To my dismay the New York Time‘s blocks this functionality with a nasty little ToolTip script that forces you to research highlighted words with there terrible meta-definition system (in a pop-up, no less!). This script also blocks the ability to copy-and-paste text; probably a paranoid reaction by the Times that a blogger, heaven forbid, may want to blockquote some text from an article.

After a bit of digging around in the page source, I found the offending scripts and excised them with AdBlock using these rules:

||graphics8.nytimes.com/js/util/tooltip.js

||graphics8.nytimes.com/js/common/screen/altClickToSearch.js

Light testing shows these rules don’t break any other site functionality.

On a side note, when I first sought a solution, I searched Google for “new york times copy paste script,” which brought up Free Copy & Paste JavaScripts and other Scripts as a first hit, from About.com, which is owned by the New York Times company. At least one of their branches doesn’t fear basic information sharing.

There is one thing I have not missed from the affluent life: television;  more specifically, cable news. Here are two examples:

CNN’s coverage of Barney Frank’s town hall meeting:

and Fox’s coverage:

Who to trust? Neither. Turn off the TV and pick up a newspaper. Then give it to me so I can use it as insulation when the winter comes.

1. What exactly is Obama’s health plan. Yeah, I’ve seen the sound bytes. I’ve watched the Daily Show interview. I see the Republicans bitch about it. But what exactly is the plan? You haven’t once talked about the details. If there are none, tell us so!

2. What the hell is going on in Iraq? Obama got elected and suddenly there’s nothing important to report from our first major war since Afghanistan. Which brings me to:

3. What the hell is going on in Afghanistan? The Economist is reporting we’ve had one of the worst months of casualties in the EIGHT YEAR CONFLICT. Why the hell isn’t this a nightly discussion?

4. What the hell is going on with the economy? Ok, ok. Every economist disagrees with every other economist. That still doesn’t explain whether I’m going to have to temp for the next five years. Sure, it’s impossible to tell the future, but for God’s sake at least tell us what the possible outcomes are.

5. How much is the TARP and stimulus money helping? You were all over the debates like a fat kid on chocolate last October. Now the whole thing is treated like an amorphous blob that hangs without our periphery. There MUST be some kind of metric that can determine whether what was enacted EIGHT MONTHS AGO is having an effect.

6. What’s happening in Iran? You’ve had one night of passion with the temporary revolution and now you won’t call her back. Huge things are happening there still; you’d never know by your coverage. Is she not sexy enough for you?

7. Why are you ignoring China? The Uighurs have been rioting against one of our largest trading partners, lenders, and governmental opposites. Why is this almost completely ignored?

You want to save journalism and the newspapers? Start reporting the news, you idiots! I don’t give a damn about Sotomayor. I couldn’t care less about Goldman Sacks. Just explain to me what the hell is happening in the world!

Aside from being updated only four times in two months (!), the site is woefully underwhelming. The newest innovation? A photo mosaic of Destiny’s Child made completely out of thousands of pictures of other celebrities. Both the subject and the technological method are over a decade old.

Next on the list is an obnoxious flash application about iPhone “killer apps” that doesn’t fit on the screen, is hardly navigable, and which forces you to watch commercials. No, thanks.

After that is a 360 panorama from Venice. Again, late-90s stuff here.

I have been trying to believe this is some sort of April Fool’s joke that won’t die, but sure enough the “innovation” blog is still linked to on the front page of the Post’s website. Who the hell on their web dev team came up with these ideas? Creating blurry pictures of celebrities and obnoxious flash interfaces are not going to save newspaper journalism. In fact, it just drives away serious users and seriously damages the credibility of a once-venerable institution.

Update: Seems the Post “accidentally” tried to sell access to its reporters and to Obama administration officials. Now that’s innovation.

There is a terrible downside to this: the expense. There are only so many times you can order a single $1 coffee after a week of incessant Wi-Fi use. I knew it became a problem when the “barista,” who rarely left the confines of her coffee cockpit, came over and asked if I would like a refill. Nope, I’m just heading out, but thanks anyway, I would say while frantically finishing up my most recent soon-to-be-ignored cover letter. And out the door I went, on the prowl for another unsuspecting cafe with the wireless junk.

