ok ... i think i am begining to understand how fearful you are. i mean this without sarcasm ... it must feel difficult to have the life you want/deserve (i deserve, we deserve) with such fears. it's true, facebook is doing something uncool ... and if i cared about it as a service ... or perhaps considered it as indispensable as a road ... i might feel some level of alarm. luckily i don't. fighting the good fight against corporate invasions of privacy ... or worse yet ... government invasions of privacy is a valiant & honorable pursuit. i do humbly submit, though, that fear can distort one's perspective of reality. these things you listed in your comment that you fear will occur are not occuring. and facebook telling it's membership they want to make money through them should be no suprise: there's no free lunch, or free social networking site. this isn't world-war three ... and there are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq. i submit that we live in a culture of fear, and i respectfully suggest that your tones /might/ be adding to this. i agree with your premise ... privacy needs to be protected. but i also agree that america should be kept safe from terrorists ... however, the fear-induced hysteria that leads us down a path of a possible war with iran, for killing or maiming thousands of american soldiers or iraqis ... this is the problem: fears have us over-reacting and therefore make the "problems" worse. i think all of us could benefit from taking a deep breath and trying to see what is really happening around us. so, in this case ... facebook is announcing something that you don't like as a consumer of their product. don't buy it.

you're right ... service ... overall (in my opinion) does suck. or ... you have to pay a premuim for it. like here. you can read salon writer's for free ... by looking at an ad for whatever.com ... for you can pay $45 bucks to skip all the ads. or with tv ... pay some money to buy a tivo to skip over tha ads. capitalism ... sigh. it requires expanding markets.

:)

... and that is telling.

what a weird thing to say.

Go Blue.

Villifying straight male sexuality is sexism.

First off, I like the "Incurious George" joke.

But ... parading Clinton talking points about how voting "present" demonstrates Obama's inability to make a stand on issues is pure bullshit. It's similar to trumpeting "Obama is a Muslim," Joan, and it's fairly uncool of you.

This blog from The Chicago Trib debunks this whole ridiculousness:

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/12/disparagement-o.html

And, Obama missing the Kyl-Lieberman vote was (I imagine) a very calculated measure since on key votes prior to that (ie, Iraq war funding) Clinton always voted after Obama, mirroring his votes. He had to find a differentiation since she was playing political games. So, her tactic on this is right out of Rove's playbook ... accuse the enemy of exactly the issue you are guilty of ... in this case Clinton has no real "stand" on issues ... she merely triagulates it based on poll data.

well, perhaps i am being uncool ... but it's my experience that joan's blog coverage tends towards a pro-hillary standpoint. i recall her addressing this as not necessarily the case in past posts, and i believe her. i don't think she is, and never called her, a bigot. nonetheless, i made my point because i felt it valid.

that point is this, and you you make it for me by writing: "But how many people would actually know the wonky reasoning behind those "present" votes without looking it up?" exactly, man. passing on talking points is shodding journalism. for example, there was wide coverage about the wapo "reporting" on "rumors" of obama being a muslim. they did not write that these claims were untrue. joan's post is "similar" (ie, not "exactly the same") because all she writes to address the issue is "Camp Hillary is making lemonade out of lemons, and trying to use the issue to highlight Obama's unfortunate history of missing key votes on divisive controversies, or merely voting "present," going back to his time in the Illinois Senate." she /should/ have included more substance about why this is an invented controversy ... just as wapo should have.

"itchy and disgruntled" don't feel accurate to me about how or why i wrote this, brother. you words ratched up the personal-ness of this ... which i think is uncool of you, friend.

i've read brightstar's posts in the past, and i generally find them to be (unconsciously?) designed to illicit strong reactions. maybe this is fun ... i wouldn't want to guess.

but ... in this case he might have a point ... and it's just as true that A.O. Scott might have a point.

what i find odd ... and honestly distressing ... is the tendancy for the point-makers (of all sorts) to fail to acknowledge the possibile validity of views that challenge theirs. this tends to prompt vitriolic posts, and vitrolic counter-posts. and i think it's all a waste of time. i also think that this black-and-white style of thinking ... actually harms us all in ways that we (likely) can agree on. the trouble is, many do not see this at all.

i might add this ... don't send them a g(oogle)-mail. i am much more concerned about google and their information screening (through searches), and data capturing mechanisms:

austrialian documentary Google: Behind the screen is very impressive about these issues.

(you can download here ... http://www.guba.com/watch/2000796349?fields=8&pp=5&query=-2087374508&o=0)

see also:

http://www.privacy.org/archives/002133.html#002133

http://www.privacy.org/archives/002025.html#002025

http://www.privacy.org/archives/002014.html#002014

and farhad, i only see only one post from you about this when i clicked on your "google" post category, here:

http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/06/12/google_search_logs/index.html

i wish you'd write more about it. this has more pervasive importance than this facebook issue ... which is also important.