The Binary Circumstance responds to a post of mine in which I responded to an earlier post by him. The discussion is about the interaction between faith and reason.#

He first clarifies that he can't really disagree with the overall gist of what I was saying that: That "religion" is not all bad, it played a good role in the past. He also says that is important to consider the meaning of the words that we're using:

Again, defintions are important here. Thomas Paine said that he believed in God but was denounced as an Atheist. His book,The Age of Reason, which wrote about previously, is a vehement denounciation of organized religion of any sort. So was he religious or not?

[...]

I would never however confuse that open-ended sense of awe with religion, however, which I would define as a prescribed set of beliefs, a closed system, completely disinterested in inquiry or evidence. When you've got all the answers, why ask questions? How can you answer questions if you ignore evidence?

If one begins with the premise that a Supreme Being exists, then there is a tendency to only look at evidence that supports that belief, and discard any that doesn't support it.

BC writes that a central concern for many men is to understand their "smallness" in relationship to the "bigness" of the outside world. How do you understand that which is infinite and inherently un-understandable?

But I don't see how faith, which does not require evidence, can play any role in that process, for it can never be anything more than an unproven belief. Whether it is held by one person or many, it never rises above the level of belief until it is fearlessly tested and explored. But at that point, it is no longer faith, but the process of reason.

 

I will attempt to give my thoughts on matters of reason, faith, and religion.

I completely support and agree with the notion that whatever my definitions of reason, faith, and religion are probably not the same as many Christians. As I wrote in my original piece, I would not defend any religions for their honour and importance, or skill at explaining the world as it is. I do, however, defend the idea of faith.

First, to denounce religion and faith (of a particular kind.) There are obviously many horrible things that have been done in the name of God and for religions. Most religions, as they are typically known, are about creating power structures like governments that are used to control and coerce people. They accomplish this by threatening the temporal and spiritual lives of the followers (and potential followers.) As BC illustrates, faith is one of their primary tools. They posit that they have the answers and if you buy into this faith, then you bow down and accept their chains.

Thus, religion as a power structure--often called "organized religion"--and faith in correct actions and an absolute standard, are very dangerous ideas. They encourage coercion and discourage questions or growth.

But, if we define a religion as a self-selected group of people who agree on matters of faith (of a kind I am about to define) then we have nothing to worry about. This is faith in a process. At a high level, it is the belief that when everyone does what is best for him or herself and does not hurt anyone else, they will be happy--as will others who are cooperating. And at a low level, it is the belief that reason (experimentation, evidence, evolution, and introspection) will lead us to actions that are most honest and beneficial.

It may seem strange to say that the belief in reason is itself faith, because reason and faith are opponents in this discussion, but I think it is the symptom of something more general: How we define our world is a matter of faith.

How do we know we're not brains in vats? How do we know we're not computer simulations? How do we know that we are not blind of some sense? That the "laws" of the universe are truly consistent over time and space? These things are a matter of faith and together they create the concept of reason. The primacy of existence over consciousness depends on trusting existence.

This is not to say that the outside world would not exist, were we not to observe. I am saying that the way we have defined the outside world is such in a way that means it exists beyond on us. It is faith that allows to think there is no other definition.

So, to return to theology. I don't think that the belief in a Supreme Being is incompatible with science and reason. Although I would not say that I believe this, I have no objections to it. Suppose that you believed in a Supreme Being that created the universe and, by extension, humans (either directly or through evolution) and gave them free will and loved them (like a father/mother.) If your God is infinite and being human understanding in its entirety, then you would not believe that a Bible or preacher could tell you what was right and what was wrong. To do so would be to completely understand God, which you have defined as impossible. God would then act by inspiration: by the conscience that helps you decide what is it right and wrong for you; by the beauty of the world that makes you want to live; etc.

It is my opinion that this belief system encourages reason (listening to your conscience and attempting to understand the Universe, and God) as well as encouraging Liberty and freedom from coercion (no one can know everything like God does, so there is no greater authority than the one that interacts with you.) It is also my opinion that this was the original kind of faith prescribed by Jesus and at the heart of Christianity, but it was corrupted through the years by the power structure aspirations of Churches.

(Also a note: Such a belief would not encourage people to think THEY are right, or more right, than others because inherent to it is the inability to understand God completely. So, there is no worry about having every person think they are God's voice and the actor of God's will.)

I don't think that I've really disagreed with BC. We're talking about different things when we say religion and faith. But, we both believe in the process of reason and infinitude of the individual.

Dave Winer writes about the premise of Clay Shirky's idea:#

You know what's always bothered me about Technorati? I don't care about millions of blogs. I'm going for quality not quantity. Sifry must think weblogs are like television. Shirky sure does. What is it about people with two-syllable names that begin with S and end with Y. I think I'm going to publish a law about this and go on the speaker's circuit.

