“Bailiff, sequester these 12 angry men”

A Massachusetts jury found a British man guilty of murdering his wife and child this week. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole, but his lawyers quickly promised an appeal. Among their claims: that his jury was biased by intense media coverage of the crime.

Whether or not you believe that claim, it goes right to the heart of the U.S. justice system–which relies, to a large degree, on the notion of trial by a fair and impartial jury.

In fact, America’s founders thought that jury trials were so important that the U.S. Constitution covers them in three places: first in Article III, and again in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments. Here’s what that founding document says.

Article III, Section 2

“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury.”

The Constitution didn’t say much about rights until the Bill of Rights was added in 1791. Yet it did guarantee the right to trial by jury, an idea inherited from British common law. Starting in 1215, the Magna Carta, in particular, protected an English nobleman from being punished “except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

By colonial times, all “freeborn Englishmen” assumed the right to a jury trial. In 1774, the First Continental Congress declared that British subjects in America were entitled to “the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by peers.” Two years later, the Declaration of Independence condemned the king for “depriving us . . . of the benefits of Trial by Jury.”

The Sixth Amendment

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”

The Sixth Amendment demands that juries be impartial and local. Courts strive for impartiality in two ways. First, they draw juries from pools of citizens that must, by law, accurately represent the community. Second, they select jurors from the pool carefully, through “voir dire” (Anglo-French for “to speak the truth”). During voir dire, attorneys from both sides question prospective jurors to see if they are biased. Those found to be so are generally sent home.

Requiring local juries was partly a response to pre-Revolutionary War cases in which the British shipped colonists off to England to stand trial before unsympathetic jurors. It was also part of common law precedent. In a draft of the Sixth Amendment, James Madison wrote that juries should be made up of “freeholders of the vicinage” (common law parlance for “neighborhood property owners”).

The Seventh Amendment

“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

Though we now associate juries more with criminal cases, they were used to try civil cases first. The Seventh Amendment guarantees that their use in such cases will continue–at least as long as people continue to sue each other for sums exceeding $20.

The Seventh Amendment also explicitly preserves a common law tradition in which juries, and not judges, decide cases’ facts. Judges answer questions of law. For example, a judge decides which evidence is legally admissible (a question of law), but a jury decides what that evidence actually proves (a question of fact). The judge is the legal expert. But the power to determine guilt or innocence, or civil liability, belongs to the community itself.

–Steve Sampson

Don’t try yelling “fire” in here

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law against child pornography on Monday, concluding in a 7-2 ruling that “offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment”–which, as you may know, says that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”

For most Americans, this particular case wasn’t particularly controversial. But it does raise an interesting point. Even with the Constitution’s free speech protections, there are times when, legally, we have to keep our big mouths shut.

So when aren’t you free to shoot from the lip? There are basically four types of speech that the First Amendment doesn’t protect: obscenity, incitement to illegal action, defamation, and fighting words. There are also restrictions on things like advertising and harassment, but we’ll cover those another time.

Limit #1: Obscenity

The Constitution doesn’t give you the right to be obscene (not that we really think you’d want to be). Although the Supreme Court has struggled for years to define “obscenity,” it has consistently maintained that, whatever it is, it’s not legally protected. The key test was established in Miller v. California in 1973. The Court held that expressions are obscene if they meet all three of the following criteria:

1. “The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.”
2. “The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.”
3. “The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

The questions this test raises are pretty obvious. What’s an “average” person? What are “community standards,” and who sets them? Who decides what counts as “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value”? Nevertheless, you still have to follow these rules–for as Justice Potter Stewart famously said about pornography, “I know it when I see it.”

Limit #2: Incitement to Illegal Action
In 1919, the Court held that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” The justices weren’t aiming to guarantee the sanctity of your moviegoing experience. Rather, their point was that the First Amendment doesn’t protect speech that creates a “clear and present danger” of “substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

More recent cases have clarified this limitation, and left you with a fair amount of freedom. Basically, you’re allowed to argue for anything–even, say, the violent overthrow of the government. You just can’t incite imminent illegal activity. For example, at a rally outside IRS headquarters, saying “we should overthrow the government and dismantle the IRS!” would be protected speech. Saying “attack those agents coming out the door!” would not.

Limit #3: Defamation
You also aren’t free to go around damaging other people’s reputations by lying about them. That’s defamation, and it basically comes in two forms. Slander is spoken defamation. Libel is written (or otherwise recorded) defamation.

The Court has established fairly tough standards for public figures (like politicians and celebrities) who accuse you of defamation. They have to prove not only that what you said was untrue, but also that your lie showed “actual malice.” A private citizen, on the other hand, can win a claim simply if you’re careless about the facts. Of course, it’s easy to avoid defaming people. Just follow a version of mom’s old rule: “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything untrue.” If what you say is true, it’s not defamatory.

Limit #4: Fighting Words
Suppose someone cuts in front of you in line. If the colorful language you then direct toward that person is so abusive and insulting that fisticuffs are likely to follow, you can’t take refuge behind the First Amendment. Fighting words–”those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace”–aren’t protected.

Basically, that means you’re not free to spew insults and abuse into another person’s face. The police, or other authorities, can intervene and stop you without violating your First Amendment rights. On the plus side, it follows that other people aren’t free to spew insults and abuse into your face, either. But then, why would anyone do something like that to a nice person like you?

Panic on parade

THE Mujahideen Day parade in Kabul on April 27th was meant to show Afghanistan’s new, Western-trained, armed forces coming of age. President Hamid Karzai, the country’s political elite and a jumble of Western diplomats packed a podium to review the troops. Then, just as a 21-gun-salute began, three lightly armed Taliban fighters began to take pot-shots from a shabby hotel nearby. The dignitaries scrambled in panic for safety.

Casualties were not as serious as they might have been: the gunmen managed to kill three and wound 11 but missed their main target, Mr Karzai. Afghanistan’s intelligence chief said there was evidence that the attackers had ties with militant groups linked to al-Qaeda and based in Pakistan (see article). For the Taliban the attack is a propaganda victory, showing that Afghanistan’s capital is within their reach. This was the second big attack in Kabul this year. In January a four-man Taliban suicide-squad blasted its way into a luxury hotel, killing eight staff and guests.

This time, it could have been worse. Called in for a dressing-down by Afghan parliamentarians, the country’s intelligence chief, Amrullah Saleh, claimed that security forces had foiled two further attacks that day. Other attacks have reportedly been foiled in Kabul in recent months.

