Thanks to Nancy for bringing emailing me about this animated visualization.
Very, very recommended.
Update: Curzon is sobered.
“Conservative Blog Sprawl Is A Serious Threat To Progressive Blogosphere Dominance,” by Chris Bowers, MyDD, 7 July 2005, http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/7/7/184341/5955.
Earlier I blogged Chris Bowers’ analysis of the rise of big liberal blogs. Specifically he described Scoop, a reader-friendly blog package that allows any commentator to write front-page stories. Famously, he wrote
In short, the anti-community nature of right-wing blogs has resulted in a stagnant aristocracy within the conservative blogosphere that prevents the emergence of new voices and, as a result, new reasons for people to visit conservative blogs.
Unless right-wing blogs decide to open up and allow their readers to have a greater voice, I expect that the liberal and progressive blogosphere will continue its unbroken twenty-month rise in relative traffic.
Because the big liberal blogs are more commenter-friendly that the big conservative blogs, there are more big liberal blogs and many more small conservative blogs. While a dailyKos reader can get his thoughts published on the dKos homepage, and seen by thousands, an Instapundit reader has to start his own blog and hope it gets linked to.
But now, Mr Bowers looks at the other side: because liberal blogs are so easy to join, big liberal blogs kills off the liberal grassroots before it can even form
To a certain extent, this is probably the result of several large progressive blogs offering quick and easy ways to take part in large communities, something that is not found nearly as often on large right-wing blogs. Why start a local blog when you can just have a diary on Dailykos? Whatever the cause, however, this is a serious problem that progressives must both accept and face. Certainly there are some very good local lefty blogs communities, but overall local blogging is dominated by conservatives. The Thune bloggers are just one example of the impact this can have on a campaign.
Scoop and other tools of the liberal blogosphere have made centralization much easier. Liberal bloggers have adopted top-down, Soviet-style network-centric warfare as their de facto doctrine. Liberals are pushing power up, concentrating power and leading to mental isolation seperating the leaders from the led. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers use simpler tools to spread in more places. Conservatives are pushing power down. The conservative bloggers have adopted netwar as their de facto doctrine.
So which strategy is better? Is NCW best, because elections are like set battles? Is netwar best, because politics is a game of heart and minds? The answer: politics is a full-spectrum battlespace, and both net-centric war and netwar should be used by a wise politician.
"These problems will not be solved
And that’s just the way it is."
Rx, Boys & Girls
"Everything isn’t meant to be okay."
Green Day, American Idiot
After the Second World War, Japan embraced defeat. Japan’s pre-war goal was to establish an independent economic system immune from the Great Powers, Communism, or other "alien" influences. However, Japan was unable to overcome America’s might.
So Japan embraced defeat. Japan no longer looked as America an an Enemy to be fought, but as a force to be harnassed. Instead of trying the impossible — subduing the world’s leader, Japan entangled herself into America’s political-military world system. Like the Church in the Roman Empire, Japan positions herself so that her interests became the interests of the powerful.
I once said that if the Enemy was stupid, he wouldn’t be an enemy — he would be an annoyance. Likewise, if an Enemy is unconquerable, he isn’t an Enemy — he is a fact of nature. America too has embraced defeat, especially in its attempt to manage her own economy. America now has embraced defeat — accepted despair — and tries to avoid managing the commanding heights of her economic system.
Of course, embracing defeat against a thinking Enemy is much different than embracing defeat against an unthinking one… But that is a post for another time…
Younghusband of CA saw al Qaeda’s love of seven last October…
According to the 9/11 Commission Report Osama Bin Laden (UBL) pressured Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) to set the “planes operation” in motion on May 12th 2001, exactly 7 months after the attack on the USS Cole Oct 12 2000. Due to training issues KSM said he couldnâ€™t pull off the attacks that quickly and it was postponed to the now famous 9/11. What is the religious/historical significance for AQ of second wave attacks 7 months later? (and if anyone can answer this please do)
The greatest divide in American politics today is between the Embrace Poor Countries lobby and the Keep Poor Countries the Hell Away from Us Lobby.
But at least protectionism will “save” “American” jobs, right?
Note: Due to the number of links, blogspirit did not allow Adam of The Metropolis Times‘s thoughts to be posted as a comment. They are well written and worth consideration, so I am posting them as a story instead. I will comment on them tomorrow. — tdaxp
Homosexual sex is no more dangerous than heterosexual sex. Blaming the problem of unprotected sex on homosexuality is like blaming the Black Death on people handling rot with their left hands. There’s as much need for the qualifier ‘left’ as there is ‘homosexual’
Yes, many pre-modern cases are pederastic or otherwise non-egalitarian. In fact, this seems to be the norm among historical homosexuality, and you are correct in that egalitarian homosexuality is appearing more often. Whether its happening more often or its simply more out in the open is something no one can claim to know.
But there are also examples of a minority of romantic lovers of exclusively the same sex. Same-sex marriage even when members of the opposite sex were avaliable are no modern invention. Neither are men that freely perfer other men. These articles discuss the varities of homosexual conduct through history and make mention of the men who perferred men.
Neither is same-sex preference ‘unnatural’
These took me about 10 minutes to find and read.
Here’s an article on the “hijacking” of the word gay: