Year in Review

Here's the "first line of every month" post

• January: Since I'm another of the mad scientists who birthed this approach, I'll throw in some quick reflections
• February: To everyone who asked... yes I am still alive
• March: I wanted to share Norm Scheiber's article "The Audacity of Data" on Obama's economic theory
• April: For those that don't read /., this came across today.
• May: The first paragraph of George Oates' recent A List Apart article "Community: From Little Things, Big Things Grow" reflects something I've been trying to articulate for a few years
• June: I found Tim Barker's "Error, the Unforeseen, and the Emergent The Error and Interactive Media Art" on work/space
• July: A few weeks back the Sox played the Yanks and Manny decided last minute that his knee was too sore to play
• August: As I type, I sit alone in an empty, rather clinical room located in the bowels of human resources at USF
• September: why not ...share some Cicero. I just got through two class discussions on Cicero today and thought I'd throw up a few quotes
• October: I usually leave the political comedy commentary up to others, but I had to share this
• November: Once upon a time... I thought nothing could be better than rewinding and pausing live television.
• December: In "Preventing-1984-in-2008" news, the Bush administration and the EFF will be squaring off today

All in all, a good year. I like the post's which begin with a link, but I've got to be a bit more accessibility-aware and stop using "this" for links.

Auditorium

Via ZeFrank, a great flash game called auditorium. I'm stuck on 3.4. I'm not one for flash games, but this is very well done.

A Small Old-Fashioned American Hero

Its been awhile since I've written on the RIAA and ip, but a great story on how ISP's are resisting the RIAA's insane plan came across /. this mornin. We can also cast Jerry Scroggin as the everyman hero in America's struggle to retake culture and maintain our Constitutional creative rights. Scroggings ins't a lawyer, he's a small ISP operator, and he's mad as hell and isn't going to take it anymore. Well, not really. He's a nice capitalist who isn't going to do the RIAA's bidding for free.

Scroggin is no radical. He respects the law and said he has a long history of cooperating with authorities to protect people from harm.

"If it was life threatening, I'm the first to jump," he said. "We've been contacted by police over Denial of Service and bot attacks. We'll have Secret Service and FBI conversations. We help if police are on perv watch."

But protecting against copyright violations just doesn't have the same urgency, not enough that that ISPs should be asked to work without compensation, Scroggin said. Here are the realities of being "HBO's free police," he said. First, when a media company demands he kick a customer off the network, there is very little in the way of proof offered that the person in question has committed a crime, according to Scroggin. Yet, entertainment companies want Scroggin to simply wave goodbye to a customer who might have signed up for a three-year plan. At $40 per month, that customer is potentially worth $1,440 to Scroggin over the life of the plan. That, says the ISP owner, is unreasonable.

Next, it's expensive and time consuming to ask highly paid technicians to chase down IP logs and customer IDs, Scroggin said, noting that it's especially difficult nowadays because it's extremely easy to spoof IP addresses.

Scroggin's argument calls attention to the difficulties of denying service beyond finances--especially IP spoofing. If the RIAA wants private industry to take up their cause, that's going to cost them. Otherwise, its like banks forcing automakers to monitor drivers in case one might use the car for a robbery. Automakers provide a vital service, and there is no widespread expectation that they must defend against misuse. So long as ISPs don't advertise "hey, we've got the fastest connection for downloading all your illegal music," I'd say they are covered. Ah, sometimes capitalism works just like you want it to.

Thinking back to yesterday's post, it seems the RIAA wrongly thought it was in the music business. It never was. Musicians are in the music business. Radio stations are quasi-in the music business. The labels behind the RIAA were in the marketing business. And so, as they continue to develop new strategies for protecting music, the net continues to develop new ways to market artists. These new ways might not be perfect yet, but that is the next big thing. That's when Nickelback will no longer be "fresh" rock. I'm thinking a Facebook driven radio station, powered by the recommendations of Friends with a "click to buy this track" button. Something.

Let's just take a moment and enjoy another chink the the RIAA's armor. And go Blue States for putting a halt to some of the RIAA's madness.

