Duck, duck, duck… traceroute!

I still have my gambling story followup to post, and I have an essay brewing on W and the State of the Union, but that’ll wait until I have more available bandwidth.

A wonderful site found today on the history of ping, which is a Unix command to see if another computer on the Internet is minimally responsive. It’s also the title of a wonderful children’s book which was my fave back in 1972. The ping page includes a review of the children’s book as if it were an allegory for the Unix command, not to be missed, and a humorous anecdote about a Unix manager who bought the book by mistake.

Bally’s: Where the Stupid People Play

A series of surreal experiences during a night gambling in Atlantic City.

First, a lengthy introduction

I have several upstanding friends who are rather dismissive of my favorite vice, which is to walk into a brightly lit casino and spend a long evening in an orgy of cigarettes, coffee, and gambling. One comment I remember particularly from someone who is generally a wise counsellor advised, “Gambling is a tax on the mathematically uneducated.”

Now, the true picture is a bit more complicated than that. You can get an edge over the other players at a poker table which exceeds the rake (the money that the casino takes out of each pot), and you can get a mathematical edge at blackjack through card-counting, both statistically provable. And there are craps games where the casino’s edge on you is insignificant (in the hundreths of a percent).

On the other hand, at most other casino games, you’re officially Just Another Schmuck. In roughly ascending order of stupidity, there’s nothing you can do to play “well” against a casino in pai gow poker, carribean stud poker, roulette, slots, sic bo, the big wheel, or keno. In all of these games you can play badly and make things worse, but you can’t play well and make things even. (And the worst games of all are state-run lotteries, which have a 50% edge for the state or greater; these are the same states that regulate private companies to pay better odds.)

An interesting side note on blackjack. With card counting, you can consistently get about a 1-2% edge on the “house”, which is our lingo for the casino. Perfect strategy without counting gives an edge of 2-4% to the house. The way most people play, though, the house has an edge of 30%.

Likewise with craps, perfect strategy gives the casino an edge of less than 1%, depending on the rules variations you’re playing. But the way most people play, the house edge is closer to 20%. This is why running a casino is a license to print money; casinos make more money than the odds would indicate, because people are too blinking stupid to play the games in their own favor.

Slot machines, 21st-century style

Now, I prefer playing craps and blackjack, but most of my gambling is in Atlantic City, where the minimum bet is $5. At those stakes, you can burn $200 at craps in less than 15 minutes, and at blackjack in less than an hour. This is always true even if you’re a good player; you can work out your odds over millions of dice throws or hands, but you can’t do diddly about the variance. This means that even though you know how you’ll do over the long run, you’ll never predict what happens in the short run; coin-flipping is an even game, but you can still lose 50 flips in a row.

So when I’m in A.C. with about a hundred bucks to play with, I usually play slots, even though the edge is 13%, far greater than the table games of craps and blackjack. (Slots at higher stakes are less tilted against you.) Now, if you’re not a gambler, what you’re picturing when I say slots is probably not what’s really there. Sure, there are still the three-reel machines with cherries, but the big thing in slots these days are video slots: video games that look like slot machines.

A key point about these slots is that, since they’re video games at heart, they almost always have what’s known as the “second-screen bonus”. That means that if you get some combination on the reels, the reels go away and you get some secondary game. Most slots are set up so that the bonus is really where the payback is.

The thing about table games is that if you don’t get taught by an expert, you’re probably not going to figure out optimum play strategy on your own. It took a Ph.D. mathematician, Edward Thorpe, to invent card counting. Over on the craps felt, optimum strategy requires you to ignore 95% of the bets on the table, but variance is going to make it nearly impossible for you to intuit this.

Slots, though, slots are simple. Put in your money, push the button, see what happens. There’s no such thing as being skilled at slots (with one notable exception, which I’ll write about tomorrow). It takes a special brand of idiot to be bad at slots.

Which sets the stage for the story.

Meet the idiots

So Mom and I are off on one of our gambling bonding experiences; after dropping $20 a piece on something called Wacky Fruits (don’t ask), we hit some video poker machines.

Mom tosses in a $10, hits a button to get her hand, but instead the machine makes a winning noise, and we see that her $10 has somehow become $17.50. This is before she’s played a hand, mind you.

The previous player had gotten up and walked away while the screen showed a winning hand. Press the button, boom, win 30 quarters. Someone had missed the “press the button” part.

