Detour

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial by Milton Friedman on Greenspan.

I have mixed feelings regarding Google’s agreement to censor search results. Like most everyone, I object to censorship of alternative opinions and see the existence of alternative opinions as an important tool to democratize totalitarian regimes. On the other hand I feel that capitalism, and its resulting prosperity are also a necessary precondition to democratization.

Google’s official explanation makes an important point in this regard:

Filtering our search results clearly compromises our mission. Failing to offer Google search at all to a fifth of the world’s population, however, does so far more severely. Whether our critics agree with our decision or not, due to the severe quality problems faced by users trying to access Google.com from within China, this is precisely the choice we believe we faced. By launching Google.cn and making a major ongoing investment in people and infrastructure within China, we intend to change that.

Over the last three months I have been developing a new software application. The process of getting a product properly designed and marketed involves an incredible amount of research. Given my limited resources, the effort I have undertaken would be virtually impossible without a powerful and free search tool. Google, is simply the best search tool by leaps and bounds and to deny this service to the entrepreneurs, scientists, activists, and policy makers of China is far worse then censoring search results that one would be reckless to search for in the first place.

Why is it reckless to search for “Democracy” or “Tienanmen Square”? Because those searches (and any other requests) are public to every system that the request hops through. The kind of information that today’s reverse proxies offer to system administrators is stunning. (did you know that ssl connections can be intercepted by reverse proxies?). Tolatarian governments can and do use these technologies to monitor and oppress their citizens, and if I were a pro-democracy activist the last way I would attempt to obtain photos of Tienamen square would be to google them.

I guess what I’m saying is that China is not a free country. It wasn’t before Google (and Yahoo, Microsoft, Cisco, etc) capitulated to the Chinese government, and it will not be free tomorrow. However, China with a crippled version of Google is more free then a China with no Google.

I know this opinion is unpopular, but a motto of “Do no evil” is just silly. Power usually means making decisions in highly complex environments and those decisions are usually about choosing the least bad option. Life just is not that simple for Google… not anymore.

Go here to read the flaming…

I recently came across an article written by Mark Gauvreau Judge in the American Spectator called Right-Wingtips, which documents a new type of American conservative called the metrocon. Actually Mr. Judge believes that this is an old species that has just recently been named; people like William F. Buckley, George Will, and President Kennedy are examples of this sub-species of conservative. Mr. Judge explains…

As most people know, a metrosexual is a heterosexual man who has good taste in art and music, and likes to pamper himself with nice clothes and expensive grooming. There’s only one drawback: I can’t stand much of the so-called common-man culture celebrated by the Right. I fully realized I’m a conservative metrosexual — let’s call me a metrocon

I guess I aspire to be a metrocon. One of the musical highlights of last year was the BBC downloads of Beethoven’s nine symphonies, my favorite class in college was the history of modern art, and I am well versed in the works of Euler, Nietzsche, and Pasteur. I guess the only thing holding me back is my lack of funding for Brooks Brothers suits and sipping Louis Roederer Cristal Champagne in my hiltop villa along the Pacific Ocean. But there is more in my life then economics, politics, and appreciation of fine wines. I love beer, country music, and NASCAR. Mr. Judge thinks this flies in the face of my metrocon status, and throws me to the dark side of American culture….

NASCAR, an absolutely idiotic “sport” which consists, as the joke goes, of “a bunch of rednecks makin’ left turns,” is hailed as red state America’s favorite pastime — and ipso facto comparable to the Olympics of ancient Greece. Actually, scratch that: NASCAR is not treated as something grand and noble, which makes it all the worse.

Mr. Judge believes that most NASCAR fans are proud of their ignorance of all that metrocons (and snobs) have a high regard for. (I know I shouldn’t end a sentence with a preposition…but I watch NASCAR, what do you expect?). I think he buys into a stereotype in this case. How does he know? Just because the stereotype of a NASCAR fan is one of a bumbling idiot, and the sport has its roots in the South doesn’t mean that a majority of its fans are ignorant and proud of it. I certainly am not ignorant nor are any of the other fans of NASCAR I know (albeit in the San Francisco Bay Area this is a small sample size). Mr. Judge goes on to skewer a song called Redneck Women…neglecting the hundreds of other country songs about family, respect, and longing to be a better person.

