Friday, March 02, 2007

The Significance of Blogs

Blogs are nothing more than “publications” -- of any sort one can imagine it to be, which increasingly, is everything one can imagine being -- because there are no limits, except one’s own limitations. It is anyone’s ultimate freedom of expression -- which may be good or bad, depending on who one really is. One can’t fake “genius,” though one can pretend to be stupider than one really is -- which is always the bait of deception.

Nobody would willingly and knowingly take on an opponent superior to their own abilities -- but will not hesitate to look for lesser prey to exploit. For many people, that is their basic modus operandi. Those are people who do not run successful blogs -- or have successful human interactions of any sort, because they are inherently exploitative and manipulative -- which was the common currency of many, if not most of the human relationships of the past.

In recent times, people have come to a more enlightened view that it is desirable to "relate"to mutually beneficial advantage between peers -- which of course, transforms the world immediately to a better place, of greater trust and confidence. However, once one achieves that “utopian ideal,” a few will even consider the possibility of reaching the greatest intelligence possible in the universe beyond even their own “supreme” intelligence that they consider to be the standard of excellence.

That is where the fun really begins -- because quite obviously, all the intelligence in the world, is greater than any single intelligence in the world. Yet the conditioning of the past, was to train for each to compete -- against every other intelligence in this world, as our education and identity (ego). In fact, it was deliberately designed to make everyone cut themselves off from the “help” of all the others -- which was chastised in the classrooms as “cheating” -- and of course, one should never question the authority of the "teachers," in anything they said.

In this new age of information and communications, that paradigm is turned completely around, and the supreme intelligence is recognized as the one that can access all the others as though it were their own -- instead of cultivating all those capabilities themselves that would be too laborious and prohibitive even for the single greatest intelligence. So the skill that enables and empowers one, is the ability to easily distinguish extraordinary ability in another -- and others, rather than in the old paradigm, to compete against every other reflexively, thinking to dominate all others, as one's initial, basic response to any other.

In a world of universal participation and access, one doesn’t know if the other person may in fact be the world’s champion at what they do -- and are, and it would be foolish to presume that one was the standard of excellence in that area -- instead of first observing and assessing the skills of all the others.

The world champions in every field recognize that approach is their most productive “action,” rather than rising to the challenge of every claim of the “fastest gun” in the new frontier. People who don’t know who they are, and don’t really have a valid assessment of their skill level, are generally used to competing with others in the middle of the pack -- of no extraordinary ability and competence -- and are usually protected in that way from self-harm, which is their greatest danger.

The significance of blogs is that if one doesn’t know who they truly are, it’s a fairly (maybe the best there is at this time) easy way of finding out -- and that will be undoubtedly valuable in everything they subsequently do. It is a record of one’s own presence on this planet -- whatever one can make of it.


At March 02, 2007 4:36 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Somebody asked the question, "Who reads blogs?"

Write it as though God does.

At March 03, 2007 12:10 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

The "blogosphere is the intellectual infrastructure of civilization which a previous generation called the "collective" or "cosmic consciousness." It was the repository of all intelligence -- the greater part which is unknown but being discovered daily, in the living, writing, talking of it in each individual life.

Writing and reading have transcended to another level never thought possible before -- as the whole unfiltered by any group or individual wanting just what is known to be that which directly benefits themselves -- and not the whole universe of realities and possibilities.

Like the salespeople of the past, they try to sell you what they have, rather than what the customer really wants -- and then entrapping them in longterm, if not lifetime contracts.

That is the old mind and mentality that sought "control," as basically the only way they knew how to be -- for the approval of others, for the expectations of others, for the demands of others, for others.

Thus, each life in that way, has meaning only as a sacrifice for the others -- rather than the greatest service as a living example of how life can be, because it is actually lived that way -- and not just the hypocrisy of those living one way and talking about their "ideals," as though that was all that was required to fool everybody else.

At March 04, 2007 2:59 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

The problem many have in understanding “new media” is in thinking that it simply makes mass media available to all -- rather than that it allows for the development of personalized communications that can be optimized and then replicated easily -- on demand, as appropriate.

Mass communications now usually means poor communications -- in the thinking that if the audience is large enough, one or two surely must get the message -- and so there is this built in unaccountability. But if the only question is, “Do YOU get the message?”, then that question can be answered definitively by anyone -- which means there is inescapable accountability.

