Sterling F'ing Newberry -- Crashing the Sphere:

So explaining the basic theory, and how it is supported by centuries of liberal thought - going back to ancient times, through humanism in the renaissance, through the Enlightenment, through the Romantic Revolutions, through the growth of Liberalism and Progressivism, through the great struggles against totalitarianism - producing an inevitable historical logic that draws in many different kinds of people and contributions - that is my purpose.

So he wants to be the 21st Century's answer to Karl Marx. I'm cool with that.

It's a good post. Go read it if you're into this shit.

Sterling F'ing Newberry -- Crashing the Sphere:

So explaining the basic theory, and how it is supported by centuries of liberal thought - going back to ancient times, through humanism in the renaissance, through the Enlightenment, through the Romantic Revolutions, through the growth of Liberalism and Progressivism, through the great struggles against totalitarianism - producing an inevitable historical logic that draws in many different kinds of people and contributions - that is my purpose.

So he wants to be the 21st Century's answer to Karl Marx. I'm cool with that.

It's a good post. Go read it if you're into this shit.

My friend Kristi wrote a comment below that I think brings a lot of good stuff to the fore:

We’ve been looking at the internet more and more in higher ed, particularly on sites like thefacebook.com and blogs, and it comes to a point where students have to understand that the internet is not your private hello kitty diary. If it’s out there, and violates a student code of conduct or a law, and is blogged/affilitated with your school email, you can be held responsible. Employers have now started searching facebook for job applicants, and if there is a pic of you doing a major bong hit on your profile, you should know that you are not getting that job.

We have dealt with students regarding harm to self threats as well as harm to others that came from their blog. I don’t necessarily agree with this Marquette case, as it seems to be an expression of an opinion on the faculty. However, the legal precedents that could be set by this are a little overwhelming. If I were to comb my students pages for expressions of guilt, I’d be here all night with judicials that I would be ethically bound by my profession to confront. So we do a little don’t ask, don’t tell dance, and wait for someone else to make the rules. It’s very murky.

There are four issues here as I see it. All important.

One is the notion that the internet is an anonymous place to post potentially incriminating information about yourself (e.g. your "hello kitty diary"). Obviously this isn't the case, and unsurprisingly it falls to our educational institutions to explain this to people. If you post something online and you even flirt with the idea of presenting enough detail that what you post can be traced to you, it likely will. On the other hand, this isn't necessarily the end of the world.

For what it's worth, I freely post about my experiences with various highly illegal mind-altering substances, my sexual (mis)adventures, as well as regular foul-mouthed semi-radical rants about politics and whatnot. None of this has negatively impacted my career prospects to the best of my knowledge. Now, I acknowledge that I'm not everyman in this respect. Still, while I can see how with certain employers (e.g. those who require you to urinate in a cup for your boss as a prerequesite to employment) things might be different, the lesson isn't that transparency about your lifestyle is a career-killer, just that one should be savvy as to what that kind of transparency means.

The second issue is the chilling effects that a crackdown on free speech (even speech about illegal activity) has on society. I believe that such chilling effects are specifically what the Supreme Court has set out decisions to protect us against -- and every publisher of salacious memoirs or "true crime" has my back on this one. The United States should be supportive of freedom of expression, even when such expression is used to describe illegal acts.

The legal precidents here are actually quite unclear as far as I know (legal people, feel free to give me the smackdown). There have been no high court rulings regarding student's being suspended for their publishing -- online or on paper -- that I'm aware of, and most of the higher-court cases in the employment realm have been either cases of whistleblowing or libel. Take your pick, none of the blog-related scandals of note have ever gone to trial or approached that level of seriousness. Everyone settles.

Which is really what makes for chilling effects. Regardless of legal merit, there is a high economic and social cost to waging a legal battle against an unjust suspension or termination because of public speech. This creates an environment where speaking freely about your work life is (rightly or wrongly) a business liability for your employer, where speaking freely about your education (or even your extra-carricular activities) is a liability for your future. That ain't American as far as I'm concerned.

The third issue is the "harm to others" question. Since there's nothing remotely resembling a professional code (ala old-skool journalism) in vogue for online publishing, it's up to individuals to self-regulate their expression, and lo and behold sometimes people don't do a good job. Whaddya know, personal responsibility is a fallable system. Shocking.