Do conservatives really have a monopoly on such sub-par tastes? I can think of a whole slew of rap, punk, and rock songs that have similarly ignorant lyrics. Hell even Beethoven made music, that at the time, was controversial…and some would say ignorant. Mr Judge devotes a paragraph to liberals, whom he says…

… are worse. Baby boomers still dress in jeans and T-shirts (like their NASCAR counterparts), listen to music that’s 40 years old (the Stones anyone?), and try to sound like teenagers to impress their kids. Whereas JFK — one of the great American metrosexuals of all time — looked great even on vacation, with his Ray-Bans and khakis, Al Gore just looked silly when he tried to reach the common man by wearing “earth tones.” It’s the difference between Brooks Brothers and the Gap.

But this snippet strikes me as cover for the main point of his article…how much he loathes his fellow conservatives that are average Americans with commonplace, if not anti-pedantic, interests.

I, too, share some concerns about the lot I throw myself in when I spout my conservative politics or pull the lever in a polling booth. I have very little in common with the “religious right”…abortion is not the sole issue in my life, and many would think me to be a liberal if they heard my views on the death penalty, abortion, or corporate welfare. The thought that I would ever vote for a Republican would have been laughable to my high school classmates…a story not so uncommon in many blue-state conservatives. Mr. Judge writes of his similar conversion…

This is really how I became a right-wing metrocon. As a young socialist my uniform was studied rock and roll grubbiness — mullet (hey, it was the ’80s), ripped jeans, rock band T-shirt. Yet when I sobered up and became a conservative — which also meant a return to Christianity — I began to experience the second growth that von Hildebrand speaks of. I went from Levis and punk rock to Saks and swing dancing. I poured out the Old Spice and went to Nordstrom’s for a bottle of Truefitt and Hill of London (founded, the bottle reminds us, in 1805, when Lord Nelson won the great battle at Trafalgar). I stopped wearing sneakers and white socks. Like George Will — a Hall of Fame metrocon — I began to prefer baseball to football. And I never stopped liking Woody Allen films — yes, I call them films. I didn’t stop growing — in fact, this was when I started growing. Soon, “Red Neck Woman” seemed like an embarrassing Bible Belt banshee wail. Sadly, in America being a metrocon is just too close to being a snob.

I just don’t see why Mr. Judge believes that if conservatives don’t share his new found tastes, that they are somehow uncultured dotes. He thinks it is sad that this looks like something close to snobbery. If he is so refined, how can he not see that his views are the definition of the word?

More here, here, and here.

Update: I hope this Nascar fan doesn’t disprove my arguement.

Maybe he’s a liberal…

(Thanks for the tip…Atomic Bombshell)

Last week KQED, the San Francisco Bay Area NPR station, was on a pledge drive. I typically change the channel within seconds of their boring beginning for money. However, sometimes the preset radio buttons in my car are just too hard to push (I’m lazy at heart) and I sit through the ungainly call for money.

This time the hosts were pushing the $11 per month ($132 a year) pledge level. To be fair, there is a $40 pledge level, and they will accept any pledge offered…but the hosts were obviously trying to shame those who could afford it to give at the $11 a month level. Here is a screen shot of the requested donation level from kqed’s website…

Thinking this was too much (I mean for gods sake…HBO is less per month…and I can access NPR free of charge…I like free-riding) I wondered what Sirius Satellite Radio charges. Below is a screen shot of Sirius’ monthly rate…

… for two dollars a month more I get hundreds of stations with no commercials (unlike NPR that bookends all of it’s programs with commercials disguised as gratitude for donations).

Furthermore, NPR is carried on Sirius! Does NPR really think the value it provides to its listeners is 85% ($12.95/$11.00) of the value of a Sirius Satellite Subscription? Silly, don’t you think!?!

