Has China Started to Slap Back at Google?

I don’t blame the Chinese for taking a swipe at Google. My reaction is, “what took them so long?” You’d think that, by now, Google wouldn’t work anywhere in China. When outages like this happen, it’s easy to speculate as to what might have actually happened:

Google has said that a problem that meant that Chinese users of its service were unable to access search results on 30 March was due to a technical error.

Many reports had speculated that the block may have been put in place by the Chinese government.

Earlier this month Google stopped censoring its search results in China in defiance of the government.

The company now redirects Chinese users to the uncensored pages of its Hong Kong website.

A spokesperson for the firm said the “lots of users” had been unable to access the Hong Kong site today.

“This blockage seems to have been triggered by a change on Google’s part,” the spokesperson said.

Or was it?

Both sides are just big enough to confuse the facts and play public relations games. Why should anyone care if Chinese citizens can’t use Google? Well, it’s not so much the search engine as it is the almost indispensible products like Gmail and Blogger that are really of so much value. Without them, you might as well stop trying to dissent against your own government.

Megan Mullally Needs a New Agent

Megan Mullally's Ad for I Can't Believe It's Not ButterPeople have to eat, and I don't blame Megan for doing an ad; I just wish that she had people working for her who could have steered her away from what has to be one of the worst products ever. They used a great photo of her, however, and if the product itself had any class, this would have been a better ad. Sadly, the product and the celebrity are on different planes.

Gilbert Has to Serve His Time

Maybe it's me, but I don't think three months in jail is enough for Gilbert Arenas:

When Gilbert Arenas appeared at a charity event a few weeks ago, no amount of smiles and hugs could hide the underlying tension surrounding the next big date on his calendar.

"So that's what everybody's waiting for," Arenas said. "March 26, huh?"

The fateful date has arrived.

The Washington Wizards three-time All-Star point guard will be sentenced Friday in D.C. Superior Court on one felony count of violating the District of Columbia's strict gun laws. Judge Robert E. Morin will decide whether Arenas does jail time or gets probation.

The prosecution and defense teams stated their cases earlier this week in voluminous filings. It's all far beyond anything Arenas imagined on that December morning when he says he brought four guns to the locker room to play a prank on a teammate.

Prosecutors want Arenas to go to jail for at least three months. They point out that he lied repeatedly about why the guns were in the locker room, that he tried to cover up what happened, that he displayed a cavalier attitude about the whole affair, that he knew bringing guns into D.C. was illegal, and that he has a prior gun conviction.

What kind of message does that send to other players? I would have expected at least a year in jail, Washington D.C. being what it is, which is a playground for illegal weapons and home to a lot of gun violence. I don't think Arenas should be allowed to play in the NBA ever again. I think some mistakes bring with them some measure of forgiveness, but four guns in the locker room and then the lies that went with them? Sorry, that's a level of poor judgement which goes beyond the privilege of playing professional sports.

Hey, It's not the All Star Break, but it's Still a Break

Since the inception of this blog, and the three or four different versions of it that have existed, I have only taken short breaks to attend The Masters. This year, I'm probably going to attend The Masters, but, before that, I'm going to take an extended break. From now until the end of the month or so, I'm not going to blog. I'm going to concentrate, and think, and come up with brilliant ideas. I'm going to put the full weight of my considerable talents to thinking, which I haven't done in years. Oh, that's not as bad as it sounds. For long stretches of my life, I have subsisted on snap decisions and bald-faced rage, without any thinking being done at all. Thinking is overrated. Doing is underrated.

Now would be a good time to point out that my blogs are like beacons of hope in a world possessed by mediocrity and fear. I have a few things that I like to call The Best of the Blog. If you have stomach that, you can run with billy goats and feast on anything, sir. You can trip through Celebrity Disaster and then find yourself on a sports tangent with Talking Smack About Sports. I am a Gentleman Bounty Hunter, you know, and I do like my Safe For Work Hotties.

When I come back, I hope I'm not rusty and boring. If so, I'll probably demand more of myself. I may search for scapegoats and look for a dingbat to take the fall, but I won't tolerate boring. Not here or anywhere else.

