Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter - What does it don't?

One of my FriendFeed buddies, Chris White, has been busy this evening.

I was sharing some things in Google Reader a little earlier, and White has responded to a couple of them.

For example, I shared something that postulated that Facebook's just-announced changes are an attempt to counter Twitter. White commented via FriendFeed:

What is Facebook, what is Twitter?

A few minutes later, I shared Dana Franks' post "Why Twitter Matters to Me." White commented on the FriendFeed share for this item also:

What is Twitter?

I figured that White was executing a master plan - and frankly, I think that master plans are stupid things unless I'm the one executing them. And, with apologies to Jim Bakker, I was right:

I am going to respond to every Facebook and Twitter post with the question "What does it do?" I'm sure you will be annoyed, and then you will know how I feel.

I might use some variation, such as "What is it?"


Actually, White is asking a valid question, especially since Facebook and Twitter tend to get a lot of press. But you can ask yourself, do the applications do anything?

In an attempt to answer that question, I'd like to invite you to dinner with me. The dozen or so diners who gathered at the restaurant earlier this evening came from different backgrounds - some were scientists, others were forensic people, and others were salespeople or marketers. But all of us were interested in technology. Which meant that several of us brought out our phones at some point in the evening.

Now, as Louis Gray happens to know, my current phone is a 2 1/2 year old Motorola Q (or, as Gray lovingly calls it, an "8-bit rotary phone") with the equivalent of Internet Explorer 4. But Gray will be happy to know that I associate with people that have more modern phones, such as the Apple iPhone that Gray likes. Perhaps you've heard of this phone. And perhaps you've heard of some of the applications that you can get for the iPhone.

  • You can get an application that allows the iPhone to act like an ocarina.

  • You can get an application that makes irritating noises, like the sound of a dentist's drill.

  • You can get an application that imitates a glass of beer - you hold the iPhone upright to pour the beer into the "cup," then you tilt the iPhone to "drink" the beer.
Actually, you can get three applications that imitate a glass of beer - and one of my fellow diners knew someone who had all three.

Now when you hear about these applications, you're forced to ask a probing question about the iPhone:

What does it do?


The answer, whether you're talking about the iPhone, Twitter, Facebook, or a hammer, is that the item in question does whatever you want it to do.

Let me share something more serious from that same dinner. My day job is as a product manager, and part of my responsibility is to set overall direction for my product. As part of my job, and because of my fifteen years in my particular industry, I sometimes pretend like I know what the product should do.

But I've learned something over the years. As soon as I use my imagined knowledge to make a statement such as "This product will never need feature X," I will receive a request from a customer asking for...you guessed it; feature X.

You see, I don't determine how my product will be used. Steve Jobs doesn't determine how the iPhone will be used. And the Facebook and Twitter people don't determine how their products will be used. (Although Jobs and Zuckerberg try to dictate uses.) In the end, it's the users that determine how these products will be used. I say it again, it's the users that determine how these products will be used.

Just like Google doesn't determine how Blogger will be used. This post was originally entitled "What does it don't?" But then I changed the title to "Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter - What does it don't?" knowing full well that the title of the post would eventually end up on FriendFeed...and that Chris White would see it...

Told you that my master plans were brilliant.

Sphere: Related Content

Gaithersburg (Maryland) History Park

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Using the winter coat, part 2

I am NOT going swimming this evening!

Sphere: Related Content

Using the winter coat, part 1

As I've mentioned in some other forums, I had to take a business trip to Maryland today (Tuesday). Luckily I didn't have to fly on Monday, because it was still snowing in the area at the time. (I was monitoring the @insidecharmcity Twitter account very carefully on Monday.)

After a four-hour layover in Denver (I like to not be rushed), I landed at BWI early this evening East Coast time. The roads are clear, and I made it to my hotel.

See the next post for something I found at the hotel.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, March 2, 2009

Clinton 2.0

The President of the United States isn't the only government official trying to display some electronic communication savvy. Look at what's on the Department of State website.



Yes, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is waiting for your texts.

Wonder if Barack recommended that she use a Blackberry.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Yes, hell has frozen over...I've joined Facebook



(This picture is from Flickr user billums and is used under this license)

Back on October 9, 2007 I blogged the following:

So I'm thinking that I may have to set up a Facebook account at some point if I want to be only slightly non-trendy. I know I'm supposed to be the "I am not trendy" guy, but my MySpace account is so non-trendy that it's like leeches.

Of course, trendiness is not the sole reason to join Facebook. It's potentially an excellent way to contact people you know.

But, over the years, I've been reluctant to join Facebook for a couple of reasons:

  • Their view on pseudononymous accounts. Basically, they prefer that you use your given name on Facebook, even if you market yourself under another identity. Until recently most of my online interactions were under the Ontario Emperor name, and I didn't want to jettison my brand just because Facebook wanted me to do so. If you really want to explore my thoughts on this in detail, check out my link-heavy song parody that I wrote on January 9, 2008.

  • The horror stories about Facebook policies. There are numerous examples of these, the whole thingie about the terms of service being the latest example.
Lately, my attitude has been changing on both the counts. I have started several projects (such as Empoprises) that use my real name, so I am establishing an online presence under that "brand" for better or worse. And, while Facebook may have onerous terms of service, so does everyone else.

Last night I spent some time on LinkedIn, and ended up sending connection requests to two people that I knew from high school. This in itself was unusual, because I have only maintained regular contact with one person from my high school. Not because I hated the school or anything like that, but because I left town in 1979 and have rarely been back since, so I've naturally lost touch with a lot of folks. So anyways, I sent the two connection requests, and got the following response from the second person when my request was accepted:

John, get on facebook

Well, when that person talks, I listen. (I'd tell you the name of the person who sent this message, but if I did that, I'd be violating that person's privacy, wouldn't I?)

So I signed up for Facebook and was immediately befriended by Jan McInnis, as well as by a former co-worker who is very social media-savvy. I've sent out a few more friend requests and gotten two responses, but have not yet heard from the classmate who urged me to join Facebook in the first place.

So how will I use Facebook? I've read the suggestions in this FriendFeed thread that I started, and my initial thought is that I will use it in conjunction with my LinkedIn and Plaxo accounts (and, to a limited extent, with my MySpace account). I won't be following over a thousand people like I do in Twitter or FriendFeed, but the Facebook account may not just consist of people that I've physically met either.

In essence, I've provided the answer to my own question:

Has Facebook become one of the services that you must join, whether you like it or not?

