And it took place two years ago at the D: All Things Digital conference in Carlsbad.

The look on Bill Gates' face as I dashed by was pretty funny, but frankly I was more consumed with snaring my Blackberry back from the clutches of Chris Shipley.

While the moment may have been humorous, the truth is that I'm not alone in this desperate connection to the digital deities.

Yes, it seems that there's yet another report stating - and I'll paraphrase here - that overly enthusiastic text messaging is a sign of mental disorder.

I have one thing to say about that.

But you can read about it on my Twitter feed.

The session in which I'm sitting now is entitled "Knowing the Audience: Improving Communication Between Artists and Fans". The panelists - besides the always entertaining Vinvin of Seesmic include Ron Bloom, the CEO of Podshow, Steven Stokols of WooMe and a few others whose names I didn't catch (and who aren't in the program).

The sense of the discussion is simple - social media is a powerful weapon in the arsenal for communicating between artists and their fans/audience.

Vinvin just made a point that most of the folks had missed. The internet enables you to go global from the get-go. It's about not limiting yourself from the perspective of creating the content (collaboration internationally like Deek Deekster is doing with his Rise and Shine project.

Marshall Macluhan would have LOVED this.

You know how everyone talks about the fact that it's a small world? That's especially true in Silicon Valley and even more so when you consider an event that has a hard core posse of media, VC and entrepreneurial alumni who attend year in and year out.

But even with the rather tightly knit community that is the world of technology in the US, each gathering brings some new faces - as well as faces from the distant past.

This past week in Palm Desert one such long lost connection resurfaced in a rather strange way.

I was standing by the Seesmic booth during the open exhibit hall time, when one of the DEMO staff came by to learn more about our company. I was mid-way through the demonstration when another woman approached, walked directly up to the woman with whom I was speaking and proceeded to talk with her as if I wasn't standing there.

Under normal circumstances, I'd be a bit put out by someone so rudely interrupting a conversation - especially one that was so clearly deeply engaged and business-focused. But the woman was with another demonstrator and the woman with whom I was speaking was part of the conference staff PR team, and so I figured it was something urgent.

I was wrong.

The PR woman with whom I'd been speaking, looking as though she felt quite awkward and wanting to do the polite thing, gently interrupted the interloper and said, "Do you know Cathy from Seesmic?"

At that point the woman turned to me. To be honest, her face didn't even ring a distant campanile. Thankfully there was a bold name tag nearby.

"Hmmm," I thought to myself. "." (I'm opting to avoid naming her directly. Just because she was rude to me doesn't mean that I have to follow suit. Though the temptation to name her is quite powerful.)

Sounded familiar, and I knew we knew each other somehow, but I was having trouble placing the precise when and where.

That's when she turned and spoke - this time including me in the conversation.

"Of COURSE I know Cathy. We worked together at XXXXX ... Gosh what was that? About 15 years ago?"

Her vocal pitch was slightly pinched and racing, bringing to mind an over-caffeinated greyhound. Come to think of it, that's kind of how she appeared.

And then it hit me and I recalled our working together. And I remembered why I had blocked her out.

"Actually it was closer to 18 years ago," I said - rather softly for my usual tone.

She then let out a raw-edged cackle that I think she thought was a laugh, and she added: "Boy were you a pain in the ass. I mean, wow."

Now, the truth of the matter is that 18 years ago, I was a pain in the ass. And depending on who you ask, there are some folks today who might say that I still am. Though today's characteristics are more saturated by dogged determination and occasional obstinance; and back then I was relatively fresh Northwestern University graduate, cocksure and temperamental - partly due to youthful inexperience and partly due to the fact that I just wasn't all that certain yet of who I was.

But the story of my personal evolution is a story for another day. This tale relates more to the fact that some of us actually recognize our shortcomings and spend the time doing the work to fix them.

And then there are those who don't.

Back in those days, even with my relatively tender years, and even with the myriad personality traits that permeated my life at the time, I quite clearly recalled the insidious, backstabbing and downright reprehensible behavior of this particular woman and her cronies. I make no excuses for errors I've made in my career (actually those missteps have often been the source of my greatest learning and therefore ultimately my most powerful growth), but there have been moments along my professional path when I have encountered people whose thoroughly inexcusable behavior served as a cold reality check that in this world the assholes sometimes do win - or at least make playing the game miserable for those around them.

As I stood there, thinking about how this woman had contributed considerably to a rather miserable time in my life, I came to another conclusion. She hadn't changed a bit. She was still insipid and catty. But I was no longer the kind of inexperienced, insecure weakling that would cave in front of her or, even worse, that would stoop to her level and fire back some nasty comment based on the rude statement she had made.

