Photo taken at the war memorial, Eishenhower Park, East Meadow, NY. More pictures from that memorial can be found here.

A NATION’S STRENGTH
Ralph Waldo Emerson

What makes a nation’s pillars high
And it’s foundations strong?
What makes it mighty to defy
The foes that round it throng?
It is not gold. Its kingdoms grand
Go down in battle shock;
Its shafts are laid on sinking sand,
Not on abiding rock.
Is it the sword? Ask the red dust
Of empires passed away;
The blood has turned their stones to rust,
Their glory to decay.
And is it pride? Ah, that bright crown
Has seemed to nations sweet;
But God has struck its luster down
In ashes at his feet.
Not gold but only men can make
A people great and strong;
Men who for truth and honor’s sake
Stand fast and suffer long.
Brave men who work while others sleep,
Who dare while others fly…
They build a nation’s pillars deep
And lift them to the sky

- In memory of all those who gave their life in service to this country -

Most of us will have parties and barbecues today after we attend parades and ceremonies and listen to speeches. We wil bow our heads in rememberance and some of us will pray and some of us will give silent thanks.

There’s nothing wrong with going home afterwards to spend the day with family and friends, having a picnic or celebrating the coming summer.

Just remember what this day is for. When you raise that first cold one, give a toast to those who this holiday is for. Remember their families, as well.

Memorial Day

Please feel free to share your Memorial Day thoughts in the comments here.

Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security secretary, said Thursday that he sees biometrics as the way of the future for identification when traveling. The current method is too flawed relying on simple names which are subject to misspellings, misidentification and fraud. The key to biometrics is ensuring that the system is secure. If a hacker can change the information attached to his biometric personality on record then the system is worthless as it would identify him certainly, but display fraudulent information. I'm sure the civil liberties crowd will decry this of course. How dare the governments want to ensure that they know who you are and your intentions.

Wired

International travelers should get used to having their fingerprints taken or their irises scanned because traditional airport security tests are outdated and open to abuse, a leading U.S. official said Thursday.

"As a general principle, certainly in the area of international travel, biometrics is the way forward in virtually every respect," said Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security secretary.

"When we screen based on names, we're screening on the most primitive and least technological basis of identification -- it's the most susceptible to misspelling, or people changing their identity, or fraud.

"Biometrics is the way ahead."

Chertoff was speaking to reporters after meeting British officials during a four-day visit to Europe to discuss trans-Atlantic security cooperation.

On Monday, he visited the Netherlands, which will pilot a program later this year to allow passengers flying between New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport and Amsterdam's Schiphol airport to pass through border controls using a biometric card.

If they can produce the card, travelers will not be subjected to further questioning or screening.

The scheme is the first of its kind to be launched between the United States and a European country and, if it works, could be adopted elsewhere.

Originally posted at Diggers Realm.

I just I opened my mailbox And do you know what I found?

Vice President Dick Cheney has invited me to “join President Bush, Laura and the entire Republican Congressional leadership as they gather on the evening of June 14th here in Washington D.C…”

ME. The Moderate Voice. A little Jewish guy from Connecticut whose claim to fame is writing a blog that infuriates liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats and proctologists.

I’m also a ventriloquist, but they couldn’t have invited me for that since there are already more than enough dummies in Washington. In both parties (there go my Democratic readers..)

But what got me and brought a tear to my eye was this sentence:

“And will you allow all of us to recognize and honor the important role you have played over the years?”

They must have seen my shows. My role is to play straight man to a wooden character. It’s sort of like talking to Alan Greenspan.

But that’s not what they mean:

“That night will give President Bush a chance to personally thank you (DO YOU HEAR THAT? IT HE WILL PERSONALLY COME OVER TO ME!) for your work in our 2004 re-election campaign., for helping elect Republican Majorities in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate and for making the Republican Party America’s Majority Party.

The President’s Dinner here in Washington, D.C. is the perfect opportunity to express our gratitude publicly for all you have done, Mr. Gandelman.

Well, I did do the posts saying I thought the Swift Boats issue was an issue that shouldn’t be in the campaign and that I wouldn’t cover it (I didn’t). Of course, I also said that I wasn’t interested in questions about Bush’s military history and wouldn’t cover that (I didn’t). I wanted the issues to be issues. Ones that matter. Like policy issues. About policies. Could that be what you mean?

Or it could be my posts on Bush’s debate performances. I tried mightily to give Mr. Bush the benefit of the doubt, but in all of my posts I made it clear that when he leaves the White House the one job George Bush will not get is as a college debate instructor. In most of the debates Bush was as eloquent as a cabbage.