Perhaps. Theoretically you could use one service to do everything that you want to do, but there are going to be people who are on Facebook and not on LinkedIn, or vice versa. (This is one of the reasons that I maintain my MySpace account; certain people are only reachable there.)

The only disturbing part of this is that the number of "must-use" services could potentially mushroom out of control. Think about it; in addition to various Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo properties, I have a presence on a ton of services, including:

Allmusic
Am570radio
Amazon
Chumby
del.icio.us
Disqus
Excite
Facebook
Frappr
FriendFeed
Getsatisfaction
Gospelr
InfoWorld
Inside the IE
Jaiku
last.fm
Mojipage
Monster
Mychurch
Myheritage
MySpace
Ning
Pandora
PBwiki
Perplexmi
Scrine
Soup.io
Stumbleupon
Technorati
Tripod
Twit2Fit
Twitter
Velvet Rope
Wetpaint
Wikipedia
Yelp

And that's probably just one third of the services to which I have memberships. There are some memberships that I have for corporate reasons, and there are some memberships that I just plain am not going to talk about (for a variety of reasons).

Frankly, some of the services listed above haven't been visited by me in months, if not years. Some I use every day. But what happens if a situation arises where I have to use five of these services every day? Ten? Twenty?

But I'm not concerned about that now. The immediate concern in my mind is this - what the heck is a poke, and what is the etiquette to follow if I get one? Belgrade and Beyond has expressed some thoughts:

How many times you have been poked by a friend, colleague, and affiliate? And what was your reaction? I had to write few lines on this as I am recently (massively) poked on Facebook. It was regular, surprisingly massively poking (not superpoking), not explicitly poked, but – just regular poke with two choices given: to poke back or remove poke....

In social networking terms, poke is contextual, and the context of poke is dependent upon the current level of familiarity between the ‘poker’ and the ‘pokee’. I remember last year I was invited to a group “Enough with poking, let’s just have sex “, and ignored request for the membership as I observed then poking as friendly virtual gesture with friends and colleagues , usually denoting verbal phrase: “Hey , what’s up?” , or “Look at me!”, saying” ”Hi”, to someone you already know well or screaming background form: “Hey, I’m here, online!,” or “Hey, I’m busy but just poked you to say I didn’t forget this and that or will be back soon’, followed usually by message/email. And there are pokes that are expressing more than friendly, primarily school behavior with connotation: “I poke you and now you have to poke me back”.
Poking for fun? “I won’t pull your hair/ponytail – but I’m poking you” - elements of (naïve) and light weighted flirtation. Therefore, poke can be flirting. Poke can be “I am shy but won’t to say hi”.

There are numerous possible meanings and interpretations behind the poke....


Oh boy. Learning a new culture and its terminology is complex.

#TINOSP.

Sphere: Related Content

The exclusionary and self-justifying nature of hashtags #DYSP

Earlier this morning, in complete compliance with California law, I entered the following message into fftogo:

stopped at a train track. #dysp

All industries and societies, probably including your own, have their own jargon which not only makes it easier for people within the industry or society to communicate, but also serves an exclusionary purpose by ensuring that outsiders have no idea what you're talking about.

Among the other things that hashtags such as #dysp do, they also serve these two purposes. In this case, the second purpose (exclusionary) is beneficial, because if I had spelled out the words in the acronym "dysp," people unfamiliar with the phrase in question would probably misconstrue it.

"What do you have against Steven Perez?" they would ask. "Why are you slamming Steven Perez? What has this guy ever done to you?"

Now perhaps you're one of the readers of this blog who has no idea what "dysp" stands for. The acronym stands for a phrase which took currency on FriendFeed and elsewhere, the phrase being "Damn You Steven Perez!" (often typed in ALL CAPS, but it's early in the morning so I'll spare you). This phrase was used frequently in FriendFeed, and eventually led to the creation of a (then-)private FriendFeed room, the sole purpose of which was to assemble a video of people saying the golden phrase.



The video was released mid-day on Perez's birthday, but he did not have a chance to watch it until later, so his reaction was delayed. (Oh, and be sure to watch past the first minute and 30 seconds.)



For me, use of #dysp instead of the full phrase also confers another benefit. You see, I have a problem saying, or even typing, the word "damn." Even when it is not preceded by the name of a deity, the implications of the term are truly harrowing when you think about them. So I'll use this substitute or another substitute here and there, and when referring to the golden phrase I'll use #dysp and feel better about myself, telling myself that I'm not damning anyone, but just d'ing them.

Of course, that is a danged crock, and my self-justification of my actions isn't fooling anyone. Or Anyone with a capital A.

Oh well...so should I just say, "This is not optimal, Steven Perez"? TINOSP?

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Fundamental rights, one more time - can two fathers marry their two sons?

I've previously blogged about this on October 25, 2008 and December 23, 2008, and it's time to revisit it.

As you may know, California's Proposition 8 is being challenged in the California courts, and a hearing will be held on March 5, 2009. One of the arguments against the proposition is worded as follows:

Proposition 8 Is An Ultra Vires Amendment Because It Abrogates Fundamental Rights Protected By Article I, Section 1 Of The California Constitution Without A Compelling Justification.

There are those words "fundamental rights" again. For the record, here is how Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution reads:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


Note that this states that all people may pursue happiness - not just all straight people, and presumably the 2008 decision of the California Supreme Court is based upon this idea that "all people...have inalienable rights...[for] pursuing...happiness."

Um...all people?

On February 23, Randy Thomas linked to an MSNBC article by Kathleen Lewis. The title of the article? "I have two husbands."

...My first husband was Alan.

We fell together like a couple of old shoes, somehow instantly comfortable with each other. We had similar opinions about plural relationships, and neither of us was averse to the idea. Around a year and a half after we were married, we met Eric. He and I were instantly attracted to each other and, as Alan had no objection, we began getting to know each other better. Over time, I found myself falling in love with Eric. Alan certainly wasn't blind to this, so we all got together to discuss it. This turned out to be one of the most important conversations of my life, and led to an increase in my family’s size.

Alan and Eric let me make the sleeping arrangements, and I worked to make sure I spent time with both of them. To all outward appearances we were a married couple with a male friend living with us. While some found it awkward when the three of us occasionally attended parties and such together, very few people attempted to pry. To avoid legal troubles, I remained legally married to Alan, and we all decided a larger house was in order when we met Leslie.

