Archive for the ‘Nerd Stuff’ Category
New Venture
Monday, April 5th, 2010
Hi Dear Readers!
I’m really excited to share a new venture with you. Over the weekend, Bill Dupray, Clyde Middleton and I rolled our blogging into one site called LibertyPundits.net. It’s a new kind of site which will include everything from politics to culture to religion to Tea Party news. Everything!
I hope you’ll follow my work over there. It’s going to be bigger and better than anything I could ever do alone. And I’ll highlight some posts in my Twitter feed–just to make it easier.
So, if you’re a blogger, I’d really appreciate a link to the site. We’re still working on our blogroll–it will be a very interesting way to do it. If you’re included, I think you’ll really like it.
Anyway, my website will now be a home where all my work will be fed through it. So, you’ll see the podcasts, posts and other content I create here, still, but it will look different once the site is redesigned.
Thanks everyone!
Melissa
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9e5fbe3e-93f0-4a31-b941-f225cbe0fefe)
Bloggingheads TV: Well, I Think We Can Establish That Liberals Really Dislike Me, They Really, Really Dislike Me
Saturday, March 6th, 2010Thursday, I had my debut on Bloggingheads with the liberal blogger Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis. I had never met Bill before, though we had had some pleasant exchanges on Twitter.
Here’s the link to Bloggingheads.tv and our show. I was a little nervous and was short on prep time. There is no question I need better lighting in my office. Overall, though, it went okay.
The libs (which looks like the main audience on this site) did not like me talking about average Americans. That seemed to rile them more than anything–as if Beltway libs aren’t Americans. Of course the Bubble Boys and Girls in DC are Americans. I don’t think, though, they have an understanding for what makes sense to those living in the heartland. And that was my point.
While liberals like all the parts and pieces of this huge health care bill, most people are thinking about jobs. If I had a job, an unemployed worker thinks, all this health care talk would be moot. An average person also doesn’t believe that the federal government makes anything cheaper.
So while people tighten their belts, the Federal government is expanding with health care?
That’s the meta message that Americans reject and the liberals just can’t seem to get through their pointy heads. It has ceased to be about policy because the overall principle defies common sense.
Anyway, my musings on this topic were like provoking a caged bull. The Democrats are at each others throats, as Bill rightly noted, which is why they can’t come up with a cohesive message. Oh, the message has gotten through loud and clear. The American people reject it soundly.
So, the comments reflect that impotent rage. And, they just don’t like an unapologetic conservative-libertarian.
Is Google Evil? Part II: Search Neutrality
Friday, March 5th, 2010Google skates the edge. Persistently, relentlessly invading our lives. We want Google. We need Google.
Then, they go and do something like Buzz and we feel violated. They cow-tow to the Chinese government and allow censorship to the Chinese people. Or strangely, no matter how you enter “Islam” into Google, you won’t get negative word associations.
Recently, Financial Times asked if Google was an evil monopoly (for what it’s worth, I think the FT.com website forcing me to look at their stupid front page, instead of the exact article I want is evil).
Google has also been dinged for how they choose their news stories.
Now, come questions about their search metrics. While people worry about Net neutrality–the ability of internet providers to block, turn off or shut down the connection to the internet–a bigger concern is the search engines to cut off connectivity within the internet.
Lack of search neutrality is a more insidious and potentially pernicious problem…a person doesn’t know what he’s missing. This is the chief problem with newspapers and TV news, alike. It’s not lying, per se. It’s shading and eliminating important news and facts. Google also has the potential to do this same sort of thing.
Google can also be manipulated and if the aims match their own, politically, little is done to stop it.
He diagnoses the problem as follows:
given the emphasis on secrecy in the search engine business model, no one can verify that such rankings have not been manipulated or that subtler biases in favor of search engines’ partners are not being worked into the search algorithm…
If search engines are to be accountable at all, if their interest is to be balanced against those of the various other claimants involved in search-related disputes, and if social values are to be given any weight, some governmental
agent should be able to peer into the black box of search and determine whether or not illegitimate manipulation has occurred.But what about editorial discretion? Why should Google be forced to change its PageRank algorithms any more than The New York Times should be forced to change how it decides which stories to run? Moreover, why should Google be forced to disclose how this process works? Assigning a government monitor to sit in on meetings of the Times‘ editorial board “to detect bias” would clearly impinge on their editorial discretion. Similarly, I don’t see why forcing a Yahoo!, Microsoft or any other search engine to disclose their equivalent processes for ranking search results should pass constitutional muster.
To me, the safe thing, is to assume that the rankings are manipulated. The alternative is taking the word of a company who won’t share their data…which is their choice.
Sure Google won this court case:
A federal judge this week granted Google’s motion to dismiss a suit that alleged the company manipulated search results in its powerful Web index.