Optimists point out that Afghanistan’s government remains relatively stable and, despite the setbacks in Kabul, that there is no evidence of a jump in Taliban capability. Indeed, Western commanders say the younger Taliban leaders now emerging are more radical but less competent than their predecessors. It seems likely that in August, as scheduled, Afghan forces will take on responsibility for security around the capital. That would be a symbolic first step towards an eventual reduction in Western troop numbers. NATO’s commander thinks this might be feasible from 2011.

However, recent hints by some Western officials that the Taliban are crumbling look premature. Overall, Taliban violence is in fact rising. Military deaths in the first three months of the year were one-third higher than a year ago, though there were far fewer injuries (99 compared with 187 last year). More casualties among Western forces are caused by tactics such as roadside bombs and suicide-attacks. This time last year such assaults caused 44% of casualties; now it is more like 80%. That suggests the Taliban are eschewing firefights, when body armour often saves soldiers’ lives, in favour of lethal terrorist attacks.

A shift to “asymmetric” warfare would be understandable. The attack in Kabul fits in with that evolving strategy. Such “spectaculars” require little in the way of logistical support, but they mould public opinion. In conventional battles the Taliban forces were estimated to be losing 15 fighters, at least, for every NATO soldier killed.

Outside Kabul, too, Taliban leaders may have decided to swap set-piece battles for hit-and-run attacks. This would still allow them to keep the war going long enough to capitalise on disenchantment with the present regime. Grievances about corruption, bad government, worsening local feuds and foreign soldiers could all fuel anger at rule from Kabul. The Taliban’s best hope may be to outlast rather than outgun the West.

Iran is conducting a proxy war against the United States in Iraq, declared Ambassador Ryan Crocker last week.

How? Gen. David Petraeus explained. The Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah are arming, training and directing the Shia militia fighting U.S. and Iraqi forces in Basra and firing rockets into the Green Zone. Said Petraeus, the Quds Force is responsible for killing hundreds of American soldiers.

If true, these are acts of war from a privileged sanctuary. And Bush would be as justified in attacking these Iranian base camps as was Nixon in ordering U.S. forces to clean out the North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia.

While there is no reason to question the truth of what Petraeus and Crocker allege, this proxy war raises a question. What is Tehran’s motive?

Iran, after all, is the principal beneficiary of the U.S. invasion that dethroned its enemy Saddam, ended the Sunni Baath Party’s monopoly of power and opened the door to Shia politicians with strong ties to Tehran. The regime in the Green Zone is the same regime that rolled out a red carpet for President Ahmadinejad.

Why, then, would Iran bloody it up? Why, when things are going Iran’s way in Iraq, would it risk war with the United States over Iraq?

The April 16 Los Angeles Times offers an answer. Iran’s proxy war

against us in Iraq may be Tehran’s response to a U.S. proxy war being waged against Iran. Ahmadinejad may be exacting blood for blood.

According to Times’ writer Borzou Daragahi, Iran believes the United States is behind groups that are systematically killing Iranians along the border.

One such group is the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, or PEJAK, which is linked to the PKK that has conducted a terrorist war in Turkey and is considered by the United States a terrorist organization. The founder of PEJAK is Osman Ocalan, brother of the founder of the PKK, who is now serving a life sentence in a Turkish prison.

As Turkey retaliates against the PKK with artillery fire and raids into Kurdistan, Iranians are now doing the same.

A second group, regarded by both the United States and Iran as terrorist, is the Mujahedin Khalq, a cult-like group, operating inside Iraq on the Iranian border. Iranians also believe the United States is behind attacks in the oil-rich and Arab Khuzestan region of southwest Iran.

And, as Daragahi reports, “Baluch militants have killed dozens of members of Iran’s security forces, including 11 elite Revolutionary Guard in a car bomb attack last year in Zahedan, a town near the border with Pakistan and Afghanistan.” Jundallah, or God’s Party, claimed responsibility for that attack.

Last year also, a Kurdish woman killed several Iranian officers and soldiers in a suicide bombing.

According to Daragahi, “Iraqi Kurds say perceived U.S. support for PEJAK and other anti-Iranian groups prompted Iranians to reactivate Ansar al Islam, a Sunni Muslim group with ties to al-Qaida that has been launching attacks against Kurdish officials.”

The danger here is that these proxy wars could explode into U.S. air attacks on the Quds Force, followed by Iranian retaliation against U.S. troops, followed by U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and a third U.S. war in the Middle East, dropped into the lap of an overstretched U.S. military and onto the desk of the next president.

In his speech last week, Bush warned that the regime in Tehran “has a choice to make,” and if “Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops and our Iraqi partners” — i.e., this is Tehran’s last warning.

Query: Where is the Congress of the United States? It alone has the power to authorize or declare a war of

the magnitude toward which we may be headed because of proxy wars about which the American people know next to nothing.

Up on Capitol Hill, GOP Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina is seeking to rewrite the War Powers Act to ensure that — if the United States goes to war again — it be the “collective judgment” of both elected branches, as the Founding Fathers intended.

Needed now are congressional hearings to determine if President Bush has authorized a proxy war against Iran — by funding or arming guerrillas to attack the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and if that is what is behind the IRG-backed attacks on U.S. forces.

Even before such hearings, both Houses should pass a joint resolution declaring that no appropriated funds may be used for any pre-emptive U.S. air strikes on Iran — unless and until Congress has authorized such acts of war. If we are headed for war with Iran, it should be the collective judgment of all the nation’s elected leadership, and not done on the whim of a lame-duck president unsure about his place in history.

“What’s the status of that ceasefire?”

Iraqi Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr will announce on Friday whether the Mahdi Army will continue to observe the unilateral ceasefire he declared last summer. Since then, violence in Iraq has decreased, even as al-Sadr has reportedly worked to improve the Mahdi Army’s image among everyday Iraqis and to assert more control over the group.

Despite those efforts, and despite his obvious influence over the recent ceasefire, al-Sadr has always insisted that the Mahdi Army isn’t simply his to command. Instead, he says, it “belongs to the Mahdi.” The Mahdi? Who’s the Mahdi?

Islam’s Redeemer

The Mahdi–Arabic for “divinely guided one”–is the redeemer who’s supposed to straighten things out at the end of time. Along with the prophet Isa, Islam’s version of Jesus, the Mahdi is supposed to usher in a golden age here on Earth, just after the defeat of the Antichrist and just before the Final Judgment. (Yes, many Muslims believe that Jesus will one day return–though their view of the Second Coming is pretty different from the Christian one.)