That felt pretty damn good.

I've been working on the program for LeWeb3 since July. That's right around the time that Loic Le Meur and I began sketching out the program and developing our wish list of speakers.

It took a couple of months to hammer out what would then become our first real conference agenda, but by the end of September all the emails, lists and stacks of 3 X 5 cards had changed into a jam-packed program filled with notable names like Hans Rosling, Philippe Starck, Joi Ito, Jason Calacanis and many others.

Of course then things changed again. Names left the list (though all of those noted above are still appearing), and new ones came on board.

I'd have to say that from late October through all of November the pressure was high. This was the time when people who'd been on our list and who had failed to reply to any emails or calls seemed to come out of the woodwork - in some cases with rather high expectations that they would just be put into the program because we'd expressed interest.

It took some very fancy scheduling, but I managed to orchestrate our program so that we were able to include pretty much every one of them - even a few of the extremely late reponders.

I equate this effort with the Herculean task of fitting the luggage of five people into a rather small, four-door Toyota - an experience I had last March while in Israel attending Kinnernet.

At least with the LeWeb3 effort I didn't break a nail.

So what of the nervous butterflies I mentioned? Simple really. I'd thought that the last couple of months were the stressful time for me, and that as with other events I've produced that when it came to the point for show time I'd be calm and collected.

And I was - until this morning.

Suddenly I've awakened with the flapping wings of pterodactyls in my stomach.

I'm hoping it's just because I'm hungry for a fresh pain au chocolat ... and that once I get underway with the day things will calm down.

... a friend of mine is actually on his way to the White House (yes THAT White House) to meet with President George W. Bush. He Twittered a few moments ago asking friends for questions to ask the President. I found myself frothing with fury as I remember some little facts.

This Administration has the lowest approval rating of any in American history - and that includes Richard Nixon and his cronies.

We're stuck with seeming permanence in a war that was started in the wrong place, on false pretense and now shows no sign of completion.

The entire world hates us (or at least the nations with a spine do).

Our environment has been raped with no sign that we can protect it.

Our civil liberties have been eroded to the point that some say we don't even have them any more.

The economy is in the crapper and now OPEC is talking about pricing oil in the Euro.

What would I ask George Bush?

Perhaps safest to stick with a topic that won't get me thrown to the ground by Secret Service and sent to Guantanamo.

I'd ask how the planning is going for his daughter's wedding.

In the spotty reports served up by any number of on-line and traditional media outlets, one fact seems clear - the girls were both depressed. By some accounts it was the elder Rachel, Crites, who suffered more from a dark mental state and Rachel Smith, two years her junior, was her "guardian angel".

Rachel Crites father was quoted in the Washington Post story has having found his daughter's diary and being disturbed with one of the entries that read:

"Wherever I end up laying, whether buried or cremated, I want to stay with my true love, buried next to her," it said. "This is my choice. I'm sorry."

In the paper yesterday (yes I actually read a real, hard copy newspaper), the diary entry was quoted but failed to mention any gender.

My immediate reaction was that these were two girls who were in love, the families disapproved and in a sad gesture of forbidden love, the two ran off and committed suicide rather than be separated.

I cannot even begin to imagine the emotional evisceration plaguing both of these families right now. Whether or not my scenario rings true, I'm certain that they loved their kids and did not wish for anything like this to happen.

But if I'm right, and this is the plot line that played out in the idyllic, tree-lined streets of this East Coast suburban community, I would say this should serve as a lesson to any parent out there whose child may be struggling with the torture of sexual identity in those ever-so-traumatic teen years.

Love your children. No matter what. You may not agree with their choices. You may not condone a lifestyle they choose. But if you love them, truly love them, then that's what you'll do regardless of how their sexual identity may play out.

Being gay isn't a choice. I can say this from my own experience. The only choice is whether or not you elect to embrace who you are. Trust me. If I had the option to experience happiness and fulfillment in a heterosexual relationship - I sure as hell would. Being a lesbian - even in the gay mecca of San Francisco - isn't easy. But I have chosen to embrace who I am, and damn the consequences.

I'm lucky. My realization and acceptance came as an adult when I already had control of my life. And in spite of my family's refusal to accept (or even acknowledge) who I am and who I choose to love, I am able to stand strong and stand tall as a powerful woman - one who happens to be gay.

These teens - at least Rachel Crites - didn't have that option. I'm guessing that as the days go forward we will learn more about this scenario.

I'm just hoping I don't see it on television any time soon.

