Atom Feed
October 8, 2004
Salon has a sober consideration of the blog-based rumor that Bush was wired with a receiver so that he had a direct line to the voice of God (i.e., Karl Rove) during the first debate. It is an hilarious rumor that I am delighted to pass along as delightfully unsubstantiated.
Children of Abraham has posted an exhibit of photos by young Moslems and Jews:
Children of Abraham 2004 is an internet-based collaboration which has involved over sixty participants (interns) between the ages of 15-21 from twenty-three countries in the development of an online photo essay that highlights the core similarities between Judaism and Islam. An advanced interactive website has enabled these interns to discuss their work, and to engage in frank, probing dialogue on sensitive issues of culture, religion and politics.
…Many of the interns came from parts of the world where they have had no contact with the other faith. Maria Ali-Adib, a Syrian co-director of the project, was impressed by the openness displayed by interns during this process of discovery…
…More than 1,500 photo images were collected and some 3,000 postings submitted on the discussion boards. The project will have a fall photo exhibit available to be accompanied with comments from the interns. Current efforts include the formation of Muslim-Jewish dialogue groups by interns in their schools and communities, and a compilation of the summer’s online discussions for use as educational material.
Wanna chat during the debate tonight? I’ll set up a channel at irc.freenode.net called johodebate, starting around 8:45pm (Boston time). If you want to get all snarky and dry one another’s tears of frustration, c’mon in.
If your chat software works the way mine (HydraIRC) does, you go to File -> Connect, and then click on Freenode as your server. Beneath that you should see irc.freenode.net. Click on that one. Once the window opens indicating that you’re connected, in the type-in field at the bottom, type “/join #johodebate” except without the quotes.
Play nice. No trolling. And I get to decide who to kick.
Bush Bounces Back in Spirited Debate
After a lackluster performance in the first presidential debate, President George W.Bush was forceful and focused in last night’s debate, an encounter marked by the most direct accusations yet.
Sharing a stage at a town hall style debate at Washington University that was supposed to focus on demestic issues, the most dramatic moments nonetheless came as the candidates circled back to Iraq. Senator John Kerry, emboldened by polls shifting in his direction and by a week of bad news for the President on Iraq, repeated twenty-three times that the President is “out of touch” with the reality of the situation in Iraq and with the American people. But it was the President who had the sharpest words: “On September 10, America maybe could have gotten by with politicians. After September 11, America needed a leader. I am that leader. My opponent is still just a politician who’ll say whatever he has to to get elected.”
Unlike the previous debate in which the President was perceived by many as being tired, irritated or unprepared, President Bush was direct and upbeat last night, at one point asking the moderator, Charles Gibson, if he could give a “big ol’ Texas hug” to the woman whose question Gibson had just read. “That’s not in the 32-page agreement you both signed,” Gibson said. “I know,” said the President playfully, “but sometimes a hug is more important than some old rules. Senator Kerry, John, you wouldn’t say no to me giving that woman a hug, would you?” As Kerry looked flustered and speechless, Gibson denied the President’s request. The woman’s question had to do with the conflict between Title 12 of the Medical Aid for America Act and provisions of the Employee Reimbursible Tax Code.
Senator Kerry repeatedly tried to paint a picture of the President as “dangerously out of touch,” “protected from the truth by a coterie of advisors who believe they can reshape the world and history unilaterally.” In response to a question about No Child Left Behind, the Senator again turned the topic to Iraq and the previous debate, saying, “You continue to misrepresent, even here tonight, what I said in plain view of all America. You’re not deaf. You’re not dumb. And you were there [at the debate]. So, America has to conclude that you’re misrepresenting my words on purpose.”
Senator Kerry, seeming not as comfortable with the town hall style debate as with the format of the previous debate, was perceived by many as stiffer and more condescending than his opponent who seemed to find his sea legs. For example, PResident Bush prefaced his responses to many questions with an expression of sympathy or light remark. While the President made a habit of referring to the questioner by his or her first name, Kerry looked directly at the home audience and delivered unaltered portions of his stump speech. In one response that seems likely to be excerpted by the Republicans for their ads, the Senator waved his finger rhetorically at “those who would harm this country” but was caught by the camera as seeming to wave it in the face of the questioner who looked alarmed by the gesture.
“This was not Kerry’s best night,” admitted a senior aide to the Kerry campaign off the record. “The format favored President Bush who, one on one, is charming and likable. We’ll be watching the tapes very carefully.” Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Bush/Cheney campaign committee, said: “America tonight saw the Bush they know and love: A world leader who speaks plainly and is working every day to keep them safe.”
At the debate, the candidates answered questions about health care, education, stem cell research, the Patriot Act, the environment, the economy, race relations, and what advice they would give to their favorite baseball team.