Fast forward to today, and our family is now composed of Alan, Eric, Leslie, Amber, and myself, plus our children: Todd, Steve, Jennifer, Lisa, and Amber is currently pregnant.


The MSNBC article goes on to describe the logistics of the marriage, and then criticizes the restricted worldview of "Big Love":

When ‘Big Love’ came out, we all thought it was pretty silly. To start with, we all consider ourselves to be one family, not three separate but connected families. The ideas that plural marriage is restricted to the one man and several wives model — and that it has to have a religious basis — are both ridiculous. We also don't consider the political jockeying, the backbiting, and the attempts to get more of the husband's attention or money, to be loving behavior.

Lewis then concludes:

With all the traditions we have coming from other cultures and various parts of the country, who's to say what is or isn't mainstream? Kind of makes "non-traditional" lose its meaning.

So presumably this family has a fundamental right to be recognized as such in the state of California. And anyone who disagrees is an oppressor.

But let's take this a step further. What if the two dads - Alan and Eric - decide that they want to marry a couple of the children - let's say Todd and Steve?

After all, why not? It's not like Leviticus 18 has any binding force in the state of California. And anyone who would try to apply Leviticus 18:6 and the rest would be extremely insensitive. Take Barney Frank:

"Mr. Warren compared same-sex couples to incest. I found that deeply offensive and unfair."

Or, in other words, Barney Frank is displaying his hateful attitude toward people who, in the words of the California Constitution, "have inalienable rights...[for] pursuing...happiness." Sounds like a fundamental right to me. You know, if people would just be accepting and not be such haters, Michael Jackson might still be living in Neverland today.

But let's go back to Randy Thomas, who has a different view:

Because I am a Christian I believe a family should be a Husband and Wife coming together as one. Both Husband and Wife have very specific, wonderful roles and responsibilities that complement each other. The blessing of their unique gender roles and giftings add to a level of healthy interdependency that helps both become more together than they would ever have been alone. They don’t mirror each other in bland “gender neutral” definitions. They celebrate each other’s equal capacity to bear the Image of God uniquely as well as when they bear His Image together. Their union is transcendent in that it bears the Image of God in a way that no other union can. If the Lord chooses to allow them to have children or adopt … great! The family increases to Gramps, Gramma, Mom, Dad … Punkin’ and Dot! And of course it goes without saying … uncles, aunts … cousins. I believe that God created that to be His ideal “version” of family so, I am biased.

Thomas concluded his post as follows:

My question is this, do same sex couples condone polyamorous/polygamous relationships? I will offer my view (from my past experience and current ear to the ground) either in the comments below or in a follow up post. But I want to give you all some time to respond too. Don’t be shy :). Oh and I hope that there may be other things in this post you might want to chime in on so … go for it.

As I write this Thomas has only received one comment to his post, but a spirited discussion has broken out in this FriendFeed thread. In the conversation, Mark Trapp pointed out how the California Supreme Court may evaluate different proposals to limit marriage:

The ruling also provides two standards by which the state must determine any (not just same-sex marriages) marriage validity: "Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational basis standard, in order to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest."

Of course, it all depends upon what the compelling state interest is. For example, if the compelling interest is to encourage procreation, then gay marriages may not be valid, but marriages of eight teenagers who have hit puberty may be valid. After all, as I've noted before, marriages of young people existed well before the California Constitution was written. If, on the other hand, the compelling interest is to create stable relationships, then the only valid marriages may be ones in which people have certain beliefs opposing divorce, and in which the married participants have income levels that lend themselves to stable relationships (not too poor, not too rich, but just right).

This will be an interesting ruling when it comes out.

P.S. If you have comments specific to polygamy and polyamory and whatever other poly- word you can conceive of, you may want to enter your comments into Randy's post directly.

Sphere: Related Content

Those who are condemned to repeat history are bound to remember it

Louis Gray was interviewed in Sociosophy, and something that he said caught my eye:

I would like to find a way to...make it easier to find older content that is relevant. I know that 95% or more of my posts from 3 months ago and before get very little visibility now, even if they are still extremely relevant.

I was musing on this as I was getting my hair cut (hey, you gotta do something), and I figured out three ways in which older content can be highlighted again:

  • The Ann Landers way. Matthew and Sarah Gray aren't the only twins around; the most famous Ann Landers was a twin of the most famous Dear Abby (Ann was really Esther, while Abby was really Pauline). At one point, Ann Landers got into a bit of trouble for re-running old columns without advertising them as such.

  • The Unclutterer way. There is a blog called the Unclutterer (I can definitely use it), and they'll often run a post with the title "A year ago on Unclutterer." (Here's the February 22, 2009 version, which looks at posts from February 2008.) This serves to remind you of good stuff from the past.

  • The "Where Are They Now?" way. Normally used in music and entertainment (whatever happened to Foghat???), this potentially provides a way to recycle the old content and update it, making it wonderful and fresh and relevant.
The last way is the most intriguing, since it actually adds value to the content. For example, what would happen if Gray added value to his earlier content? Let's pretend that he wrote a post like this back in January 2006:

Portable computing devices just keep on getting smaller and smaller. I don't have kids, but someday I may have a kid, and I wonder if the portable devices that are around at that time will be small enough to fit in my infant child's hand?

Well, Gray (to my knowledge) never wrote a post like that, but certainly he could update the post today and speculate on devices that TWO kids could hold.

I'm am not Louis Gray, but I'm intrigued about using this "where are they now" method myself. I've done it here and there on occasion, but perhaps I could make a concerted effort to recycle my content. And it would definitely require a concerted effort, because I've generated a lot of quality content over the years. I contributed 3,072 posts to my first main blog, the Ontario Empoblog, between October 2003 and February 2007. My current main blog, this very mrontemp, already has 2,925 posts (not counting this one). Plus I've written a few hundred in various other blogs, ranging from my fake radio and TV station blogs to my current series of Empoprises blogs.

So I've got a lot of recycling and updating to do, should I choose to do so.

Perhaps Empoprise-MU is due for a post on Fred Smith. I've covered Patti Smith pretty well already.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 23, 2009

If he had used the name "John Doe," no one would have suspected anything

Normally I don't post work-related stuff in my personal blog, but this one was too good to pass up. Put this in the dumb crime category.

From the Manchester, New Hampshire Police Blog:

Manchester Police Officers conducting a routine traffic stop on Hanover St. [on the afternoon of February 15, 2009] were greeted by a local man who provided the name John Brown and claimed to have a Maryland driver's license. When no record of the license was found, the man was arrested and brought to the Manchester Police Department. Despite his insistence that he was giving his true name, the officers sensed a problem.