U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange on Tuesday denied a motion for a preliminary injunction brought by SearchKing, an Oklahoma City-based Web hosting and advertising network that claimed Google unfairly removed links to its site and those of its partners from the index, causing financial losses. The judge dismissed the case on the grounds that Google’s formula for calculating the popularity of a Web page, or “PageRank,” constitutes opinions protected by the First Amendment.
All that means is Google may or may not manipulate it…ala the New York Times.
For me, I’d make sure to search using all search engines. There is no question, though, that Google has the ability to ruin a business, if they desire.
Even more so than Net Neutrality, you’d think that computer users would worry about Search Neutrality. But Google serves leftist masters so the press doesn’t care so much. More than that, though, is that internet users [including this one] despise market interference.
A better browser will be invented and take Google out, if they’re evil enough. The problem, though, is that this is a tough kind of evil to nail down.
Armano: You Are The Media. Do You Trust You? Me: Trust Is Topical
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010David Armano a Twitter friend (we’ve never met, but I value his perspective and suspect I’d like him in person) has a must-read piece about trust in the media. And since we are all media now, who do we trust? His whole piece is worth reading, so please go look at the research, and then come back here for my thoughts.
It’s simple, really. We trust those who we respect, but we respect different people depending on the circumstances.
So, when I ask an opinion about guns on Twitter, I listen to the recommendations given by former military, current CHL instructors who are police chiefs. I could listen to my brother, and I do, he has some valuable insight, but I more heavily weight the expert.
The same is true for nearly every topic. I have a friend who I call when I have a economics questions. I have a friend who knows everything about Texas tax policy. Then there’s the local blogger who knows every dirty nook and cranny of Houston politics.
My brain doesn’t have enough room for all this information. It doesn’t need to have it. I have trusted advisers everywhere who can help me.
When it comes to social media growth, development and research, I trust David Armano. His advice and information over the time I’ve been on Twitter has been solid. Had he flaked out at some point, I’d discard his advice. So far, he’s still reliable.
There are an infinite number of “experts” who are regular people just like me but who have expertise in a slice of information. They become my friends. I value their perspective even more.
Or not. There are some people I don’t particularly like, but they have extraordinary insight in an area and I respect that.
With social media, who qualifies as an expert is fluid. People can observe another’s intellectual implosion online and a once-valued expert becomes a former expert in short order.
Where my opinion conflicts with David’s perspective is this: I may have a couple thousand friends on Facebook and Twitter (which I do) but I won’t trust them just because they give me an opinion. Human interaction is far more nuanced than that.
Just one example: I asked my followers on Twitter to recommend a cake company in Washington, D.C. Five people recommended the same place. But one of my friends recommended that place plus a place that was even better that was near her home. In addition, she said she’d help me pick up the cake. So I Googled both cake shops, called both cake shops, got stellar service from the out-of-the-way place and called in assistance from my friend.
Did I trust all the recommendations? Yes. Absolutely. But I also made my purchase decision based on intangibles and finally, the old business stand-by–customer service.
Social media is a tricky thing to study. It’s not like Google, where every metric can be broken down. It’s more human, more fickle, but the data a user gathers can be infinitely more helpful and accurate. I choose Twitter and Facebook over Google every day. Or rather, I get their recommendations and then Google the filtered information.
I trust my friends. I also verify. And an “expert” is all in the eye of the beholder.
Web Surfers Have More Depression
Thursday, February 4th, 2010Hmmmmm……
A “dark side” to the internet suggests a strong link between time spent surfing the web and depression, say psychologists.
British scientists found that the longer people spent online, the less likely they were to be happy.A small group of the worst affected individuals were both depressed and addicted.
But it was not clear whether using the internet causes mental health problems, or whether people with mental health problems are drawn to the internet.
More work is needed to answer this “chicken and egg” question, say the researchers.
Well, if a person tends to be a solitary person, he might enjoy hanging on the internet. But then, he does self-reinforcing things, like look at porn, and gets stuck behind his desk even more. Then, he is kinda addicted..he exercises less, gets less natural sunlight, interacts with real people less and it becomes a vicious cycle.
Or, the person starts depressed and the internet doesn’t force human interaction or exertion.
I don’t think there is one cause here, but it does seem to be a risk for introverted people.
Live Blogging – Tweeting – U-Streaming (I hope) The SOTU With A Twist Of Lime
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010So, I’ll be live blogging over at Right Wing News and here at my blog. I’ll try embedding the code for the U-stream too. This is new to me. We’ll see how it goes.
Also, if we can make it work, Tab Hale will be doing a simulcast and for sure live blogging on Right Wing News. She’s a braver soul, so if we make this video stuff work, it will be her win, most likely.