So after a few days of feeling walking the streets, hauling my laptop in a cheap backpack (a monkey on my back?) from shop-to-shop, I decided to take it easy. Sure, the lighter wallet was a major factor, but perhaps, I thought, I can learn to get by without the ever-present feed.

I found myself waking up in the morning and not of worrying about what was happening now. Instead I boiled my coffee slowly and cracked open a book written in 1988.And there I would sit for an hour or so, breakfasting slowly and digesting my home-brewed Folgers crystals. I had plenty of time to reflect on my current situation (for good or ill) and how it came to be. But that’s all for another post.

It seems this free Wi-Fi phenomenon is the perfect metaphor for the assault the internet is having on traditional media, i.e. books and newspapers. Any cafe worth its salt wouldn’t dare to deny the technorati with a wireless link. Sure, it gets bodies in the door, and it was all the rage once the technology became ubiquitous. But the true cost to the vendor comes to life when he finds his seats full of $1 cups of coffee hooked up to his internet connection and no room for more customers. But if he ever gets rid of the internet connection, all of those sales will rush to the shop down the street, which still does offer internet. What to do?

Now look at modern newspapers. It was all the rage in the early 2000s to dump their contents online free of charge. Besides, if they didn’t, readers would rush to competing newspapers who did offer the goods. Advertising sales online don’t compare to their print counterparts and the newspaper is left with a room full of $1 coffees and the huge expense of producing quality journalism.

Ah, you say if we have such similar problems, then perhaps a solution for the former will work for the latter. This is true; but there is no solution for the Wi-Fi drain just yet. That is not to say the big companies are not working on it.

Desperate for a link-up I stumbled into a Starbucks on some desolate corner. Inside I fell forward. When the smiling hostess asked what I would like to drink, I asked in a raspy voice whether they had Wi-Fi. Sure they do, but first I have to buy a card from them, go online, create an account with AT&T mobile, register my card, say a prayer to God, buy two cups of coffee, and I’ll get two free hours of Wi-Fi per day. The last couple of requirements I made up because by that time my eyes had crossed. I spilled onto the street in a daze, trying to shake away the withdrawal hallucinations. I needed a hotspot and I new there would be another one around the corner if I just kept looking.

Will big companies like the Wall Street Journal ever get customers to pay and play by arcane rules for what has so long been free? I suppose, but only if they’re the only game in town. And by the way the newspaper industry is looking, that may be sooner than we think.

The Guardian newspaper was the sole company to publicly apologize for publishing the completely false information. Other news agencies have either ignored the error, quietly corrected it, or simply blamed Fitzgerald outright. Most deliciously, Wikipedia editors had removed the quote within an hour because it could not be verified.

And news companies wonder why people are losing faith in their product.

The staccato flow of info provided by the internet is a mirror to the quick and cursory way we attack our lives. Wait until 8 p.m. for the news hour? No way, I’m turning on CNN to find out what’s happening NOW. Wait for tomorrow’s edition of the paper? But that means waking up early to sit and read already “outdated” news. Besides, I was up until 1 a.m. yesterday reading blog commentaries; and I can listen to the radio on the way to work; and then the internet is right there at my desk when there’s a lull; and… . See how quickly it starts getting away from us? No more time for personal reflection – I need instant news now – no depth please; no time.

I know this only because I live it. I now rely on the internet for all my news. I still buy the Sunday paper with good intentions; but when I sit down to read it, my e-mail chimes with a fresh message. Or some article on page three reminds me of that funny website I wanted to check out. Or the advertisement on the back page reminds me I need to pay my credit card bill online. Or… .

So I gently toss the paper next to my bed with most of its articles unread. There it lies, staring at me with eyes I feel burrow into my head as I secretly tap on my keyboard only six feet away. Not until Thursday do I have the heart to put it out of its misery and gently place its yellowing hulk in the recycling bin out back.

I still love you, print, and I hate to see you die slowly of neglect. I just don’t feel I have time anymore. I know you were always there for me with good, insightful commentary. I appreciated the way you arrived without fail every morning before I woke up. I loved the feel and smell of ink on my hands as we sat together in the breakfast room on a restful, sunny morning.

