A great 24 review from "The Economist."

Agent Improbable

A mutual aid movement in the US?

This post at SolidarityEconomy.net reminded me of the movement, in Italy in the 1800s, to create "mutual aid societies." These self-help organizations were the cradle of both the cooperative and labor movements in Italy.

Though the US does have a mutual aid tradition of its own, the dominant form of representation in civil society, at least in the 20th century, has been the advocacy model, as opposed to self help, or self-management.

Even organizations, like labor unions, are advocacy organizations. We're used to joining together, paying dues and electing, or hiring, someone else to represent our interests.

In northern Italy, on the contrary, people banded together to more effectively represent their own interests: to educate and train themselves to run for office, manage businesses, labor unions and cooperatives.

No delegation. All self-management.

This tradition is still particularly strong, in Italy, in the cooperative movement, small business association and labor movement.

There is some evidence that this is changing in the United States. Recent developments include the, above mentioned, Common Security Clubs, the Evergreen Cooperatives in Cleveland and the Freelancer's Insurance Company in New York (I'm a board member!).

When people start thinking about representing their own best interests, and see the market and profit as tools--not ends in and of themselves--that's when you begin to see a real paradigm shift.

Keeping the House and Senate in the Right (as in correct!) Hands in November

Like clockwork, the mid-term elections see heavy losses for the president's party--whether the president is Republican or Democrat.

The Republicans have set their sights on seizing control of Congress: a repeat of the 1994 Republican Revolution.

This year, the stakes are extremely high: we still have active conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're just barely emerging from the deepest downturn since the great depression, and if we don't act now on global warming and energy independence, the planet may not give us another chance.

With a Republican takeover of the House and Senate, progressive solutions to these problems will likely be completely blocked--and with the specter of the filibuster, it's important that we not cede ANY seats to the Right this mid-term election.

But keeping Congress in Democratic hands this fall isn't just about pushing the President's agenda, it's about blocking the rise of a new type of Republican: reactionary, anti-immigrant, anti-government, border-line racist and violent.

That's why I got off my butt this year (at the urging of my wife) and volunteered to be a "neighborhood team leader" for Organizing for America. We're organizing the budding "Andersonville (Chicago) Neighborhood Team."

Our mission is to develop an active, connected grassroots base to organize around president Obama's agenda and knock on doors this November to get out the vote.

Why is this so important? Democrats, in terms of percentage of overall registered voters, enjoy a statistical advantage: there are more registered Democrats than Republicans.

Our problem is not registered voters, it's getting those voters to the polls. Registered Republicans tend to be more likely to actually go and vote: particularly in a mid-term election. So, if we get more registered Democrats out to vote in November, we win. It's all about how many calls we make, and how many doors we knock on.

This week's special elections and primaries give us a strong indication that this strategy will work in November.

As this NY Times analysis shows, it was heavy turnout among Democrats that handed Critz a decisive victory in the Pennsylvania special election to fill Murtha's seat. What's particularly significant about this race, is how conservative that blue-collar district is: in 2008 it was carried by McCain.

And how good is it for Democrats that they'll be running against right wing nut Rand Paul in Kentucky?

ChromeOS, the Cloud and Civil Liberties

Being short on funds, I'm forced to resist the urge to buy new electronics (I'd really love the Boxee Box and a home theater to go with our new flat screen TV). What to do? I decided that, instead of buying new toys, I'd play around with different Open Source OSes.

After a month of beta testing Ubuntu 10.04 (that was kinda fun), I upgraded to the stable LTS on my laptop. (I'm a big fan of the Lucid Lynx, by the way). I've also got this netbook (Acer Aspire One—very crappy, I think it's easier to type on my iPhone). So I thought, what can I do with that? There's not much exciting about running Ubuntu's netbook remix—it's great, but it's just a respun version of the desktop edition.

I thought: Let's try and run ChromeOS.