Hawkins will be live Tweeting for ABC news, I think.
There will be a whole lot of new media going on tonight…but mostly drinking while doing new media.
No, Governor Perry Did Not Nearly Shoot Me
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010That’s a great story to make up, though. Have to give this intrepid blogger (word is that he/she/it is an operative from inside the Kay Bailey Hutchison campaign) credit for creativity. Here’s what anonymous blogger Come And Take It Blog said:
At seven seconds in, you can clearly see Rick point a loaded gun away from the range and in the direction of a woman he is supposed to be teaching to shoot! The muzzle can’t be more than a few inches from her face…she even flinches back a little.
So, I went to the gun range on Friday, January 22, 2010 at Red’s Range in Austin. Governor Perry hosted about 20 bloggers (most of whom had never seen a gun before and were as newbie as me–pretty funny actually).
The Governor showed a couple of us how to shoot. Here’s the video:
First, as is obvious, the Governor did not point the gun at me. Second, I did not flinch from him moving the gun around.
However, I did flinch with all the guns going off all around me, but got used to it.
Bonus: If you watch the tape again, you’ll hear Andrew Breitbart in the background. He looked like he was having a great time. All us city-slicker bloggers in ear muffs and armed must have been humorous for a guy used to Texas and guns like Rick Perry.
Wrap-Up: Governor Rick Perry’s Blogger Summit In Austin, Texas–UPDATED With Pictures
Monday, January 25th, 2010Texas Governor Rick Perry hosted a blogger meet-up in Austin, Texas this last weekend.
Friday night, twenty of us met up at the gun range with the Governor. He showed fellow bloggers Kathleen McKinley and Robbie Cooper and me how to shoot his laser-guided, tiny Ruger LCP .380. It was a nice, light little gun, but the loooooong trigger was irritating. Roger Simon has a humorous piece about his gun trepidation that’s worth reading.
Robbie also shared his .45 with me and I got to shoot a clip from his gun. I am left-eye dominant and right hand socialized, which means that I should be left handed (and in some sports I am). This makes me a not-so-great shot. Turns out that Robbie has the same problem and he helped me correct for that. He was very helpful. (A marine would be, don’t you think?)
Kathleen brought her .22 and I shot from that gun, too. Lighter, with less kick. Nice gun. I’m looking for something to carry in my purse. I liked the power of the .45, the size of the Ruger. It’s clear that I haven’t found my favorite gun yet.
It had been years since I’d shot. It is so much fun. I will be doing that again.
The gun range owner told me that Governor Perry frequents the establishment regularly with most people not realizing the Governor is right there. He likes shooting and is a natural sportsman. I believe it. It was obvious he was having a good time. He arrived a little late to the range, but didn’t seem to want to leave.
Following the gun range, there was a reception at a local bar on 6th street in Austin. 6th Street is, for those who don’t know, the “strip” of Austin. There’s lots of bars and music joints. University of Texas is right there. Lots of youthful energy and fun in the neighborhood.
The conference itself was held at the AT&T Conference center. (Conference planners everywhere, take note. This is the best facility I’ve been in, in years.) The room was stadium-style, classroom seating with WiFi and pop-up plugs for electricity. Very nice. Do you know how many conferences are ill-equipped to serve bloggers and news people? When it’s a struggle to get power and internet access, frustration ensues. People like to work easily.
Will Franklin, Governor Perry’s New Media Coordinator, deserves credit for creating a tech-savvy environment for the bloggers. Will hosted the event and introduced the panel moderators. Pictures from Governor Perry’s photographer here.
Panel One: Turning Ideas Into Action moderated by Ryan Gravatt and hosted by Jim Eustace and Patrick Ruffini. Most of us know Patrick from his blogging and his work on campaigns. He talked about amplifying messages. Jim Eustace I had never met or heard before. He encouraged blogging activists to get better about analyzing their metrics, etc. Some people might have been snoozing about this topic, but I was eating it up. Bloggers fall into two categories–idea people who use tech and tech people who put forth ideas. I’m the former–an admitted “techtard” and their advice was excellent. I wanted them to keep talking. The talk ended much too soon.
Panel Two: Keeping Conservative Momentum moderated by Ben Domenech and hosted by Matt Lewis and Me. Ben I hadn’t met before–seen his name everywhere, linked his work, etc. What a great guy…and his voice, wow! Turns out that he has a podcast over at Breitbart, too. Anyway, Ben was the best moderator I have ever seen in action. Lucky me! He moderated my panel. Basically Matt and I talked about transforming the Tea Party energy and anger into action. It’s happening. We also talked about the genesis of some of the current messaging problems in the GOP. We also talked about the D.C. culture and how it’s difficult to adhere to conservative values for politicians, thinkers and writers alike. It’s a constant fight.