Now, it’s not too uncommon to wander a casino and be able to take money that other people left behind. Here you’ll find a few bucks left in the tray; there you’ll see a dozen credits left in a machine. Once in a great while, on a slot machine which pays its bonus after N number of spins, you’ll see a machine which is guaranteed to pay you X dollars after you bet a fraction of X. (The two machines I know of which do this are Boom! and a variant of Sevens Wild that I’ve only seen in Vegas.) So Mom’s experience isn’t that rare.

But this is the first time I’ve seen it happen twice in one night.

On the way out an hour or so later, we pass by a machine where a woman is just sitting down. And lo and behold, it’s just sitting there, waiting to play its second-screen bonus. The previous player—nowhere in sight—hadn’t realized that they were about to win some money, got up, and walked away. This on a bonus screen that’s usually good for $20-30, and potentially can pay thousands of dollars.

I tell Mom to hang out for a minute. ‘Cause I know what’s about to happen, and I think it’s going to result in free money. When you’re in the middle of a spin, you can’t put money in a machine. This machine’s in the middle of a spin, a winning one. The woman doesn’t realize this, and she’s going to think it’s broken.

She tries to put in a twenty. No response. She tries a different twenty. Nothing. Helpful woman to her left leans over to assist, nothing happens. Both manage to miss the LCD screen just above eye level saying, “Play your bonus!”, the LED readout on the bottom left saying, “Hit the big key to play your bonus!”, and the big key itself which is dead smack center on front of the machine and glowing like a flashlight.

Woman gets up to another machine, breaks her twenty into quarters, comes back and tries to put quarters in the machine, which fall into the tray. (Middle of a game, can’t put in money.) Finally, faced with an obviously broken machine, she moves to a different slot. I walk up, and say (for the sake of the story I might have to tell security later), “Are you finished with this machine?” Response: “It’s broken, I can’t get it to work.”

So I sit down, put three quarters in for show (knowing they’ll just clunk to the bottom of the tray), hit the big blinking key, and win 144 quarters. A few more spins to show helpful woman, now to my left, that I “got it to work”, and walked away with a free bucket of quarters.

A word on my gambling ethos

I’ll hasten to add, if I see anyone put in their money and start to walk away from a bonus screen, I stop them and tell them, “you won, don’t leave!” I also give back craps bets to the dealers when they overpay me, and I’ve told blackjack dealers who tried to pay my 22 that they’ve miscounted. You don’t deliberately try to screw the other players, and I think it’s bad karma to cheat the house when the dealers make a mistake.

This is a different case; here’s someone who didn’t make the bet that resulted in the win, and apparently had the synaptic activity of a gnat. From the moment she sat down I had a good idea of the drama that was to unfold, and if her handbag had hit the gigantic flashlight button, she’d have found herself the happy recipient of some free money, as my mother had. But if you’re going to walk away from a machine you’ve just won on (player #1, whom I never saw), and you’re going to call a machine broken because it’s waiting to pay you, then I for one see nothing wrong with being the guy who gets paid.

The thing that never ceases to amaze me about casinos is how little the people there know about the games they’re playing. The casinos rig the games so they always win, even against players doing their best. (The exception to this is blackjack, but most casinos use anti-counting techniques to dilute the counter’s edge. Casinos themselves didn’t know counting was possible when they started offering the game.) But most players don’t know there’s a best way to play. They might as well just hand their wallets to the bellhop and go eat their free dinner.

I can understand that most people might not have the statistical background you need to learn why you never split 10s. But I’ve never seen a blackjack player get up and leave his chips on the table.

Tomorrow, the slot machine that breaks all the rules.

Disclaimers first, then the news

Before I post this, I’ll issue a few disclaimers:

  1. George W. Bush is not responsible for what his family says.
  2. Saudi Arabian newspapers are not exactly known for their commitment to veracity.

Still, doesn’t the following just seem, well, creepy?

Win American hearts through sustained lobbying: Neil Bush

>JEDDAH, 22 January—Neil Bush, brother of US President George Bush, said here yesterday that the distorted image of the Arab world could be removed through the sustained lobbying of US politicians.

>”The US media campaign against the interests of Arabs and Muslims and the American public opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be influenced through a sustained lobbying and PR effort,” Bush, chairman and chief executive officer of Ignite! Inc., said in his keynote address on the concluding day of the three-day Jeddah Economic Forum at Hilton Hotel here.

>The support for Israel had been strong for many years because of the strong public opinion in its favor and continuous lobbying by Israeli supporters among politicians. After all, politicians shape policies based on public opinion, he said.