I was about 14 years old at the time and working at a radio station in downtown Philadelphia as a desk assistant. This meant that I was the lowest rung on the ladder and as such handled things like ripping wire copy, running scripts into the studio, labeling the tapes that we used to run stories on the air, and in the case of this particular newsroom it meant that I also bore the brunt of the terror from a particular editor who ruled the shift when I worked.

This editor was the meanest son of a bitch you'd ever want to meet. His usual volume of conversation was yelling and every other word out of his mouth was one four letter word or another.

For a teenage kid who grew up in a rather polite, middle-class, suburban, household, this was tough to deal with - especially when the profanity and yelling turned on me. No one was immune to his yelling, though the seasoned newsroom veterans were generally immune to his behavior, merely mirroring his profanity and anger with their own.

I used to come home crying, until one day my father said to me: "Cathy, sometimes you need to speak to people in a language they understand. It doesn't mean that it's right. It doesn't mean that you're condoning it. It doesn't mean that it's the way you should speak to others. But sometimes, in order to catch someone's attention and to show them that you will stand your ground and be strong, it means playing their game just briefly."

Not too long after I was at work. I had gone in a bit early and so was there well before my shift started. This editor found something wrong with the way copy had been filed, and when he turned around to the door of the wire room, he saw me. And he started screaming. Frankly I don't recall exactly what he said, but I do remember that everyone in the newsroom was looking. And I do remember that instead of my usual cowering, that I felt pissed.

I remembered my father's words. Pulling myself up as tall as I could and taking a deep breath, I let him have it. I called him names that I'd heard in movies and on TV and that I'd maybe uttered to myself but never to another person - let alone an adult and in public. I stood my ground. I stood up for myself. And after verbally eviscerating him, I turned on my heels and went into the bathroom where I promptly sat down on the floor in one of the stalls and began to cry. I figured that I'd be fired for sure.

After a few minutes I gathered myself, splashed some water on my face and went back into the newsroom.

I didn't get fired. As a matter of fact, when I returned, others in the newsroom gave me a thumbs up or smiled. And from that day forward, the editor was nice to me.

I don't believe that perpetuating violence and aggression is the answer, but I do believe that there are people in this world who are just wired wrong. And I do believe that in some cases we must speak the language they understand because there is no other way that they will listen and no other action that will stop them from continuing to terrorize others.

There may be some people in this world who mourn the death of Saddam Hussein. I don't. I'm only sorry that it didn't happen more quickly.

Here's a snippet of the piece from today's Washington Post:

Pundits Renounce The President
Among Conservative Voices, Discord

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; Page A04

For 10 minutes, the talk show host grilled his guests about whether "George Bush's mental weakness is damaging America's credibility at home and abroad." For 10 minutes, the caption across the bottom of the television screen read, "IS BUSH AN 'IDIOT?"

But the host was no liberal media elitist. It was Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman turned MSNBC political pundit. And his answer to the captioned question was hardly "no." While other presidents have been called stupid, Scarborough said: "I think George Bush is in a league by himself. I don't think he has the intellectual depth as these other people."

For the whole article you can click here.

What does this mean?

Simple.

They realize that to continue supporting a man whose fundamentalist behavior compounded by a serious dearth of intelligence may well be a poor choice to lead the country.

Now there's a case of overstating the obvious.

My question is whether we're too late or if perhaps this merely means that the foppish Democrats will actually gain some momentum and have the chance to take back some ground this Fall.

It's not that I feel the Democrats are any better, mind you. Call me crazy (which you may) but I prefer having a democracy where there's actually a balance of power.

As long as I can remember, when asked, "What do you do?" My response has been, "I'm a journalist." My reason is simple - I have extensive education, training and substantial hands-on experience working as a member of the media. My degree is from a journalism school. My name has appeared on actual mastheads of publications, on-line outlets and in the credits of radio and television programming.

But does any of this really matter?

I've been thinking about it, and have decided that while the semantics may be a waste of time the principle behind the discussion matters quite a bit.

The truth is that the democratization of media has enabled just about anyone to create and distribute information. This is good. Very good. But just because someone has a Web site and writes "articles" they should not be considered a journalist. And just because someone has a Web site where they post information, they shouldn't be called a blogger.

It reminds me of geometry class. A square is always a rectangle. But a rectangle isn't always a square. There are journalists who are bloggers, but not all bloggers are journalists.

What's the difference? It's about the method and practice behind the work. It's not about the platform being used. In other words, it doesn't matter how I'm posting and distributing the content. What matters is the intelligence (and I'm not talking about pure smarts here, I'm talking about understanding of what real journalism is) that goes into creating the information in the first place.

So what am I?

A rhombus.

