After reading your post and Patterico's, the phrase that keeps sprining to mind is "there ought to be a law." I'm with you that every decent member of the internet community should take a stand against this filth, but the problem is that Frisch isn't a decent person and such appeals to decency will fall on deaf ears--or worse, exacerbate her activity. I am no fan of regulating the internet nor do I think we should pass endless legislation regulating the lives of our citizens, but then again on the other hand, why should citizens who are active on the internet be exempt from the laws that govern behavior in the "real" world? This seems to me the online equivalent of letters made up of things cut out of magazines and newspapers--they used to be a strategy for anonymous harassment, but now can be traced through various forensic means--just as sock puppetry is relatively easy to trace. In any event, Frisch's behavior is escalating according to the time-honored pattern of deranged stalkers--she's made contact with Jeff, gotten into his private life, initiated an intense exchange, started to establish relationships with his (cyber) friends--how long is it before she tries to make personal contact? I'm no expert on sociopathic psychology, but it seems to me an inevitable development unless legal action is taken. I'm glad to see Jeff has started down this road--I think what is needed in extreme cases such as this one is the online equivalent of a restraining order--something that's more than just banning a troll.Comment Posted By AcademicElephant On 30.07.2006 @ 07:07
This is really interesting Rick--especially vis a vis Kissinger, who has had some of the most interesting things to say about the Bush Doctrine and the Iraq war--much more interesting than, say, Brent Scowcroft. Kissinger seems secure enough in his own (considerable) legacy to point out that realpolitik as he practiced it in the early 70s and the sort of shuttle diplomacy he used in the Middle East isn't applicable to our current predicament--in other words that it was the right policy then, but that doesn't make it the right policy now. I don't think Fukuyama can see that.Comment Posted By AcademicElephant On 20.02.2006 @ 10:08
I think I misunderstood about the nature of the National Journal article--mixed it up with The Imperial Presidancy. So just scratch that and I'll stick by the UN stuff. And the chicken entrials.Comment Posted By AcademicElephant On 18.02.2006 @ 18:29
You know that I generally look to the National Journal and the United Nations, not to mention the entrails of chickens, to dictate how I would run our foreign policy, but in this case I have to make an exception and listen to the Grand Poobah of detainee torture Donald Rumsfeld who said yesterday that Annan is "dead wrong" on this one--for, among others, the reason that neither the Secretary General nor any of the Human Rights Commission had accepted the invitation of the US military to go and visit the facility and consequently they really don't know what they are talking about. And I would be willing to bet that the editors of The National Journal haven't been there either--which is slightly less germaine because I write about lots of places I haven't been, but this seems different because they're accepting the faulty UN report without questioning its veracity because it suits their purposes. And that's another thing--while something like the Saddam tapes suit the conservative purpose and no one would be happier than I to see a smoking WMD gun (figuratively) emerge, as you pointed out earlier, these tapes are no such thing and should be treated with caution. The NJ should treat the UN report the same way. But instead they're sticking it on their cover.
Now to be entirely fair, the Human Rights Commission has been very busy abusing human rights around the world, so maybe they didn't have time to go and inspect one place where human rights weren't being abused?
Back to the chicken entrails...Comment Posted By AcademicElephant On 18.02.2006 @ 18:26
And BTW, remember what happened to Job when he doubted...Comment Posted By AcademicElephant On 14.02.2006 @ 13:17
Ditto what Mitzi said in #27.Comment Posted By AcademicElephant On 14.02.2006 @ 13:17
Mitzi--looks like we were simul-commenting.Comment Posted By AcademicElephant On 13.02.2006 @ 09:10
Might it be possible to speculate that the family of the accident victim wanted a little privacy as they assessed the seriousness of the situation and the VP respected their wishes more than he worried about the political fallout from delaying the announcement of the incident for a few hours? I can see no evidence of a cover-up--he was, after all, at the hospital with the family where he would be seen by any number of nurses, doctors, other patients, etc., and when they were asked about it they confirmed.
Broader issues with secrecy there might be, but in this particular case I think there might be a far less sinister explanation for not making this instantly public.Comment Posted By AcademicElephant On 13.02.2006 @ 09:09
How terribly frustrating it will be for some if it turns out that Bush was right...again??Comment Posted By AcademicElephant On 26.01.2006 @ 10:02
Of course, not realizing one is a cluebat is a prerequisite to actually being one...Comment Posted By AcademicElephant On 24.01.2006 @ 08:19