I don’t belong to either party. And I won’t join one again, even if I am reincarnated 50 times. Now, it’s true Democrats said this site smelled when we didn’t agree with everything they said. But, then, Republicans said this site reeked when we disagreed with them. And both sides repeatedly asked (and ask): “How can you call yourself a moderate?”

Cheney’s personal letter to me goes on and on. But then he says he needs some money from me but not to take this the wrong way because “while we will raise money toward the 2006 elections that evening, we want to use the night to recognize the vital role you and others have played in our Republican Party’s accomplishments for this great nation.”

I guess he likes our recent posts opposing the President’s stances on Terri Schiavo, the nuclear option and warning that the GOP seems in danger of losing centrists due to its obsession with catering to social conservatives at the expense of other groups.

I actually write these things on an issue by issue basis. I had no idea that in questioning the GOP and being denounced by its most fervent partisans (as I routinely am by email by Democrats who feel I am in the other camp), I was helping the Republican party. I suppose that means when I pointed out that Bob Shrum had the political smarts of a month old decaying sausage that I was helping the Democrats.

Cheney then invites me to “celebrate our Republican Party’s accomplishments” (I don’t belong to it; I’ll let that pass) in the country and in the 2004 campaign. So that means “we’re” still in celebration mode?

But there’s more.

He also informs me that there is a letter from MAJORITY LEADER BILL FRIST with details.

And, here too, Mr. Frist thanks me:”And will you also allow us to honor you, Mr. Gandelman, for your work in the 2004 election?” he asks.

I read this and blush although, again, I still don’t know what I did…

But a FREE MEAL..Honoring ME in Washington???

Oh, rats! There’s a hitch:

He mentions that the dinner is “also about passing the President’s agenda over the coming year and building lasting Republican majorities in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives.”

So to attend the dinner in my honor, he’d like me to buy a ticket for $2,500 “and a table of ten is $25,000. And seating is limited.”

But if I can’t attend this dinner partly in my honor, Frist notes, I can still be National Sponsor “or even join our select group of State Co-Chairmen!”

I can be honored by giving $150 or more — which will get me “a special limited-edition, individually signed and numbered personal photograph of President and Mrs. Bush as well as a silver National Sponsor Lapel Pin” making me as “a Bush-Cheney insider.”

WHOA! If I give $150 I’m a Bush-Cheney insider. I worked with people who spent years trying to become show biz or political insiders — but here I can be honored AND for just $150 become an insider.

If I become a State Co-Chairman, I get the photo, my “own State Co-Chairman Lapel Pin” and — best of all — “a special collector’s limited edition Presidential Plate for a contribution of at least $500.”

A Presidential Plate. It’s functional. I can eat my KFC on that!

Mr. Cheney and Mr. Frist: I’m DEEPLY honored. But I’m doing my shows, I’m a zillion years behind on my paperwork, I do this blog to maintain my (limited) sanity. I simply can’t get to Washington and pay the money to have you honor me.

Here’s an idea. I’d like to honor YOU.

You come to San Diego and for just $200 I’ll buy you a combination special at Julio’s Family Mexican Restaurant on University Avenue.

I would like to honor all of YOU: for providing me with so much material on this site…and so many laughs — especially when you make promises about trying to bring the American people together.

UPDATE: The Indepundit the ever-independent Citizen Smash got an identical letter saying Cheney was honoring him (and asking for money). And, like me, he’s not a Republican.

UPDATE II: We just got an email from a good friend in Texas who is a Democrat related to a very prominent Democratic lawmaker. It seems Dick Cheney wants to honor him, too!

Hey Joe,

I really don’t mean to burst your bubble, but I… a registered Democrat…got one of Dick’s letters too. Being a Democrat, a Populist, and an unwealthy small business owner, I never even thought of inviting Dick to come to San Antonio so I could honor him for a contribution. Oh well.

I will tell you that I feel much better about my invitation knowing that you got one too. I’d hate to think that the Republican money machine only messed up once. It also proves that they really don’t care who or what you are just so long as you ante-up.

What a great country this is!

Michael Crook the idiot from ForsakeTheTroops.info, a website that celebrates the death of US troops, showed up on Hannity and Colmes. Head over there and watch the video of this piece of crap. According to him the troops are overpaid(?!) and overcompensated and wounded soldiers are "leeches" off the government.