Belief in the messianic Mahdi is common among both Sunnis and Shi’ites. But they disagree about the particulars of his story. And that disagreement ties in with the history of the Sunni-Shi’ite split, which basically began as an argument over who should lead all Muslims after Muhammad’s death in 632.

Infallible Imams

Shi’ites believe Muhammad clearly made Ali, his cousin and son-in-law, successor. But a group of Muslim elders gathered and selected Muhammad’s father-in-law instead. For a time, Ali stayed out of the public eye, but a small community of shi’a (Arabic for “followers”) soon surrounded him and deferred to him as their imam, or guide. These shi’a eventually became the “Shi’ites,” and they developed unique ideas about the nature of Imams–and about the Mahdi, too.

In Sunni usage, an “imam” is generally just the person who leads each mosque in prayer. But for Shi’ites, the Imam is a sort of sinless saint, specially connected to God and set apart from the rest of humanity as an infallible guide. Every such Imam is directly descended from Muhammad, through Ali and his wife Fatima. According to Twelver Shi’ism (the dominant Shi’ite branch), a succession of twelve infallible Imams ended in the 9th century, when the final one, Muhammad al-Mahdi al-Hujjah, disappeared.

But he didn’t die. Rather, they say, he was concealed, or “occulted,” by God and will reappear as the Mahdi when the End Time comes. Other Shi’ite sects recognize fewer legitimate Imams, and so say different things about the Mahdi. Sunni tradition doesn’t recognize any infallible Imams, and tends to put less emphasis on the Mahdi.

Apocalypse Now?

But don’t tell any of that to Muqtada al-Sadr. The young Shi’ite cleric says the Madhi is back and America knows it. In fact, al-Sadr has repeatedly suggested that the real goal of the Iraq invasion was to capture and kill the Mahdi, on whom U.S. forces supposedly keep a detailed file. The Mahdi Army says it has to fight–to help bring Allah’s kingdom to Earth.

Not surprisingly, al-Sadr isn’t the first Muslim leader to call upon the Mahdi in a time of crisis. In fact, Mahdi-centered movements have cropped up throughout Muslim history, from the Spanish reconquest of Spain in the Middle Ages to the British invasion of Sudan in the late 19th century. But the world hasn’t ended yet.

–Steve Sampson

Baby, it’s cold outside!

Old Man Winter has hit America hard this week. Today, he even knocked out your friendly KnowledgeNews correspondent–with an ice storm that cut power for hours. Still, we’ve got no cause to complain. Earlier this week, the temperature in International Falls, Minnesota, fell to -40 degrees Fahrenheit (which is -40 degrees Celsius, too).

No question, that’s cold. But no matter how cold it gets this winter, old-timers will say it could be worse. And they’re right. It could be colder–a lot colder. It could be absolute zero, with no heat at all.

Turning Off the Heat

What we call temperature is just an easy way to measure thermal energy. Everything in the universe has thermal energy, which exists in the form of vibrations in atoms and molecules. If you add thermal energy to an object, its atoms and molecules vibrate more, and it warms up. If you remove thermal energy, its atoms and molecules vibrate less, and it gets colder.

How cold can it get? We’ll use your car as our experimental chamber (hope you don’t mind). We’ll start at a nice warm temperature, say 75 degrees Fahrenheit (24 degrees Celsius). You only need to wear a shirt and shorts, and you might even want a cold drink. Except that now, you’re starting to feel a little chill in the air. The temperature is dropping to 45 degrees F (7 degrees C). You’d better grab a coat and long pants. Don’t worry about the heat–we’ve turned that off.

Ice, Ice, Baby

A few more minutes, and we’re at 32 degrees F (0 degrees C). You need a hat and gloves, and you can see your breath in the air as the water vapor from your lungs condenses in the cold, fogging up your windshield. Another moment, and we reach 0 degrees F (-18 degrees C). Your body is shivering, using muscular energy to generate heat to keep you warm. And your cold drink has frozen solid (not that you’d want it now).

A little longer, and we’ve reached -44 degrees F (-42 degrees C). Time to switch to the Kelvin scale, where it’s a balmy 231. Regular thermometers don’t work anymore–their mercury has frozen solid. You’ve probably never felt cold like this. You’re numb, and your extremities are frostbitten. As the temperature drops further, substances that were once pliable become brittle. Your leather seat begins to crack and crumble under your weight, and a rubber tire wouldn’t bounce on the floor–it would shatter.

Your Last Drink of Air

Our next stop is 184 K (-129 degrees F or -89 degrees C), the lowest temperature ever recorded on Earth. Now things really get strange. The air itself starts to condense. First, carbon dioxide condenses, forming tiny frost-like crystals. Then, at around 90 K (-298 degrees F or -183 degrees C), oxygen condenses. Pretty soon, the air that once filled your car is a pool of liquid on the floor. But don’t worry about that. You’re no longer breathing anyway. Even the warmest parka in the world couldn’t save you at this temperature.

There is some good news, though. Your car’s electric system just improved. Usually, even really conductive materials like copper wire lose energy because of electrical resistance. But at about 133 K (-220 degrees F or -140 degrees C), as vibrating molecules slow down, certain metal-oxide ceramics lose their resistance, becoming superconductive. At even lower temperatures, metals like lead and tin become superconductive, too.

Eventually, the inside of your car reaches the temperature of the darkest parts of space: about 3 K (-454 degrees F or -270 degrees C). This is as cold as the universe gets. There’s just enough ambient thermal energy bouncing around to keep us from ever shedding those last three degrees. Naturally, at least. In the lab, scientists have managed to drop the temperature below 3 K–down to just a few billionths of a degree above absolute zero (0 K or -460 degrees F).

–Christopher Call

http://www.mediafire.com/?8wiytzy2wwb

In front of a half-tough crowd

President Bush will deliver his final State of the Union address tonight. Well, maybe not his final one. After all, nothing in the Constitution says the State of the Union has to be an annual affair. Article II, Section 3 just says the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

Nothing in there about doing it once a year. Nothing in there about making a speech, either. In fact, presidents from Thomas Jefferson to Woodrow Wilson put their statements in writing. So, how did the State of the Union address get to be the way it is? It all started with George Washington.

Precedents for Presidents

In 1790, President Washington delivered the first State of the Union speech to a joint session of Congress convened in New York City (then the nation’s capital). At 1,085 words, Washington’s address is among the shortest ever. After hearing the president’s proposals, Congress debated, drafted, and delivered a courteous reply promising its cooperation.