I personally have the following self-test before I blog anything that feels sensative: I ask, "is this my story to tell, or is it partially someone else's?" and if the latter I try not to reveal anything I don't feel is mine. Others will be less circumspect, yes, but will likely find themselves short of intimate friends if anything goes wrong.

Regardless, this is essentially a social process, not a legal one. I don't think the State (or the University, as the case may be), should be involved in sniffing around for gossip about citizens (students), or attempting to impose restrictions on public speech.

Which brings us to the fourth and final issue, in my mind the most important: the social effects of transparency through widely available self-publishingl; truly global free speech. In this case, the operative sentence in Kristi's post is about the number of write-ups she'd be compelled to do if she read through student's pages.

Sooner or later we are going to have to come to terms with the fact that we have a number of legal codes which are largely illogical, unevenly enforced, and roundly disrespected in America. Two that spring to mind are a copyright regime which serves content-hoarding corporations rather than the public good, and a series of prohibitions over relatively innocuous chemicals which a significant subset of the population likes to imbibe from time to time for shits and giggles. The fact that we have these kinds of laws undermines the meaning of law itself. However, that's a whole other kettle of fish. What is at hand is not some ill-advised laws, but the phenomena of a society being driven to confront the broader cultural issues which drive these laws, as well as many other suspect legal and social taboos, by an increasing trend of transparency in social and professional life brought on by an uptick in public speech on the internet.

Now, transparency is not an unmitigated virtue. Privacy is important. However, transparency serves a free society much more so than secrecy does. The truth always feels better. No one should be forced to out any information about themselves or have information revealed against their will (that's privacy), but in the same token, no one should be afraid of revealing the facts of their lives. No one should be forced to live in secret.

The obvious (though extreme) counterpoint is what if someone has done something really wrong, something truly awful. Clearly if you start bragging in public about your killing and raping, you should expect -- and assuming you weren't lying and that there's evidence to be found to support a case -- serious and swift reprecussions. However, this is a pretty outlandish example, and even in cases of some capital crime there's a statute of limitations which theoretically allows someone guilty of felony to speak publicly about their crime without fear of legal reprecussion. This isn't precicely the philosophical justification for statues of limitations, but within a free society, I see it being one of the side effects.

Because the reality of the situation is that we need to be able to talk about our existence, whether we are a straight arrows or outlaws or (as are most of us) somewhere inbetween. If we cannot do this, we are not free. This is what Savio is on about when he says, "To me, freedom of speech is something that represents the very dignity of what a human being is. ... It is the thing that marks us as just below the angels." In that sense it trancends whatever patriotic American sentiment I may try to ascribe to the issue and becomes something truly about humanity.

And I buy that. Truly, to lead dignified lives we must be unfettered in our action, and even moreso we must be unfettered in our expression. Anything less is a path to darkness.

(morning update: that last bit is a tad dramatic, but you know what I mean, right?)

This is bullshit: Marquette Dental Student Suspended Over Blog Posts

When I was at NYU I once gave some juicy quotes to an NYT reporter who stopped me on the corner of Waverly and Green and asked about recreational use of prescription drugs by students. Earned me my one and only conversation with the Dean of our Tisch School of the Arts, who's a pretty laid back guy and was remarkably cool about it given this came at a time when the media was focusing on a student death from painkiller overdoses at Holy Cross college (I think).

Another girl who was at the more conservative Stern School of Business -- and who copped to personally popping some unprescribed ritalin to pull through finals, a common practice but nontheless a violation of the law and the student body regulations -- was expelled. They're more hard-ass over there.

Now students are being suspended over blogging, and not for talking about illegal activity, just for blowing off a little steam about class.

This is a first amendment issue. There are verifiable chilling effects which amount to prior restraint (which the supreme court has roundly rejected). We need to rigorously move to define and defend our rights to freely post content online without the threat of administrative punishment.

Paging the 21st Century's Mario Savio...

...hmmm, maybe it really will be the frustrated campus activists on the right who push this. While I've nothing but contempt for David Horowitz (who's transparently two-faced about his idea of "academic free speech"), I also have no support for a university administration which seeks to stifle provocative Republican ad campaigns. That GOP3 blog cites an example of "Adopt-a-Sniper" at Marquette. I'm immediately reminded to NYU's College Republicans and their "Think Big: Bomb Iraq" postering campaign in late 2002. While they may lack taste, wit, or real political content, this sort of speech should certainly never be impeded.

