In celebration of it’s 10th birthday, Google has released a way for you to search their database as it was in 2001.  The FAQ answers many questions like, “why 2001 instead of 1998?” and “who put the bop in bop shu bop she bop?”.

Kevin Kelly: 1,000 True Fans

This was debated by “Matt Bai of The New York Times, Garrett Graff of Washingtonian Magazine (and Howard Dean’s first political webmaster), and Joe Trippi, who ran Dean’s campaign”:

But the three did not agree with one another and sometimes with themselves about whether the Net is making us more partisan (”echo chambers”) or better informed. Is it manipulated by pols throwing out chum that predictably attracts the mindless sharks or, as Trippi replied, is that more characteristic of cable news than the Net? The fact that we are so uncertain about this might indicate that it’s just too soon to tell, but I suspect it indicates that there’s something malformed in the question.

For example, last night one of the audience members expressed concern that the Net is naught but a series of echo chambers. Bai earlier had maintained that he worries that the Net is not about persuasion but about confirmation: you only read that which confirms your views. Ellen Hume of MIT’s civic media project worried from the floor that we’ve lost a unified, authoritative press, feared enough by politicians that when they’re caught in a lie (”I said thanks but no thanks”) they’ll actually stop repeating it.

These are all good points. And yet the question of whether the Net is making us better voters or not remains unsettled, including, I suspect, in the minds of each of those speaking last night. Ultimately, I think it’s unsettled not simply because we lack evidence or because the Internet revolution isn’t over yet.

David Weinberger (wiki - author of a few things and a thinky type of guy when it comes to the Internets and stuff) makes some good points as to why this is still up for debate.  Check out the full post for his thoughts.  (Editor note: Weinberger is also a Dean adviser.  That’s a whole lotta Dean folks in one room.)

Lowell Feld thinks that America needs to go to war against Russia for oil and regional stability:

In all seriousness, though, the sad fact is that the United States of America - bogged down in the Iraqi “double strategic mousetrap” (as Jim Webb calls it) - is completely powerless to stop Russia from invading an ally, overthrowing its government, occupying the country, taking control of its oil transit infrastructure, changing the balance of power in the region, etc., etc. Heckuva job, Bush/Cheney et al!

While I agree that we need to be stern against Russia (McCain style, not Obama “um, er, uh..” style - by the way, nice endorsement of the McCain policy, Lowell) I wonder why it’s OK to be strong against Russia and even seriously consider a military response for the sake of regional stability and oil when doing the same with, oh, say Dictators in Iraq, Iran, Syria and the like is bad.

But perhaps Lowell and others need to take a step back and realize that responses to situations such as this are heavily influenced by factors such as the size and strength of the sides and the potential to tip off World War Three. We need to be strong, but we don’t need to be crazy.

UPDATE: In the Washington Post, Asmus and Holbrook’s “Black Sea Watershed”:

This moment could well mark the end of an era in Europe during which realpolitik and spheres of influence were supposed to be replaced by new cooperative norms and a country’s right to choose its own path. Hopes for a more liberal Russia under President Dmitry Medvedev will need to be reexamined. His justification for this invasion reads more like Brezhnev than Gorbachev. While no one wants a return to Cold War-style confrontation, Moscow’s behavior poses a direct challenge to European and international order.

What can we do?

Interesting to see and probably better visualizes thing than my Oil Vs. Dollar graph.

In an article concerning insurance and blogging, Christopher Boggs tosses out an interesting bit of information concerning lawsuits against bloggers:

Nearly 77 percent of ALL civil cases were found in favor of the blogger or saw the charges dropped by the plaintiff. And 92 percent of blog-related suits making it to trial end in blogger triumph (additional information availble at Media Law Resource Center). Odds at trial are overwhelmingly in the blogger’s favor, but there is no guarantee that this propensity towards blogger victory will continue.

As Boggs notes, nearly all of these victories have been on the grounds of the First Amendment. But that will only hold up as long as the bloggers themselves are responsible:

First Amendment protection requires, among other standards, bloggers, like journalists, to practice and prove due diligence in the gathering and reporting of “factual” information. Bloggers must also prove that no actual malice was intended by statements or information ultimately found to be incorrect or untrue. Opinions, stated as opinion and not fact, published by bloggers are also potentially immune from charges of libel under the First Amendment since there is no such thing as a false opinion.

The article specifically looks at a SLAPP, a lawsuit that is meant not necessarily to win but to scare others out of the conversation.  A “don’t talk or we’ll sue you, too,” type thing.  There are anti-SLAPP statutes in 27 states.  Virginia is not one of them.

Red State, Blue State has some interesting graphs of the ideology of voters compared to Congressmen and Senators:

What can you buy for five dollars? takes you on a world wide tour of $5 items.

The “Long Tail” theory may be bunk:

It’s true that we’re now buying more obscure movies and music than ever before. But we’re merely nibbling on these niches, Elberse reports, while we continue to gorge on a small selection of hits. In 2007, 24 percent of the nearly 4 million digital songs available for sale through stores like iTunes sold only one copy each, and 91 percent of available tracks sold fewer than 100 copies each. The story is the same for the movie business, where, between 2000 and 2005, the number of titles that were purchased only a few times “almost quadrupled.” The Internet offers us a buffet of everything—and yet we’re mainly settling for the likes of The Love Guru and You Don’t Mess With the Zohan.

Instead of the long tail being bunk, it seems that in order for the long tail to work one must access the big head, whether that be a large company providing the access (Amazon) or a large outlet shining light (New York Times).  The Long Tail needs a Tipping Point to work.

That’s not to say the long tail should be ignored, but I think it’s a fallacy to rely upon ONLY the long tail, as Ron Paul experienced and as Barack Obama might be realizing very shortly…

UPDATE: As Shaun also notes, “it’s all about message control.”

While I’m intrigued by the idea of living with only 100 things, I don’t think I could do it.  Heck, I have more than 100 books I wouldn’t want to do without, let alone the rest of the crap that clutters my life.

“Stuff starts to overwhelm you,” says Dave Bruno, 37, an online entrepreneur who looked around his San Diego home one day last summer and realized how much his family’s belongings were weighing him down. Thus began what he calls the 100 Thing Challenge. (Apparently, Bruno is so averse to excess he can’t refer to 100 things in the plural.) In a country where clutter has given rise not only to professional organizers but also to professional organizers with their own reality series (TLC’s Clean Sweep), Bruno’s online musings about his slow and steady purge have developed something of a cult following online, inspiring others to launch their own countdown to clutter-free living.

Bruno keeps a running tally on his blog, guynameddave.com of what he has decided to hold on to and what he is preparing to sell or donate. For instance, as of early June, he was down to five dress shirts and one necktie but uncertain about parting with one of his three pairs of jeans. “Are two pairs of jeans enough?!,” he asked in a recent posting.

How to buy like a millionaire without being one.

The Point allows you to “make something happen” by promoting group action to help create change or raise money for a topic or just get people together.

Nearly 20% of Pennsylvania Democratic Primary voters say they’d vote for John McCain should their candidate lose.

Maybe it is easy being a boy named Sue:

“They were very proud of their names, almost overly proud,” Mr. Sherrod said. “We asked if that was a reaction to getting pummeled when they were little, but they said they didn’t get that much ribbing. They did get a little tired of hearing the same jokes, but they liked having an unusual name because it made them stand out.”

Forget Red State/Blue State.

 Starbucks/Walmart