Global Information Killed the Local Newspaper Star

James Surowiecki has a nice and short article in this month's New Yorker on the death of newspapers. For those who remember Danny Devito in Other People's Money, its pretty much the buggy whip argument (movie is down below, skip ahead to 2:30)--but a bit more complicated. It is not a simple matter of an industry becoming outdated, but of an industry not recognizing the most vital aspect of its operation. Newspapers shouldn't conceptualize themselves as being in the print business, rather, they are in the information business. Had they realized this 15 years ago, they could have done more to network and prevent things like CraigList, Monster, etc. from taking over a large part of their business--communicating vital information and networking strangers.

I do find a particular irony in Surowiecki's article: so often we think of the internet as promoting local relations. By putting media back into the hands of the people (to channel some Gillmor), the internet provides more and more local broadcasting. It creates voices outside of the major media centers. But, as Surowiecki explains, it is also killing the local newspaper--since so much information is out there for free.

I wonder where people will read obituaries once the local paper has died.

There is another disturbing suggestion in Surowiecki's argument--the return of patronage. Perhaps patronage of the newspaper is no different than that of PBS, but the thought of news media outlets relying on the generosity of the wealthy scares me. I don't want the news to be purchased. Fox news is bad enough. Let's not return to a medieval system where every party has their own scribe competing to present the truth. Oh, wait... I think we already have that... But let's at least attempt to maintain an air of objectivity that allows me to think the system is working...

Cover Bands

A few posts ago I talked about my love of cover bands. Today a list of the "top cover bands of all-time" cam across Coudal. I forgot how much I like Dread Zeppelin (the Rondellus was quirky, Nouvelle Vague kinda cool). Enjoy.

Gay Marriage vs. Civil Unions

Kristen had a nice post on Huckabee's recent appearance on the Daily Show. I wrote this as a response there, but wanted to publish it here as well. I do so a bit hesitantly, knowing what a charged topic this is. I am also hesitant of my own answer, one I am often quick to critique (when students oppose the idea of using the term marriage, I sarcastically respond with "yes, and wasn't it nice when we gave black people their own water fountains and native americans "special" plots of land"). But I've published before on avoiding critiques of conservative values which claim the intellectual high ground. There is no absolutely logical way of demonstrating that liberal values are somehow more rational than conservative (don't confuse "rational" with "better," but "better" for me is "more ethical" in a strict Levinsian sense of the words--let's save that for another day). And my ultimate concern is with changing public policy as quickly as possible. So here goes:

I would, not to defend Huckabee, point out that the binary is not necessarily between fundamentalism and liberals–it can be framed as between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives feel that human logic is itself a threat to True human values. There is dire need to protect our (metaphysical) inheritance from the deprecating influence of time. I doubt I need to explicate progressives for this audience...

And I do not think any logological approach (drawing from Burke, an approach predicated on logic, reason, etc as its metaphysical basis) will “destabilize” this view. I’m thinking of Grassi here, neither view can claim to be “more rational,” since all first principles (faith in the primacy of God, faith in the transient historical power of reason) are non-rational. There is no logical way to prove God’s existence. Nor, however, is there any way to disprove that existence. And there is nothing more reasonable about not believing in that which cannot be proved (etc. etc.). All logic is ultimately circular--at least that's what I think Nietzsche taught Foucault.

I believe the more strategic maneuver is to craft new language to usurp old power. Stop advocating for gay marriage, and instead advocate for civil unions. Yes its euphemistic. And yes, I realize that it is not the ideal solution. I realize it would be a very large concession on the part of the gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual communities.

But it sidesteps a large part of the fundamental argument that words have stable fundamental meanings. Thus, it sidesteps having to popularize a very sophistic(ated) notion of language. And it sidesteps the arguments about whether a particular group of people can “own” a word. It reframes the scene of the debate, and hopefully offers moderates a more appealing option.

To my students...One more(s) time....

So I'm grading final papers.

You italicize or underline a major work, such as a book, journal, or magazine. You quote a part of that work, such as an article.

You italicize or underline a major work, such as a book, journal, or magazine. You quote a part of that work, such as an article.