Now I don't see why the police were jumping to conclusions. Just because a local guy claims to have a Maryland driver's license, which he doesn't have, is no reason to think that any hanky-panky is going on. After all, he gave his name, John Brown. What more do you want?

Well, for whatever reason, the police decided to investigate a little further:

They then brought the man over to the department's Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) machine and entered his fingerprints. The officers then made contact with NH State Police, who were able to provide an immediate identification of the subject. As it turns out, the officers' instincts were correct and the subject had in fact provided a false name. He was identified as:

John Hilliard DOB: 9-7-1973 of 45 Bradley St. Manchester

Through further investigation, it was found that subject Hilliard had two outstanding Bench Warrants and an active Arrest Warrant for a Parole Violation. Along with the warrants, Hillard was charged with Disobeying a Police Officer and Unsworn Falsification.


Oops.


View Larger Map

As you can see rom the map, Brown's - I mean Hilliard's residence is right next to Nutts Pond.

Sounds about right.

P.S. While there have been cases over the years that have challenged the accuracy of fingerprint searches, it should be noted that tenprint searches - i.e., searches in which a person's complete set of prints is compared to a previously captured complete set of prints - are very accurate. The cases that have come under question, such as the Brandon Mayfield case, have involved searches of latent prints, or prints (or partial prints) that are recovered from crime scenes. Since the criminal is not courteous enough to leave a high quality print at the crime scene, these prints are much more difficult to search. Chris in Utah explains the difference:

While it is pretty technical, CSI isn’t really rocket science. And while fingerprint evidence isn’t nearly as reliable as DNA, it IS reliable. What your article was talking about is what is called a partial fingerprint. If you are lucky enough to find what is called an "AFIS" (Automated Fingerprint Identification System) quality fingerprint, and it matches your suspect, it is so close to the reliablilty of DNA that the difference is not worth mentioning. But we very very rarely get that quality of fingerprint. We do find partial prints. They say that they are of comparison quality, if you find a suspect, you can match it to that person, but you can’t run it through the AFIS system. Those prints are not nearly as reliable as DNA. Those prints are the ones that cause problems.

If you're interested in the subject of latent print examination, from both a forensic and a legal basis, I highly recommend Ed German's website at onin.com/fp.

Disclosure - my employer provided the Automated Fingerprint Identification System to the state of New Hampshire, but this case would have resulted in the same outcome had John Brown - I mean Hilliard lived and committed crimes in a state with an AFIS from another company, such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New York.

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, February 22, 2009

On Saturday's FriendFeed meetup, and on meetups in general

Some people may think it odd that communicating via computers can lead to increased non-computer communications, but I've known that for decades.

I've previously blogged about some of my BBS experiences in the early 1990s (see this list of BBS systems I frequented), but some of the most fun from that time would be when the people from The Grotto and other WWIV boards would gather at places such as Benjie's (long gone), drink cold brown thingies, and shoot the breeze about Ralph the iguana and other topics that were the BBS generation's equivalent of bacon/mango conversations.

After that, most of my online communications remained strictly online until I began going to Oracle OpenWorld and blogging about it. When I first went to Oracle OpenWorld I'd only stay for a day or two, so it's wasn't until 2007 that I got to personally meet the other Oracle bloggers at the Thirsty Bear. I've joined them again in 2008 and, depending upon what transpires in my future, I hope to join them again at Oracle OpenWorld 2009.

So over a week ago, Anika Malone began planning a FriendFeed meetup for FriendFeed users in the Los Angeles area, at the Five Guys in Cerritos, California. While part of the attraction was the chance to sample a Five Guys burger (my parents had told me about them), obviously another part was the opportunity to meet Anika and other FriendFeeders, none of whom I had met before (other than the Oracle people, of course).

So my wife (who is not on FriendFeed or Twitter, but who did get active in the Grotto and some other BBS systems back in the day) and I drove down to Cerritos, a little later than usual (tips: make sure you leave on time, and that your just-repaired car seat actually works, and that you have money for food). After I got my lunch, I got a chance to visit with some other FriendFeeders: not only Anika (faboomama), but also adrianculici, krynsky, geekandahalf (Derrick), elzbeth (Pea), and faithx5 (Jandy).

While my wife and I skipped out on post-burger geek store goodies, we had a fun time.

Incidentally, I've written three additional posts which are at least tangentially related to the FriendFeed meetup:

And no, I couldn't think of any way to work the experience into my other two blogs, since Cerritos isn't in the Inland Empire, and since Five Guys doesn't have NTN Buzztime trivia.

But this isn't the last meetup that I'll be attending; the LinkedIn group Professionals of the Inland Empire will be getting together on Tuesday, and I hope to stop by there for a little bit (although I have another commitment later that evening).

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Friday, February 20, 2009

The Lausanne Covenant, business, and religion

I noticed that one of my LinkedIn contacts had joined a LinkedIn group called "Christian Professionals." The group includes a statement, part of which reads as follows:

The Christian Professionals Group exists to be:

- a welcome place where God's Kids, at all levels of maturity, and from all walks of life can encourage and be encouraged to grow in relationship with Jesus and each other.

- a growing place where Christian principles are taught, caught and internalized, leading to application in interpersonal relationships in the home, the business world and all of life.

- a disciplined place - where respect for God and each other is accepted and exemplified.


It then goes on to say:

The statement of Beliefs we agree to can be found at: http://www.lausanne.org/lausanne-1974/lausanne-covenant.html

Having not previously been familiar with this covenant, I went ahead and read it.

The Lausanne Covenant

INTRODUCTION

We, members of the Church of Jesus Christ, from more than 150 nations, participants in the International Congress on World Evangelization at Lausanne, praise God for his great salvation and rejoice in the fellowship he has given us with himself and with each other. We are deeply stirred by what God is doing in our day, moved to penitence by our failures and challenged by the unfinished task of evangelization. We believe the Gospel is God's good news for the whole world, and we are determined by his grace to obey Christ's commission to proclaim it to all mankind and to make disciples of every nation. We desire, therefore, to affirm our faith and our resolve, and to make public our covenant.

1. THE PURPOSE OF GOD

We affirm our belief in the one-eternal God, Creator and Lord of the world, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who governs all things according to the purpose of his will. He has been calling out from the world a people for himself, and sending his people back into the world to be his servants and his witnesses, for the extension of his kingdom, the building up of Christ's body, and the glory of his name. We confess with shame that we have often denied our calling and failed in our mission, by becoming conformed to the world or by withdrawing from it. Yet we rejoice that even when borne by earthen vessels the gospel is still a precious treasure. To the task of making that treasure known in the power of the Holy Spirit we desire to dedicate ourselves anew.

