I have been explaining this to people for years. It is really a simple concept especially to a scientist. We call it the impact factor; a measure of import the research published in a particular carries. There is one massive difference between scientific research and “net 2.0″ style commenting fever. You can see it in sites like CitySearch. To be blunt, if you listen to the reviews of people there you are a fool. Zagat is much closer to peer-review, it is the real deal.

The problem is that you have no real reference point by which to judge a review. How do I know a negative post is not the nearby competition? Or a good post isn’t a paid employee? I don’t and therefore I ignore them.

This carries over to all kinds of sites. Why do I care what you think of 200$ sunglasses? If I am an idiot enough to spend 200$ on glasses, I am only after the rating of one guy: me.

Put another way: have you seen the cesspool of myspace? That is the “public”. Do you really want them to pick your reading list? This is about Jim Lehrer vs. Fox News, sparkling wine vs. Krug, Quartz vs. Tourbillon, Naugahyde vs. Leather, etc…

I wonder when all this will stop? It shows no sign of abating. Take social bookmarks sites, I have little to no idea the population pushing things to the top. For all I know it could be News Corp and 10,000 interns. I think I will stick with taking what The Economist, NYTimes, Washington Post, and Slashdot rate as newsworthy.

Sharing this:

Oct 14th 1967 From The Economist print edition BY A CORRESPONDENT

By killing Che Guevara, the Bolivian army and its American advisers have done more than cut short the guerrilla movement in Bolivia. Certainly the small surviving band of Bolivian guerrillas, who have lost their local leaders as well as Guevara, will not now be able to carry out their hopes of bringing the “armed struggle” from the countryside into the towns and mining areas. But Guevara’s death will also wreck his grander strategy of using Bolivia as the focus from which rebel activity would radiate across the South American continent. He had seen Bolivia as the first of the “many Vietnams” that would sap the morale of the United States in Latin America, and would destroy those regimes which he considered as Washington’s pawns.

A group of Bolivian rangers (the anti-guerrilla forces) caught up with the guerrillas on Sunday. There seems no doubt that the man whom they killed and whose body they afterwards displayed to journalists, intelligence agents and others, is the elusive Dr Guevara, the presiding genius of the Latin American guerrilla movement. His death is a considerable coup for the Bolivian army, which used to have the reputation of being one of the most inefficient in Latin America. It reflects on the skill and thoroughness of the American anti-guerrilla school in the Panama Canal Zone which has in the past few years perfected its methods of instructing Latin American armies in its techniques.

This blow at the guerrilla movement in Bolivia follows on its destruction in Peru and its near-destruction in Colombia and Venezuela. It is a major strategic reverse for the “armed struggle.” But there are signs that what may happen now is that the focus of guerrilla activity will move from South America to Central America and the Caribbean. In Matagalpa province in Nicaragua insurgents have become increasingly active this year, while to the north, in Guatemala, the guerrillas, though hard pressed, are continuing to be quite a problem for the government. In Haiti the guerrilla movement is gradually co-ordinating itself, while in the Dominican Republic Dr Juan Bosch’s party this month split itself into violent and non-violent factions. Compared with the great South American dream, this is all small and fairly unimpressive fry for the guerrilla movement. But it would still be premature to say that the death of Guevara means the death of armed insurgency in Latin America.

Che Guevara’s name is already being classed with that of the Liberator, Simon Bolivar. Latin America’s marxist “liberation” has yet to look even likely, but Guevara has died with his reputation intact. From his middle-class Argentinian youth, he became a revolutionary by conviction and profession. With the two Castro brothers he invaded Cuba in the cockleshell Granma, stayed on to help run revolutionary Cuba as minister of industry, then, perhaps growing bored, took his leave of Cuba on a dedicated secret mission to set the continent alight. He failed. But many Latin Americans will go on believing that the legends that will be spun round his Pimpernel existence may one day lead to his picture being hung beside that of the Liberator in Latin American halls.

My opinion is pretty clear on this. Stop acting up and you will have a nation lickity-split. I have written about ‘The Arc‘ and other rumination about the Palestinian issue. It has come up recently in the guise of 40th anniversary celebrations of the 6 Day War from The Economist to a read of Time from the week after. I bet I am not the only one who wishes the war went to the next logical step: integration. But a reminder of why it didn’t is available from StandWishUs.com. Take a quick read from the Hamas Charter:

With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others…They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

Want to take a stab at who the “they” might be in this? Hold on I have to file my horns down, then I can answer. Ok done. This is all really simple. People hate Jews, as Mamet says, and the Arabs are poor losers in wars they started. So Fuck you. ✡

In another outstanding article, which makes the Economist worth the hefty subscription price, there is an analysis on the difference causes for the rift in support for Israel between America and Europe. While going through historical detail on the basis of left vs. right politics and how both have changed in all three locations cause realignment over time, there is an interesting position posited:

Some Americans blame rising anti-Semitism in Europe, which they also attribute in part to its growing Muslim population. But there is a difference between being anti-Semitic and being anti-Israel. And in any case, it is not obvious that anti-Semitism is a big factor. In central Europe, for example, there seems to be both greater anti-Semitism and more support for Israel. And some polls suggest that more Americans think Jews have �too much influence� in their country than do Europeans.

