Here are some pieces I’ve been reading of late:
You Can’t Handle the Truth by Mark Pothier in the Boston Globe
A great piece about how the classification of drugs used by most Western countries is completely divorced from how much harm those drugs cause. This isn’t surprising, but as the evidence begins to mount regarding which drugs are actually harmful (read alcohol, cocaine or heroine) versus those which are significantly less harmful (read Ecstasy or LSD) the question will increasingly emerge – will science ever inform our policies around managing these types of substances. Indeed, it is disturbing (and, er… sobering) to once again see the only substance I use the list – alcohol – be put in such a stark and negative light.
At some point a real conversation about drugs is going to occur in the United States – I just hope it is sooner rather than later as it will have a profound effect on effectively we can deal with the tragic situation we have around substance abuse this side of the border.
Fla. Court Tells Judges and Lawyers to “Unfriend” Each Other (the AP)
Always fascinating to see how different fields respond to social networking. In this case a Florida…
…committee ruled Nov. 17 that online “friendships” could create the impression that lawyers are in a special position to influence their judge friends.
This is a great example of how social networking can cause some professions to actually become less transparent and, I would argue, harms the long term credibility of the institution. Notice here that the committee isn’t ruling that judges and lawyers can’t be friends, they are ruling that it would be harmful if the public could see that they are friends. So, in essence, if being a friend compromises the judgment of a judge, we solve that by preventing the public from seeing that the conflict could exist, rather than dealing with the conflict. Weird.
The last line is priceless:
McGrady, who is sending a copy of the ruling to the 69 judges in his circuit, said this potential conflict of interest is why he doesn’t have a Facebook page.
“If somebody’s my friend, I’ll call them on the phone,” he said, chuckling.
Errr, right. Good to keep it all in the old boys network where those on the inside know where the conflict may lie, but there is not digital trail or map that might allow the public to be better informed… Oh, and you’re the last generation that will only “pick up the phone” so this solution has, at best, a 20 year shelf life to it.
The Killer App of 1900 by Glenn Fleishman in Publicola
As some readers know, I’m a big fan of historical examples that show we are experiencing similar pressures, transformations, evolutions as experienced in the past. Part of it is the historian in me, part of it is how it helps ease the minds of those concerned or intimidated by change. There are, occasionally, genuinely new things that appear under the sun – but often those of us interested in technology and social change are too quick to scream “This is new! It changes everything!” Moreover, it does a disservice to our efforts often making people more skeptical, resistant and generally conservative towards the perceived change. Still more importantly, the past often sheds light on how power and influence created by a new technology or system may diffuse itself – who will be the winners/losers and the resisters.
In this context this article is a priceless example of the type of writing I wish I did more of.
The Score: Advice to Young Composers by Annie Gosfield in the New York Times
While written as sounds advice for composers, this is (as the friend who sent it to me said) sounds advice for policy wonks or, in my opinion, bloggers as well. (It’s actually just sounds advice for life).
A couple of credos in the piece that I hope my work, and this blog lives by:
Take your work seriously, but don’t take yourself too seriously: Hope that is evident in my writing style.
Be willing to put yourself and your music on the line: Try to do that everyday here on the blog.
Don’t fear rejection: Something a blog is really good at teaching you.
A couple of credos in the piece I know I struggle with:
Don’t assume you know what’s accessible to the audience and what isn’t: Although counter to what the piece says, I occasionally run into a friend who says “I had NO idea what you were talking about in X blog post.” It is crushing to hear – but also really good. I do want to challenge readers but I also want to be accessible. Do let me know if I ever get to a place where a newbie is going to be totally lost.
Details count: So, er, anyone who reads my blog regularly knows that I have the occasional typo in a post, here or there… Blogging longish pieces four times a week is draining, and so I don’t proof as much as I could (plus it is hard to see one’s own errors). But I could do better.
Hope you enjoy these pieces as much as I did!