Last night was WYSIWYG's IMHO panel on politics and blogs. Anyone who's thought about the topic for more than about ten minutes could predict the course of the discussion: anyone can publish, anyone can read, any editing is through a Darwinian process of competing "mindshare", the potential hazards, and so forth. There was a consensus that decentralized publishing would somehow invert the decision-making in a political campaign. This was exemplified by the Clark Network and a never-implemented DNC Convention blog network that would have allowed convention attendees to publish their own experience and ideas for the consumption of other attendees and, of course, the public. This stands in stark contrast to the traditional set of campaign messages, which are centrally planned and "broadcast" to the unwashed hoi-palloi. The populist appeal is obvious, but what is the benefit? At first blush, it's a decentralized message machine that would allow the most engaging or appealing ideas to float to the top -- a marketplace of ideas. This is blogging as polling, where messages are wrought from social networks and the politicians are informed less by his own convictions (subsequently delivered top-down) than by the convictions of the raucus social network beneath them. When the moderator turned the discussion towards the economics of blogs, things started to get interesting. There is clearly tension between the need to get paid for publishing, and thereby free up an author to continue their blog, and the obvious ethical problems of accepting advertising. At this point, David Rashikoff announced that blogging was somehow beyond "economics" and was instead an "ecology". To give him the benefit of the doubt, he may have been referring to the majority of the blogging community that diligently posts without the promise of being paid. That may be true, but the economy of blogging can't be dismissed out of hand: as in any other system, it has an economy which provides us with an understanding of the forces it employs.

Is Jack Edwards the new John-John Kennedy? Is Mexican the new Black?

The most impressive thing about Kerry's selection of Edwards is that the force of JE's charisma (hair?) actually bumped Bill Clinton out of the news cycle. That's no small order--- Bill has been pimping My Life every night this week: Larry King, Jim Lehrer, etc etc... Over a year ago, Clinton famously said that the Democratic party had two stars (not counting himself): Hillary and Wes Clark. The surprise of the primaries was that Clark went from super giant to white dwarf in as much time as it takes to say "endorsed by Michael Moore." Clinton had the numbers right but the stars wrong.

In case you were wondering... Title 36, Section 10 of the U.S. Code specifies that the flag shall be flown at half-staff: * Thirty days from the death of the President or a former President; *Ten days from the death of the Vice President, the Chief Justice or a retired Chief Justice of the United States, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives; *From the day of death until interment of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a Secretary of an executive or military department, a former Vice President, or the Governor of a State, territory, or possession; and *On the day of death and the following day for a Member of Congress.

The Alien Tort Claims Act was passed by the First Congress to combat piracy on the high seas, but since 1980 has found new use as a weapon against human rights abuses and genocide. Around the 1990s, plaintiffs began using the ATCA against corporations, rather than individuals, and ATCA became much more controversial. Opponents of the law, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Department of Justice, believe that the law is overly broad, misapplied, and that it could create a whole host of diplomatic horrors. Supporters contend that the ATCA is a valuable tool to combat human rights abuses. In this context, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in Sosa v. Alavarez-Machain that foreign nationals could use the Alien Tort Claims Act to sue other foreign defendants in U.S. civil court for violating the "norms of customary international law," although the abuses in Sosa specifically did not meet these standards. The decision validates a number of pending cases, but raises the bar for plaintiffs who must now prove that the defendant violated international human rights laws. In short, the court ruled that "...for the purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become

From WaPost: "On Tuesday, Cheney, serving in his role as president of the Senate, appeared in the chamber for a photo session. A chance meeting with Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, became an argument about Cheney's ties to Halliburton Co., an international energy services corporation, and President Bush's judicial nominees. The exchange ended when Cheney offered some crass advice. "Fuck yourself," said the man who is a heartbeat from the presidency." ... Make that a weak, wheezing, somewhat unreliable heartbeat from the Presidency. Unfortunately, no press accout I have read thusfar gives Leahy's reaction--- which in my book is an essential part of the story.

Wait just a few years and it could buy you a portrait of Ronald Reagan printed on rag cotton. Or 100 very small portraits stamped on a coin. Or, you could take your 10 bucks and donate it to the Reinstate Alexander Hamilton Society, soon to be hosted on this very corner of cyberspace. http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/

Vernon Robinson hates:

• the pro-abortion fanatics and the radical feminists
• the atheists who file lawsuits attacking the Pledge of Allegiance & the Ten Commandments
• the gun grabbers, the illegal immigrants, and the trial lawyers
• the environmentalist, tree-huggin' granolas and the animal rights extremists
• the "one world" globalists who worship at the altar of the United Nations
• the militant homosexuals and the burned-out, hippie peaceniks
• the race-hustling poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
• the union bosses and the socialists posing as journalists & college professors
• the government bureaucrats & the tax-and-spend junkies who create their jobs, and
• the Hollywood elitists - air-headed actors and singers who think we care what they think.

...but loves him some unreconstructed racists.

