|
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
What links reveal 
| | Nothing's changing, just lots more hits. And the referers don't reveal anything. Not sure what's happening there. |
| | If you're interested in weblog APIs, please review the new MetaWeblog API spec . Today it moved from my test site to the XML-RPC site, replacing the spec from 2002 (which has been archived). It's very important to review this for accuracy and completeness now, I'd like to finish this rev in a week or two. There haven't been any comments for quite some time, so perhaps we're almost done. Now is the time to review; after it's frozen, as you know, it will be too late. |
| | I don't know much about this stuff, but it is interesting to look at how we use blogs to increase What We Know: to move as much as possible from the tacit to the explicit. There's a chart I'm looking for here, but can't find it. No time. |
Centerweight
| | Caught a little of the Democratic debate on CSPAN last night while I was getting ready for bed. Kerry looked more commanding than anybody else on stage. He certainly comes across very well on TV. Sharpton had a lot of funny one-liners. Gephardt came across as substantive. Dean was solid, making the most of his small-state background. |
| | But the whole crowd scraped me the wrong way. None of them gave Bush and his administration much credit (or so it seemed — I didn't catch the whole show) for any success in the war on terror, and that bothered me. I believe the Bush administration blew a thousand chances to make the world a better place between 9/11 and the Iraq War, but I also think they made America a safer place (at least so far). Their fuck-ups are well-known; but what about their successes — those tragedies that never happened? I'm sure there have been some. So: Credit where due. |
| | I also don't share the Dem candidates distaste for NAFTA (Dean excepted, since he said Vermont benefited enormously from it), nor their general discomfort with free trade. I didn't get the sense that any of them (with the possible exceptions of Lieberman and Dean) deeply understands how a free market works, or how a government can help by getting out of the way. |
| | Democrats, in general, like more laws, more regulation, and therefore more bureaucracy and more drag on commerce. |
| | Unfortunately, so do Republicans. They say they don't, but they do. |
| | Democrats, however, like helping people and protecting resources the marketplace could give a shit about, such as old growth timber, poor people and clean drinking water. Republicans, at least since Reagan, side with the marketplace, which they tend to see as playing fields tilted to favor the Big Winners. They like those those Big Winners, especially when they make big contributions. |
| | Shallow oversimplifications aside, I think there's a middle wing that doesn't see much play in the press, though it's all over the blogosphere. It doesn't think of itself as libertarian, although that's basically what it is. It values personal liberty and minimal government interference, either in private lives or in private enterprise. It dislikes market-limiting power moves by big business as much as those by big government, especially when it uses the former to operate the latter, as we've been seeing with the RIAA. |
| | I think the candidate that captures the sympathy of that third wing will win in 2004. |
Rightwurst
| | John asked me to participate, but I've been on the road. In any case I guess would have listed the great assassins (Booth, Sirhan, Ray, Oswald) thrown in Joe McCarthy and then a corrupt pol or two (Tweed, Agnew). |
| | But I wasn't compfortable with the question, frankly. Not sure it moves anybody's thinking anywhere, other than to observe that both political wings tend to disapprove of assassins. |
There are responses to this message:
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