Sure, we had some good times, but I’ve found someone new, someone who keeps pace with my frenetic lifestyle. I don’t have the urge or energy to sit around for an hour digesting information. Something is always calling me, requiring my immediate attention. The internet just fits in so well with my new ways. She never complains when I pop on for only a few seconds; she’s always there with fresh and exciting content. No, it’s not the most wholesome thing in the world, but I’m never bored and always stimulated.

The quiet ways are gone; I just don’t have time.

What he has shown — and it is an important accomplishment in itself — is a mastery of the art of managing the presidency.

Trans: Obama hasn’t screwed up yet. Yes, this is a major feat.

And it is surprising, because there was no reason to assume that he had the skills to direct such a large enterprise.

Trans: We were expecting a shite-show considering his complete lack of executive experience.

Obama had a few stumbles in assembling his Cabinet and, as a result, lost the services of one potential major asset, Tom Daschle, his original choice to manage his health-care initiative.

Trans: Sure, six known tax cheaters seem like a lot, but isn’t it better to keep people above the law if they follow your political agenda?

Hardly a day has gone by in the first three months that Americans have not seen Obama on their TV screens in a variety of roles — chiefly as economic salvage director for seriously shattered housing, credit and employment systems.

Trans: Nope, we’re not sick of showing him on the TV yet.

But they’ve also seen him as commander in chief of armed forces fighting two wars, diplomatic traveler engaged with world leaders, and agenda-setter for Congress — to say nothing of first father, first fan, first consort of Michelle and first master of Bo.

Trans: “Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.”

But the overture has gone well, and so far, the cast seems to know its parts.

Trans: I’ve memorized my lines, now where’s my appointment?

This whole charade of discussion is disgusting and has brought out the worst of both sides; mainly from the Republicans, who have shown extreme weakness and disorganization in making a stand. After a few whiney calls to fairness, they have tentatively agreed to a slightly-less-than-$800 billion spending bill. They have shown the requisite opposition to it and are trying to wash their hands of the deal, but not too much in case it actually works. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said in a statement right after the announcement on Friday, “ultimately this bill should be judged on whether it works, and 90 percent of a bad idea is still a bad idea.”

So he thinks 90% of it is wasteful spending and pork, but he is willing to try a wait-and-see approach to it? Is this really the kind of leadership we’re going to get out of the opposition in the next four to eight years?

What is most disturbing is that none of the major networks or major pundits have clearly broken down and laid out the components of this bill. Conservative critics scream it’s mostly waste which won’t help anybody, while Liberal cheerleaders degrade the Republicans as Neros who would rather play fiddle than put out the fire. The less-biased reporters ignore the thoughtful approach, instead calling the blows to each side as if they were ringside at a Holyfield fight. Whatever happened to “we report, you decide?”

Of course the Democrats are going to produce a bill chock full of government-expanding programs. Since most of America voted for them that’s what we are going to get. And who is blames them? That’s their platform and they’re sticking to it. But arguing over what money goes where is wasted breath.

There is a more insidious problem here that is overlooked by nearly every media organization (except the Wall Street Journal). Whether the bill is filled with pork or not is a moot point. No matter what form a giant stimulus package takes, be it infrastructure overhaul, massive education spending, or stimulus checks, we are going to severely increase inflation.

When you dump trillions of fabricated dollars in the economy, inflation will rise. There is no escaping it. With the ridiculously poor returns on investments and bank accounts, the last thing we need is our current cash supply to decrease in value. What good is “saving or creating” 2.5 million jobs when their salaries are paid in a worthless currency?

And yes, “borrowing from our grandchildren” is a euphemism for printing money. And we all know how that worked for the Weimar Republic. From Wikipedia:

Since striking workers were paid benefits by the state, much additional currency was printed, fueling a period of hyperinflation. The 1920s German inflation started when Germany had no goods with which to trade. The government printed money to deal with the crisis; this allowed Germany to pay war loans and reparations with worthless marks and helped formerly great industrialists to pay back their own loans. This also led to pay raises for workers and for businessmen who wanted to profit from it. Circulation of money rocketed, and soon the Germans discovered their money was worthless.

Sound familiar?

So the next time you listen to your favorite commentator, see if he mentions inflation. He will not. While everyone is ogling the familiar kabuki play on the floors of the House and the Senate, we are implicitly agreeing that the only way to get ourselves out of this self-made debt hole is to borrow and spend more. Pure lunacy.