There are many who don’t know how to answer such a question, until they get the results of a poll or the study of everybody else -- to know what they too should think. That is the old mass media mentality -- that one doesn’t know how to think about anything, until the anchorman or newspaper editor tells him, and validates that reality for them.

Obviously, that command chain has broken down in the new age of information and communications, and one has to be able to determine for themselves -- what is credible information and sources, and what isn’t. Credibility is based on trust -- that one can count on what he is being told to be true, and if not, rather than arguing about it, one needs to spend the time and energy identifying trustworthy interactions -- rather than being at the mercy of untrustworthy ones.

In doing this, one develops a keen sense for identifying that 5% that is worth identifying -- in any concern. But unlike a previous age in which that was like finding a needle in a haystack, in the digital age, one simply makes the obvious determination of the 50%. Then 50% of that is 25%, then 50% of that is 12.5%, then 50% of that is 6.25%, and half of that is 3.125%. But all one has to do is not be able to locate the needle in the haystack, but make the easy, obviously determination. Is this in the proper 50% or not -- yes or no?

When they fail one test, the chances are high that they will fail another. Meanwhile, those who pass the first test, have a fairly good track record and prospect of succeeding at a subsequent. That is modern information processing -- that there is not a random chance of anything happening -- but increasing probabilities that events run true to form. This is a very important understanding that many people, especially those priding themselves on being fair-minded liberals, cannot accept -- which is the essential reality that randomness doesn’t just happen.

The reason we profile for “antisocial” behavior is because it doesn’t just happen one day out of nowhere -- but is denied until it breaks out in a particularly heinous atrocity someday when we are most vulnerable to it. “Terrorists” are not just peaceful, misunderstood people, who if trusted “enough,” will repay that trust like healthy people. Instead, they go on to abuse that trust as many times as one allows them to.

The definition of madness (lack of understanding) is to do the same thing over and over again, thinking in that mere persistence, the outcome will be different this time.

At March 04, 2007 3:23 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

What makes this new paradigm of information processing virtually infallible, is that in addition to making the 50% easy determination, memory and storage assures that which has previously been processed, doesn’t have to be reprocessed in the confusion -- many times over.

One solves the problem once -- and replicates the solution effortlessly each subsequent time, on demand, as appropriate.

What a lot of old minds still don’t get about blogs is that they think it is to be used only when expedient and then can be selectively purged when it becomes inconvenient to have around. In a previous time, only kings and pharaohs could have an enduring written record of their once having lived. Now that is possible for anyone -- and so fame, is already a leveled playing field.

The question is no longer if one is well known; the question is, what is one well known for?

At March 04, 2007 4:26 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

I don’t think it matters so much anymore whether one is left or right, conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican -- the great dividing lines of a previous generation. What matters is the clarity of thinking, writing, actions; that is what really matters. I can trust people who act in that clarity. But if one is confused, hopelessly partisan and biased, there is no right action, no matter how hard they try to seem politically correct, which is merely conformity to what others demand they think.

For many years, that was usually pronounced by the self-proclaimed superstars of the media business -- who then squelched everybody else, as their supreme freedom of expression. Now, when everybody has access to a forum, the balance of power and influence has shifted decisively and dramatically to those who are the most innovative -- rather than the most conformist. That’s a tremendous shift in the future of the world -- making many things possible that were formerly prohibitive.

Chief among them is the nature of politics. Blogs are not just useful for getting elected; it allows a whole new exercise of power and influence not possible before -- because it allows for direct representation, of that which in the past, used to be filtered out and suppressed -- by the media, the politicians, and most importantly, “other people’s opinions.” Other people like to propose their opinions as the only ones that matter -- especially over one’s own. They’ll presume to tell you how one should write, what books one should read, what is politically correct, what an educated liberal person ought to think.

These people have been conditioned all their lives to think what they have been rewarded and reinforced to think -- but think they are the first to know, rather than being the last to know -- because they rely on other people to tell them what to think. To be able to think for oneself -- is not the curriculum of the schools, and especially the public schools. There, one is told what to think, by the innumerable politically correct teachers who have been instructed that is what education is about.

Only those at the top get to think for themselves -- and so all one can do, is to get to the top -- and then one can tell everybody else what to think and do. It is all about bureaucracy and hierarchy -- and not the whole meaning and purpose of education. Most of what is taught in schools now don’t need to be taught any longer -- because the new implies the old, and is not the necessary prerequisite to know the new. One does not need to know the whole history of telephones and computers, to be able to operate the most modern version of them.

