Sutter's got a nifty visual recap of the recent Blogger launch as seen from inside GoogleHQ.
Just to dispel some rumors:
Note to self: when checking to see how your site's doing after its big launch, verify you have functional DSL before going crazy-go-nuts.
New Blogger, new blog.
I'm thrilled to have this release out in the wild. In the last couple weeks, our team has really pulled together to get this new version out the door and I'm psyched launch day has finally arrived.
Update: I'm also coming down offa' wicked donut / adrenalin high, and apparently unable to write in more than the trite cliche. But I'm still psched.
Donna Hughes' take on the Abu Ghraib tortures is a perfect example of why I keep coming back to the National Review Online.
I thought to myself, "What spin can the NRO put on documented torture at the hands of US soldiers." I was ready for a claim that torture is a justifiable wrong or even a blanket denial of the evidence. But never could I anticipate the following stumble of logic:
The images from Abu Ghraib are trophy pictures. The sadistic MPs are shown posing, smiling, and gloating over their victims and what they have made them do.I'm with ya', sister. Definitely bad stuff in those pictures.
Similarly, I found numerous offers on the Internet from pimps for men to bring cameras and video recorders with them to make trophy images and videos of their sexual use of women and girls.Holy propositioning prepositions, Batman! But if the point is that there's weird sex stuff on the Internet, I'm with ya' there as well. A little unsure of the connection between your points, but let's press on:
Why are we shocked by these images from Abu Ghraib, but when the victims are women (or gay men) the images are called pornography or "adult entertainment"?Wha? So, first off, it's weird that straight men can't be in pornography ... or maybe they just can't be victims of it. But second, she's gone and condemned all porn based on the site wherefrom pimps for men do tape of women having sex. What a slut! Here's the best one tho':
What if the Iraqi men had been forced to smile, could we be convinced that there was a newly formed "publishing and film production" company in Baghdad instead of sexual abuse and humiliation being perpetrated?No! No we couldn't. Never would it occur to us that what happened in Abu Ghraib was okay if someone tried to pass it off as porn. That's like Pol Pot trying to pass off his skull collection as avant garde sculpture.
These similar images are what the young American soldiers from the Internet generation have grown up with and learned to call "adult entertainment." Did they become desensitized to the harm of doing such things to people by seeing multiple images of similar abuse to women? Did they learn how to violate someone by being a voyeur to abuse, and in Abu Ghraib they had the chance to become perpetrators — and pornographers?Obviously, yes. In the face of such compelling logic, how could you say otherwise. Hustler taught these soldiers how to violate basic human rights and the Geneva Convention. Cinemax gave them the hard heart needed to do what they did. The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our unjust foreign policy and destructive occupation of Iraq, but in our porn.
Both American and British troops are accused of torturing Iraqi prisoners. One difference between the two cases (besides, you, know, the uncontested photographic evidence of the Americans) is that Britain is now party to the International Criminal Court.
As explained by the Guardian, there is an increased burden on UK officials to get to the bottom of these allegations. The ICC "has the power to launch war crimes charges of its own against authorities including the commander-in-chief - the Prime Minister - if necessary."
So, Tony Blair is legally compelled to make sure a proper investigation is carried out lest he be forced to answer to The Hague. Nice!
This 'rule of law' stuff is starting to make good sense.
We hung about the tenderloin and tenderly you tellNot my favorite Belle & Sebastian lyric, but it was fun to hear it sung at the Warfield last night when CaseNotes and I waded into what has to be the one the more polite and cheery rock n' rock audiences around.
About the saddest book you ever read
It always makes you cry
The statue's crying too and will he may.
Google's going public. You may have heard. Or not.
It's hard to say; to me, it seems like this is all anyone's been talking about anyway. The pressfolk lurking outside our offices today seem to suggest a general interest. But my perspective is probably a bit skewed.
I've never been more proud to work at Google than when I read the S-1. Ever since seeing a Frontline about how auctions were the solution to IPO corruption, I had dreamed of the day when some responsible corporation could show Wall Street how it's done. I never would have guessed that I'd be working for the company in question when it happened.
I also am glad about the dual class offering. Larry Page points out all the remarkable things that make Google a unique place to work in his Founder's Letter. Any system that allows him and the current management team to retain control is a good one in my book. My god, the man specifically called out free lunches as an important part of employee culture!
Finally, I love the fact that, as noticed on /., the actual sum to be raised by the IPO is $2,718,281,828 or e x 10^9. Given that I was a debater, quizbolwer and officer of the math club, it's really something to be at a place where I don't even come close to the top of the dork-o-meter.
Another Sunday, another pleasant afternoon working up a head of rage while reading about the state of the world in Harper's.
There's a nice piece about the various legislation that small communities have passed ordering their local police departments not to comply with Patriot Act investigations.
Which got me thinking about an idea for an educational campaign. In the tradition (and, possibly, style) of the School House Rocks civics lesson, it would be called America: Looks Good on Paper.
Essentially, it's a way to let people know about their fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. Whereas each phrase of the Constituion can be dissected with hundreds of years of case law, I believe the overall import is easily understood.
Episode One would start with the title card: "The 4th Amendment: Damn, That Seems Pretty Specific!" And then it would be followed by the text of the amendment as read by some easily-snagged celebrity. Maybe Leonard Nimoy.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Later episodes could be more fanciful, like, "Which Amendments are Better: Odds or Evens." (Odds). Or "Habeas Corpus: Suspend This!"