(Isa. 40:28; Matt. 28:19; Eph. 1:11; Acts 15:14; John 17:6, 18; Eph 4:12; 1 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 12:2; II Cor. 4:7)

2. THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE BIBLE

We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. We also affirm the power of God's word to accomplish his purpose of salvation. The message of the Bible is addressed to all men and women. For God's revelation in Christ and in Scripture is unchangeable. Through it the Holy Spirit still speaks today. He illumines the minds of God's people in every culture to perceive its truth freshly through their own eyes and thus discloses to the whole Church ever more of the many-colored wisdom of God.

(II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:21; John 10:35; Isa. 55:11; 1 Cor. 1:21; Rom. 1:16, Matt. 5:17,18; Jude 3; Eph. 1:17,18; 3:10,18)

3. THE UNIQUENESS AND UNIVERSALITY OF CHRIST
We affirm that there is only one Saviour and only one gospel, although there is a wide diversity of evangelistic approaches. We recognise that everyone has some knowledge of God through his general revelation in nature. But we deny that this can save, for people suppress the truth by their unrighteousness. We also reject as derogatory to Christ and the gospel every kind of syncretism and dialogue which implies that Christ speaks equally through all religions and ideologies. Jesus Christ, being himself the only God-man, who gave himself as the only ransom for sinners, is the only mediator between God and people. There is no other name by which we must be saved. All men and women are perishing because of sin, but God loves everyone, not wishing that any should perish but that all should repent. Yet those who reject Christ repudiate the joy of salvation and condemn themselves to eternal separation from God. To proclaim Jesus as "the Saviour of the world" is not to affirm that all people are either automatically or ultimately saved, still less to affirm that all religions offer salvation in Christ. Rather it is to proclaim God's love for a world of sinners and to invite everyone to respond to him as Saviour and Lord in the wholehearted personal commitment of repentance and faith. Jesus Christ has been exalted above every other name; we long for the day when every knee shall bow to him and every tongue shall confess him Lord.

(Gal. 1:6-9;Rom. 1:18-32; I Tim. 2:5,6; Acts 4:12; John 3:16-19; II Pet. 3:9; II Thess. 1:7-9;John 4:42; Matt. 11:28; Eph. 1:20,21; Phil. 2:9-11)

4. THE NATURE OF EVANGELISM
To evangelize is to spread the good news that Jesus Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures, and that as the reigning Lord he now offers the forgiveness of sins and the liberating gifts of the Spirit to all who repent and believe. Our Christian presence in the world is indispensable to evangelism, and so is that kind of dialogue whose purpose is to listen sensitively in order to understand. But evangelism itself is the proclamation of the historical, biblical Christ as Saviour and Lord, with a view to persuading people to come to him personally and so be reconciled to God. In issuing the gospel invitation we have no liberty to conceal the cost of discipleship. Jesus still calls all who would follow him to deny themselves, take up their cross, and identify themselves with his new community. The results of evangelism include obedience to Christ, incorporation into his Church and responsible service in the world.

(I Cor. 15:3,4; Acts 2: 32-39; John 20:21; I Cor. 1:23; II Cor. 4:5; 5:11,20; Luke 14:25-33; Mark 8:34; Acts 2:40,47; Mark 10:43-45)

5. CHRISTIAN SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
We affirm that God is both the Creator and the Judge of all men. We therefore should share his concern for justice and reconciliation throughout human society and for the liberation of men and women from every kind of oppression. Because men and women are made in the image of God, every person, regardless of race, religion, colour, culture, class, sex or age, has an intrinsic dignity because of which he or she should be respected and served, not exploited. Here too we express penitence both for our neglect and for having sometimes regarded evangelism and social concern as mutually exclusive. Although reconciliation with other people is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. For both are necessary expressions of our doctrines of God and man, our love for our neighbour and our obedience to Jesus Christ. The message of salvation implies also a message of judgment upon every form of alienation, oppression and discrimination, and we should not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist. When people receive Christ they are born again into his kingdom and must seek not only to exhibit but also to spread its righteousness in the midst of an unrighteous world. The salvation we claim should be transforming us in the totality of our personal and social responsibilities. Faith without works is dead.

(Acts 17:26,31; Gen. 18:25; Isa. 1:17; Psa. 45:7; Gen. 1:26,27; Jas. 3:9; Lev. 19:18; Luke 6:27,35; Jas. 2:14-26; Joh. 3:3,5; Matt. 5:20; 6:33; II Cor. 3:18; Jas. 2:20)

6. THE CHURCH AND EVANGELISM
We affirm that Christ sends his redeemed people into the world as the Father sent him, and that this calls for a similar deep and costly penetration of the world. We need to break out of our ecclesiastical ghettos and permeate non-Christian society. In the Church's mission of sacrificial service evangelism is primary. World evangelization requires the whole Church to take the whole gospel to the whole world. The Church is at the very centre of God's cosmic purpose and is his appointed means of spreading the gospel. But a church which preaches the cross must itself be marked by the cross. It becomes a stumbling block to evangelism when it betrays the gospel or lacks a living faith in God, a genuine love for people, or scrupulous honesty in all things including promotion and finance. The church is the community of God's people rather than an institution, and must not be identified with any particular culture, social or political system, or human ideology.

(John 17:18; 20:21; Matt. 28:19,20; Acts 1:8; 20:27; Eph. 1:9,10; 3:9-11; Gal. 6:14,17; II Cor. 6:3,4; II Tim. 2:19-21; Phil. 1:27)

7. COOPERATION IN EVANGELISM
We affirm that the Church's visible unity in truth is God's purpose. Evangelism also summons us to unity, because our oneness strengthens our witness, just as our disunity undermines our gospel of reconciliation. We recognize, however, that organisational unity may take many forms and does not necessarily forward evangelism. Yet we who share the same biblical faith should be closely united in fellowship, work and witness. We confess that our testimony has sometimes been marred by a sinful individualism and needless duplication. We pledge ourselves to seek a deeper unity in truth, worship, holiness and mission. We urge the development of regional and functional cooperation for the furtherance of the Church's mission, for strategic planning, for mutual encouragement, and for the sharing of resources and experience.