Finally, a decent explanation of .NET

Charles Wiltgen has written the first hype free explanation of .NET that I’ve ever seen, and it’s surprisingly positive, explaining things that I was still hazy on. (Haziness generally caused by the MS marketing machine.)

The article is aimed for the Mac OS tech-savvy, with lines like, “C# is to .NET as Objective-C is to Cocoa.” I think it’ll be clear in the non-technical points, but if there are any analogies you want to clear up, feel free to email me.

Longish essay coming up shortly on the new Microsoft security strategy. I wrote this yesterday, but it was eaten by an Internet glitch and I haven’t had the heart to rewrite it yet.

Update, April 12, 2002: Joel Spolsky, a programmer who generally really knows what he’s talking about, says that .NET is just about the greatest thing since sliced bread.

SatireWire: Microsoft to split into software and bug-fix companies

SURPRISE SETTLEMENT EVENLY SPLITS MICROSOFT

> Under the agreement, Microsoft will no longer issue patches, which Gates said explains the recent five-day outage at Microsoft’s upgrade site. “That was planned,” he said. “It was a test of the Microsoft No Patch Access system. Went perfectly. No one was able to download anything.”

>One Reuters reporter, meanwhile, questioned the long-term viability of Patchsoft. “This seems like a logical split right now, but what if Microsoft’s products improve to the extent that patches are needed less frequently, or perhaps not at all?” she asked.

>”I’m sorry, I can only respond to serious questions,” Blumenthal answered.

I need your help on this site’s speed.

I’ve been troubleshooting a problem over the weekend with the speed of this site. I’m getting conflicting information as to whether the problem is with my site provider (i.e., everyone sees it), or with my home ISP (i.e., it’s just me).

So I’d appreciate it if you’d click that Reply button and let me know whether this site seems fast/medium/slow compared to the other sites you visit, and what kind of connection you use. (Something like, “Your site came up normally and I’m using an AOL dial
-up”, or “Your site came up slowly and I’m on Verizon DSL.”)

Thanks in advance to anyone who replies.

Jeff [at] jeffporten.com is “unforgettable”.

I don’t mean to make this become “all spam reports, all the time”, but I found this in my almost-never-checked dialup email box today and thought it was wonderful.

    Chances are you’ll switch ISPs in the next year. Or possibly change jobs.

    This means yet another e-mail address and the inconvenience of notifying all your personal and business contacts. And free e-mail account providers, including Yahoo and Hotmail, brand themselves, not you or your business! Your e-mail address should be a reflection of you.

    Avoid the hassle, and always stand out with your own personalized e-mail address: Jeff [at] JeffPorten.com Now that’s unforgettable!

    Click here to get Jeff [at] JeffPorten.com now.

Nice to know someone else thinks so.

DotBizToday is run by scumbags

More spam over the transom today, this time flogging the new .biz domain space and yet another company offering to register it for me, as if I couldn’t do it myself for nine bucks.

So I do whatever I do when I get spam, which is to open up the Internet email headers, track down their Internet service providers, and let them know which of their users is violating Terms of Service and must be instantly eradicated. Copies go off to the FTC for good measure, who occasionally bring out the big guns.

So I’m doing that for these new guys, tracking down their domain, when I come across this tidbit in the WHOIS database:


    dotbiztoday.com
    Request: dotbiztoday.com
    Internet Domain Registrars WHOIS Server v.1.5

    Registrant:
    Dot Biz Today
    629 - 465 NE 181st Avenue
    Portland, Or 97230
    US
    (PH) 670-3611

    Registration Date: 11-Sep-2001 14:03:28
    Expiration Date: 11-Sep-2002 11:03:27

These guys are on the West Coast, as is their registrar (I checked), so at somewhere between 2:03 PM and 5:03 PM Eastern Time on September 11th, these guys were busily working on setting their new spamming business.

Now maybe you’re thinking, “hey, maybe they just hadn’t heard yet,” to which I remind you, these people were on the Internet.

You’ve got to be a pretty feculent life form to send spam, but these guys took it to a whole new level.

Apple’s mail system goes a bit nuts

Just received the following e-mail message from Apple, three times:


    From: System Attendant

    To: “Washington, D.C. Upcoming Events”

    Subject: ScanMail Message: To Recipient virus found and action taken.

    Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:27:30 -0500

    ScanMail for Microsoft Exchange has detected virus-infected attachment(s).

