PDA

View Full Version : Free Will: How the Internet Is Changing Us


Bloggingheads
04-20-2008, 09:51 AM

Bloggin' Noggin
04-20-2008, 11:17 AM
I'm about half-way through now. Clearly another great Free Will. I absolutely agree that the "gate-keeper" and "mass culture" objections to the web are ridiculous old-fogeyism and self-dealing. I was sorry to see the wonderful Cass Sunstein taking just that old fogeyist position in a previous diavlog. Perhaps Sunstein could have a rematch with Shirky (though I think Henry didn't do a bad job rebutting Sunstein). Still, maybe the printing-press analogy could be used to good effect.
Clearly the bidirectional nature of web communication (as opposed to the unidirectional nature of TV and publishing) is liable to increase civic engagement and appears to be doing just that.
I guess there is one reasonable worry. At the moment we have people working for free (e.g., Will) competing against people who used to get paid for writing or researching. I'd like to see good writing and the investment in time consuming research rewarded. But that's largely a problem to be solved rather than a reason to go back to the past. I wonder if Shirkey considers this problem.
I'm very disappointed to see the book isn't available in Kindle edition! -- Creeping fogeyism? I hope it's available on Audible.com at least....

-asx-
04-20-2008, 02:25 PM
I'm a big fan of Wikipedia and think it is a great resource for the human race, especially for children, who now have at their fingertips the collected wisdom of the human race.

But I lost a little faith because of an illustration about the Confederate States of America, which states that both Kentucky and Missouri seceded from the Union and were part of the CSA, which never actually happened. There were rump groups which declared secession on behalf of their states, but had no legal authority to do so. (It would be as if the Michigan Militia declared Michigan's secession.)

I spent a little time trying to argue this point with the author of the graphic, but he refused to make any changes except the addition of a couple of minor notes which only made the problem worse (by "clarifying" false information; like adding water to mud so you can drink it more easily). After getting nowhere with the author, I tried to recruit a couple of Civil War experts from the Wikipedia History Project to override his decision, but that effort went nowhere.

If I had the time I would try to get this fixed, but I have a pretty busy life and can't spent hours debating the Civil War. Still, months after I noticed this Wikipedia is still telling America's school children that there were 13 Confederate States, including Kentucky and Missouri.

As a model for content creation and management, Wikipedia is truly revolutionary and the results are amazing. But it ultimately does depend on consensus -- which means a consensus of the participating (self-selected) members of the Wikipedia community. When it comes to the American Civil War, the most activated and energized participants often seem to be the "Lost Cause" faction of neo confederates who believe that Lincoln was a tyrant and the South should have won. If you look at the articles for different Civil War battles, many of them consistently understate Confederate losses and inflate Union losses, and many of the Union victories are declared to be Confederate victories (especially true of the more obscure battles that can more easily be fudged without the risk of being reverted by someone who actually knows the history).

Historical revisionism, especially promoting white supremacy, really bugs me.

You can see the offending graphic here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CSA_states_evolution.gif

Note: This is an animated GIF, so you have to watch it "play" for a minute or so before it shows Kentucky and Missouri.

David Thomson
04-20-2008, 02:41 PM
The Internet has already greatly contributed to the weakening of media giants like the New York Times and NBC. More attention, however, should be given to its creative destruction capabilities to damage institutions like Harvard University, Columbia, Princeton, and Yale. These intellectual whorehouses have long hid behind their enormous financial clout and well placed "elite" graduates who desire to protect the institutional brand name. Their nonsense is rapidly coming to an end---and they will have to actually earn everything they get. Silly people like John Kenneth Galbraith and John Rawls were somewhat untouchable because of their Harvard connections. Try to imagine how a mediocrity like Galbraith would be received today? He would likely not even get to first base.

ohcomeon
04-20-2008, 02:44 PM
About a year ago members of my book club were sitting around drinking and discussing a book we read about the exploration of the Nile. We turned to Wikipedia for some additional information. The person on the computer began making up ridiculous stories and posting them to the entry. She happened to be a research librarian and knew all about the inner workings of the site. Sure enough the changes stayed on the site for several days even though they were obviously false. A few months later she received a very humorous note describing the gravity of her crimes and making vague threats about the consequences if she should ever attempt such "vandalism" again.