You can see the 2004 military pay scale (PDF File) to see how much we're "wasting" on our military. The majority of the troops are in the lower pay scale of E-5 and below.

You can see the video by going to US and World news at Fox News and then selecting the video on the right hand side under the headline "Forsake Our Troops?". If you have a means of providing a direct link to this video please let me know because you'd be a true hero, I couldn't get a direct link to it.

Thanks to reader Melissa who tipped me to this.

Here's a quick case study

An E-4 with 4 years in the military makes $1814.10 a month as of Jan 1, 2004. For this pay, when deployed, they will more than likely work 12 hour days, potentially be put in harms way on a moments notice and be ripped from their family or home base whenever the military deems it is necessary. Weekends in the military are not a sure thing, as sometime you are required to stand watch. When I was in the Navy, this meant you had to be aboard for your entire 24 hour "duty day" every 3rd or 4th day and stand a 4-hour watch. So say you're in your homeport and on a 4-day watch schedule. You are working 8-10 hour days when not deployed, and putting in an additional 16-14 hours on your 4th day. This works out to 54-66 hours a week the typical E-4 will put in -- if his duty day doesn't happen to fall on a weekend in which case you can add 24 hours to that. On the high end (56-hour workweek) they're making $8.40 an hour, on the low end (64 hour workweek) they're making $7.07 an hour. This is after having been in for 4 years!

When someone in the Navy is deployed they are in essence on duty 24/7. Even when off duty you are still stuck on a ship and if you are a "ground pounder" deployed you are still in a combat area. For a Navy individual at sea for a 30-day month, allowing for a 4 day port of call, you are working 27 days (remember one of those days in port is your duty day and you have to remain aboard for all 24 hours). 27*24=648 hours of inconvenience and 324 hours of actual being on duty working (12 hour days). Depending on how you look at it, you are making $5.58 an hour if you just go by the duty hours and $2.79 an hour if you count them all. Either way you're taking crap from some officer or higher ranked enlisted personnel (there's always at least one pain in the butt).

The benefits you will receive are free medical care and reduced cost items in the Post Exchanges. In addition if you have a family and are forced off base due to crowded on base housing they will subsidize your rent and give you a Cost of Living Allowance. You may also potentially receive other benefits like the GI bill.

So to say they are overcompensated is absolutely ridiculous and shows the ignorance of this imbecile at ForsakeTheTroops. He obviously has never known anyone in the military. For those of you who haven't really investigated what soldiers really make and what they give up I hope the above gives you a little insight.

Originally posted at Diggers Realm

[Robin Burk’s assistance and additions to this article are appreciated]

Reader SAO writes in to ask why we aren’t covering the Newsweek story, which incited the deaths of at least 15 people over a poorly-checked, irresponsible report that the magazine itself now admits is probably false. Me, I’m wondering why no-one on Newsweek’s staff saw the potential problems with this report at the time, as Glenn Reynolds and others did. Immediately:

“The press is exquisitely sensitive to the risks posed by, say, racial insensitivity in reporting. It’s too bad they’re not so careful with regard to things that might get American troops killed.”

If they did see the problems, why didn’t that stop the story, an act that would have carried zero consequences? And if they didn’t see those obvious problems, we’ve got to ask - why not?

Veteran journalist Joe Gandelman has a roundup of reactions left and right, and specifically notes that making these kinds of allegations is part of the al-Qaeda training manual; this makes apologists’ references to “similar allegations from other prisoners” rather rich, IMO. Greyhawk adds an excellent post on similar but debunked allegations in the past and the possible origins of Newsweek’s story. In the aftermath, Jeff Jarvis has a fine point to make about Newsweek’s mischievous CBS-style non-retraction - which is likely to get even more people killed now. Satirist Scott “Scrappleface” Ott is funny as always, and Glenn’s post-“retraction” roundup offers a fine back and forth getting at the issues and responsibility. Responsibility that includes religious sects who see incitement to violence and murder as an acceptable response in such situations (not in Iraq, says Omar).

Media double standards and malfeasance? Ya think? But those double-standards matter. They go to the heart of the reason why nobody said ‘wait a minute’ at Newsweek, why the subsequent insincere “apology” bordered on malice - and why that liberal media continues to be surprised at surveys like this one from UConn:

Read the Rest…

The Los Angeles Times has a tradition of lying about the true ideologies and affiliations of far-left groups and individuals. The latest example is particularly odious.

The Save Our State organization held a protest on Saturday at the monument in Baldwin Park CA discussed here (Note that the monument is on public property).

