Blogging seems to be a good anti-depressant:

According to a new study by researchers at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne who were looking into the psychological benefits of blogging, bloggers tend to feel a greater sense of connectedness to a particular community, and feel that they have a larger social support system behind them compared with those who do not blog. Using social networks such as MySpace and Facebook, the researchers found, also “lifted the mood of all participants (of the study) in some way.”

Viewed in this light, blogging could be prescribed as a potentially cheaper (and drugs-free) way to help people overcome a feeling of isolation.

Oh, look, another blogging ethics kick.  But I’ll keep it brief.

I can understand people surfing the web using proxy services.  Don’t want folks to know what you’re doing and all that, that’s fine, privacy rules.  But commenting by proxy just stinks to high heaven.

J’s Notes will not allow proxy comments.  I’m sorry.  You can comment anonymously, that’s fine, but if you use a proxy, you’re hiding a little too much and I won’t have it here.

Just as blog posting should be above the board, so should comments.  Those participating in the conversation should be honest if they hope to be heard.

From the creators of “Ask A Ninja” comes the return of “Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes“

Ben Tribbett wonders if Hillary Clinton is being Macacaed.

Guinness needs 1 million signatures to help convince Congress to act on Proposition 3-17 to make St. Patrick’s Day a national holiday.  Will you do your part?

A trailer’s out for the upcoming Incredible Hulk movie starring Ed Norton, Liv Tyler and Tim Roth. I’m not sure what I think of it quite yet.

Update: Huh, maybe Ed Norton’s gonna smash this current Hulk movie:

Norton and Marvel are clashing over how to cut the pic. Insiders say Norton was “promised tremendous involvement and access” after Marvel invited him into the core team to rewrite Zak Penn’s script. Says one insider, “There’s a lot of posturing going on between Edward’s camp and Marvel over how you edit the final version.”

DadHacker is by Landon Dyer, an “aging, degenerate and decrepit video game and systems software hacker who’s been polluting the Internet since before it was called the Internet.”  And it’s a pretty good read.  But I’m a dork.

Is Barack Obama the Messiah?

How can it be the 50 most powerful blogs and not have J’s Notes on it?  Pffft.

Scott White asks bloggers: how far are you willing to go for full disclosure? The question is important and reminds me that I have no disclaimer here on J’s Notes, even though the issue has come up in the past during conversations I’ve had with others.

Scott uses Mitch Radcliffe’s ZDNet disclosure as an example of a lot of information and maybe too much. Though maybe it isn’t, considering that bloggers at ZDNet may find themselves blogging about any number of things which Radcliffe might be involved in. So while intensive, Radcliffe’s disclosure is exactly the type of stuff he needs to reveal if folks are going to take him and his blogging seriously.

In Scott’s case, a short and sweet disclosure is all he needs since he probably won’t find himself blogging about a business he may have investments in or about any number of things he may have a personal vested interest in. Aside from his own politics, which he defines just fine.

This connects directly with a blogger giving his audience enough information to be able to evaluate the source. If people are going to trust the blogger and his information, they should probably know if the blogger has any vested interest in what they’re talking about. Or whether or not this opinion is their own or the product of a paycheck or other outside influence.

How much one says in such a disclaimer is up to the blogger and the subject matter they find themselves discussing. For many there are ways to be brief instead of posting a full resume that simply acts to show off, but for others you may find a disclosure the length of your arm in order to be all encompassing.

In the case of J’s Notes, it doesn’t have to be much:

Any opinions or information on J’s Notes reflects the opinions and thoughts of Jason Kenney and do not necessarily represent the opinions or or official policies of RedStormPAC or WVCW.

What more do you need?

April 8th

April 22nd

April 29th

Unfortunately the story doesn’t mention awesomeness that will be The Dark Knight but that’s ok. I’m all for more Indiana Jones talk. This is gonna be a good summer for movie watchin’.

While Obama and Clinton might be pulling in the big bucks at the top of the ticket, the DNC just can’t seem to match the momentum:

The Democratic National Committee ended 2007 nearly flat broke, with cash of $2.9 million and debts of $2.2 million. Since then it has raised some money, paid down debt and managed to put $3.7 million in its piggy bank. This compares, however, with $25 million that the Republican National Committee has in cash on hand, after having raised $97 million since the beginning of 2007.

…

Democrats say their limited party fund-raising is a result of several factors, including the competition for dollars from the presidential candidates and the party’s Congressional fund-raising committees. And they also say the D.N.C. is hamstrung by its inability to raise money in any serious way without a presidential nominee to rally around.

Since the beginning of 2007, the Democrats have raised $60.5 million, and have spent most of it. Not only does the D.N.C. have far less cash on hand than does the R.N.C., but in this election cycle the R.N.C. has also outraised the D.N.C. by $37 million.

The NYT goes on to describe why the Dems might be seeing this shortfall, pointing to the lack of a nominee to help raise money, but Republican’s just pulled in their nominee and Democrats are coming off of big wins across the board in 2006.  Does this show a failure to capitalize on that momentum or simply a grand strategy on the part of Howard Dean and the others at DNC?  Or is this the pendulum coming back and the RNC preparing itself for a big push this year?

David All points out that Facebook will now allow you to add your party affiliation on your profile under “Political Views”. This is good for All’s purposes as a business man who is trying to target the Republican Party for clients, and for others who wish to show their pride in their party.  It’s especially good if you’re an advertiser trying to target Republican’s specifically.

But, personally, when talking about “Political Views”, I don’t think party, I think ideology. Granted, this may just be a matter of semantics, but my “Political Views” are more Conservative or Libertarian than they are Republican Party. And my ideology will trump my party if it comes down to the issues.  So I don’t plan on changing to the Republican Party.  Now if they created a new category for “Political Affiliation” that was distinct from “Political Views”, sign me up.

Forget Red State/Blue State.

 Starbucks/Walmart