Discourse.net

The Second Time As Farce

Beautiful Horizons is where I go to find the Latin American stories that the local newspapers miss. Today’s is a doozy: Cuba and Bioweapons. The jist of it is simple: the Adminstration is accusing Cuba of being Up To Something with bioweapons…but it has no evidence of anything. That’s what’s so suspicious, explains an Administration source: “It’s a question more of them exciting suspicions by not being open. I don’t know of any tangible stuff that shows yes, they are making anthrax [or anything else]. There is stuff we don’t know about.” Yes, Castro is not inviting us in to see everything he’s got! He’s up to no good!

If it sounds like you’ve heard something like this before about some other country…you probably have.

Obligatory Castro-related disclaimer: Everyone in Miami hates Castro. Especially if we wish to live. Even those of us who think that the only thing keeping Castro in power is the embargo, and wish we treated Cuba the way we used to treat Poland (basically, entrapping its government in economic and cultural exchanges that brought the regime to its knees), would be happy to see Castro replaced by a democratic government (but not, preferably, by carpet-bagging revanchists).

Scandal Fatigue?

The Florida blog wonders why so few people, and so few newspapers, seem excited about the highly curious decision of the Florida Pension fund (Jeb Bush, future presidential candidate, proprietor), to bail out the financially unsound Edison Corporation (privatized-schools-‘r-us) by buying 96% of its soon to be worthless stock, paying off its debts, and providing a line of credit for operating expenses.

I suppose Governor Bush likes the irony of using public school teachers’ pension funds to prop up the folks trying to reduce if not eliminate the public schools. But that doesn’t excuse making what appears to be at best a highly risky sweetheart investment, and at worst betraying a fiduciary duty.

Israel Attacks Inside Syria

Someone please explain to me the difference between Israel’s violation of Syrian sovereignty and the US’s apparent violation of Syrian sovereignty?

I suppose that one difference is that the facts on what happened in the second incident are less easy to come by. UPI reported that the US raid ‘penetrated more than 25 miles into’ Syria but the closest thing to major media to pick up that story seems to have been the Washington Times. It’s clear that the US forces shot at Syrian troops and wounded or killed some of them, then held them for a few days before finally returning them. It’s possible therefore that the second incident did not in fact involve a violation of Syrian territory if (and only if) the Syrians were on the wrong side of the border. It’s odd though, that if they were the US didn’t make more of that violation at the time. Then again, the Syrians clearly decided not to press the issue either once their people were returned.

Note that by asking this question about possible equivalence I’m not trying to suggest that if one is OK, it follows the other must be, but rather the opposite.

Why I Just Deleted Something From the Comment Section

During the night, someone posted a comment to Slashdot: ‘How Were You Fired?’ that recounted an interesting personal story about a law firm that lied to its associates as it did economically motivated layoffs, telling the survivors that the departed were cut for quality rather than financial reasons. Eventually the poster him/herself got the chop.

It was a good read, but the poster had second thoughts after hitting the Post button and e-mailed me, asking me please to remove the item. And I just did.

I don’t as yet have carefully worked-out policies for how I will deal with issues that may arise in the comments section. But I do know this:

1. I was satisfied in this case that the request to delete came from the actual original poster.
2. I don’t consider myself bound by journalistic ethics here, just basic ethics. I am in any case somewhat suspicious of claims of role morality, which I intuit usually do more harm than good. But that is another, deeper pool.
3. I intend that my actions here be guided by considerations of fundamental decency. In this case the poster was worried (incorrectly I think, but that’s easy for me to say) that the post might cause harmful consequences if the workplace was ever identified. No particular interest other than saving a readable and interesting item was served by keeping it. The balance seems clear.
4. I think I should disclose when I cut something, and I did so in what’s left of the comment.

Similarly, were someone to post a commercial message, or something really vile, I would have little compunction about chopping it. Other than that, I don’t have policies yet.

Slashdot: "How Were You Fired?"

Slashdot is running a discussion entitled How Were You Fired? It’s full of personal stories, some with happy endings, many of them horrible, some totally disgusting, others compelling.

Yet another reason to be really, truly, grateful for tenure.

Someone somewhere, must write manuals about How To Fire Employees, and those manuals must be full of stuff about turning off computer IDs, escorting people of the premises under guard as if they were felons, and not letting them have their personal possessions from their desks.

I know, from talking to victims in places I’ve worked after they were RIF‘d, that these things happen even in work environments where they are utterly unnecessary. It can only be due to mindless automatons in Human Resources reading from a one-size-fits-all playbook.