This article about law students’ choice between public service and private practice made me feel very sad. It’s about a student at Georgetown Law, who had to decide between a high-paid job at a Chicago law firm and the pursuit of a job in the public interest sector.
So it’s really starting to look like we’re about to have another Clinton in the White House. It’s easy to forget about how bizarre this is but every month or two I think about it again and marvel. Just think about how entertaining it will be to chronicle Bill Clinton’s constant meddlingcounseling on world affairs (not to mention his eight years of access to interns who answer to his wife). Maybe it will be a return to the good old days of economic prosperity and moral depravity.
Aug 092007
Dear Cory:
I am a boingboing fan, and your posts are generally right up my alley. But at times you’ve got a certain problem I like to call “michaelmooritude,” whose primary symptom is that you preach to the choir in a particularly polarizing way. The end result is that your sycophants and antiponents (it should be a word!) get pumped up while people without a dog in the hunt get turned off by your over-the-top rhetoric. Here’s the latest example (naughty word in the subject line!):
I still use the Reasonable Agreement EULA at the bottom of all my emails: “READ CAREFULLY. By reading this email, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (“BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.”
That’s terrific, Cory, but I don’t think it has any positive effect. Anyone who is inclined to agree with you and knows enough about the issue to do so will probably still agree with you after reading this. But Anyone who has drafted a real EULA before will get only one thing out of this: Cory Doctorow thinks I eat babies. And anyone who has no idea what a EULA is will still manage to get one thing out of this: Cory Doctorow seems willing to go out of his way to antagonize people over an issue that doesn’t really matter very much.
My point is that because of the huge readership you have, you’re in a rare position to popularize relatively obscure but relatively important issues. Copyright law innovations, net neutrality, freedom of speech and, yes, unconscionable legal agreements (not to mention unicorns and lolcats). But all too often you take a confrontational, aggressive stance that does nothing more than froth up the waters on both sides without actually persuading anyone to consider the issues and, potentially, change their mind. There’s a great justification for this kind of thing–the other side does it, and if nobody on my side does it, the other side will win!–but I don’t actually buy that. In more or less every big election in America (and probably other countries, but I don’t know enough to speak about them), each side has its kneejerk supporters. And those kneejerk supporters get excited when their leaders rev them up with high-energy, accusatory rhetoric. But everyone who isn’t a kneejerk supporter gets turned off by this stuff–they’re looking for someone to help them work through the issue for themselves, not just tell them what to think.
It’s easier to take that kind of position, and in some ways more rewarding. I’m sure you get tons of “hell yeah! keep on fighting!” emails every day, and I’m sure you get plenty of “you’re the devil!” hate emails every day–but people don’t bother to send “I didn’t understand this issue, but something about your tone bugged me so I’m not going to look into it anymore–but from now on I’ll have an unconscious aversion to your point of view” emails.
Anyway, to get back to this particular example. The interesting thing here is that you’re managing to make the same mistake twice, with two different effects. The first time is when you append the message to your emails–here, you’re pushing people’s buttons individually. The second time is when you post on boingboing to tell everyone about it. And here, of course, you’re broadcasting your rigid and kinda obnoxious message to the unwashed masses.
Just to clarify a couple of things:
- It’s not that I disagree with you about EULAs (or most of the other issues you write about often). In fact, I write this only because I think that the way you advocate for these things is often hindering the improvements I care about–and I want you to use your powers for good.
- It’s not that I think you’re bugging most people, or even a sizeable minority. I think you’re just bugging the most important people–the undecided 25% whose opinions will make or break a campaign for change. Who cares if your natural adversaries get pissed off? It’s not like they were going to change their minds and agree with you. And by that same token, who cares if the people already on your side get excited by what you’re writing? They were already on your side! The big issue is the people who don’t know or don’t care–these are the people you’re trying to reach.
On the whole, I certainly think you do much more good than harm to these movements, but I think you could do quite a bit more by focusing on getting the right information to the right people (while still, of course, “mobilizing your base” to increase general awareness and interest–just not doing the latter at the expense of the former).
A Cary-Grove High School student charged with disorderly conduct for writing a violently descriptive class essay had received an assignment that said: “Write whatever comes to your mind. Do not judge or censor what you are writing.”
[cut for brevity]
Lee’s English teacher, Nora Capron, and school officials found the senior’s stream-of-consciousness writing so alarming that they turned it over to Cary police, who arrested him Tuesday morning while he was walking to school.
There are plenty more interesting details (like the fact that he’s a straight-A student with no disciplinary problems in his history) in the the story. The distinction between this arrest and the bailiwick of the literal Thought Police is so fine it cannot be detected by human eyes.
White House E-Mail Lost in Private Accounts
White House staff, including one Karl Rove, used outside email accounts for official communications–to get around the fact that all White House email is supposed to be permanently saved and publicly available.
The White House acknowledged yesterday that e-mails dealing with official government business may have been lost because they were improperly sent through private accounts intended to be used for political activities. Democrats have been seeking such missives as part of an investigation into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
Administration officials said they could offer no estimate of how many e-mails were lost but indicated that some may involve messages from White House senior adviser Karl Rove, whose role in the firings has been under scrutiny by congressional Democrats.
Democrats have charged that Rove and other officials may have used the private accounts, set up through the Republican National Committee, in an effort to avoid normal review. Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision-making and deliberations. White House aides’ use of their political e-mail accounts to discuss the prosecutor firings has also fanned Democratic accusations that the actions were politically motivated.
