In New York and other northeastern urban centers, including Washington and Boston, gray matter is the new black of the hip social scene. Thousands of young singles and couples are eschewing the perfunctory dinner and a movie for a growing circuit of late-night museum prowls, Oxford-style debates with pre-feud cocktail parties and book readings with cash bars and after-hour bands. In New York, even spelling bee nights have popped up as a romantic twist for the chic, unmarried and grammatically gifted.

Sounds great... I knew i was right in considering Scrabble a good date activity ;)

In the New Dating Scene, the Attraction Is a Beautiful Mind

Robert Daniels has been locked up indefinitely, perhaps for the rest of his life, since last July. But he has not been charged with a crime. Instead, he suffers from an extensively drug-resistant strain of tuberculosis, or XDR-TB. It is considered virtually untreatable.

County health authorities obtained a court order to lock him up as a danger to the public because he failed to take precautions to avoid infecting others. Specifically, he said he did not heed doctors' instructions to wear a mask in public.

"I'm being treated worse than an inmate," Daniels said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press last month. "I'm all alone. Four walls. Even the door to my room has been locked. I haven't seen my reflection in months."

This is an interesting problem and I agree that it's one the US may have to consider more frequently. The above reference is the only one that indicates that this patient has refused to wear a mask, and the only quotes we get from him is that he, at one point in the past, *did* not do so.

I want to know more. If he is genuinely refusing to wear a mask, then he can stay where he is, in my opinion. It's not his right to knowingly act in a way that exposes others to harm. Period. I think it's terrible that he will have to go through his life with a mask on in public. That's terrible, and not even his fault probably, but that doesn't mean he should get to infect me, or even run the risk of doing so.

This statement :

"Involuntary detention should really be your last resort," Harrington said. "There's a danger that we'll end up blaming the victim."

seems to make sense at first but ultimately, I don't blame the victim for getting sick, but you better believe I'll blame him for delibarately acting in a way that endangers public health. Getting sick may not have been something he could control, but acting responsibly is.

Nonetheless, the balance here -- the conditions of the incarceration, amenities provided, enforcement of release conditions etc. -- is going to be a fine point. -k

Man with tuberculosis jailed for not wearing mask - CNN.com

De Furia said that while he believed the deputies' mistakes were not intentional, the Coffins had every right to lock doors, try to close their garage door and not cooperate.

"What took place in the house was unfortunate," De Furia said, "but Mr. Coffin ... had a right to resist."

[ Reason and logic... it's like a breath of fresh air. The dude's pretty lucky he didn't get shot, however. The main reason I wouldn't have resisted in this way is that Right or not, cops have guns and my propriety won't mean much to me if I'm dead. -k]

Homeowner had 'a right to resist'

Decius wrote:

What do you think?

I have a rather different take on the whole thing. Willan concludes by saying

Until we can find our own vision to aspire to, maybe Borf and Andre the Giant are all we have.

We are clearly meant to identify with the emptiness the author feels, his lack of place or purpose. Or, rather, not his but "his" in the collective, generational sense. I largely agree with the facts being presented, but interpret them differently.

But I'll come back to that in a moment.

I feel like I should start by saying that I've never really grasped the notion of "generations," since it always seemed to me like people were being born an dying pretty much all the time and that this general cyclic meta-grouping was kind of arbitrary. That is to say, one's "generation" has everything to do with common philosophical themes and popular media and that it's basis in date of birth hardly regular enough as to be predictable.

Therefore, I'm going to roughly group my 28 year old self in with the 21 year old author and use pronouns like "we", "our" and "us". I'm not gen-X -- again, to the extent that I understand the meaning in the first place -- and gen-Y, as I've heard, is so indistinct and non-descript that it essentially captures the same sort of existential no man's land the author so dishearteningly expounds upon.

Further, and it may not need to be said, but I'm really only talking here about the United States, perhaps even being broad enough to include "the West" as a larger element, but certainly not the entire world. The author states

... this hailing of "American youth" displays a paradoxical lack of awareness of our generation even as it tries to pin us down. There's no such thing as "American youth" -- or British youth, come to that, these days. That's exactly what we're not -- a body, a set.

and I think his essential point is correct. There's little enough cohesion among youth of a similar age which would permit such a generalized reference to have any real meaning. I'm going to discuss this further, but one of the reasons for that, I think, is that the concept of "similar age" has itself changed lately. In ages past, 10 years difference in age was probably less of a gulf than it is today. I am certain that the day-to-day experience of college now is substantively different than when I left a mere 6 years ago. But I think this is a small part of it.

While arguing that modern youth are not "a body, a set" above, Willan does bring up the notion of collectivism and particularly the way in which the internet fosters that sort of anonymous social interaction. I don't think he's quite making incompatible statements here; he's arguing that the anonymity is what strips us of our icons -- our Ginsburgs and Kerouacs -- and establish the emptiness of our generation's social fabric.