The End of the Road for Bajaj Scooters

Bajaj Scooter

It’s a sign that globalization is happening—once people can afford a better product, what they used to settle for becomes obsolete. That’s what has happened to the Bajaj scooter, once a transportation mainstay for India:

Later this month, Bajaj’s last scooter factory will roll out its last scooter, ending an era in India’s transition from dreary socialist behemoth into a consumerist powerhouse. And those one-time icons of middle-class achievement will be left to secondhand dealers and armies of sidewalk mechanics.

Because in modern India, modest dependability just isn’t enough.

“People have more money to spend today,” said Pradeep Tyagi. He sells used motorcycles in the New Delhi neighborhood of Karol Bagh, where dozens of used-car and motorcycle dealers — and a handful of scooter shops — are jammed into a few narrow lanes. “No one wants to spend that money on a scooter.”

Wander among the neighborhood’s tiny, dusty shops and it becomes clear how India’s aspirations have changed.

Because while India still has desperate poverty — more than one-third of the population lives on less than $1 per day — it has also become a nation of fierce consumers, its buying habits nurtured by a growing economy, easier loans and relentless advertising. In places like Karol Bagh, that means people who once would have aspired to scooters now want motorcycles. And everyone dreams of cars.

This is what I do not get about people who sneer at “green” technology and getting smarter about making things that are self-sustaining. How can you not see that there are people all over the world who want what we have here in the West? How can you not see that if you put fifty or sixty million cars on the roads of India in the span of a few years that it won’t have a tremendous impact on our environment? How can you not see that there’s money to be made here? Where is the car that gets seventy miles to the gallon and would be perfect for the Indian market? If Ford or GM had a car like that, wouldn’t it be smart to be at the top of that game?

Perhaps it is the traveler in me; I don’t know. I just don’t see how people can be so ignorant. The transition of India from a bicycle and scooter nation to a nation of cars and people owning two or more cars is happening. Shouldn’t we have cleaner, better cars to sell to them right now? Or should we just go back to thinking no one else should have it so good?

Ben Roethlisberger Isn't Learning From Any of His Mistakes

There's nothing wrong with having fun, but when you're rich, famous, and known to be a bit of a party animal, you have to know when to control yourself:

Amber Hanley, a 21-year-old college student who met NFL star Ben Roethlisberger in a Georgia bar, says the Steeelers quarterback wanted more than a just a cute photo with the young co-ed, but she just rolled her eyes and moved on, earning a tongue lashing from Big Ben.

Later, she says, Roethlisberger was hitting hard on another girl.

Illegal, poor taste or just drunk fun?

Hanley's description of last Friday's events at the Capital City bar in Milledgeville, Ga., doesn't shed light on whether Roethlisberger sexually assaulted another woman during a night in which he visited several local bars. Police are now investigating the accusation made by a 20-year old student and the football player has denied it.

He really needs some sort of help, and not just of the legal kind. He needs someone to help him get off the path that he's on before he destroys his career. I have defended him in the past, but how do you defend a kid who is blotto? How do you defend a kid who is running around like a jackass in public?

We Are Not Governed By Any Aspect of the Declaration of Independence

Whenever someone cites the Declaration of Independence, try to remember that there is nothing in that document that currently governs this nation; the Constitution is what governs us. The Declaration of Independence was used to explain the reasons for the American Revolution to the King of England. Nothing in it is binding or legal as we currently govern ourselves. The Declaration informs the Constitution but it is not the legally binding document. It’s a great way of illustrating the ignorance of pundits, though. Few, if any, know anything about the Republic for which it stands.

That doesn’t stop people from trying to use it, however:

Our Declaration of Independence observes:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

“Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This is boilerplate American history, and something that Americans — and, in particular, America’s political class — have long taken for granted.

But now things are looking a bit dicey. According to a recent Rasmussen Poll , only 21 percent of American voters believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed. On the other hand, Rasmussen notes, a full 63 percent of the “political class” believe that the government enjoys the consent of the governed.

It’s tempting to stress the disconnect here, and that disconnect is certainly huge. Unsurprisingly, the political class — which talks mostly to itself — thinks that it is far more popular, and legitimate, in the eyes of the country than is in fact the case. In this, as in so many things, America’s political class is out of touch with reality.

But forget the views of America — where, it seems likely, more people believe in alien abductions than in the legitimacy of our rulers — and look just at the more cheerful view of the political class.