So such speeches went until 1801, when Thomas Jefferson became president. Jefferson thought Washington’s approach reeked of royalty. (In fact, the idea for the State of the Union address did derive from a British tradition in which the king opened Parliament with a “Speech from the Throne.”) What’s more, Jefferson thought the Congress had better things to do than debate replies to presidential speeches.

Rather than speaking, Jefferson submitted his message in writing–saving Congress from “the bloody conflict which the making an answer would have committed them.” The next 24 presidents followed Jefferson’s lead rather than Washington’s, delivering written “information” instead of speeches.

Memorable Moments

In 1823, James Monroe used his written message to Congress to lay out the Monroe Doctrine, which declared that “the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”

In the midst of the Civil War, in 1862, Abraham Lincoln used his message to propose emancipation of the slaves. “The fiery trial through which we pass,” he wrote, “will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. In giving freedom to the slave we assure freedom to the free–honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve.”

Finally, in 1913, Woodrow Wilson decided to follow Washington’s lead and not Jefferson’s. He gave a speech to both houses of Congress–reestablishing, as he put it, that “the President of the United States is a person, not a mere department of the government hailing Congress from some isolated island of jealous power.”

Media Darlings

Ten years after Wilson’s speech, Calvin Coolidge delivered the first State of the Union address to be broadcast by radio. But most agree that the master of the radio address was Franklin Roosevelt, who in 1941 famously looked forward to a future founded on four freedoms: “The first is freedom of speech and expression. . . . The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way. . . . The third is freedom from want. . . . The fourth is freedom from fear.”

President Harry Truman delivered the first televised State of the Union speech in 1947, but he didn’t do it in prime time. The first president to take full advantage of the power of prime-time TV was Lyndon Johnson, in 1965. The following year saw the first televised opposition response immediately following the address. So much for carefully debated replies.

Economists’ two cents on economic stimulation

“Economic stimulation” is the phrase of the day. Last week, President Bush outlined a $150 billion program to boost the U.S. economy. This weekend, leaders from both parties promised a bipartisan effort to pass stimulating legislation. Meanwhile, stock markets worldwide plunged–thanks partly to fears of a U.S. recession.

When the economy starts to slide, it’s natural to look for ways to stimulate it. The trick is coming up with the right strategy. Fortunately, the world is full of economists ready to give you advice. Unfortunately, they rarely agree with each other, so you’ll have to choose from their competing theories. Here a quick review of three fiscal policy ideas you could adopt–if you decide to run for office.

Idea #1: Create Jobs

That’s what British economist John Maynard Keynes thought. Keynes learned classical economics, which held that market forces alone could produce full employment and a robust economy. Yet he worked during the Great Depression, when it looked like high unemployment might never go away.

It was a vicious circle. High unemployment meant low demand, since fewer consumers were drawing a good salary. And once production outstripped demand, businesses cut costs by laying off even more workers.

Keynes’s solution: create jobs. Governments can spend revenue on public works projects, artificially creating jobs for the unemployed. That will increase their buying power and lift consumer demand. Once businesses see this increase in demand, they will ramp up production, hire new workers, and eliminate the need for the government spending.

Idea #2: Cut Taxes

The economic rationale for cutting taxes is straightforward: tax cuts can put more money in people’s pockets. Like government spending to create jobs, they can increase consumers’ buying power and lift consumer demand.

“Supply-siders” go further, arguing that it’s not just about increasing consumer demand. They point out that high taxes can reduce people’s incentive to work and invest–that you’re less likely to try to make a buck if the IRS takes 70 cents than if the IRS takes 35.

So, they say, cutting taxes–especially high taxes that distort people’s choices–can make markets work more efficiently and spur overall economic growth. Some even argue that cutting taxes can increase tax revenues, as the tax cuts will have such a stimulating effect on the economy that tax revenues will actually rise despite the lower rates.

Idea #3: Go on Vacation

Economists like to talk about “three lags” that hamstring efforts to stimulate the economy: the time it takes for policymakers to realize there are problems, the time it takes for them to do something about it, and the time it takes for their efforts to have a measurable effect.

By the time these three lags have run their course, the economy might well have changed direction–and your stimulus policy could do more harm than good. So, some economists think that the best stimulus is no stimulus at all: take a break, leave the economy alone, and you can be sure at least that you won’t make things worse.

Extra! Extra!
What’s the Fed Got to Do with It?

“Okay,” you say, “but you haven’t even mentioned the Fed. Its rate cut this morning made big news. How does that work?” To find out, review what the Fed does.

Events in Pakistan matter to the world.
In this special reference issue, we’ll show you why.

A Peek at Pakistan

Pakistan makes world news headlines all the time. You know that the nuclear-armed nation is both a key U.S. ally in the fight against al-Qaeda and a major base for al-Qaeda. But what else do you know about it?

Find out what you should know now
Get the PDF

Pakistan, By the Numbers

With nearly 165 million people, Pakistan is the world’s sixth most populous country. Only China, India, the United States, Indonesia, and Brazil have more people. Among mainly Muslim countries, Pakistan is the second largest (after Indonesia), and the only one with nuclear weapons.

Put Pakistan squarely on your mental map–
with our summary of its key stats

Pakistan, On the Map

The news often talks ominously of “instability in Pakistan.” With our Pakistan slideshow, you’ll understand why. We’ll show you–using seven different maps–how the nation emerged from British India just 60 years ago and why it faces challenges from practically every side now.

Learn visually about Pakistan–
with our slideshow of detailed maps

Why Kashmir Gives People the Sweats

For 60 years, India and Pakistan have been on the brink of war in Kashmir. Why have both nuclear nations been willing to risk the ultimate conflict? The territorial tiff goes back to Britain’s imperial shrinkage after World War II. Yet the conflict’s cultural roots go far deeper.

Learn why India and Pakistan fight
Get the PDF

Where in the World Is Osama bin Laden?

Who knows! But lots of experts think he’s holed up somewhere in the arid, punishing, mountainous terrain along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border–hiding in a tiny crack in colonial history. Here’s how that crack came to be.