In January 2003, Congressman Rangel and Senator Hollings introduced legislation reinstating a military draft. Congressman Rangel argues that if the Bush Administration is so keen on overextending the military, which is disproportionately poor and disenfranchised, then it seems fair to draft women and the rich. Some people have taken the bills at face value, and some understand it as a political move -- something that makes the Administration look very, very bad. The DOD has stated many times that it doesn't even want a draft -- they learned from Vietnam that a fully professional force is better than conscripts in every way. Significantly, the bill offers non-military service as an alternative to the traditional draft. A good piece on the subject: http://www.free-times.com/archive/coverstorarch/iraq_032603/cover_draft.html The text of the bills are here: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163: Other background: http://www.senate.gov/~hollings/press/2003127851.html http://www.hillnews.com/news/100703/draft.aspx

This is best story about the marriage debate I've seen. Even though it isn't ostensibly about the gay marriage debate. It's about my friend Cora's parents an their decision not to marry. Unspoken is the context that when they met, a marriage between them -- a black man and a white woman -- had only recently become legal in many states. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- April 4, 2004 LIVES Not the Marrying Kind By CORA DANIELS found out in sixth grade. I was supposed to go to a friend's house after school, but during lunch period, she remembered it was her parents' wedding anniversary. I'd have to come over another afternoon. I understood. It was the divorce decade of 80's Manhattan; we were two of the few kids in our class who even lived with both of our parents. So an anniversary wasn't something that should pass without notice. And it got me thinking: why was it that I never made my parents an anniversary card? My family was close. Most days, we ate dinner together at 4:30 in the afternoon because my dad's shift ended at 4. On weekends, the four of us -- my parents, my younger brother and I -- would ride our bikes through our neighborhood like some street gang pedaling in unison to jam sessions in Washington Square Park. But we never celebrated my parents' anniversary. After school, I asked my mom why. A little pink in the cheeks, she shot back that they had never been married. To say that my parents were unconventional is an understatement. They met in the late 60's, when they were New York City cabdrivers and worked out of the same garage. My dad was black, from a rough part of Chicago and 14 years older. She was white, Jewish, from a tiny town in Virginia and living on her own for the first time. The story goes that one day in the garage, my dad asked my mom out for coffee. My mom replied that she didn't drink coffee. From there, the simple mating ritual deteriorated into an argument over whether the offer was limited to just coffee or could also include tea or even conversation. Within 14 seconds, my mother says, she was in love, and within 16 seconds, they were fighting. It was a pattern that never stopped. They did not marry because she didn't want to. It was completely unnecessary and too conventional. If you loved someone as deeply as she loved my father, there was no reason to limit that love with legal binds. It wasn't that my mom didn't want a wedding. If that had been the case, they could have gone to City Hall, as most of their friends had. She didn't want a marriage. Without the piece of paper, she felt, their connection was pure, limitless and unscripted. Through the years, I've reacted differently to my parents' decision. During college, when I left the city and mingled in much more traditional circles, I was proud of their nonconformity and would tell acquaintances that they had never been hitched. More recently, as a black woman surrounded by a generation of unmarried parents dragging a community further into poverty and dysfunction, I don't bring it up as much. Almost five years ago, I married. You can see my parents' shock on the wedding video. I purposely kept my mom in the dark about the details of my wedding day, because the experience would be a first for both of us, and I wanted her to be surprised. I think she appreciated the gift. When I took my fiance -- instead of her -- shopping for bridal gowns with me, the uptight salespeople freaked, but not my mother. In the end, it took death to part my parents. When my dad went suddenly three years ago, they had been together 30 years. It was a lifetime more than many of us get with people we vow to love forever. Without a marriage certificate though, my mother wasn't my father's next of kin under the law. As my father's oldest child, it was my say that counted. Every time I signed another document, it felt as if I were further erasing my mom's role in my dad's life. Or at least helping society to. My dad, an Army vet, had a formal military burial. After taps was played, soldiers folded the flag draped on my father's coffin and presented it to the family. Actually, they handed the flag to me. I didn't want to take it. It should have been presented to my mother, whose lap was empty. But she was not his wife, so the military refused. The idealistic bubble my mom had created for their love collapsed when it rubbed against the real world. No one cared about our weekend bike rides. My mom, my brother and I rode home from the funeral in silence. In a room full of friends and family who had gathered at the house, my mom whispered to me that her only regret was that she never married my dad. If she had it to do over again, she would have. We hadn't spoken about the fact that they weren't married since that day after school when I was 11. My mother's remorse is much larger than flags or funerals. I understand that now. She had believed the world could see the love and commitment that she and my dad shared. But what she didn't grasp sooner is that when you are lucky enough to find a love as strong as she found, you show it off to the world proudly. Because in the end, regretfully, the world couldn't see what they shared. Now, when I look at my wedding band, I can't help thinking of my parents and what they gave up because they thought their hearts were all that mattered. Cora Daniels is a writer at Fortune magazine and the author of ''Black Power Inc.: The New Voice of Success,'' to be published by John Wiley & Sons this month.