1

"I can't respect a man who, finding himself the butt of a harmless joke, can't endure it with grace and good humor."

Run this one by me.

How was that hotlinking lesson harmless?

And your behavior reflects the One you serve how?

2

How was the hotlinking lesson harmful?

3

He still hasn't fixed Smirking Chimp yet.
About the "correction", I'll not touch that one.
I do hope that we find satisfaction that Max had to resort to quoting the Marxist Eric Fromm. Somehow that principle seems perfectly appropriate.

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

4

Max strikes me as extremely intellectually dishonest. I've read a couple of his posts at the Huffington Post and seen a documentary he did about one of the conservative conventions (CPAC maybe?), and he is all ad hominem, insinutation, and personal attack. It is sad that liberal "journalism" is sinking to the likes of this.

5

John,
HuffPo has been really, really bad this week.
They went after Fred Thompson because of a role he played.

Joe,
I got the racist badge a few weeks ago. GoU reads a lot like Max. I wonder ... ;-)

6

It didn't create the link properly. Hmmm.
http://edschultz.invisionzone.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=26805&view=findpost&p=423941

7

Joe:

His response isn't surprising. No proverb for today, but I do have another quote that's relevent:

"Anyone without a sense of humor is at the mercy of everyone else."
-William Rotsler

Of course, once you reveal you have a low tolerance for being needled, people just go buy needles in bulk. That's why I try to make fun of myself as much as possible - it takes away the easy shots my FRIENDS would take (I mostly igniore my enemies).

And yes- I found it hilarious. My kids (ages 6&8)are currently engrossed in "Trickster" stories (folk tales about Brer Rabbit, Anansi, and other shrewd characters from various cultures). This episode was almost worthy of inclusion in an "interweb" collection.

8

It's a pattern, slapping the racist label on Imus got a lot of traction - expect to see more of it from the Left. Which is sort of funny, seeing that Democrats put a former Klansman third in line to the presidency (President Pro Tempore). The Right will cast the Left as anti-Christian.

The 2008 election will be a terribly accurate indicator of where we are as a people - for better or worse.

9

It's said to see Max taking this so badly and immaturely. His Firefox statement makes me think that he really doesn't know what he did. Hotlinking is stealing (sometimes copyright, always bandwidth resources.) He probably has no idea how you did what you did and honestly believes you hacked into his post.

He's clueless. I mean seriously... not finding a page because of Firefox? Somebody showed him how to insert an image and he has no idea what the code means and probably does that with every image he uses.

As for Jesus, I think Jesus understands. I am not Jesus but Joe, while I have laughed and laughed about those pictures and am very tempted to turn the kitty one into my desktop wallpaper, a kind answer does turn away wrath. I am not turning on you ... AT ALL, but now that you have had fun (thank you :) ) and defended yourself ... maybe that should be it. I don't know how you could extend kindness to Max but if that is something Jesus is concerned about, He will show you what to do next.

I really really hope that doesn't sound preachy at all. I fully agree with all you have done so far, just offering my probably wrong opinion.

10

Joe - you should be careful. If you keep this up, you will be labeled a racist's racist's racist.

11

Why did Tony Perkins buy the mailing list from the Klan?

What is the Council for National Policy?

Does the Family Research Council actually stand for christian values or are they just abusing sincere believers for political gain?

www.thenation.com/doc/20050509/blumenthal
www.thenation.com/doc/20060220/blumenthal

12

JohnW Why did Tony Perkins buy the mailing list from the Klan?

Short answer: He didn't, you gullible troll.

Longer answer: Tony Perkins was the manager of the 1996 U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Woody Jenkins in Louisiana where Impact Media was contracted to make pre-recorded telephone calls for the campaign. In 1999, an unrelated federal investigation uncovered that David Duke had a financial interest in the company, which he did not report to the IRS, resulting in his conviction on federal tax evasion charges. This connection was not known to Perkins until 1999.

Everyone in the Louisiana media knows this yet somehow Max the Journalist missed this fact. Odd, isn't it, considering how accurate he was in his reporting on me?

What is the Council for National Policy?

Its the new, friendlier-sounding name for the Trilateral Commission.

Does the Family Research Council actually stand for christian values or are they just abusing sincere believers for political gain?

We stand for values like honesty, John. Something you appear not to care much about.

13

Joe, you are not really bringing a lot of positive publicity to your organization with all this nonsense and defensive comments.

I think this is great, please keep it up. The truth will always come out-and this is the real source of the irritation with Blumenthal in my opinion.

14

JohnW:
Joe, you are not really bringing a lot of positive publicity to your organization with all this nonsense and defensive comments.

I think this is great, please keep it up. The truth will always come out-and this is the real source of the irritation with Blumenthal in my opinion.

Wow, what a malicious remark. Actually, JohnW, you are bringing lots of positive publicity to FRC by providing opportunities for Joe to show how he deals with people like yourself.

You kid yourself by thinking you're actually contributing with your comments. Everybody already knows that and like myself have decided you aren't a troll worth feeding not so much because of the content of your comments, but because of your poisonous malice as evidenced in your latest comment.

Now I will ignore you until someone else tells me you've apologized.

15

Justin Thibault writes:

It's a pattern, slapping the racist label on Imus got a lot of traction - expect to see more of it from the Left.
___
Either the White House will have to publicly disown the rabid, racist Rush Limbaugh, or, yes, the right will be hounded by the correct term racist. One may have been treated, for example, with the "Barack the Magic Negro" shtick that Rush sang on his show the other day.

16

Giggling,

The way Joe or the FRC deals with people that bring up legitimate issues is negative, not positive. Tell me why I should be apologizing.

