Congratulations to the Boston Police for identifying and arresting Philip Markoff, a second-year medical student at Boston University who tomorrow will be charged with the murder of Julissa Brisman. He appears to be the same psycho who robbed two other women who advertised on Craigslist. Excellent work by the Boston and Warwick, RI police.
And on the lighter side, congrats to the Celtics, for tying up their series with the Bulls via a last-second three-pointer from Ray Allen, and to the Bruins, who are a game away from sweeping the Canadiens in the first round of the NHL playoffs.
UPDATE: I, for one, never would have guessed that this entire thread would be hijacked by a discussion of the relative merits of booing the other side’s national anthem. BMG never ceases to amaze me! :-D
Discuss
60 Comments . Leave a comment below.A public defender. If so, watch out for the insanity defense. The ball's in Dan Conley's court now- good luck to him. If this guy's guilty I hope Conley's able to put him away for life w/out parole.
This Markoff character is a Quincy resident just like his separated at birth look-a-like Tim Cahill. In fact, one wonders if the cops didn't have a tag on Tim....
Bet his defense is the prostitute at the Westin pulled the gun on him - either that or he was making house calls to fights STD's.
A little article titled, And they call us perverts, contains this interesting little riff.
To the Quebecois whose inferiority complex is so great they took it upon themselves to boo during the Star Spangled Banner last night. Few things are less classy than that.
a hearty middle finger?
is super duper unclassy. Flippin' the bird is courteous in comparison.
is about as low as it gets.
But it's totally in keeping with the ethos in which Montreal plays hockey. Les Habitants are the epitome of the after-the-whistle punchers and face-washers . . . and the divers. I sincerely hope the Bruins destroy them in Game Four: it would be nice to get the win after yet another booing of the Star Spangled Banner.
If Canada is America's goofy kid brother, then Quebec is that weird cousin in the family that nobody really invites to family events any more.
but this was just funny.
Ah, irony lives to see another day.
Canada is not now and never has been America's goofy kid brother. Delusions/grandeur and all that.
In fact, Canada would be the first to set you straight that, thankfully, there's no relation. At all.
. . . American Tories, New Englanders who settled l'Acadie after Le Grand Dérangement, to name just a few.
way some living folks today are related to dead folks who lived in Europe two or three hundred years ago.
Your vision of American exceptionalism is sort of endearing, though.
Vive la difference!
has nothing to do with any sense of "American exceptionalism," but rather, good manners and mutual respect. And I've played enough hockey in Canada in my younger years to know that your garden variety Canadian will go to great lengths, at every opportunity, to tell you how much better Canada is than the United States. It got to be quite tiresome, believe me.
are admirable in any nation.
That said, "good manners and mutual respect" are not terribly evident in your comments about Canada and Canadians. So some Canadians booed the "Star Spangled Banner." So what? Maybe they have relatives fighting our war in Afghantistan while we played take-over in Iraq? Maybe they had too much to drink? Maybe they remembered you as rude when you were there playing hockey "in your younger days."
My money's on this one: maybe they think Americans who view Canada as "America's goofy kid brother" and Quebec as the "weird cousins" no one wants are tiresome egotistical boors. I'd boo, too, eh?
your own national anthem, eh?
I'm merely stating that I can understand one nation booing the national anthem of another as a general expression of opinion.
More specifically, if your nation, say the U.S.A., held opinions of my nation, say Canada, that are congruent with your personal views of Canada and Canadians, then I'm saying I might boo you, too. Get it?
Way to take a stand.
Is it appropriate? Is it warranted at a sporting event?
...freedom to act in bad taste. Even for good reasons. Even at sporting events. Appropriate in terms of taste?... matter of opinion. Appropriate in terms of 'should be allowed?'... absolutely.
in bad taste. Nor do I have a problem with the theoretical freedom to react, angrily, to acts of bad taste. Apparently there are those here on BMG who think both actions are equivalent.
How about you? Do you think it's appropriate in terms of taste to boo a nation's national anthem at a sporting event?
I think sporting events are in bad taste.
are in bad taste?
It's official: I've now heard everything.
you don't know snark when you read it. Oy. Lighten up, Francis.
Not for nothing, however, but if you're readers aren't getting what you're putting down, the fault lies with you, not your readers.
dialogue, I'm not surprised that would be your response. Enjoy your day.
and I blame him for that wholeheartedly.
And I probably would have, or have been tempted to give the finger 'in reply'. However, I also understand that however cathartic such a reply would have been, it too would have been in bad taste and I wouldn't really be defending it as 'taste' appropriate.
... than pointing out how much less classy someone else is... and giving them the finger for it to boot...
that a guy like you thinks booing during the national anthem is a-o-k.
