bemusedoutsider's lj

Claim: increase in world population over the past 60 years may have CAUSED [alleged] decrease in world hunger .... because of 'synergy'.*

Of course in many situations two heads are better than one, and the more scientists in the USSR Sputnik project and JFK's moon race the better. But I'm very leery of generalities like R___'s being stated without limits or qualifications, especially in a discusssion of population and land use and environmentalism (and Ehrlich-bashing).

A more reasonable generality might be, "The larger number of educated people cooperating or competing non-violently, the better." But that is more likely to come by educating more people, than by breeding more people.

There's also negative synergy -- people fighting, destroying each other's work. Overcrowding causes fighting: disputes over land and resources. Even when people aren't fighting, it can be such a strain just to feed and doctor a hundred children in one poor village, that there is no time or energy or money left to educate even one of them.

It seems to me that the positive synergy gain would come from making contraception available to those who want it, and easing poverty, so there will be more children growing up educated. Bringing as many children as possible over from the starving and fighting set into the educated and cooperating set.

*This claim was not made by D___ but by R___. D___ said there was such an increase and decrease, but did not claim causation; R is the one who 'approximately' claimed causation.
R___, I didn't want to use a direct quote from you here (about many hands on the wheel etc) without your permission. If you prefer the direct quote, I'll put it in.

Re 'Community Supported Agriculture' in urban US, where the buyer takes some of the farmer's risk by paying a set amount in advance, in exchange for a share in whatever food he produces that year.

Sounds like a very good idea indeed. Especially if the buyer can get first choice of the food, and any of her share she doesn't want, the farmer can give to a local charity in her name (or local organic co-op grocery). So it's giving twice (or three times).

Or perhaps better, if the buyer doesn't take her share this week, the farmer can sell it for cash and the buyer's credits 'roll over' till something is harvested that she does want. (And any produce neither sold nor claimed goes to charity.)

Claim: That food shipped from NZ to UK leaves a 'smaller carbon footprint' than local UK produce at a farmer's market.

Probably a creative use of 'carbon credits' which the big producers and airlines can juggle and the local farmer cannot -- who has brought his produce to town on the weekly shopping trip he would be making anyway.

At a literary forum (rasfc), a thread has started about population and economics and landfills (and Malthus and THE POPULATION BOMB). I don't want to encourage an off-topic which pollutes the literary forum, so I'm trying to dump my comments here.

Below here is entries on techno-peasant copyright/ebook issues, national US politics, net civility, misc, etc.

ethesis said in a comment on an entry below:
For all the voting and numbers, the Republican Party is the smaller of the two parties.

ETA: Here's another ray of home, from a different direction:
http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/360328.html?thread=5055624#t5055624
arachnophiliac wrote:
Aug. 17th, 2007 11:58 am (UTC)
As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich has detailed, the values Americans profess in polls are are broadly and essentially liberal, and drifting in that direction even further.


So maybe there is hope. Maybe getting outvoted doesn't really mean we're outnumbered.

In 2006 at least enough of our votes got counted....

Re posts around here: http://ozarque.livejournal.com/437735.html

I just posted this at Ozarque's, who was asking for analysis of influential 'stories' (cf urban legends) such as 'welfare queen' (see also Elvis Presley's 'Welfare Cadillac.).

I see a template for a 'contagious anger' sort of story. Some things like that went around when Paris Hilton (already much photographed) and Scooter Libby escaped jail. There it was a real event that spotlighted one real person to become a focus. The 'welfare queen' thing invents a simliarly real-seeming person, colorful detailed visual image.

Also the Exxon Alaska oil spill made a similar story for a while. Photographs of dying birds. Callous behavior by Exxon. A drunken captain. Protest by stockholders.

Years ago, iirc, photos of a river CATCHING FIRE because there was so much pollution on it, had a similar effect.

Also, remember "The whole world is watching"? A vivid visual image (whether real or invented like the 'welfare queen').

( Read more... )

Another problem with impeachment ... read up on Nixon's. He and his VP, Agnew, were both accused of various things. So Agnew resigned, Nixon appointed a supposedly clean Ford as new VP, Nixon resigned, Ford became President -- and pardoned Nixon and Agnew and everyone in sight, for any and all past OR FUTURE crimes, iirc.

The GOP would just use the same tactic again. It doesn't matter which puppet they have in the White House -- Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, or some new 'Ford'. Halliburton and Enron people would still control the government.