As I've written in previous entries on this site, I loosened the shackles of Corporate America back in November of last year. After taking some time to decompress, I found myself eyeing a return to media - something I'd been talking about for ages.

So when two of my friends approached me and asked if I'd be interested in helping jump start a podcasting platform for their analyst firm, I said yes.

After noodling around on some ideas for the first months of 2006, I launched a weekly talk series called I of Innovation. We began our weekly digicast on March 27, and every week since I've posted a series of fresh episodes. At the outset it was only two episodes a week and now I'm generating anywhere from five to seven fresh installments.

The gist is simple - since the firm, Guidewire Group, focuses wholly on emerging markets, technologies and companies, I developed a series that focuses on all aspects of the innovation ecosystem. So what you'll hear when you tune in (which I hope you will) are interviews and stories with a rather colorful cast of characters who are driving the changes that will disrupt (in a good way) our lives as we know them today.

Now that the program is on its feet, or at least off to a strong jogging start, I'm hoping to turn my attention back to these pages for some rumination on all that is not technology - though I'm sure a couple of things will seep between the two.

As with the I of Innovation series, I am hoping that you, kind reader, will be sure to check out the content and by all means let me know what you think.

I'll hope to hear from you.

Back on May 1, I wrote an essay on this site that talked about an April 21 article in the Wall Street Journal. This column by Dan Henninger talked about how the Internet has given rise - or perhaps better to say been responsible for the tearing down - of appropriate behavior.

In my recent post, I focused on the aspect of this Internet issue related to how it seems to have exacerbated what was already a pitiful level of grammatical focus and intellectual capability when it comes to people's communication.

Now there's another reason to bring up this article, and this time it's about the way in which the faceless safety of posting to blogs is giving rise to a sub-species of moron. These fools are those whose cowardice leads them to attack people for their beliefs by posting anonymous vitriol and then duck into the shadow of on-line anonymity rather than stand up, be accountable for their opinions and have the fortitude to admit that they disagree.

No, they cannot admit to it, because they know that if they step forward they will be proven to be the weak, intellectually crippled fools that they are. If they had any intelligence, they'd be able to admit that they disagree and then stand up to those with whom they are at odds.

Why am I on a soapbox about this? It's because there's someone with whom I've recently become acquainted who's been facing some scathing personal attacks from people who lean forward to smack him through comments on his blog, and then retreat into the shadows.

The victim of these assaults is Michael Arrington, the editorial brains behind TechCrunch and its companion blog, CrunchNotes.

It might be okay if these people were slamming what Mike wrote and disagreeing with him based on some set of actual facts. But these attacks are personal. They either have decided they don't like Michael personally or they disagree with what he writes. Either of these things are fine. Mike can be a bit of a blowhard, and he'll freely admit he can be an asshole. But that doesn't condone people threatening to rape Mike's mother or kill his dog.

I actually interviewed Mike at a conference this past week in Spain and we talked about this. You can hear our conversation here.

Take a listen and let me know what you think about ... and if you disagree with me, fine. But threaten to hurt my friends, my family or my dog and I will hunt you down.

Seriously. The San Francisco Bay Area was in the midst of what turned out to be an extended series of horrific winter downpours. You know, the kind of storm where the rain comes down in diagonal sheets and looks more like movie rain than the real thing.

"Rent" (the movie) had just opened and I was on my way out to meet a friend and catch an early show. There's one very important thing to know about San Francisco, rain and driving. They don't mix. So, rather than risk certain irritation, not to mention potential peril, I let Luxor Cab do the work.

I slipped into the back seat and was greeted in the rear view mirror by a dazzling smile and "Good evening," spoken with the melodic lilt of Brazil. His name was Laercio (pronounced La-air-see-oh), and he was, indeed, from Brazil. I'm pretty sure those two things are still true. However, it's more than likely that one thing about this affable man that has changed is his place of residence.

In our brief but conversation-filled ride, Laercio spoke in almost reverent tones about this country and the promise of opportunity that had brought him here. His tone changed when he spoke about the ridiculously frenetic pace with which we spend our lives, the almost pathological obsession with career and work that rules our culture, and the false sense of openness in regards to people from other countries.

A craftsman, Laercio's occupation back in Brazil was as a machinist of sorts, building the contraptions that are used to create and manufacture furniture. He came to the United States on a visa to learn English, expose himself to a new culture and explore the possibility of building a life here.

After seeing how we live, he opted out.

Before you begin to think that this is me bashing the United States, let me be clear.

I love this country. It has many faults, sure, but as a whole we live in a fantastic place of opportunity and freedom. That said, I've been rather distressed lately to see that somewhere along the way, this nation that was built on the backs of immigrants who struggled their way to these shores in search of a better life, is now acting like a spoiled, possessive child pushing away those who come here seeking the same things.

