Going Bigtime

After an arduous legal battle with an Italian novelty oversized foam finger company also named Scotticus Finch, my team of lawyers has finally secured the rights to the Internet domain "scotticusfinch.com".

You have probably already been re-directed there from the old address without even noticing, but I promised the interns I would publicly laud their work. Nothing else is changing at this time, but feel free to bask in the Internet-age feeling of legitimacy by re-typing the new address in now.

www.scotticusfinch.com: The new and future home for all your freedom-fighting needs.

Blogger Finds Himself in the 5000% Tax Bracket

Here is a quick list of activities in which you may have participated in 2009 that would have been more financially-successful "businesses" than the Scotticus Finch blog:

• Accepting gas money for a lift to the airport
• Returning a modest Christmas gift for a refund
• Checking vending machines for forgotten change
• Winning a bet that you couldn't eat a tablespoon of cinnamon

Certainly blogger Sean Barry of Philadelphia wishes he'd chosen one of those routes instead. Because of the $11 in Google AdSense revenue Barry earned over the course of two years, the City of Brotherly Love is hitting him up for a $300 business privilege license.

Marylin Bess received the same demand after claiming about $50 in revenue "over the last few years" from her green-living blog and other freelance writing online. And when Bess contacted the city: "I was told to hire an accountant," she says.

You can't blame the city for extorting every dime it can find, though. After all, Chinese hookers aren't just going to pay for their own responsible-drinking seminars.

Read the whole piece at the Philadelphia City Paper here.

From Hell's Heart, I Blog at Thee

I don’t have much time.

For the last month I have been held captive in some sort of highly-secured windowless cell. I am perpetually blindfolded, but based on the sickening odors, I have deduced that I am either downwind of a dysenteric Tibetan yak farm or somewhere in Detroit.

I cajoled a guard into allowing me to use his iPhone by promising him I could copy over all the contacts stuck on his old phone, so I only have time for a quick post and maybe three hands of Party Poker.

Do not forsake me, my Scotticus Finch acolytes. Like the heroic Balloon Boy, I will inevitably pop up inexplicably close to where you last saw me, none the worse for wear, and just as misanthropic as you remembered.

Mostly, I can’t wait to escape so I can finally find out what ingenious plan British Petroleum and President Obama implemented to quickly and efficiently stop that silly little oil leak in the Gulf. Remember that? What a slightly inconvenient nuisance that must have been for a few fish in the immediate area and absolutely no one else on Earth. USA! USA! USA!

DHS Asks States to Help Justify Their Bloated Budget

Jim Harper, writing for the too-good-for-a-comments-section Cato@Liberty blog, remarks on a doozy of a memo from the Department of Homeland Security:

Here’s a window onto the upside-down way government spending works. The Department of Homeland Security has sent a letter to states begging them to spend federally provided money on implementing REAL ID, the national ID law.

"DHS is regularly asked by members of Congress, as well as the Office of Management and Budget, if these funds are needed by the states, and whether these funds should be reallocated to other efforts," writes Juliette Kayyam of [the DHS] Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. "As both the states and the Federal government face increasingly tough budgeting decisions, it is more important than ever that these available funds be utilized."

That’s right: Tough budget times make it imperative to spend more money.

Check out the memo here (.pdf), and keep in mind how quickly any branch office of a well-run business would be shuttered for engaging in this kind of accounting tomfoolery. DHS isn't asking states to "use it or lose it," which is defensible; it is imploring states to dig deep into their collective imaginations and come up with ways to spend this money.

As Harper's closing points out: "It's flabbergasting."

"And Now I Know for Sure, I Just Added More Guys to My Wolf Pack"

The Scotticus Finch talent scouts and headhunters have been hard at work the last few weeks trying to lock down contracts on some new contributing columnists for the blog. After several false starts, the team has convinced me we cannot actually charge writers a fee to contribute here, and that somehow we should be focusing on enticing them instead.

Hrmph. You kids, with your Super Nintendos, your Huey Lewis rock and roll music, and your expectations of being compensated for work...

So keep an eye out for the "posted by" line after each post in the coming months. I am not yet at liberty to divulge the names of our most-promising targets, but let's just say that if you've spent much time loitering behind the downtown YMCA or standing in line for Rob Schneider films, you're already familiar with the type of folks we're after.

(And to Naomi Klein: Please stop sending muffin baskets to the office. It ain't happening.)

Title explained -- as if I needed to -- here.

Also, "Scottéric Bastiat" Was Already Taken

Judging by the way several people -- upon making my personal acquaintance -- mispronounce the name of this blog, a bit of appellative exposition is in order.