Ben Hyde writes about Clay's overview of how to change the shape of the power-law curve.#

He provocatively introduces the idea that conservatives have a tolerance for inequality. I think that's far too generous. I think that conservatives have an enthusiasm for inequality. That they believe that elite status is the rightous reward rather than a happen stance of system design. That a more severe slope to your power-law curve will drive people to increased striving and they are blind to the extent that a more egalitarian slope enables innovation, creation, diversity, and reduced social tension. Since what happens if you encourage diversity is the emergence of many many loosely joined power-law networks sorted out by different arts there is a deadly tendency of conservatives to encourage competititon between these arts that leads to a monotheistic world with a single dominate network and ranking.

That in turn brings me to the information issue. I wish Clay had mentioned that one way to reduce the slope of the curve is to improve the information available to the network members. That encourages members to link to things that are more diverse. I.e. the habit of linking to the "more popular blogs" is less egalitarian than the habit of linking to the "most popular blogs that discuss my interests." You can't do the latter if you don't have good information.

Joi Ito writes about inequality and the role of "fitness."#

Joi's main premise is asking whether or not we should be trying to change the system of the power law. He doesn't necessarily think it is a bad thing, he's curious.

When Clay uses the word "inequality" he means "not the same" and indeed, in a fair system, the outcomes will usually be inequal. I won't argue with that. What my question was was whether the rules were fair and whether we could counteract the current bias towards those in positions of privilege and amplify those opinions that are currently underrepresented.

I think the notion of trying to modify or influence the system to push it towards a particular outcome sounds like regulation and hits a negative chord with the free market libertarian types on the Net. I am also against unnecessary regulation. However, I do think that we can and should try to influence the architecture to push towards an outcome that we believe in. I think this is the nature of politics.

And regarding "fitness," Joi proposes a new way of thinking about the power law idea, that would probably appeal to Dave Winer's opposition to Blogging As Television.

If you think about the power law as themes or ideas instead of people and you think about fitness as the level in which an idea resonates with people, the power law could be viewed as an amplifier for ideas and memes that are sufficiently interesting. Because fitness so influences a nodes ability to climb the power law, I think the notion that I described in the Emergent Democracy paper, where the tail of the curve is where the creativity happens and the power law is how an idea whose time has come goes main stream still makes sense. I think the key to making the system "fair" is to make sure the tail is as inclusive as possible and to try to encourage technology and norms to value fitness over simply linking to those who are popular. As Ross shows in his three layers of creative, social and political, I think the power law is the final amplification part. In fact, the tail of the power law, the creative layer and the social layer where the initial deliberation occurs might be where we should be focusing our energies.

James Robertson doesn't think there's anything wrong with the power law system, and thus nothing is really in need of change.#

It's all about content. Post interesting stuff that people want to read, and you get noticed. Post boring stuff no one cares about, and you don't get linked. It's really that simple. The 'top bloggers' may have had a first mover advantage, but they only stay at the top by being interesting. The main limiting factor I see in coming into contact with new stuff is the sheer volume limitation - for me, there's only so much stuff I can track, even using an aggregator. On the other hand, I have dropped stuff that has gotten stale, and added stuff that looked interesting as time has gone by. Meanwhile, Joi is worrying about how Technorati lists stuff. That is so not the problem. You want readers? Be interesting....

Marko Ahtisaari writes a lengthy post entitled, "Three Mistakes in the Moral Mathematics of Blogging."#

Derek Parfit — from whom I borrowed the title of this post — writes towards the end of his ambitious book Reason and Persons (1984): "[Our many false beliefs about justice and ethics] did not matter in the small communities in which, for most of history, most people lived. In these communities, we harm others only if there are people whom each of us significantly harms. Most of us now live in large communities. The bad effects of our acts can now be dispersed over thousands or even millions of people. Our false beliefs are now serious mistakes."

I'd like to point out three mistakes that are common in the current debate about the justice of networked forms of organization. No doubt much hinges on how we spell out the concept of a just institutional scheme. But before we even go at that issue it's good to clear some ground by avoiding these three mistakes in the moral mathematics of blogging.

The mistakes (summarized):

• There seems to be a belief that there can be nothing wrong about the way things are because the current situation evolved naturally. Nature, then, has already decided on what justice will be and we must accept it. Marko says that we must agree on what justice will be and then look at the system and see if it is justice.
• There also seems to be an assumption that when people link they have "full information about available options and fully formed values or preferences over those options." So, this market is not perfectly competitive.
• If the current system is found wanting, then to change it will also destroy it. You can't "force" people to change their linking behaviour in a command-and-control way.

My take:#

My opinion is the product of a delicate arithmetic of Dave's, James', and Joi's.