From SOS's report:

...Numerous times we were told that this land is Mexico and that they were taking it back. Numerous times racists epithets were hurled away. One person even hurled a full water bottle at our side and sent one of our activists to the hospital with bleeding in the brain. Unfortunately, she is now in the intensive care unit and we are all praying and hoping for the best.

What started as a rather peaceful and uneventful protest on our side ended in sheer hostility. The counter demonstrators were supposed to rally at the other end of the metrolink station, but proceeded to outflank the Baldwin Park Police Department and traveled through a local neighborhood so that they could formally confront us at the intersection allocated to us for our protest.

In waves they came. Soon outnumbered 500-50 in a community that is 85% Hispanic, crowd control soon became an issue. Rants, chants and Mexican flags filled the air. Their spit and a dragged and kicked American flag covered the ground. It is imperative to note that that was the only American flag displayed by our opponents...

Several links about this event, including pictures and video, are here, here, here, and here. You'll note the signs from the Los Angeles branch of ANSWER, the San Gabriel Valley Neighbors for Peace and Justice, and the International Socialist Organization. ANSWER's announcement of the protest is here and here.

In case you think SOS's report might be overstated, here's a report from one of the protesters:

How did the counter-demo go? We vastly out numbered them and succeeded in driving them away. We won and won big.

After an opening demo with the Aztec Dancers and the City Council, we marched to near where SOS was. The police had barricaded the areas between us. After an hour or so, we went down side streets and confronted SOS directly. They were on one corner, maybe fifteen left, down from a maximum of about fifty. We were on the other three corners, several hundred strong. with 40 police in between. We moved into the intersection. I wasn't sure what the cops would do, so I scanned the side streets for approaching phalanxes of police. But none appeared. We began chanting 'we won't leave until they leave.' And then, to great cheers, the police ordered SOS to leave.

We won! They won't be back to Baldwin Park. I expect this type of confrontation will escalate dramatically in size during the coming summer. People get ready. ( polizeros.com/2005/05/15.html#a5412 )

How did the Los Angeles Times cover this? Read "Protest Over Art Forces Police to Draw the Line" to see their take. The report from David Pierson and Patricia Ward Biederman mentions the confrontation, but only devotes one sentence to a 66 year old woman getting hit in the forehead with a full bottle of water. Further, if you hadn't seen the pictures, videos, and read the other reports you might think it was just one big party for peace and justice:

...Opponents of Save Our State consisted mainly of young adults who said they sent e-mails to Latino and immigrant worker advocacy groups. Many were politically active teenagers and college students who skateboarded to the scene...

David Pierson and Patricia Ward Biederman even describe ANSWER LA as an "antiwar and anti-racism group" without any quotes or hedging. Here's a description of International ANSWER, ANSWER LA's parent group:

International A.N.S.W.E.R. (often, simply ANSWER) is a front group for the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party (WWP), which uses the anti-war movement as the vehicle by which it promotes Communist ideals and condemns American society, American foreign policy, and capitalism...

Read what lefties David Corn and Marc Cooper have to say about International ANSWER.

The L.A. Times report appears to be the source for an AP report ("Baldwin Park public artwork angers group opposed to illegal immigration") that's appeared in several dozen newspapers since the incident, some even today. All those reports incorrectly state that no one was injured.

There's more on the L.A. Times' report and on the groups involved here.

Please contact readers.rep *at* latimes.com and feedback *at* ap.org with your thoughts on their coverage.

UPDATE: The LAT published a blurb from "a Times Staff Writer" stating that the victim had been observed overnight in an ICU. It also says that police are investigating the attack as an assault with a deadly weapon.

Also, the second paragraph of the main LAT article says that the protest was announced on the John and Ken Show (KFI 640AM Los Angeles). On their show, John and Ken say that that's false. The protest and the monument were discussed on two other KFI shows, but not theirs. They contacted one of the reporters and were told that a correction would be printed. Apparently the reporter was told that by one of the SOS protesters and didn't confirm it.

5/23/05 UPDATE: This page has more photos and video. "Antiwar and anti-racism group" indeed.

[by Armed Liberal] I challenged conservative historian Niall Ferguson’s misinterpretation of World War II’s cost below; Robin Burk added a great precis of Walzer on war afterwards.

But it takes one of the original idiotarians, Pat Buchanan, to misinterpret the end of that war.

Stephen Green shows Buchanan for the fool his arguments make him. My favorite line:

It took 40 years, but today Pat Buchanan hit bottom on the slippery slope from Young Turk conservative columnist to Nazi Apologist troglodyte.

