Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

When Fafblog Does It, It’s Funny. When Kaus Does It…

Posted on October 14, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

Today's Fablog essay transcribes Giblets's rant against Cheap And Tawdry Political Tricks, to wit John Kerry's blasphemous mention of Dick Cheney's daughter's sexual preference.

Ms. Cheney is, among other things, the former gay and lesbian corporate relations manager for Coors Beer and member of the Republican Unity Coalition, a 'a homosexual activist Republican group' according to the CWA — not exactly a closeted role in life.

I can reveal, however, I have proof that Giblets is not the author of most of this essay. Indeed, other than the penultimate paragraph, the satirical part, this “Giblets” essay is materially similar to a rant I heard someone named Mickey Kaus give on NPR this morning.

Unless “Mickey Kaus” is a pseduonym for Giblets we can only conclude that Giblets listens to NPR! While adding a paragraph or two to the end of this rant transforms the meaning — from something offensive and smarmy based on innuendo and the idea that there's something wrong with being gay into a much funnier, indeed subversive, essay — one has to ask whether this sort of substantially derivative work with just a bit tacked on can be defended as parody.

Posted in Readings | 2 Comments

Bulge Watch (‘My What a Lot of Tinfoil Under Your Jacket Sir,’ Edition)

Posted on October 14, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

My brother's column today gets into the Bush bulge watch thing:

Salon is featuring a photo today that would appear to show Vanessa Kerry staring at Bush's bulge last night.

The bulge in question is what — again — looks like a rectangular object on Bush's back, under his suit. Here's the original photo.

Mike Allen wrote in The Washington Post last weekend that Bush's aides have “tried to laugh off the controversy.”

Dave Lindorff wrote in Salon yesterday that “speculation continues to run wild” about the bulge, and that the White House's half-hearted explanations don't seem to wash.

A new poll from the Economist finds that of those who had seen a picture of the bulge, 49 percent said they think it's caused by “a radio receiver so that his team could communicate with him during the debate;” 18 percent think it's a fold in the suit; 13 percent something else; 20 percent don't know.

Tim Grieve writes in Salon that Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman was repeatedly asked about the bulge yesterday, and finally said: “The president is an alien. You heard it here first. The president is an alien. That's your quote of the day. He has been getting information from Mars. The shock of the debate will be the president's alien past will be exposed, which is why that box is there.”

The problem with this story, as preposterous as it may sound to some, is that it risks perpetuating an image of Bush as a puppet. I think a lot of us are waiting for a definitive answer.

Someone should really ask Vernon Jordan who suggested the prohibition on photographing candidates from behind during the pre-debate negotiations and what reason if any was given. Because it's that condition, said to have been demanded by the Bush negotiators, that gives this story what legs it has. That and the consistent strangenss of the shape of the bulge. Oh yes, and the absence of a physical this year.

So, the three main things are the attempt to stop the photos, the consistent strangeness of the shape and Bush's decision to forgoe a physical before the election. Oh yes, and Bush's odd behavior during the debates.

So, the four main things that give this story its legs are the attempt to stop the photos, the consistent strangeness of the shape, the lack of a physical this Oh yes, and Bush's odd behavior during the debates. Oh yes, and also the fact that tin foil can be fun.

But no one expected the aliens to admit complicity in rigging the election for their puppet until the planet was almost unsuitable for human life due to global warming—which, combined with increased carbon dioxide and radioactivity will make it a perfect breeding grounds for

Ack. help. im beighalew2332o5 2432`72 fcds

Posted in Dan Froomkin, Politics: US: 2004 Election | 4 Comments

‘Tit for Tat’ Dethroned as Optimal Prisoner’s Dilemma Strategy

Posted on October 14, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

Slashdot reports:

“Tit for Tat, the reigning champion of the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Competition, has been defeated by a group of cooperating programs from the University of Southampton. The Prisoner's Dilemma is a game with two players and two possible moves: cooperate or defect. If the two players cooperate, they both have small wins. If one player cooperates and the other defects, the cooperator has a big loss and the defector has a big win. If both players defect, they both have small losses. Tit for Tat cooperates in the first round and imitates its opponent's previous move for the rest of the game. Tit for Tat is similar to the Mutual Assured Destruction strategy used by the two nuclear superpowers during the Cold War. Southampton's programs executed a known series of 5 to 10 moves which allowed them to recognize each other. After recognition, the two Southampton programs became 'master and slave': one program would keep defecting and the other would keep cooperating. If a Southampton program determined that another program was non-Southampton, it would defect.”

