Help Support Net Neutrality

I posted this to Facebook yesterday, and a few people have passed it on. Time Warner, a large ISP, is making a serious political and legal effort to counter net neutrality. I am presuming they are attempting this early in Obama's presidency, while he has many other issues to attend. I initially supported Obama specifically for his stance on technology and net neutrality, so I hope he will step up and shut this down.

Still, if you have a few minutes, please sign this e-petition to support keeping networks open and accessible. Here's what I wrote in the comments section of my petition yesterday:

I am a professor of rhetoric and new media at the University of South Florida. I want to reiterate the importance of allowing many-to-many communicative media to develop without these harsh economic hindrances.

Particularly, we need to support and develop networked computing ventures: cooperatives that unite the processing power of hundreds, if not thousands, of computers nationwide. I speak of projects such as Stanford University's Folding Home project (http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-PS3), which has already made great strides in researching particle physics and hopes to tackle major medical issues. These projects require a neutral internet.

America has always valued the free flow of ideas. It supported printing as an industry and journalism as a discipline. It deregulated telephones. The FCC monitors the airwaves. All of these legislative moves are to ensure that Americans have the highest possible access to information, so as to increase invention and facilitate democracy. Companies such as Time Warner put such ideals at risk. The future of American industry lies in areas such as biomedical research, green technologies, and physics. We should not put the development of these fields at risk so that cable companies and internet providers can increase profits. The internet is a resource.

Perhaps a bit over the top in a few places, but, hey, pathos works.

Hi There, Let's Talk Google

I've been writing in other places and neglecting the blog, but I thought I might try to spend some quality time here. To get started, there's an interesting story over at the NYTimes on the Google library project. I have long been a staunch supporter of the program: the general idea is to scan all books in existence into one massive, searchable digital library. This will include works under copyright (users will be able to see a portion for free but will need to pay for complete access).

Along the way, Google has discovered many orphan books--books still in-print, still under copyright, but without any clear owner. I believe these books should enter into the public domain. But, as the article reports, Google seeks to claim these works, adopting their copyright. This would make these books (a lot of which is scholarship) the intellectual property of Google, so to speak.

Now I find myself extremely suspicious of Google's motivations here. Google has yet to offer a formal statement over at their blog, but I'd expect one soon. No doubt they will argue that these books need to be adopted in order to protect them. But critics cite that this would give Google a powerful monopoly over books produced in the 20th century.

The Google Library project is something to be excited about--so long as it at least tries to remain altruistic in spirit. Jonathan Band's analysis of the recent (last November) settlement case between Google, authors, and publishers reveals that Google is in this for the money. Whether corporate greed completely stains the higher aspirations of the project remains to be seen.

But, for the first time, I'm a bit scared of the little scanner that could. One of the tell-tale indicators will likely be what Google decides to do with public domain works (whether they will be available for free, or whether access to them will be on a pay basis as it will be with copyright material).

Catching Up

Wow, has it been this long since I posted? A few quick thoughts before I head out to teach:

• Rowan's MRI was clear--this is very good news. Retinoblastoma patients have a high chance to develop other forms of cancer, especially in the first two years. She will continue to get periodic exams, but we are encouraged that she is now cancer free.
• CCCC's in San Fran was a great time. I saw a few really spectacular panels (more on this later). My own panel went well, although we ran short on time and I had to cut quite a bit from my presentation. Sometime this week I need to carve out time to send emails to all the people I talked to last week.
• My parents are in town this week (and last week). Meg and I were able to take a short honeymoon trip down to Sarasota for a few nights. One experience urged us to start a food blog (more on this coming this weekend).
• I am sad to learn that blogs are dead, but must respect the validity of the source. Perhaps someday, in a distant future, humans will evolve into a species capable of caring. Here's to hope and the future.

Some Quick Sports Thoughts

In between pieces of fruit (a healthy non-Subway lunch), I wanted to spout the following:

• The injury is the best thing to happen to A-Rod this year. He needs to go away for awhile. Distance is good. There is nothing he can do on the field to repair his image or silence his critics. Unfortunately, hip injuries are baaaad. If this injury is as serious as some believe, then who knows if he will ever be "A-Rod" again.
• T.O. will sign with San Diego. They have an offensive minded coach who has worked with divas before (Irvin in Dallas) and a strong-willed quarterback. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't touch this guy with a ten-foot pole. I'm hearing the Raiders, but I don't think Al Davis is that oblivious: after the Randy Moss fiasco, I think Al will sit this one out.
• The Patriots made the right move. Yes, we gave up more talent than we will receive in return. But the Pats also got cap room. Look for them to resign a bunch of players that fans outside of New England have never heard of before the NFL collective bargaining agreement expires and teams face a year of free agency without a salary cap. NE will resign as many veterans as they can before that time (e.g., Richard Seymour, Vince Worfolk, Stephen Neal, Ellis Hobbs, Nick Kaczur, Logan Mankins, and Stephen Gostkowski). All those players are free agents after 2009. They comprise 1/2 of the starting defensive line, 3/5 of the starting offensive line, a starting cornerback, and the Pro Bowl caliber kicker. I imagine at least three of those players will renew before the start of the 2009 season--except for Seymour. He's had a few subpar years in a row, and will want to prove himself this year in hopes of getting a shot at Albert Haynesworth type money.
• Which brings me to my final point: Albert Haynesworth's contract is the biggest mistake I have ever seen. I mean that literally. I cannot think of a single deal that makes less sense. Yes, Haynesworth recorded 14.5 sacks in two seasons from the D-tackle position. Yes he can push the pile and can chase down runners on the edge. But compare Haynesworth to, say, Warren Sapp. Compare Haynesworth to Bryant Young. Compare his numbers to Steve McMichael. His numbers in his first five seasons are so inferior to these three hall of famers that it is laughable. And you know what? D-tackles are not fine wines. They don't get better with age.

Colbert on the"Danger" of the Internet

This comes from Colbert's interview with Keen--it is presented as something of a nightmare. But I think it adequately describes a digital/rhetorical/sophistic new media environment, one in which there is not getting outside the cave. Responding to Keen's claim that digital culture destroys objective media and criteria for truth, Colbert responds:

isn't reality something we decide?

I never thought I would say this, but...

I actually find myself agreeing with Andrew Keen. Today Keen responded to Patricia Cohen's NYTimes article on how the pending economic crisis will affect the humanities. Keen concludes:

What I do know for sure, however, is that academic humanists -- especially the younger ones with a bit of life left in them -- better upgrade themselves before they get totally swept away by the digital revolution. Their traditional monopoly on wisdom, humanistic or otherwise, is being undermined by the communications revolution of blogs, Facebook & Twitter. Rather than learning to quote Shakespeare or W.E.B. Du Bois, I would advise aspiring humanities scholars to learn how to build their own intellectual brands and distribute their ideas more broadly and relevantly. Just as the death of newspapers is forcing smart young journalists to become self-employed entrepreneurs, so the imminent crisis of academic humanity departments, which will eventually do away with the archaic tenure system, offers a great opportunity to rethink what it means to be a professional educator in the 21st century.

Leaving the sarcasm aside, I agree that contemporary academics have to do a better job building their relevance, and that we have an opportunity to rethink the profession of higher education. Actually, I think this work can be traced back to before the Web2.0 revolution: to Lyotard's critique of metanarratives of progress and knowledge. Jumping back to my Lanham post the other day, we need to reconsider Kant's fracturing of the professors' public and private lives. For Kant, the professor must, in the "public" of his intellectual discipline, speak freely. But in his "private" duties as teacher and citizen, s/he must obey. Hence the motto "think, but obey."

A few centuries later, I think that disjunction has lead to the circumstances that Richard M. Freeman, Massachusetts Commissioner of Higher Education (quoted from Cohen's article):

But what we haven’t paid a lot of attention to is how students can put those abilities effectively to use in the world. We’ve created a disjunction between the liberal arts and sciences and our role as citizens and professionals.

Cohen concludes that "baldly marketing the humanities makes some in the field uneasy." But let's qualify this through Lanham: after the influence of the Modern Enlightenment, framing itself as something other than "stuff" makes the humanities uneasy. After the Modern Enlightenment, becoming a discipline founded upon praxis seems so inferior to being a discipline that focuses on production. Let's become something otherwise.

I am confused... someone explain this to me

Granted, I didn't get through my morning coffee today. But something really confused me on the ride to work. I live about 20 miles south of University of South Florida. Everyday I drive on I-75 I experience an incredible irony: flying directly opposite to the Martin Luther King St. highway exit is a huge, billowing confederate flag. The flag pole resides on a small trailer park protected by a security fence. A few weeks ago Meg and I were treated to a surreal scene: a group of elderly women sitting around on a Sunday mending the confederate flag.

Today, however, a different flag appeared on the pole: a flag of the 13 original colonies, the Betsy Ross flag.

I have never heard of any connection between the confederate flag and the Betsy Ross flag. Some needs to explain this to me. Slowly. Since I still haven't had that coffee.