I am a christian and I am highly offended that organizations like the FRC and Focus on the Family are the highly visible public face of evangelical christianity in this country. Yesterday, Perkins issues a statement praising President Bush for standing up for the culture of life. Considering the situation in Iraq, this kind of statement is absurd and obnoxious. Also, his trying to spin the fact that the Hate Crimes bill was voted on during the National Day of Prayer was some kind of attack on people of faith is outrageous.

I've been called a troll. I actually first visted this site because I heard it was a christian site. My viewpoints may differ from other posters here who identify themselves as christians, however, I've never come on here just to hurl a bunch of insults. If you have a different point of view-does this make one a troll.

If Joe asks me not to post here, I'll stop. Simple as that.

17

Joe,
Going back to Mr. Perkins, why was their campaign fined $3,000 from the FEC and why would he say something like this...?1?

"We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."

JohnW was right.

18

Russ Going back to Mr. Perkins, why was their campaign fined $3,000 from the FEC

Because the campaign noted on the records that the money was paid to a vendor that eventually paid Impact Media. The FEC, however, requires that campaigns must list where the money ultimately goes, not just to what vendor distributes the funds.

and why would he say something like this...?1?

Perkins has never said anything like that. Why would you claim such a thing, Russ?

19

JohnW,
In conjunction with Joe's answer ...
It's exacly the same as those who recently came down on evangelicals for *supposedly* fear-mongering over HR1592. They confused history, seemingingly intentionally. Rewriting history, recent and past, is a frequently-employed method.

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2007/05/response-to-hr-1592-criticism.html

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2006/10/at-it-again-anit-dobson-anti.html

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2007/03/tell-us-about-vietnam.html

20

I am a christian

Hah!!! Real Christians know how to use the shift-key.

I am highly offended that organizations like the FRC and Focus on the Family are the highly visible public face of evangelical christianity in this country.

FRC and Focus on the Family are the part of the public face of Evangelical Christianity, not "evangelical christianity". Since you are a "christian" and not a Christian, why does this bother you?

I've been called a troll. I actually first visted this site because I heard it was a christian site.

You heard wrong, EO is a Christian site, not a "christian" site.

My viewpoints may differ from other posters here who identify themselves as christians

You are the only person at this website who identifies himself as "christian". Some identify as Buddhists, some as atheists, and some as Christians, but you are the only "christian".

If you have a different point of view-does this make one a troll.

No, but your attempts to steer all topics into discussions about your nemesis, Bush and Iraq do.

21

Joe,

Perkins was speaking at the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC).

"In response to questions by The Vancouver Sun about his connection to an organization identified as a hate group, Perkins acknowledged his speech before the CCC but claimed he could not recall what he said. On the topic of his illegal payment to Duke, Perkins claimed he was unaware of Duke's history of bigotry prior to the payment."

22

Does the FRC embrace the philosophy of "Council of Conservative Citizens" (the successor of the white citizen's council)? Did Mr. Perkins not know much about this organization when he addressed them in 2002?

Mr. Perkin's buddy, Louis "Woody" Jenkins was a leader in the Council for National Policy. What's this group stand for and what are it's goals? Why are they so secretive?

23

Uncengr,

I was wondering when you would get in on this thread-I missed you buddy. Hope all is well.

So I don't use an uppercase "c" when I type the word christian? Big deal.

24

Russ Perkins was speaking at the Louisiana chapter of the Council of
Conservative Citizens (CCC).

I didn’t ask if he had spoken at a CCC event. You claim he said "something like this." I'm asking why you claim that Perkins made that statement.

As for the other quote, I think we have already shows that Max B.'s reading comprehension is untrustworthy. But lest's run through it one more time. Max wrote:

"In response to questions by The Vancouver Sun about his connection to an organization identified as a hate group, Perkins acknowledged his speech before the CCC but claimed he could not recall what he said. On the topic of his illegal payment to Duke, Perkins claimed he was unaware of Duke's history of bigotry prior to the payment."

Now let's look at the actual quote from the VS which Max makes the mistake of providing:

Perkins, asked by The Sun if he knew about the notorious bigot's involvement in Jenkins's 1996 campaign, replied: "Not when the contract was signed."

Max claims that Perkins was unaware of Duke's "history of bigotry." But the Sun quote is not about Duke's bigotry but about his involvement with Woody Jenkins campaign.

Once again, we see how Max the Journalist is unable to follow a simple quote.

25

Joe,

That Perkins spoke at the CCC is irrefutable. If one can believe he didn't know what they are about, well, maybe but if one doubts what they espouse, they can go to the ccc's website.
If you say he didn't say that while he was there, I'll leave it alone. I tried going to the VS's original article and failed, so their is no backing up of what I said he said.

By the way, I wasn't using Max's post as a source. If you say he's dishonest, why would I?

26

Russ If one can believe he didn't know what they are about, well, maybe but if one doubts what they espouse, they can go to the ccc's website.

I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that the group has become a racist organization. The GOP officially denounced the CCC several years and urged all Republican candidates to avoid having anything to do with it.

If you say he didn't say that while he was there, I'll leave it alone.

That line you quoted actually comes from the CCC's Statement of Principles. Perkins would never say anything remotely like that. He is not a racist as anyone who knows him will attest.

By the way, I wasn't using Max's post as a source. If you say he's dishonest, why would I?

The quote came from this article from Media Matters. Sorry, I assumed you knew that Max B. had written that article too.

Max is a virtual one-man slander machine. Anytime you see this meme, he's name is attached somewhere.