15,000 people have volunteered to give up their free time to patrol our borders with the Minuteman Project and report not only illegal aliens, but potential terrorists to the proper government authorities. Why anyone would be against a group doing this voluntarily and with no direct confrontation is beyond me. Border Patrol and the US government should be lauding these people for providing a service for free that not only secures our borders, but helps the overburdened Border Patrol.

Washington Times

The organizer of last month's Minutemen border protest says more than 15,000 people have volunteered for future citizen patrols along the Mexican border.

"We considerer this a mandate from the citizens of the United States," Chris Simcox will tell a hearing of the House Government Reform Committee Thursday, according to a copy of his prepared testimony obtained by United Press International.

Tipped by: Speed of Thought

Originally Posted at Diggers Realm

SaveOurState.org is calling for the removal of a monument in the city of Baldwin Park, CA at the Metrolink Rail Station by July 1, 2005. Why are they calling for it’s removal? Well see the pictures below.

I think any US citizen would find such a thing appalling. Somehow this taxpayer funded monument actually made it all the way to display on public property without anyone stepping forward and saying a thing.

If this monument is not removed then SaveOurState.org intends to form a protest. If you would like to lodge a complaint or let your displeasure be known, head over to SaveOurState for contact information.

I have covered SaveOurState in the past including 2 rally’s against Home Depot (overview and pics here and here). For all posts on Diggers Realm about SaveOurState click here.

Originally posted at Diggers Realm

VDH steps up with another beaut. You can agree or disagree with his proposals, but you have to give full marks for consistency. The Bush Doctrine’s Next Test:

bq.. “…far from representing a distraction in the struggle against current front-line enemies like Iran and Syria, the reformation of Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia would only further isolate and enfeeble those states—as William Tecumseh Sherman’s “indirect approach” of weakening the rear of the Confederacy, at a considerably reduced loss of life, helped to bring to a close the frontline bloodshed of northern Virginia, or as Epaminondas the Theban’s freeing of the Messenian helots dismantled the Spartan empire at its very foundations.

Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are not the equivalent of the Soviet Union’s satellite states of Albania, Bulgaria, and Romania. Rather, they are the East Germany, Hungary, and Poland of the unfree Middle East: pivotal nations upon whose fate the entire future of the Bush Doctrine may well hinge.”

There’s lots more, and it’s all good. (Hat Tip: the fine left-right Daou Report)

If you want further background, we covered exactly what the Bush Doctrine is a while back, and talked at greater length about Pakistan (OxDem’s Democracy in Pakistan series) and Egypt (How Do You Solve A Problem Like Mubarak?).

NOTE: This was written on The Moderate Voice by Guest Blogger Jack Grant. Grant is an American scientist who works and lives in France. He has his own highly independent and increasingly popular weblog Random Fate. This post also appears there.

By Jack Grant

GRENOBLE, France - Over a week ago, I wrote here at The Moderate Voice on the television appearance by French President Jacques Chirac to promote a “oui” vote on the EU Constitution.

In concluding with the following:

So, in the end, even though the polls look like Chirac had no effect on public opinion after his televised discussion of the EU constitution, don’t be surprised if another razor-thin victory is pulled out by the government in favor of the EU, as was done in the case of the common currency.

Although the voting itself is still weeks away, the outcome of “NON!” looks far less certian. From The Guardian newspaper:

Opinion polls out this weekend show for the first time that a majority of French people intend to vote in favour of the European draft constitution next month.

The two surveys, carried out for Le Monde and the Journal du Dimanche, found that 52 per cent supported the draft constitution and 48 per cent opposed it.

But a large proportion said they might still change their minds ahead of the 29 May referendum - 24 per cent in the Le Monde poll and 30 per cent in the other survey.

The turnaround comes amid an energetic campaign by the right-wing government and the mainstream Socialist party to highlight the advantages of European co-operation.

As I wrote before:

The US based reporting that I have seen has missed both the nature of Chirac’s arguments, and the usual, apparently indifferent reaction of the French citizenry to the arguments he made.

Despite the popular perception of the French character, it has been my experience that they are actively repulsed by emotional arguments used in politics. Don’t get me wrong, they actively enjoy arguing politics here, but as soon as you make an argument that appeals to the gut rather than the head, you have lost the argument in their eyes.

Does this mean they are eminently logical?

