. Blogging is not just about doing your thang, in other words: it's about <i>communicating</i> your thang, and that's an entirely different beast.<p><img src='https://altaide.typepad.com/jacques_froissant_altade/images/idog.jpg' style=)
Because geeks, nerds, and IT dorks are always the first on the tech bandwagon, the blogosphere is full of geek writing. A lot of this writing is great - but it's also self selecting, because articulate bloggers will naturally be more readable and, therefore, more popular. The balance of these less popular yet often just as interesting blogs can be hard to follow, diluting the points these fine individuals took the time to compile. That's sad, because sometimes it seems like poor writing has become the standard. If you want to be an effective blogger, you have to think about how you say it, not just what you want to say. This takes a moment of reflection often lost in the immediacy inherent in web publishing.
Becoming a good writer means taking responsibility for the complete process of creating and publishing comprehensible and enjoyable content. Unfortunately, current blog software can't make your post more clear, insightful, or articulate (though it can often catch spelling errors, but I find those rather endearing). But practice, self-observation, and thinking ahead can. If you want people to read you, stop tweaking your latest Ajax widget or CSS class and start tweaking your content!
Read more...
From the great blog Against the War on Terror comes this snippet of wisdom:
It is easier for liberals to blame their abysmal failures on ‘the stupidity of our culture' and national ignorance, than to accept the fact that they don't come much closer to representing the interests of the majority than conservatives. Liberals have never been that comfortable with democracy in America, preferring popular sovereignty at a distance. They have preferred to see the people as a political resource, led by a highly educated, technocratic elite.
Precisely. We don't need a conservative regimentation of society, nor do we need a (nominally) liberal managerial state. And to the extent that either one of those outcomes are sought by those who appropriate the term "liberal", well, whoever said doublespeak wasn't effective?
NOTE: I'm working on a post that answers Joe Miller's retort concerning the meaning of liberalism vs. leftism, so stay tuned.
I'm not the most pop culture literate guy out there, but I try to keep up on what people like - at least people whose tastes I've come to admire and respect. Finding music that doesn't insult your intelligence actually isn't terribly difficult anymore if you put a little effort into it and cast a wide enough net. With all the reviews on Amazon, blogs, message boards, etc. you have no excuse except for having a job, a life, or something superficial like that to get in the way of your art consumption. My problem is that I'm just lazy, and I want to listen to what I like. I always hate my favorite albums the first five times I listen to them, because music appreciation is - somehow - work for me.
I wish I had that ear that just hears a song and immediately recognizes the genius of it. Alas, I belong to the fallen majority of humanity who needs to be told that art is great. Not that I blindly accept what I'm told with not personal filtering, but I have to have something to filter - and there's lots of music data on the internet to sift through in search of the next gold nugget. So that's a caveat for my ignorance of the contemporary music scene.
With that said, I can go ahead and state with certainty that Wolf Parade's Apologies to the Queen Mary was my favorite album of 2005. From the first track, a Modest Mouse-like tune called You Are a Runner and I am my Father's Son, the work sears with energy. The obvious favorite on here is "Grounds for Divorce", a sprawling exploration of new new wave silliness, creatively bouncing and whimsical bass work, and a fuzz guitar / synth duo that makes you pump your fist. At once angst-ridden and optimistic, Wolf Parade excel at showing the unfinished surface of modern pop - without making you feel like you want to kill yourself (the singer's voice is fairly reminiscent of pre-Nevermind Cobain, though I haven't yet found agreement on that with other fans).
Read more...
As I continue to move forward with Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, I'm struck by a point that sums up the last decade of my exploration of libertarianism. From the moment I picked up Charles Murray's What It Means to be a Libertarian, I became effectively brainwashed in the same myopic revisionist history that infects so much of the libertarian movement. Chief among the historical errors of the "vulgar libertarians" is the idea that the political and economic conditions of 19th century America represented an ideal (or at least adequate) free market environment, and the we should somehow aspire to return to this lost Eden. While we have undoubtedly descended further into statist domination over the course of the last century, we should recognize that much of the current state socialist agenda was a reaction to state capitalist exploitation - an expedient coziness and mutual back-scratching between big business and government that is never really looked at in mainstream libertarianism. Carson, however, will not ignore it:
Unlike mainstream libertarians of the right, who typically depict twentieth century state capitalism as a departure from a largely "laissez-faire" nineteenth century idyll, Hodgskin, Tucker et al. were much more thorough-going. It was precisely the capitalism of the nineteenth century that Hodgskin and Tucker described as a statist system of privilege. Although the United States was well into the corporate revolution, and "internal improvements" and railroad subsidies were a large part of national economic life, at the time Tucker wrote, he dealt with these matters almost not at all. The four privileges he attacked--the money and land monopolies, tariffs, and patents--had been an integral part of capitalism from its beginnings. The last-named privileges, tariffs and patents, indeed played a large part in the cartelizing and concentration of the corporate economy during the latter part of the nineteenth century. But Tucker largely neglected their effects on the overall structure of capitalism. So Tucker's critique of capitalism as fundamentally statist was almost completely abstracted from the nascent capitalism of the Gilded Age. The capitalism which Tucker denounced for its statism was, rather, the very capitalism that conventional right-libertarians today point to as a "free market" utopia.