Update: More here, here, here, here, and here.

For the most part I think of Google as a indisputably first-class company. I have trouble thinking of criticisms of the company …that is until this week. Google has every right to enter any agreements that it sees fit. I love the free market systems and would not be in favor of preventing a private business from entering into agreements with foreign countries. But this week’s announcement by Google that they will help the Chinese dictatorship censor web searches just seems wrong to me.

This isn’t the first time Google has censored for the government. Anyone who has used Google maps to search for a satellite photo of the White House has noticed the obvious photoshopping.

I assume the US government asked Google to do this…why else would the top of the White House be covered? Why Google would choose to participate in this, literal cover-up, is beyond me (unless forced by law to do so). Any terrorist or foreign country that wants this information can easily get the uncensored picture. If the government doesn’t want photos of the security on top of the White House, then they should camouflage the top of the building with netting or false walls, or some other visual illusion. It isn’t Google’s responsibility to hide easily obtainable information about the White House, the same should go with China.

The announcement of cooperation between Google and the Chinese communist government comes as even more of a surprise when contrasted with Google’s recent dispute over releasing search statistics to the US government. Let me get this straight…China wants to censor searches of words such as Democracy, Freedom, and Christianity…No Problem! The US government wants a random sample of a million searches (no personal information on the searchers would be given)…and Google wants to fight for the rights of its users.

Juxtaposing these two controversies within a week confuses the hell out of me. Why cooperate with China to censor but not cooperate with the US government in a court case about internet pornography? Please explain.

All of this leads me to a question I don’t often ask. How rich do you need to be? Google desires to enter a market with 1.5 billion people in order to make money. Is the bottom line always the sole determinant of a business decision? The answer to that question is obviously no, at least in Google’s case. They provide their employees with …free meals…laundry…company time for private projects. The founders of Google, and just about every employee at the company, are in the top 10% of income earners.

Participating in actions, such as censorship, is condoning it. Google should take the high road and let its competitors participate in the proactive elimination of information. Leave the censorship to communist dictators!

Update: Google changes its motto from

Do No Evil!

to

Don’t Be More Evil Than Necessary!

Update II: Read more here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Update: GoogleBlog tries to explain.

I knew Bush was good (err, bad. I guess it depends on your perspective).

Extinction of the Dinosaurs
Eruption of Mount Vesuvius and Destruction of Pompeii
Birth of Disco

Go here and read the whole list…very funny.

Do Not Click On This Link! You hvae been warned.

These Beatles Lyrics just never get old…

Words are flying out like
endless rain into a paper cup
They slither while they pass
They slip away across the universe
Pools of sorrow waves of joy
are drifting thorough my open mind
Possessing and caressing me

Music is a huge part of my life. Want proof? I am the guy who has a 20 gig Ipod and regrets the purchase, because I can’t get a quarter of my library on the damn thing. How do I choose with soo much great music through the centuries…Handel, Sinatra, Wagner, Willie Nelson, Ladybird, The Beatles…ahhhhhh!

Update: There is an auction over at e-bay of Beatles memorobilia to raise money for Valour-IT.

Valour-IT provides laptops with voice-recognition software so that wounded soldiers can communicate with friends and family.

Thanks for the tip Blackfive.

If you can’t laugh at this…there is no humor in your soul!

Greenpeace co-founder praises global warming

By Sean Hao
Advertiser Staff Writer

Global warming and nuclear energy are good and the way to save forests is to use more wood.

That was the message delivered to a biotechnology industry gathering yesterday in Waikiki. However, it wasn’t the message that was unconventional, but the messenger — Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. Moore said he broke with Greenpeace in the 1980s over the rise of what he called “environmental extremism,” or stands by environmental groups against issues such as genetic crop research, genetically modified foods and nuclear energy that aren’t supported by science or logic.Zero-tolerance standards against such research by environmental groups delay developments that could help those with unmet basic needs, Moore said. Instead Moore called for compromise rather than confrontation on the part of the environmentalists.