RE: We're All Borf In the End

Acidus wrote:
...
Of course the counter-counter attack would be to randomly select some ratio of pixel locations based on the resolution of the image and toggle the red component on them.
...

I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but it seems to me that spending time working through the logistics of circumventing a bad piece of legislation that hasn't even passed yet to be a little like putting the cart before the horse.

This is still a political concern and the solution seems like it ought to be likewise. E.g. write your senator and congressperson, raise awareness (i recognize this is happening to some degree organically, since i just found out about it, but nonetheless), etc.

Have we become so cynical about the likelihood of being listened to that we assume bullshit laws will be passed and jump straight to figuring out how to get around them?

Decius wrote:
...
Its worth noting that the law doesn't require ISPs to screen traffic. It merely authorizes the sharing of child porn images for this purpose. Presumably there are ISPs lined up who want to do this but presently its illegal.
...

Oh? I'm not saying you're wrong, but what motivation do ISP's have for this kind of self regulation? Are they presently liable in some way for child pornography that crosses their networks? Do they want to engage in PR to say that they throw child pornographers in jail?

I don't assume any business wants to do anything that would require a large investment with no clear return besides some social benefit (recognizing that business don't do things just because it's the "right" thing to do). This sounds rather more like setting the stage for privacy intrusion that the ISP's have little interest in, to me.

RE: Thought Crime

Combine unsupervised teenagers, digital cameras and e-mail, and, given sufficient time, you'll end up with risque photographs on a computer somewhere.

There's a problem with that: Technically, those images constitute child pornography.

Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.

What a complete pile of bullshit. I can see the argument if either party had actually posted the pictures somewhere on the internet or sent it around to friends. I'm still not sure criminal penalties are the best way to prevent that activity, but I'll allow that there would be some wrongdoing in that case.

But that didn't happen, and I'm in full agreement with the dissenting opinion. It was a stupid thing to do, and I think they're naive with respect to any expectation of privacy they may have (especially with regard to each other... having the picture exposed through hacking is about 10000 times less likely than it being released as part of a nasty breakup, as almost all of them are at that age). Still, child pornography? Really? Psh.

FURTHER : You can read the sad story of Genarlow Wilson here and don't forget about Marcus Dewayne Dixon (google it) either, both of which are here in georgia and which beg the question of racial equality, quite aside from the direct question of sexual relations between minors, or a minor and a non-minor within a couple years of the same age.

I'll go on record as being against mandatory minimums categorically, so that aspect of these cases I'm clearly against. I will admit that there is some cloudy area in the middle, but I distrust the "family values" based "People under 18 shouldn't have sex, period, ever," argument as a political construct and note further that the redder the state, the lower the age of consent as a generalization. Perhaps these laws are simply out of date, but it's tough for me to see how the legal apparatus should get involved unless there truly was exploitation or rape.

Teens prosecuted for racy photos

possibly noteworthy wrote:
There is some truth here.

The larger problem with blogs, it seems to me, is quality. Most of them are pretty awful. Many, even some with large followings, are downright appalling.

Meh. I found this article asinine when I first read it last week and was hoping it'd pass quietly into the abyss, but I guess not.

I find it painfully ironic that an opinion piece which goes on and on about the lack of originality, research and genuine critical thinking in the blog world, itself offers essentially no elucidation or original thoughts of any kind. Bloggers and technologists have been self analyzing the echo chamber effect and the reality of a low signal to noise ratio from the very start.

That's *why* places like Memestreams and Digg and technorati and all the various social networks exist -- we're trying to find the signal in the noise. If one wishes to make an argument that we're not there yet and need to do better, well, gee whiz, thanks. We know that, and no one's more aware of it than the bloggers who write their piece and want it to be read.

Mr. Rago could have explored the ways in which social networks and collaborative filtering are trying to improve the situation, but instead makes a passing gesture at how chaotic the scene is.

He glibly jots "there's more 'choice'," implying that choice isn't necessarily a good thing, but not going any deeper. Well, again, smart people already know that. We've read Schwartz, among others, and at least an acknowledgment that it's not saying anything new would've gone a long way towards softening my opinion of this piece. But that would have undermined his whole silly point.

Again, a lot of true things are said here, but little to none of it could be called original.

He stabs at the political blogs and cites the anonymous critic, saying "Some critics reproach the blogs for the coarsening and increasing volatility of political life." Again, little analysis is offered. Is it really that the blogs are responsible for this effect or merely a response to a coarsening and volatility already being propagated by our actual leaders in congress and the White House? Or is it merely that when you give voice where there was none before, it will always start off shrill? Those of us who care about this space actually have thought about these things, and it's disingenuous and a little insulting to parade about as some kind of whistle blower when the "industry," such as it is, is already largely working on the very problems Mr. Rago points out.

Again, he's not wrong, just hypocritical, bandying some lovely vocabulary in service to the tiniest shred of analysis, reducing what might have been an insightful work into an apology for the MSM and a useless attack on a scene which already knows it's own weaknesses.

