Wikipedia apparently not biased enough toward Israel

John Caruso at the Distant Ocean:

Since I've written an entire series of posts explaining why Wikipedia is all but useless when it comes to political topics, and especially Israel, I found this amusing indeed:

This week in Jerusalem, two Israeli groups hoping to smite their online enemies, both domestic and foreign, began a course in the "Zionist editing" of Wikipedia entries.

At the opening seminar, attended by about 80 activists, one of the organizers, Naftali Bennett, said that the aim of the course is to make sure that information in the online encyclopedia reflects the worldview of Zionist groups. For example, he said, "if someone searches [for] 'the Gaza flotilla,' we want to be there; to influence what is written there, how it’s written and to ensure that it is balanced and Zionist in nature."

Hilarious, sure, but at the same time I always appreciate it when people are able to generate oxymoronic phrases like "balanced and Zionist in nature" without the slightest awareness of the contradiction. And I particularly liked this bit...:

Another of the course’s organizers, Ayelet Shaked of the My Israel movement, told Arutz Sheva, an Israeli news organization based in the West Bank, that the use of the word "occupied" in Wikipedia entries discussing Palestinian territory conquered by Israel in 1967 was just the kind of problem she hoped a new team of editors could help fix.

...since as I've written before, the only mention of "occupied" or any variant thereof in the Wikipedia page for Jerusalem used to be "The land currently occupied by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is considered one of the top candidates for Golgotha and thus has been a Christian pilgrimage site for the past two thousand years." That was in 2007, and in looking at it now the situation is still knee-slappingly comical (though nanoscopically better). Go "fix" that "problem", you lying zealots!

The prize for the person who incorporates the most Zionist changes in Wikipedia entries is apparently a trip in a hot-air balloon over Israel. But that's not all; I've heard rumors that the prole who makes the most doubleplusgood efforts to rectify WikiError may even get a guided tour of the Ministry of Truth!

John Caruso Shows Why the Bailout Took So Long

John Caruso at A Distant Ocean:

These are a few of my favorite provisions

So how did the Senate amend (pdf) the bailout bill? What absolutely vital, economy-rescuing measures did they add?

Temporary Increase in Limit on Cover over of Rum Excise Tax Revenues to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The present law imposes a $13.50 per proof gallon excise tax on distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States. The Code provides a payment to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands of the excise tax on rum imported into the United States. The payment is limited to $10.50 per proof gallon. This was increased to $13.25 per proof gallon during the period July 1, 1999 through December 31, 2007. The proposal would extend the provision to the end of 2009. The proposal is effective for articles brought into the United States after December 31, 2007. The estimated cost of this proposal is $192 million over ten years.
[...]
Excise Tax Exemption for Wooden Practice Arrows Used by Children. Current law imposes an excise tax of 39 cents, adjusted for inflation, on the first sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any shaft of a type used to produce certain types of arrows. This proposal would exempt from the excise tax any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means to enhance the spine of the shaft used in the manufacture of an arrow that measures 5/16 of an inch or less and is unsuited for use with a bow with a peak draw weight of 30 pounds or more. The proposal is effective for shafts first sold after the date of enactment. The estimated cost of the proposal is $2 million over ten years.

But at least now we know what's been taking so long: I'm sure the laminated/composite/.375" arrow shaft lobby was all over them like ugly on a monkey.