|
 Thursday, May 16, 2002
Doc Searls asks:
 what's the opposite of the "tragedgy of the commons"? "Comedy of the commons?" Doesn't seem right. 
My girlfriend and I were talking about this just yesterday. It seems to me that when we talk about the fact that the commons are disappearing (whether we're talking about the world of nature, creative expression, software, or whatever), we really are talking about a tragedy. The phrase "Tragedy of the Commons" was originally coined to defend private property and restricted access to resources in order to save those resources for future use; when people like Larry Lessig use the term today, they're talking about the same thing -- the tragedy that results when people cannot use resources for some reason. The difference is that today's tragedy of the commons is the result of excessive protections of private property. Restrictions and regulations have gone too far, and now they need to swing back the other way. A lot. 10:34:40 PM 
|
|
|
From the aggregator: Pre-Attack Memo Cited Bin Laden. An F.B.I. memo written last summer urging bureau headquarters to investigate Middle Eastern men enrolled in U.S. flight schools also cited bin Laden by name. By David Johnston. [New York Times: NYT HomePage]
I missed this yesterday, but it's certainly on topic today. James Ridgeway has already made some good suggestions about what Bush and Co. could (and probably should) have done in response to this information.
I hear Rumsfeld and Cheney are saying it's irresponsible (in time of war!) to suggest that the Sept. 11 attacks could have been prevented. I agree (except with the time of war part). The point is not whether the attacks could have been prevented. The point is that we need to learn as much as possible about what was and wasn't known prior to the attacks, and what was and was not done with that information -- all so we can have a better chance of preventing something like this the next time. 9:43:46 PM
|
|
|
Weblogs Watcher: This Radio tool will give you automatic access to the most recently-updated blogs from weblogs.com. 9:14:01 PM
|
|
|
Who knew? Russ Kick, editor of Alternewswire, links to Unheeded Warnings, a report from Newsweek which
presents the words you never thought you'd see in the mainstream media: "There are doubts concerning the FBI's insistence that it had no advance warning about the deadly 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center."
This is not entirely new; as Kick points out in another article, reports circulated almost immediately after Sept. 11 that the FBI and others had been suspecting something. However, this is more damning than anything yet.
And what's the value of findiing out if government officials had advance warning but did not tell us about it? What's the value of tracing Bush's connections and negotiations with the Taliban and oil and pipelines through Afghanistan? Is it all just to make Bush look bad so the Dems will get more seats in Congress this fall? I can see lots of more valuable reasons. Even if you love Bush, wouldn't you like to know if his administration is willing to sacrifice your life and the lives of thousands of New Yorkers (not to mention the troops he's sending into "battle") for the sake of oil and global power? I would like to know that. In fact, I do know that. Perhaps information like this will help other people learn this lesson and motivate them to work to change politics (and business) as usual in our country. I hope. 1:58:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