My point is that just getting one of those notes is motivation enough to post some fake information on Wikipedia. It may be perceived as a badge of honor by many. I know she retains it and enjoys showing it at parties.

David Thomson
04-20-2008, 02:55 PM
"Historical revisionism, especially promoting white supremacy, really bugs me."

These historical revisionists are not promoting white supremacy. On the contrary, they adamantly claim that the slavery was a secondary issue. Please point out even one instance where they claim white people are superior to blacks? These people are indeed weird---but that's not the same as being racist.

Bloggin' Noggin
04-20-2008, 03:06 PM
The Internet has already greatly contributed to the weakening of media giants like the New York Times and NBC. More attention, however, should be given to its creative destruction capabilities to damage institutions like Harvard University, Columbia, Princeton, and Yale. These intellectual whorehouses have long hid behind their enormous financial clout and well placed "elite" graduates who desire to protect the institutional brand name. Their nonsense is rapidly coming to an end---and they will have to actually earn everything they get. Silly people like John Kenneth Galbraith and John Rawls were somewhat untouchable because of their Harvard connections. Try to imagine how a mediocrity like Galbraith would be received today? He would likely not even get to first base.

And we are supposed to believe your assessment of these figures on what grounds? You behave like someone with a great Ivy-league reputation who only has to speak to be believed. Ordinarily, I guess you could back up your arrogant dismissals by citing a Princeton degree in Economics and Political Philosophy. Given your subject, I don't think that'll work. Maybe you'll have to resort to argument...
I can't speak for Galbraith (except for his writing), but Rawls was not a mediocrity. Ask Will Wilkinson or pretty much any reasonable libertarian or conservative familiar with political philosophy about the value of Rawls's work in political philosophy and about his historical importance. They will certainly have disagreements with him, but they won't deny his importance. (Will, who is a libertarian, regards him as perhaps the greatest political philosopher of the 20th Century -- something he said in one of his pre-Free Will diavlogs. I think if you do a search on "Rawls" on Wilkinson's site, you'll be able to verify that he admires Rawls.)
It really is possible to respect the intelligence and creative contribution of people we disagree with.

-asx-
04-20-2008, 03:26 PM
These historical revisionists are not promoting white supremacy. On the contrary, they adamantly claim that the slavery was a secondary issue. Please point out even one instance where they claim white people are superior to blacks? These people are indeed weird---but that's not the same as being racist.

What would motivate someone to say that Kentucky and Missouri seceded from the Union and joined the Confederacy -- four events that never actually occurred?

I know it's a sore spot for neoconfederates that their precious flag has 13 stars while there were only 11 Confederate States. As Christopher Hitchens rightly observes (http://www.slate.com/id/2182358), "the 13 stars of the same flag include stars for two states—Kentucky and Missouri—that never did secede, and they thus express a clear ambition to conquer free and independent states."

Modern day traitors can claim that the war wasn't fought over slavery, but they cannot deny that "the state of Pennsylvania was invaded and free Americans were rounded up and re-enslaved," or that a decade long terrorist campaign was conducted by southern racists invading and slaughtering free people of Kansas.

It's also worth noting that the KKK was founded after the war by six Confederate soldiers, most prominent among them the confederate generate Nathan Bedford Forrest.

David Thompson: Defends the Confederacy, defends the Civil War, defends Southern Partisan magazine, defends historical revisionism of Civil War information on Wikipedia, and —surprise!— hates Barack Obama and constantly (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=74365&highlight=barry#post74365) refers (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=74197&highlight=barry#post74197) to him as (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=73516&highlight=barry#post73516) a race hustler (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=73525&highlight=barry#post73525) who will set (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=73535&highlight=barry#post73535) race relations (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=74199&highlight=barry#post74199) back 20 years (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott/2008/04/comedy-is-where.html).

Draw your own conclusions.

David Thomson
04-20-2008, 03:37 PM
"You behave like someone with a great Ivy-league reputation who only has to speak to be believed."

Nobody should have a reputation where they merely need "to speak to be believed." That's exactly what I'm criticizing! I contend that a number of these Ivy-league stars never really earned their fame and glory---but took full advantage of the intimidation factor provided to them by their institutional connections. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., for instance, wrote some unbelievably bad stuff regarding the New Deal era. I contend that many people were hesitant to rebuke him because the intellectual thugs of Harvard would have destroyed their careers. One often has to really slut it out good to acquire tenure and a six figure income. Taking to task a Schlesinger or a Galbraith can limit your career possibilities.