I think that the idea that studying the power-curve and trying to change it as a way to get more links for you or someone else is kind of silly. As Dave says, blogs are not television. We are not necessarily interested in quantity, we are not necessarily all interested in the same thing. Some bloggers may be trying to construct their own media empires, but I'm not too interested in that in and of itself.

What I am interested in, is finding a high quality group of readers and writers to interact with. I seek this group so that my ideas and mind may grow through exposure to different ideas and a constant pull and push towards greater articulation of my ideas.

So, as James writes, the blogosphere, for me, is all about content. If you provide interesting content and discussion, then I am going to read you. If I read you and am interested, then I will likely link to you.

But, the power-law curve does exist. So how do we judge it and try to understand it? I think that Joi Ito's method is most optimal.

If you think about the space of ideas and themes that exist inside the blogosphere, then you are likely to find a power curve system. But, it also seems to me that the system is very fluid and changes constantly. We all weren't talking this much about the Power Law concept itself last month, and since it was big once this shows that ideas don't necessarily die when they fall from number one. They just go on holiday.

With this view, I think you would find that the power-law curve is very fair as evidenced by the penetration and amplification of new ideas. On the idea-curve front, there's nothing really wrong, but that's not to say things couldn't be better.

The way to improve the blogosphere, in my opinion, is to improve your own interaction with the blogosphere. I can't tell you what that is for you, but here are some of my policies:

• Give greater attention to bloggers who encourage discussion. This means linking to and responding to criticism and continuations of ideas. (Not necessarily just having a comment system.)
• Actively seek out new sources of information. I try to subscribe to a new blogger every day so that my sphere constantly grows bigger and I don't get to comfortable always looking towards X for news.
• Triangulate ideas and build a picture based on multiple perspectives. If I read something particularly edgy, I will try and see what a few other people say--attempting to build a more accurate picture of the event or idea.
• Leave breadcrumbs for the next person. Whenever I read things interesting or that make me think, I try to leave a breadcrumb trail for anyone else who may be interested. My goal is to blaze a path that may prove useful to a lost journeyer or curious explorer.
• Attempt to contribute unique ideas. I see the value in being a trailblazer and guide, but I want to do more. I want to put new ideas and information into the network. I do this by giving my thoughts about various ideas (like right now,) by doing citizen journalism, and by blogging the books I read.

I think that if more people adopt this sort of philosophy, the blogosphere will become more interesting and helpful to me. I think that if each concerned person wrote up their vision of the blogosphere, and how they go about making it a reality, then we will find out what kind of world we all want to live in. And, have a dense and comprehensive guidebook to making it a reality.

"We must be the change that we envision." - Mahatma Gandhi.

Initially, Jay Rosen posted a number of links about an idea going through the blogosphere:#

Over the holidays, an idea gained some Net traction: webloggers "adopting" a campaign reporter. That means you monitor and collect all the reporter's work, and then... And then what? Follow the turns as the suggestion is taken up and debated.

Then, a few days later Jay Rosen continued with what he loved and "dreaded" about the idea.#

Love:

Adopting a campaign reporter, and writing a weblog about the work that reporter does, is involving yourself in the press. And you can never predict how involving things will evolve. But that's not why I love it. I love it because it's one-to-one. That cosmic abstraction, The Media, which has no earthly address, is reckoned with by reduction to a single journalist, somebody who, far from the news wars, might be eating a sandwich when you are eating your sandwich. This gives the activity human scale, even if it's antagonistic. Our expanding culture of complaint about Big Media could use more of that-- a human scale.

Hate:

Don't tell me it doesn't exist--floating hatred for The Media, (which has no address) addressed to individuals who in someone's eyes represent "the" media--because I can find occasional evidence for it in comments here at PressThink. You can find it at a million Web pages in public view. Bipartisan evidence, too. Is the contempt deserved? A lot of intelligent people think so, and they act on that belief. They write of it. They sometimes commune around it. Is there contempt for an intelligent lay public by the press? There is, but right now I am not discussing it.

Now it's ridiculous to put a powerful system like the American news media in the position of victim, and I intend nothing like that. Nothing at all. But I am curious why we don't see hatred of the press as taking some toll on the hater. (We do when it's racism.) In this sense I dread the adopt-a-journalist scheme, even though I support the idea, because I think dread is a fit response when people who are in some quarters hated--perhaps symbolically so--are being carefully "watched" in those quarters.

Al Giordano comments on this and tries to build a case against the "dread."#

Should we trust cops to monitor cops? We can't trust "licensed" (i.e. commercial) journalists to monitor their peers either. The brotherhood is too deeply ingrained and imposed by the owning class of the media, and most journalists have gone along with this racket to the detriment of the vocation and its work.

The inevitable result of this trend that you've bravely been willing to discuss honestly is that, to survive the assault, the "official" press (that is, Commercial Media) is going to have to allow its reporters to interact more honestly, and less condescendingly, with the public.

