Tea for you

Instapundit defends those protesting Davids:

RICK MORAN THINKS THE “TEA PARTY” PROTESTS are amateurish and disorganized. . . .  Of course they’re amateurish. Most of these people have never organized a protest before (hence the tendency to do things like forget bullhorns). That’s what you get at the beginning of a movement. But it’s much bigger news when 200 people with jobs who’ve never protested turn out, than when 20,000 of the usual suspects organized by ACORN or ANSWER march with preprinted signs.

Maybe.  I do like Glenn’s point that they’re amateurish because, well, they’re being done by amateurs — and that’s a refreshing distinction from lefty rent-a-crowds.

But I don’t agree with his prediction later in the post that these “tea parties” will swell till they become swell.

Conservatives don’t really do “protest” so good.  It’s not just because, yes, we’re at our fascist jobs or in our suffocating traditional homes being productive and responsible.  It’s that we’re… conservative people.

That’s okay.

UPDATE:  Well, no, I didn’t quite mean it like that (via I/P).  And I wasn’t really so right, in the sense of the word meaning “correct,” necessarily.

I’m still not so sure I’m so wrong, however.

The rest of the story

Paul Harvey – 1918 – 2009

Writing on the wall

From the Inside Facebook blog:

“People who are members of online social networks are not so much ‘networking’ as they are ‘broadcasting their lives to an outer tier of acquaintances who aren’t necessarily inside the Dunbar circle,’” Lee Rainie, the director of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, says.

This sounds like an oversimplification to me.  There are more than one level of interaction available to dynamic users of social networking.   Indeed there are many different kinds of social networkers.  The vast majority are relatively passive, as described in the article linked to at the blog, and while they may like to have big networks they mostly hang out with their circle of friends.  But the results of the data discussed in the article are at least presented somewhat misleadingly, it seems:

[I]n a recent interview with The Economist, Cameron Marlow, a research scientist at Facebook, shared some interesting stats on Facebook users’ social behavior patterns.

His findings: while many people have hundreds friends on Facebook, they still only communicate with a small few. Or to quote the author of the article, “Humans may be advertising themselves more efficiently. But they still have the same small circles of intimacy as ever.”

This may in fact be true, but I would certainly want to know the distribution of that trend across users.  I would expect the data to be heavily skewed by the vast number of young to very young people who use Facebook as a toy or a game, which is fine, but which indeed is not at all about networking.

That is not, however, what is getting people interested in Facebook today.  Grownup people, that is.  Are they missing something, because Marlow’s data is an accurate reflection across the board?  Or are we missing something because Marlow’s only giving us a peek of the whole story?  On the other hand, if it’s the latter, what would be his — Facebook’s — motivation for doing so?

For want of a nail

I blogged at LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® about what Sam Bayard explains masterfully as the

settlement of Jones Day‘s trademark lawsuit against real estate news site BlockShopper.com.  In the lawsuit, Jones Day alleged that BlockShopper infringed and/or diluted its trademark by using the name “Jones Day” to identify two of its associates who purchased homes in Chicago and by using anchor text in hyperlinks from each associate’s name back to their lawyer bios on Jones Day’s own website (here, here).

In my post, in Sam’s post, and in another post I linked to by blogger Ryan Gile, the main question is:  What did Jones Day accomplish?  By virtue of the bad publicity garnered by this lawsuit, as well as what appears to be a friendly rollover by a local federal judge, these associates’ bio pages at the Jones Day website are getting hit more often than could conceivably ever otherwise happen.  The settlement is essentially a face-saver for Jones Day, which must realize that on appeal it would lose the bit of leverage it got in early proceedings due to inexplicable rulings, while having outgunned the financially overwhelmed defendant website that could not afford an appeal anyway.  What was gained, we all ask?

Simple:  That rare commodity of loyalty.

It is not, as Bayard quotes Public Citizen blogger Paul Levy as saying, “in some ways, Jones Day ‘achieved a great deal.’  It sent a message to other websites that “it is not a firm to be trifled with, and that, when Jones Day ‘”asks” you to do something, you had better do it or you are going to have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend yourselves.'”

No.  No major law firm needs to prove that by going through what Jones Day did in this case.  That’s what they’re selling right out of the box.

What Jones Day did was keep an implied promise to its employees,

Read the rest of this entry »

No quarter

Reuters says insurer AIG is “bracing for a fourth-quarter loss of roughly $60 billion …. It would be the biggest loss in a quarter in corporate history.”

Well, I think Reuters means “in history,” not in “corporate history,” seeing as how not even AIG has had a quarter quite that bad before and seeing as how no single person (i.e., non-corporate person) has ever managed to drop quite that much in 90 days.

What a lost journalist opportunity, too.  How often do you get to report on the the worst thing ever in any category — much less in a category everyone can comprehend, like losing money?

But why quibble when we’re in record territory?  The fun thing about being “too big to fail” in the Bush-Obama era is that you have lots of company!  In fact that’s what Uncle Sam has these days, too, as it gobbles up lots and lots of equity in tanking businesses — lots of “company,” get it?

You don’t get it?

You will.

The coronation

That’s right:  We’re coronating the hitherto unknown M.A. Lamascoloas as i-knight-theepundit king for this gem sent to Glenn Reynolds in response to Insty’s observation that, gee, whaddya know, Chris Matthews is having his doubts about the Black JFK — about six months too late:

Matthews has himself to blame. I want Obama to succeed. I want our country to succeed. I disagree with 85% of Obama’s positions, but I want him and our country to succeed. He can’t do that if he hasn’t been tested. One of the best tests is a campaign. But he didn’t have one of those, he had a coronation. Matthews and his colleagues across the media let our country down. They gave Obama no vetting whatsoever. Now Matthews wants to complain? It’s a little late for that.

How knavish to say such a thing!  Of royalty you have no share; you are no knight, nor gentleman nor decent commoner.

Off with your head, M.A.!

Attorney Ronald D. Coleman