Distributed Mind

Since this is after all a blog (ugh) I think this is moderately relevant. This guy Robert Scoble works for Microsoft doing PR (actually he is called a "Tech Evangelist"), and he keeps a blog. What is interesting about Scoble is that he manages to give Microsoft somewhat of a human face (and does a good job of it considering), and he thinks that one of the best way to do that these days is through blogs. He believes strongly in the benefits of blogs for companies - both I think as a form of public relations as a technical communication (he says that you have to listen to what people says, which implies that, at least in his field, you better be prepared to receive technical input; also, lots of MS employees blog all kinds of technical instructions, techniques, and bug workarounds, etc.).

The thing is, I think he is in part right. When you blog, if you do it right, you are going to get input, and if anyone is going to take you seriously, you are going to have to listen. Scoble often solicits input from readers about Microsoft products. If anyone there is actually listening (frequently they are not, but sometimes they are), it means that intelligent readers may actually have an impact in prodcuts (note that this effect is already visible in open source projects). This is not really a significant change; after all, good companies already listen to input, though, indeed, probably the closest we got to this before were all kinds of surveys, but they weren't necessariy getting to the people they needed to. What is new is that this exchange is so visible, so much more widespread (much easier to post a comment on a blog than to actually write a letter to the company), and actively solicited by the company. People may actually get the funny idea the company is working for them. Many companies try to pretend that they already are, but very rarely is that true.

The thing is, if you are working for your customers, not your shareholders - ah, there is the rub - you may find your old business model harder to keep up with. The contemporary capitalist approach may become harder to use. One can only hope of course. If companies were about being useful and not about being rich, how much better a place would the world be.

(Now having said all that, the chances that any of this will take place are sadly rather low, but one can always hope.)

Some thoughts regarding this blog:

• We need a policy regarding reuse of text from this blog. It may be via copyright - just make it public domain and open it up, or some sort of license like the kinds they have over at Creative Commons or our own, perhaps requiring only attribution or perhaps preventing modification. Frankly, I am comfortable with public domain actually - but I don't want to deter other authors.
• This blog gets way too much religious content - time to stop being lazy and split it into two blogs?
• XHTML issues - we need to punch up the markup on this site: the stylesheet for the main page does not allow resizing correctly (i.e. sans scrolling when the window is small enough) and besides the main page most areas are not XHTML.

In some circles the topic of commercialism of Christian music, purported by some to be a "ministry," has been discussed for some time. While the idea of profiting off of what was supposed to be ministry was always a sore spot for some, nobody had to buy it if they thought it was too commercialistic. With the drastic rise of piracy over the last few years though, though, the debate has become more pressing. Now both the issue of commercialism in Christian music and piracy are evidently getting mainstream attention. The New York Times website has this story on the subject. It raises the fundamental dilemma: the music is supposed to be a ministry (though the article treats that viewpoint as universal - which I am not sure it is in the industry) and yet copying and distributing it freely - what you typically would like to do with the gospel - is now possible but also illegal. So what does one do? (We know how the industry feels about it - it's still piracy in their mind. I agree it is illegal and thus you shouldn't do it without explicit permission - but I think it also points to a fundamental change that needs to take place; namely their should be no industry to have an opinion...) [The NY Times article was linked to by EFF in their latest newsletter and in their Mini Links blog.]

It takes a certain insanity to write the way Poe did. Oddly enough though, I think I am reaching that point...

Oh, and is anyone else going to post anything? And, like, maybe it could actually have something to do with science or technology or science fiction or math or something for a change... You know that other subject we all know something about?

I know, I know... This is rapidly turning into a blog about religion (sorry, Jon).

I know that faith in God is supposed to be the cure-all for everything that bothers us. And in fact it is. The problem is sometimes it just doesn't feel like it...

For example, sometimes, I feel very frustrated with life (sometimes for no apparent good reason, except for irritations of varying degrees). And it definitely feeds into how I relate to God. Theoretically, and I guess, not-so-theoretically, it is in large part a lack of trust/faith [in the original Greek of the New Testament the same word is used to mean both things]. So, while it is definitely not a good state to be in, it would be disingenuous to pretend that is not the state I am in. (There are plenty of examples in the Bible of faithful people questioning God, so I suppose I am in good company - read on for more on that.)

So, what do I tell people about my faith if they ask me now when I feel so frustrated and burned out? Are they really going to want faith when it looks easier and more pleasant to just go back to what they were doing. I know from personal experience, as recent as today, that it is often easier to ignore God, even in the troubled times, than it is to turn to him. Easier - not better. Like any relationship, knowing God is a challenge. When it is good it is very good, and when it is bad, well, it can be pretty rough. But like any good human relationship, whether familial or friendly or romantic, there will be problems, but the relationship in the end is more than worth the cost of the bad times for how much good the relationship does in the long run. So no, Christians do not always walk around blown away by the grace of God (though that should be the case more often than not) but that doesn't mean that their faith is of any less value. It just means God is working on their relationship to him.

[Remainder of article]

One thing God showed me last year was what true beauty is. The most perfect example of beauty we have is God himself. This should be clear to begin with just by looking at creation, as if we find sunsets, or the elegance of physics or mathematics, or mountains, or forests, or rivers, or the sky, or members of the opposite sex [okay, have to be careful with that one], or a wonderfully sunny spring day beautiful we do so because we were designed to do so by God who also created those beautiful things that we are looking at. So God must have a more profound understanding of beauty than we could ever have, I suspect - creating not just our sense of beauty but the massive complexity of things that we find beautiful. So I think when we look to God, it makes sense that he would fit our idea of beauty. And though I had never really thought about it before, once I started to think about it, I realized it was true.