We're told that "[j]ournalism requires journalists," a wonderful and true statement, but also one that I read, here, on a blog, months and months ago.

"[P]retty awful" indeed.

RE: Why Blogs Suck | WSJ

What the hell happened? Where did we go wrong? How was Christianity co-opted by a political party? Why are Christians supporting laws that force others to live by their standards? The answers to these questions are integral to the survival of Christianity.

While the current state of Christianity might seem normal and business-as-usual to some, most see through the judgment and hypocrisy that has permeated the church for so long. People witness this and say to themselves, "Why would I want to be a part of that?" They are turned off by Christians and eventually, to Christianity altogether. We can't even count the number of times someone has given us a weird stare or completely brushed us off when they discover we work for a church.

It's nice to see some people get it.

[ I fall into that category of "turned off" by the whole business. I went to church for my entire childhood. Read the bible, sang in the choir, played handbells, even did plays for the church. It was a substantial part of my life, but one that didn't ever seem like it dominated my existence as it does for some people. Nonetheless, I had a genuine and comfortable relationship with the faith

Starting in college and then accelerating tremendously since then, I began to feel embarrassed to self-identify as a Christian, because of what the zealots and the media have made of it. In some sense you could call that giving up or giving in to the extremists. People of strong faith defend their religion as fervently from the poisons within it as from the enemies wihout... even more so, I would hope.

As it turns out, I was never a particularly strong believer, really, and I guess I'd call myself more of an agnostic humanist at this point. That is to say, I believe in morality independent of any reward/punishment experiment that may or may not be in progress by one or more higher powers. That opinion earns me cold shoulders from both rigid atheists and rigid believers because they both see it as a kind of cowardly hedging of my metaphysical bets. Truth be told though, I just have a normal, unsophisticated feeling that i don't know one way or the other and neither blind faith nor logical analysis in this realm have ever held much appeal. I'm not waffling, I just don't know, but I do know that there are things that are right and things that are wrong and the rest seems pretty irrelevant to me.

Anyway, I try to treat religious people no differently than others, but I have to catch myself sometimes, because with all of the unconcionable things being carried out by powerful people who claim to espouse the teachings of Christ, well, my gut reaction generally ranges from distrust to outright disdain. It sucks, but there it is. -k]

Bakker, Brown: What the hell happened to Christianity? - CNN.com

Ladies and Gentlemen.. 2006's Quote of the Year is ... [ drum roll ]

"The Lexus has collided with the olive tree, and its crumpled hulk spins in a ditch as the orchard smolders." -- Bruce Sterling

This one doesn't need a context if you understand the reference. This quote would fit in editorials on a number of subjects.

And the runner-up:

"I'm an artillery officer, and I can't fire cannons at the internet." -- Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt US Central Command

nice

2006 Quote of the Year

Decius wrote:

adam wrote:
I, although I'm English, believe in a decent America, a moderate America that speaks at the ballot box but is generally quiet and modest.

...
I hope you're right, that there is this great, silent, moderate America, but it has no voice, and its hard to beleive that its real when you never hear from it...

But where would you hear it? What outlets will amplify the voice of anyone in the group you describe?

The media won't do it because it's not good business and for all the vaunted power of the internet, it's become dominated by shrill partisans or complete nobodies without clout or trustworthiness.

You want a return to civilized dialogue and respectful disagreement, but you'll have to forgive my cynical laughter. It ain't happening this cycle or the next. In the most crucial battle of all, the far right has won -- they've equated politics with morality. They've created a link between your political opinions and your essential human goodness. There is no respectful disagreement with people who are evil, with your enemy, and I see the problem getting worse before it gets better.

The democrats, some of them, still want to have a discussion that's founded on logic; but they get drowned out by the rhetoric of emotion or ignored by a media they can't buy. I'd like to believe a straight democratic ticket would edge us back in the right direction, but I fear a sense of entitlement will vindicate the kind of democrats who just borrowed from the republican playbook and turned the debate into a battle of good and evil.

Religosity -- and i DON'T mean Faith -- is the greatest threat to the United States since the civil war. It has infected every debate, every issue. What used to require reason and analysis now requires only that one view the issue through the lens of whatever ideology they've adopted. What was once called a nuanced opinion is now called "elitist" or "weak" when it's even noticed at all by a populace who's less and less interested in or capable of bothering with the intellectual exercise of finding truth.

The system has been poisoned. Poisoned by absolutism. By intolerance. By moral superiority. By money. I no longer see a way out. Only a vague hope in the cyclical nature of everything... a hope that the pendulum will swing back. I have almost no faith in the proposition that I can do anything to help it. Even after all this, I myself am too angry to be objective, too demoralized to be fair minded and far too frustrated to believe anyone, ANYONE can be convinced of anything through reason or analysis.

And I'm too emotionally exhausted to even really care.

RE: Media Matters - Media uncritically reported Bush's false claim