Learn why Pakistan has “tribal areas”
Get the PDF

It’s still not just Imus

Media Matters for America usually takes the opportunity at the end of the year to name a Misinformer of the Year, an individual or media entity who in that year has made a noteworthy “contribution” to the advancement of conservative misinformation. This year — a year in which Don Imus was removed from his decades-long radio program following a reference to the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos” (Imus returned to the air in December) — Media Matters has decided to change the focus of the year-end item. The Imus controversy resulted in intense media attention to the subject of speech concerning race and gender. At the time, Media Matters thought it necessary to remind the media that “It’s not just Imus” — that speech targeting, among other characteristics, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity permeates the airwaves, through personalities including Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Michael Savage. But offensive and degrading speech is not limited to conservative media personalities and “shock jocks,” although they are, of course, well-represented on any such list. As Media Matters has documented throughout this year, speech that targets or casts in a negative light race, gender, religion, ethnicity, national origin, and sexual orientation can be found throughout the media, and it often bears directly on politics and policy. That speech has earned the title of Misinformation of the Year 2007.

Race or national origin

• Fox News host John Gibson, discussing events surrounding the so-called Jena Six during the September 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated Fox News Radio show, asserted that the demonstrators who had gathered the previous week in Jena, Louisiana, “wanna fight the white devil.” Gibson aired news coverage of the Jena 6 protests and challenged protestors’ claims that the incidents in Jena were representative of ongoing racism in this country. He said: “[W]hat they’re worried about is a mirage of 1950s-style American segregation, racism from the South. They wanna fight the white devil. … [T]here’s no — can’t go fight the black devil. Black devils stalking their streets every night gunning down their own people — can’t go fight that. That would be snitchin’.”

  Gibson also stated during the October 10 broadcast of his radio show, while discussing an incident in which a student shot four people at his Cleveland high school before killing himself, that “I know the shooter was white. I knew it as soon as he shot himself. Hip-hoppers don’t do that. They shoot and move on to shoot again.”

• Nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage claimed on Martin Luther King Day (January 15) that “civil rights” has become a “con” and asserted, “It’s a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males’ birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn’t qualify for it.”
• On the February 7 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network’s 700 Club, host Pat Robertson said that people who have received too much plastic surgery “got the eyes like they’re Oriental” while he put his fingers up to the side of his face.
• Discussing a dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Harlem restaurant Sylvia’s, during the September 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Bill O’Reilly stated that he “couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship.” Later, during a discussion with National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams about the effect of rap on culture, O’Reilly said: “There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, ‘M-Fer, I want more iced tea.’ You know, I mean, everybody was — it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn’t any kind of craziness at all.” O’Reilly also stated: “I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They’re getting away from the Sharptons and the [Rev. Jesse] Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They’re just trying to figure it out. ‘Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it.’”
• On the June 18 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Neal Boortz advocated building a “double fence along the Mexican border, and stop the damn invasion.” Boortz continued: “I don’t care if Mexicans pile up against that fence like tumbleweeds in the Santa Ana winds in Southern California. Let ‘em. You know, then just run a couple of taco trucks up and down the line, and somebody’s gonna be a millionaire out of that.”

  On the June 11 edition of his show, a caller asked, “Why can’t we just load them on planes and keep on loading them until they’re back?” Boortz later responded, “We’re not gonna throw these people out of airplanes with taco-shaped parachutes.”

  During his June 21 show, Boortz offered a suggestion he said he got from a listener’s email: “When we defeat this illegal alien amnesty bill, and when we yank out the welcome mat, and they all start going back to Mexico, as a going away gift let’s all give them a box of nuclear waste.” Boortz continued: “Give ‘em all a little nuclear waste and let ‘em take it on down there to Mexico. Tell ‘em it can — it’ll heat tortillas.”

• In his book Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart (Thomas Dunne Books, November 2007), MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan writes that America is “on a path to national suicide” and later asks: “How is America committing suicide?” answering: “Every way a nation can.” He proceeds to claim that “[t]he American majority is not reproducing itself. … Forty-five million of its young have been destroyed in the womb since Roe v. Wade, as Asian, African, and Latin American children come to inherit the estate the lost generation of American children never got to see.” On the November 26 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Buchanan asserted: “You’ve got a wholesale invasion, the greatest invasion in human history, coming across your southern border, changing the composition and character of your country. You’ve got the melting pot that once welded us all together, which has broken down.”
• On the May 17 edition of his radio program, Savage labeled Hispanic advocacy group the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) “the Ku Klux Klan of the Hispanic people.” Savage also said of NCLR, “This is the most stone racist group I’ve ever seen in this country!” despite noting, “It’s true they haven’t hung anybody.”
• During his July 5 radio show, Savage discussed a hunger strike organized by five students in the San Francisco area to show their support for The DREAM Act, a provision of the 2007 comprehensive immigration bill that was blocked in the Senate on June 28 (S.1639). The DREAM (or Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act would provide a pathway to citizenship and other benefits for certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before the age of 16 if they graduate from high school and enroll in either college or the military. In discussing the students, Savage stated: “I would say, let them fast until they starve to death then that solves the problem. Because then we won’t have a problem about giving them green cards because they’re illegal aliens, they don’t belong here to begin with.” The DREAM Act was later brought up in the Senate as a stand-alone bill (S.2205). That bill was also blocked.
• On the January 16 broadcast of his radio show, O’Reilly agreed with a caller’s assertion that illegal immigrants “bring corrupting influences” to the United States, including “a third-world value system” that “can corrupt the education system.” O’Reilly replied: “Absolutely. And that’s why the dropout rate is so high.”