    Sender = Apple Events
    Recipient(s) =Virginia-out@seminar.apple.com; Maryland-out@seminar.apple.com; WashingtonDC-out@seminar.apple.com; WestVirginia-out@seminar.apple.com; Delaware-out@seminar.apple.com; Pennsylvania-out@seminar.apple.com; Maine-out@seminar.apple.com; Massachusetts-out@seminar.apple.com; NewHampshire-out@seminar.apple.com; RhodeIsland-out@seminar.apple.com; Vermont-out@seminar.apple.com; NorthernCalifornia-out@list.seminars.apple.com; Nevada-out@seminar.apple.com; Idaho-out@seminar.apple.com; Wyoming-out@seminar.apple.com; Montana-out@seminar.apple.com; Oregon-out@seminar.apple.com; Washington-out@seminar.apple.com; Alaska-out@seminar.apple.com; Utah-out@seminar.apple.com; NewYork-out@seminar.apple.com; NewYorkCity-out@seminar.apple.com; NewJersey-out@seminar.apple.com; Connecticut-out@seminar.apple.com; Texas-out@seminar.apple.com; Oklah@apple.com

    Subject = Trade Show: Seybold New York-Apple Events
    Scanning Time = 01/18/2002 10:27:29

    Action on virus found:
    The attachment ATT45294.ATT matched file blocking settings. ScanMail has Moved it. The attachment was moved to
    C:\PROGRA~1\Trend\Smex\Alert\ATT452943c484cf02d.ATT_.

    Warning to recipient. ScanMail detected a virus in an email attachment.

    —————————————————————————

    Apple values its relationship with you.

    This message is being sent to you as a result of your request to the Apple Seminars & Event email notification system.

    This subscription was generated either by selecting “YES” for notice of upcoming events on your Event registration form or by direct request from the listserve.

    If you wish to unsubscribe from this service visit: http://asp-web.info.apple.com/html/listserve.html

    We’re sorry that we are unable to reply to e-mail messages.


I had gotten a legitimate message from them earlier in the day that did NOT have the ATT45294.ATT file attached, so I have no idea why the Chicago Daily Herald decided that these were the places to send this announcement to. The weird bit, though, is that these are announcement-only lists, so a) I shouldn’t be getting these messages, and b) I definitely shouldn’t be able to see what appears to be the “secret email addresses” that Apple apparently uses to send out announcements, all of which are plastered in the email. (And which I’ve modified in this posting, just in case Apple doesn’t get this fixed before a zillion spammers get their hands on them.)

In any case, a Windows virus scanner finding a virus in an email from Apple—possibly by mistake, as my copies don’t have that file—and then blasting recipient-only messages to entire mailing list that should be closed off, well, that was rich even before Apple signed off by telling me how much they value our relationship.

Ten bucks says that they’re not using LetterRip, the premier mailing list tool for the Mac, to manage these lists, ’cause with that software it’s just easy to set up your security.

Double-take at the Washington Post web site

Now that text advertisements are the Next Big Thing on the web, I was brought up short wondering if I was seeing a brilliant new campaign when I ran across the following on the Washington Post site this morning; note the bit highlighted in yellow.

In case that’s too small to read, that says, “Error in Ad Code Arguments. Found Comment Tags. Illegal Format.”

Just someone’s poor programming sticking out of their waistband.

War on terror leading to war on people

Human Rights Watch has released their World Report 2002, a state of the world report on human rights.

None too surprisingly, the report finds that “the anti-terror campaign led by the United States is inspiring opportunistic attacks on civil liberties around the world.”

“Terrorists believe that anything goes in the name of their cause,” said Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch. “The fight against terror must not buy into that logic. Human rights principles must not be compromised in the name of any cause.”

The entire report is 670 pages, so for a smaller investment of your time, watch this 3 1/2 minute video from the BBC.

Irrelevant note: the sharp-eyed will note that BBC broadcasts are in high-definition, using a widescreen aspect ratio.

Illuminati in training

The Red Herring chimes in with a fascinating article about the Carlyle Group, an international investment fund with major interests in the defense industry and powerful contacts in global governments, through a heavy-hitter list that includes George H.W. Bush, John Major, and until recently the estranged family of Osama bin Laden.

[I]t is hard to ignore the fact that Osama bin Laden’s family members, who renounced their son ten years ago, stood to gain financially from the war being waged against him until late October, when public criticism of the relationship forced them to liquidate their holdings in the firm. Or consider that U.S. president George W. Bush is in a position to make budgetary decisions that could pad his father’s bank account.