The days when an editor or a publisher or an ombudsman could mediate that relationship are coming to a close. The handcuffs have to be taken off the journalists, and the culture of elitism that considers journalists as apart and separate from the masses - that is, unaccountable to the people - has to end.

Halley comments on Halley's Comment.#

I love it if it lets us see who is twisting the facts about politicians to their own or their friends' partisan advantages and denying the American public factual information about what's going on in Washington. Just like giving up on Santa Claus being real, none of us really believe the media is objective anymore, do we? If the dirt on folks like Karl Rove is correct and they manipulate the media to destroy people just for the fun of it and for the big fees their benefactors pay them, this is a problem. A big problem. I'd like to trust journalists. I'd like journalists to help me be educated, to help me be an informed citizen, to help me participate in democracy. Am I naive? Probably, but I vote yes for foster parenting journalists if this can be the result.

[...]

So, I think we actually are talking AROUND the subject. There is a middle ground we haven't found yet. We're at a flashpoint in terms of media technology. Bloggers instituting Adopt-A-Reporter is to journalists as Expedia, Travelocity and Orbitz were to your travel agent, a transparency mechanism. The big difference being what's at stake -- an open democracy, or a cheap fare to Tampa/St. Pete. As we learned in the "transparentification" of the travel industry, there is no going back, but when it comes to democracy, I think we better proceed with caution.

Later, Jim Moore proposes an "Adopt-A-Journalist"-like scheme.#

The MMN [Media Monitoring Network] is designed to monitor the journalists who report the news of today. Journalism has developed a lack of accuracy and responsibility, and has a propensity to promote controversial spin on statements and events that have been taken out of context. We stand vigilant against the degradation of the integrity of the media, and seek to promote honest reporting.

Will Richardson ruminates on this idea and the future of it.#

I know I have said this before, but I love watching the way all of this is evolving. I'm not sure we're going to get to the point where every reporter has a widely read blogger fact checking his or her behind, but just the mere fact that "ordinary" citizens who feel so compelled can now find an outlet for their motivation to add to the record on a potentially meaningful scale is a significant change. Is there potential for abuse here? Sure, and Jay correctly worries about what those motivations may be. But I think that the more opportunities we can provide for people to exercise their freedoms of speech (whatever remain) to a wider audience is a good thing. And besides, the knuckleheads who do try to abuse it won't sustain much of an audience anyway.

Michael Feldman on a similar idea, the Citizen Blogger/Journalist.#

In fact, the vaunted objectivity of the mainstream media is immediately suspect from at least two points of view. First, all human experience is inevitably and a priori subjective. The same words, the same story, mean different things to different people. Perhaps it is better to know the orientation and viewpoint of each voice up front and try to achieve a balance, in order to hear various viewpoints and make your own decision, rather than let Dan Rather tell you what the "objective" reality is.

Finally, it seems obvious to us that the major media conglomerates are such major players in the economic and social evolution of the country that the idea that they are the ultimate arbitrators of what is worthy of public attention and what they should think about those things would be laughable were it not so scary. How can we imagine that they or any of their minions can be "objective" when their very future, their employment, and their families futures depend on the information power grid continuing as is?

My take:#

While not necessarily opposed to the idea of someone trying this out, because I think it's too hard to tell what something will be like before it is tried, I do not think "Adopting a Journalist" will be the best way to reform the media.

People have been complaining about journalists doing a bad job for a very long time. It hasn't really done much for us. And I don't see how it would be differently if it was more of a one-on-one pairing, rather than the current "find the worst ones, and fact-check their ass."

It is my opinion that the best way to compete with journalism and the media is to replace it. As Jello Biafra once said: "Don't hate the media, become the media!" (Note: I do not think everything he says is great, but this was a good one.)

I'm on the side of citizen journalism. I think that by providing a better alternative to the conventional media machine, it will do more to reform the media in this country. If the vision of a derived objectivity from multiple perspectives is really what is best for the country, and what people want, then by doing it you will attract eyeballs. These eyeballs will move their attention and dollars away from the conventional media; and, if the main media wants to remain competitive they will have to change how they act.

The "Adopt-A-Journalist" scheme seems to me to be as effective as creating an "anti-" site. Why would you build your world and identity as being against something (a corrupted media) rather than for something (an open and educating media)?

Halley Suitt is hilarious.#

I suggested replacing drinking with masturbation. I thinkmasturbation is a highly underrated habit. The obvious comparisons right off the top are lower cost, easier access, less chance of running into a tree or over a cliff as a result of excessive jerking off. We've all heard of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, but really are there Mothers Against Excessive Jerking Off? (I know we Moms make half-hearted attempts to keep our kids hands outside of the covers the first few times they figure it out, but we give up in short order. We know when we are fighting a losing battle.)