Panel Three: Growing Influence moderated by Brad Jackson and hosted by Roger Simon and Andrew Breitbart. Roger Simon and Andrew Breitbart agreed about one thing: making money in this business is hard. Ad revenue is down among all media, including new media. Breitbart made many provocative statements. To sum up: He wants to destroy the Mainstream Media. After hearing him recount the media’s treatment of Linda Trip regarding Bill Clinton, I want them destroyed, too. He said,”The media turned a predator (Clinton) into a victim and destroyed a common citizen, Linda Tripp.” Indeed.
There was a break, we were provided boxed lunches (pesto chicken was my choice, if you must know) and went back in to the conference where Governor Perry gave a short spiel about the success of Texas and why he’s hoping to be re-elected. “It’s simple,” he said. And outlined his four pillars of good governance: Low taxes, reasonable regulations, constrained lawsuit environment (torte laws), and an educated workforce. The Governor just rejected Federal education money because he didn’t want the strings attached. He did the same with the Stimulus bill. Turns out to be a wise decision.
Governor Perry introduced Andrew again. Andrew doesn’t do prepared speeches, he said. Well, he gave a good one nonetheless. Link to Breitbart interview at event here.
The operative word was “Courage”. He talked about the courage to take risks in this business. He related how in Hollywood, there is a bubble, that it’s very social and people outside of the accepted belief system are ostracized. At one party he was surrounded by 40 Obama supporters who were yelling at him while his wife cried to the side.
Andrew shared the story of liberals who took risks to expose their own and how they received death threats. He spoke of shepherding the ACORN story because of how the media destroys those who oppose liberal ideology. He painted a stark picture. The speech was rousing.
It seemed fitting that the home of the Alamo was the home for a rallying call to bloggers and activists to fight and fight with courage.
The Conference was one of the best for meeting fellow citizen journalists, activists, and campaign operators. The panels were informative. The speeches inspired.
Ben Domenech on Twitter says that he “hope other candidates do these kind of low pressure outreach activities.” Indeed.
For those interested in hearing Governor Perry speak in Houston, he’ll be stumping with Sarah Palin here on February 7, 2010. Tickets at the link.
Also, I have video of this whole shindig, but still need to cut and edit it. Will attempt to upload this to YouTube. Wish me luck!
Note: All pictures courtesy Rick Perry’s official photographer.
Time’s Top 25 Blogs
Monday, December 28th, 2009Proves they know squat about blogs. And they’re partisan in the extreme.
One conservative blog: The Bleat by James Lileks.
Maybe I’ve Had It Wrong All Along: I Shoulda Been A Guy Blogger
Tuesday, December 15th, 2009Is a woman an “Uncle Tom” if she writes under a male pseudonym? What if she gets paid more and seemingly more respect by doing so?
Also, would a woman write differently if she “wrote like a man”. If I didn’t have the cultural pressures, would I write differently? More forceful, more tough, maybe?
Here’s what prompted this post:
A blogger for Copyblogger, who wrote under the name “James Chartrand,” outed herself as a female, explaining that she chose a male name to earn more money and get more respect in her career.
Years ago The Blogger Formerly Known As James Chartrand (who declined to identify her real name) hit a plateau in her career. She couldn’t command a higher rate. She lost gigs she should have gotten. Things were looking grim. So she distanced herself from her existing company by choosing a pen name: “I picked a name that sounded to me like it might convey a good business image. Like it might command respect.”
She chose a male pen name. Ha, more like penis name!
Choosing a male pen name seemed to fix everything for James Chartrand. She put food on the table for her kids and get a mortgage for her house near her mom.
This blogger, a woman, came to this conclusion:
Honestly, there is something rather Uncle Tom-y about Chartrand hiding behind the opposite gender. By assuming the identity of a male writer, she skirted the discrimination against women entirely while doing nothing to change womens’ lot. She just left the glass ceiling standing there, rather than shattering it.
Sure, “passing” was Chartrand’s choice, and as Charlotte York would say, she chose her choice. But it showed no solidarity for other women at all. There’s plenty of female writers out there who confront the marginalization of women head on, pointing out how with factual data how they’ve been shortchanged, asking for raises, taking their brilliant work elsewhere if their bosses refuse to budge. But “James Chartrand” took the easy way out.
Eh. I don’t know. If I wanted to make a lot of money, I’d “sell out” and be a mommy blogger and talk about my kid’s poop or the fact that I forgot part of my kid’s homework or that my jeans are tight or whatever else was personally ailing me at the moment. As far as I can tell, being snarky, female and into fashion, celebrities or some other (what I consider) trivialities can net a gal big bucks.
Or, I could sell out and go anonymous male and people would give me more respect and more money.
Maybe.