Even among the rulers, only 63 percent — triple the fraction of the general populace but still less than two-thirds of the political class — regard the federal government as legitimate by the standards of America’s founding document. The remainder, presumably, are comfortable being tyrants.

“Tyrants?”

That’s a bit much. Today’s tyrant is yesterday’s benevolent ruler. If someone can tell me the difference between Bush and Obama on fighting the war on terror, I’ll give them a medal.

The Constitution works just fine. If there’s any aspect of how we govern ourselves that has gone awry, then it is the corrupting influence of money and the media’s inability to explain how and why that money corrupts the political process. There is no reason for the media to tell the truth about how money makes the process corrupt; it would cost them money to do so. This gives us an uninformed populace that does not vote for their true interests. They end up voting in a popularity contest that is not driven by information.

And, as soon as someone figures out that neither party has any claim on legitimacy, you see the arguments made by the likes of Mr. Reynolds melt away. Unable to acknowledge the fact that conservatives and liberals are simply feeding from the same trough, ignoring hypocrisy becomes the only way to continue functioning. Thinking about these things would expose the childish fantasy of thinking one party is still better than the other party.

The Irish Turn Away From the Catholic Church

While I don’t have a problem with religion, I certainly prefer secular societies that know the proper place of religion in their politics and culture. Ireland seems to be reaching that point as well, and, just so you know, the proper place to me is separate and distant. Your government should never be religious-based, and your religion should never be based on taking control of the government.

The overwhelming influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland is well known; seeing Irish priests kiss the ring of the Pope shouldn’t elicit anything other than delight in the faithful. In point of fact, the opposite has happened—many Irish citizens are angry that the current Pope has done nothing to help address the sexual abuse crimes committed by members of the church:

Andrew Madden, the first person in Ireland to go public about his abuse by a priest, described the meetings at the Vatican as “a complete waste of time” and the greatest act of window dressing he had ever seen. Abuse survivor Marie Collins saidit was an insult that the resignation of bishops didn’t even make the agenda. Additionally, she said it was deplorable that the pope’s statement was “so far away from accepting that there was a policy of coverup.”

Of course, it’s not unusual for bishops to kiss the pope’s ring, and the Vatican has always been heavily male and ornate. The difference now is that Irish Catholics, after decades of alienation from the church, are finally nearing a breaking point.

Not so very long ago and for the great majority of Irish people, their Catholicism was synonymous with their national identity. To be Irish was to be Catholic. It was something of which most Irish were very proud.

In the latter part of the 19th century, the church grew to become the most powerful civic institution on the island, controlling most of Ireland’s schools and the greater number of its hospitals.

This allowed the church unparalleled influence throughout most of the 20th century in what is now known as the Republic of Ireland. That continued to be the case until the latter decades of the last century when its influence began to wane due to increased affluence and a better-educated population. With the events of the last few years, church leaders can no longer ignore the extent to which they’ve lost control of Irish society.

In this way, the scandal doesn’t really mirror what happened in the United States. Going back at least twenty years, legal cases have been brought against the church in the United States. Accountability has had a long, tough road in the United States but, at the very least, many victims have had a chance to appear in court and see their abusers punished. The church has withdrawn priests and hid them; in Ireland, they simply refuse to acknowledge the crimes.

This has to figure into how the church approaches the issue of priest sex abuse. In a country where there is a highly developed legal system or a small number of practicing faithful, the chances of the criminal code being applied to the church and then issuing a severe punishment is fairly high. In Ireland, the church is very closely tied to the government and the culture. Not only does this account for a lack of accountability, it also accounts for the possibility that the problem will never be solved or dealt with. That means more victims, more coverups, and more obstruction.

Will They Up the Bracket?

Put this down as the beginning of the next phase of insanity in the NCAA:

The calendar turned to March this week, which means one of our nation's most celebrated sporting events is just around the corner. Two Sundays from now, CBS studio host Greg Gumbel will read off the names of 65 college basketball teams. Millions of fans around the country will race to fill out their brackets. Many will find excuses to skip work or take long lunch breaks the following Thursday and Friday, as another NCAA tournament tips off.

But behind the scenes, executives in charge of this multibillion-dollar event are holding discussions that could drastically alter the future of March Madness. On the eve of potential network television renegotiations, committees and panels representing the NCAA and its members must soon decide whether to implement the first major expansion of the tourney's field in 25 years.