These provocations are first and foremost in invitation to debate, and must be met on moral and intellectual grounds. Getting the school to quash them justifies the fantasy of many financially well-supported budding white male conservatives that they are somehow "oppressed." The reality is that their ideas are stupid, but they'll never learn this if the authorities keep stomping on them, they'll just develop that bizarre conservatives-are-victims complex that's so rampant these days.

A 21st-Centiry definition of free speech with a robust view of the right to publish online is a possible point of consensus on the left and the right. Someone aught to really make something of that.

This is bullshit: Marquette Dental Student Suspended Over Blog Posts

When I was at NYU I once gave some juicy quotes to an NYT reporter who stopped me on the corner of Waverly and Green and asked about recreational use of prescription drugs by students. Earned me my one and only conversation with the Dean of our Tisch School of the Arts, who's a pretty laid back guy and was remarkably cool about it given this came at a time when the media was focusing on a student death from painkiller overdoses at Holy Cross college (I think).

Another girl who was at the more conservative Stern School of Business -- and who copped to personally popping some unprescribed ritalin to pull through finals, a common practice but nontheless a violation of the law and the student body regulations -- was expelled. They're more hard-ass over there.

Now students are being suspended over blogging, and not for talking about illegal activity, just for blowing off a little steam about class.

This is a first amendment issue. There are verifiable chilling effects which amount to prior restraint (which the supreme court has roundly rejected). We need to rigorously move to define and defend our rights to freely post content online without the threat of administrative punishment.

Paging the 21st Century's Mario Savio...

...hmmm, maybe it really will be the frustrated campus activists on the right who push this. While I've nothing but contempt for David Horowitz (who's transparently two-faced about his idea of "academic free speech"), I also have no support for a university administration which seeks to stifle provocative Republican ad campaigns. That GOP3 blog cites an example of "Adopt-a-Sniper" at Marquette. I'm immediately reminded to NYU's College Republicans and their "Think Big: Bomb Iraq" postering campaign in late 2002. While they may lack taste, wit, or real political content, this sort of speech should certainly never be impeded.

These provocations are first and foremost in invitation to debate, and must be met on moral and intellectual grounds. Getting the school to quash them justifies the fantasy of many financially well-supported budding white male conservatives that they are somehow "oppressed." The reality is that their ideas are stupid, but they'll never learn this if the authorities keep stomping on them, they'll just develop that bizarre conservatives-are-victims complex that's so rampant these days.

A 21st-Centiry definition of free speech with a robust view of the right to publish online is a possible point of consensus on the left and the right. Someone aught to really make something of that.

So last night I worked until 3am. I didn't really get started until around 5 in the afternoon, so it's not like I was pulling a heroic 18-hour day. More like I overslept and had a lot of crap (bike repair, errands, etc) to deal with and so I made the executive decision to pull a swing shift.

It works for me, the late-night style. It's quiet. The only other people I have to interact with are fellow late-nite workers. I can focus more easily.

This can pretty quickly turn into a nocturnal workaholic lifestyle. Like a devoted lush might with booze -- close out a bar every night, crawl back in around 2pm -- I feel a pull to let the rhythms of labor determine my schedule. I can still do conference calls, meetings and all that jazz, because unlike an alkie I don't have a lengthy boot-up process. I can pretty much get up at any time, suck down a coffee and be lucid for at least 90 minutes before getting punchy if, say, I only got 45 minutes sleep or something.

Yet I really wonder about giving in to this lifestyle. Work is going to hit a peak this winter, which is a good time to hit a peak when you're working online and indoors; it's a shit time to leave the house, anyway. But I'm hesitant to give in. I know I have a less than completely healthy relationship with work, and I need to exercise my will here, lay down some more structure, routine.

Nothing new here, really. Focus, Koenig. Focus. That's my turn on Ali's rumble young man rumble.

So last night I worked until 3am. I didn't really get started until around 5 in the afternoon, so it's not like I was pulling a heroic 18-hour day. More like I overslept and had a lot of crap (bike repair, errands, etc) to deal with and so I made the executive decision to pull a swing shift.

It works for me, the late-night style. It's quiet. The only other people I have to interact with are fellow late-nite workers. I can focus more easily.

