DISQUS

I can't believe that people get paid to release reports like the one you mention above. Seriously, I would feel ashamed of myself to report on something so blatantly obvious and then expect folks to believe my claptrap about how this is cutting edge research on social networking, which should shock us all. Think I'm going to contact Flowing Data right now. I'll bet they've never heard of my groundbreaking research on myspace, twitter and del.icio.us.

A map of what the UN Fallacy might look like if all US states were nation-states:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/01/...

Where are the media concentration alarmists now?

I think your article ably demonstrates why it is dangerous to allow government agencies to manage and maintain databses which house sensitive personal identification information. You're also correct in noting that the ID debate is a symptom of a much larger problem. However, your conclusion that government should be responsible for collecting enough data to make us safe doesn't seem to follow and begs two questions: what is an appropriate amount of information and what does safety mean in this context? I realize that space constraints make it hard to address all of these issues in depth, but advocating a position and then merely mentioning that the devil is indeed in the details ("arduous task") is likely to be misleading. I don't trust the Post Office to deliver my mail effectively, why would I trust an agency to use my data in a responsible way? I think the larger question is why government should be involved in identification at all? Too, public choice thoery teaches us that a public watchdog agency in charge of privacy and civil liberties issues is likely to succumb to the perverse incentives to abuse power that are inherent in bureaucracy. Look at the "reform" committee chaired by Mr. Waxman. Federal agencies have shown time and again that they cannot be trusted with power over managing data, why give them any more? My two cents.

Great title for this post; so good that it's being recycled: http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/03/...

Wow; there certainly are a lot of comments here that have nothing to do with the point of the original post. The original post dealt with using state power to enforce a particular viewpoint in compulsory education. Because such a situation will always lead to dissatisfaction among those who do not agree with what's being taught to their children (whether it's science, religion or anything), a reasonable solution of giving parents a choice with regard to how their tax dollars will be used for educating their own children was presented. I would say that an even more agreeable solution (though vouchers may be a step down this road and are certainly preferable to the current system) is to eliminate compulsory education entirely and to allow parents to use the funding that currently goes to public schools to educate their children as they see fit regardless of what everyone else thinks of those views.

In other words, if we really want to live in a pluralistic society, we have to respect others' desire to raise their children, even if we think that their parents are teaching them harmful or absurd viewpoints. Note: I am not condoning child abuse. However, there is a wide range of beliefs that parents attempt to pass on to their children and school can be part of that transfer of beliefs. Will is saying, I think, that no one should be surprised if one group complains that the political processes governing part of the values transfer process (school) favor one group's views over another. And, further, that a good way to eliminate some of the tension among different groups is to depoliticize the process governing schooling by allowing parents to choose schools where their values are taught.

Why are you picking on me?:)

I should've asked this in the original Mansfieldania post's comment section, but since Rob has kindly brought Straussianism back to the discussion and pointed out that there are Eastern (Mansfield) and Western (Jaffa) variants...I'm wondering: Do the East Coast Straussians and the West Coast Straussians ever have gang wars? Sure, they debate which is the true intellectual heir of Leo Strauss (much like the Randians), but do they ever take it to the streets? Do they have gang signs and initiation rituals?