"There is any variety of future possibilities being considered," said Greg Shaheen, the NCAA's senior VP of basketball and business strategies. "The options, trust me, are endless."

Last month, the popular blogger SportsByBrooks reported that unnamed ESPN sources claimed the NCAA's move to a 96-team men's basketball tournament was a "done deal." Nothing involving the NCAA happens that quickly, but it's clear that expansion -- long dismissed as a far-fetched possibility -- is a distinct possibility. The SportsBusiness Journal obtained a copy of a request-for-proposal the NCAA issued late last year to numerous media entities gauging interest in a possible 68- or 96-team field.

That's six brackets, rather than four, in my estimation, meaning that it will be the Final Six, not the Final Four. Well, does that make sense?

There aren't enough teams in Division I worth consideration for a 96 team bracket. Yes, there really are 347 Division I teams. How many of them, year to year, are worthy of tournament play? Fewer than 64, sir. Fewer than 64.

Let's think about what the first round in the NCAA tournament is like. You have a lot of clunkers.

Expand it? Well, let me tell you what you'd have. You'd eliminate the NIT, which is fine by me. You'd have a lot of clunkers. You'd have games that would make a grown man cry in his sleeve for the boredom and the missed shots. You'd have at least 30 teams or more that would make it by default every single year, regardless of merit. You'd have the entire Big East and the ACC in every tournament, practically. You'd have coaches being fired for failing to win barely enough games to qualify. If you can't get your team to a 96 team NCAA Tournament Bracket, yes, you probably deserve to be fired.

More importantly, more games and more students playing means less academics. Anyone considered that? Of course not. It's all about cash money, sir. Diluting your product won't do the trick, though. If anything, go back to a 32 team bracket and make the big schools really fight for a spot. Make it harder to get to the Final Four, not easier. Fewer games would mean more people would watch the ones that are telecast on cable or the Internet. Fewer games would mean everyone would be more likely to see every single game and the advertisers could turn around and soak everyone even more.

Anything that gets between the schools and their money is going to be run over like a frog on the freeway. No one cares what a blogger thinks, and the only thing that matters is if a school like Georgia Tech or Washington State can get a boost from getting to the tournament.

The Germans Aren't Afraid of Shoeless Fools and Pretend Ninjas

See if you can figure this out, because I certainly can. Despite the threat of terrorism, you have a Western democracy coming down on the side of privacy, rather than panic and fear. Sadly, it's not the United States.

Vast amounts of telephone and e-mail data held in Germany must be deleted, the country's highest court has ruled.

The constitutional court overturned a 2008 law requiring communications data to be kept for six months.

The law - designed to combat terrorism and serious crime - required telecoms companies to keep logs of calls, faxes, SMS messages, e-mails and internet use.

But nearly 35,000 Germans lodged complaints against it, arguing that the law violated their right to privacy.

Responding to the thousands of formal complaints, Germany's constitutional court described the law as a "particularly serious infringement of privacy in telecommunications".

In contrast, political calculations and a stunning lack of cojones seems to prevail in this country:

President Obama signed a one-year extension of three sections of the USA Patriot Act on Saturday without any new limits on the measures that many liberal groups and Democrats said were necessary to safeguard American civil liberties.

The provisions allow the government, with permission from a special court, to obtain roving wiretaps over multiple communication devices, seize suspects’ records without their knowledge, and conduct surveillance of a so-called “lone wolf,” or someone deemed suspicious but without any known ties to an organized terrorist group.

The Patriot Act drew heavy criticism from Democrats – Obama even once saidit needed to be dialed back – during the Bush administration. But experts suggest that a string of foiled terrorist plots over the past year combined with the Democrats' falling ratings amid the healthcare debate blunted any move to reform the act, which was passed in the wake of 9/11.

“We’ve stopped 28 terrorist attacks since 9/11,” says James Carafano, a homeland security expert at The Heritage Foundation. “The Patriot Act has been a big part of that."

He says the only disappointment regarding Obama’s extension of the three temporary provisions is that “it was only for one year.” That, he says, may have been done “so they won’t get beat up so much on the left.”

