Categories
Political

Not politically correct

I have been heavily involved in political issues recently, all of which have added to an already overstressed mind and body. I look forward to the elections on Tuesday for no other reason than it will be over. As this CBS Report states, the might of two parties, the same media company behind Swift Boat Veterans, and every foul person calling themselves a ‘journalist’ has converged on this state and examined us like bugs under a microscope. Yes, and told us how we should vote, too.

 

(In the middle of all this, we now face the possibility of some jejune wannabe journalist sticking cameras in our faces while we’re standing in line at the polls; for no other reason than some people think adding to the problem and the confusion and the stress ‘helpful’.)

The Missouri Baptist had their annual meeting this week. I don’t even have the energy to mention the proclamations coming out of this event (thisthishere, and here.) When you realize this organization is part of the largest protestant organization in the US, it’s enough to make you want to knock on the doors of our Canadian neighbors and beg to be allowed in.

The lack of brotherly, and sisterly, love is not limited to just the Baptists: Archbishop Burke, leader of St. Louis Catholics, states that people like me who support Amendment 2 are the agents of the culture of death. His priests have been handing out signs for lawns, and telling parishioners how to vote. The signs are so thick on church property, it’s a wonder the moles have a place to dig. They don’t just disagree with people like me–they despise people like me.

What’s particularly sad is that the Archbishop’s people have been deliberately spreading confusion about what the amendment 2 states–saying that state funding will be used for this research, when there is no indication at all of this. Saying that adult stem cells have been used to treat Parkinson’s, when there is absolutely no fact to back this up. They aren’t relying on their faith to advocate this bill–they are relying on miscommunication and untruths. They have been relying on lies. This from the leader of the Catholic church in this entire area.

(I wanted to point to this article in Rolling Stone Magazine which calls the current congress the worst in history. I wanted to link to the person’s post where I found this article, to give him credit for the find, but then I remember he’s Catholic. Considering the nature of this post, I felt I would be doing him a disservice to do so.)

Regardless of how this vote goes this week, we can no longer ignore the elephant sitting in the corner that is religious influence on politics and government. People are not always going to be able to complacently have their ‘faith’ and their ‘science’, because in too many cases belief in one denies the existence of the other. Members of a church may have to consider challenging the precepts of the church, and individual churches challenge their association with a larger body. Basic human rights can no longer be pushed aside in the interest of ‘culture’ and ‘belief’, and the religious faithful cannot be allowed to determine how the rest of us live or die; how and when we have children; who we can love; how we dress; destroy our world in the interests of ‘being fruitful, and multiplying’; reduce our science to superstition, and bind our ethics to obscure passages in ill-interpreted religious texts.

This issue is not just one that belongs to Missouri or the midwest: what’s happening in Missouri is just a taste of what the rest of the country, the rest of the world, is having to face in the upcoming years.

Based on my own experience, I can attest to one thing: events such as these drain your hope, your joy, and your spirit–whether you call such ‘soul’, or not.

Categories
Photography Plants

Japanese Maple

Categories
Technology

A time of great movement

Michael Bernstein sent me a chain of links that went from pyjamas to the pyjamas sample page on the canvas element to the canvas tutorial at Mozilla to the Mozilla animations demo page to this charming use of the canvas element.

The example just referenced doesn’t use Flash. It does use one of the elements in the proposed HTML 5, input of which is being currently sought by at WaSP, 456 Berea Street and elsewhere.

This is addition to the new effort to reactivate the HTML effort in order to act as a bridge between the older HTML specifications and the newer XHTML efforts currently underway at the W3C.

Not to mention Adobe’s open sourcing it’s ActionScript virtual engine into the Mozilla effort, in a project called Tamarin.

So what do I think of all of this? I think it’s exciting, I love the canvas element and I’m interested in many of these other innovations, it’s good to revisit HTML, but I wouldn’t be me if I also didn’t note concerns: HTML element bloat; confusion as to direction of standards and where people should be heading; vastly incompatible web pages as browsers desperately try to keep up with all the changes; frustrated web page developers and designers also trying to keep up with changes; and a growing dominance of Mozilla/Adobe in regards to JavaScript and whether this could lead to a non-neutral ECMAScript 4.x, which does no one any good.

Still, it is nice to feel excited about web tech again. I’m not sending up fireworks, but I am pulling the end off of a Christmas cracker in celebration. Now, excuse me as I go push around that cute little blob.

Update Michael also sent me a note about this weblogger, Joshua Ellis who has started a micropatronage drive to travel to Africa. Joe Clark, from the last post. also mentions him as an example of successful micropatronage. I don’t know him from Adam, but I do know Michael and Joe, so am passing on the link to the weblog. It’s the FOAFy thing to do.

Besides: I want to go to Australia … someday…

Categories
Critters Photography

Robin migration

Stopped by to say hello.

A very curious robin

Bye! See you next year!

Robin with one wing extended into the air, beak half open

Categories
Weblogging

PayPerPost

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Mike Arrington at Techcrunch is on a tear again about PayPerPost. Where normally in the past I would have been more sympathetic to Arrington–after all PayPerPost folks don’t typically say a post is sponsored–I am less so nowadays because the issue isn’t so clearly understood as Mr. Arrington would have it.