Anchordesk is taking the Pepsi Challenge

David Coursey, head honcho at AnchorDesk, is switching to the Mac for a month to report on what a Wintel user would see if they follow the path that Apple is pushing for.

What makes this interesting is that AnchorDesk is frequently seen as being anti-Mac, publishing articles that contain minor mistakes about the platform, and generally falling for the Windows media hype hook, line, and sinker. But that’s the opinion of Mac fanatics, and we’re generally discounted by the outside world.

It seems that Coursey is going to be using a G3 processor Mac that’s just lying around, which tilts the game in Wintel’s favor slightly. All new Mac desktops run at least a G4 processor, the next generation up; only the iBooks still ship with G3s. Mac OS X likes a lot of RAM and eats a lot of processor power, and most of the complaints about OS X on the Mac lists come from people running older hardware.

Still, an interesting development.

Microsoft updates update

The Register continues coverage on the Microsoft updates issue, with some analysis on what’s going on and some posted workarounds for people who want to patch their security holes sooner rather than later.

Microsoft’s problems with the Windows Update site are more complex and widespread than first appeared. Users have been having sporadic problems accessing Windows Update for some days now, but “internal DNS server problems” have meant that Microsoft staff haven’t been able to get to numerous sites from the company’s internal network.

Addendum, 10:18 AM: The Register also covers an interesting lawsuit by Microsoft against Lindows.com, developers of software to run Windows software under Linux. There’s also a story on a very simple workaround that entirely defeats Microsoft Internet Explorer privacy settings. And Wired reports on yet another IE security hole, which can’t be fixed thanks to the issues with the updater site.

Cool toy on the horizon

This looks like a contender for the next big thing.

The device will surf the Web, send and receive e-mail and, with an extra attachment, shoot digital photos, which can then be sent by e-mail. It’s also a mobile phone. Danger will make versions of the devices that work on both types of wireless networks that predominate in the U.S.

More information in the full article on Forbes.com.

When will we finally hold Microsoft accountable?

Two new stories on the radar this morning, one from the LA Times, one from The Register, both about Microsoft’s atrocious security standards.

In the LA Times article, Joseph Menn reports that some members of Congress and others are finally starting to pay attention to what Microsoft has been up to. Meanwhile, The Register reports that Microsoft’s own infrastructure for fixing security holes has been broken since Thursday.

What security issues, you ask? Long story short, many of the worst breaches in information security over the past few years haven’t been due to brilliant hackers breaking down brick walls, they’ve been due to random hackers wandering through holes left in the walls. And most of the holes that caused the viruses you’ve heard the most about—Code Red, NIMDA, Melissa (and a few dozen variants)—were put there by Microsoft.

That in and of itself isn’t so bad; buggy or insecure software gets released all of the time. The problem with Microsoft is that they don’t fix their software until it gets public airplay. Quoting from the LA Times:

“Microsoft treats security problems as public relations problems,” said Bruce Schneier of Counterpane Internet Security in Cupertino, Calif. “They’ll fix a security problem insofar as it gets made public.”

Microsoft’s general way of dealing with security threats is to make legal maneuvers to prevent the world from finding out about them. You want to get their information about how to fix the problems they’ve saddled you with? You have to sign a non-disclosure agreement with them promising not to tell anyone if you find a new one.

This runs counter to the standard means of fixing problems: if a security hole is found on dozens of other Internet systems, the hole is publicized and a fix is released through the collective brainpower of the ‘Net, sometimes within hours. Microsoft, on the other hand, can take weeks or months to address an issue, and you can be sure that in that time the world’s computer crooks know about the problem. The one left in the dark is you.

Last year, the Code Red virus brought huge swaths of the Internet to its knees, leading to the following solution: tens of thousands of users (including me) had their ability to run a web server shut down by their Internet service providers.

I’ll repeat that. Even though most of us deliberately chose not to run Microsoft software on our web servers, and were therefore invulnerable to the virus, our web servers were shut down en masse. It’s the equivalent of having your phone service shut off because someone 100 miles away is making obscene phone calls.

But the big reason this is an issue is that the whole reason the Internet exists in the first place—the way it continues operating at all—is still due to a great deal of collective contributions. The web page you’re reading is based on a technology that was invented in 1992 and donated for free to the world. The means that web data uses to move from my server to your computer is also based on free technology. And so on.

The rules of this game are simple. You’re welcome to invent new stuff, and you’re welcome to keep it to yourself and try to make money off of it. But you don’t poison the well for everyone else.