And that knowledge allows them to discover more than their teachers know -- every day! The sum of the known, is the Blog.

Yet some people are still asking, “How can I control it?” They haven’t a clue.

At March 09, 2007 9:47 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Shame On Conservatives

Nancy Morgan
March 9, 2007

One of the major differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are much more susceptible to group think. Most on the left are content to accept the prevailing leftist talking points as their own without questioning any of the intellectual underpinnings of said argument. (Think global warming..)

Conservatives, on the other hand, are more likely to rely on the substance and facts of a debate instead of drawing their conclusions based on 'consensus' and 'feelings'. At least that used to be so.

Enter Ann Coulter.

Author and commentator Bernie Goldberg, appearing on the Bill O'Reilly show, succinctly summed up the conservative reaction to Ann's recent speech at CPAC where she dared utter the word faggot. "She's giving the left ammunition to attack conservatives." Other conservatives have chimed in, also decrying Coulter's inelegant joke. For shame.

First of all, since when did leftists need a reason to attack conservatives? They'll attack for any real or imagined shortcomings and nothing we do or say will change that. My question is, since when have conservatives decided to play by the rules as outlined by the left?

Consider: Grey's Anatomy star, under politically correct pressure from the left, actually checked himself into rehab for having uttered the word 'faggot.' Hellooo out there. Is this absurd reaction now deemed to be acceptable?

Has the left been so successful in imposing its' politically correct agenda that they now have full rein to tell one and all what words are acceptable??? And the ability to impose 'punishment' for daring to stray off the ever narrowing language plantation?

The most effective way to point out the complete absurdities of the left is with humor and satire. As I see it, Ann scored a twofer. That it fell flat merely shows that she is not 100% effective, 100% of the time.

For conservatives to start eating one of their own is exactly what the left wants. It proves that they are right in their absurd concentration on 'feelings' (as opposed to, say, national security) It proves that the left is indeed, controlling the agenda. And he who controls the agenda, wins.

I can understand the need for presidential candidates to do a little dance as a sop to supposed 'consensus' feelings (voters), but I'm disappointed that other conservatives have so readily adopted the spin, as defined by the left, that Ann crossed the line, is no longer credible, did it only for PR purposes etc, etc. Au contraire.

Ann is one of a handful of people who have the guts and the ability to say exactly what she feels. I admire this no end, and try to emulate it. She doesn't allow the left to set the rules of discourse. She has complete command of her facts and uses humor and satire as a most effective sword against the legions of useful idiots who would never dare think or feel anything that hasn't been validated by the current leftist orthodoxy.

There are hefty penalties involved for violating the arbitrary, ever changing 'rules' that have quietly started to shape our behaviors. Being left out of 'polite society' (as defined by the left) is enough to keep most useful idiots on the straight and narrow. To me, it is reminiscent of the famous 'show trials' in the Soviet Union, where it was actually a matter of survival to swallow whole, without thinking, whatever the 'elites' deemed acceptable.Where comrades were forced to condemn their fellows in order to maintain their membership in the pack. Which is what conservatives appear to be doing now.

Good for Ann, for having the courage to be herself. Good for her to for having enough confidence in herself that she has no need to pander for approval. Good for her for being consistent, articulate (am I allowed to say that?) passionate and a true individualist. Good for her for risking, every day, making just such a misstep and being made to appear foolish. Think of how many of us decline all risk, decline controversy so as not to incite the ire of the left. So as not to risk appearing foolish.

It's high time the left is told "We will not play by your rules. They are stupid and ridiculous and I will not be constrained merely because you have decided what words are or are not acceptable. I DON'T AGREE"

The fact that Ann can withstand the storms and still be effective in relaying basic truths gives me hope that one day I will be able to be successful in doing the same. She is a true individualist and an excellent role model. Conservatives should stand behind her instead of pandering to the phony, manufactured 'outrage' ginned up by leftists who seek to make their ridiculous standards and goals de facto.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending Ann. She has no need of defense, as she herself has shown in the aftermath of this 'non-scandal.' I'm defending every American's right to present their own views in their own ways, not just by the so-called socially acceptable ways. I'm defending the right of every American to tell the truth, voice an opinion, or relay their views without having to do so within the confines the left has declared. The left does not and will not define me. I will not play by their rules. And neither does Ann Coulter, which is probably why they hate her so much.