27

Joe,
I didn't know any of that and I owe you an apology. Thanks

28

Bene D writes:
>How was that hotlinking lesson harmless?
>And your behavior reflects the One you serve how?

Where is the benefit in allowing someone to continually steal from you? Furthermore, the folks at HuffPo had already been outed for hotlinking once before. Arianna had the decency to apologize for it then; props to her for doing the right thing. Blumenthal saw the wrong graphic there, and remember it was labeled "image thief" so he can't claim ignorance at this point, responded not by apologizing, but by doing it four more times. How does that make him a victim?

Had Joe posted something NSFW, I would say your complaints have merit; people who have been hotlinked frequently replace the images with something really vile to drive the lesson home. Joe's response was very mild, and very funny and not at all unChristian.

29

Christian, noun. Etymology: before the 60s, the word was used to refer to someone who smiled while reading funny things in his Bible, like Elijah asking the priests of Baal whether their god was on the toilet (I Kings 18) or Jesus publicly challenging and challenging the Pharisees (Matthew 23). After the Pink Fuzzy Fluffy Be-Nice culture took hold, 'Christian' lost its original meaning and was solely used to refer to intellectually challenged persons who conjured up forced smiles when insulted, questioned, or slandered.

30

So I don't use an uppercase "c" when I type the word christian? Big deal.

But you capitalize all other proper nouns. What is it about capitalizing Christian that bothers you?

31

"Run this one by me.

How was that hotlinking lesson harmless?

And your behavior reflects the One you serve how?"

Gotta love rebukaholics. They just love to pretend they're the H.S.

32

I'm re-posting the following since it hasn't appeared in the two hours since I originally posted it. Does everyone get a message that your post is being reviewed, or am I getting special treatment?

I don't know if Perkins is a racist, but I think that everyone knows that the CCC has been a white supremacist group from its founding. Some lovely passages from their statement of principles:

"(2) We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people.
We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character.
We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime.
We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."

The wikipedia article on the CCC also demonstrates the many links between the White Citizens' Council and the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Also, note the following from the liveblog at Christianity Today:

"But the following passage from Perkins is curious:

'This bill creates a caste system within American society where those who fit a certain category - ranging from race, disability, gender to sexual orientation and transgendered - would be seen as deserving special legal protection. The bill is most notable for the millions of Americans it leaves out, meaning if you or I are a victim of a violent crime - we matter less.'

"Perkins seems to say that those he represents do not belong to "certain" categories, ranging from race to disability, to sex to sexuality. Does he mean the FRC only represents healthy, straight white males? I hope not."

33

Joe,
Thank you for clearing that up. I have always wondered why Mr. Perkins would purchase the email list of David Duke, and I suspected there was another side to this story.
You do great work with this blog, and I cannot tell you how absurd this statement was:

"How was that hotlinking lesson harmless? And your behavior reflects the One you serve how?"

What a clown.

34

Having someone steal your bandwidth is irritating. Especially if they oppose everything you stand for. However, it is pretty clear that MB did not have the technical nous to understand that what he was doing was stealing. Did someone write to him to explain? Or tell him that the image he was referencing had been changed? If the issue was loss of bandwidth, why not remove the image altogether or replace it with a single pixel? The prank was funny. I laughed. I'm not sure that I would've been laughing if I'd thought that my blog had been hacked though. (It doesn't matter that this was a silly thing to think. In case you have noticed, they've been letting people who don't know their HTML from their elbows write web pages for some time now.) And with Bene D, I can't help wondering if publicly humiliating an enemy is quite what Jesus had in mind. Politically, an excellent move. Very funny, and damaging to an opponent to boot.

But not much of a witness to the Kingdom of one who talked about turning the other cheek, going the extra mile and loving those who hate and persecute us.

35

And for the record, I've been reading EO since it began. I've disagreed with Joe lots of times. But I've never read anything that would make me want to call him racist.

Joe, while I'm here, can you honestly say that you've never suffered from a sense of humour failure and over-reacted to a joke against you?

36

Did anyone at the FRC contact Mr. Blumenthal by email regarding the hotlink at say, "Hi Max, you've hotlinked, here is what that is, would you not do that please?

Did anyone at the FRC contact the sites concerned and say, "Hi Admin, your writer Max is hotlinking, would you fix that please?"

37

Ex-Preacher,
It does it to me periodically. Once in the past 2 days, iirc.

38

"Perkins seems to say that those he represents do not belong to "certain" categories, ranging from race to disability, to sex to sexuality. Does he mean the FRC only represents healthy, straight white males? I hope not."

That seems to be regarding hate-crimes laws which put forth increased penalties for crimes against minorities (or when the victims status is a motive in the crime). There is a valid argument that such laws are a bad idea because they do indeed result in a race for every interest group to include themselves as a new category.

I think, especially considering the integrity of many prosecutors, these laws would be used simply whenever one type of person hurts another. In other words, every time a white guy attacks a black guy it will simply be assumed to be about 'hate' while white on white or black on white or black on black will be assumed to be 'normal' crimes.

Liberals do have a good argument that certain types of hate crimes are worse because they have a chilling effect on a community. For example, vandalizing a house two black people just moved into may have the effect of trying to intimidate any black person from moving into the neighborhood. I would agree this is worse than simple vandalism committed by two kids enjoying mischief. But I think prosecutors already have enough power to ratchett up crimes when they are confronted with exceptionally bad defendants.

Having someone steal your bandwidth is irritating. Especially if they oppose everything you stand for. However, it is pretty clear that MB did not have the technical nous to understand that what he was doing was stealing. Did someone write to him to explain? Or tell him that the image he was referencing had been changed? If the issue was loss of bandwidth, why not remove the image altogether or replace it with a single pixel?

