[bio] [nifty] [why] [index] [photo]
<geek@goatee.net>
[bio] [nifty] [why] [index] [photo] |
|
There is such freedom in pedalling at night. I'm returning from the Fugazi
concert, a red light on my back, a white light on my chest, and note their
blinking reflections in the chrome and glass I leave behind. The exertion of
emo punk in a gymnasium — kids standing on dark wood bleachers and the
basketball hoops at salute: I can't think of a better venue — cools in
a breeze of two parts: a divine wind of my own will and muscle, and gusts
rising off the river with the reflections of city and moon. Midway across the
bridge I note two shadows to avoid: a couple who've paused to watch the
city's lights. But as I approach I note their gaze is focussed in the sky; I
follow a tenuous line up to a fuzzy dark patch swinging in the dark sky and
realize that instead, they're flying a kite...
Debian is the GNU/Linux distribution that I use. A distribution combines the actual Linux kernel with a suite of software and tools (e.g., GNU), and the mechanism for their configuration, installation and removal. Debian is well known for being stable, secure, hard to set up but easy to maintain. Unlike other commercial distributions (e.g., Redhat) most of the work of Debian is done by volunteers. This appeals to the D.I.Y. (Do It Yourself) punk in me, but unfortunately leads to stupid arguments. The greatest criticism of Debian right now is its slowness in adopting new software, like the desktop KDE 3.0. A recent thread on DebianPlanet is demonstrative of the arguments between those that want the latest and greatest and those who tire of these requests (e.g., the "shut the fuck up" banner). Some feel that a volunteer effort need not report on expected completion dates, provide updates, nor abandon other professional or personal commitments given their limited time. No one can tell a volunteer what to do with their time — instead, we should thank them for their time. If they can't put out a new version or package immediately, they can't. But, if they fail to inform the community, they're inviting a lot of grief upon themselves.
One of the things that amazes me about KDE 3.0 is the organization of their efforts. They are great at creating project home pages, schedules, translations, and outreach activities (including weekly interviews with contributors). Most of this work is a volunteer effort!
What some do not realize is the difference between the quality of the work and who does the work (i.e. volunteer versus commercial). A commercial entity might be able to assign or prioritize resources, but this in independent of how well the developers communicate about the milestones and other aspects of the project. As I say in my work style, "I work to meet my commitments, if I can't I will say so as soon as I know. Not being able to do something is fine, just say so. Then one can re-prioritize, re-negotiate, or re-assign that commitment. Letting something go to completion date and fail is bad; it could've been discussed but now all dependencies are thrown off."
I encountered this problem in a different form when it took well over a year for the OSI to approve the W3C software license. Folks complained of a back log and that I didn't comply with the new policy. Of course, their web pages did not indicate there would be a long delay, they did not inform me of a new policy or that my prior request was dropped, nor did they deprecate the old page (which I had bookmarked) to document the change! And no one was willing to be accountable.
I'm not criticizing the goals of these volunteer efforts; I'm pointing out to some of the less experienced members of the community that it doesn't matter if the effort is commercial or not. Poor work habits hurt the quality of any work, regardless of where it occurs — and there's plenty of shoddy commercial work to prove that!
The greatest danger from the Bush Administration is not so much the policies it makes, but who is making them, and how. Some might consider the title of this entry unfair because it recalls the days of the crime and corruption of Nixon: to paint all Republican administrations with that brush is too broad. But I think not.
The outrage against the secrecy and lies of Nixon led to two of the most novel contributions of U.S. civil governance in the twentieth century: the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Presidential Records Act. FOIA made it possible for citizens to gain access to the policies and workings of their government. The Presidential Records Act mandates the release of presidential papers 12 years after the chief public servant leaves office. These laws are being undermined by the Bush Administration via vestiges of the Nixon/Ford administration:
"President Ford vetoed the Freedom of Information Act as we know it today. And he vetoed it because he and Rumsfeld and Cheney believed that it took away too much Presidential power. It allowed courts to order the release of documents even when the President said they shouldn't be released. Then, these guys fought it tooth and nail and lost. Now - these guys are re-opening those battles, and with ninety percent approval ratings, they think they can win." — Thomas Blanton.
The result is manifest and frightening. In October 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a new memorandum to executive agencies governing their compliance with Freedom of Information Act. The standard of compliance was changed from the likelihood of "foreseeable harm" resulting from the release to any "sound legal basis". Agencies which now refuse to comply with FOIA requests under this excuse are assured the support and resources of the Justice Department towards their defense.