You italicize or underline a major work, such as a book, journal, or magazine. You quote a part of that work, such as an article.

You italicize or underline a major work, such as a book, journal, or magazine. You quote a part of that work, such as an article.

You italicize or underline a major work, such as a book, journal, or magazine. You quote a part of that work, such as an article.

You italicize or underline a major work, such as a book, journal, or magazine. You quote a part of that work, such as an article.

You italicize or underline a major work, such as a book, journal, or magazine. You quote a part of that work, such as an article.

You italicize or underline a major work, such as a book, journal, or magazine. You quote a part of that work, such as an article.

You italicize or underline a major work, such as a book, journal, or magazine. You quote a part of that work, such as an article.

You italicize or underline a major work, such as a book, journal, or magazine. You quote a part of that work, such as an article.

You italicize or underline a major work, such as a book, journal, or magazine. You quote a part of that work, such as an article.

You italicize or underline a major work, such as a book, journal, or magazine. You quote a part of that work, such as an article.

You italicize or underline a major work, such as a book, journal, or magazine. You quote a part of that work, such as an article.

You italicize or underline a major work, such as a book, journal, or magazine. You quote a part of that work, such as an article.

Someone Tell Me If I Like This...

Something bugs me about this video. I watch a lot of the "times-they-are-a-changin'" videos, but don't know what to make of this. But my Blink sense is tingling...

Since I'm teaching my digital citizenship course next semester, I think I'll use this in class.

Rhetoric v. Philosophy Take 1702931

Read this Machiavelli quote over at Cracked and thought it offered another (mock-Aristotelian?) way for thinking about philosophy's Idealism against rhetoric's pragmatism:

there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second

Roar.

Funny Doesn't Belong There

I often find myself trying to come to terms with my love of rhetoric; to the point that I try to find traces of this love littered throughout my entire life's narrative. One such trace, I tell myself, is my lifelong love of the cover song and the remix. Since I was a kid, I have always enjoyed the playful cover or parody--like the Lemonhead's "My Name is Luka," Dynamic Hack's "Boyz in tha Hood," or even Alien Ant Farm's "Smooth Criminal."

So, I tell myself, this clearly expresses an early appreciation for the kairotic dimensions of context. I appreciate a playful re-appropriation. I also can appreciate it as a deconstructionist--something that alerts us to silent norms, to expectations. Such an alert must be respectful, even while playful. For instance: laughing at a funeral. The laugh at a funeral might defy social convention, but it does so (hopefully) as light-hearted remembrance and as painfully playful nostalgia. It manifests the often neglected cliche: a proper funeral celebrates a life rather than mourns a death. So, you can laugh at a funeral. You cannot order a pizza.

I think the playful cover song, one self-conscious of its recontextualization, represents this kind of properly un-kairotic laughter (to borrow DDD's term). This laughter attempts a self-consciousness tempered by obligation--to the original, to the moment, to something other. All this came to mind today thanks to Mxrk's sharing the Jim Lehrer piece:

EFF vs USA (with a little Kant)

In "Preventing-1984-in-2008" news, the Bush administration and the EFF will be squaring off today. At stake: whether ISPs should be legally accountable for illegally (or "homeland security legally") passing information to the NSA. Panopticonic issues withstanding, I think this is a very tricky issue. We once impeached a president for messing with tape...

But has our information landscape changed to the point where this kind of surveillance is necessary? I think I would draw on Bush's own response to the terrorists after 9/11--we cannot allow fear to impinge upon our freedoms. Of course, Bush wanted us all to go shopping. Which, looking at national credit card debt, we did. Now I think we need to heed the same call, and hold our own government, and whoever aided them, accountable.

After teaching my course on the history of education for the second time, I have even more respect for Kant brazenness. I appreciate his crafting of a private "public" sphere... one in which everyone has the right to speak. While Kant might have also mandated that we obey, he saw it as everyone's right to be free to speak and learn (and read and google search) without fear of impunity. Such "public" learning requires privacy. Those familiar with Kant's Conflict of the Faculties will get the whole "public/private" scare quoting.

Let's see how things shake out on Tuesday.