The reason that this story about Laercio came to mind specifically today was an article in The San Francisco Chronicle. The headline: "Migrant plan in Brazil, Argentina". The sub-head: "Amnesty for illegal workers fast-tracked."

It seems that the governments of these South American countries are moving with alacrity to resolve the problem of illegal immigration.

In Argentina, a country that is filled with hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrant workers (primarily from Bolivia), the lawmakers are moving to implement a plan that was passed in late 2005. The premise is simple. Designed to improve conditions and legalize illegal immigrants, this plan allows workers to receive two-year residency cards and gain access to public services. After three years they are eligible to apply for permanent residency.

In Brazil, the governement is offering amnesty for illegal workers who entered the country prior to August 2005, allowing them the opportunity to become permanent residents.

Why do I find this so remarkable?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because we're supposed to be the most powerful country in the world, and here are two countries with substantially lower GDP, and signficantly higher rates of unemployment and economic strife, and they are somehow able to get past that to enable those who come to their country seeking work the ability to stay - legally - and contribute - legally - to their country's overall economic health.

I think it's time we gather up all the Congresspeople in Washington and take them on a little trip to the Statue of Liberty and make them take a good long look at the words inscribed by her feet.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

... but I actually agreed (at least in part) with an editorial that ran last week in the Wall Street Journal.

Generally I find the Op-Ed page of the Journal to be ... well ... ridiculously conservative. But on April 21 I laughed while I drank my coffee (which, in and of itself, is highly unusual), because I found myself nodding with agreement and shaking my head in disappointment at the same time.

You'd probably like to know what article, and I'd put a link to it, but that would be wrong for a couple of reasons:

1) This isn't a blog.

2) The WSJ site is subscription based so you might not be able to get to it anyway.

3) I can't legally cut and paste the text of the article here without some copyright attorney coming to chew on my ass ... or at least skate on my head a bit.

If you're interested in checking it out yourself, it's in the April 21, 2006 issue. The "Wonder Land" column written by Daniel Henninger - "When blogs rule we will all talk like --"

For those who haven't read or won't bother to seek out the article the gist is this - in spite of the good things that it offers, the Internet has proven to be an infectious breeding ground for bad behavior. That, thanks to blogging and the rise of social networks like MySpace.com, our society is being overtaken by inarticulate crazy people who use the Internet as their personal mental dumping ground. And that several thousand years of socialization that have taught people what is and isn't appropriate to share is being flushed down the toilet. He goes on to say that this explosion of disinhibited behaviors will only get worse.

About now you may ask: "Cathy, what, precisely did you find funny about this?"

I guess I found it funny that this journalist was bemoaning the fact that the nature of communication has been debased by the Internet when it is, in fact, largely the fault of the media that this has happened in the first place.

When I was in journalism school, I recall a freshman year course quite vividly. Beyond the fact that the professor (a working copyeditor from The Chicago Tribune) seemed to relish in knocking the ever-eager and somewhat arrogant cub reporter wanna-be's down a peg or two, he also gave us a harsh view into the reality of what would be expected of us.

Which was, not much.

We were told: Don't expect readers to understand anything above an eighth-grade reading level.

I've been told that these days that bar has been lowered even further with journalism students being told to shoot for the ever-so-pathetic goal of writing for elementary school.

One must ask in this scenario who precisely is at fault. Is it the educational system for dropping standards? Is it the parents who don't spend the time participating in their children's education? Is it the media for pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Aw hell, let's blame al-Quaeda since they seem to be the root of everything else these days.

I'm not an idiot, and I realize that it's a combination of many factors that has led us to this unacceptable media morass. Like most things, there's no single root but rather a complex system of causes; and like most things, in order to address the problem you need to take on each and every aspect of the genesis. One at a time.

Here's my challenge, and it goes out to each and every individual who considers themself to be a journalist - whether part of a mainstream media outlet, a fringe organization or an independent blogger or podcaster.

It's time to quit whining and start turning this ship around to something far more acceptable when it comes to social behavior.

I'm not suggesting that we return to a pre-Victorian era of stagnant and uptight interaction. But I am suggesting that we return to a healthier set of communication values. You know, things like being responsible about how we communicate and taking into consideration the impact of our words.

This doesn't mean the eradication of edgy content and viewpoints. Nor does it mean that all profanity has to be banished. If you need to use a potty mouth to express yourself, so be it. (I'm not exactly pristine in this category myself.) What it does mean is that people need to start taking responsibility for their behavior and remember that the root of the word civilization is CIVIL.