I went to the Chrome project website, and they want me to build it myself. They have instructions, but it seems pretty intimidating. So, I did a little searching on the web, and discovered Hexxeh's build of ChromeOS. He calls it “Flow.” I can make a bootable USB drive. Cool.

So, I boot up, and am instantly (it's almost like turning on your T V) in to the login page. It's kind of like when you first turn on a new Android phone, it wants you to use your Gmail account to sign in. It's all part of the master plan.

So I'm in, and the browser (I mean, the OS) opens immediately. Only problem is the damn thing boots faster than my wi-fi connects, so I get an annoying error message that goes away when I hit refresh. (Note to Google, maybe you want to have some sort of welcome screen that keeps people distracted while the wi fi connects.)

So I start screwing around. Imagine if the one program you could run on your computer were the Chrome browser—no desktop, no start menu, no trash icon, no clock, nothing. Just your browser. That's ChromeOS.

I first go to my e-mail. Check. Then calendar. Check. Nothing revolutionary here. I've checked Gmail from the Chrome Browser before.

They have a sort of “favorites” page where it allows you to click on “apps.” But, these “apps” are really just links to web pages: YouTube, Gmail, Twitter, etc.

At this point I start feeling a little claustrophobic. ChromeOS has completely obliterated the desktop metaphor, and I'm literally stuck in my web browser.

Because it's a netbook with an Atom processor, I can't really stream video (so, no Hulu or YouTube). I've got no DVD drive, so no DVDs. I supposed I could download some content and watch that... but wait, there's no place to download to and all the “apps” are web based, so my content has to be in the cloud. (Of course, there is storage in Chrome, it's just hidden from view—apparently everything is cached for offline use. But, again, there's no point in downloading anything, since there are no programs that would allow me to do anything with the downloaded content. )

I go and post some Tweets. But, again, nothing revolutionary here. I open Google docs, but this is useless to me, since I hate using Google Docs. Can someone actually tell me they'd prefer to make a spreadsheet on Google Docs, over on an old-fashioned, desktop-tethered program like Excel or Open Office? And for sharing, wouldn't you rather use Dropbox?

Bottom Line?

I applaud Google for sponsoring a major open source project. I also applaud their efforts to integrate the OS more fully with the web. But I think Chrome suffers from two big superficial problems: 1.) It's still ahead of its time—not enough cloud-based, consumer-oriented services to replace your desktop 2.) The bigger problem, for me, is that I just like the desktop metaphor. I'm not ready to put my entire digital existence into a browser.

I want stuff I can download and possess—and I want the ability to create my own content and not have to surrender it to the cloud. I think that's why Amazon's Kindle service doesn't bother me—I don't really own the books or magazines, in fact, Kindle takes my old New York Times issues away from me after a few weeks and disappears them into the cloud. But, that's content I acquired through their service. I'm not creating my own content (papers, pictures, videos) and then turning it over to the cloud.

The bigger issue for me, is that this is an example of Google (a company I really admire) going way further than their mission to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." They're rendering more and more information proprietary by making storing and accessing the information totally Google-dependent. ChromeOS will only be successful when all content is delivered through the cloud as Software as a Service (SaaS).

Think about that: the notion of “private” could be completely obliterated. Not only are we communicating over private channels but the content will be stored privately. To me, that feels like surrendering a bit too much. I'm thankful to Google for helping me better organize data, but I don't want them owning and delivering all my data.

Finally, while Google's mission is to organize the world's information, they are not a non-profit, social purpose business. Their business mission is to produce a return for shareholders. Organizing and making information accessible is the means by which they drive user-clicks to Google's advertisers which, in turn, makes a profit for distribution to shareholders. This is by no means evil. It's just important to keep in mind that they are not your local library.

From a user-experience perspective, I'm much more a fan of a web-integrated desktop and OS. I think Ubuntu has made some significant strides in that direction. When I click on my calendar on the desktop, it's linked to my Google calendar, and updated in real time. I can post a tweet from the “me menu” on the desktop, and when I purchase songs from the Ubuntu One music store, it's stored in the cloud (Ubuntu One) and immediately synchronized to all my desktops. I'm alerted to new e-mails and IM's when the mail icon on the me menu turns green. Tomboy notes are synchronized across desktops and backed-up in the Ubuntu One cloud. And Evolution keeps my contacts synchronized with Gmail and stored on my computer's hard drive. And this all syncs nicely with my iPhone (or your Android-based phone).

