Be first, be loud - and you win

The modern news cycle has led to a truth in message management: namely, it doesn't matter if what you say is correct - you have to say it loudly, with conviction, and -most importantly- first. The current administration appears to have not only grasped this tactic, but mastered it.

Spin any malarkey you want, the news will have to play catch up - and by the time they do, you've already won the war of ideas.

This is likely news to no one. But I just had to point out a posting on the New York Times that debunks an earlier use of this tactic. Mostly because it is so richly deserved.

The target of this debunking? Michael Crichton's novel, State of Fear.

Now, I like a number of Crichton's novels; the Andromeda Strain, Eaters of the Dead, Jurassic Park, and Timeline. All good fun, all are loosely based on Crichton's tried and true formula, find a story hook rooted in science and go to town.

In State of Fear, Crichton basically counterpunches all environmental science, using whatever he can find that sounds credible. His loudest refrain was a study on Antarctica that had observed a cooling effect on one of the continent's peninsulas, as well as the thickening of the glacier. Out of context, this appears to fly in the face of global warming. "Earth getting warmer? How come Antarctica is getting cooler?"

Except the study didn't say that Antarctica is getting cooler, they pointed to data that a majority of the continent had cooled - and noted that the rest of the continent was, in fact warming. Their conclusion was that more research needed to be done, and not "Global warming is a hoax!" as Crichton would have you believe.

Enter the NYT editorial "Cold, Hard Facts," penned by one of the authors of the study, Peter Doran:

Our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear” and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents — all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming. One recent Web column even put words in my mouth. I have never said that “the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle.” I have never thought such a thing either.

Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals — thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals — all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth?

...I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming. I know my coauthors would as well.

Counterpunching is fun (I say this from experience) and it can make a good novel - but Crichton's misuse of the one study that supported his plot, and his complete dismissal of the literally thousands of independent observations that support the theory of Global Warming, was irresponsible. The fact that this novel becomes some people's sole interaction with the issue just compounds the fact. Crichton has leveraged his fame into audiences with the President to discuss the issue, which (while unlikely to have swayed the president) lends his work credibility that this scientific dilettante just doesn't deserve.

The guy's a fiction writer. Novelists are, to use Ursula's Le Guin's phrase, "in the business of telling lies." It is presented as fact to make a good story, not because it is fact. Crichton doesn't have to answer to anyone - he just has to move product.

I'm glad that the truth comes out eventually, but once again - it's in the fine print - long after the fact.

Updated
There are more and better criticisms out there. Here are just a few:

• Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion
  By Gavin Schmidt December 13, 2004
• Distort Reform
  By Gavin Schmidt February 1, 2005
• Checking Crichton's footnotes
  By Chris Mooney February 6, 2005

Whole lotta Muffuletta

A local deli has arguably the best Muffuletta I've had in the Midwest. Being a Muffuletta, it's about the size of a small car. On impulse (read "avoiding my desk") I went out and picked one up.

I love this place. The first time I was there, the guy made the Muffuletta and was so happy with it that - I kid you not - he photographed it before he gave it to me. Must have put it in his advertising materials. Gotta like a guy who takes that kind of pride in his work.

So I order mine and he drops it down on the counter with an impressive 'whump!' I look up at him, "Now that's a sandwich!" He just grinned. A pound and a half of ham, genoa salami, and provalone, topped with the holy sacrement known as olive relish. Oh yeah....

Well, I ate it. Damn near all of it. And while it was eye-rollingly good. I'm starting to realize (for the bazillionth time) that sometimes, too much of a good thing is truly too much. Now here I am at work trying to stay on task, when all I want to do is find a large sofa and pass out.

Foolish, foolish mortal... Do not anger the gods of the Muffuletta, for they will hurt you...

The best disinfectant

Just saw this, and thought it was too cool not to mention. This specific interface may or may not catch on, but the general idea is sure to last: Greater access to politician's fundraising information and voting records via a common web app.

• Read the article from TPMcafe, or
• See the example

Reverberate

Last week, my sister-in-law gave me a copy of Neko Case's Blacklisted, and I just can't shake the song, "Deep Red Bells." She wrote it about the Green River Killer, which gives it the macabre flavor that ensures maximum sticking power - at least, for people like me.