Microsoft has written some decent software; I’m running two of their applications right now. But they’ve also been dumping big bags of arsenic into the public pool for a long time.

This is the stuff that runs police 911 networks, military response communications systems, financial systems, and dozens of crucial government networks, let alone the businesses and services that you depend on daily. Microsoft has made billions off of their monopoly, and they’ve wielded that monopoly to shield themselves from blame.

It’s time to call them to task, to force them to live up to the standards set for them by the people who built the network they profit from. If they can’t be shamed into accepting this responsibility, then let’s do it through the courts.

Today’s lesson on missed opportunities

As part of the run-up to the new PBS documentary series on Mark Twain, National Public Radio engaged in a little public broadcasting backscratching by interviewing Ken Burns on Morning Edition.

Bob Edwards mentioned that NPR was linking to the only known video of Mark Twain on their website. Sounded interesting, so I headed that way and landed on a Mark Twain fan site run by the Hannibal Courier-Post. (Who, I’m sure, must be thrilled that their name is now synonymous with serial killers.)

The video, of course, is silent, so you can thrill to the sight of Mr. Clemens wandering around his building and drinking tea with a few friends.

The cameraman, one Thomas Edison.

Now, I’m not one to tell Tom Edison he had the wrong idea, but the hell with a silent tea-drinking Twain. The two men were in the same room together! Tom, please, you should have hauled along your best audio recording spools and recorded a few hours of you and Sam, just shooting the breeze. That would have been priceless.

Blast from the past

I haven’t had a chance to play with this yet, but Todd Software has made my day by releasing a Merlin emulator for the Palm. Merlin, as any early 30something already knows, was a fantastic Parker Brothers handheld game back in the heyday of the 9-volt video game era. I can’t tell you the number of hours of my life this ate up in its first incarnation.

Liberal bias? I don’t think so.

Mike Kinsley published an interesting sidebar this week with a brief analysis of the issue—a hot button among conservatives—of liberal bias in the media. His conclusion, more or less, was “it’s there, it’s minor, get over it.”

It amazes me that the navel-gazers in the press tend to ignore what was old news ten years ago. Way back when I was a student at the Annenberg School for Communication, we were reading studies that reached the following conclusions.

  1. The people who write for the press tend to be predominantly liberal. (Kinsey makes this point as well.) There are obviously extreme variations depending on the location of the company and the media topic being covered, but the liberals outnumber the conservatives at most of the mainstream urban big-media outlets that set the pace of the news.
  2. Different studies have different conclusions about the result of this bias in the profession. Some liberal journalists say that they so effectively self-censor their own beliefs that their writing ends up tending conservative in its assumptions as a result. For example, a liberal journalist writing about a Clinton sex story might have thought it was unimportant, and to counter that belief he might include three right-wing sources in the story’s analysis instead of one.
  3. The ownership of this media is now almost entirely in the hands of large corporations, the leadership of which has a conservative slant much greater than the liberal slant of the journalists. Again, different studies have different conclusions on what effect this has. The main issue for both the media and media-watchers is whether the corporate side modifies the journalism in deferrence to its bottom line—i.e., will ABC News spike a story that is unflattering about a Disney property? The answer to this, by and large, is no, and heads get put on pikes when this rule is egregiously broken. But there are more subtle effects which are not as carefully watched.
  4. However, the point that is constantly missed is that the agenda for news is unabashedly conservative. The New York Times publishes “all the news that’s fit to print,” which begs the question, what is news?

Take a look at your newspaper’s sections. Chances are, they’ll be national, local, business, style (formerly called “women’s issues” in a more unenlightened time), and sports. Your national and local news will cover a nice swath of business news as well. It’s newsworthy that Alan Greenspan has lowered interest rates again, or sneezed facing north-northwest rather than east-southeast. But the analysis of this information is entirely done from the perspective of what’s important for corporations.

Now take a look at what’s being covered in your local free weekly, such as the City Paper. Chances are, you’ll see stories there that wouldn’t be considered newsworthy by your primary daily paper.

A story covering a corporate layoff will discuss whether it will improve the company’s stock, not the impact of the layoff in the community; it takes a major debacle like Enron’s destruction of employee pension funds, or the primary employer of a small town shutting down, to make the human impact of business newsworthy.

If you think that our definition of newsworthy is universal, I invite you to start reading European and South American newspapers.

So, liberal bias in the news? More of it please. It might even things up.