The most recent embarrassment for Harvard is the "Barry" Obama for president campaign. This guy has said nothing of any real value. He is extremely shallow. Obama is an intellectual lightweight next to Thomas Sowell or Shelby Steele. It is mostly his Harvard connections which are opening doors for him. Obama most certainly hasn't earned it.

David Thomson
04-20-2008, 03:44 PM
"What would motivate someone to say that Kentucky and Missouri seceded from the Union and joined the Confederacy -- four events that never actually occurred?"

A lot of things could entice people to say something dumb. I am adamantly convinced that the slavery issue is the first, last, and foremost reason why the Civil War took place. Their arguments are ultimately silly---but I have no right to charge them with racism without direct evidence.

Bloggin' Noggin
04-20-2008, 03:46 PM
I realize that was your point. The problem is that you offer no evidence for your contentions about Rawls and Galbraith. You seem to think that no one except you should only have to speak to be believed.

Eastwest
04-20-2008, 03:52 PM
I just love this sort of macro-lens examination of unfolding cultural process so helpful in pattern recognition.

Funny the self-righteous responses of the diplomats for entrenched power elites when they notice their power-thru-access monopolies starting to crack apart, as with:

The initial sneering tribe-mentality reaction of establishment journalists when called out for prostitution.

Great example is when Colbert took George Bush and the White-House Press to the woodshed at the famous Correspondent's Dinner. Colbert was initially given the cold-shoulder-with-sneer treatment until the story got too big from below.

More recent cases are the knee-jerk, savage-the-messenger responses of establishment journalists to critics taking them to task for working in houses of ill-repute. (i.e. for working in faux-news [read "entertainment"] organizations, otherwise known as MSM.)

So guys like Glenn Greenwald get ragged on by tribe-mentality journalists understandably displeased over being "outed" as merely credentialed hawkers/hookers for corporate pimps. Equally true analysis, btw, for both conservative and supposedly "progressive" media.

(Hypocrisy is the one issue in which their is genuine bipartisanship as power-and-access monopolies cooperate in condescending to the public.)

Great Diavlog. Thanks to both.

EW

bjkeefe
04-20-2008, 05:17 PM
David:

Nobody should have a reputation where they merely need "to speak to be believed."

I'd be inclined to pay more attention to your claims in this area if you were honest enough to cite some people from your own side of the political fence. For example: Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, John Podhoretz, and George W. Bush all got to their positions of being able to speak with instant credibility largely because of their parents. (I'm not saying they've done nothing on their own, just that they got a huge early advantage through the same sort of insulated process of creating elites.)

I would also note that Kristol has two degrees from Harvard, Bush has degrees from Harvard and Yale, and Podhoretz has a degree from the University of Chicago, which is nearly "Ivy League" in the power of its name.

David Thomson
04-20-2008, 06:43 PM
The typical American is unaware of the scam job going on at Harvard University. How many, for instance, know that "more than 90% of Harvard undergraduates receive honors and almost half the grades given out are A's." Grade inflation may be out of control.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=95001717

I have ceased to foolishly refer to Harvard's liberalism. That simply does not go far enough. One should instead point out its rent seeking cultural mileu. Many of these people subconsciously, if not even consciously, perceive involvement in government as a way of fattening their wallets and increasing their power. One of the most important books to read is Robert Caro's The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. Yale educated Moses was a ego tripping whack job who believed that people like him should run everything. He truly represents the rent seekers of the Ivy leagues.

bjkeefe
04-20-2008, 07:06 PM
Again, David, your argument falls apart through your refusal to acknowledge how many of the conservative elite also attend Ivy League schools.

Maybe I'm missing your point, and instead, what you're really trying to do is put forth a Howard Zinn-like argument that the structure of the US system is designed to sustain the hold on power for those who already possess it. Somehow, that seems like an unlikely guess, I admit.

ohcomeon
04-20-2008, 08:12 PM
Your argument seems to be summed up by the statement, "Harvard sucks." Even if this is true, how exactly does this concern me? What impact does it have on my life?

David Thomson
04-20-2008, 08:43 PM
"Your argument seems to be summed up by the statement, "Harvard sucks." Even if this is true, how exactly does this concern me? What impact does it have on my life?"