(John 17:21,23; Eph. 4:3,4; John 13:35; Phil. 1:27; John 17:11-23)

8. CHURCHES IN EVANGELISTIC PARTNERSHIP
We rejoice that a new missionary era has dawned. The dominant role of western missions is fast disappearing. God is raising up from the younger churches a great new resource for world evangelization, and is thus demonstrating that the responsibility to evangelise belongs to the whole body of Christ. All churches should therefore be asking God and themselves what they should be doing both to reach their own area and to send missionaries to other parts of the world. A reevaluation of our missionary responsibility and role should be continuous. Thus a growing partnership of churches will develop and the universal character of Christ's Church will be more clearly exhibited. We also thank God for agencies which labor in Bible translation, theological education, the mass media, Christian literature, evangelism, missions, church renewal and other specialist fields. They too should engage in constant self-examination to evaluate their effectiveness as part of the Church's mission.

(Rom. 1:8; Phil. 1:5; 4:15; Acts 13:1-3, I Thess. 1:6-8)

9. THE URGENCY OF THE EVANGELISTIC TASK
More than 2,700 million people, which is more than two-thirds of all humanity, have yet to be evangelised. We are ashamed that so many have been neglected; it is a standing rebuke to us and to the whole Church. There is now, however, in many parts of the world an unprecedented receptivity to the Lord Jesus Christ. We are convinced that this is the time for churches and para-church agencies to pray earnestly for the salvation of the unreached and to launch new efforts to achieve world evangelization. A reduction of foreign missionaries and money in an evangelised country may sometimes be necessary to facilitate the national church's growth in self-reliance and to release resources for unevangelised areas. Missionaries should flow ever more freely from and to all six continents in a spirit of humble service. The goal should be, by all available means and at the earliest possible time, that every person will have the opportunity to hear, understand, and to receive the good news. We cannot hope to attain this goal without sacrifice. All of us are shocked by the poverty of millions and disturbed by the injustices which cause it. Those of us who live in affluent circumstances accept our duty to develop a simple life-style in order to contribute more generously to both relief and evangelism.

(John 9:4; Matt. 9:35-38; Rom. 9:1-3; I Cor. 9:19-23; Mark 16:15; Isa. 58:6,7; Jas. 1:27; 2:1-9; Matt. 25:31-46; Acts 2:44,45; 4:34,35)

10. EVANGELISM AND CULTURE
The development of strategies for world evangelization calls for imaginative pioneering methods. Under God, the result will be the rise of churches deeply rooted in Christ and closely related to their culture. Culture must always be tested and judged by Scripture. Because men and women are God's creatures, some of their culture is rich in beauty and goodness. Because they are fallen, all of it is tainted with sin and some of it is demonic. The gospel does not presuppose the superiority of any culture to another, but evaluates all cultures according to its own criteria of truth and righteousness, and insists on moral absolutes in every culture. Missions have all too frequently exported with the gospel an alien culture and churches have sometimes been in bondage to culture rather than to Scripture. Christ's evangelists must humbly seek to empty themselves of all but their personal authenticity in order to become the servants of others, and churches must seek to transform and enrich culture, all for the glory of God.

(Mark 7:8,9,13; Gen. 4:21,22; I Cor. 9:19-23; Phil. 2:5-7; II Cor. 4:5)

11. EDUCATION AND LEADERSHIP
We confess that we have sometimes pursued church growth at the expense of church depth, and divorced evangelism from Christian nurture. We also acknowledge that some of our missions have been too slow to equip and encourage national leaders to assume their rightful responsibilities. Yet we are committed to indigenous principles, and long that every church will have national leaders who manifest a Christian style of leadership in terms not of domination but of service. We recognise that there is a great need to improve theological education, especially for church leaders. In every nation and culture there should be an effective training programme for pastors and laity in doctrine, discipleship, evangelism, nurture and service. Such training programmes should not rely on any stereotyped methodology but should be developed by creative local initiatives according to biblical standards.

(Col. I:27,28; Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5,9; Mark 10:42-45; Eph. 4:11,12)

12. SPIRITUAL CONFLICT
We believe that we are engaged in constant spiritual warfare with the principalities and powers of evil, who are seeking to overthrow the Church and frustrate its task of world evangelization. We know our need to equip ourselves with God's armour and to fight this battle with the spiritual weapons of truth and prayer. For we detect the activity of our enemy, not only in false ideologies outside the Church, but also inside it in false gospels which twist Scripture and put people in the place of God. We need both watchfulness and discernment to safeguard the biblical gospel. We acknowledge that we ourselves are not immune to worldliness of thoughts and action, that is, to a surrender to secularism. For example, although careful studies of church growth, both numerical and spiritual, are right and valuable, we have sometimes neglected them. At other times, desirous to ensure a response to the gospel, we have compromised our message, manipulated our hearers through pressure techniques, and become unduly preoccupied with statistics or even dishonest in our use of them. All this is worldly. The Church must be in the world; the world must not be in the Church.

(Eph. 6:12; II Cor. 4:3,4; Eph. 6:11,13-18; II Cor. 10:3-5; I John 2:18-26; 4:1-3; Gal. 1:6-9; II Cor. 2:17; 4:2; John 17:15)

13. FREEDOM AND PERSECUTION
It is the God-appointed duty of every government to secure conditions of peace, justice and liberty in which the Church may obey God, serve the Lord Jesus Christ, and preach the gospel without interference. We therefore pray for the leaders of nations and call upon them to guarantee freedom of thought and conscience, and freedom to practise and propagate religion in accordance with the will of God and as set forth in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We also express our deep concern for all who have been unjustly imprisoned, and especially for those who are suffering for their testimony to the Lord Jesus. We promise to pray and work for their freedom. At the same time we refuse to be intimidated by their fate. God helping us, we too will seek to stand against injustice and to remain faithful to the gospel, whatever the cost. We do not forget the warnings of Jesus that persecution is inevitable.

(I Tim. 1:1-4, Acts 4:19; 5:29; Col. 3:24; Heb. 13:1-3; Luke 4:18; Gal. 5:11; 6:12; Matt. 5:10-12; John 15:18-21)

14. THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
We believe in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Father sent his Spirit to bear witness to his Son; without his witness ours is futile. Conviction of sin, faith in Christ, new birth and Christian growth are all his work. Further, the Holy Spirit is a missionary spirit; thus evangelism should arise spontaneously from a Spirit-filled church. A church that is not a missionary church is contradicting itself and quenching the Spirit. Worldwide evangelization will become a realistic possibility only when the Spirit renews the Church in truth and wisdom, faith, holiness, love and power. We therefore call upon all Christians to pray for such a visitation of the sovereign Spirit of God that all his fruit may appear in all his people and that all his gifts may enrich the body of Christ. Only then will the whole church become a fit instrument in his hands, that the whole earth may hear his voice.