Sappho writes about the Da Vinci Code.#

The history was another matter. The impression the book gives is of research which was broadranging, but shallow. So, you get all kinds of facts about Opus Dei, the Templars, Constantine, etc., but no particular grounds for confidence that these facts are accurate. Where I happened to know the history in question, the novel would prove to be at best skewed and simplistic, or even wrong. A large chunk of the plot, of course, is based on making the assumption that the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail is right, that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had children and a bloodline that went on to intermarry with the Merovingian kings of France, and that the Priory of Sion is a secret society protecting that bloodline. This assumption is then tied with a bunch of stuff about goddess worship and the divine feminine (which isn't in Holy Blood, Holy Grail - that book just posits an ordinary mortal royal family which happens to be descended from Jesus and hopes to get some cachet from that fact).

The history looks as if it's pulled together from sometimes contradictory sources without any attempt to reconcile them; this makes for some odd combinations. The Catholic Church erred in making Jesus a God, to suit Constantine's political need to accomodate paganism, and it also erred in suppressing nice, woman-friendly, goddess-worshipping paganism. Jesus is no God, but a man, and Mary Magdalene is an instance of the divine feminine. The picture that emerges sort of looks like a Wicca meets The Two Babylons take on the Catholic Church. Is history actually the point? Maybe not. For as the novel progresses, parallel with the quest for the Grail, another question begins to play out in the characters' minds and conversation: if there actually is evidence that proves Catholicism wrong, ought one to publish it?

Mark Schmitt continues his discussion on the Senate and Rick Santorum after a post from Brad DeLong with a post entitled, "Evil Senators Are Nothing New."#

Further, the respect and decorum of the Senate can sometimes hold people back from saying things that need to be said. For example, in the confirmation hearings for John Ashcroft to be Attorney General, even while 43 Senators did the unimaginable thing and opposed him, even his opponents, in commenting on Ashcroft's blocking Ronnie White's nomination to be a judge, were careful to say, "Ashcroft's not a racist," while in fact, I'm pretty sure that a good many of them had ample reason to believe that Ashcroft was and is very much a racist.

Still, Joe McCarthy was not in the leadership of the Senate, and what paralyzed his colleagues from acting against him was their fear that he had some connection to the American people, and they couldn't stand up to him until someone else had, in this case Army counsel Joseph Welch. Santorum, on the other hand, has been chosen by his party and shapes the culture of the Senate itself.

Oliver Willis is waging an incredible campaign war in Iowa.#

OKOBOJI, IA - Jan. 17 - The wild presidential race in Iowa just got wilder, according to a new MSNBCNNFOX/Zogby poll that puts longshot candidate Oliver Willis in the thick of the horserace with 12% support. "I attribute my rise in the polls to the positive, dynamic I'm laying out for America. That, plus the free booze and half naked girls."

[...]

Late Friday night, Willis set off in his custom designed campaign bus on the "Iowapalooza" tour, notable mostly for the Willis '04 Cheerleader Squad who planned to spend most of the trip in the "Heal America Hot Tub". "That's the centerpiece of my campaign", said Willis as he poured himself a cappuccino, "while those other 'Washington' (and Vermont) politicians talk about boring things like farm subsidies - I'm bringing a message of nudity and hedonism to America's heartland".

Dean Esmay links to Michele who dissects the psyche of Popeye.#

About that spinach: I think that might be the cause of Popeye's strained look. Spinach is loaded with iron. Iron can make you constipated. Look at that face. Seems to me that what Popeye needs is not a kiss from Olive Oyl or a beatdown from Brutus, but a good laxative and a better diet. You gotta figure that if he's trying to squeeze one out all the time, he's probably pretty cranky. One good dump, maybe even an enema (applied by Olive Oyl), would go a long way towards making a kinder, gentler Popeye. Perhaps then he could turn the other cheek when faced with Bluto's aggression.

The real problem as I see it is with Popeye's self-esteem. Why would a guy go through so much trouble for a scrawny, screechy woman who makes him run through hoops just for a peck on the cheek? Surely there is some kind of deep, [psychological] need for Popeye to prove himself. Maybe he had parents who were never pleased with him. Maybe all those years in the Navy did a number on his psyche. There has to be some reason for this guy to so crave Olive's love, devotion and body that he takes so much mental abuse from her and physical abuse from Brutus. Perhaps a psychologist is in order. Or Prozac.

Dean Esmay comments on an interview in the New York Times with Howard Dean.#

"Our model is to get around the president's right, as John Kennedy did to Nixon." He then goes on to describe how Democrats are not really the anti-war party.

I've been telling you people for months: Dean is following the Kennedy/Nixon playbook, and plans to hove hard to the right the moment he's sure he has the nomination in place. If he gets it, that is. This is how Kennedy got around Nixon, and how Nixon later got around Humphrey.