No. For the weights they assign to different factors that have to be balanced against each other are very much affected by their feelings, and in most cases the weighting is actually determined emotionally, not that they would ever admit it!

This results in what in the US would be thought of as an extremely delayed reaction to events, making instant opinion polls deceptive to the outside viewer.

This is a very complicated issue, and not solely because of the length of the proposed constitution. Europe is struggling to define its identity. The proposed addition of Turkey is exposing fault lines that make the discussion over the constitution appear trivial. Because of this level of soul-searching and self-definition, don’t expect there to be any certainty on the outcome until AFTER the votes are counted.

NOTE: This was done by Washington D.C. journalist Greg Piper as Guest Blogger on The Moderate Voice. Greg Piper’s own increasingly popular blog is The Smoking Room.

By Greg Piper

The LA Times comes in for criticism regularly in the blogosphere, but a couple recent mistakes on their part deserve closer scrutiny. LA-based Patterico shows Times editors removed (from the Reuters wire story) possibly the most noteworthy development in the shooting of the car in Iraq that killed an Italian agent and the newly free Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena - the car’s speed as measured by satellite:

The Reuters story reported that investigators using satellite footage of the incident have conclusively determined that the car was speeding, just as the U.S. has always maintained. On page two of the story, the Reuters news service reported:

CBS news has reported that a U.S. satellite had filmed the shooting and that it had been established the car carrying Calipari was traveling at more than 60 mph per hour [sic] as it approached the U.S. checkpoint in Baghdad.

Thus, the Reuters story reported that there is definitive proof that the car was speeding towards the checkpoint – critical information that tends to justify U.S. soldiers’ decision to fire on the car. But in the version appearing in the L.A. Times, editors cut out the passage reporting that proof.

He goes on to show this was a very deliberate omission by Times editors, because their version of the Reuters piece - judged by certain phrasing changes - is unique, as verified by a Google search.

If this were a lone incident of the Times cutting something relevant, perhaps for space considerations or not wanting to tilt too far to the American military’s say, it wouldn’t be so bad. But Patterico goes through the Times’ reporting on the incident since it happened almost two months ago to show they have given extreme weight to the journalist’s side of the story - that the car was not going especially fast for a situation of that type

It is truly astounding that the paper’s editors now see fit to hide from their readers the fact that satellite footage proves the car was speeding. The paper in the past understood that this is a critical issue in the controversy. What possible justification is there for the suppression of proof resolving that issue?

If they’re worried about the satellite footage turning out to be misinterpreted or just invented, there’s a simply way around that: “Military sources say satellite coverage showed…” At least let people know the military is giving a reason that can be fact-checked. (Via Instapundit.)

The other LA Times error was in a story about the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit’s fight against child pornography distributors and users. The paper reports: “All but one of the offenders they have arrested in the last four years was a hard-core Trekkie.” Blogger Ernest Miller did some old-fashioned reporting (a blogger? NO!):

I called the Child Exploitation Section of the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit and spoke to Det. Ian Lamond, who was familiar with the LA Times article.

He claims they were misquoted, or if that figure was given it was done so jokingly. Of course, even if the figure was given jokingly, shouldn’t the Times’ reporter have clarified something that seems rather odd? Shouldn’t her editors have questioned her sources?

Nevertheless, Detective Lamond does claim that a majority of those arrested show “at least a passing interest in Star Trek, if not a strong interest.”

At least this time it was a numbers’ screwup, not a wholesale omission. I can’t necessarily blame the reporter in this case, because since I joined the professional journalism ranks a couple months ago, I’ve learned it’s surprisingly easy for editors to change your copy in a way that makes it factually inaccurate when they’re unsure what your meaning is. That’s still a regrettable slip, and possibly an indication the relevant Times editors think Trekkies are so weird that it makes sense they’d have a pedophilia undercurrent. Not necessarily bias - just lazy assumptions that go unquestioned in a culturally homogenous newsroom. Surely there must be one Trekkie in the Times newsroom they could quickly ask, “You hear anything about lots of Trekkies being pedophiles?” At least one Trekkie, in a comment at BoingBoing, is irritated at the Times’ singling out of “Star Trek” fans for this horrible crime. But the story would be far less scandalous if Trekkies were just among the pedophiles, not a core component of them. Creeping tabloidism at the Times…? (Via Kausfiles, which finally has hyperlinks, but not consistently. Slate: We’re Looking into This Blog Thing!)

When I was an intern on Capitol Hill, the LA Times was the only paper we received that went right in the trash. I guess there was a reason for it.