Imo Pelosi and Feinstein and others are right. Attempting impeachment would waste time and energy and annoy the shallow public, which might lose us the 2008 elections.

If we can get WH and House and Senate and a few more SC justices, then maybe we could pass something that would make future impeachments more effective.

Imo the public woudn't support impeaching a lame duck without enough votes in the Senate to actually throw him out. To many people who don't read much except the headlines, it would make the Dems look as silly as the GOP did in 1998. And if there were enough votes in the Senate, those Senators would just quietly tell him to resign, as they did Nixon.

Still, for those pushing impeachment now, here's some ammunition:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript2.html
JOHN NICHOLS: .... an awfully lot of Americans are concerned about with this administration and with the executive branch in-- general, that it is lawless, that-- it can rewrite the rules for itself, that it can protect itself.
....
You are [mistakenly] seeing impeachment as a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis. Don't mistake the medicine for the disease. .... We have procedures in place where we can sanction a president appropriately, do what needs to be done up to the point of removing him from office and continue the republic.
....
BRUCE FEIN: I think that if impeachment proceedings began and the president and the vice-president sat back and said, "We understand now. We both understand. We renounce this claim. .... We're going to comply with the law," the impeachment proceedings ought to stop and they should. .... And all of the purpose of impeachment would have been accomplished.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript2.html

Links I should have included in prior posts here.

http://community.livejournal.com/sfwa/15240.html
There was quite a discussion about civility on the new SFWA LJ, and this entry by Will Shetterley (one of the site managers) came in the middle of it.

http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/Blogger's_Code_of_Conduct
This is a wiki that Tim and others set up for constructive discussion of his project. AT the bottom of this page are External References -- links to earlier parts of this discussion, and to other sites that have had similar codes for a while already.

== External references ==
* [http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/03/call_for_a_blog_1.html Tim O'Reilly's original post calling for guidelines (2007-03-31)]
* [http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html Tim O'Reilly's first draft of these guidelines (2007-04-08)]
* [http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/code_of_conduct.html Tim O'Reilly's take on reactions to the first draft (2007-04-11)]
* [http://blogher.org/community-guidelines Blogher Community Guidelines]
* [http://www.desirableroastedcoffee.com/codeofbloggingethics.htm Desirable Roasted Coffee Code of Blogging Ethics] - from December 2004.
* [http://www.yankeesailor.us/?p=113 MilBlogs Rules of Engagement] - drafted May 2005, updated April 2007.
* [http://wiki.nethique.info/wiki/Nethic_Charter_for_blogs Nethic Charter, a Code of Conduct for bloggers] - The Associated Humans, Feb. 2006, Charter adopted by French political parties.
* [http://jergames.blogspot.com/2007/03/blogger-code-of-ethics.html Yehuda's Blogger Code of Ethics] - Posted a week or two before the Kathy Sierra incident.
*[[wikipedia:Blogger's Code of Conduct|Wikipedia article about the Blogger's Code of Conduct]]
[[Category:Blogger's Code of Conduct|*]]
*[http://civilities.net/CommResp-Proposal Jon Garfunkle's Proposal] - "Jon, your post at Comment Management Responsibility: A Proposal is very detailed and thought provoking, as well as way more comprehensive than anything I'd thought so far." (Tim O'Reilly, in comments to his 3rd post, 12th April)

: I'm curious as to what code about this issue was stripped out, and what sort of posts are considered to be "winding up" others. I'd think that most such posts would already fall under simpler standards, like including profanity or personal attacks or including content considered racist, hate-mongering, etc.
: As for not supporting "The Code", this is not a single code to be applied as is, it's a collection of boilerplate modules for individual blog owners to choose from (and modify as they like). It does seem to me that including a module about how much disagreement is welcome at a particular blog, would be a good idea, since I've seen several people mentioning it as an issue at their blogs.
: If I were going to delete a civil, pleasant post 'just' because it disagreed with the majority, I'd want to give some sort of link to that person's own site for those who wanted to see a different view.
: My impression is that the defacto standard in most of the LJ's I visit is that if someone wants to talk at length or take the discussion in a different direction, he usually does make a short comment indicating this, with a link to his LJ for the rest of what he wants to say. Maybe a module spelling this out would be helpful for some.
: -- bemusedoutsider.livejournal.com (recently posting as anon)

Are new posters supposed to work their way up, grovelling and jumping through hoops? To what extent are old posters automatically preferred? Or is each post judged on its own merits?