My support is at this point a foregone conclusion: I've said manly times I'd vote for a corpse before I'd vote for Howard Dean. But I do want to make note of the fact that right here in January, Howard Dean openly admitted to planning to do what some of us figured he was going to do all along.

Joto at Kuro5hin.org reports on China's participation in the UN.#

Chinese press reports that China will send a policeman to Afghanistan. His name is Zhang Ming, and is a former drug-cop. China sends him after getting a request from UN to participate in UNs peacekeeping forces.

It is believed that by sending just one man, China only wants to play a symbolic role in Afghanistan. With its population of 1,286,975,468, China also takes part in UN peacekeeping operation in East-Timor and Liberia, with a total of 21 policemen there.

Lisa Williams asks an important question.#

Uhhhh, why do we let 3% of Iowans have such a big hand in deciding who the opposition Presidential candidate is, anyway?

Lisa Williams explains why you should not tell a woman how to fix her problems.#

Dean tells you not to do it, but he doesn't get into why. Maybe he doesn't know why. Well, speaking from the distaff side of the gender divide, I'll tell you why women don't like it. When I talk to my husband about something that's upsetting me, it's much more important to me that I know that he understands how I feel and empathizes with me than that he knows how to fix my problem. In her books on how gender influences how people talk, Deborah Tannen notes that "Men talk to report, women talk for rapport." That's exactly right. What looks to a guy like a "report about a situation" + "emotional upset" to a woman is "emotional upset" + "something that we can take care of later." I've often percieved my husband's efforts to "fix" my problem as a strategy (however unconscious) of avoiding getting in here with me with my uncomfortable emotions.

The fact is, when I calm down, I'll know how to fix it. Right now what I need is for somebody to kiss my booboo, preferably my man.

Thanks Lis!

Ryan Overbey writes about Posthumous Mormon Baptism.#

Why do people get upset at posthumous baptisms performed by Mormons? If a Mormon baptized my great-grandfather into the religion, I'd probably laugh about it. Since I'm not Mormon, I'm willing to wager that their baptism-magic won't whisk my great-grandfather's soul off into some boring caffeine-free Mormon heaven. So are the Jewish groups in question really worried that their ancestors' souls are being kidnapped? I doubt it.

It sounds more like an intellectual property issue. My ancestors' names are my property, and using them is insulting somehow, even if I think your list is a laughable fabrication.

Ryan Overbey links to an article about why the Gephardt campaign is doing so bad.#

As for Gephardt's pollster, It's very telling that a man who makes his living connecting brands with consumers also works on a political campaign. It's even more telling how he views political process:

''It's like Coke and Pepsi,'' he said. ''The hardest thing to do in business is to get someone to move from here'' -- he shifted his hand from the pale blue can to an imaginary red one beside it -- ''to here. They taste the same. There's almost no difference. But hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in marketing to do this.

''We're now dealing with a group of people who are sitting back and looking at these two options,'' he continued. He moved his hand back from the can and surveyed the scene. ''And we want to know: can we get them from here to here?''

It's a chilling, horrifying look at the emptiness of our politics.

You see, Gephardt doesn't even try to pretend he's something different. But, at least he's honest.

Michael Feldman continues the story of his kidnapping with a second part.#

Those Senderistas were know for deadly little bits of political theater like rolling into an isolated mountain village at midnight, assembling the entire population in the main square, and in a sort of bizarre torch-lit revolutionary pep rally and training session, systematically assassinating the mayor, the policemen, all of the teachers, and anyone else who worked for the government. They would usually take a few of the village's crazier teenagers with them when they left and call it recruitment.

Michael Feldman wonders about what constitutes child abuse.#

But in addition to obvious physical and sexual child abuse, there are many more subtle and insidious behaviors which can be equally damaging, and constitute psychological abuse. Continual shouting, berating and insulting, denial of affection and emotional abandonment fall into this category. Then there is the category of exposing your child to unnecessary and foreseeable danger.

This is the area where there is almost universal agreement on Michael Jackson's lack of parenting skills. Now the Dowbrigade knows not whether Jackson is an innocent crackpot who sincerely enjoys the company of children or a dastardly sex fiend facilitated by pop stardom. At this stage, that's for a court to decide. But anyone who saw the video of him dangling his baby over the balcony has to ask, "What was he thinking?"

Matt Stoller writes about John Edwards.#

It's like the movie Primary Colors, but the main character is more handsome. His attitude is that 'we can do something about it'. It's inspiring and smooth, but I guess I just don't see a track record. That's probably why he's just not bloggable. His message is the best message out there, he's the best presenter, the best communicator, and hits all the right themes. But does this country need an inexperienced homespun country lawyer for a President? Perhaps, but he just doesn't have a factoid that belongs to him, something courageous he's known for, that others can hang their hat on when describing him to their friends. Edwards is magic, but Edwards' supporters are not. They don't scale. You've got to see him to support him, and often, when you see him you do support him. And this is Iowa, where nearly every caucus goer gets to see every candidate.