At March 10, 2007 11:00 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Who's a Journalist These Days?
Journalists with the "Big Ego disease" often point at bloggers and other people without press passes and accuse them of not being "real journalists." But bloggers who provide analysis about newsworthy events are journalists.

By Mark A. Phillips

(March 09, 2007) -- Who is a journalist? It depends on who you ask, but if you start pointing fingers accusing someone of not being a journalist, you may be suffering from a very common affliction.

Columnist Debra J. Saunders believes someone who doesn't work for a news organization or doesn't answer to editors isn't a journalist. In her Feb. 27 column in the San Francisco Chronicle, Saunders said, "a camera and a Web site do not a journalist make" in reference to Josh Wolf, a self-described blogger and activist who videotaped a violent protest in San Francisco.

A portion of the videotape was sold to a television station. Wolf, 24, has spent more than six months in jail for refusing to hand over the full-length tape. Saunders' beef is that news agencies are describing Wolf as a "journalist" and that Wolf simply doesn't fit the bill. I'm not actually here to argue the merits of the Wolf case, but to examine the feeling by many journalists that they alone get to decide who is and who isn't a journalist.

My suggestion for Saunders and others who believe they know who "real journalists" are: Get over it.

People other than traditional journalists can indeed do the work of the press. Sure, Wolf does not work for a news agency. He doesn't carry a press pass. The reality is that defining a journalist by the very narrow scope Saunders chooses to use is a symptom of the greater illness that plagues many, what I call "traditional" journalists. It's called Big Ego.

Big Ego comes in many forms, but the most common symptom is the belief that journalists are really important people. Journalists with this disease often point at bloggers and other people without press passes and accuse them of not being "real journalists". But bloggers who provide analysis about newsworthy events are journalists.

I believe Big Ego and being territorial lead traditional journalists to believe anyone else doing work like their own must be an imposter. It's a matter of self-preservation: Traditional journalists feel threatened that someone – especially without training but the right tools, such as a cell phone – is able to perform a duty eerily similar to their own.

It's why news organizations go to great lengths to make a clear distinction between what they do and what other people do.

The term "citizen journalist?" It means: "they're doing stuff like us, but they're not real."

"Student journalist?" Translation: "They're doing work much like they'll do when they're all grown up, but they're not 'real' journalists."

Why would traditional journalists want to cure themselves of this Big Ego problem? Simple. They'll be better journalists. They'll be able to better interact with and understand "the little people" (i.e. readers, listeners, and viewers.) Getting rid of Big Ego will help bridge the divide between traditional news organizations and the public.

Why, after all, do you think avenues like blogs and alternative news sites on the Web have flourished? Because people don't think their voice is being heard through the traditional media.

Many traditional journalists probably think Matt Drudge is an imposter. Through his Drudge Report, Drudge links to stories around the Web and posts some original reporting on his site.

His site receives a staggering amount of Web traffic -- more than 14 million unique visitors on most days, and nearly 4.3 billion in the past year. The reason? People depend on his site as a source of news and information.

I'd say that means he's a journalist. Most news organizations would kill for even a sliver of his traffic. But he doesn't work for a news agency. He doesn't have an editor he reports to. He has no press pass that I'm aware of.

There are some new rules in the 21st century and abiding by them will not only help traditional journalists do their jobs better, but perhaps make them think in new ways and hopefully, keep the dreaded Big Ego disease at bay:

-- Bloggers, especially those who comment on newsworthy and current affairs, are journalists. It's a legitimate form of journalism. That's why newspapers across the country have adopted blogs on their own sites. Many newspaper utilize blogs as a way to update readers on news throughout the day, before updated stories appear in print.

-- You no longer need a "press pass" to be a journalist.

-- Someone with a camera phone in the right place at the right time who is witness to an incredible event can do the work of a journalist. But it's nothing to be afraid of. It's something news organizations must continue to tap into.

-- Traditional journalists don't get to decide who's a "real journalist" anymore.

Mark A. Phillips ( was formerly editor-in-chief for Boston Metro and assistant city editor for The Repository in Canton, Ohio. He operates LP NewMedia LLC, a media consulting company. He can be reached directly at


Post a Comment

<< Home