Harvard, Yale, and other "elite" schools have caused enormous damage. I am convinced that the United States would be far wealthier if it had not been for the big government idiocy coming out of these schools. That means your own wallet would be fatter! These rent seeking people are infatuated with government because they have every intention in manipulating it for their own benefit. Even George W. Bush is a proponent of massive government involvement in the private sector. You can take it for granted that he acquired that mindset from Harvard.

An expanding government inevitably results in more jobs created for the "elites." There is also a dirty secret that you are not supposed to know: numerous left-wing Democrats will make fortunes if the global warming legislation passes Congress. Have you ever considered how much of their investment money is tied into global warming ventures?

ohcomeon
04-20-2008, 09:06 PM
That's an interesting viewpoint. I, personally, have always believed W got his love for government interference in the economy when the city of Arlington used imminent domain to take private land for a new baseball stadium for his privately owned baseball team. I have noticed that unless it fattens his own wallet, he doesn't care about big government either way.

I personally learned my love of big government because of the large amount of money the government provided for me to attend a small state school. Also, I really love the fact that when I turn on the spigot, water comes out. I am also partial to the fact that air traffic controllers are government employees rather than employed by American Airlines. I also like Hoover Damn, NASA and IH#35.
I do admit these government projects have all gotten worse over the last seven years.

bjkeefe
04-20-2008, 09:08 PM
David:

There is also a dirty secret that you are not supposed to know: numerous left-wing Democrats will make fortunes if the global warming legislation passes Congress.

I challenge you to document this and also to show how there aren't other, non-left types, who are also seeking to jump aboard.

I'll also note that it's hardly unusual for smart businesspeople to take advantage of every new situation. When the Internet became popular, were you alarmed at all the "left-wing Democrats" like the cable companies and the telephone companies, who jumped aboard that?

Winspur
04-20-2008, 09:15 PM
I just started coming to this site a few days ago, and have seen a few diavlogs already, but this one I found really enjoyable. Kudos to Clay Shirky for explaining why the Internet is better than TV--and swinging back at mainstream media apologists.

The printing press analogy is certainly provocative. I guess we are due for a Great Media Reformation sometime in the next half century, if it isn't already happening.

Wonderment
04-20-2008, 09:20 PM
There is also a dirty secret that you are not supposed to know: numerous left-wing Democrats will make fortunes if the global warming legislation passes Congress. Have you ever considered how much of their investment money is tied into global warming ventures?


Actually, it is the cabal of Jewish bankers and freemasons who are behind the global warming hoax. These vermin also control Harvard and the so-called Internet. Don't be hoodwinked, Dave.

David Thomson
04-20-2008, 09:20 PM
The global warming hysteria is based on junk science. And yes, there are also a number of Republicans who want to jump aboard this scam operation. The greed of rent seekers transcends party identification. It is ridiculous to compare the global warming idiocy with the development of the Internet. The latter enriches all of our lives---and the former is merely a rip off created to enrich the "elites."

bjkeefe
04-20-2008, 09:23 PM
David:

I have given up trying to dissuade anyone who is lost in the grips of a conspiracy theory, so I will not try to talk you out of your sadly mistaken impressions regarding global warming.

Here is a new challenge for you: See if you can go three posts in a row without saying "rent seeking" or "rent seekers." Or "Harvard" or "Barry."

David Thomson
04-20-2008, 09:25 PM
"Actually, it is the cabal of Jewish bankers and freemasons who are behind the global warming hoax."

Global warming idiocy transcends all ethnic and religious groups. No, it is greed that primarily underpins the movement.

bkjazfan
04-20-2008, 10:33 PM
David,

You are by far the most entertaining person on this site. Homor is our best friend and you are making me chuckle. Don't stop!

John

uncle ebeneezer
04-21-2008, 06:01 PM
http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10353?in=00:11:40&out=00:11:48

uncle ebeneezer
04-21-2008, 10:25 PM
I thought Clay's point of how people find 3-4 sites that basically use to provide them their "net-view" to be SO true. I remember when the internet seemed to be miniscule, then became completely overwhelming with possibility and then calcified into basically "a bunch of great sites surrounded by a Universe of excrement, with isalnds of brilliance." Just out of curiosity I would love to see where my fellow B-Heads commenters visit on a regular basis. I'll even go first:

Daily:
Salon.com (they have a great singles/dating link)
Redsox.com (for my fav team)
Pittsburgh Post Gazette: (during Steeler season)
Theonion.com
Bloggingheads.tv
mattyglesias.com
Dr Z. amps (guitar amp/owner forum)
Amazon (to read reviews)
Mattyglesias
Several sites for my favorite bands.