This fake self-righteousness is probably the worse part of the debate. All in the sudden rightists have discovered the worse crime on the planet, 2nd only to child rape, is 'stealing bandwidth'. The fact is bandwidth is dirt cheap & if anything his hotlinking brought more people to the FRC site which is probably what the FRC values more than its bandwidth fees. This is a little like calling someone that fills their waterbottle at your water fountain a water theif.

Rich is right above. He clearly is not very tech savy, which is ok neither am I (I used to know everything about computers back in the days of the Commodore-64, now I know maybe 5% of what there is to know). The first little joke was fine but the second time around it got tiring & now that it has developed into a full blown blog war (granted by a false charge of racism by Max) is just depressing.

39

Bene D writes:
Did anyone at the FRC contact Mr. Blumenthal by email regarding the hotlink at say, "Hi Max, you've hotlinked, here is what that is, would you not do that please?

There's a case to be made (although I disagree with it, because HuffPo has already been caught hotlinking before, and it's Arianna Huffington's responsibility to set guideliness for her writers and police them, not FRC's) that he should have been contacted by email at the first offense. They had their first warning, the first time they hotlinked and Arianna apologized publicly for it.

But having seen the first image swap clearly labeled "image thief" Max had absolutely no excuse for doing it again, and for adding it to three additional sites. That's willful stealing, not ignorance.

40

That's willful stealing, not ignorance.

Then the theft has happened on both sides. Joe and his FRC friends saw that Max was either purposefully using some of their bandwidth or not technologically savy and used that fact to put their messages on Max's website. Now this isn't illegal and it isn't hacking (since they technically swapped files on their computer and not Max's) but in principle there's little difference. They used Max's site to broadcast their message. I'll ask you from a Christian (and even secular) perspective, if someone steals a loaf of your bread are you entitled to steal his hamburgers?

Also I think the original charge that began this mess was somewhat flimsey. Max 'stole' bandwidth by not copying the picture onto his own server. But he certainly didn't steal the image. His original article was about how Christopher Hitchen's went over the top in his latest book attacking religion and how it was hypocritical for the FRC to embrace him so warmly (granted for his position on Iraq, not the book). Clearly the picture of Hitchens being so warmly greeted by FRC members would therefore fall under 'fair use'. Seen from this perspective the image swapping is actually worse. Max wasn't using the FRC web site to send his message to unwitting FRC readers. You had to go to Max's site to see his message while the FRC site remained as its authors wanted. Joe's friends, though, did put their own message on Max's site. Someone visiting Max's site to see his message would have instead been treated to Joe's message.

Now I continue to stand by my assertion this little gag was fine in the beginning as a lighthearted jab but became tired fast. I also continue to disagree with Max's charge that Joe is a racist but before people here get too comfortable throwing around charges of theft they should consider this little tempest in a blog nicely demonstrates that two wrongs do not make a right.

41

Boonton: They used Max's site to broadcast their message.

Not hardly. Using Max's site to broadcast the FRC message would have included actual FRC talking points/information, not mockery of Max himself. As to the image swap being *worse* than repeatedly stealing from your political enemy in order to attack him, well... you're entitled to your own opinion about that, as am I.

I find it interesting that you were fine with this "lighthearted jab" "in the beginning" but when Max escalated it by repeating it and adding it to three additional sites, you seem to believe that the FRC became obligated to sit back and take it. That position makes no sense whatsoever, from either a Christian or a secular perspective.

And let me be clear about one last thing - in principle there is a HUGE difference between swapping out an image on your own server that someone is unethically linking to, and unauthorized and illegal access to another person's server. HUGE. For example, one is a criminal offense according to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the other is not.

42

Oh what the heck... one more thing.

Booton, you put scare quotes around stole as if there were some question that the word is appropriate. Hotlinking is absolutely stealing. Bandwidth is a measurable resource, one for which site owners are charged monthly. Having another site use your bandwidth is taking a commodity you have paid for, without your authorization. That's stealing.

43

pssst.... Joe...hey, Joe...

He did it again.

44

Using Max's site to broadcast the FRC message would have included actual FRC talking points/information, not mockery of Max himself. As to the image swap being *worse* than repeatedly stealing from your political enemy in order to attack him, well... you're entitled to your own opinion about that, as am I.

Now you're just being silly here. The FRC's message, in this limited case, was to make fun of Max. That's fine, nothing wrong with some mockery every now and then. But they used Max's site to do it. No normal person surfing the FRC site would see the mockery of Max (except those people who stumbled upon an article whose basic message was "look, we fooled Max into putting our message mocking him on his own site!!!"). People surfing Max's site, presumably to see Max's messages, saw FRC's instead.

Now in the big scheme of things this is no big deal but it is a type of theft. Let's say a year from now the FRC hires a web designer who just isn't too keen and he hotlinks to some liberal site. The liberals, in order to 'get the FRC', put some hard core adult pictures up. I don't think the reaction is going to be 'well our mistake', or 'well you got us, haha'. I think it would be something like 'how dare they, this is a family site! Children could have seen that! They should have just asked us to take out the hotlink or just replaced it with no image!'..... Knowing how some types have very selective ethics patterns they might even consider getting people to sue for the 'emotional suffering' inflicted on them (before they get tort reform passed, of course).

I find it interesting that you were fine with this "lighthearted jab" "in the beginning" but when Max escalated it by repeating it and adding it to three additional sites, you seem to believe that the FRC became obligated to sit back and take it.