Haven't read the paper yet, but this sounds like a significant result, as the empircal superiority of 'tit for tat' is received wisdom in most accounts of applied game theory I've ever read. 'Ascription is an Anathema to any Enthusiasm' calls it delightful and suggests that,

This is the classic model of all game theory! And even in this tiny little dishpan model collaborative groups form and once they form they out compete the players that fail to collaborate. As Dave Weinberger once pointed out, we are a species that will form communities even if it means tapping out the alphabet on the wall of our cell.

I wonder if real-life applications may be limited by the difficulty of the earlier game to determine who gets which role…

Posted in Readings | 6 Comments

Government Stonewalls on Guantanamo Detainees

Posted on October 14, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

U.S. Stymies Detainee Access Despite Ruling, Lawyers Say (washingtonpost.com)

More than three months after the Supreme Court declared that hundreds of detainees at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their imprisonment in U.S. courts, none has appeared in a courtroom.

Of the 68 alleged al Qaeda and Taliban fighters who have so far petitioned for access to federal court in Washington, only a handful have even spoken to their lawyers. With some held for nearly three years on the U.S. Navy base, the detainees remain largely precluded from receiving legal help because of protracted negotiations with the Justice Department over lawyers' security clearances, the government's insistence on monitoring attorney-client conversations and the number of visits lawyers will be allowed, defense attorneys told a U.S. District Court judge yesterday.

Losing in the Supreme Court has produced….no change at all.

Posted in Guantanamo | 1 Comment

3rd Debate 1st Thoughts

Posted on October 13, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

The questions were limp. Ever hear of the environment? John Ashcroft?

If Bush could have bottled his best ten minutes he would have defeated Kerry's worst. But it's a 90 minute event. And Kerry stumbled only once that I caught (I think the Congressional Black Caucus has been in the White House1). Bush stumbled often, looking lost. That smirk crept back. And he got caught out badly on jobs, on how students are losing their lunches. Kerry had several zingers, on jobs, minimum wage, health care. For example, the line about telling union workers that he can't stop all outsourcing is pretty obvious but it will play well.

Bush at his best was better than in the previous debates—notably in pointing up Kerry's opposition to the First Gulf War authorization; but for the middle part of the debate he looked alternately lost, scared, smirky. It was odd. The line about not trusting the press oh never mind was not just unpresidential, it was strange. Bush ducked the Roe v. Wade question, and it showed. That helps with the base, but I don't think it helps with the nation as a whole. Kerry also nailed the guns question after Bush said he ducked supporting the assault weapons ban because he didn't think it would pass—Kerry said that was a failure of leadership, and he could do what Clinton did: pass the bill with the help of law enforcement officers who support it.

In my view, Bush was better than before — but so was Kerry. He looked like a President, and I think he actually inspired, yes John Kerry inspired, when he talked about fairness. Bush will have scored points talking about faith, but I'll take works please. [It's interesting that the candidates' debate reflects the fault line in US Protestantism regarding faith vs. works, the tension that famously destroyed the hegemony of the Puritan divines in Massachusetts shortly after the American Revolution. It's also interesting to hear Catholic Bostonian Kerry giving the salvation through works line, while it's unchurched Protestant Southerner Bush, the man whose works are not working, is in essence arguing for blind faith. Sociologists of religion will be quoting this stuff for years.]

But it doesn't matter what I think, what matters is what the country thought.

[Update 10/14: Insta-polls say Kerry won big. ]

1 [Update 10/14] Well, yes and no. See the details at The Carpetbagger Report

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 10 Comments

First Lie Spotted Two Minutes In

Posted on October 13, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

The brought out the genial bush for the start of the debate… Kerry stuck to the talking points. I think playing the same tape three times is boring.

I'm not going to try to live blog this, but I can't help noting that it was only 2 minutes and we had our first lie: Bush denied he had ever said he wasn't worried about Osama bin Laden.

Not true

President Bush said Tuesday in West Virginia that he is not worried about finding Osama bin Laden as he cannot hide from the U.S. forces forever.

snip
“There are only so many caves he (bin Laden) can hide in,” said Bush in arrival remarks at Yeager Airport in Charleston, W.Va. The United States, he said, is winning the war on terrorism, even if the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks is still at large.

“He's the one who needs to be worried. But I want to assure you the objective is not bin Laden. We'll get bin Laden. “We want him dead or alive … but we are not too worried about him. … He is the one who needs to be worried,” Bush said.

Update: Kevin Drum has a better quote:

I don’t know where he is. Nor — you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I….I truly am not that concerned about him.

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 1 Comment