And then of course, whatever sites that BHTV redirects me to for reference.

bjkeefe
04-21-2008, 11:00 PM
Apart from blogs run by my friends, here are my most heavily-visited sites:

Daily, for news, analysis, and commentary:

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/)
TPM (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/) and Veracifier (http://www.veracifier.com/)
BH.tv (http://bloggingheads.tv/)

Joel Achenbach (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/)
Bats Left Throws Right (http://doghouseriley.blogspot.com/)
Cosmic Variance (http://www.cosmicvariance.com/)
Crooked Timber (http://crookedtimber.org/)
Lawyers, Guns and Money (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/)
Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/)
Matthew Yglesias (http://www.matthewyglesias.com/)

Daily, for entertainment and wingnut-watching:

alicublog (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/)
Balloon Juice (http://www.balloon-juice.com/)
Sadly, No! (http://www.sadlyno.com/)
Jon Swift (http://jonswift.blogspot.com/)
TBogg (http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/)

Several times a week, for news, analysis, and commentary:

Marc Ambinder (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/)
The American Scene (http://theamericanscene.com/)
Ross Douthat (http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/)
Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/)
Rationally Speaking (http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/)
The Rude Pundit (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/)
Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/)
Salon (http://www.salon.com/)
Slate (http://slate.com/)

Several times a week or as updated, for geekery:

Coding Horror (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/)
Joel on Software (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/)
Security Fix (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/)
Stevey's Blog Rants (http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/)
Zero Day (http://blogs.zdnet.com/security)

Most of the rest are listed on my blogroll (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/) and/or my list of feeds (http://www.bloglines.com/public/bjkeefe).

You'll note a decided bias, but I do end up on a lot of right-leaning sites, too, mostly by following links.

Wonderment
04-21-2008, 11:53 PM
My top 10:

Bloggingheads.tv
Elpais.es (Spanish newspaper)
Haaretz.com (Israeli newspaper)
Lajornada.unam.mx (Mexican newspaper)
Antiwar.com
CommonDreams.org
NYT
WAPOST
LA TIMES (local)
Wikipedia.com

Plus, RottenTomatoes for movie reviews, Amazon for book reviews.

Temporarily for election stuff:

Realclearpolictics.com
Slate.com
Huffingtonpost.com

TwinSwords
04-22-2008, 02:03 AM
Coding Horror (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/)

Thanks for posting your favorite sites; very interesting.

I never heard of Coding Horror, but it sounded interesting, so I followed the link. After reading the most recent article (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001104.html), I'm already hooked. The article about BASIC on the Atari 2600 was hilarious. And it was fun remembering those early days of popular computing when people were so excited about what they could do with 4K of RAM, lol. Personally, I first programmed BASIC on one of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Computer), when I was a wee lad of 13...

TwinSwords
04-22-2008, 02:29 AM
My homepage is Wikipedia, because I use it so often it's convenient to bind it to the "Home" icon on the toolbar for easy access. (The "Home" icon is the fastest shortcut to a particular page available in the browser, so it should be bound to the page you use the most. Equally fast is opening a new tab, which also opens the homepage [in some configurations].)

The first page I hit when I sit down to browse the Internet is Eschaton. Atrios is still my favorite blogger. His output isn't nearly what it used to be and there are a lot of other blogs with more in-depth commentary. But I feel enormous loyalty to Atrios because back in the dark days of 2002, he was one of the few voices of sanity in our dysfunctional national discourse. He was one of the key opinion leaders on the left who assured those of us living in conservative, small town America that we weren't crazy: there really ARE people who thought the Iraq war would be a disaster, that racism is wrong, that Bush is a criminal, and so forth. Atrios was the gateway drug, er, blog. Before him I'd read Talking Points Memo and Andrew Sullivan, but Eschaton was the first blog (and blogger) I fell in love with. Thus, to this day, I loyally give him as many clicks per day as I can. After all, the man is one of the few good guys who makes a living with his own (non-corporate) blog, and I'd like to help him remain economically viable for as long as possible. When the day comes that Atrios has to get a "real" job and give up blogging, the world will be a poorer place.