The newest episode in this saga is that PayPerPost now has a disclosure generator, and actually pays PayPerPost bloggers to post links to disclosures. I’ve seen one on one weblog, where the weblogger, Lady Nova writes on the current discussion:

I haven’t read an argument YET that has made any sense, in regards to why so many people are against those of us that are getting paid to blog. Who the heck are we hurting? My readers know that half my content is paid blogging, and you know what? I haven’t any complaints from any of them.

Why is this so different from any magazine or tv channel with advertisements on them? It’s all the same! If a company or web site wants to pay me to pimp their product, hell ya I’m going to do it!

 

According to Mike Arrington, he dislikes the concept of the disclosure because the terminology doesn’t differentiate between inserted content and explicit advertisements:

If you are a PayPerPost blogger, or the New York Times, or anything in between, you must pick the third option. That’s because “taking advertsing” and “paid insertions” are defined as the same thing. And even if you have no form of advertising or other revenue on the site, you have to admit to bias based on “background, occupation, religion, political affiliation or experience.”

Blurring the lines in this way – facilitating the pollution of the blogosphere while creating an illusion of doing something good for the public, is a good business move for PayPerPost. But it is a terrible development for the blogsphere and public trust. I hope that very few bloggers are suckered into going along with this.

The PayPerPost people say that they’re not encouraging people to lie or write on things they most likely wouldn’t write about any, so what’s the harm?

Advertisers will post all sorts of Opportunities, from a simple “link back to this site” to product reviews with pictures. Each Opportunity will have different compensation based on the advertiser. It’s up to you to pick the Opportunities that best suit you and your blog. If it doesn’t feel right, if you don’t own the product, or if you can’t be honest we ask you to pass on the Opportunity. Dishonest or completely off-topic posts can ultimately hurt your blog’s credibility. We strongly encourage you to only take opportunities that relate to you.

Television and radio have programs that are funded, in part or whole, by certain sponsors, each of which can have direct impact on what is or is not included, so the concept of PayPerPost is not without precedent in the world of publication. That’s not to say it’s good or bad–just that it hasn’t originated with weblogging.

Is it good or bad, though? A few years back, I would have said it was horrid, but times change. I know what its like to be broke, really broke, scared broke, so I’m not going to tar people for making some extra bucks. Would I do it myself? No, I would not, but I’m also not going to say that I’m the moral arbiter of the weblogging world–disregarding what might be implied from my past posts.

What keeps this from being a ‘black & white’ issue, with absolute surety about whose side the angels are boogieing on, is the fact that remuneration in weblogging isn’t always a cash-related activity; attention must vie with cash when it comes to weblogging currency. If a person writes something deliberately in order to generate attention that benefits themselves, is this truly that different than when a person accepts money?

Recently Jason Calacanis pushed Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales about putting ads on Wikipedia in order to generate money for charity. Wales basically said, not over his dead body. Calacanis then implores him to think otherwise, with promises of hosting of Wikipedia on AOL, if Wikipedia just gave the company a little thank you note on each page. Inspired, Robert Scoble thought this wasn’t a bad idea, and questioned if he shouldn’t do the same. I don’t know if AOL has offered to host Robert or not…

In both cases, neither person stood to earn any money for their own use, but each earned something else: attention. Both posts ended up on tech.meme, Calacanis’ post ended up on Digg (which he posted a link to at the top of the post), both generated links and discussion (included these from me), which helps to keep them in the upper reaches of the weblogging environment, and most likely keeping bosses happy, as well as a lot of lucrative options open.

Now, how is this different than Lady Nova writing about online business software, which she found to be cool anyway?

When Michael Arrington had one of his recent parties, I was astounded to read he had made $50,000 for luring a bunch of people in to basically sit through what was more or less an infomercial. I now read he’s at it again, in New York, which I guess goes to show that there’s one born every minute on the east coast, as well as the west. Seriously these are a little food, a little drink, a possible chance to meet someone famous, and lots and lots of people selling something, desperately wanting to find buyers. For all of this, Michael makes a lot of money, yet I haven’t seen Michael put up a disclosure that says:

I am throwing this party because I just bought a new gas guzzling SUV–in black, I am so cool–and I have to pay for it. I don’t really want to meet you all, but I want you to want to meet me so I continue making a lot of money from desperate startups burning through their first round of funding. You can come for free, but you’re going to run a gauntlet of people wanting to sell you something, and most likely being disappointed when they find out you’re not really a somebody. And if you approach me, you better be worth my time.

update Jeneane has another take on this fooflah about the haves begrudging the have-nots a little taste of the pie.

second update I find it kind of funny that Matt Mullenweg thinks this is a rather sleazy undertaking, when it wasn’t all that long ago when he was on the other end of the thou art shit finger pointing. Hindsight does interesting things to people.

thirdsie I wonder if this will make it on to techmeme? Letsee, Michael Arrington’s roommate is the person who created techmeme…

What the heck: update four I think that Seth has one of the best explanations about why such howls are issuing forth on this issue.

Disclosure: I make money writing books for O’Reilly. Well, I make some money writing books for O’Reilly. I’d like to make more money writing books for O’Reilly, as well as articles and books for other companies and publications, but right now, it’s just O’Reilly. No one else gives me a damn dime. Bummer.