It looks obvious

This was an beautiful demonstration of support.

Few days ago Ron Paul’s campaign launched a last minute effort to boost their third quarter by additional $500,000. The message, requesting the grassroots support in the fundraising effort, was published on the campaign blog and through the supporters mailing list, but not through any main stream media advertisement.

It took about just few days for the initial goal to be fulfilled and total of seven days to complete the goal of $1000000, way before the deadline of October 1st. Throughout this time the donations’ counter keep rising with small donations - $15, $25 and $50 from all over the states. Thousands of people felt that it is important to donate their hard earned money for the cause of Liberty.

I use to say that Ron Paul has no chance winning the Republican nomination, and I’m still saying that. However Ron Paul success in triggering a growing movement advocating for individual liberty, an American idea that was not present in American politics for two decades. Ron Paul campaign, regardless of his personal ability to win the nomination, planting the seeds for a better future. A future that, judging from the enthusiasm and willingness surrounding Paul’s campaign in general and the donation’s boost in particular, might not be so far.

The news about Newt Gingrich’s probable joining to the GOP Primaries is very good news.
It isn’t because Gingrich is the most Libertarian candidate, Ron Paul is. But when the dust will settle it is better to have Gingrich as a viable option to Thompson, Giuliani or McCain. Gingrich is one of the more colorful candidates and if he will join the race it will make it much more interesting, and somewhat less depressing, to follow.

I’m finding my self speechless pretty rarely, but watching this video is one of them.

I am very suspicious about government in general and this kind of reports doesn’t calm my suspicions down…

(Via Reason)

The last few days were pretty hectic, and it is going to be somewhat crazier in the days to come. An important project, with crazy deadline, requires most of my attention for the next few days. Not surprisingly, more than I’m missing updating this blog I’m missing reading others. The reading backlog is simply unbelievable…

 And, by the way before I’m disappearing to do what I’m paid to do, go and help Ron Paul’s efforts to complete a $500,000 by the end of the quarter. It is a good cause.

In the last post I rant about the epidemic flood of social networks, and the lack of added value they providing. But I need to correct a wrong impression I might created. I do think that their is a vast use to social parameters in the Internet, most of it is yet to be developed. It is not, however, a replacement for the neighborhood bar. Companies like Last.Fm or Outbrain making pioneering steps in understanding how one choice of content (music, or blog posts) can be a recommendation to others based on very sophisticated matching. This is not involving broadcasting to the world every time that One doing something rather by aggregation of certain patterns.

I’m following some of these developments with great interest since they are, to my humble opinion, where the future of the Internet is  - not the passing fashion of twitter and its sort.

I really don’t get it. I’m probably already way to old but I simply don’t understand the excitement about online social networks. I was tempted few years ago and opened an account in LinkedIn, and since than my only activity is to approve occasional contact. All my contacts are people I knew before, and my relationships with them isn’t based on anything in LinkedIn. I never joined another social network, and I have very little desire to try facebook. Here is my, completely personal, impression - there is nothing social in online social networks. Those people who knew how to network before still know how to network now, and those who didn’t (me included) still don’t know how to network now. I guess that when the hype will comedown, most people will realize that they have better things to do than be informed about the whereabouts of their contacts constantly.

And don’t let me start with twitter…

Admitting that an idea you strongly believed, and advocated for, turned to be a colossal mistake is one of the most difficult things. It is not easier when you are one of the expert in your field. It is somewhat painful to read Fuad Ajami’s column about Iraq, and the war he so strongly advocated for. His writing is, as always, brilliant.

Ryan Sagar is not impressed with McCain bouncing up support numbers and declared his campaign to in "a persistent vegetative state". In his usual sharp political analysis Sagar explains why McCain Campaign is going nowhere and offers an indication to check if the McCain’s campaign came back from the dead:

So, as the stories inevitably come heralding the resurgence of John McCain, here’s a handy tip as to whether you should believe them: When either Mr. Giuliani or Mr. Thompson starts attacking the war hero whose endorsement they both want, then you’ll know he poses a serious threat. Until then, it’s all just the latest bogus trend story.

Still with the 2008 Campaign: an interesting review of Fred Thompson’s federalism principles and voting record.

Jonathan Klinger review the possible implications of an Oklahoma court decision to prohibit the enforcement of an act that restrict the distribution of violent video games for minors. Jonathan focuses on Israeli legislation while I wonder if this case can, and will be used, to overturn the shameful decency act.  

I wonder, if the French would have to pay directly for dentist treatments - would it make them brush their teeth more often?

The New York Times decided to open its content to non-paying readers. The reason behind the decision was simple, the NY Times calculated that they can earn more money from selling add for higher traffic than from subscriptions and advertisement for less readers. While I’m sure that the NY Times calculations were thorough I’m a little bit skeptical about business model that relay on one source of income. 

It become a commonly agreed assumption that consumers would not pay for content, or web services. Furthermore,  the wide variety of options would drive the, much praised, "traffic" to those services that will offer free service. Those free services build their business model on high traffic and the ability to sell advertisement. But this isn’t necessarily true. Some of the most successful web services are paid services - Basecamp, SaleForce and others - are charging for the services they provide. Their business model tied not by the amount of traffic they generate but by offering consistent quality. And, not surprisingly, people are willing to pay for quality. 

I have no moral issue with business model that is based on advertisement. I reject, however, the moral objections to paid service. I was a paying costumer of time selected (the previously paid service of the NY times), I’m a paying customer of the WSJ, The Atlantic and of the printed version of Reason. I’m a willing to pay for services that I consider as worth my money. And for practical reason I doubt the wisdom of solely relaying on one, not the most stable, source of income.

Finally it seems that Ron Paul’s numbers are getting out of the margin of error. Although he isn’t, yet, in a position to win the nomination he seems to position himself above most of the second tier candidates (if we still considering Romney as first tier, which is doubtful). It is yet to early to speculate what the numbers actually mean, is it a peak or a trend of increasing support, but the campaign is doing things right by making Libertarianism back into the GOP, and national,  discussion.

We are still extremely far from changing the course of the political life, but gaining enough support before the convention can help in the future.

The EU decision, to fine Microsoft and to uphold the commissioner’s decision to remove free additional applications from Windows distributions, has nothing to do with consumers interests. The commissioner and the appeal court fighting a battle, on a war that was over awhile ago and not because of government regulations. The reality is that Microsoft hegemony is weakening and people have other choices, and increasing number of them (me included) choosing to move away from Microsoft’s window. 

It is ironic to note that while the EU version of protecting consumers is to deprive them from free software offering, other corporations battling Microsoft where it is really meter - by offering competing solutions.In today’s news we learn that IBM joining the crowded field of alternatives to Microsoft Office with its new Symphony and Yahoo decides to buy Zimbra and compete seriously on the corporate e-mail market. Microsoft position as nearly monopoly is much more threatened by the rival corporations moves than by the EU "protection" of free competition. Not surprising is the fact that rivalry to Microsoft’s hegemony developed in the US, where the government was less fierce in protecting competition, and not in Europe. 

As weird as it might sound, the idea that protecting the consumer interest is better served by ensuring lower level of offering,instead of free competition that foster better and richer solutions, is still very popular - that is why socialism is still appealing to many people.