Looks like Downsize DC has achieved something pretty cool:
On September 5th we launched a campaign for the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. This bill requires the government to create a searchable, online database of "who, how much, and why," for everyone who receives more than $25,000 from the federal government.
This bill would make it possible to know, for the first time, who is feeding at the federal trough. Having this database would be a major step forward in exposing government corruption, special favors, corporate welfare, and waste.
I suppose transparency is the first step to showing who's getting welfare, and I think people will be surprised at who that is. Once we have hard data about welfare recipients we can really hone in on who to attack. And somehow I just don't think the lobbyists for unemployed single mothers will end up being our main targets. Heh.
Another interesting fact about this bill is the influence the blogosphere has had in getting it passed:
Read more...
Give me feedback on what you think of this new theme. There's still some things I'm not sure about (I think the sidebar's a bit colorful) but this is a much more distinctive layout. It's not finished - I need to add some other features, most importantly, feed links.
UPDATE:
- I've doubled checked things in Safari, any unintended problems (heh) should be fixed
- I'm currently working on getting feeds, archives, and categories fixed
- I agree: the white on green ain't working. I'll probably work through a few iterations of the layout
Last night I attended an initial planning meeting at Capital Ale House for a Ruby users group in Richmond. My friend and coworker Jim Van Fleet organized it, and we had a pretty good turnout. It's funny because a few hours before the meeting I didn't know if anything was happening, and it ended up that we had an attendence of about 8 or 9 people. It was great to see the people in the flesh excited about Ruby, and I'm thrilled to have some smart people to bounce ideas off of and learn from.
We're calling ourselves the Central Virginia Ruby Enthusiasts Group, and we should have a domain and site up soon. We're planning on having our next meeting on October 7, 2006 at a location to be announced. We've brainstormed and come up with some cool ideas like codejams and beginners presentations. I'm stoked!
For more information about CVREG join our Google Group.
As the anniversary of 9/11 approaches, the subject of conspiracy theories arises. The usual suspects are taking the usual stances, of course, but there are some interesting things to say for those who have ears to hear. I'm not going to focus on any conspiracies in particular; I'm rather interested in how they are treated and developed in society.
An article in Time magazine (the media of record for the monolithic, homogeneous American pop consciousness, such as it is) hit on some key points about the context of conspiracy within an admittedly complex environment. The conclusion at which they arrive is not surprising, but it nevertheless stands as an excellent observation:
But there's a big problem with Loose Change and with most other conspiracy theories. The more you think about them, the more you realize how much they depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses. (For what it's worth, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has published a fact sheet responding to some of the conspiracy theorists' ideas on its website, https://www.nist.gov./ The theories prompt small, reasonable questions that demand answers that are just too large and unreasonable to swallow. Granted, the Pentagon crash site looks odd in photographs. But if the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, then what happened to American Airlines Flight 77? Where did all the real, documented people on it go? Assassinated? Relocated? What about eyewitnesses who saw a plane, not a missile? And what are the chances that an operation of such size--it would surely have involved hundreds of military and civilian personnel--could be carried out without a single leak? Without leaving behind a single piece of evidence hard enough to stand up to scrutiny in a court? People, the feds just aren't that slick. Nobody is.
There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it. "We tend to associate major events--a President or princess dying--with major causes," says Patrick Leman, a lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway University of London, who has conducted studies on conspiracy belief. "If we think big events like a President being assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor individual, that points to the unpredictability and randomness of life and unsettles us." In that sense, the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting.
I read the Time article last night and found it intersting, even though I thought the author arrived at the totally wrong conclusion. Yes, people need a comprehensible narrative to associate with a grand event like 9/11... perhaps along the lines of a story about a secret gang of lunatic bad guys living in caves? Why is a hole in the official story overlookable, but not a hole in an alternative explanation?
Read more...
This weekend was pretty lazy for me. It's kind of sad: Tasha spent most of it in front of her computer, and I in front of mine. Luckily, I do have something to show for it:
- I made a lot of progress on a new, custom theme for my blog, but I still have a lot of work to do. The cool thing is that I think I'm "getting" CSS finally, as this theme has no trace of an HTML table anywhere in it. It will also make my linkblog more prominent and generally make the front page of the blog much more relevant and immediate. I'm aiming for a design that says "6th density", and that rules out just about every WordPress theme in existence.