Well, I wouldn't use that number 28 so freely. Many of those were pretty half-assed. At least two or three of those involved people who couldn't even afford adequate footwear, and at least one of those involved a self-described American ninja, I believe.

I won't bother to go and dig up all of the things President Obama said against the Patriot Act; I won't even bother to go see what Glenn Greenwald had to say about it. Shame on the Republican Party for foisting it upon us. We should have kept things the way they were; what better way to tell the men with rags on their head to go pound sand. These colors may not run, but they'll shit themselves seven shades of brown over the idea of someone thinking there might be a terrorist talking in the open on his cell phone in Grand Forks about going to Tuscaloosa to buy a gallon of paint from a man from Spokane. The Patriot Act only works if the terrorists are abject fools with a talkative streak and no operational security, sir.

I will just point out that, at one time, you couldn't get elected dogcatcher in this country without having a position on privacy and on protecting the rights of Americans to be safe from unlawful search and seizure. Now, you can pretty much bet on the fact that millions of Americans will sign away their firstborn and every halfwit databit of their private information just so that there's no chance whatsoever that they won't have to think about being attacked by a terrorist.

Boo! Are you scared, sir? I hope not. Cowboy up.

Posted via web from An American Lion is on Posterous

The Germans Lead the Way on Privacy

See if you can figure this out, because I certainly can. Despite the threat of terrorism, you have a Western democracy coming down on the side of privacy, rather than panic and fear. Sadly, it’s not the United States.

Vast amounts of telephone and e-mail data held in Germany must be deleted, the country’s highest court has ruled.

The constitutional court overturned a 2008 law requiring communications data to be kept for six months.

The law - designed to combat terrorism and serious crime - required telecoms companies to keep logs of calls, faxes, SMS messages, e-mails and internet use.

But nearly 35,000 Germans lodged complaints against it, arguing that the law violated their right to privacy.

Responding to the thousands of formal complaints, Germany’s constitutional court described the law as a “particularly serious infringement of privacy in telecommunications”.

In contrast, political calculations and a stunning lack of cojones seems to prevail in this country:

President Obama signed a one-year extension of three sections of the USA Patriot Act on Saturday without any new limits on the measures that many liberal groups and Democrats said were necessary to safeguard American civil liberties.

The provisions allow the government, with permission from a special court, to obtain roving wiretaps over multiple communication devices, seize suspects’ records without their knowledge, and conduct surveillance of a so-called “lone wolf,” or someone deemed suspicious but without any known ties to an organized terrorist group.

The Patriot Act drew heavy criticism from Democrats – Obama even once saidit needed to be dialed back – during the Bush administration. But experts suggest that a string of foiled terrorist plots over the past year combined with the Democrats’ falling ratings amid the healthcare debate blunted any move to reform the act, which was passed in the wake of 9/11.

“We’ve stopped 28 terrorist attacks since 9/11,” says James Carafano, a homeland security expert at The Heritage Foundation. “The Patriot Act has been a big part of that.”

He says the only disappointment regarding Obama’s extension of the three temporary provisions is that “it was only for one year.” That, he says, may have been done “so they won’t get beat up so much on the left.”

Well, I wouldn’t use that number 28 so freely. Many of those were pretty half-assed. At least two or three of those involved people who couldn’t even afford adequate footwear, and at least one of those involved a self-described American ninja, I believe.

I won’t bother to go and dig up all of the things President Obama said against the Patriot Act; I won’t even bother to go see what Glenn Greenwald had to say about it. Shame on the Republican Party for foisting it upon us. We should have kept things the way they were; what better way to tell the men with rags on their head to go pound sand. These colors may not run, but they’ll shit themselves seven shades of brown over the idea of someone thinking there might be a terrorist talking in the open on his cell phone in Grand Forks about going to Tuscaloosa to buy a gallon of paint from a man from Spokane. The Patriot Act only works if the terrorists are abject fools with a talkative streak and no operational security, sir.

I will just point out that, at one time, you couldn’t get elected dogcatcher in this country without having a position on privacy and on protecting the rights of Americans to be safe from unlawful search and seizure. Now, you can pretty much bet on the fact that millions of Americans will sign away their firstborn and every halfwit databit of their private information just so that there’s no chance whatsoever that they won’t have to think about being attacked by a terrorist.

Boo! Are you scared, sir? I hope not. Cowboy up.