Gender

• During the December 17 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball, while discussing endorsements Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) received for her presidential campaign, host Chris Matthews claimed: “Every day I pick up the paper and there’s another quote out there from somebody who’s a wannabe, saying whatever the Clinton people told them to say apparently.” Moments later, Matthews asked Financial Times U.S. managing editor Chrystia Freeland: “[A]ren’t you appalled at the willingness of these people to become castratos in the eunuch chorus here or whatever they are?”
• On the March 20 edition of MSNBC show, Tucker Carlson said of Hillary Clinton: “[T]here’s just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing, and scary.” Carlson has also said: “[W]hen she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.”
• Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh repeatedly used the expression “testicle lockbox,” suggesting that Clinton has one.
• On the March 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Glenn Beck said: “Hillary Clinton cannot be elected president because … there’s something about her vocal range.” He went on to say, “There’s something about her voice that just drives me — it’s not what she says, it’s how she says it,” adding, “She is like the stereotypical — excuse the expression, but this is the way to — she’s the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean?” Beck also asked: “[A]fter four years, don’t you think every man in America will go insane?” and pleaded, “I’m sorry for being such a pig. But please, America. Please. I don’t think I could do it for four years. I mean, sure the country is going to go to hell in a handbasket, but could we make this about me for a second? I just don’t think I could take it from her.” He also said that “there is a range in women’s voices that experts say is just the chalk, I mean, the fingernails on the blackboard.”
• On November 12, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ) fielded a question from a woman who asked, “How do we beat the bitch?” On the November 14 edition of CNN’s American Morning, during a discussion with co-anchor Kiran Chetry about McCain’s response to the question, Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen said, “[W]hat Republican voter hasn’t thought that? What voter in general hasn’t thought that?”
• On the October 15 edition of MSNBC’s Tucker, Carlson asserted that “the Clinton campaign says: ‘Hillary isn’t running as a woman.’ …Well, that’s actually completely false, considering the Hillary campaign — and I get their emails — relentlessly pushes the glass ceiling argument. ‘You should vote for her because she’s a woman.’ They say that all the time.” Guest Cliff May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, responded: “At least call her a Vaginal-American.”
• Discussing Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) speech following her election as the nation’s first female Speaker of the House, Limbaugh noted on the January 5 broadcast of his show that Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) said that, in Limbaugh’s words, “his 2-year-old daughter … is inspired by Nancy Pelosi’s ascension to the speakership.” Limbaugh then commented, “His 2-year-old can’t possibly know who Pelosi is other than as a cartoon figure on television. Maybe Pelosi breastfed him, I don’t know, when the kid was pregnant. Who knows? She’s capable of doing everything else.” Limbaugh later added: “[L]ook at Ms. Pelosi. Why, she can multitask. She can breastfeed, she can clip her toenails, she can direct the House, all while the kids are sitting on her lap at the same time.”
• On the December 12 broadcast of his radio show, Savage referred to Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Pelosi as “yentas,” said Harman should “[g]o home and cook verenikis,” and suggested that the three were in office because they “have rich husbands who put them in power with their money, so they could have a little hobby in between getting their nails done.” Savage later asked his “board operator” if he would rather “be waterboarded for 30 seconds or eat Jane Harman’s ravioli” and whether he’d rather “be waterboarded or eat Nancy Pelosi’s tortellini.”

Religion

False attacks on Obama

• On January 17, the conservative online news magazine InsightMag.com published an article headlined “Hillary’s team has questions about Obama’s Muslim background.” The article alleged that “researchers” connected to Clinton’s campaign had “discovered” that Obama “was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia,” and “spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.” The article cited only unnamed “[s]ources close to the background check” on Obama. The story was quickly debunked by CNN and others, who found that the Indonesian school Obama attended as a child was not a “madrassa,” and that claims of Obama’s “Muslim background” were based largely on incomplete and inaccurate reporting. After investigating these claims, the Chicago Tribune reported that “Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia.” Moreover, as ABC News chief political correspondent Jake Tapper noted in a January 25 ABCNews.com post, the allegation that the Clinton campaign was behind the Obama smear was a “charge that remains unproven and unsubstantiated.” Despite the Insight article’s thin sourcing and the fact that it was quickly debunked, the article became a flash point for a smear against Obama that has persisted in the media.
• On January 23, KSFO Morning Show hosts Melanie Morgan and Lee Rodgers repeated the accusation that “researchers connected to” Clinton have said that Obama “spent at least four years in a so-called madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.” Rodgers stated that Obama “went to a Muslim school, a madrassa they call it … those things are funded by Saudi Arabia,” adding, “It’s basically a school for terrorists.” Morgan noted that there was “controversy” surrounding the InsightMag.com story, but that “Insight magazine is standing by its story,” and also charged that the story came from the presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC).
• On the June 25 broadcast of his radio show, Savage said that Obama was “indoctrinated” by a “Muslim madrassa in Indonesia.”
• In the April 12 edition of her “Notebook” video blog, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric asked, “Is America ready to elect a president who grew up praying in a mosque?” and proceeded to repeat debunked rumors surrounding Obama’s childhood years in Indonesia. Couric claimed that Obama’s “background sparked rumors that he had studied at a radical madrassa, or Quranic school — rumors his campaign denied, declaring that Obama is now a practicing Christian.” But Couric did not note in her initial posting that the rumors had been debunked. Couric’s “Notebook” was later updated to note that the madrassa “rumors [were] later disproved” and that the source for the claim that Obama “grew up praying in a mosque” later backed off that assertion.

Smearing Obama’s church

• During the “Obameter” segment on the February 7 edition of MSNBC’s Tucker, Carlson claimed the church “sounds separatist to me” and “contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity,” a subject Carlson said he was “actually qualified to discuss.” Carlson pointed to the “disavowal of the pursuit of ‘middleclassness’ ” in the church’s tenets, calling the church’s mission a “racially exclusive theology” and “a theology that ministers to one group of people, based on race.” Carlson claimed that Trinity’s theology is “racially exclusive” and “wrong,” adding that “it’s hard to call that Christianity.”
• On the February 28 edition of Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, Hannity stated that “many” call Trinity “separatist,” adding that “in some cases, even drawing comparisons to a cult.” Guest Erik Rush, a columnist for the conservative website WorldNetDaily, said that the church’s “scary doctrine” is “something that you’d see in more like a cult or an Aryan Brethren Church or something like that.” Hannity has also repeatedly accused Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright — Trinity’s pastor — of holding “these black-separatist views, about the Black Value System” without mentioning Wright’s explicit denial on the March 1 edition of Hannity & Colmes that his church embraces separatism. And on the December 19 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity said: “You know, Barack Obama’s pastor… has this whole list of the Black Value System. It seems like he’s supporting a segregated church.”

Coulter’s comments about Jews

• During the October 8 edition of CNBC’s The Big Idea, host Donny Deutsch asked right-wing pundit Ann Coulter: “If you had your way … and your dreams, which are genuine, came true … what would this country look like?” Coulter responded, “It would look like New York City during the [2004] Republican National Convention. In fact, that’s what I think heaven is going to look like.” She described the convention as follows: “People were happy. They’re Christian. They’re tolerant. They defend America.” Deutsch then asked, “It would be better if we were all Christian?” to which Coulter responded, “Yes.” Later in the discussion, Deutsch said to her: “[Y]ou said we should throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians,” and Coulter again replied, “Yes.” When pressed by Deutsch regarding whether she wanted to be like “the head of Iran” and “wipe Israel off the Earth,” Coulter stated: “No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. … That’s what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws.”