I used to think you could be anti-Israel and not antisemetic. But in seeing how Jewish Israel is my mind was changed. I do not see distinction between the two concepts or states of being. If there were no Israel there would be more Jews living in other nations and I wonder how that would change the sentiment of the local populations towards Jews. The fact is Europe is antisemetic. Europeans invented the concept. I am certain in stating that there are a large number of Europeans who were glad to see Jews go - and by go I mean killed, expelled, and “willingly” emigrate to America and Israel.

I tend not to be a moral relativist and thereby I view war, death and destruction, and aggression as morally reprehensible not matter who is involved. However, Europe has very little moral ground upon which to stand and wag a finger at Israel. I do not need to list the actions by nation and century, we all know the history. However, even if you can dismiss this, you have to wonder what Europe will do when it is 60% Muslim (I would relish the chance to see the look on Ferdinand & Isabella’s face) or how Germany would react if France started kidnapping citizens and lobbing missiles across the border.

If you want to see how this is manifested in a modern European psyche, observe how suspicious England still is of France and Germany or of the rest of continental Europe as a whole. If, still, you wish to dismiss my argument, then imagine a situation where France, oh wait, France is a bad example, so let me suggest Germany. What might happen if Switzerland were moderately hostile and Austria and Poland called for your destruction while funding an army in Denmark to “snipe” at your citizens with missiles? Do I need to continue this thought experiment?

I was once told, by a wise man, that transference is the bane of human existance. It prevents us for judging people and situations for what they really are, or are not. This is the concern with anti-Zionism. Is it actually antisemitism transferred to the State of Israel from the People of Israel? There is no simple answer to this question. I am certain some people use this transference as an excuse to mask their hatred of Jews, however, at the same time I know Jews who are deeply troubled by the actions of the State of Israel and care deeply for the People of Israel. In fact they deride the State’s actions precisely because they are so concerned with the People. If you want more proof of this check out my long running letter battle in AdBusters or the writings of Tikkun.

While I do see both sides of this issue. I come to two conclusions: Poison the water and you should have killed them all in 48.

In front of Twilo maybe 8 years ago, maybe longer, I was berated by Sean B. and George M. because I was taking a stance about sending garment production to Asia. I maintained that it was fundamentally un-American to allow your neighbors to loose their jobs so that you could have the perception of cheaper garments. They were so caught up in the PC notion that all people are equal, blah blah blah, that they couldn’t see the point. Here are the bullet points:

1. we have not seen a dramatic decrease in the costs of good and services in the country
2. increases in productivity and ease of shipment has allowed production of goods overseas to appear seamless to us
3. goods produced overseas are cheeper, but Levi’s are going up in price
4. profits are astonishing for modern corporations, stockholders have been forcing company to go abroad to increase stock values
5. healthcare is seen as something that can be shuffled off to the government
6. war on the middle class: people are poorer and poorer every year
7. shipping goods around the world is killing us through emissions
8. oil prices, or a transit shock will cause an economic disaster

And look-e-here: American Apparel has built a franchise on the notion. Whole Foods is another example. As much as you hate them, Starbucks is a semi-good corporate citizen.

This is only moderately effecting me, I have a very good job with amazing benefits, live in a degree of ease and wealth that my great-grandparents would have never imagined. But, this is about our neighbors, our countrymen, our planet.

Why have we lost our way? Why don’t we care about our neighbors? This labor day ponder when you lost your way. When a cheap piece of plastic shit from China suddenly became more important than a healthy thriving society.

More importantly, knowing a bit about Jewish and Christian thought I state here and now: obsession with the material and failure to live a balanced life with a concentration on ethics and community are the exact opposite of what we are taught. Stated more clearly: your 1000$ handbag is the devil.

I will add sources to this shortly, I have an errand to run.

So says this week’s The Economist cover story. A quote from the opening paragraph:

Israel’s prime minister set himself an absurd aim�the complete demolition of Hizbullah’s power in Lebanon�and failed to achieve it. The shrewder Mr Nasrallah said victory would consist merely of surviving, and Hizbullah, however battered, did survive.

They want to be martyrs? We should give them what they want. The paper, once again, proves why it is far more balanced and insightful than most news sources out there:

But peace does not depend only on Israel. Six years ago Israel withdrew from Lebanon to a border painstakingly demarcated by the UN. Hizbullah fought on anyway. Like Iran, it says its aim is Israel’s destruction. Though an authentic political movement with a domestic agenda in Lebanon, it is also blatantly anti-Semitic. Mr Nasrallah once reflected that collecting the Jews in Palestine made them easier to wipe out.

Lets keep that in mind, shall we? I have noted my remarkable change in perspective on this issue and it is multifaceted. I used to think we in the west are getting what we deserve for our policies of the past, and this might still be partially true. Now, however, I am starting to get very worried about the survival of the enlightenment and how it has started to effect my life, my friends, my country, and my planet. There is an interesting and related article in Tikkun this month. When it is on line I will write more about it.