The windout has been camped out in my head for three solid days:

Where does this mean world cast its cold eye?
Who’s left to suffer long about you?
Does your soul cast about like an old paper bag,
past empty lots and early graves,
of those like you who lost their way
-murdered on the interstate-
While the red bells rang like thunder?

You'll just have to imagine Neko's voice soaring through the last line like an avenging angel.

Gives me chills.

Spot on

NTY on the reality of the current administration's power grabs:

The Real Agenda
Published: July 16, 2006
The New York Times

It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration’s response to the terror attacks is becoming clear. Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power.

Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints. Even when the only challenge was to get required approval from an ever-cooperative Congress, the president and his staff preferred to go it alone. While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another, perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch.

More

Thief in the night

I talk about soccer a lot, because it's easy. The words fall out of my head and more or less say what I want to say.

Real life isn't so easy.

This morning, E's father passed away after a long struggle with cancer. He passed away in his sleep - which I suppose is a small comfort. E's sister had just made it up from L.A. - and I'm hoping she got to spend time with him before the end.

I doubt he got to see his new grand-daughter, but I'm hoping he did.

There is real comfort for E, but she's with her sisters. Times like this, companionship is all you can lean on.

The words aren't coming out right, so I'll just stop here.

High treason

July 9, 2006
Italy: 1
France: 1
Zidane 7' PEN; Materazzi 19'; Italy wins 5-3 on penalties.

Going into this match, I'd been pulling for France. Mostly pulling for Zidane and the old guard to stump the critics and walk home with a second world cup. Zizou's last game - the frogs could win one for the old man, and everything would be golden.

I wanted the fairy tale.

Being a soccer fan, I know that fairy tales have no place in soccer - and I'd prepared for an Italy win. No matter what, Zidane had shown his quality - and the world would have to give him his due.

Win or lose, he still walks off the field a hero, right?

Enter soccer -the cruelest sport of all.

France's early lead forces the Italians to play, which they do very well for about a half an hour - deservedly scoring and dominating play in the first half. Then France pulls out the stops and starts running the show. Italy turtles in, and just gets shelled.

Henry's a madman, the French midfield is dominating, but nothing's going in. Zidane's playing hurt, the fairy tale is all queued up.

Extra time, France is driving - subbing in two forwards doing everything right. Italy's looking ragged, they could lose at any moment -

-and Zidane headbutts Materazzi. Materazzi (having played in the Serie A) drops to the ground like he's been shot.

I'm looking at the screen, trying to figure out why in God's name Zizou would do something so blatantly unforgivable, when I realize that the ref hasn't seen it. Impossible, it's on the replay, as blatant as the Hand of God - maybe he'll -

No, the fourth official's looking at the same replay as the rest of the world - and the ref reaches into his pocket.

Win or lose, Zidane, you just lost your legacy. One of four men on earth to score a goal in two World Cup finals, and you will forever be remembered for this stupid act.

A ten-man France plays valiantly, managing to dominate the Italians. Two quality chance don't go France's way - but it doesn't really matter anymore. Even a win won't redeem Zizou. He blew it, and when it goes to penalties, two of the three worst outcomes have already happened.

The PK coin toss comes up Italy, and provides the third.

Losing is nothing, and PKs are an evil of the game that need to be rooted out and destroyed (replay, anyone?) but Zidane's flame out is just the worst.

It undoes all the nobility of France's run to the final - and guarantees that whenever Zidane's name is mentioned, the next sentence will be about him headbutting his way into a red card. It's been said that a man is more than the worst thing he's ever done, and while that's surely true - truth has no foothold in the mass media.

Zidane didn't lose a game, he lost everything.

Dammit. Dammit. Dammit.

Salvation

There comes a point in every World Cup when all the teams collectively realize that they are a few games away from winning the whole thing. This is usually right before the games start to suck.

Defense being easier than offense, teams start playing conservative and hope the other side screws up bad enough to let them win. This is compounded by suspensions and injuries acquired in group play. Now everybody’s on Plan B. This is when the tournament’s goal average starts to plummet, and the penalty kicks crawl out of the woodwork to screw up everything.

Exhibit A

June 30, 2006
Germany: 1
Argentina: 1
Ayala 49'; Klose 80'; Germany wins 4-2 on penalties.

On the one hand, this game had drama, Argentina scoring early in the second half and Germany playing catch up in front of the home crowd. But it was not the German team that demolished its earlier opposition; they played tight, and almost lost because of it. Klinsman inexplicably pulled Klose after scoring the equalizer (you hung with his ineffective play for 80 minutes, and now that he shows signs of life – he’s gone?), and didn’t use his last sub for overtime.

The Argies were the same drama queens they always are – flopping like fish every time a German walked near them. And once again, they squandered the brilliant talent at their disposal, keeping quality subs on the bench and running headlong into the German defense. Klose equalized and Germany surged for the early part of overtime, but then it just became two teams hoping to get lucky. Germany won the coin toss, so their fans can stay happy. Dull, dull dull.

Exhibit B

Italy: 3
Ukraine: 0
Zambrotta 6'; Toni 59', 69'

With a three nothing scoreline, you’d think this one was a barn-burner – but it too, was an exercise in tedium. Ukraine putting everything into their lone striker (and everything for Ukraine wasn’t much) and Italy clumsily hacking their way around the field until their instinctive skill saved them. Not much ebb and flow – just kicking the ball around until Gol, Gol, Gol. I’m happy for Luca Toni, he was more than due – but outside of that, I’m sorry I taped this one – I could have caught up on some much needed sleep.

Exhibit C

July 1, 2006
Portugal: 0
England: 0
Portugal wins 3-1 on penalties.

I got up at 4:30 AM so I could road trip in time to see this one live after I arrived. I shouldn’t have bothered.

What the hell is with England? Eleven men on the field – they can’t find their own ass with both hands. Rooney gets ejected and suddenly they remember how to play. Ten-man England was looking like they’d pull this one out, when Eleven-man England was lying back just asking to be beaten.

Portugal was disorganized and sloppy, but England lost Beckham to injury than Rooney (because he’s a total idiot – I can see the headlines now: “Another Stupid Boy!”). For the life of me, I can’t figure why Sven-Goran Eriksson pulls Lennon out after he’s creating holy havoc every chance he gets. All the drama this one had was due to Rooney’s expulsion, so I suppose I should be grateful. OT was grueling only because you knew that Portugal was only to happy to go to PKs and the English have this thing about losing every shootout that matters.
Seen it before. Thanks for playing England. And C. Ronaldo? You’ve still yet to do anything impressive this tournament. Bleah.

And then...

And then there was Brasil vs. France.

Not much hope here – I’ve seen the Ronaldinho videos and assumed the only drama was how badly Brasil would crush a French team that couldn’t even beat S. Korea. Brasil would march on to its sixth World Cup trophy, and the skies would turn black as sackcloth.

And here is where my faith in soccer is restored.

France: 1
Brasil: 0
Henry 57’

Best match of the tournament, folks. I’d buy this one on DVD, and I’ve only bought one movie in my life.

Where to begin? Swarming defense. End to end attacking. No letup for 90 minutes.
The French didn’t beat Brasil, they OWNED Brasil.

Wait a minute…no one owns Brasil. No, today, they were owned. Shut down. Made to look desperate.

Ronaldinho? Ronaldin-who? The French midfield made him a non-factor. If you’ve watched the above clip, you know what a big deal that is. Zidane was a God, running the attack and keeping possession while under attack from all sides. Henry scored in the 57th minute (Tell ‘em who he plays for! Arsenal!! Damn right.) and it took that long only because God wanted Brasil to hope for awhile.

Y’know, just before he crushed them.

This match could have still turned to suck-age after the goal, most teams would count themselves fortunate and sit on the lead. France attacked in waves and (somehow) defended in waves. I’ve never seen so many Brazilian passes intercepted in my life.

Brasil would lose possession, and France was off to the races in a counter attack. Cafu got subbed because he was so tired, he was getting beat with regularity. Cafu!

Game over and I’m staring at the tube with relief and despair. What a game, Allez les Bleus! But I wanted them to keep playing…

French fans are going nuts, the team is exulting...

Zidane's coming off the field in his last World Cup, knowing he just kicked Brasil's ass, and he winks at the camera. Yeah, you just made history, and you know it. Vive la France, man.

God, but I love this game.