So let people speak as they like, and let them express their viewpoints, but don't let that come at the cost of our overall sense of social responsibility.

And as the ones who chronicle the world I challenge the media to step up and do their part not only to continue shedding light on issues and educating the public but also to raise the bar a bit - both for their audience and their own edification.

It seems that those oh-so-upstanding sons of bitches at the FDA have rescinded their previous support of a now seven-year-old study that showed clinical evidence of health benefits from the medicinal use of marijuana. (Note that I said medicinal and not recreational. That other category is another subject altogether and not the point here.)

Frankly I could give a shit about the studies, because I have seen firsthand the invaluable nature of this herbal remedy for people who are incapacitated by pain.

About a year and a half ago a friend of mine was diagnosed with breast cancer. Her situation was such that she opted for a radical double mastectomy followed by an aggressive regimen of chemo and radiation.

Brutal experience to say the least, and as you might imagine the course of treatment rendered her nearly immobile on more than one occasion. She was vomiting, weak and barely able to function.

That is until she took a single toke of pot. Within moments of partaking not only was my friend able to eat (and thus keep up her strength helping ensure that she wasn't hit by other illnesses due to her diminished immune capacity from the treatment), she was also able to work (and thus maintain her job and position in helping keep a business afloat and do her part to support our economy).

If the goverment had its way, she'd be punished and so would those who had helped her.

Did my friend enjoy smoking pot? Absolutely not, and as a matter-of-fact her greatest joy was the day when treatment was over, her side effects were gone and she could ditch the marijuana altogether.

And it's my opinion that she is more likely the rule than the exception.

There are people who abuse medical mariujana. There are also people who abuse any number of pharmaceuticals; and to be perfectly frank I know far more people whose abuse of pills leads to greater problems than I do people whose use of medical marijuana leads to abuse.

Why did this site come to be?

Left is left. Right is right. And never the twain shall meet. And that's fine. Reality lies in the middle. But agreement doesn't sell papers. Agreement doesn't rack up Nielsen ratings. Sadly there are no voices (at least no credible ones) drawing attention to the fact that since we're never going to change each other's minds, how about we at least attempt to play nicely in the sandbox?

In doing so we can start finding some solutions to the issues about which we argue in the first place. That's the genesis for this site - the desire to create a space that can serve as a forum to discuss solutions - not to argue about problems.

Think of this as a social petri dish - a nourishing environment into which we toss various elements and allow them to grow. Sometimes we're seeking a cure for a disease. Sometimes we're seking solutions to social issues. Sometimes we're seeking new ways to approach business. Regardless, the hope is that the result of interactions in this petri dish will lead us closer to some goal. Whether or not it's the goal we had in mind when we started out is something else.

The thing is, when you start out with that petri dish you can never be 100 percent certain where it will go. Sometimes it goes to your planned destination. Sometimes you end up somewhere else altogether. The thing that matters is this - there's movement.

Other Than That aspires to be that kind of nourishing environment ... just a lot less gooey and damp.

How did this site come to be?

You know that saying: "All things happen for a reason"?

This site is an example of that.

Granted, I do believe we have a certain degree of control over our lives, but what it comes down to is simple - we're only driving the bus some of the time.

This site and its content have been racing about in my noggin' for several years. I've talked about it so much that bringing it to life should have been simple. Of course being stubborn, it took me a few years to realize that not only did I not have to do it alone, there was no way I could do it alone.

It seemed that once I came to this realization the creative cavalry began thundering into my world. Each person provided invaluable counsel, advice, guidance, and - on many occasions - were responsible for creating various integral pieces of this site.

You'll see their work throughout the site:
Bainbridge Studios - If it weren't for Tom Carmony, the site you're looking at now wouldn't exist. I had an initial site in place (see next item on that), but it wasn't until I sat down with Tom and went through the site that this fresh, easily navigable, fresh look could come into being.

Academy of Web Design – I had to start somewhere, and the world of Other Than That began with my first Web designer, David Lieberman. He helped create the first iteration of the site which, though not the best navigationally, was one of the most beautiful and unique sites around.

Christine Herron – Before you lay a foundation you must evaluate the land on which you're building, and make sure you know what materials will work. Christine helped me sort through a lot of options, and enabled me to move forward. She also provided an ever-present ear and sound counsel on those days when I almost gave up! She's now doing her brilliant work with the Omidyar Network - helping the entrepreneurs of today become the industry leaders of tomorrow!

Caroline Schiff Photography – Usually a picture is worth a thousand words, but I know what people get paid "per word" when they write, and in my opinion Caroline's skills shift that conversion rate in the picture's favor.

