Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

What He Said

These days, the three bloggers most likely to produce a 'what he said' reaction for me are perennial favorite The Carpetbagger, Digby (although I sometimes also violently disagree), and Robert Waldmann (with two N's!).

See, for example, Robert's reaction today to the NYT's latest piece of dangerous fluff, an article fuller of Republican spin than facts. Bait and Switch at the New York Times exactly captures my reactions when reading this thing over breakfast this morning.

That said, I am not endorsing the following statement, in an earlier posting, at least not without further testing:

This brings me to the best established hypothesis in the social sciences. The Romans had a theory that they won wars because the gods were on their side. They felt that so long as they performed traditional Pagan rituals they were fine. After converting Constantine as Pontifex Maximus ordered Romans to keep up the Pagan rituals then moved to Constantinople. For centuries Romans ruled and performed these rituals. Theodosius banned them from performing the traditional rites. Rome was sacked within 30 years. Sure it was just a coincidence suuuuuure.

Posted in The Media | 2 Comments

Marketplace

If you listened to the very end of this radio item from Marketplace, I have a few seconds talking about trademarks. Or you could skip that and just read about what ICANN is up to with its Internationalized Domain Names testbed.

Posted in Law: Trademark Law | 2 Comments

Metacafe Gets Mean

In the course of a snapshot of metacafe, which tries to paint the site as a happy retro-dinosaur stuck in web 1.0 of viral video — you know, so 2005 — the NYT Bits Blog has this little aside about Metacafe's evolving standards of good taste,

Viral Videos Still Rule at Metacafe: Over the last year, the site has moved from what Mr. Hachenburg describes as a European sensibility to an American one. In other words, there's now less sex and more violence.

More violence is not progress in my book. I wonder what drove this move?

It used to be that you could tell when there was a recession going on by magazine covers — in bad times the women's mags got a lot more brazen about putting SEX in their headlines. (Not sure if the same applies to lad mags — have they been around long enough?)

Is the Internet counter-cyclical?

Posted in Kultcha | 1 Comment

It’s Always Worse than You Think

One of the amazing things about this administration is that what starts out seeming like isolated pockets of corruption gradually takes shape as a pattern, only to be relevaled to be a way of life.

So it is with partisan prosecutions, and the corruption of the once proud US Attorneys offices of the US Dept. of Justice. First we had some bad apples. Then we had signs that the apples were being picked for their rottenness by people in Main Justice. And now we find that when someone gives a prosecutor testimony of having bribed a Republican, the loyal Bushies respond…by indicting a Democrat. Digby has as good an intro as any, as does the Carpetbagger's The hits just keep on coming: U.S. Attorney scandal reaches Mississippi and Did Rove, White House stymie criminal probe in Alabama?.

Posted in Politics: The Party of Sleaze | Comments Off on It’s Always Worse than You Think

Base Arguments

Political discourse continues to be further and further debased.

We get the government we deserve? A frightening thought.

Posted in Politics: US, The Media | Comments Off on Base Arguments

How to Dress for the Airport

Item One: Henry Jenkins is the Director of the MIT Comparative Media Studies Program. He has a very thoughtful summary of the Star Simpson story, which you may recall was the recent incident in which an MIT student triggered a bomb alert at Logan airport because she turned up wearing a t-shirt with blinking lights and other funny looking stuff. Plus she was playing with a roll of Play-Dough.

Prof. Jenkings also has good things to say about what this teaches us about the difference between dead-tree media and blogs, and also what this tells MIT students about how to dress for the airport.

Item two: Today's Miami Herald reprises the case of Kyla Ebbert, who was told she couldn't fly on Soutwest Airlines because she was wearing a short skirt, and expands it to discuss the online fashion police more generally. These print version of the article has a photo of the offending garments, which are certainly not eyebrow-raising by south Florida standards, and which the article tells us involve more fabric than the outfit Ms. Ebbert is required to wear on her job as a Hooters waitress.

In a separate incident, Southwest's fashion police also required a passenger to change what it called a sexually suggestive T-shirt or risk getting thrown off the plane. Apparently this sort of thing happens with some frequency. Apparently too much skin prevents airplanes from getting sufficient lift to fly or something.

Could the “no-fly rule” have taken on a new meaning?

Or is could it just be irrational, arbitrary, behavior on the part of (some) flight attendants? Consider this from Ms. Ebbert,

What really tops the whole story off is that Ebbert wore the same outfit on the return flight to San Diego later that day. A female flight attendant also took note of it, according to Ebbert.

“I was complimented by the stewardess on my return flight,” she said.

Posted in Civil Liberties | 6 Comments