Sit back and take it? The FRC is the one making Max look like a fool! Are we back to the old charge of 'stealing bandwidth' nonsense again? AS has been pointed out if bandwidth was the real concern simply killing the picture file would have solved the problem. I'll grant you for the sake of argument all of the following:

1. Max isn't too bright.
2. Max takes a long time to catch on.
3. Max makes very serious charges but doesn't back them up and doesn't act graceful when called out on it.
4. Max, in general, appears to be annoying.

This is all true but what I find interesting, this being a Christian based blog, is that none of these justify stealing from Max or even mocking him. In fact, since Max is an 'enemy' and a very annoying one, you might say the Christian duty is all the stronger to 'turn the other cheek'. If the FRC had replaced the image with a sign saying "Please don't hotlink, it burns our bandwidth...learn how to post pics without hotlinking!" the point would have been communicated gracefully.

And let me be clear about one last thing - in principle there is a HUGE difference between swapping out an image on your own server that someone is unethically linking to, and unauthorized and illegal access to another person's server. HUGE. For example, one is a criminal offense according to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the other is not.

True but being in compliance with the law is, at best, the starting point of good and ethical behavior. It's not the ending point. Hot linking isn't illegal either. Since you're going to impose standards on us beyond what the law says that works in both directions.

45

Oh good grief. As Wonders points out, he did do it again, with this comment: "The FRC’s Director of Web Communications Joe Carter (hotlinked above)"

Don't tell me he's not knowingly stealing bandwidth. Although it's probably not nearly as much as he stole using HuffPo, given that his site is ranked Flippery Fish in the ecosystem. No traffic data available at the moment. Still, Joe, you really ought to consider sending him a bill.

46

Boonton, you have things exactly backwards. The image swap is not theft in any sense of the word. Stealing bandwidth is not "nonsense" it's stealing a commodity someone else is paying for. To paraphrase you, people surfing Max's site, presumably to see Max's content, saw content FRC was paying for instead. Since FRC was footing the bill, they should have control over what was displayed. And it was entirely Max's choice to make that possible.

Although at this point, I would suggest that Joe modify his htaccess to cut the thief off - put a better lock on the door, as it were. Obviously shame is not an adequate deterrent.

47

Booton, you put scare quotes around stole as if there were some question that the word is appropriate. Hotlinking is absolutely stealing. Bandwidth is a measurable resource, one for which site owners are charged monthly. Having another site use your bandwidth is taking a commodity you have paid for, without your authorization. That's stealing.

Strange that it's not illegal? Why is that?

WEll....

1. This is a strange type of theft. The benefit seems to go entirely to the victim. The thief is letting the victim have control over what is presented on the thief's site.

2. True bandwidth costs money but the law would point out that the 'victim' here has made the file available for public consumption which means they are willing to incur the charges of people looking it...even people who look at it through other people's site.

Let me show you another example which may make you have second thoughts. Suppose after receiving a nice dinner from the Microsoft Cop. Joe puts up a big notice on his site that says

"Only those using Internet Explorer may view this site...you Firefox, Opera and other hippie-flowerchild-communist bizzaro browser users may not downlaoad my site! If you use IE click here to get to my site, otherwise go away!"

I don't think many of the people here would say going to the site anyway is theft. Why not? Going to the site costs Joe bandwidth and if Joe wants his bandwidth going only to Microsoft browsers...why isn't that theft? I believe courts would rule using a reasonableness standard. They would say if this is what Joe wants its up to him to implement the technology to block out all other browsers but he can't go around filing charges on every Firefox person who reads his site. If you don't want to pay for bandwidth it is trivially easy to just block incoming server requests. It is polite to respect reasonable requests such as 'robots don't index this site' or 'don't hotlink' but it isn't and shouldn't be law.

Finally, I'll point out again that the 'joke' also included the false charge that Max was an 'image thief'. Fact is since Max wrote an article about the FRC honoring Hitchens using the pic of them doing so would fall squarely within the fair use doctrine.

48

To paraphrase you, people surfing Max's site, presumably to see Max's content, saw content FRC was paying for instead. Since FRC was footing the bill, they should have control over what was displayed. And it was entirely Max's choice to make that possible.

Really? And it would seem the FRC did have control over that content. Care to explain to a person surfing Max's site why they saw a picture of a dead kitty and "Kitty Poisoner" on it? How about the second incident when the image was used to promote sites that Joe and the FRC support like the National Review or FreeRepublic.com? Who had control over presenting that content to Max's readers? It doesn't seem to have been Max.

Still, Joe, you really ought to consider sending him a bill.

Why doesn't Joe just advertise this blog on Max's site? If he is going to bill Max then it would seem he should give Max access to the image files on the FRC server. After all, what would Max be paying for?

49

(Sigh.) This is getting rather like the old bromide about arguing on the internet. You're going to get the gold, Boonton, because after this post I'm going to let you have the last word so you can embarrass yourself even further.

FRC should, and does, have control over the content. That is right and appropriate. That was my point regarding your argument that FRC was somehow stealing from Max. FRC. Was. Not. Stealing. They were using their own property as they saw fit. Max stole from them, and they turned it around on him so he couldn't benefit from the theft.

As to why it's not illegal, internet law runs far behind the reality, and internet developers and users lobby hard against any law related to the internet. We'd rather have the wild, wild west where if somebody steals our horse, we deal with him ourselves instead of waiting until the circuit-riding judge comes to town. As to what you say the law would say, not to put too fine a point on it, your speech is emitted from your rectum on this one. It's never been addressed in any court I ever heard of, and as a web developer I follow internet law and regulation pretty closely since it potentially can affect my income and livelihood.