The name "Scotticus Finch" is a barely-creative take on Atticus Finch, the protagonist in Harper Lee's 1960 masterpiece To Kill a Mockingbird. Finch was peerlessly portrayed in the 1962 film version by Gregory Peck, a performance that netted Peck an Oscar and (forty years later) cemented Finch as the greatest hero in 100 years of American cinema (edging out such icons as Superman, Indiana Jones, and James Bond).

Today, writing a progressive character who fights against racist ignorami is just lazy. In 1962, it was contemporary. In Mockingbird, Finch, a southern lawyer, represents a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. The book is written from the perspective of Finch's young daughter, so some of the lessons aren't exactly groundbreaking -- "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view - until you climb into his skin and walk around in it." -- but Finch was a practical idealist, a crack-shot pacifist, an eternally-patient single parent, and an anti-authoritarian agent of the state. We don't get heroes like that every day.

Finch on democracy: "The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience."

Bastiat himself couldn't have said it better.

Incidentally, today would have been Peck's 94^th birthday.

More than One in 3,921,568 Americans Visited this Blog in March

The obsequious team of semi-competent Scotticus Finch interns put together some information about the site's March 2010 traffic.  (That was the first full month during which we employed fancy-schmancy analytic software.)  The interns shall be rewarded with an extra ration of Bakon; the rest of you will be rewarded with the cold, hard numbers.

In March, the site delighted the senses of 102 unique visitors who generated 745 total page-views.

Twenty-four curious souls meandered over from a Facebook plug; nine drove by on their way to Hit & Run; two stumbled in from a comment on Consuming Louisville (Looks like a lovely little town!); and two sought refuge from the Über-Troll Urkobold (don't ask).

Of the sixty-eight Googlers who found us, twenty-seven used some combination of the following search terms: owl city, firefly, terrible. One visitor somehow came over by Googling the phrase "bubba the punch sponge", though independent experimentation has failed to recreate this anomaly.

Disappointingly, out of 745 page-views in thirty-one days, only twenty-four visitors clicked on any of the ads in the upper-left corner. We here at Scotticus Finch would never violate the Terms of Service by encouraging people to click the ads. We would also never remind you how much baby formula costs.

(Gross revenue for the month of March: $5.73. Booyah!)

Many sincere thanks to those of you who frequent the site, especially those who have been around since the austere (and a bit odd) beginning. Some exciting changes are in the works for the upcoming months, so stay tuned!

The One Most of You Can Skip [Working Title]

The Internet's greatest asset as a social tool is its ability to simultaneously allow users to be anonymous, yet onymous. Pseudonymity, once the pretense of literary atychiphobics, is now the favored bloviation tool for everyone from Publius to Perez Hilton.

But did you know that you too can wax philosophic under a semi-clever name of your choice, be it "Muffintopless", "YouHadMeAtHalo", "BabysatByPolanski", or "Steve"?

By popular singular demand, here is a quick tutorial on navigating the Comments section of Scotticus Finch:

First, select the Name/URL option from the drop-down menu.

Next, enter the name of your choice. Ignore the URL section; that's far too advanced for you.

Finally, jabber away. This ain't Twitter, so there is no 140-character limit. (But for the record, anything more than about three sentences triggers my fight-or-flight. Sheesh, get your own blog!)

That's all there is to it. Now stand up and be heard with no possibility of accountability whatsoever! It's why Al Gore invented this crazy series of tubes!

Will Google Actually Deliver my Earnings in Canvas Bags Stamped with Dollar Signs?

[UPDATE added below]

Curiosity has overcome me. Today I signed up for Google's AdSense program, which will post ads on ScotticusFinch based on content. I simply must know what Google's automated server squirrels will come up with.

Will my general malaise trigger ads for posh Miami depression-treatment clinics? Will a foaming conniption about the Deflector-in-Chief lead to a pitch for Dreams from My Father? Or will every day simply be a rotating parade of ads for Guatemalan Viagra, low-interest ARMs, and mail-order brides? Stay tuned.

I'm also instructed not to actively encourage you to click on the ads (which should start appearing in about 48 hours). So don't. Or whatever. It's not like I pay my interns anyway.

UPDATE: Day one -- all lawyer ads. Could Google be foreshadowing a police confrontation in my future?

The Man Who Would be Blog King

Jim Treacher (né Sean Medlock) has created my new favoritest blog on the Internets. The DC Trawler is Treacher's blog within Tucker Carlson's new breaking-news and analysis site, The Daily Caller, which was itself admittedly conceived as a right-libertarian version of The Huffington Post. (Got all that?)