Establishing a consistent terminology seems to be a left libertarian priority (see Adem's post on it for another perspective on "the Zaxlebax problem"). If I am to have any impact whatsoever in my left libertarian writing and activism, I hope it includes a fierce focus on convincing other libertarians to abandon demonstrably false premises. They only serve to distort our perspective, discredit us among the historically literate, and further marginalize our movement.
I try not to hop on the latest tech fad bandwagon. Not only that, I rarely blog about it. There are lots of blogs that post 30 times a day about the latest incremental upgrade to some lame flatscreen monitor, and I can't compete with that. I like to attempt to keep up on trends, but let's face it: technology is moving far faster than I can handle. Plus, there are things I just like to write about more than marketing somebody else's products.
However, I am hereby making an exception, because there are products about to come out that will significantly improve my internet experience. ePaper (or eInk - they're the same thing, I believe) displays are being integrated into devices which will mobilize the consumption of content on the internet in a new way. These devices are to the computer display what the computer display was to books. Here's the highlights:
- No backlighting: For me, staring at a source of radiation is often the cause of fatigue, especially when working long hours.
- Reflectivity: You can read it outside just as easily as a piece of paper in direct light!
- Higher contrast: This works hand in hand with the reflectivity to give you a printed media feel to the content.
- Low power consumption: Now here's the coup d'grace. ePaper only requires power when the display changes. Think about that: you only consume power when you flip pages. This results in battery lives of up to a week! The technology, in fact, already exists for ePaper to completely replace conventional paper in the office. Legal-size sheets of film-like ePaper can be loaded with content, removed from the loading device, and persist the display indefinately with no power consumption whatsoever.
The only real drawbacks are grayscale displays (no color ePaper - yet), slow refresh rates (it's designed for static content obviously) and cost. A survey of new ePaper reading devices reveals a device from Sony for under $400, but that locks you into a proprietary format. I'm more inclined to go with the iRex iLiad (pictured to the left), but that's looking like it will be pricey. It'd be worth it for full open standard support, however. And just check these pics out - that is one slick device, with WiFi ta boot!
My real concern, however, is the way I will get content to these machines. Will there be a browser integrated? The bottom line is that I get my content from the web, so I'd better have either a browser or a way to easily push content from, say, my feed reader to the eReader. If I have to manually drop articles onto the reader, my browsing workflow will be retarded, not enhanced, by this device.
Read more...
I recently finished Part 1 of Kevin Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy. I use the verb "finished" in a very loose sense, as I will be very well served by two or three re-reads of that part of the book. The Wikipedia links I'm peppering throughout this post will serve as ample warning that I am a neophyte on these matters. However, I think I understand the basic arguments for locating the source of economic value in labor.
The Labor Theory of Value - frequently associated with Marxism - is almost universally rejected by modern liberal economists, to say nothing of mainstream libertarians. However, I found it interesting that Carson prefaces his entire thesis on a statement from Boehm-Bawerk, a 19th century economist who is credited with burying the LTV once and for all.
I have criticized the law of Labour Value with all the severity that a doctrine so utterly false seemed to me to deserve. It may be that my criticism also is open to many objections. But one thing at any rate seems to me certain: earnest writers concerned to find out the truth will not in future venture to content themselves with asserting the law of value as has been hitherto done.
In future any one who thinks that he can maintain this law will first of all be obliged to supply what his predecessors have omitted--a proof that can be taken seriously. Not quotations from authorities; not protesting and dogmatising phrases; but a proof that earnestly and conscientiously goes into the essence of the matter. On such a basis no one will be more ready and willing to continue the discussion than myself.
Read more...
Normally I try not to post mere links (more on this in a few days) but this video is too funny. I always hated it in school when law enforcement officers would come in and give some demeaning, patronizing presentation that completely insulted our intelligence. I don't think all officers are by definition so coarse and unthoughtful, but certainly the ones that want to scare kids are. I can respect* professional officers who do their job and serve honestly, despite what I may have claimed in anger in the past; I simply would like to see them come down as hard on their own when they do wrong as they come down on us when we "stray".