[Remainder of article]

The Citadel and Amman at dusk. (The Citadel is the old part of Amman, dating originally to the Ammonite inhabitance thousands of years ago, but also with Roman ruins from the first century and Muslim buildings from much later.)

[Remainder of article]

Politics in America is in bad shape. And maybe it's never been in good shape, but we should demand more.

What should we demand and how can politics change?

1) We must demand that politicians see themselves as SERVANTS of the public. When they run for office they should not be running for a promotion and higher pay, but because they have a VISION of how things can be made better. We should EXPECT that all our politicians have this goal.
The problem with politicians is not that they don't want to do good (I believe most do), but that this desire is too often subordinate to ensuring they are elected. Unfortunately, denial and self-justification can help calm the conscience when platforms have to be adjusted for increasing electability.
Ultimately a politician should set a standard for him/herself that they would rather LOSE the election than compromise the vision.

2) This means our MEDIA needs to change. Instead of analyzing the political motives and the image of a politician (which perpetuates and encourages this sad state of politics), we should DEMAND and EXPECT that our media will REPORT and DISCUSS the ISSUES. That is, the discussion should always be about the merits of a politician's particular vision, not how they will be seen by voters and constituents.

3) A politician with a vision will often need to convince the public of that vision. Note, the politician does not design his vision around what will get him into office (as if one could design a vision!), instead he CHALLENGES the citizenry to see the vision. When was the last time you can remember a politician CHALLENGING the public instead of pandering to them? There is the oft quoted line of Kennedy's: "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." In more recent times, Dennis Kucinich will now and then present his vision as a challenge instead of as pandering to his liberal following. But this should not be the exception, it should be the rule!
Challenging may include a critique of current values. It may include challenging the public to action. In truth, a politician who is willing to challenge voters instead of just pander to them may actually win points in the election simply because, in our cynical times, it would be such a new and novel approach to politics!

EDIT: 4) We need to get corporations out of politics. Corporations are not citizens! The fact that they have more rights than people is a travesty. More needs to be done to remove ability of corporations and any for-profit organization from contributing to campaigns.

Wow, I am getting pretty prolific here, and most of these posts are really just rants... Oh, well. This one is a little interesting though, and in fact I am kind of curious how our resident skeptic feels about it, so maybe we can actually get some comments this time...

This morning I was reading Psalm 33, where David writes, among other things, about how God's word and his plans persist through time. Now, I usually cannot put together a good argument for how prophecy supports the truth of Christianity (and I think it is not an easy thing to do in general), but this morning a few things struck me, and just drove home blatantly accurate the Jewish prophecies are.

[Remainder of article]

Ack, not only another political entry, but one that actually says something good about the United States... I may end up looking awfully Establishment after this (I assure you, it will never be).

Having heard a fair amount of news recently about the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan, and having read someone make the suggestion that some of us actually decide to do something about it by writing our elected officials and asking them to apply pressure to Sudan to improve the situation, I decided to do exactly that. So I researched the situation a little, reading both what Amnesty International had to say about it and, more importantly, Human Rights Watch's brand new report about it.

The end result being that I found out that the United States was already doing much of what I could have asked them to do, and evidently more than anyone else in the international community, at least according to the relevant section of HRW's report. Now, this is not a complete shock - the United States is pretty interested in Sudan - but still, I am so used to finding out all the negative things we do it can be jarring to see something good for a change. Too bad the good things don't get reported on sometimes. Well, I guess they just did...

I think I will still write my letter, but it looks like I will have to begin it by thanking the White House for its current efforts. Who would have thought?

Why is it that even though I am, when left to my own devices, one of the most skeptical, cynical, downright paranoid people I know, but when I hear thinds like Democracy Now! or read things like Alternet.org I want to laugh at their paranoid delusions - for saying the same things I am!? Drives me crazy that I can't listen to other people say the same sort of things that I say.

I think part of the problem is that I get the very distinct feeling listening, for example, to Amy Goodman interviewing guests, that there will be only one answer - that no one will ever say anything that contradicts the fundamental assumption that all war is wrong and that the Bush administration is the most fascist regime since You-Know-Who (pick your favorite you-know-who). Well, yeah, I feel that way too much of the time (well, maybe not all of the fascist part), but I think I just don't feel like the alternative ideas will really get fair air. Alternet is better that way, but still, most of the authors there see life through a fairly significant filter (note that in this case it isn't always just a progressive filter - a lot of the authors there are old-school Democrat supporters - I laugh at them...). And ultimately, no one is going to say anything good about Bush which is just downright ridiculous. Good grief, even I have managed to find something good to say about most Democratic presidents (well, still waiting on Johnson) - surely they can do that much for Bush. I really don't believe that he is such a new radical phenomenon in conservative politics that everything he does is evil or has an ulterior motive which is evil, but these guys sure seem to think so. Ugh - when I think about it it makes me like the New York Times and the Washington Post even more (that will definitely be enough to prevent anyone labeling me radical or progresive...).

Okay, I am rambling now, so to summarize: I think the difference (assuming I am not just being self-righteous here, which I have to admit is possible) is that I know I will occasionally question my assumptions, even if I don't do it out loud, but I have to question whether they are really doing the same thing.