- For quite some time I've been asking for a Firefox extension to queue up my del.icio.us items tagged with "toread". This weekend, I've come this close to finishing a preliminary version. I've got a sidebar with a list of items, and clicking on them will open them in the browser window. But in order to streamline to workflow I'd like opening a "toread" item in the browser window to automatically remove the "toread" tag from the post in del.icio.us, and doing this asynchronously is a little tricky. But I'm almost there - contact me if you'd like to try it out when I release it. I've established a page for the project here.
- Hung out with Matt and some other friends this weekend.
- Watched season 4 of 24 again. It's great background noise for doing web design (you spend 90% of your time reloading pages anyway).
I'm sort of in a lull on ThreadSpinner right now as I rethink the project in terms of some new ideas I've been having.
Via the impeccably relevant Brad Spangler, I've learned that there is a Rails project to build a web application for social organizing and direct democracy called Crabgrass. If you're a Rails developer who wants to see the web become a more productive venue for political activism, I strongly urge you to volunteer. And if you're experienced in web development but haven't given Rails a try yet, here's your chance (this video should pique your interest).
Social movements have grown more adept at using the web to communicate publicly. However, we could still use a lot of help in communicating amongst ourselves. In particular, we need the ability to communicate securely; the ability to make decisions between groups and networks that are geographically disbursed; and the ability to have a decision process that is easy to understand, transparent, and directly democratic.
The things they want to do, including building mechanisms for networked relationship tracking and decision making, sound awesome and quite worthwhile. Actually, the group should also make sure they take advantage of Rails's features to roll out functionality as it becomes available, agile-style, because it will be vital to make sure this really streamlines the activist's workflow to fully empower people. Hopefully I'll be able to contibute to this (and make time for it).
But really, they had me at this sentence: "The social networking phenomenon holds much promise, but it is clear that the revolution will not be hosted by myspace." Word.
I've been using del.icio.us quite extensively since I first adopted it. It's great to be able to tag sites of interest to me for future reference, and I'm currently working on a FireFox extension that will streamline my workflow with regards to the "toread" tag (which I discussed earlier here). But lately I've been making great use of del.icio.us's "my network" feature, part of which allows me to tag sites for other users in my network. This is a really useful feature because it saves me from having to email people interesting things - they can just get notified on their own terms (when they visit the site, RSS feed, etc.).
In a lot of instances the network capability - simply bookmarking the site for another's attention - is all the functionality I need. But when bookmarking sites for certain friends, I find that we often get into an email discussion of the tagged site. That's slightly awkward because ideally I'd like to keep the bookmark coupled with the conversation. It makes me wonder whether there isn't a need for a social bookmarking service that tracks not just URLs, descriptions, and tags, but also a conversation on the URL.
I know there are some chat products that let people talk in real time if they're visiting the same site. But that's not what I'm after - something that works like del.icio.us would be fine. I'd just like to see the same sort of application allow more dynamic interaction within the bookmark, so that people are not just designating sites of interest and labelling them interesting, but also discuss WHY they're interesting.
What do you think? Does this represent a useful functionality? Has somebody already implemented this?
I stopped reading RTG because of stuff like this (among other reasons):
But seriously, how stupid do you have to be to hold this ridiculous ‘march on Democracy' right as the country is tensing up to commemorate 9/11?
Heh. I guess it's something that RTG says the things Republican / neoconservative types are content with merely insinuating in an ever so subtle manner:
- Hands off - Republicans own 9/11. Democrats should stop complaining and get their own national tragedy to use. Here's a helpful suggeston for liberals: work on getting elected on a similar disasterous foreign policy platform so that a tragedy of comparable magnitude can be created on the Democrat watch (something tells me this is somewhere in Lieberman's 2004 platform).
- 9/11 means the end of democracy - whether we're marching about it or, ya know, holding elected officials to the Constitution. Don't people get that?!?!
- The public is a wounded lamb in need of tender, Republican cooing and firm assurances that "we'll get those mean boys who did this to you!" (Imagine how "tense" I would be if it weren't for Bush's wars against teh 9/11!)
