WaPo has re-instated the postings that were removed from its blog. However, there is a lot of doubt as to whether they have restored all of the deleted postings. Because of web page cacheing, a number of readers have located postings that were not restored to the WaPo forum.
If the WaPo is selectively restoring postings that are really already in the public domain, then they have two problems:

1. They do not understand how the Internet works
2. They do not remember the First Law Of Holes (when in a hole, stop digging)

The best thing that they can do right now is to re-instate all of the postings. Any further devious behaviour will simply amplfiy the current credibility problem that they already have, with the paper's ombudsman clearly misinformed about the Abramoff scandal, and showing a distinct unwillingness to admit to error.

Link: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001883620

I am starting to wonder whether the current legal issues with the administration are primarily due to their poor reading skills... this guy clearly either has not read the 4th Amendment recently, or cannot understand it.

Link: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/01/20/jmb_qa.html

The Washington Post ombudsman, Deborah Howell, has caused a major incident by asserting, in the process of defending articles in the Post, that Democrats took money directly from Jack Abramoff (who, if you have been following the recent reporting, has now cut a plea bargain to a number of charges related to his lobbying activities). The claim is demonstrably false (see numerous articles elsewhere on the Internet). However, when challenged on the claim, Howell failed to respond in either a timely or honest fashion. The eventual response included that admission that her original claim was "inartfully worded", which is one of the best (and worst) pieces of doublespeak that I have read in years. When somebody uses phrases like that, you know that they are attempting to defend the indefensible.
Because of the delay before issuing a correction, and the almost non-correction tone of the correction, Howell and the WaPo found their comments forum deluged with hundreds of messages, some quite vociferous in tone and content. The Post, however, made what I consider to be a tactical mistake, by shutting down the comments forum. Jim Brady of the Post has since been forced into publicly defending his decision to do this in numerous media and blogging outlets. Jay Rosen has an excellent Q&A and discussion with Brady here.
Shutting down the forum was a mistake because all it really succeeds in doing is sending a message that the WaPo cannot tolerate harsh criticism of its editorial policies and reporting. Brady can huff and puff all he likes about "lack of civility", and it is certainly true that the tone of some of the postings was less than polite, but this is America in 2006, a deeply polarized country, as he should have noticed by now. Given that one of the standard current conservative memes about opponents right now is to paint them as "angry Liberals", his statement comes way too close to repeating that meme.
The Post has treated criticism of its reporting on this issue in a rather high-handed manner, and their failure to issue a proper and timely correction sent the message that they consider themselves to be above error. If Brady and the rest of the WaPo leadership do not understand this, then they are showing that not only do they not understand how the blogosphere works, they don't understand how intelligent humans react when faced with bullshit and obfuscation.

Link: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/

One of the more enduring and comedic "stories" of the last 10 years in US politics was the mini-tempest that erupted as Al Gore allegedly claimed that he "invented the Internet". The claim first surfaced in 1999 in a Wired magazine article, and rapidly became what could be called "conventional wisdom".
The only problem is that the claim is false. Al Gore, as far as anybody can tell or report, never made any such claim.
The "Al Gore invented the Internet" incident is one of the best modern examples of how falsehoods can become implanted in the public perception as truth. We would do well to remember this when we come to consider other items of "conventional wisdom" in modern life, especially in the political arena, which deploys distortion, caricature and falsehoods on a regular basis.

With a record number of head coaching vacancies this offseason in the NFL, it was likely that some of the replacement head coaches would be first-timers.
However, so far, almost all of the hired coaches are first-timers:

Detroit Lions - Rod Marinelli
Green Bay Packers - Mike McCarthy
Houston Texans - Gary Kubiak (deal cannot be announced yet)
Kansas City Chiefs - Herman Edwards (look! a previous head coach!)
New Orleans Saints - Sean Payton
Minnesota Vikings - Brad Childress
St. Louis Rams - Scott Linehan
New York Jets - Eric Mangini

What I fear is happening is that clubs are hiring coaches based on the "potential" idea, and they are hiring based on which candidates perform most impressively at interviews.
Both of those approaches have fundamental flaws. As Bill Parcells famously observed, saying somebody "has potential" is merely a polite way of saying that they haven't done anything yet. And, as observed by Larry Bossidy (former CEO of Allied Signal) in his excellent leadership book "Execution - the discipline of Getting Things Done", there are some leaders who interview well and other leaders who do not interview well. As evidence for that phenomenon in the NFL, I would offer the cautionary tale of the Buffalo Bills, who hired Gregg Williams in 2001, largely on the basis of the fact that he was the most impressive interviewee. That hiring clearly did not work out, and Williams is now back as a co-ordinator.
Lost in this frenzy of hiring bright-eyed young co-ordinators was any serious consideration of more experienced guys who have either been head coaches in the past, or who actually have a sustained track record of achievement in the NFL. How the Green Bay Packers ended up hiring Mike McCarthy, whose previous job was to manage an inept San Francisco 49ers offense, over Jim Bates, an experienced co-ordinator with an excellent track record, is a complete mystery to me. Not surprisingly, Bates has now left the club. Elsewhere, other experienced co-ordinators like Al Saunders of Kansas City and Ted Cottrell are also finding it hard to be taken seriously as candidates.
The St. Louis Rams have also offered their head coaching position to offensive co-ordinator Scott Linehan of the Miami Dolphins. One of the candidates, Ron Rivera, apparently did not impress in his interview because his coaching plans were "less detailed" than those proposed by Scott Linehan.
Let's get one thing straight here. A look at the track record of NFL franchises shows that a major factor in sustained success is stability. You do not win in the NFL by turning the club upside down every other season. That being the case, a guy who promises a "new broom" approach may not be the best answer. Not everybody in a club is useless if the club is not winning. Extending that logic further, an interview candidate who presents a detailed action plan would worry me, because that tells me that the candidate has preconceptions about what will work, which is presumptuousness bordering on arrogance. I would be more impressed by a candidate who has a clear philosophy, a track record of success over a longer period, and who promises to be objective in evaluations of the current situation. You can infer from this that if the reports are correct, the Rams' hiring criteria are missing one or two fundamental issues.