In March 2002, 500 more hours of the Nixon tapes were released, furthering our understanding of how absolutely the power of the Presidency can corrupt. Including musings on the Jewish media conspiracy, the lack of concern of civilian casualties, and the suspicion that the famous picture of children running from a Napalm attack was staged. However, this understanding will not be easily afforded to the public anymore, and particularly not on the Iran-Contra crime and (then) Vice-President Bush's role:
"This Executive Order is the first time that Vice Presidents have ever been given their own executive privilege, separate from the President. And I don't think it's exactly coincidence that the first Vice President who gets to use this new privilege is George W. Bush's father, from his tenure under Reagan.....
Under the Presidential Records Act, tens of thousands of pages from the Reagan administration had been readied for release in January, 2001. That very month, George W. Bush, the son of Reagan's Vice President, was sworn in as President. Not only are his own father's papers now protected by the executive order, he will be able under the order to deny future scrutiny of his own administration." — Moyers
So, the current administration isn't a just an echo of past administrations. It's much the same. Elliott Abrams, former Assistant Secretary of State, pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress regarding the Iran-Contra fiasco. He is now the Senior Director for "Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations". John Poindexter, former National Security Advisor, received an executive pardon for his part in raising $30 million in illegal weapon sales to fund "terrorists" in Nicaragua. He is now head of the Information Awareness Office (IAO) which monitors domestic and foreign emails and phone conversations. John Negroponte played a central role in the illegal contra war and is often referred to as a "war criminal" for his alleged condoning and subsequent cover up of the Honduran military's human rights violations. He is now the US Ambassador to the UN.
And of course, there is our Vice-President Cheney who advocated against the Freedom of Information Act so many years ago. Last week we learned, despite his claims of executive privilege, that portions of the Cheney's Energy Commision's policy and subsequent Executive Orders were written by corporate lobbeyists.
I'm very concerned about the policies of this administration; I'm horrified by the mind set of an above-the-law secret cabal that these men cling to.
Wendy McElroy recently wrote of something that reminded me of my rant that male rape is no laughing matter.
Eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe had a custom called charivari in which an abused husband was dressed as a woman and forced to ride through the village, sitting backwards on a donkey. Twenty-first century America displays a similar attitude. We snicker and laugh at abused men — all the while telling them never to hit a woman, even in self-defense. At the same time, we bring up girls to believe it is acceptable to strike a man: "If he gets fresh, just slap his face." - Battered Husbands
This practice was a loud and crude form of mob action — is there any other? — known by other names as well.
This event, known as a skimmington in the west of England, and a charivari in France, was a shaming ritual. It was an element of popular culture that took place against the wishes of local authorities and without their connivance. Its purpose was twofold: to identify and punish sexual misconduct and to maintain the male-dominated gender system. These shaming rituals resulted from conduct that the male members of the community believed threatened local order (few women are known to have taken part in these events). In France most charivaris were conducted against husbands who were beaten by their wives; in England many skimmingtons were directed against husbands whose wives had been unfaithful. In both they were designed to shame men into disciplining women and to warn women to remain obedient. - Sex and the Married Man
The practice had its variants. Sometimes it was performed outside the house of someone of advanced age who married again, or absent an immediate victim the mob might create an effigy or even turn on a neighbor who permitted the offending relationship to occur in his proximity! Some even link modern day, festive, "hazing" rituals of newlyweds to these older customs.
Despite my distaste of any violence and the original custom, social norms, particularly the plight of the unfortunately neighbor, always interest me as a form of governance. (My form of anarchism includes a critical response to all forms of governance including Government, markets, and social norms; this understanding of governance is sometimes referred to as the post-Chicago School.) This week I read an excellent paper that examines reciprocity in the context of economic (game) theory and notes that not only do social norms encourage or prohibit an action (e.g., deterring spitting on the sidewalk) they encourage their own enforcement (e.g., encouraging others to deter spitting on the sidewalk).
At this point, it is useful to define a social norm more precisely. It is: 1) a behavioral regularity; that is 2) based on a socially shared belief how one ought to behave; which triggers 3) the enforcement of the prescribed behavior by informal social sanctions. Thus, a social norm can be thought of as a sort of behavioral public good, in which everybody should make a positive contribution — that is, follow the social norm — and also where individuals must be willing to enforce the social norm with informal social sanctions, even at some immediate cost to themselves. - Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity [pdf].
__