This can pretty quickly turn into a nocturnal workaholic lifestyle. Like a devoted lush might with booze -- close out a bar every night, crawl back in around 2pm -- I feel a pull to let the rhythms of labor determine my schedule. I can still do conference calls, meetings and all that jazz, because unlike an alkie I don't have a lengthy boot-up process. I can pretty much get up at any time, suck down a coffee and be lucid for at least 90 minutes before getting punchy if, say, I only got 45 minutes sleep or something.

Yet I really wonder about giving in to this lifestyle. Work is going to hit a peak this winter, which is a good time to hit a peak when you're working online and indoors; it's a shit time to leave the house, anyway. But I'm hesitant to give in. I know I have a less than completely healthy relationship with work, and I need to exercise my will here, lay down some more structure, routine.

Nothing new here, really. Focus, Koenig. Focus. That's my turn on Ali's rumble young man rumble.

John Robb has a good post on the inevitable failure of our clear and hold strategy in Iraq. When I mentioned in my little critique of Bush's "Strategy for Victory" that Clear and Hold weren't going to work as military strategies, this is what I was talking about.

The bottom line is that this can't really create order. A secondary downer is that the transition from US forces to Iraqi forces in the "hold" portion will likely exacerbate the violence in the short term.

In the long term, though, that's the only way. We've got to leave and we've got to leave soon. Iraq will never be remotely peaceful (or even orderly/stable) as long as US troops are stationed there.

Today's NYT:

[Mr. Muhammad] described in harrowing detail a night spent at a military police building with 350 other captives, where he saw people being tortured with burns and electric shocks. Seven of his 10 brothers disappeared or were killed after the arrests, he said. He was only 15 years old at the time, he said, but he was tortured and kept in prison for almost four years.

Mr. Hussein interrupted Mr. Muhammad's narrative at least once, saying "these are not our ethics," after Mr. Muhammad described the torture he had witnessed.

A few weeks ago:

Bush did not confirm or deny the existence of CIA secret prisons that The Washington Post disclosed last week, and would not address demands by the International Committee of the Red Cross to have access to the suspects reportedly held at them.
...
The U.S. government is aggressively taking action to protect Americans from terrorism but "we do not torture," President Bush said on Monday, responding to criticism of reported secret CIA prisons and the handling of terrorism suspects.

UPDATE: another instance via Digby: you hear a stray reference to someone being taken to Abu Ghraib and abused. Is your first assumption that this is something we did, or something done by Hussein's regime?

I'm not trying to exculpate Hussein here in any way shape or form, just noting a disturbing parallel. I hope the people in Iraq are able somehow to come to terms with what he did to their country and their families and move on.

I have the same hopes here in the US w/President Bush.

A problem we have on the Left is that many of our most ardent activists have no sense of humor.

For the record, "having no sense of humor" here means trying to rationally respond to the diary with an argument about the probability that the 2004 election was rigged electronically.

It's a big debate that's gone on there (and elsewhere) for quite a while. My take is that the possiblity is quite distinct given that the systems Dibold sold the government were ludicrously insecure and downright faulty in a lot of cases. However, no hard evidence exists that anything went on that might have swung 100k votes in Ohio. While I recognize the potential for widespread fraud -- and I absolutely hate the fact that there were actual, measurable, voter supression activites that were actively witnessed -- I'm not about to accuse the Bush administration of subverting democracy in the 2004 election.

Nor am I willing to call for the heads of any members of their campaign other that Kenneth Blackwell, who served as both Ohio Secretary of State (thus overseer of all election-related activities) and Ohio Chair for Bush/Cheney'04. Last person who did that was... Katherine Harris, who more or less did steal the 2004 election by purging 30,000 elegeble voters, overwhelmingly African Americas, from the rolls. A turnout of 5% among those voters would have swung the election in favor of Al Gore. Yeah. She stole it, just like Kenneth tried to do.

But Kenneth's state wasn't within the margin of error for that sort of skullduggery. The reality is that the GOP, the "conservative movement" and the religious right put together a politlcal machine which turned out more votes than the Democrats and their coalition were able to match.

Or rather, that's what I believe. I believe it because there's nothing solid pointing to another reality, and this is the world you have to play in if you want to participate in the politlcal process. Even though there was the potential for electronic fraud, and we all know the people in charge are ethically challenged, you can't call the other party illegitimate -- essentially guilty of treason -- without some sort of hard evidence implicating specific individuals.

Otherwise there's no bottom. It's just a war of all against all. I don't believe in that kind of reality.