  After a commercial break, Deutsch said that “Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment,” and asked her, “So you don’t think that was offensive?” Coulter responded: “No. I’m sorry. It is not intended to be. I don’t think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that’s why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don’t believe our testament.” Coulter later said: “We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.”

Attacks on Islam or Muslims

• On the March 14 edition of Fox News’ Your World With Neil Cavuto, Richard “Bo” Dietl, a private investigator and former New York City Police Department detective, discussed a lawsuit filed by six imams who were removed from a US Airways flight in 2006 and suggested that instead of flying, passengers such as the aforementioned imams should “call their cousin up there, Ali Baba Boo, and go by cab.”
• On the June 12 edition of The 700 Club, following a report on Muslims in Minneapolis seeking religious accommodations at school and work, Robertson stated, “Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize that Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law.” He characterized the American Muslim community as “Islam light” and went on to say Muslims “want to take over and we want to impose Sharia on you. And before long, ladies are going to be dressed in burqas and whatever garments they would put on them, and next thing you know, men are going to be allowed to have wife-beating and you’ll be beheading adulterers and so on and so forth.”
• On the October 4 edition of his CNN Headline News show, Beck hosted Sharida McKenzie, a Muslim American who had recently organized the Muslim Peace March, to discuss a report that a Toronto mosque’s website “says that Muslims should stay completely away from Halloween, Christmas, New Year’s, anniversaries, birthdays, and Earth Day.” During the discussion, Beck asked: “But how do we know the difference — I mean, you’re reasonable. How do we know the difference between you and those that are trying to kill us?”

Sexual identity or orientation

• During a March 2 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Coulter said she “can’t really talk about” Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) because “you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot’ ” — a comment that drew loud applause from the CPAC audience. Then on the March 6 broadcast of Hannity’s nationally syndicated radio show, Coulter defended her comment, explaining: “I don’t think there’s anything offensive about any variation of faggy, faggotry, faggot, fag. It’s a schoolyard taunt. It means — it means wussy.” She went on to conclude that “faggot” is a “totally excellent word.”
• In 2007, Savage claimed that same-sex marriage “makes me want to puke” and that same-sex parenting is “child abuse”; blamed sexual reassignment surgery for the Columbine massacre; pointed to sexual reassignment surgery and lesbian fertility clinics in claiming that the September 11 terrorist attacks “was God speaking”; referred to Media Matters as “a gay smear sheet,” the “homosexual mafia,” and the “gay Mafioso“; and declared that a “loving, kind lesbian” is “the type that stuffed ovens in Hitler’s concentration camps.”
• On the July 11 edition of The O’Reilly Factor, O’Reilly objected to the San Diego Padres’ decision to host a gay pride night and a children’s hat giveaway promotion during the same July 8 baseball game, claiming that “cluster[ing]” gays near children is “insane” and “inappropriate.” After a viewer challenged him by noting that “kids are around gays every day, O’Reilly elaborated on his position on the July 12 edition of The O’Reilly Factor, saying that “thousands” of gays in one place “can be confusing to children.”
• In an August 21 post on his CBNnews.com blog, Christian Broadcasting Network senior national correspondent David Brody addressed a federal complaint filed against then-presumptive Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson by blogger Lane Hudson, writing: “Well, now Fred Thompson has an angry girlfriend. His name (don’t go there) is Lane Hudson.” Since then, Brody had appeared three times on NBC’s Meet the Press and four times on MSNBC’s Hardball to discuss the 2008 presidential race. Despite referring to a male blogger as Thompson’s “angry girlfriend,” Brody was invited to appear on the September 9 broadcast of Meet the Press to discuss the election.

Minted by Franklin

//

The Yale Book of Quotations has named its most memorable quotes of 2007. The winner is “Don’t tase me, bro”–the plea University of Florida student Andrew Meyer made in September, before police removed him from an event featuring Senator John Kerry. (Watch the video.)

Now, “Don’t tase me, bro” may get a million YouTube downloads, but it doesn’t really sum up that many human truths. So, having just spent a day with the notably quotable Benjamin Franklin, we couldn’t resist making our own list–of Franklin favorites with the real ring of truth. Judge for yourself. As old Ben himself once said, “a lie stands on one leg, the truth on two.” (Unless it’s getting tased.)

One-Liners

• “Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.”
• “Poverty wants some things, luxury many things,
  avarice all things.”
• “Most people dislike vanity in others,
  whatever share they have of it themselves.”
• “There never was a good war or a bad peace.”
• “He that can compose himself is wiser than he
  that composes books.”
• “Wink at small faults; remember thou hast great ones.”

Rhymes

• “He that would live in peace and at ease,
  Must not speak all he knows, nor judge all he sees.”
• “If thou dost ill, the joy fades, not the pains;
  If well, the pain doth fade, the joy remains.”
• “If what most men admire, they would despise,
  ‘Twould look as if mankind were growing wise.”
• “Each year one vicious habit rooted out,
  In time might make the worst man good throughout.”

Deep Thoughts

• “Be studious in your profession, and you will be learned. Be industrious and frugal, and you will be rich. Be sober and temperate, and you will be healthy. Be in general virtuous, and you will be happy. At least you will, by such conduct, stand the best chance for such consequences.” (Because, as Ben also said, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”)
• “We hear of the conversion of water into wine at the marriage in Cana as of a miracle. But this conversion is, through the goodness of God, made every day before our eyes. Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards; there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy.”

What would Ben Franklin think?

//

Friends, America’s Federal Communications Commission voted on Tuesday to let media companies own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the nation’s 20 largest media markets. The controversial decision reverses a longstanding ban on such cross-media conglomeration.

Opponents of the change say the old rule helped prevent major media companies from becoming too dominant. Supporters say the new rule simply recognizes a changing media landscape, in which newspapers are struggling to find readers and more folks find the information they need online.

Either way, we say it’s a good time to look back at American media’s roots–to a time when local voices like Ben Franklin’s dominated. After all, before he messed around with lightning or charmed French royalty, old Ben was a newspaperman.

An Ink-Stained Wretch

Back then, printers did it all–interviewing recently arrived ship captains for out-of-town news, writing articles, plagiarizing stories from other newspapers, selling ads, printing the pages, and distributing the final product. In fact, most colonial newspapers sprang from small printshops that employed just the owner and his teenage apprentice.