Now this officer featured in the video is suing for looking dumb on camera? I just think this is great: you treat kids like idiots and you end up looking like an idiot - seems fair to me (it's officially too Gen X to mention the irony). I just don't get this. Of course, this officer is typical of the DEA, which likes to operate with an air of mystique while violating your liberties.
Notes:
- Hat tip to Hammer of Truth
- * Respect for an individual should not be confused with acknowledgement of legitimate authority.
- In other news, I recently became involved with Copwatch. I'll be helping to redesign their site and get it ready for activist purposes.
Have my posts been too lengthy lately?
| Results | | Too long | 1 |
| Not too long | 4 |
As in most areas of business, the nature of centralized, bureaucratic industry inevitably results in a certain amount of cultural entropy. The music industry is a great example of this: by turning artistic expression into a homogeonized market based soley on how many ears one can bend to the highest bidding advertiser, they've unquestionably damaged the evolution of popular music, in my opinion. In fact, the indie movement has grown and flourished largely as a reaction to not only the governing philosophy of this industry, but also the commonly associated aesthetic features. In other words, there's nothing intrinsically vacant about "pop music" - look to Motown as an example - but when music is just one more commodity, mass appeal trumps the drive to push the limits of art.
However, pop has a rich history and is one foundation of the American musical tradition. I think it's an error to dismiss it as merely some corporate marketing artifact. There's nothing inherently wrong about music with hooky melodies and well-packaged harmonic ideas. However, it has to come from the same place of honesty, talent, and production ethics that makes any artistic work worthwhile. To the extent that the independent forces in the music industry can capture, promote, and sustain this formula, we should embrace it. And all the better if the tunes are catchy.
This is what really excites me about Mates of State - a reunification of genuine pop music with artistic purpose. I first saw this duo at the Austin City Limits festival last year (you can download the performance here). It was cute and synchronistic to see a husband and wife act while on our honeymoon, and you can tell that their music means a lot to them (many reviewers around the 'net refer to the onstage "loving gaze" between Kori and Jason; I think that's a really superficial way to pigeonhole them). I saw lots of great bands in Austin (most notably the Arcade Fire, an 8 or 9 piece band, about which I've already written) but this organ and drums duo blew everybody else off the stage as far as the fullness and richness of their sound. Factor in the spot on harmonies (both of them sing very well), abstract yet compelling lyrics, great songwriting, and singular melodies, and you've got a band that captures almost perfectly what I seek in music. Mates of State were the only band at Austin City Limits that actually brought me to tears (keep in mind, however, that Starship Troopers moved me to tears the first time I saw it).
Read more...
My friend Matt has a warning for trend setting, popular web application developers who forget the people that got them there: the users.
...you're playing in a land of developers, get used to it. Many of us could create the exact same products you're making, and do it just as well. What is currently setting you ahead of the pack is your ability to come up with the idea to begin with NOT your ability to build the product or even the decisions to include or exclude particular features.
As a web developer myself, I know how hard it is to put yourself in the user's shoes. However, you have to take every complaint seriously - there's just too many people who will ditch you without complaining. And whatever you do, for God's sake don't piss them off by publicly making fun of their feedback.
It's amazing how many developers think they're entitled to build the application they think the customer needs, not the one want. Although Matt and I have disagreed from time to time about how exactly to handle users' comments, I don't think there's any doubt on the profound inadvisability of insulting your users for providing feedback you depend on. It's said that on the internet, nobody knows you're an asshole... unless you build your business around being one.
UPDATES
- This particular episode is getting some attention in the blogosphere. Just what the doctor ordered!
- Looks like Matt got a response from the founder of the offending company. He's in defense mode still when he should really be in damage control mode. It's time to drop the self-righteousness and disingenuous innocence ("we appreciate everybody's feedback") and simply apologize. That's what you do when you offend people.
- Here's a great example of the right attitude:
Do you have advice or insights for other people who are trying to create their own Web 2.0 projects?
Read more...
One of the reasons I'm a tireless critic and skeptic of bellicose government activities is not out of pure antipathy for the state enterprise - though that's a large part of it. I'd just like to see it one day, once and for all, demonstrated that all the abuses of power, bungled investigations, ridiculous measures, and mindless bureacracy were worth it. It would make it much easier to support the state if they could make themselves useful while they're spying on me, invading harmless countries, and spreading disinformation. Yet time after time I'm disappointed by the low bar we set on government belligerence. I'm beginning to think that none of it has anything to do with security, defense, or the thoughtful administration of the country's affairs - they simply want to dominate, regardless of the price we the citizens pay. It's about power and intimidation.
Government is often criticized for a lack of common sense, and I've become interested lately in theories of institutional organization which provide a framework for understanding a lot of the inefficiency and boneheadedness of modern corporate entities like the state, firms, political organizations, etc. But I'm not going to get so in depth right now. Instead, I'm going to concentrate on a few demonstrable cases where governments toss out our interests for no practical reason whatsoever.
