Chris Sacca's 'What is left?'

Intoxicating Biodiversity

I had an amazing opportunity this past week to sample wines from Ceago Vinegarden, a recent project from Jim Fetzer. Freshly liberated from the binds of an eight-year non-compete conditioning imposed upon the sale of the family business, Jim has launched into a new venture producing retail-accessible wine from an organic/biodynamic environment. In speaking with him, Jim noted that while going the chemical-free route requires a little more upfront capital investment, over the long-term, the operating costs are competitive. The wine was certainly delicious, but I like even more hearing that responsible farming methods are increasingly economically feasible. Keep your ears open for developments on Jim's newest project, Ceago del Lago.

I will gladly pay you Tuesday, for a Gmail . . .

By now most have read about the market for Gmail accounts arising during the beta testing phase while addresses are not generally available. GmailSwap.com takes it one step further establishing a unique bartering community for the pursuit of the coveted address.

Re-Bloggered

The hepcats on the Blogger team just relaunched the definitive brand in the business tonight. With a host of new features (including comments!) and some kickass new templates from legit designers, I want to wish congrats to the team.

To get a closer look at what they have cooked up for you, read Biz's introductory essay . In the meantime, visit the front page and pull the trigger on a swanky new blog.

Democracy demands absolutes

In the days following September 1th, 2001, my personal philosophies were still smarting with the pain of the attacks. With the kind of clarity that only vengefulness can produce, I began to think about issues surrounding our interrogation techniques of those detained in connection with the attacks, no matter how remote their links.

As a moral relativist, particularly with three thousand no-longer-hypothetical corpses weighing on the balance, it seemed to me that the use or threat of torture with specific detainees would be justified. After all, if one person held the key to saving the lives of thousands, and extreme methods may reveal that information to us, why shouldn't we suspend that person's rights for the greater good? And, why then couldn't we extend that thinking to small groups/cells of bad guys? You place a higher value on the rights of five non-citizens than on the rights of their thousands of potential victims?

As the shock wore off, my thoughts matured to consider the futility of such a distinction and how self-destructive such a course could be. The Bush administration helped me by very publicly blurring the lines between terrorists, enemy combatants, lawful detainees, material witnesses, and myriad other questionable classifications. Their Patriot Act tore out 50% of the pages from my law school constitutional studies texts with brazenness we could not have imagined. Each action taken drew these issues from the academic realm into unavoidable and stinging presence.

Now as our eyes are seared by the images of men and women tortured in American custody, any shred of me clinging to the idea that there were justified uses of violence and physical coercion now feels like a betrayal of democracy. Relativism has no place in the sphere of human rights. I feel weak that I needed such graphic imagery and horrible testimony to fully conclude this, but I now have no doubt at all.

Take a minute to read this article from Slate detailing a chronology of self-serving statements by the administration concerning Saddam's torture, and our disgusting emulation of his worst.

We all must ensure this never happens again.