Now, go ahead... cross the finish line!

50

I forgot to mention - no kittens were harmed in the making of that photo, btw. It's been making the rounds for years. Kittens fall asleep when their tummies are full.

51

Max stole from them, and they turned it around on him so he couldn't benefit from the theft.

Actually they took it a step beyond using Max's 'theft' or 'mistake' to steal space on his site. Do you know how silly you sound telling us that the FRC putting images advertising their favorite sites on Max's blog is somehow them being victimized by Max?

As to why it's not illegal, internet law runs far behind the reality, and internet developers and users lobby hard against any law related to the internet.

Err, newsflash lady, the 90's are over. Get used to it. The whole free-wheeling anything goes for 'citizens of the net' is long gone. There's plenty of laws on the Internet regarding hacking, DOS attacks, intellectual property rights and so on and the law regarding fair use of images is much older. Tell the former CEO of Napster how

The reason there's no law against hotlinking isn't because those hip anarchist types at the FRC, Microsoft, Google and Yahoo just don't like rules. It's because if you make data on your server available for public consumption you are responsible for the bandwidth. You have no more inherent right to tell other sites not to hotlink to you than you have to tell individual users they may not use Google Reader to look at your site or Firefox. If you want to restrict access to your files then do so.

We'd rather have the wild, wild west where if somebody steals our horse, we deal with him ourselves instead of waiting until the circuit-riding judge comes to town.

Which would have been accomplished by simply removing the image, changing it to a pixil and so on. Instead the tables were turned by taking something from Max, 'real estate' on his blog. That was almost certainly more valuable than the pennies of bandwidth the FRC incurred for the grand 'image theft'. I'll ask a few questions of you and you can tell me if you want to take the last word or not:

1. Suppose Max's site was high traffic and instead of putting a funny image up they sold a banner ad for $1,000? If Max still the thief? If so then why is the $1,000 check made out to the FRC?

I didn't really pay attention to the content of Joe's 2nd 'joke' but now that I look at it more carefully it seems to be more and more out of the bounds of good taste. At least the first 'joke' was a pointed jab at him to be more polite. The second was using his site to advertise your own sites. Are we next going to start selling the space on ebay?

2. I noticed you missed my hypothetical question on if the reverse happened. If the FRC accidently or purposefully hotlinked to a liberal site and they 'got 'em' by swapping the image with some hard core adult one would this be as funny then?

It's never been addressed in any court I ever heard of, and as a web developer I follow internet law and regulation pretty closely since it potentially can affect my income and livelihood.

Indeed, if Max had hired you to edit the html of his blog he would be justified in being angry at you for leaving a 'back door' open so the FRC could turn his own site against him. Final word here, the only victim in this is Max. The question is; was he the victim of his own stupidity/arrogance/stubbornness or was the victim of the FRC pushing their 'joke' a bit too far? The answer seems to be a bit of both.

52

Laura:

Boonton is not someone to argue with. He will frustrate you to no end. He writes incredibly long posts which disguise the fact that he is defending against something which you never accused him of. Often he argues against something which you didn't say. The strawman is his favorite device. It's hard to imagine that someone could spend so much time writing at a website that he so vehemently disagrees with. He has typed many more words at this post than any other poster, by far, and he disagrees with all of us who generally agree with Joe Carter. He can get quite abusive sometimes, but not nearly as bad as some. I don't really understand why he keeps coming back here, because he obviously thinks we're wrong about everything. I've said it before, but he reminds me of Pudd'nhead Wilson's contrarian who didn't like coal because there were too many prehistoric toads in it.

He also believes at least two incredible things:

1. According to his research (oh, yeah, he always knows just a little more than everyone else) American education is much better than everyone says it is

AND

2. that Bill Clinton's problem was that he was too honest.

I think he's a pretty bright guy, but an argument with Boonton can be a long trip down the rabbit hole.

53

Just when you think Boonton can't top himself with another incredible howler there's this one to add to my list above:

3. Final word here, the only victim in this is Max.

Sounds like something from the rabbit hole, doesn't it?

54

jd, yes, that's about right. That's why I stepped back - I knew he'd go for the gold. ;-)

55

Often he argues against something which you didn't say. The strawman is his favorite device.

jd,

Feel free to point it out when I use a strawman. I don't think I did here but I'd be happy to hear your actual arguments other than some vague sense of frustration you feel because I write long posts you disagree with.

It's hard to imagine that someone could spend so much time writing at a website that he so vehemently disagrees with.

Not all of us require an echo chamber. Perhaps you should invest in more mirrors if you need the reassurance that you are surrounded by 100% agreement rather than just 98%.

I don't really understand why he keeps coming back here, because he obviously thinks we're wrong about everything.

Well I did think the joke was kind of funny the first time around. Joe also got many good movies right on the last overrated/underrated post he did. You guys do get some things right on rare occassions so it's good to observe. Sorta like seeing that comet that only comes around once every few hundred years.

1. According to his research (oh, yeah, he always knows just a little more than everyone else) American education is much better than everyone says it is

Well it is pretty easy to declare that American education is horrible, the worst in the world etc. It seems to be pretty safe to say reality is probably a bit less dramatic than the doomsayers say. When that topic came up I don't recall you actually saying why this is such an incredible observation. It seems like you're easily shocked that anyone can disagree with you.

2. that Bill Clinton's problem was that he was too honest.

Actually I said that Clinton was a bad liar because everyone said he was a liar. If everyone knows you tell lies then you're a poor liar. I'm sorry if this insight is a little bit smarter than you're able to handle..... Don't blame me if you insist on keeping the bar set low.