The second blog I used to visit every day was Steve Gilliard, the fighting spirit of the left. Tragically, this wonderful person and brilliant blogger died last year. I still can't get over his loss. He was one of a kind, and spoke to conservatives and Republicans with exactly the level of respect they deserve. Coined the important phrase "we fight back," encouraging a more aggressive liberalism; liberalism with spine and a willingness to spit in the face of your opponent when he calls you a traitor, instead of calling him "sir" and treating him with respect, tipping your hat in his direction while he lies down in the ditch pointing a sniper rifle at your head. (See Kerry, John, Campaign of 2004, for an example of a fool skipping down the lane just asking to be ambushed, and most recently, James Pinkerton as the dishonest slimeball willing to aim rifle shots at your face.)

Another blog I visited religiously was Billmon; unfortunately, he closed up shop without any explanation a while ago.

My current daily reads, besides Eschaton, are:

Talking Points Memo: Hands down the most important lefty blog in existence. Almost single-handedly saved Social Security. Josh Marshall and a small number of others worked tirelessly for months on end, single-handedly injecting honesty and facts into a corrupted national dialogue dominated by rightwing talking points and lies.

Huffington Post : I'm not too thrilled about this site, but the left needs our own version of the Drudge Report, something to sensationalize every Republican fuck up. I think that's what HuffPo is trying to become.

BHTV: Now, the most important and interesting politics-related site on the Internet. Exceeds all others by multiple factors. In a class by itself. Head, shoulders, torso, waist, thighs, and knees above the competition. Yes, that's right: Other blogs might reach BHTV's calves, if they are lucky. ;-)

YouTube: Dozens of channels provide politics-related coverage, from Bill Mahar's Real Time, to documentaries, to clips from the cable news wasteland.

Other favorites:

Lawyers, Guns, and Money
Balloon Juice
Crooked Timber
Matt Yglesias
Sadly, No!
Glenn Greenwald
The Washington Monthly (Kevin Drum)
bjkeefe (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/) (a really good blog)


I also have a lot of wingnut/nutball sites bookmarked and regularly peruse them to see what kind of lies they are cooking up.

bjkeefe
04-22-2008, 02:58 AM
Twin:

Ah, yes. The Trash-80. Fond memories.

My mother, a columnist at the time, had one -- the original with the 40 character by 8 line display. The extent of my programming on it was to hack a greeting that appeared every time she turned it on. I was kind of embarrassed that I could not figure out how to disable it, either, but she assured me that she liked it. Good old Mom.

I also made a little money with that same computer, via its word processing mode, filling in for Mom when she was too sick to write her weekly column. Byline! And cash!

It's been all downhill from there, though.

bjkeefe
04-22-2008, 03:07 AM
Twin:

Yes, that's right: Other blogs might reach BHTV's calves, if they are lucky.

Moo. (I say in agreement.)

Also worth recalling: TPM was the first to break the attorney-firing scandal.

I agree with you that HuffPo has its annoyances. The more precise way to say that I visit it every day is to say that I am subscribed to a bunch of its bloggers, and read them when the robot sends me an email saying there's new content.

Pointing out YouTube is smart. I completely take this site for granted, but yeah, I probably hit it every day, especially when I consider how many embedded videos I look at. It's a treat to be able to watch Real Time for free, isn't it? I'm amazed, and happy, that HBO hasn't clamped down on this.

I never knew Steve Gilliard when he was alive. My loss. I liked what you had to say about him a lot.

And ... thanks for the shout-out.

Wonderment
04-22-2008, 03:11 AM
I also made a little money with that same computer, via its word processing mode, filling in for Mom when she was too sick to write her weekly column. Byline! And cash!

Mom must have had high standards (and awesome verbal genes) because you became an excellent writer.

Wonderment
04-22-2008, 03:19 AM
Huffington Post : I'm not too thrilled about this site, but the left needs our own version of the Drudge Report, something to sensationalize every Republican fuck up. I think that's what HuffPo is trying to become.

I kicked my creepy Drudge habit by removing the site from my toolbar and bookmarks. Once I had to type it in manually, I had an extra second or two to think about how dirty it felt. I haven't been back in a couple of years.