Classic case of redirecting blame/criticism to the wrong place. Next we'll hear the the US is responsible for the 9/11 attacks (Thanks Gov).
and demonstrate class. Avoiding a race to the bottom is not acceptance -- it's holding oneself standard he is expecting from others. You know, turn the other cheek, that sort of thing?
Booing during a national anthem, burning a flag . . . these things, for whatever reason, affect me on such a visceral level that I find it extremely difficult to turn the other cheek. Being able to do that requires someone of Christ-like composure, and I am far from that infallible.
You don't need to be a saint to avoid acting like an asshole.
We all make mistakes. We all do things in the heat of the moment which we later reflect upon and regret.
Thing is, that's not what you did. You wrote it in a blog post many hours after it happened. So, type the post. Get it out of your system. Then, don't press the "post" button.
Regarding nationalism and symbolism, I'm right there with you. I hate the national anthem at any sporting event, because there's always folks who * don't stand * don't solute * don't take a hat off * start applauding before it's concluded Then again, look at how many "red blooded American patriots" mistreat the flag. The flag code makes it clear that many modern displays of the flag are in fact illegal (United States Code. Title 4, Chapter 1 pertains to the flag; Title 18, Chapter 33, Section 700 regards criminal penalties for flag desecration; Title 36, Chapter 3 pertains to patriotic customs and observances) though not necessarily punishable. This includes: * wearing clothing made from the likeness of the flag * putting a flag symbol on your auto except clamped to right chassis/fender * wearing a patch of the flag on a uniform which isn't on military personnel, firefighters, police officers, or members of patriotic organizations * using it as a temporary way, like for napkins * keeping your flag hung in rain or violent weather * keeping your flag hung at night without illumination but I digress.
... that a guy like you takes this:
from this:
Here's a few other conclusions for you to draw:
Rinse, lather, repeat... Or, in your case, lather,lather, repeat...
Has fewer twists, turns, and dark areas of complete and utter mystery than the "thing" by which you think you reason.
Expressing anger over the booing of your country's national anthem is somehow "less classy" than the booing of your country's national anthem itself? Are you really going to stand on that?
... he could take such a stand on firmer ground than your putting words in his mouth. He neither said nor implied any such thing as "...booing during the national anthem is a-o-k."
You're the one who started adding qualifiers here...
Here's the deal:
If you care about 'more classy' or 'less classy'
AND
If you care about politesse
AND
If you give less of a care to the jingo janglings of the spare change in your attic...
THEN YOU WILL
regardless of the situation, refrain from giving people the finger. And you will likewise not be so impolite as to point out others impoliteness, no matter how angry you are.
Your anger doesn't entitle you to behaviour which you find objectionable in others.
However, if the emotional charge of self-righteousness gets you going, then you would behave exactly as you have been describing. But don't let's consider that, in any way, 'classy'...
You are an American, yes?
...why?
So. What?
People can boo who they want to. I'm not sure why that, somehow, justifies my behaving boorish.
Now, don't get me wrong, I've been quite boorish and impolitic at times myself. (some of which are displayed in my past comments on this very blog.) Sometimes I've even felt entitled to it... but I never, actually, was so entitled.
as a proud American, hoisting an internet-bound middle finger at those in the stands at the Bell Centre who felt it quite appropriate to boo the Star Spangled Banner at an NHL playoff game. For not only is pointing out that someone else is classless classless in and of itself, giving them the internet finger is the icing on the cake.
Got it. You live in a rarefied world.
As someone who doesn't follow professional sports, scenes like this strike me as heaving a certain resonance with the WWF. I mean no offense, it's just that -- well -- how many sigmas away from the typical aggression of a hockey game is this behavior?
Oh, and just so nobody thinks I'm picking on professional hockey, don't fans have the same complaint about the Detroit Pistons?
Honestly, I'm not sure the point you're trying to make here. Care to expand?
Game & players violent; fans rude. None of that unique to Canadiens.
during "Oh Canada" at the Garden last week . . .
(shocker)
of one set of fans at one location does not constitute a sufficiently large sample for generalization.
Remember, this is a world that has Yankees fans in it.
True enough, my friend... chuckling
Have you noticed on all the local TV channels - 4 in particular which I see more - that the sports segment will have more video footage of a fight at a hockey game than actual hockey action. Are they giving the Budweiser Gut Viewers what they think they want? That kind of behaviour is setting a bad example for our kids who play hockey as a game not a pugilistic event. Shame on all the TV Stations for focusing on the fights !
I'm not saying that there's no fighting at hockey in the sub-pro levels, but I'd be surprised if there's more fighting at non-pro hockey games than there is at non-pro basketball or football or baseball games -- three sports which have much stricter penalties for fighting.
Got any evidence that suggests that there's more fights in "little league" hockey than other sports?