One example of this is the security frenzy. Suddenly, metal detectors are everywhere - regardless of the fact that they failed to slow down the 9/11 hijackers. People don't seem to get that it's a total psychological ruse - and for what? So that people can be harrassed, intimidated, and humilated. It's already been shown that airport security measures only deter casual terrorists - not the real ones. Apparently, if you are a dimwit murderer, the United States of America is completely prepared for you. However, all serious terrorists with half a brain are pretty much written off as uncatchable, unless they make some grave error. I sometimes wonder whether people really understand how little these security stunts help secure us - but they serve as great exercises in hierarchically regimenting society.
Read more...
From Brad Spangler's excellent breakdown of the parallel interests of socialists and libertarians:
We're the Libertarian Left, and we're the new Reds.
Read his whole post: it's a good compendium of links related to the debate between the left and right wings of the libertarian movement. I'm still catching up on Studies in Mutualist Political Economy so I can't get into the mix on these things. However, it's clear that this whole controversy over the JLS symposium on Carsonian mutualism (see here) is exposing a lot of issues in the libertarian ideology that need clarification, discussion, and exploration. What can I say: it's an exciting time to be anti-state!
Right Thinking Girl there is an ongoing, thorough examination of the Enron case and the trial of Jeffrey Skilling and Ken Lay. RTG is certainly forming a reasonable defense of these gentlemen and the Enron venture, but the larger issues she is raising about "profit on the books" types of businesses are more interesting to me (though I have an entirely different take on it). I'm amazed by how much of their game was shady - and how much of that shadiness was legal. But even if her opinions piss you off, essentially she is providing a pretty comprehensive digest of the trial and a quick look into how they made their money.
One of the really interesting aspects of her analysis is the way Skilling devised partnerships with invented entities to hide risk and, ultimately, keep losses off the books. This is a complex picture - and I'm led to believe that just as in many corporate enterprises, the complexity is really considered a business cost gladly paid for doing what is otherwise shady business. It's a great study in the problems of agency in the corporate world: if the investors knew Skilling was taking all these risks, would they have approved?
you should too). The concept is simple: instead of manually navigating to each site you want to monitor for updates (such as news services, blogs, etc.) you add a feed link to a program (or web application) called an
aggregator that checks the site for you and lets you know when updates occur. If you're curious enough to follow multiple sites, it can be a huge time saver. However, if you're not careful, it can also waste even more of your precious time by bogging you down with useless content. I wrote this article to outline the scope of the problem and suggest some techniques for making the internet serve your needs on your schedule.
The appeal of syndication is obvious: I can receive updates from lots of sites delivered directly to a single location - almost like checking your email. Indeed, site syndication is quickly eclipsing many uses of email, such as "news alerts" and message board updates. It almost seems like there's a constant back and forth between, on the one hand, coming up with new ways to aggregate content, and on the other hand, new ways to distribute it. First there was email, delivered straight to you. Then came websites which you could visit to get information. Then came RSS, Atom, etc. which brings the site content to you (originally via desktop apps). Lately, there has been a proliferation of online feed aggregator apps (I use FeedLounge), further extending the back and forth once more to centralize the delivery but completely unbound to your one computer. As this back and forth becomes better understood and more dynamic, mashups of several sources of content into single sites are gaining popularity.
This reflects the revolutionary nature of the web to commoditize, distribute, and "remix" information. It also requires developers to continuously monitor and update the way users consume this information, constantly streamlining the typical (or specialized) workflows involved in "browsing". Yet even as application developers become more decentralized, experimental, and responsive in helping the public use the internet, the problem of how to best use the exponentially growing amount of raw information available continues to evade each development. To put it another way: aggregators have the potential to aggregate beyond our ability to efficiently consume the content, defeating their intended purpose.
Read more...
I'd like to recommend Roderick Long's lecture called Rothbard's "Left and Right": Forty Years Later to anybody who is still trying to get clear on what left libertarianism means. It's an excellent talk (quite enjoyable to listen to as well) and it definately crystalized some concepts for me. Here's an excerpt that I thought was particularly well formulated to express the leftist critique of the state-corporate alliance:
We might compare the alliance between government and big business to the alliance between church and state in the Middle Ages. Of course it's in the interest of both parties to maintain the alliance - but all the same, each side would like to be the dominant partner, so it's no surprise that the history of such alliances will often look like a history of conflict and antipathy, as each side struggles to get the upper hand. But this struggle must be read against a common background framework of cooperation to maintain the system of control.
Congratulations and thanks to Mr. Long for a great lecture which I believe, as Brad Spangler wrote, "will, in time, come to be considered a landmark in [the left libertarian] movement history."