It's nice to have honesty for once. But I guess I could get honesty by reading Mein Kampf as well. Even her analysis of the Enron debacle started off interesting - yet it quickly degraded into hero-worship of the American CEO as the phallus from which all life gushes forth. Par for the course, I suppose.
Read more...
Quite some time ago, Kevin Carson posted excerpts from William Greene's Address of the Internationals thanks to the diligent historical work of Shawn Wilbur (whose transcriptions of important individualist texts are invaluable). I'm just now getting around to reading it (trying to clean out my "to read" list) but something struck me in Greene's denunciation of state privilege. When I've attacked the basis of corporate privilege in the past, defenders have countered that it's not a privilege per se because everybody is equally entitled to incorporate. Greene, an important figure in the development of mutualism, clarifies why this kind of "equality" is not the basis of a just society:
What is required at the present time is not so much equality before the laws as equal laws: that is to say, laws that do not themselves bring forth and perpetuate inequality; for laws organizing privilege have not, of necessity, a respect for particular persons; since they may have the effect to render it inevitable that a privileged class shall exist, without themselves designating the persons who are to compose that class. The privileged man of the period may say, "I took the world as I found it; and by taking the world as I took it, since we both of us have to deal with the same world, you also may perhaps, if you show the same talent, diligence, and perseverance that I showed, attain to a position similar to the one I hold. There is equality after all; for every one of us faces the same chances." The college sophomore may say to the freshman, "I kick you in accordance with time-honored custom; but I, also, was kicked, in my time, by my predecessors; and, if you wait patiently, you may, in your turn, kick your successors. There is an equality in the matter; for, ultimately, all kick, and all are kicked." Would there not be a better equality, and at the same time more justice and more dignity, if no one should kick, and no one should be kicked? Justice-not equal chances in injustice, not the satisfaction of knowing that you may, if you have luck, bite as much as you are bitten, and eat as much as you are eaten-ought to govern the world....
We don't need equal opportunity in exploitation and privilege. We don't need a fair chance at grabbing as much of the pie as we can. We need equal opportunity and a fair chance, without qualifications and restrictions. The only thing laws ever do is get in the way of opportunity and justice.
Read more...
I've heard a lot about how Israel's recent attack on Lebanon was a preemptive strike to set the stage for a U.S. attack on Iran. This AlterNet article documents much of the planning for the campaign against Hezbollah, arguing that it was largely seen as serving America more than Israel. It makes the argument that although Israel is often accused of manipulating U.S. policies (see articles at Wikipedia and Antiwar.com), the door may swing both ways.
This implies that those who set the foreign policy agenda are acting on interests outside of either Israel's or those of the U.S., to say nothing of the rest of the world. Certainly the war is not popular in Israel, and demonstrations against it have united jews and arabs. The most disturbing part of the article, however, was the author's comparison of Israel's long-running role as the U.S. proxy in the middle east with the historical role of "court jews" in European monarchies. The parallels between the elitism of the old absolutists and that of our current leaders are disgusting:
One of the more unsettling aspects of the broad support in Washington for the use of Israel as U.S. proxy in the Middle East is how closely it corresponds to historic anti-Semitism. In past centuries, the ruling elite of European countries would, in return for granting limited religious and cultural autonomy, established certain individuals in the Jewish community as the visible agents of the oppressive social order, such as tax collectors and moneylenders. When the population threatened to rise up against the ruling elite, the rulers could then blame the Jews, channeling the wrath of an exploited people against convenient scapegoats. The resulting pogroms and waves of repression took place throughout the Jewish Diaspora.
Read more...
Via Battlepanda, I found this personal analysis of smart children extremely interesting and saw a lot of my experiences in it. The killer quote is at the end, though:
There is one sure way to ruin a smart kid. If you take a smart, hurt kid, and give him anything by Ayn Rand, all hope is lost. I haven't read any Rand, so I can't argue content with anyone. But I can tell you how Rand works as a black box. You put a hurt, smart kid through Rand, and you get out an insufferable, pleased-with-himself Libertarian. It is a loss to all of us, of course, but more of a personal tragedy for the kid. You can hope that one day that kid will want to get laid enough to rejoin society, but too many of those kids are irrecoverably lost.