Martha Brothers Coffee Shop – Unbeknownst to the proprietors, I also call this place the Delivery Room, because it was during an all day writing session there that I began birthing Other Than That (good thing they had plenty of boiling water). Great coffee shop owned & operated by a truly lovely family.

Mike Sigal - In addition to being a trusted friend and respected colleague, Mike carries the mantle (or perhaps dubious honor) of being that calm voice in the chaos who keeps me honest. In addition, it is thanks to Mike that I found the perfect person to help me bring my ultimate vision for Other Than That to life. All this, and he still has time to launch his very own venture - an organization of which I'm proud to be a part (effective February 2006). Guidewire Group ... check them out!

How about your story?

I refer to myself as a "genetically engineered communicator."

All it takes is one encounter with my family to get it. It never fails. Friends or associates who meet my family (whether the Brooks clan or an extended surname branch of the family tree) smile immediately. Generally that smile leads the statement, "Now I get it."

So long as a grimace and full-body shudder don't accompany that comment, I take it as a compliment.

If you want to know more, you can find the details in the "about" section of this site.

Where do you get your content?

The same place that everyone else does, I watch CNN.

<>

I've always felt that asking someone where they get content is a bit like asking someone where they get the air that they breathe. You don't have to seek it out it's just there. (And if you listen to the interview I did with technology pundit, Esther Dyson, she talks about this very subject!) Of course at high altitudes or in particularly smog-filled towns it might help to have an extra oxygen tank around, but for the most part, one generally gets the intake they need.

It's like that with my content. A friend introduced me to what is now one of my favorite quotes. It comes from Emile Zola: "If you asked me what I came into this world to do, I will tell you: I came to live out loud."

With that as my perspective, I seek content. Charging every day into life seizing all opportunities and keeping my eyes and ears wide open. Sometimes it's pretty obvious stuff - the news, a book I've read, a conversation at work - but more often than not it's in the quiet moments, a chance encounter or subtle interaction, when truly fascinating ideas arise.

What side are you on anyway?

Life is a circle. It doesn't have any sides - except inside and outside - and so in that case I guess I'm on the inside - trying to live a fully engaged life.

Nice sidestep, eh?

But you needn't worry I'm not changing the subject. The question is "What side" I'm on.

That's simple. I'm on both sides. Because I figure if all things have two sides (or in the case of a dodecahedron, ten sides), then it would be silly to cement myself to only seeing one. There are some things on which I'd say I'm decidedly more liberal. There are also times when I shock people by sharing an opinion that lists more to the starboard side.

Do I tend to bend to the left more often? Probably. Does this mean that any more conservative thoughts I might have are somehow held with less conviction?

Not a chance.

And if you think that I'm leaning to heavily one way or the other - tell me.

If you think I'm full of crap and my opinions suck - tell me.

Of course if you agree with my thinking and want to say nice things you can tell me that too!!

Do you have a business model?

If you're asking because you are interested in investing, the answer is yes.

If you're asking because you have your own radio idea and you're thinking you'll just follow my lead to do it ... go do your own research.

Kidding.

There are several models to this business - any of which I'm happy to discuss. Either way, if you want to chat on this topic further, drop me a line directly.

Can others play in the sandbox?

Heck yes! You can't build the REALLY big sand castles unless you have lots of help. Sand throwers and people who don't share get kicked out. But so long as you play nicely you can stay.

If you have content, suggestions, questions or really wonder where I got the idea for the name of the Web site, just ask.

You don't know who she is?

That's okay, neither did I until Reuters (as seen in the NY Times on-line) introduced me to her this morning.

AMENDMENT TO THIS ENTRY - POSTED January 2, 2006 - I've just noticed that the link I'd included above now sends people to the NY Times archive. So to simplify your efforts, here's the text of that article:

BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK

Wal-Mart Memo Suggests Ways to Cut Employee Benefit Costs

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE AND MICHAEL BARBARO; STEVEN GREENHOUSE REPORTED FROM NEW YORK FOR THIS ARTICLE, AND MICHAEL BARBARO FROM BENTONVILLE, ARK. (NYT) 1401 words
Published: October 26, 2005

An internal memo sent to Wal-Mart's board proposes numerous ways to hold down spending on health care and other benefits while seeking to minimize damage to the retailer's reputation. Among the recommendations are hiring more part-time workers and discouraging unhealthy people from working at Wal-Mart.

In the memorandum, M. Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart's executive vice president for benefits, also recommends reducing 401(k) contributions and wooing younger, and presumably healthier, workers by offering education benefits. The memo voices concern that workers with seven years' seniority earn more than workers with one year's seniority, but are no more productive.

