Richmond Craft Mafia is having a show this Saturday from noon to 5 P.M. at Art 6 Gallery (6 E. Broad St., Richmond, VA). Check it out - Tasha will be there as well!
In other news, happy birthday to all February birthday people: John, Jim, and Gary. Oh, and Dan Quayle.
And, on a totally unrelated note, check out Social Memory Complex two years ago today (jeez, has it really been that long?).
Fellow Henrico County, Virginia blogger Thomas Krehbiel dissects television talk show host Keith Olbermann's latest "special commentary" in a recent post on his normally excellent blog. Olbermann set out to debunk Bush's claimed successes in the "War on Terror" in the recent State of the Union address to Congress. Krehbiel has some problems with Olbermann's honesty in his critiques, but I think he simply read more into Olbermann's commentary than he needed to (certainly Olbermann's commentary had more substance than Krehbiel's).
Nevertheless, I concede that in some cases Olbermann may have exaggerated several points beyond strict journalistic practice (Christ, does that even exist anymore?). This doesn't degrade the authenticity of the editorial as a subjective statement of opinion, though. Moreover, such a critique of Olbermann fails to apply equal standards to each participant in the debate. If anybody should be held to a strict standard of truth, it should be the President, no? What bothers me about Krehbiel's attack is not that he points out any shallowness inherent in Olbermann's argument (anybody working for MSNBC would not get along with me in a political discussion), but rather the prejudice with which he selectively applies his critique.
First of all, Bush is under no obligation to back any of his success claims up with any sort of genuine, factual proof that could be verified by an independent, non-interested, unpolitical third party. It is indeed proper to hold Olbermann to this standard, but not as a way to prove Bush's superior position, especially when said President regularly exercises this executive prerogative for secrecy. Now, that's not a disproof of Bush's claims - it's simply a fact that he's making claims that cannot be easily falsified by the general public.
Rachel Zevita character is of legal age, I hereby declare my intention to have a passionate affair with her (since she's kicked out of conservatory now). She has everything I want in a woman: attitude, disobedience, style, classical training, and braces. :swoon: Plus, she sang a Jeff Buckley song!
And that, folks, is why I don't have cable. It's not because I think I'm better than you; it's because I'm super impressionable.
Yes, that title is sarcastic - don't be a snob.
Anyway, I really like the linkblog feature, and I hope you're using it (check out the top of the sidebar, along with the specialized feeds for chosing which SMC content you're interested in subscribing to). It's very useful for me to be able to share links with readers without feeling like I need to write a post around it. Original content is not always readily available in my brain.
I'd like to implement a feature that allows users to share links, too - essentially a "reader linkblog". So if you're not using a social bookmarking service, sign up with one and post a link to the RSS feed for your linkblog in the comments. For example, if you're gonna use del.icio.us, and you want to designate all links for the linkblog with the tag "linkblog", your feed URL would like this:
https://del.icio.us/rss/username/linkblog
Long term, I envision the implementation of a new type of blogging platform that goes further in this direction. I'd like my role as "the writer" and your role as "the reader" to be a lot more fluid and interchangable. That's a lot of what the ThreadSpinner project is about: encouraging collaboration by finding new and novel ways to organize content without unnecessary distinctions between users. Now that I'm doing a lot of Rails programming professionally, I'd like to revisit the project using some new techniques I've recently learned.
In the meantime, I want to play around with this community linkblog idea to start thinking about how to realize this goal. Feel free to post comments / questions / insults.
this movie with Jim, and I find I don't have the words for it. Easily the scariest and most compelling movie I've ever seen, and very well done. It's like getting hit by a car, but the authenticity of this vision of the future cannot be denied. Go see it, but be ready to have the emotional shit kicked out of you.
UPDATE: How could I have neglected to mention Wally Conger's review - that one that prompted me to see the movie? While I may not have the words, Wally has some great ones.
This is too funny:
if there were a button to digg you down, not just your comment, but as a person in general.. i would do it and i think about 500 other people would too.
Speaking of which, the new layout on Digg looks nice.