I do understand where she's coming from. Objectivism has come between some libertarian friends and me - even ones whom I greatly admired. They can be snotty, self-important, and completely devoid of any reflective ability. There are, however, two problems I have with her analysis:
- Her observation is hardly unique to progressives, as Battlepanda seems to imply. Spend some time on LewRockwell.com or the Mutualist blog and you'll hear the same thing. These attempts to differentiate personality types by ideology will never work. Right and wrong people come in many different shapes and sizes - you'd think so called "liberals" would be able to wrap their heads around that kind of diversity.
- While Rand has affected just about all the libertarians I know - including left libertarians - die-hard Randists usually grow out of it. I've seen it happen time and time again. Smart people are usually smart enough to see their own flaws, and if they don't, sometimes that's not a result of being hurt but simply being unreflective. If I were to conjecture on this phenomenon, I'd have to say that those who embrace objectivism for a lifetime fall into two camps:
- People who are naturally arrogant and find objectivism as a tidy way to sum their identity up. These people would be assholes no matter what they believed in.
- People who have another passion in their life and for whom objectivism is a convenient but not all-encompassing obsession. I've met some engineer types who are objectivist, yet they hardly shove it down my throat because they recognize there's more interesting things to talk about.
While the latter isn't annoying and is respectable, the former is more visible. Yet, this phenomenon occurs in every ideology. As if progressives had the market cornered on not being abrasive. Heh.
Read more...
Radley Balko has posted some great YouTube videos related to law enforcement lately which I think merit sharing (in lieu of actual original writing on my part - yes, America, I'm in another blogging funk).
- L.E.A.P. (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) created a video of former police officers presenting their case against the drug war. It's always reassuring to see the authorities talking common sense (for once).
- Here's a video of cops firing rubber bullets at unarmed, non-threatening people and then laughing about it.
- Here's a video of cops arresting somebody simply for asking for a officer complaint form.
Yay, America.
Whoever came up with this deserves his own show with puppets.
From WendyMcElroy.com comes an interesting perspective on the recent airline ban of carry-on liquids in conjunction with today's media-fueled terror scare:
Given that the airlines have been trying desperately to cut back on the weight of 'free' luggage of passengers as a way to cut down on fuel costs, this is a gift from Heaven for them and one they will want to cement into policy. Now I won't be able to stuff my oversized purse with all the comforts I usually haul onto an airplane (e.g. a huge bottle of water, hand lotion, contact lens fluid). Instead it will all have to go into my checked luggage and count toward the weight limit imposed upon it. And, if I'm over, I'll pay a stiff fee for wanting that bottle of lotion.
Neither I nor Wendy are suggesting that the ban is a conspiracy to benefit the airlines. It's just a nice ancillary benefit in a heavily cartelized industry.
Brad tagged me with the Viral Book Questionaire. I usually don't respond to this kind of intimidation, but I'm sure Brad had his reasons. Anyway, it makes me realize that I need to read more... at least more things published on paper.
- One book that changed your life.
I'd say it's a toss up between A Course In Miracles and What it Means to be a Libertarian by Charles Murray. Each book made me see things in a radically different light, even though I'm not a huge fan of either any longer. I guess that's what it means to be growing intellectually.
- One book that you have read more than once.
The Law of One series published by L/L Research. Probably read the series all the way through about five times, and learn something new each time.
- One book that you would want on a desert island.
Hmm... I would think I'd want something I hadn't read before, but if I had to pick something I've already read... probably Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle.
- One book that made you laugh.
That's a tough one... probably some David Sedaris book I read. Of course we're speaking of proper literature here, not things like America.
- One book that made you cry.
I think Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land might have evoked a tear... but again I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure the end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy was emotional for me the first time I read it.
- One book you wish had been written.
Oh, that's easy: The Illuminatus! Trilogy by R.A. Wilson and Robert Shea. A brilliant and perfectly executed look at conspiracy theory.
- One book you wish had never been written.
I find this question a bit distasteful... probably Chicken Soup for the Soul. How vapid.
- One book you are currently reading.
The Undercover Economist by Tim Hartford
- One book you have been meaning to read.
Human Action by Ludwig von Mises
- Now tag five people
Read more...