Treacher's posts read like some of the very best of Dave Barry over the years, updated with Internet-age (read: delightfully obscure) cultural references and vicious self-deprecation.

From Thursday's post:

[Reason Magazine editor-in-chief Matt Welch] was nice enough to invite me to a Reason event or get-together or whatever the smart people call it. It was for a very important book, the title of which I did not think to ask. I went and had a couple of beers and met some people. ...

Also, their offices look like CTU.

I guess that’s all I had on that one. Quite a build-up for nothing. Well, I’ve already typed this out, so I might as well post it. I really have no idea what I’m doing. But I’m glad the fine folks at Reason are doing what they’re doing: giving me free beer. I did tip the bartender a buck a beer, because I’m not some sort of fascist.

The team of semi-talented ScotticusFinch interns added The DC Trawler to the blog list in the left sidebar, so check it out from time to time.

You'll Have my Story as Soon as the White House Writes it for me, Chief!

I’ve been meaning to blog about this fantastic Glenn Greenwald piece (originally posted October 6 at Salon.com) for awhile now. It deals with the media’s use of unnamed sources and specifically skewers Washington Post stenographer-as-journalist Anne Kornblut.

First, here is The Post’s own ombudsman:

The Post has strict rules on the use of anonymous sources. ...News organizations can pay dearly if they're not vigilant about sourcing. At minimum, credibility can suffer. At worst, a damaging journalistic transgression can occur. ...

Post policies say that readers should be told as much as possible about the quality of a confidential source ("with first-hand knowledge of the case," for instance). They also say "we must strive to tell our readers as much as we can about why our unnamed sources deserve our confidence."

Now, here is Greenwald taking Kornblut to the woodshed:

The Post depicts Obama as heavily and heroically engaged in disrupting the alleged Najibullah Zazi domestic terrorist plot and -- repeatedly highlighting that success -- claims "the White House has been charting a delicate course as it attempts to turn the page on Bush-era anti-terrorism policies," whereby "the Obama administration is increasingly confident that it has struck a balance between protecting civil liberties, honoring international law and safeguarding the country." Here are all of Kornblut's cited sources for the article -- every last one of them -- in the order she cites them:

Obama aides pointed ... administration officials said ... a senior administration official said ... officials said ... a senior administration official said ... senior Obama officials stressed ... a senior administration official said ... aides said ... officials said ... one senior administration official said. ...one senior official said. ...The official said ... a senior administration official said ... a senior administration official said ... administration officials said .... a senior official said.

Not a single named person is cited, and there's not a syllable of quoted dissent in any of it. Virtually every sentence in the long article does nothing but praise Obama and depict him as stalwartly safeguarding America's civil liberties ... even as he protects us from the dangerous Terrorists, so why is anonymity needed for that? It's nothing more than what [White House Press Secretary] Robert Gibbs is eager to say every day. Nor is there a hint of who these officials are, what the basis is of their knowledge, or why The Post granted anonymity....

...The Post's article ... doesn't even claim that these anonymous officials have any knowledge at all -- first-hand or otherwise -- of what actually happened (are they national security officials, press people, political advisers?). The article doesn't even pretend to justify why anonymity was granted (there's not a word about that).

...[W]hat happened here is obvious: the administration wanted to issue a Press Release exploiting the fear surrounding the Zazi case to justify Obama's Bush-copying civil liberties policies ... while depicting Obama as our careful yet forceful protector. So they dispatched an official (or officials) to dictate the sanctioned administration line to Anne Kornblut. She then unquestioningly wrote it all down (after granting them anonymity) and The Post uncritically published it as a "news article."

The whole piece is worth a read. (It goes on to point out that in addition to being a lapdog, Kornblut is also dead wrong in her assertions.)

Kornblut's piece in question is not an editorial or opinion column, mind you. It appeared in the National News section of The Washington Post. Remember this lazy, irresponsible work the next time someone tells you that the death of newspapers will be the death of “real” journalism, or when you hear the White House declaring who is and is not a news organization.

His Out-of-Frame Hand is Choking a Puppy

1000 Guardian Force Superbucks to the first person who puts this on a T-shirt and sends me a picture.



(Incalculable thanks to the Internet's most disturbed librarian: SugarFree.)

Liberty's Gunslinger

Radley Balko may just be the Roland Deschain of investigative journalism.

Check out his latest piece on "law enforcement carelessness and callousness" here. Or, make an afternoon of it on his homepage here. You'll not regret it.