(I Cor. 2:4; John 15:26;27; 16:8-11; I Cor. 12:3; John 3:6-8; II Cor. 3:18; John 7:37-39; I Thess. 5:19; Acts 1:8; Psa. 85:4-7; 67:1-3; Gal. 5:22,23; I Cor. 12:4-31; Rom. 12:3-8)

15. THE RETURN OF CHRIST
We believe that Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly, in power and glory, to consummate his salvation and his judgment. This promise of his coming is a further spur to our evangelism, for we remember his words that the gospel must first be preached to all nations. We believe that the interim period between Christ's ascension and return is to be filled with the mission of the people of God, who have no liberty to stop before the end. We also remember his warning that false Christs and false prophets will arise as precursors of the final Antichrist. We therefore reject as a proud, self-confident dream the notion that people can ever build a utopia on earth. Our Christian confidence is that God will perfect his kingdom, and we look forward with eager anticipation to that day, and to the new heaven and earth in which righteousness will dwell and God will reign forever. Meanwhile, we rededicate ourselves to the service of Christ and of people in joyful submission to his authority over the whole of our lives.

(Mark 14:62; Heb. 9:28; Mark 13:10; Acts 1:8-11; Matt. 28:20; Mark 13:21-23; John 2:18; 4:1-3; Luke 12:32; Rev. 21:1-5; II Pet. 3:13; Matt. 28:18)

CONCLUSION
Therefore, in the light of this our faith and our resolve, we enter into a solemn covenant with God and with each other, to pray, to plan and to work together for the evangelization of the whole world. We call upon others to join us. May God help us by his grace and for his glory to be faithful to this our covenant! Amen, Alleluia!


Cephas Library has published a very long denunciation of ecumenicism in general and the Lausanne Covenant in particular. And Evangelical Ministries to New Religions (EMNR) noted that there are different versions of the Lausanne Covenant (they prefer the 1974 version). The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is apparently silent on the Lausanne Covenant, but International Cooperating Ministries supports it, as does the Lausanne Committee on Jewish Evangelism.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave. And this post just touches the surface.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Deep Springs revisited...or not (I never went there)

Last night I was at a college night, during which various college/university representatives spoke about their institutions.

One of the speakers was Peter Osgood, Director of Admission at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, California. Osgood was not merely there to represent Harvey Mudd; he was charged to represent ALL private colleges and universities. (Other speakers spoke about the UC system, the Cal State system, community colleges, and the like.)

While Osgood noted that the median size of a private school is smaller than the median size of a public school, there is still great diversity in private schools. He cited the University of Southern California as an example of a very large private school, and then asked if anyone knew what the smallest private college in California was.

Out of the crowd of a couple of hundred people, yours truly ventured to guess, "Deep Springs College?"

And yours truly is now the proud owner of a Harvey Mudd banner for getting the answer right.

I didn't get a chance to talk to Osgood afterwards, so I couldn't tell him how I came across this bit of trivia. (Hmm...another case in which a post could have gone into another of my blogs. But I don't see this as an NTN Buzztime question.)

So anyways, back in the dark ages of the 1970s, when Robert Plant was all the rage and the Pittsburgh Steelers dominated football - wait a minute, THE FIRST TIME when Robert Plant was - let me start again.

So anyways, back in the dark ages of the 1970s, when there were only three commercial television networks, I was back in Virginia, getting a lot of mail from colleges and universities. I forget whether I got this in the mail or read about it somewhere, but one of the colleges that I heard of was Deep Springs. My impression at the time was that the college was an interesting place, to say the least. Located in one state with an address in another state, the students (all male, I believe) read the classics for two years, when they weren't working on the ranch at which the college was located. I decided that was a little too far out for me, so I went to Reed College instead, where I read the classics for four years and worked on the Reed College Quest. (Any educator who reads this post is probably smirking right now.)

Well, Deep Springs is still around today. Still two-year, still all-male. But, unlike the 1970s, you can read about the college on its website:

Deep Springs is an all-male liberal arts college located on a cattle-ranch and alfalfa farm in California's High Desert. Electrical pioneer L.L. Nunn founded the school in 1917 on the three pillars of academics, labor, and self-governance in order to help young men prepare themselves for lives of service to humanity. The school's 26 students, along with its staff and faculty, form a close community engaged in this intense project.

Deep Springs operates on the belief that manual labor and political deliberation are integral parts of a comprehensive liberal arts education.

Each student attends for two years and receives a full scholarship valued at over $50,000 per year. Afterwards, most complete their degrees at the world's most prestigious four year institutions.



View Larger Map

But not everyone has the most positive experience at Deep Springs:

n 1975-76, I attended Deep Springs College, arguably the strangest college in the world. It was an interesting place; the academics were actually much tougher and more challenging than anything I had to do in graduate school....

I hated my time at Deep Springs, actually. The year I was there I was the only vegetarian, and the cooks were hostile, cooking even corn in pork fat. As a result, I ended up with some serious nutrition-related medical problems and a bad attitude, and I ended up leaving early. Nonetheless, you can't go to Deep Springs without having it shape you in some significant way.


I could say more about very small schools...but I won't.

But small private schools, as well as large private schools, have similar challenges in some ways. Osgood noted one obvious difference between private and public schools: namely, that private schools are much more dependent upon non-government sources of funding. And fund-raising issues hit Deep Springs also, as this January 2008 article shows:

Louis Fantasia — an acclaimed Shakespeare scholar and theatrical director — has been ousted as president of Deep Springs College after only six months in the position.

Fantasia’s sudden departure, announced with little detail on New Year’s Day, stunned many alumni and others who have since learned of it. Fantasia would not comment, and board members released only a vague statement indicating a “divergence of visions” for the college by Fantasia and the board.

Sources familiar with the conflict at Deep Springs say that the difference of opinion had to do in part with fund raising....

According to those who are sympathetic to what the board did, Fantasia did not understand the unique nature of Deep Springs governance (although he had taught there several times) or of the role of its president, and was too focused on fund raising....

Critics of Fantasia said that his interest in fund raising risked setting up a situation where donors’ views might take precedence over those of students, potentially endangering the self-governance of which alumni are so proud.