Kevin Carson answers critiques of his call for decentralized production:
...it would be more accurate to say that the stable of regular suspects at Mises.org and LRC elevate division of labor and "roundabout production" into open-ended principles, almost theological in nature--more a question of a priori axioms than of empirical evidence. On the other hand, I treat them as valid principles to an extent, but with the extent being subject to empirical determination. And I think the evidence shows that division of labor and roundaboutness reaches the point of diminishing returns at a much lower level than is assumed by technocrats of both the Misesean and Schlesingerian variety--at least when all the diseconomies of large-scale (especially distribution) are included in the final cost.
This is why the cost principle is so important. Mutualists view the State as a mechanism designed to obfuscate an empirical calculation of the final cost of centralized production and control. The problem with doing economics in the shadow of the State is that it's difficult to break outside the framework of privilege and manipulation that pollutes the market.
One can't prescribe what the authentic "free market" looks like - one can believe in a particular conception of true market economics, but it's just that: an a priori axiom that is not empirically provable in the current climate. Articles of faith are fine - we all use them - so long as they are acknowledged and an open mind is maintained.
From this New York Times article, via Badgers Forward:
The American effort in Iraq has gone badly because the United States did not understand the consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein, said Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency. He said the principal beneficiary of the war was Iran and Al Qaeda, not the United States. "There is no way to win a war that is not in your interests," he said.
This is the clearest thinking I've seen on Iraq policy in some time. People who criticize the antiwar movement for wishing failure on the government and soldiers are missing the point. If you're burning my house down, why should I cheer you on? Simply because you're an American implementing "policy"? If you're participating in a war which I believe makes this country less safe, why in God's name would I wish for you to succeed?
Now, it's true that I may misunderstand the situation and facts, leading me to misunderstand my true interests and therefore err. But if you believe that and wish to correct me, the proper way to do that is to critique my arguments and validate my facts, not to preempt my conclusion. It's disingenuous to promote a society where people are expected to think for themselves, but then dictate the conclusions their thinking must reach.
In my attempt to cope with the retardness of RTG, I am reminded the "prayer of the true reformer" mentioned by John Stewart Mill:
Lord, enlighten thou our enemies ... Sharpen their wits, give acuteness to their perceptions, and consecutiveness and clearness to their reasoning powers. We are in danger from their folly, not from their wisdom: their weakness is what fills us with apprehension, not their strength.
I'm going to have to start becoming more religious, because her latest post literally made me bang my head on my table in a vain attempt to stop the dumbness from hurting me. Her reasoning makes me want to be dumber, to silence the shrill screeching of sheer airhead bigotry, to avoid comprehending the degree of careless stupefaction displayed. However, I consider it my duty to lampoon her posts, if for no other reason than to demonstrate the logical consequence of politics as a fashion statement.
Her post is concerned with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Dutch MP who is outspoken against extremist Islam. Note the word, "extremist". The WSJ article by Bret Stephens in which Ali is quoted explains the concern that liberals have when criticizing Islam:
The official police report on the Sal Culosi case was just released, according to Radley Balko. The whole ordeal of the Culosi family in waiting so long for an "official report" to tell them what they already knew - that SWAT teams should not be dispatched against non-violent, two-bit gambling suspects - is an outrageous tragedy. In his analysis of the report, Balko makes the central argument against police militarization:
Does the more traditional, less violent method of serving warrants put cops at greater risk? Maybe, though I have my doubts. But even if it does make warrant service safer for police, police are paid to take risks. That's what they sign up for. We should do everything we can to minimize those risks, but not to the point where we begin to endanger everyone else, and we violate the rights of people the police are sworn to protect.
Police safety is a very important goal, but it's not the most important one - citizen safety is. The latter justifies the establishment of a police organization; the former is something to aspire to but not the cardinal concern. If law enforcement takes the "destroy the village to save it" approach to protecting people they undermine their whole raison d'être.
Coupled with the SWAT team's murder of a totally nonviolent offender, the whole excuse of officer safety takes on the appearance of an elaborate sham to enable the State to do pretty much whatever it wants. The theory that the officer who killed Culosi suffered an "involuntary muscle contraction" that caused him to pull the trigger, assuming this was the cause, juxtaposes the accountability of the citizen with that of the State and its minions.