3. Final word here, the only victim in this is Max.

Sounds like something from the rabbit hole, doesn't it?

Yea, Max started his week hoping to trash the FRC with some devasting articles blasting them. In his first attempt he ends up with a picture making fun of him on his own web site. In his second attempt he ends up with his own website advertising pro-FRC sites. Now to me this doesn't look like the FRC is a victim.

I was more than willing to meet you guys halfway when I pointed out that Max is annoying, lays down charges he can't support and seems to be a guy that is....honestly just plain lacking maturity. It wasn't enough, though, to jab him with the first joke and move on from there. It was your 'side' that insited on continuing this spectical by pushing the joke beyond the limits of being either original or funny. It was 'your side' that decided to get self-righteous with pompous talk about Max being a thief, what type of 'penalty' he needed to pay, and painting the FRC as some type of poor victim of Max's reign of bandwidth theft.

We've gone through 3 entries on this blog about this already jd, and they weren't written by me.

56

Look, if you play in the pig-sty there's gonna be mud on you.

I don't work for a guy who used the Klan's rolodex.

57

"Not when the contract was signed."

You know that this ain't the whole story.

Also, how could Perkins not know that the CCC was racist?

And then there's that thing about miscegenation that he brought up at a "Justice Sunday" talk. I think it was the one that featured Tom DeLay, the guy who thought slavery in US Pacific islands wasn't such a bad thing.

Really Carter the real reason you don't like Blumenthal is that he's shining a light on the cockroaches...like the author of that bit in that Panda's Thumb post he referenced.

58

Wow, Max really has the goods on Perkins and Duke (from Max's blog from the FEC):

6. After the 1996 primary election in Louisiana, David Duke contacted Woody Jenkins and recommended that he use the services of a computerized phone bank system run by Impact Mail. Jenkins purchased several rounds of calls from Impact Mail. After the first round of calls, Jenkins began hearing complaints that Duke’s name would appear on the caller ID when a phone bank message would arrive. At that point, Jenkins tried to cancel the transaction but was nable to because Tony Perkins, his campaign manager, had signed a contract with Impact Mail. Subsequently, Jenkins instructed Perkins to put a stop payment on the check issued to Impact Mail and directed that Impact Mail be paid through Courtney Communications, the campaign's media finn. The Jenkins Committee issued three 27,500 checks to Courtney. Courtney, in turn, made out three checks in the same amount to Impact Mail. The treasurer of record, Michael A. Tham, states that he was unaware of the specific transactions with Impact Mail when he entered the information on the disclosure report; In the case of the first check, Mr. Tham simply assumed it was for TV advertising.

So evidently Perkins isn't being honest.

I'm sure that if this wasn't the case, Perkins could sue Blumenthal, but given that this is now part of the public record, it's kind of hard for Perkins to deny it other than to say, "Who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"

59

Christopher Hitchen hanging out at the FRC in Fall 2005 and everyone's happy as clams...

However, at Justice Sunday II, Hitchens is singled out as an anti-catholic bigot. Donahue at Justice Sunday II in August 2005:

.”..And let’s see, who are the people going after John Roberts? It’s not evangelicals,.... [it is]Christopher Hitchens, that atheist, anti-Catholic bigot....”

[video at www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.982829/k.A607/VIDEO_Bill_Donohue.htm]

And just a few months earlier, Hitchens slams people like our friends at the FRC in an article entitled, “Why I’m Rooting Against the Religious Right.” in the Wall Street Journal, May 5, 2005:

“I hope and believe that, by identifying itself with ‘faith’ in general and the Ten Commandments in particular, a runaway element in the Republican leadership has made a career-ending mistake. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’ I am neither a Republican nor a Christian and I don’t propose that there is a mythical Nazarene. The need of the hour is for some senior members of the party of Lincoln to disown and condemn the creeping and creepy movement to impose Christian orthodoxy on a free and pluralist and secular Republic.” When Hitchens visited the FRC, was this article discussed?

Wow, let's see...Hitchens didn't know about what was going on at Justice Sunday II and the folks at FRC didn't know that Hitchens wrote an article saying he wanted their organization to fail? Politics makes for some strange bedfellows doesn't it? What's next, Michael Moore over for tea?

60

Boonton wrote: "This fake self-righteousness is probably the worse part of the debate. All in the sudden rightists have discovered the worse crime on the planet, 2nd only to child rape, is 'stealing bandwidth'."
A charge of self-righteousness I can live with. I'm as prone to that as the next person (though on this occasion I don't think it is deserved - after all, in comment 44 you make precisely the same point as I did).

But Rightist?! That's a slander!

61

Wow, let's see...Hitchens didn't know about what was going on at Justice Sunday II and the folks at FRC didn't know that Hitchens wrote an article saying he wanted their organization to fail? Politics makes for some strange bedfellows doesn't it? What's next, Michael Moore over for tea?

That's one way to look at it. Another way, though, is to say that the FRC is being tolerant here. They aren't insisting that everyone they listen to be a Bible-thumping Christian....in fact, they will even listen to an atheist thumping whatever they thump when they like his arguments. In this case they agree with Hitchens on Iraq.

I also disagree with the charge that Hitchens is a bigot. He mounted arguments against Mother Teressa & the Catholic Church and religion in general. You're free to say he is wrong, that he is too much of a zealot but simply disagree doesn't make him a bigot.

62

Boonton wrote:

Actually I said that Clinton was a bad liar because everyone said he was a liar. If everyone knows you tell lies then you're a poor liar. I'm sorry if this insight is a little bit smarter than you're able to handle..... Don't blame me if you insist on keeping the bar set low.