It is my opinion that a number of these clubs will be disappointed in the outcome of their hiring decisions.

Link: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns16115.html

In 2004, a scandal emerged in Formula 1 based around allegations that the Toyota TF103 was essentially a copy of the Ferari F2002. Certainly the resemblance between the two cars was extremely close. Allegations were soon circulating that key aspects of the F2002 design had been taken from Ferrari to Toyota by 2 Ferrari employees who joined Toyota in 2002.
This Pitpass article about the affair shows the rather close resemblance between the F2002 and the TF103. Apparently the resemblance did not stop with the body shape and bodywork.
Recently, Gustav Brunner, the Chief Designer at Toyota, left the team. At the time Toyota claimed that his departure was due to a re-structuring which made his role redundant. However, there were no hints that this was about to happen, and no reports that Toyota was dissatisfied with Brunner's performance.
Now, German authorities have charged Brunner, ex-Toyota boss Ove Andersson and another ex-employee (aerodynamicist Rene Hilhorst) with breaking German competition law. In addition, 2 former Ferrari employees have been indicted under Italian law with theft of intellectual property from Ferrari.
This whole affair is likely to unfold this year in a manner which may prove embarrassing for Toyota. My personal guess (based on limited information) is that Brunner left Toyota because they found out that he was about to be charged, and they needed to distance themselves from the whole affair before it became public.
Toyota still has a black mark on its competitive motorsports history from its expulsion from the World Rally Championship a few years ago, when the FIA discovered a clever device in the inlet tract of its WRC rally car engine that was designed to circumvent the air restrictor rules. At the time, the FIA accepted that senior Toyota management did not know of the existence or implementation of the device; nevertheless they banned Toyota from the WRC for a year. Toyota's whole motorsports integrity was thrown into doubt by the affair.
It may be that the overall motor sports competition culture in Toyota is sufficiently tough for people to regard cheating as a viable course of action when the stakes are so high to achieve success. After all, the Toyota F1 program is rumoured to be the best-funded program of all, yet after 4+ seasons, the team has yet to win a race. There must be some very impatient senior leaders in Japan right now...and they will not be amused if Toyota cannot distance itself from what appears to be significant theft of intellectual property from a racing rival. The Japanese do not like public embarrassment one bit. Their culture regards it as one of the worst forms of humiliation.

Link: http://www.dallasobserver.com/Issues/2006-01-12/news/news2.html

In which the election of a Mayor in Forney may have been rigged in a manner more reminiscent of a banana republic...

...should have been a stringent, careful examination of the qualifications and capabilities of Samuel Alito. After all, he is being appointed to a powerful post which is not term-limited, for which there is no mandatory retirement age, and from which he can only be dismissed via an impeachment process.
Although I have not watched any of the hearings, I have read parts of the transcripts. I also note with dismay that a number of confirmation committee members appear to not understand the First Law of Interviewing:

All the time that you (the interviewer) are talking, you are not getting any information or insight from the interviewee

When folks like Joe Biden and Sen. Edward Kennedy ask long-winded "questions" contained within opinions, I get very frustrated. The objective of the hearings is to Examine The Nominee. Instead we see some members showing that the objectives of the hearing are (in order of importance):

1. Get senators on television
2. Get senators on television
3. Get senators on television
4. Er, ask Samuel Alito some questions?

In short, some of the elected representatives need to quit grandstanding and start asking the nominee some tough questions. He has been nominated for a tough job from which he cannot be dismissed for poor performance, only for gross malfeasance. It is therefore incumbent on the committee to ensure that he is qualified for the job, is not bringing an ideological approach to legal interpretation, and will execute his role zealously with impartiality and integrity. So far it does not seem to me that the hearings are fulfilling these fundamental objectives, although that is hardly a new turn of events. Confirmation hearings have been a Punch-and-Judy show for a number of years now.

Here we go again. My local school district has apparently decided to ban "When Jeff Comes Home" from the library after vociferous complaints from a parent.
Here is a column from the Dallas Morning News which lays out the affair, with some editorializing. However, I agree with one of her key conclusions:

If one parent does not want his or her child to read a particular book, fine. The parent has the ultimate authority for that child – but not for anybody else's.

The Irving ISD should not be in the business of attempting to impose the value system of a parent (or parents) across the whole school district. That is not their business. If a parent doesn't want little Johnny or Mary to read "When Jeff Comes Home" they have a right to request that their children not read it. However, if the school district has agreed to withdraw the book because of the complaints of a single parent, that is an action of craven, cowardly expediency.
However, if that is what they have done, it wouldn't exactly be an extraordinary event. This is merely another (and for me, irritatingly local) instance of a widespread tradition of trying to censor books. Here is a more recent list of books banned in Texas in recent years.
See here for some more information on this tendency. Note the number of fairly-well-known books that have been subjected to bans and banning attempts over the years, including several works by William Shakespeare...