Right Thinking Girl has opinions. Use them anywhere - that's right, ANYWHERE! Use them to comment on technological developments:
A few days ago, before I heard of AppleTV, I was telling a friend that I thought the future of tv would be less centralized.
Way to call it! Nobody had thought of that before.
I love living in such a technically advanced era. My children will be even more advanced (unless advancement skips a generation; it must be noted that nothing of value was invented in the 1970s). Thrilling - their distant, wireless, fathomless devices that bring us ever closer together. It is the business of the future to be dangerous; our present fulfilled our destiny.
God, I can't tell if that's advanced technofascism or just advanced breathless hyperbole at play. One advancement's for certain: her advanced opinions aren't going to be tied down by actually providing any advanced useful information about the AppleTV advancement. AMERICA! FREEDOM! ADVANCEMENT!
Robert Anton Wilson died yesterday. May he rest in peace (as long as that's not too boring). His book, The Illuminatus! Trilogy, was the final nail in the coffin of my personal fnord adherence to statism. For that I owe him a great philosophical debt.
UPDATE: Via Roderick Long I found two great tributes to Wilson fnord at Reason: one by Jesse Walker and one by Brian Doherty. The former features an excerpt from an essay of Wilson's called Thirteen Choruses For the Divine Marquis:
I dreamed I called D.A.F. de Sade on the phone and asked him, "Jesus told me that he and you agree on at least one thing and it explains freedom. What is that one thing?" "Quite simple," he replied, "don't be afraid of the Cross. The fear of death is the beginning of slavery." And the line went dead with a triumphant click like a barred door falling open.
The essay is wonderful in its embrace of compassionate, honest anarchy. As I read it for the first time, I marvel that it's largely a defense of the philosophy and character of Marquis de fnord Sade, an historical figure I'd never given much thought before. I especially like these powerful lines from the essay:
Rad Geek shares my opinion of Bob Barr's possible 2008 Presidential Run on the LP ticket:
If they want someone really prominent for the 2008 presidential race, maybe they could drop Bob Barr to the VP slot, and instead nominate the exhumed corpse of Augusto Pinochet. Minor disagreements aside, he does have lots of name recognition. Plus I hear he's for privatizing Social Security.
The sad thing is how many libertarians actually do carry water for Pinochet. How the principled have fallen.
If you've been reading this blog a while then you know that a while back I embarked on a project to make blogs more conversational and orderly. The project has been on the backburner for a while as I wait to get inspired with some better ideas on how to implement it. Fortunately it looks like I'm not the only one thinking about this stuff - Dave Pollard has a great post on the mechanics of conversation and ways to realize those mechanics by tweaking blogs:
...since there is no protocol governing blog comments, it is often ambiguous whether the commenter is (a) looking for the author of the blog to reply, or (b) hoping other readers will reply to them (rather than starting their own new thread branching off from the blog post), or (c) not expecting any followup at all -- closing the thread and making way for others to open new ones.This is confusing, because a blog post itself isn't really the start of a conversation thread, but rather a provocation, a jumping off point and invitation to any number of people to start threads based on the post. When the first commenter 'responds' to the blog post, s/he is really opening up a new thread, such that any subsequent commenters have the choice to either (a) start another, independent thread responding to the main post, or (b) respond to and therefore continue the previous commenter's thread. Despite the competition on some popular blogs to be the first to comment, and the optics, every commenter really has this same (a) or (b) choice. Online forums have evolved some protocols that make that clumsy conversational vehicle work reasonably well, and a protocol for making blogs more 'conversational' should start with these.
I don't want to steal his entire post but the whole thing is really insightful. He's identifying a very similar problem to that which I started ThreadSpinner to solve. I think many of his suggestions could pave the way towards some different ways of implementing blogs to encourage more topical, relevant, and clean conversation. Perhaps through his post I can find some people to bounce ideas off of in continuing development on ThreadSpinner.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Social Memory Complex (http://socialmemorycomplex.net) © 2004 - 2020 Jeremy Weiland