Alexander Payne writes about software piracy.#

Their software is costly to develop, not unlike building a quality instrument. That high development cost dictates a high market price to recoup development expenses and nab some profit on top. Professional studios and musicians are willing to pay this high market price, but semi-pro and bedroom musicians either can't afford these premiums or refuse to pay them. The instrument analogy holds consistent in this case: is an amateur pianist going to be able to afford a Steinway, or save every dollar towards one? Not likely. But whereas that amateur pianist can't go steal a concert piano from her local symphony, she can easily steal expensive sampling software with a well-recorded piano.

Are audio software companies making enough from their paying customers that they can afford losses to piracy (free riders, essentially, as the developer pays nothing per pirated copy of their software)? It's impossible to quantify, but you'll happily be quoted figures into the millions if you ask a software developer. The truth, as in most situations, is probably somewhere in the middle: the companies are obviously making enough to get by and keep making software, but they could be making more in a piracy-free world.

Richard says something great about questioning ideas and allowing yourself to be open-minded when discussing Paul Krugman's article about Comparative Advantage.#

I'm on record as being a fan of minority opinions, but one needs to strike a balance between accepting old ideas which are correct and rejecting those that aren't. All ideas should be questioned (especially the old ones, but also the new ones), but rejecting old ideas simply because they are old is not evidence of a critical mind.

Richard links to an interview with Christopher Hitchens.#

Christopher Hitchens, in an interview with Jamie Glazov: "no combination of dictatorship and clericalism can possibly stand against the determined power of the United States. In other words, the eventual result is certain victory, military and political, however long the task may take. It can be useful to bear this in mind. The job of citizens is to make sure that this American power really is self-determined, and not left either to professionals or to amateurs. We are not watching for the outcome of this war: we are participants in it and had better comport ourselves as such."

Richard links to Kevin Myers on how the sexual revolution was bad for females.#

Of course, to have asked - and honestly answered - that question would have led people to challenge the feminist-egalitarian orthodoxies which have intellectually monopolised Western polities. Single motherhood: good. Easy divorce: good. Career-mothers: good. Patriarchy: bad. Male authority figures: bad. Sexual continence: bad.

The patriarchy did not create a paradise: 19th-century London streets were dangerous places. But we know from the quintessential underworld story of that period, Oliver Twist, that the only possible hope for Bill Sykes was to marry Nancy. Indeed, civilisation has always believed that the love of a good woman can calm even the wildest male. It was surely the most idiotic achievement of the sexual revolution that the centrality of marriage to any working civilisation should have been so forgotten.

Richard on bloggers that make him feel inferior, or not.#

There are bloggers that have excellent writing on their weblogs but which I don't read specifically because of their excellence: it can feel intimidating to read them. The really great bloggers don't just redistribute by linking and summarizing but generate content worthy of discussion, consumption and, most importantly, use in terms of sparking creativity in others. And some feature beautiful writing just for the sake of featuring beautiful writing. The line between intimidation and inspiration, of course, is thin: some weblogs with excellent writing don't make me think that I suck in comparison, but the ones I stopped reading do. Or did: there's no way of knowing anymore, is there?

Doug Miller has a message that many people probably have to read at one point or another.#

I have a major beef with people who refuse to invest any time in learning how to use a complex piece of software.

I'm not sure where this whole myth began, but too many end users seem to have the attitude that they should be able to be immediately productive in every piece of software they install. If they can't be, the software developer has done a poor job. There's never even an inkling that the fault may be with their own unwillingness to learn a new skill.

I hate to break this to you people, but computers are complex machines. They are not fucking toasters! Like any complex task, successfully using a piece of complex software requires a willingness to invest some time to learn how to do it. You may not be successful at first. You may have to take things in small bites. You're learning a new skill, here, okay?

Occasionally Tony Pierce will write something that makes my jaw drop and say, W-T-F?#

one lonely beastie i be, all by myself without nobody. cept the little hottie in my baseball hat, shits getting long, shits getting phat. and yo dre, what you say, she says minnie mighty super tightie little thin but built to win, likes it when i lick her there took me to the county fair. she called the pizza man when i wasnt lookin and now theres cinnastix and buffalo wings and a roni pie extra cheese heading up the hill. my momma called. my best friend called. the nieghbors out tanning in this 70 degree january. i wish i could call my new thing Nary. but its registered. nary dot com nary not net nary dot org. all of em.