Supporters of Fantasia talk about similar issues, but with a different take. They argue that he has correctly identified a need to significantly increase the college’s endowment (currently about $15 million) and to make the institution more visible. By keeping fund raising ambitions more modest, these supporters say, the current board leaders are placing a higher priority on preserving the status quo than on improving the college.


The whole thing is odd when you consider the state of education today. I could be wrong, but it's possible that Deep Springs is the only private educational institution in which the board has criticized the president for doing TOO MUCH fund-raising.

Pass the alfalfa sprouts - the branded alfalfa sprouts, please.

Hmm...maybe this belonged in my business blog...

Sphere: Related Content

Christian Behavioral Medicine Practitioner?

I was checking my email to see who was disturbed enough to follow me on Twitter, and I found that I am now being followed by @mdcounselor. So I followed @mdcounselor back.

It turns out that @mdcounselor is George Trimble, M.D. of Dallas, whose Twitter profile says he is a "Christian behavioral medicine practitioner."

I followed the link on his Twitter page...and ended up at an "under construction" notice. But Trimble wrote it in good humor:

Under Construction -- please drop back by. I know. I'll never see you again. C'est la vie, mon ami.

Trimble sounds depressed. He should see a Christian behavioral medicine practitioner.

Which reminds me - what IS a Christian behavioral medicine practitioner?

A Google search shows that Trimble is the only person who advertises himself in this way.

So, taking a step back, let's see what a behavioral medicine practitioner is. Here's what the state of Minnesota says:

Under administrative direction, provides technical consultation and direction to a broad spectrum of other clinicians, including medical specialists, psychologists, nurses, therapists and community health care providers in a specialized field of clinical psychology such as Adolescent Psychology, Behavioral Psychology, Neuro-Psychology or Forensics. Designs, develops, implements and evaluates psycho-social based treatment programs for clinically complex clients, including those with multiple diagnoses, conflicting diagnoses and unidentified disabilities. Testifies in court proceedings as an expert witness. Performs related work as required.

The Behavioral Medicine Practitioner provides specialized consultation to treatment teams in multiple programs serving a specific disability group (e.g. Mental Illness, Chemical Dependency, DD, etc.) at multiple facilities within a geographic region of service. It designs specialized treatment programs and directs the implementation of these strategies in multiple facilities within a region. It is also responsible for directing outcome analysis for programs within the specialty area, developing and delivering training in specialized assessment or treatment strategies for medical staff; directing and implementing quality improvement strategies and developing and monitoring utilization management.

The level of technical knowledge required for this position is typically acquired through additional specialized experience and educational training beyond that required for a Ph.D. in Psychology. Specialized certification is preferable.


You can probably tell that a human resources specialist (with appropriate degrees) wrote the text above. But the text below was written by an actual BMP - in Texas, no less. Dr. Greg Hupp:

Behavioral Medicine is the interdisciplinary field concerned with the
development and integration of behavioral, emotional, psychological, social, and medical knowledge and techniques relevant to the understanding of health and illness, and the application of this knowledge and these techniques to prevention, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation.


So presumably my good Twitter buddy Trimble also integrates Christian belief into his practice. He's not the only one - Phil Monroe is a Christian psychologist who has a blog.

But he's not from Texas.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Senator Ontario Emperor, revisited #DYSP

In case you missed it, I previously blogged about my unrealistic goal that I set for myself on December 31, 2008:

I want to become a U.S. Senator from Illinois in 2009. (Even though I haven't lived there since 1970, I'm not rich, and I'm a registered Republican.)

As time went on, however, Rod Blagojevich appointee Roland Burris became more and more acceptable both inside the Beltway and inside the Land of Lincoln, I was forced to concede that my chances of realizing my dream were becoming increasingly unlikely.

But that was January. This is February. And now Burris is running into a little bit of trouble. Outsanity tweeted about it this morning:

#Chicago's #Roland #Burris is in hot water. #DYSP

AMERICAblog linked to a Chicago Tribune editorial. Here's an excerpt:

Let’s see if we have it right: Burris had zero contact with any of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s cronies about his interest in the Senate seat being vacated by President Barack Obama— unless you count that conversation with former chief of staff Lon Monk, and, on further reflection, the ones with insiders John Harris, Doug Scofield and John Wyma and, oh yeah, the governor’s brother and fund-raising chief, Robert Blagojevich. But Burris didn’t raise a single dollar for the now ex-governor as a result of those contacts because that could be construed as a quid pro quo and besides, everyone he asked refused to donate.

The story gets worse with every telling.

Enough. Roland Burris must resign.


So this may work out after all. I'd better start following the Cubs and/or White Sox or something.

Sphere: Related Content

Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins' no news is good news #DYSP

TechCrunch (yeah, the blog that TIME says is no longer relevant) posted this on February 17 regarding Twitter's ongoing search for someone to tell them how to make money:

At around 11 AM...the company sent out a rejection notice to many of the candidates who had applied for its open Product Manager position. But instead of using BCC to hide the identities of the applicants from each other, Twitter HR goofed and sent them all the message using a standard Carbon Copy, allowing everyone else to see who the other 185 applicants were.

But there's good news in this, as Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins noted:

What is interesting is the fact that I wasn’t on the recipient list for those rejected.

Sphere: Related Content

Pandora on the outs in copyright deal #DYSP

From Silicon Alley Insider:

The federal Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which sets royalty rates for recording artists and labels, and the National Association of Broadcasters have resolved a dispute that threatened to shutter thousands of Internet radio stations as well as Web music sites....

The CRB did not reach a deal with the Digital Media Association (DiMA), which represents Pandora, RealNetworks (RNWK) and MTV. Those negotiations failed to resolve before [the February 17] deadline.


We'll see if we have a bunch of Pandora alerts again.

Sphere: Related Content

Steeler Blood-Doping? #DYSP

Sports by Brooks links to a New York Times article:

Two of the Pittsburgh Steelers’ biggest stars, Hines Ward and Troy Polamalu, used their own blood in an innovative injury treatment before winning the Super Bowl. At least one major league pitcher, about 20 professional soccer players and perhaps hundreds of recreational athletes have also undergone the procedure, commonly called platelet-rich plasma therapy.

I guess it's your own blood, not a foreign substance that your cousin gave you, but it's still a little slimy.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

For Mona...

As the Lakers win, Mona responds to the latest picture meme, and I respond to Mona.

Sphere: Related Content