October 7, 2004
Jay approvingly annotates a column by Chris Satullo in the Philadelphia Post about blogs. “What matters is that journalism survive, that the craft of speaking truth to power with factual care not be snuffed out,” says Satullo. “Because power prefers lies. Without journalism, lies flourish and liars rule.” Whether it’s bloggers or big media journalists, that’s what matters. And, from that point of view, having an citizenry engaged in unearthing, checking and appropriating facts works towards the same end as journalism: “…helping the public life of this nation work well.”
I’m looking for someone to talk with at the Library of Congress about its classification scheme. I’m interested in its history, how they modify it, its relationship to the Dewey system, and how the digitizing of information is affecting it. If you know someone there I could talk with about such stuff, would you please send me an email? (evident.com is the domain and self is the name.)
And a preemptive thanks to you all!
It is easy to be dismissive of undecided voters. Who are these people? How can anyone be undecided in such a glaringly obvious election? But that feels patronizing and simplistic. Most undecided voters seem to me to be victims of a political process that seems alien and unresponsive.
— Jonathan Alford, “Looking for votes, finding America,” an account of a week spent campaigning for Kerry, in Salon.
October 6, 2004
I’m leading the first in a series of discussions at the Harvard Berkman Center tonight. You’re invited: 6pm at the Baker House on Mass. Ave in Cambridge, MA.
I’m petrified, of course. It’d be better if I knew exactly what I’m going to say in my 20-minute discussion opener. I’m thinking of something like this:
Wikipedia has frozen the page about Bush because it was being flip-flopped so fast. Instead, Wikipedia wants to come up with a non-controversial core of facts. Why? Because that can serve as an authority for all.
This reliance on facts is interesting. Some of us (including me) thought the Web would join facts and values more firmly than ever because of the dominance of voice on the Web. Instead, are facts separating out? And are facts becoming commoditized? [I wrote a draft of an article for my newsletter on this topic last night on the plane.]
Go back to the basic notion of truth: Correspondence of a proposition with the world. Truth is abstracted from individuals (and from voice?), according to this idea, since it doesn’t matter who utters the proposition. Authority comes from trust that this particular source removes his or her (and historically, of course, it’s mainly been his) interests and utters true (objective) statements.
Blogs seem to change that. They are full of voice expressing interests. Does this mean that they are only accidentally true at best? Or are we seeing the emergence of multi-subjectivity that has the authority of objectivity? Will facts become commoditized and conspicuously split off from the voices that try to find the truths that facts support?
As you can tell, I haven’t figured out how to pull this together in a coherent way. Also, I desperately need questions to stimulate the conversation if and when it flags.
On the 20-minute bus ride from the hotel to the Microsoft campus yesterday, I got to sit next to Brad of Brad Sucks, “a one man band from Ottawa, Canada.” Omigod. What a role model.
I assume I’m the last person to find and love his site, at least if there’s any justice in this world. Just in case, this is from his FAQ:
Why would I buy your music when you give it away for free?
Well I don’t know, but people have been doing it and I hope they continue. Maybe they like a CD to hold in their hands, maybe they just want to support artists, maybe it’s just flat-out pity.
I put my music online because I want people to hear it. I’d obviously love to make a living making music, but if the worst-case scenario is becoming a well-heard artist that never gets paid, I can live with that.
So, on his site you can buy his CD for $5 (including shipping!) or download the very same music for free. If you buy the CD, it includes the MP3s to encourage you to share them. You can also buy his music from iTunes, from which he gets 65% of your money, a somewhat better deal than being squeezed like a Tropicana orange by a record label that uses some of its profits to sue your fans. I just bought his CD from Magnatune, who pays him half of what you choose to pay them ($8-$18) because I want to support Magnatune and I don’t like the thought of Brad wasting his time sticking CDs into mailers when he should be recording. That’s why we have middlepeople.
As for his music: What possible good would it do to get a Musical Judgment from someone who lost interest in contemporary music in 1977, The Summer of Eh. All I’ll say I that like Beck and I like Brad. (The line that just played: “I can tell by your middle finger that you’re warming up to me.”)
[Note to our Canadian friends: You don’t have to say “Ottawa, Canada.” It’s your damn capital. You don’t hear us Americans saying “Washington, DC, USA.” Thank you, and keep up the good work.’
As Erik D’Amato writes in his Hungarian blog:
In a stunning upset likely to send shockwaves throughout the so-called “blogosphere,” recently-launched Hungarian-American website Pestiside.hu yesterday beat recently-launched Hungarian-American website www.georgesoros.com in the race to be the first Internet weblog, or “blog,” to successfully throw a significant electoral contest.
At issue was the presidency of the American Chamber of Commerce in Hungary:
The Hungarian AmCham has ceased to be an institution dedicated to promoting the “American” way of doing business, and is instead now a local symbol of the most “un-American” of bad business habits, including cronyism, cartelism, non-transparency and even a degree of media coercion.
Erik exposes the issues, including a possible conflict of interest for the incumbent. Did Pestiside make the difference in the election? Why don’t we just say yes? After all, aren’t all politics blogal?
Joho the Blog uses WordPress blogging software.
Thank you, WordPress!
