Re: job
Subject: Re: job
From: Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com>
Date: 8/23/10, 01:00
To: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>

Hi, I apologize for not responding to e-mails this weekend--I was on the road,  went to the Indiana Dunes on Saturday (nearby destination for Chicagoans), stayed late and so  opted for an unplanned sleep-over on host’s sofa, etc etc.

RE: Job in NYC--
Looking at what Big Think does, I can not see that having been associated with them would reduce your credibility in subsequent endeavors.
It would be great to get back to NYC (where you belong, yes?) if they pay enough to live in a decent place and if they have enough financial depth that you can rely on them to keep paying you throughout the life of an apartment lease.
Great opportunity to connect with distinguished people.
On the other hand, if you have opportunities to write and get paid more than tokenly--your writing is the main event.
I do not doubt that you could do the job and write, too--you already work hours that are the equivalent of at least two jobs, is my impression.

Having a manager--this makes sense to me, not just to prioritize tasks, manage deadlines, keep track of money, etc.  but also to maintain files of research material to inform your writing projects.

Funding charitable work out of your earnings: My view is that this can wait.  In fact, if Project PM goes into slower-development mode while you do things to establish yourself, nobody is going to feel let down.

RE: Assange--based on the little amount of time I was online this weekend, looked as if the NYT picked it up from Reuters not too long after you e-mailed it to me and within hours the world was thinking “set-up?”

RE: CSI article--very difficult to reconcile a speed-of-light viral world event like Assange/Wikileaks with Morozov’s offhand dismissive statements.  Some things are happening that are new and desirable. 

With regard his to arguments from impressions and anecdote, I then wondered what kinds of methodical analyses of internet phenomena are being done.  It looks as if there is a developing academic industry of studying the internet--you can major in internet studies at Appalachian State, minor in it at Brandeis, help Pacific University get their academic internet studies journal in shape, or be a critical reader.   Pew is sponsoring research, too.  The point being, there is a growing body of formal research about the internet, which looks to be of varying quality, so Morozov could have consulted some of this material, if he cared.  

The Appalachian State page has a list of useful links down near the bottom.

I liked the CSI article: the following was really wonderful:

The Internet will continue in its rapid evolution; the world in turn will be tugged along in the wake of its influence, and the means of human collaboration will continue to multiply just as they have for the last decade and a half-which is to say, orders of magnitude faster than ever before in human history in an environment of fast-increasing social complexity. We have barely received a taste of the phenomena with which we and our very dictators will be confronted in the coming years.

So yes, include in the next book--(and, writing sentences like that is a higher calling than editing videos.)

Getting more specific: In addition to your criticism of his logic, if we remove Morozov's caricatures (internet Utopians) and hyperbolic references to claims that nobody ever made (overnight transformational political power shifts), and re-cast his argument in its best possible terms, I guess Morozov is saying that communication tools empower human nature, and if your premise is that human nature is hopelessly malign, then the tool will be necessarily applied to facilitating trade in rhino horns, spreading fear and misinformation, stirring up rabble. 

But if knowledge of truth is in most circumstances more desirable than secrecy and if talking to our co-earth dwellers is preferable living bunkered, then an open forum ought to be a driver of desirable political change, incrementally, slowly. But Morozov's concept of human nature leads him to see the forum as just a new channel for marketing, entertainment, and feral behavior.

So if your arguments require you to confess a limitedly favorable concept of intrinsic human inclinations, that's okay, isn't it?







On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, that was a quick turnaround; charges dropped. Just had a long conversation with Eisler about the whole thing, his first impression is that it was an intel operation done incompetently and perhaps with undue haste. We'll see what comes out today. Also, my latest Skeptical Inquirer piece is up; let me know what you think about it in terms of specific arguments, as I may integrate it into next book.

I think I've decided against working for Big Think.


On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&act=url&u=http://www.expressen.se/Nyheter/1.2104976/wikileaks-grundare-anhallen-for-valdtakt&sl=sv&tl=en

Unless this is a hoax and the Swedish government is not actually seeking Assange on rape charges, the entire calculation is changed in terms of what we need to be doing. Other sources do seem to indicate that this is the case, that Sweden is actually instigating these charges.

I'm sorry to be vague; I'll speak to you further soon.


On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com> wrote:
I wrote an answer to this but discarded it; I want to look at what Big Think does some more.

Meanwhile, it looks as if they are a pretty small organization, which would make it likely that they place high demands on their employees. I think Mintz knows how to access financial information about them, if you don't mind asking him.  One danger of working for a small non profit is that they can run out of money suddenly and you are stuck with a lease in NYC.  This one is funded by some big name donors, so probably not a problem.

I will write more later this weekend.






On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
I need some advice. Big Think is looking at hiring me as an associate editor, full-time, back in NYC. This would still allow me to have the time to work on projects - especially since I wouldn't have to do anything else at all except for pursuing our objectives - and I don't see anything ethically wrong with the outlet, but I was hoping you could help me make sure that I'm not missing something.

Meanwhile, Robert Green seems intent on doing the web show or even possibly developing a television show. He seems to have the resources I would need to do such a thing right. He's also asking for me to write more sketches for Funny or Die, which is run by Adam McKay and Will Farrell. I've already helped him out with one but it was his premise; I've got script ideas that, executed with his resources, would almost certainly gain me attention from that crowd (they know who I am now, and Green is running around telling everyone about me just as Eisler is).

With the money from the associate editor position and my long practice at living without money, I could afford to jump start everything, hire  someone to, frankly, manage my affairs and ensure that things I'd get done if I were more disciplined actually get done, as well as finance the Africa project, not to mention meet people with wealth and influence, both via Big Think and Green and Funny or Die etc. 

Anyway, the Big Think thing is preliminary at this point and may not pan out, and maybe shouldn't, but I wanted to ask your opinion before I even start really thinking about it.

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302




--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302



--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302