On the question of what tools for moderation we should request the blog services such as LJ to set up ... I'd say the main thing would be blog owner access to the text of the posted comments. That would allow the blog owner to disemvowel or put the comment into small text or whatever.

Imo often it would be useful to just plain go in and censor PARTS of a post, such as bleeping out profanity, or taking out one or two senteces of personal insult from a post that is mostly making good points. This sort of pruning would keep whatever is good in the post, and show the poster exactly what was wrong.

I've been making a few comments there, though very clumsily. It's scary to think of signing even a handle that, as has been said, I want to keep credible, with the notice that anything I say may be changed and misquoted and circulated under my by-line.

As a Usenet survivor, I support anonyminity on demand :-), mis-spelling, top-posting, ALL CAPS for emphasis, cross-posting, cross-dressing, thespianism, webscabbing, disagreeing with the majority, beginning posts with "You people" or "What you people are overlooking" etc ... elipses and sentence fragments ... even sockpuppetry an it harm none....

I also agree with what Tim is REALLY saying (note CAPS for emphasis). And applaud him jumping into all this, and keeping his temper.

Imo it's good to have icons for what will and won't get left intact at one's blog. You know, like "no smoking" signs, or "shoes required", or "clothing optional", or "chains required, whips optional" or whatever.

And having those icons link to some repository of boilerplate seems like a good idea too, though most blog owners will tinker with the boilerplate (and for that matter, with the icons).

I'll continue this rant and make some module requests on my own LJ, against profanity, personal attacks, mind-reading, burying attacks in subordinate clauses, escalating personal to political....

Mostly, to "Not Given" -- bravo. What you said.

I do think that on Usenet the people who are trying to impose a particular STYLE have done damage. Too many prissy format rules drive out the reasonable people who have better uses for their time, leaving the field open to those who don't pretend to care.

Maybe from http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/03/call_for_a_blog_1.html

Tim O'Reilly [04.11.07 01:03 PM]


Folks, before continuing this comment thread, you might want to move over to http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/code_of_conduct.html, which has some updated thoughts and reactions based on all this feedback.

A couple of comments more here, though:

1. A lot of people seem to be reacting to something I'm not saying. I'm making NO proposal to regulate what people deem acceptable on their blogs. I'm proposing a mechanism for people to express their standards. There is no proposal for a "keepers of purity." There is an attempt to stir up discussion, and to move the needle a bit away from the widespread idea that "civility = censorship" to "it's OK to tell people to be nice or to go away."

I'm a bit puzzled that many people here say it's OK for a blog owner to set such policies, but have such a negative reaction to a mechanism intended to help blog owners set their policies.

2. The "code of conduct" idea definitely has some hackle-raising overtones, and I made it worse with the proposed badge. Bad judgment on my part. One of my big takeaways is actually in the area of "mechanism, not policy." Right now, policing blog comments is binary: you either delete a comment or you let it stand. You can post a "moderator" style comment to let someone know that they're pushing the limits, but that's it.

I'd love to see some better mechanisms built into the widely used blogging packages for "demoting" comments that either the readers or the site owner finds offensive. Right now, it's a tough judgment call to decide when something is offensive enough to merit deletion. Despite all the folks posturing and saying that I'm trying to allow only G rated blogs, what I'm really looking for is a better ability to manage the tone of a discussion, such that when it starts to slide down a slippery slope, the slide can be halted short of censorship.


-----------------
Tim O'Reilly [04.20.07 08:06 AM]

I don't think you understand what I was suggesting. Two things, at bottom:

1. That people voluntarily take a stronger stand against personal insults and demeaning speech in the comments on their blogs. That is, take more responsibility to moderate the conversation, rather than just letting it run wild.

2. That we get some consistent language for letting people know what is allowed and what is not. E.g. one site might allow profanity, but not insults, while another considers any profanity to be grounds for comment deletion. So for example, on radar, I'd allow a comment that said "Wow, that site was fucking awesome" but not one that said "You're a fucking idiot." Someone else might want to let their community know that both were inappropriate

It bothers me a great deal to see confrontation used as a FIRST response, to someone who didn't intend any sort of confrontation or friction. Maybe I'm just being Southern -- but would it hurt to FIRST try to get the point across nicely?

And of course there are different standards of 'confrontation.' What some people think of as 'directness' or 'openness' can feel to Southerners like confrontation.

(Just posted at Ozarque's)

Woops, how to get rid of the ads?

.... Hope that did it.