Of particular note is how egregious a violation of White House policy this is:
“Federal law requires the preservation of electronic communications sent or received by White House staff,” says the handbook that all staffers are given and expected to read and comply with.“As a result, personnel working on behalf of the EOP [Executive Office of the President] are expected to only use government-provided e-mail services for all official communication.”
The handbook further explains: “The official EOP e-mail system is designed to automatically comply with records management requirements.”
And if that wasn’t clear enough, the handbook notes — as was the case in the Clinton administration — that “commercial or free e-mail sites and chat rooms are blocked from the EOP network to help staff members ensure compliance and to prevent the circumvention of the records management requirements.” (from Froomkin’s blog)
Yeesh. How is this not a huge issue? Why did this story disappear from the Washington Post front page so fast? (The link to Froomkin’s blog is up there, at least for now, but I had to delve into the bottom of the politics page to find the actual story.) Is there any question that as soon as this story got legs every White House staffer implicated by the scandal initiated a scorched earth campaign on his/her inbox? Why does every administration think it can or should get away with this kind of obfuscatory malfeasance? The American People demand answers!!!
An op-ed by Angelina Jolie. Yes! It’s just a matter of time before she gets her Nobel Peace Prize!
Anyway, whenever I read something like this, I wonder how much (if any) of the writing comes from the celebrity whose name is on the top. I know that people ghostwrite books all the time, but do they ghostwrite these bite-size polemics? Just based on the eloquence of the language and the artful structure of many of these pieces, I’m guessing yes, but it just seems wrong. Outsourcing a heartfelt plea for global justice smacks of inauthenticity–it’s one thing to hire a hack to help you make a quick buck off your hardcore fans (not a good thing, necessarily, but defensible at least) but it’s another thing to say to a staffer, “I’m against landmine use, could you put together an emotional essay about it for the Times?” Of course, this whole post is incredibly unfair; I have no idea whether Jolie actually wrote that thing, and there’s no evidence suggesting that she didn’t. But it doesn’t feel very likely to me.
At any rate, I actually think it’s great that Jolie is using her celebrity for a good cause (and “suggesting” to Brad that he might want to do the same). And she’s been doing it for a decade now, so it’s hard to chalk it up to a cynical stunt. Ultimately, even if she’s just lending her name to someone else’s writing, she’s contributing to a cause she cares about and trying to make the world a better place. That’s a huge improvement over this guy, even if he did write it himself.
Wednesday’s Colbert Report mentioned Integrity Justice, a blog Colbert said he was creating to seed fake news stories that he hoped would eventually get big enough to make it onto his show (video here). As weird as that may be, it’s not as weird as the show’s producers’ choice of what to actually put on the domain. It’s basically a standard template email form for fake news submissions (although it never even mentions what you’re supposed to be submitting), but it includes a long textbox filled with contract terms. First I thought it was just boilerplate “we have the right to use whatever you write here however we want for free,” (the first part of the text is about how to send in submissions) but as I looked through it I realized that it includes the contract they have for people who appear on the show itself.
Guest Name: ________________________________ (check one) Performance: ___ Interview: ___ MOS: ___
ENTRANTS NAME:
DATE: __________GUEST/PERFORMER RELEASE
This release is made to allow (“you”) to include me as a guest performer in a production and/or publication tentatively entitled (the “Programming”). I am giving this release in consideration for you allowing me to participate as a guest performer in the Programming and I recognize that my signature on this release is a condition of your permitting me to be a guest on or a performer in the Programming or both.
But my favorite part is definitely:
I confirm that, to the best of my knowledge any statements made by me during the Performance will be true and will not violate or infringe upon any third party’s rights.
Somehow, I couldn’t find anything guaranteeing that everything Colbert says must be true.
Anyway, aside from the email submission contract and the guest appearance contract, keep an eye out for the bonus “hazardous activity” language and the location use waiver. It’s a thrill a minute at Integrity Justice!
What happened here? I assume an intern just goofed up and cut-and-pasted all the legal language they could find on the show’s LAN. At any rate, it’s a nice insight into just how boring (yet restrictive) even an absurd TV show’s contract can be.
O.J. to discuss killings of wife, friend in TV interview
“O.J. Simpson, in his own words, tells for the first time how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible for the crimes,” the network said in a statement. “In the two-part event, Simpson describes how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade.”
The interview will air days before Simpson’s new book, “If I Did It,” goes on sale Nov. 30. The book, published by Regan, “hypothetically describes how the murders would have been committed.”
In a video clip on the network’s Web site, an off-screen interviewer says to Simpson, “You wrote, ‘I have never seen so much blood in my life.’ ”
“I don’t think any two people could be murdered without everybody being covered in blood,” Simpson responds.
I guess he must really need the money. This is going to be a repugnant, undignified spectacle, and not in a fun way. The worst/best part about it is how the title of the book (“If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened”) fails to even clearly state that O.J. isn’t responsible for the killings–which is strange, since if I killed two people and lied about it for years (sometimes under oath), I wouldn’t suddenly have any qualms about lying in print. Why not just go with “If I Had Done It, Here’s How It Would Have Happened”? Well, I think we all know the answer, but it’s just too depressing to think about any more.
I hate to channel Aaron Sorkin, but is there no level of indecency so outrageous that even a television executive will draw the line? I know this is Fox we’re talking about here, but even so, this is pretty disgusting. I wonder if we have the makings of another civil case here.
At any rate, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Fox will never actually air this. Maybe that’s just wishful thinking.
Follow me on Twitter