I third the motion that Huffpo is mediocre. Too Adrianacentric, for starters, and way too much scrolling required. Clutter, clutter. I do like the "Quick Read" feature, however.

bjkeefe
04-22-2008, 03:37 AM
Wonderment:

Thanks. Yeah, I got lucky on both counts.

jstrummer
04-22-2008, 09:13 AM
Best Free Will yet. Will has a tendency to kind to interject a bit too much to show how much he knows. Bad idea when you're interviewing experts who have written books. He still does that a bit with Shirkey.

However, his interviewing technique is getting much better. And this was very, very good. I hope Will will get Matt Yglesias on next if Matt is available and not limited by his Atlantic gig.

Keep up the great Free Wills!!!!

AemJeff
04-22-2008, 10:26 AM
My habits change from time to time, but here's a pretty good sample of my current pattern:

Science Blogs
Bad Astronomy Blog (http://www.badastronomy.com/)
Cocktail Party Physics (http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/)
Astronomy Picture of the Day (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/) I'm a total sucker for the pretty pictures here
Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/)
Cosmic Variance (http://cosmicvariance.com/)

Poli-Etcetera
Slate (http://www.slate.com/)
Attackerman (http://thinkprogress.org/attackerman/) New blog from Spencer Ackerman - it's damn good
Julian Sanchez (http://www.juliansanchez.com/)
Yglesias (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/)
The G Spot (http://thegspot.typepad.com/blog/) Kathy G's blog is a relative newcomer - it's definitely worth a glance
The Corner (http://corner.nationalreview.com/) The first place to look when you want to know what conservatives have on their minds

Douthat (http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/)
Balloon Juice (http://www.balloon-juice.com/)

I also tend to run a tour of Malkin, Red State, etc... most days. I see no real need to link to them.

uncle ebeneezer
04-22-2008, 11:23 AM
Thanx everyone. Exactly what i was looking for. Learning more about the commenters and also seeing some good sites to check out. I forgot to mention Youtube. I mainly go there for old episodes of MST3K, Fishing with John and Duckman (you know, silly stoner stuff) and live music vids. But I'm frequently impressed with some of the original content on there as well. I also window-shop on E-bay pretty frequently.

I pretty regularly hit the major news sites (LAT, WAPO, NYT etc.) primarily because, well they do alot of the bigger stories. I hit Ezra's blog every few days. I spend more time on Newsweek than I like to admit (I'm a little bitter towards that organization for personal reasons currently). And I try to hit TheLoom at least once a week and RottenTomatoes as well. And every couple days or so I try to swing by Jambase to see what's new in the live music scene.

Just out of curiosity: how come the responses have been only from the relatively liberal side of the comment fence. Where are all you Red state-ers?

TwinSwords
04-22-2008, 12:35 PM
I forgot to mention Youtube. I mainly go there for old episodes of MST3K, Fishing with John and Duckman (you know, silly stoner stuff) and live music vids. But I'm frequently impressed with some of the original content on there as well.

Good point, there is some pretty good original content on YouTube. It can be hard to find, but it is there.

Here's a good original work I stumbled across recently: YouTube is My Life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p21nZmtq56M)

TwinSwords
04-22-2008, 12:43 PM
Also worth recalling: TPM was the first to break the attorney-firing scandal.
Indeed; another invaluable contribution. There may not be much to celebrate from the past 7 years, but the disgrace of Abu Gonzales is certainly one of the few high points.



It's a treat to be able to watch Real Time for free, isn't it?
It sure is. And it's rather telling that with few exceptions (Olbermann and Maddow), the only people on television who make any sense at all are Bill Mahar, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert.

TwinSwords
04-22-2008, 12:46 PM
I kicked my creepy Drudge habit by removing the site from my toolbar and bookmarks. Once I had to type it in manually, I had an extra second or two to think about how dirty it felt. I haven't been back in a couple of years.
Haha, good point. I made a similar decision after 2004 to never visit Drudge again, if only to not help feed revenue to the beast. I have to admit I have broken this vow on a few occasions, but not having him bookmarked definitely helps. Instapundit is the only other nutjob on the right who I've adopted this policy for: I never visit his site, either, unless there is a very compelling reason. (For all the good it has done.)

Uffe
04-24-2008, 05:44 AM
My media habits:

Daily

Slate
Washington Post
Bloggingheads.tv (mostly mp3)
Brian Lehrer Show (mp3)

A couple of times a week

NY Times
The Corner
The Reality-Based Community
The Atlantic

Weekly

The New Yorker
The Economist