It's not an accepted part of football, basketball, or baseball.
I can say from experience that fighting is fairly common in non-professional hockey once the players reach a certain age---say, 14 years old. Fighting is not at all common in non-professional baseball. I have no personal experience with basketball or football.
If the killer had met his victims through classified ads, would he be called the "Classified Killer"? How about the "Yellow Pages Killer" (when was the last time YOU let the YP book in your hotel room fall open, and what page did it open to)? The "Telephone Killer"?
Today's Globe report exemplifies the ways that the newspaper industry fights the web. It is filled with innuendo and implications that greatly exaggerate the role "the internet" played in this case.
I call your attention to the sixth paragraph of the piece by Mr. Saltzman and Ms. Cramer (emphasis mine):
While I grant you that the world of prostitution is "seamy", the suggestion that it is "fostered by the anonymity of the Internet" is pure horse shit. Prostitutes have been using telephones for a hundred years. Consider the following:
Somehow it lacks the same zing, don't you think?
Similarly, Craigslist just happens to be the competitor that is killing the Globe. Is it just coincidence that the Craigslist angle is emphasized so heavily in this case?
If Mr. Markoff is, in fact, the guilty party, I'm glad that he's off the streets. As the case unfolds, I hope that the Globe will be as eager to publicize the many ways that the internet helped authorities identify, capture, and presumably convict him. I somehow doubt that this latter aspect of the internet will receive the same high profile.
When I wrote, on another thread, that the newspaper industry has been "fighting" internet technology -- and has lost -- this story is an example of what I mean. The internet, and Craigslist, plays a very minor role in this tragedy. In particular, it distracts attention from the far more important issues of "the seamy world of prostitution", how that world intersects with wealthy high-rolling young men at expensive private schools like BU, and what -- if anything -- the rest of us should do about it.
I'd like to see rather more emphasis on the real issues in this case, and rather less on the medium chosen by the victims and their predator.
"Anonymity"? Really? Some anonymity. Investigators tracked the killer down through his IP address.
It's this type of fuzzy misinformation that is killing the Globe. What must readers think of their reporting when, after finishing the article, they realize Markoff was tracked down because of his internet trail left behind?
This 3rd rate reporting, not Craigslist eating into the classifieds, is what's killing the Globe.
for most purposes given that most IP addresses are dynamically mapped these days. It's only when law enforcement comes in with subpoenas to ISPs that they can discover what physical machines were involved. So I don't think the use of the word "anonymity" is incorrect.
Subpoenas or not, dynamic IPs are not anonymous. The information is in the server logs and is easy enough to trace. Tracking cookies and web beacons make identification even easier.
The "anonymity" of the internet is a myth. If you want anonymity, you have to work very hard (onion routers, encrypted packets, and so on) to get it.
What server logs are you talking about? HTTP server logs will only have IP addresses, but that generally only tells you what ISP the connection came from. You need to go to the ISP to find out what the IP address really refers to. And talking about cookies is just changing the subject. From the point of view of and end-user communicating with someone else on the internet, they can be anonymous. It's not until you look at it from the perspective of the service-providers that you can track this information down, which was my point.
You seem to be insisting that newspaper reports only use the word anonymous in a highly technical computer-security sense instead of the commonly understood social sense.
[Also, could everyone please drop the "my friend" bit. It is patronizing and kind of creepy.]
... address is, the only reason TCPIP works as a routing protocol is because of ARP, which ties those IP addresses to specific MAC addresses. The MAC addresses are unique to each network connection device and are wired in at manufacture. In this way, the logs kept by the servers that give you your dynamic IP address keep a record of your MAC address. Because through the logs it all can be eventually traced back to you MAC address (assuming the logs are kept), there isn't really any anonymity in a dynamic IP, unless you spoof the MAC address.
who has access to the server logs?
Just a suggestion, but how about a running thread on the almost 800 amendments filed to the House budget. No doubt we'll have some classic local earmarks, protection of favored interests, and some remarkable justifications. Let's see what the priorities of our reps are and how they propose to fund them. I'll open with Chris Fallon (D-police union) of Malden - with due credit to the Globe:
Rep. Fallon deplores the idea of cutting pay during a recession. . .
This budget contemplates layoffs of teachers, firefighters, police officers, other municipal employees. The FY 2009 budget was balanced on the backs of human service workers (and the clients who depend on them) and on furloughed state workers with more of the same slated for FY2010. I hope that Rep. Fallon will direct his considerable talents and energy to protecting all public servants facing job loss, increased commuting costs, doubling of health insurance premiums, soaring copays, etc.
Climbing up outta the cellar.
LET'S GO CELTICS!!!
How 'bout that Ray Allen??!!
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Thu 23 May 5:31 PM