Ben Franklin started in the printing trade as an apprentice to his older brother, James, who ran a small printshop in Boston. Working there exposed the young Franklin to different kinds of writing and gave him a chance to borrow books on the sly from booksellers’ apprentices.

In those days, printers had to be smart and strong. Composing the pages was a mental feat–type was set letter by letter, using little blocks of metal, and for the page to appear correctly when printed, every line had to be composed in reverse. (Many printers were as adept at reading backward as forward.) After the pages were made, the printer personally pulled the lever on the heavy wooden press to stamp the image–one page at a time. No wonder few colonial newspapers had a press run of more than 300.

The Life and Times of Silence Dogood

James Franklin wanted his publication, the New-England Courant, to be more than the usual collection of 6-month-old news that appeared in other colonial newspapers. So he solicited articles. In 1722, 14 letters appeared in the New-England Courant signed by “Silence Dogood.” The middle-aged widow had a lot to say about the clergy, fashion, and political matters, and people loved it–even if they didn’t know who the Widow Dogood really was.

Using a pen name was common at the time, so everyone knew “Dogood” wasn’t her real name. But no one knew that 16-year-old Ben had actually written the letters, sliding them under the printshop’s door at night.

A year after the Silence Dogood letters were published, Ben ran away from his brother’s employ. (Things got rough for James after he was thrown in jail for suggesting the local authorities were in cahoots with pirates.) Still in his teens, Ben apprenticed with a Philadelphia printer before sailing for London and working there for two years. By 1729, he was back in Philadelphia and publishing his own newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette.

All the News Ben Could Print

The Gazette was like most newspapers of its day–no headlines, few illustrations, and it ran only four pages. What set it apart was Franklin’s lively version of local news. He filled the columns with anecdotes like this one: “And sometime last Week, we are informed, that one Piles a Fidler, with his Wife, were overset in a Canoo near Newtown Creek. The good Man, ’tis said, prudently secur’d his Fiddle, and let his Wife go to the Bottom.” The Pennsylvania Gazette became one of the most successful newspapers of its time.

Colonial newspapers had no separate editorial pages, but they were packed with opinions. Just as he had done in his Silence Dogood days, Franklin often wrote an article in the voice of a fictional citizen. In 1735, he printed a letter purportedly written by an elderly gentleman, who encouraged his fellow Philadelphians to establish a volunteer fire department. The imaginary old man described leaping out the window of a burning house. By the end of the year, the Union Fire Company of Philadelphia had formed.

“Poor Richard” Makes Ben Wealthy

Franklin’s most successful editorial alter ego was “Poor Richard” Saunders, the pen name Franklin used for the 25 years he published Poor Richard’s Almanack. In the colonies, practically every printer published an annual almanac. These thick pamphlets, showing the phases of the moon and predicting the weather, were moneymakers because most literate households purchased one every year.

In 1732, Franklin threw together a 24-page publication with a first-person preface signed by Richard Saunders. The “author,” a destitute stargazer whose shrewish wife threatened to burn all his books and astronomy instruments if he didn’t “make some profitable use of them,” admitted the reason he wrote the almanac was to make a little money and get her off his back.

From 1732 to 1757, Poor Richard’s grew in popularity as readers found more than the usual astronomical charts and tidal tables. Tucked into this almanac were proverbs such as “Early to Bed, and early to rise, makes a Man healthy, wealthy and wise.” Franklin said he saw the almanac as a way to educate folks who might not buy any other books and so “filled all the little spaces that occurred between the Remarkable Days in the Calendar, with Proverbial Sentences, chiefly such as inculcated Industry and Frugality.”

Some years Franklin sold 10,000 copies. Combined with good investments and lucrative printing contracts, the profits from the almanac allowed him to retire from printing at the ripe old age of 42. Of course, Franklin’s “retirement” was more active than many a person’s working life. And though he was hailed as a scientist, diplomat, patriot, and philosopher, at the end of his days, Franklin was still proud of his printshop roots. When he wrote his will at the age of 82, he began: “I, Benjamin Franklin, printer, . . . “

Time for the “Festival of Lights”

Hanukkah, the Jewish “Festival of Lights,” begins again tonight. Time to tell the Hanukkah story.

Imagine it’s around 165 BC, in the ancient land of Judea–and Judea is a pawn in a series of squabbles between Egypt and Syria. The Syrian king, Antiochus IV, is trying to control Judea by appointing the high priest of the Temple of Jerusalem. At first, he appoints a man named Jason, but later he switches to a rival named Menelaus (reportedly because Menelaus’s bribes are bigger than Jason’s).

When Jason musters troops and throws Menelaus out, Antiochus decides to put an end to Jerusalem’s fractious politics. Descended from one of Alexander the Great’s generals, Antiochus sends in his army and begins a campaign of persecution against the Jews. He goes so far as to set up an altar to Zeus inside the Temple of Jerusalem. It’s just too much for the Jews to take–so they fight back.

Hammer Time

The Jewish revolt is led by a priest named Mattathias and his sons, who take to the hills and embark on a three-year war against the Syrians. Soon Mattathias’s son Judas Maccabeus (a.k.a. “The Hammer”) takes command and repeatedly frustrates Syrian soldiers with guerrilla tactics.

Eventually, Judas chases the Syrians out of Jerusalem and sets about purifying the Temple. He dedicates a new altar and institutes a new holiday–Hanukkah (Hebrew for “dedication”), an annual eight-day celebration to commemorate the victory over the Syrians.

But if Judas originally intended Hanukkah as a sort of ancient Veterans Day, it quickly became the “Festival of Lights”–thanks to a miracle told in the Talmud. On first entering the Temple, the Talmud says, Judas found only enough ritually pure oil to burn for one day. Miraculously, that oil burned for eight days, until replacement oil arrived.

Light My Fire

Hanukkah now mainly commemorates God’s miracle, not Judas’s military victory. Not surprisingly, Hanukkah’s most important ritual activity involves lights. There’s a special menorah–the hanukkiya–for the occasion, with branches for eight candles (or pots of oil), plus a ninth, called the shammash (”servant”), in the middle.

At sunset on every night of Hanukkah, candles are placed in the hanukkiya from right to left, and then lit from left to right (one for each day, so that the lights grow with the holiday). The shammash is used to light the other candles.

It’s traditional to give gifts on Hanukkah, to inspire the gratitude that’s at the heart of the festivities. A special Hanukkah prayer thanks God for delivering “the strong into the hands of the weak, the many into the hands of the few, the impure into the hands of the pure, and the wicked into the hands of the righteous.”