Sarkozy: Listen, I'm sorry to say it, but we could go on holiday together!
Onfray: Are you joking?
Sarkozy: You don't go on holiday with someone because you agree with him about the problem of social security. Deep down, the most important thing is style.
Onfray: I couldn't agree more --

...

Sarkozy: For a long time, I got drunk on crowds, from their applause, their excesses, perhaps even their hysteria. And now I am more appreciative of their silence. It expresses much more than any applause.

Can you imagine an American president saying that?

(Translation from the French by Tobias Grey; appears in the July issue of Harpers.)

Philomag - Dialogue - Nicolas Sarkozy et Michel Onfray - CONFIDENCES ENTRE ENNEMIS

You may remember the Drew Westen thread from earlier this year.

The Political Brain is a groundbreaking investigation into the role of emotion in determining the political life of the nation. For two decades Drew Westen, professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University, has explored a theory of the mind that differs substantially from the more "dispassionate" notions held by most cognitive psychologists, political scientists, and economists—and Democratic campaign strategists. The idea of the mind as a cool calculator that makes decisions by weighing the evidence bears no relation to how the brain actually works. When political candidates assume voters dispassionately make decisions based on "the issues," they lose. That's why only one Democrat has been re-elected to the presidency since Franklin Roosevelt—and only one Republican has failed in that quest.

In politics, when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins. Elections are decided in the marketplace of emotions, a marketplace filled with values, images, analogies, moral sentiments, and moving oratory, in which logic plays only a supporting role. Westen shows, through a whistle-stop journey through the evolution of the passionate brain and a bravura tour through fifty years of American presidential and national elections, why campaigns succeed and fail. The evidence is overwhelming that three things determine how people vote, in this order: their feelings toward the parties and their principles, their feelings toward the candidates, and, if they haven't decided by then, their feelings toward the candidates' policy positions.

Westen turns conventional political analyses on their head, suggesting that the question for Democratic politics isn't so much about moving to the right or the left but about moving the electorate. He shows how it can be done through examples of what candidates have said—or could have said—in debates, speeches, and ads. Westen's discoveries could utterly transform electoral arithmetic, showing how a different view of the mind and brain leads to a different way of talking with voters about issues that have tied the tongues of Democrats for much of forty years—such as abortion, guns, taxes, and race. You can't change the structure of the brain. But you can change the way you appeal to it. And here's how…

The Political Brain

Because of a transmission error, a film review yesterday about “Live Free or Die Hard” misstated the critic’s description of the plot. It should have been described as “logic-defying,” not “logic-defined.”

Correction

Gradually, a compelling idea emerges: Now that the Communist Party has embraced crony capitalism, Gifford explains, it has become just the latest dynastic iteration in the great cycle of Chinese history, every bit as autocratic, venal and corrupt as the Qing, Tang and Qin emperors and empresses. And when do Chinese dynasties fall? Not when the urban intelligentsia is restless, as was the case in the 1980s before the massacre at Tiananmen Square, but when the rural peasant class finally rises up, he concludes.

'China Road' by Rob Gifford

Sure it makes you uncomfortable, but good art should make you uncomfortable.

Stephen King on the artistic merits of torture porn

It's interesting to see people so worked up over this.

Jared Diamond, professor of evolutionary biology and Pulitzer Prize winner, says: "Those astronomers now preparing again to beam radio signals out to hoped-for extraterrestrials are naive, even dangerous."

I've always expressed disdain for SETI@home, but this is even more useless, though perhaps less wasteful:

Cosmic Connexion, a firm based near Cape Canaveral in Florida, invites you to e-mail your messages to them and they will then beam them, free, into space and "introduce you to extraterrestrials."

Today MySpace, tomorrow MyUniverse. Just imagine the time sink of approving all those friend requests ...

Is the search for aliens such a good idea?

In a follow-up to his now-legendary TED2006 presentation, Hans Rosling demonstrates how developing countries are pulling themselves out of poverty.

He shows us the next generation of his Trendalyzer software -- which analyzes and displays data in amazingly accessible ways, allowing people to see patterns previously hidden behind mountains of stats.

He also demos Dollar Street, a program that lets you peer in the windows of typical families worldwide living at different income levels. Be sure to watch straight through to the (literally) jaw-dropping finale.

I have to say it's not as impressive the second time around.

Hans Rosling's jaw-dropping demo

Indeed, only 63 words ... are needed to make up half of everything said on TV.

A practical model for analyzing long tails

I recently posted about the Peer to Patent project. Patent reform is a major subject of the new, monster issue of First Monday, from which the recommended article is drawn.

Tougher examination of patent applications reduces anti–commons effects while reducing the frequency and costs of litigation. Modelled after open source/free software collaborations, the “Peer to Patent” initiative seeks to improve the quality of patents by developing a Web–based infrastructure whereby volunteer experts external to the PTO’s review applications, assemble prior art information, and submit the results of their collective work back to the Patent Office examiner.

This paper endorses the spirit and goals of the “Peer to Patent” initiative, but questions its reliance on the open source model.

A discussion of the functions of peer review, the meaning of peer, and the motivations of the reviewers in different contexts indicates that editorial peer review — not open source — can provide a more effective model for integrating peer review of patent applications into PTO practices.

Bringing Peer Review to Patents

The future of Internet radio is in immediate danger. Royalty rates for webcasters have been drastically increased by a recent ruling and are due to go into effect on July 15 (retroactive to Jan 1, 2006!). Webcasters across the country participated in a national Day of Silence this week to increase awareness about this looming threat and gather support for the SaveNetRadio collation and our campaign to preserve music diversity on-line. The Internet Radio Equality Act is currently being considered by both the House and the Senate. This bill will set royalty rates for Internet radio equal to the royalty rate paid by satellite radio, and has gained over 120 cosponsors in the House.

Internet radio needs your help to survive. We need you to pressure your representatives in Congress to take action. Please take a moment to call your Congressional representatives in the House and Senate to ask them to co-sponsor the Internet Radio Equality Act. Making your voice heard will go a long way to helping preserve the Internet radio industry. Time is running short, so please call your representatives today.

Rhapsody sent me a pointer to this today.

Savenetradio.org