Halley Suitt writes about Irish Oatmeal. I've been eating it recently. Funny.#

Joi Ito posts cow humour.#

Joi Ito advises those serious about blogging to improve their writing.#

Poor writing style, like bad manners, makes someone appear less intelligent than they are. Writing style, like manners, can be learned in many ways. Reading and writing a lot is the first step. Having people critique your writing is probably the next best thing. There are many basic writing mistakes that people make, which can easily be avoided by being aware of them.

Vegan Porn links to the Vegetarian Society of Hawaii who ran "Switch"-like ads about vegetarianism.#

Michael Feldman links to the destruction of the North Pole.#

But as northbound winds carry toxic remnants of faraway lands to their hunting grounds in extraordinary amounts, their close connection to the environment and their ancestral diet of marine mammals have left the Arctic's indigenous people vulnerable to the pollutants of modern society. About 200 hazardous compounds, which migrate from industrialized regions and accumulate in ocean-dwelling animals, have been detected in the inhabitants of the far north.

The bodies of Arctic people, particularly Greenland's Inuit, contain the highest human concentrations of industrial chemicals and pesticides found anywhere on Earth -- levels so extreme that the breast milk and tissues of some Greenlanders could be classified as hazardous waste.

First a note. This issue is discussed in two books:#

1. Database Nation, by Simson Garfinkel
2. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, by Lawrence Lessig

Both of these authors are associated with The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School.#

This is primarily a reply to jsl32's two comments.#

I agree that many people solely want to look at the actions of the private sector and see evil, particularly when the size of the entity in question increases.#

As you say, corporations exist to serve the consumer. And, all corporations DO serve their customers. (If you disagree: Why would I pay someone for something I did not want. And note, a cigarette company serves my taste but not my health, and by purchasing I have said that my taste is more important.) But they DO NOT serve "the public." Only their customers, and they should only have to.

They should only have to serve their customers, because doing otherwise would be to support freeloaders. (Another note: A free trial does not serve the public, it serves the customers by turning potential customers into real customers.)

So, you are right too say that we must "find ways to make the current system work for us all" and "devise incentives to keep the corps honest."

I think you are unfairly painting boycott as a solution and disincentive.#

First, if it not clear that boycott is the issue:

• Paying for goods is cash is boycotting credit card companies.
• Reading books in stores/libraries is to boycott those institutions.

Secondly, if you don't think boycotting is effective, notice that people do it all the time: Every company you don't buy something from is the target of your "preference boycott." The only question is whether political boycott is effective. But, for boycotts of either kind to have an effective on a corporation or product there must be enough people participating to effect the corporation's bottom line. So, how do you get people to support a political boycott? It seems obvious to me that creating information about the reasons will be the best way to turn a political agenda into a preference.

But, boycotts of this nature are not always the most effective method. Namely, what if the benefit a service offers is greater than the pain it causes? Suppose it benefits me by 50 units to buy with a credit card and only hurts me by 20 units to have my information moved around. (This comparison is different for everyone, obviously.) Then it is better for me to just use the credit card, and benefit by 30 units.

So, to be most effective, rather than encouraging people to stop using credit cards all together and hurt by 30 units. What I should do, is create a credit card company that offers at least 30 units of benefit and does not share customer information. Then customers would naturally use my service because it is better for them.

This strategy can be used in any situation: Provide an alternative that is better.

The problem with trying to use public force (the government) and laws to change these things is that it enforces a model of happiness on people without room for experimentation.#

Suppose you make it illegal for corporations to do this. Suppose I want them to. You've just hurt me. That doesn't really "work for everyone" now does it?

If the government has an business in this matter it is to aide the education process. Some might say it is also best utilized to force corporations to reveal how they share information, but that could also be done by private means. Simply boycott companies that don't reveal their information policies and create alternatives that do.

And a final comment to tabby676:#

You write:

I think it is safe to say that most americans just don't think about the fact that all of their purchases are being monitored, just like most americans have credit cards and don't think about the fact that every single thing they buy and most of their day to day movements can be tracked by those...

You assume that no one could possibly like this. Why? And if I do, does my opinion not matter?

Secondly, Why do you think Americans are so stupid? If you don't respect other people and their ability to help themselves then you will always seek to "help them" and make their lives better. What makes you need to protect them so much?

I point to this comment from Sabine Herold, the spokeswoman for Liberté j'écris ton nom (Liberty, I Write Your Name.)

I'd say that when you have no freedom and when you don't respect the individual, it can lead to slaughter. And the only way to respect the individual is to give him the freedom to decide for himself.

I'd say that you can't decide for others what they should be. When you try to centralize everything and when the state tries to help the people too much and to decide for them what is good, it doesn't work. It didn't work in China, it didn't work in Cuba, it didn't work in North Korea.

Because in those cases you are trying to impose a model on the people. But people are diverse, so no model can be applied to them. And then if you do want a model to be applied to the people, you have to kill the people. You should not create a model and then make the people adapt to the model — you have to do something that can adapt to the people.