So, I guess I'm saying no to ChromeOS on two grounds:

1.) From the user's perspective, there's not Software as a Service available yet to make it a rich experience, and I like the desktop metaphor—I don't like being stuck inside a browser,

2.) But the bigger issue is about how proprietary I want my digital existence to become. The civil libertarian in me just isn't comfortable with that level of private control over my online experience, information and sensitive, personal data.

(Ooh, that reminds me, got to pay my dues to the ACLU!)

Testing, 1, 2.

Just downloaded "Blogwriter Lite" (I try not to pay for apps). This is my first remote post. So it's a test.

Kindle PDF Breakthrough

Thanks phototristan for commenting on this YouTube video.

I've been a Kindle user since February, and love it. One big drawback: multi-column pdfs are nearly impossible to read. I just sent myself a .pdf with the word "convert" in the subject (through Amazon's service) and it turns each column into a page... so you can read the pdf just like an e-book. Obviously, formatting isn't the prettiest. But it is readable!

The big deal for me, is that I can significantly reduce paper clutter: no more printing up reports to read on the bus. Just e-mail to my Kindle.

Looking forward to the new firmware update

What the Tea Party means?

I've been thinking about this for a while, and was nudged to write by Rand Paul's primary win this morning.

The mainstream political debate in the United States for, oh, the last 30 years has been between Republican supply-siders or Democratic, more-liberal neo-classical or neo-Keynesians. With the "right" pushing tax cuts and de-regulation as a way to spur economic growth, create wealth and jobs. The "left" position tended to focus more on demand-side, and wealth redistribution policies as a way to spur growth, create wealth and jobs.

While both are inadequate and antiquated (as our Innovation Economics friends point out here), you got the idea that both sides were trying to get to the same place: low (or full) employment, high wages, a competitive economy, etc. Even the Republican Revolution of 1994, with their smaller government obsession, was claiming that THEIR WAY was the best way to help the poor, etc.

Not so with the Tea Party. Their focus is on small government, lower taxes and a free market--not because of what it will produce (aside from more "freedom") but just because! Dick Army has cynically (and skillfully) taken advantage of decades-long frustration and fear among many Americans over, essentially, globalization to support the political agenda of the most reactionary part of the US elite.

Short term, I think this will be good for the Democrats in November. The DNC is developing a grassroots, neighborhood-based presence with OFA to bring out record numbers of Democrats to the polls in November (where we enjoy a statistical advantage). That and the Republican civil war (Tea Party Vs. Establishment) could (should?) translate into Democratic wins.

But long-term, the Tea Party movement is classic Fascism-on-the-rise: world-historical events, dramatically transforming politics and our economy (globalization, today, World Wars and the end of colonialism in the past); no effective response from mainstream parties; working people, united by a movement that channels only their fear, allied with the reactionary elites. The Tea Party movement fits all of this, and sometimes has the feel of a para-political group. Their language and imagery often have violent tones. Their "take back our government" language often skirts the line between democratic opposition and protest and advocating, essentially, a coup.

Combine this with the quasi-seditious language of right wing pundits, and the emergence of the "Oath Keepers" movement made up of current or former military preparing to disobey the president, and we've got all the pieces of a homegrown Fascism.

What happens in the future is entirely up to us. Much of it will depend on the strength of our democratic institutions. But most importantly, it will depend on the ability of a counter-movement to the Tea Party to arise on the left and the ability of this movement to articulate a positive, progressive vision that responds to the crisis in the global economy and the legitimate fears of many. This response needs to avoid fear-mongering, and short-term political pandering, and opt, instead for the articulation of a long-term, positive and inclusive alternative.