At least you didn't respond with your typical HMM...err...AHH...intros, which sound like some old Commodore 64 buzzing away. But your post is typically arrogant. However, actually you DID say that Clinton was too honest. I don't forget howlers like that.

What is especially delicious is that rather than admit you've said something loopy, you try to explain it to us because you think we just didn't understand you the first time.

63

Jd,
1. According to his research (oh, yeah, he always knows just a little more than everyone else) American education is much better than everyone says it is.

He couldn't be more right. There is a huge money making scheme in educational testing. Why els would the Bush fam be involved?

64

They like Hitchens because of his politics even though Hitchens totally denounces the whole purpose of the FRC in the Wall Street Journal a few months before he visits them in 2005.

The whole thing just reveals their Leo Strauss type of philosophy-use religion when its convenient for political gain with out really believing anything.

65

HMM...err...AHH...intros, which sound like some old Commodore 64 buzzing away. But your post is typically arrogant. However, actually you DID say that Clinton was too honest. I don't forget howlers like that.

Actually I don't think I said that. I might have said he was more honest than Bush or many of his critics but I really don't think I said he was honest. If I did please show me where I said it because I'd love to see it and the context.

BTW, I once had a Commodore 64 and later a Commodore 128. One great computer for its time. I sometimes wish I could still hear that buzzing sound.

What is especially delicious is that rather than admit you've said something loopy, you try to explain it to us...

Look if I said it I'd have no problem saying I said it. I don't think I did. You complain that I write long posts but you like tossing in everything but the kitchen sink in your attacks. Why exactly are we discussing the American education system and Clinton's honesty in this thread about hotlinking, Max and his racism charge? Because you brought them into the discussion.

He couldn't be more right. There is a huge money making scheme in educational testing. Why els would the Bush fam be involved?

Thanks Russ, if American education was so bad then why are American workers the most productive in the world? Every time some flawed test is used to feed the doomsday crowd the results are quite predictable....students in Japan & Europe and sometimes even Asia and Africa are better than US students. Yet we don't send kids to school so they can score high on tests. We want them to be able to have successful careers and be able to manage their lives. The proof's in the pudding, if we are such a dismal failure at education we'd all be failures at making a living yet the fact is few people around the world are even able to hold a candle to us in that dept.

There is a more depressing fact here too...education appears to be overrated. Developing countries that invest in education (even those that don't waste much of the money) do not seem to catch the magic growth train any quicker. I think education is something where diminishing returns sets in very quickly. We might even be overinvested in education but I know that's an unorthodox opinion that will be just too much for fellows like jd to bear hearing.

66

I think education is something where diminishing returns sets in very quickly. We might even be overinvested in education but I know that's an unorthodox opinion that will be just too much for fellows like jd to bear hearing.

Surprisingly, I agree. I think a large part of it is an over reliance on technology, especially during a student's early years. I would go so far as to say that incorporating computers and such prior to junior high school may be detrimental to learning, especially in math and science.

67

Possibly but when I say overinvested I mean it literally. I was taught advanced statistics and calculus. The only use I've derived from them is a little bit of income tutoring, some personal enjoyment using their insights in making arguments in places like this, and some personal reading about their use in real life.

Now there's lots of people like me who have taken these classes as requirements and hardly utilized the stuff. Is there a benefit to us having that experience? Yes, of course. But the real question would be is the benefit greater than the next best thing that could have been done with that time and energy.

There are many situations where I think a year or two in the working world might be a better investment for everyone concerned. Or even just putting the $3,000 for those credits in a savings account to be tapped later to buy a car or help on a house downpayment...whatever.

It's a really tricky economic question because education is not like buying a delievery truck. You can easily measure the trucks return by comparing its revenue to costs. Education, though, has both a return in how it benefits you on the job but also a personal return in how it impacts your life. Maybe your college got you that CPA you need but what about fraternity life that you enjoyed so much? (Even there, since you're doing some networking you can't just compute its cost as entirely a personal benefit).

I think education, though, is like an overvalued stock. Everyone buys into it because they think it is cool and trendy (like Google) or just a good thing (like Google?). Go too much with this and you push beyond diminishing returns. Education is a good thing, but so is work and so is just goofing off. Everything in moderation...

68

Russ:

80% of NCLB was written under Clinton and it was written by 2 democrats (who, despite many wise requests from good people, are refusing to fix its worst parts as it now up for renewal). Ted Kennedy is one of the people who wrote it and I think the other is Reid, but I'm not totally sure.

If the left wants to keep blaming the right for NCLB, then we would see the proof of a Dem controlled congress fixing it this year.

mmjd

69

I'm not sure I agree with the objections to the NCLB. From what I understand it simply requires that schools test and then publish the results so parents and others can know them. That's it. It doesn't require schools to keep kids behind or anything. There probably is too much standardized testing but you need some objective observations to pin point the problem schools.

Anyway who wrote the bill is irrelevant. This was something supported, pushed and now gushed over by the Bush administration. It's pretty implausible to call it a Democratic bill when it was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by the Republican President.

70

Irrelevant? Doesn't seem irrelevant to me. I've been doing some googling on this and I did find that T Kennedy sponsored the bill originally.

And like I said, the blame for NCLB, if not already, should be shifted to BOTH parties. It is up for reauthorization. My superintendent met with a bunch of Dem's in Washington and they all said they are not interested in changing it.

You can call it Bush's baby if you want. But it looks like it will be everyone's teenager.

mmjd

71

Don't worry Joe, I went to Max's website and put in a good word for you.

-You are still a dork though.

72

ok mathmanjd, but why are we against the bill again?