To discourage unhealthy job applicants, Ms. Chambers suggests that Wal-Mart arrange for ''all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart-gathering).''

The memo acknowledged that Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, had to walk a fine line in restraining benefit costs because critics had attacked it for being stingy on wages and health coverage. Ms. Chambers acknowledged that 46 percent of the children of Wal-Mart's 1.33 million United States employees were uninsured or on Medicaid.

Wal-Mart executives said the memo was part of an effort to rein in benefit costs, which to Wall Street's dismay have soared by 15 percent a year on average since 2002. Like much of corporate America, Wal-Mart has been squeezed by soaring health costs. The proposed plan, if approved, would save the company more than $1 billion a year by 2011.

In an interview, Ms. Chambers said she was focusing not on cutting costs, but on serving employees better by giving them more choices on their benefits.

''We are investing in our benefits that will take even better care of our associates,'' she said. ''Our benefit plan is known today as being generous.''

Ms. Chambers also said that she made her recommendations after surveying employees about how they felt about the benefits plan. ''This is not about cutting,'' she said. ''This is about redirecting savings to another part of their benefit plans.''

One proposal would reduce the amount of time, from two years to one, that part-time employees would have to wait before qualifying for health insurance. Another would put health clinics in stores, in part to reduce expensive employee visits to emergency rooms. Wal-Mart's benefit costs jumped to $4.2 billion last year, from $2.8 billion three years earlier, causing concern within the company because benefits represented an increasing share of sales. Last year, Wal-Mart earned $10.5 billion on sales of $285 billion.

A draft memo to Wal-Mart's board was obtained from Wal-Mart Watch, a nonprofit group, allied with labor unions, that asserts that Wal-Mart's pay and benefits are too low. Tracy Sefl, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart Watch, said someone mailed the document anonymously to her group last month. When asked about the memo, Wal-Mart officials made available the updated copy that actually went to the board.

Under fire because less than 45 percent of its workers receive company health insurance, Wal-Mart announced a new plan on Monday that seeks to increase participation by allowing some employees to pay just $11 a month in premiums. Some health experts praised the plan for making coverage more affordable, but others criticized it, noting that full-time Wal-Mart employees, who earn on average around $17,500 a year, could face out-of-pocket expenses of $2,500 a year or more.

Eager to burnish Wal-Mart's image as it faces opposition in trying to expand into New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, Wal-Mart's chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., also announced on Monday a sweeping plan to conserve energy. He also said that Wal-Mart supported raising the minimum wage to help Wal-Mart's customers.

The theme throughout the memo was how to slow the increase in benefit costs without giving more ammunition to critics who contend that Wal-Mart's wages and benefits are dragging down those of other American workers.

Ms. Chambers proposed that employees pay more for their spouses' health insurance. She called for cutting 401(k) contributions to 3 percent of wages from 4 percent and cutting company-paid life insurance policies to $12,000 from the current level, equal to an employee's annual earnings.

Life insurance, she said, was ''a high-satisfaction, low-importance benefit, which suggests an opportunity to trim the offering without substantial impact on associate satisfaction.'' Wal-Mart refers to its employees as associates.

Acknowledging that Wal-Mart has image problems, Ms. Chambers wrote: ''Wal-Mart's critics can easily exploit some aspects of our benefits offering to make their case; in other words, our critics are correct in some of their observations. Specifically, our coverage is expensive for low-income families, and Wal-Mart has a significant percentage of associates and their children on public assistance.''

Her memo stated that 5 percent of Wal-Mart's workers were on Medicaid, compared with 4 percent for other national employers. She said that Wal-Mart spent $1.5 billion a year on health insurance, which amounts to $2,660 per insured worker.

The memo, prepared with the help of McKinsey & Company, said the board was to consider the recommendations in November. But the memo said that three top Wal-Mart officials -- its chief financial officer, its top human relations executive and its executive vice president for legal and corporate affairs -- had ''received the recommendations enthusiastically.''

Ms. Chambers's memo voiced concern that workers were staying with the company longer, pushing up wage costs, although she stopped short of calling for efforts to push out more senior workers.

She wrote that ''the cost of an associate with seven years of tenure is almost 55 percent more than the cost of an associate with one year of tenure, yet there is no difference in his or her productivity. Moreover, because we pay an associate more in salary and benefits as his or her tenure increases, we are pricing that associate out of the labor market, increasing the likelihood that he or she will stay with Wal-Mart.''

The memo noted that Wal-Mart workers ''are getting sicker than the national population, particularly in obesity-related diseases,'' including diabetes and coronary artery disease. The memo said Wal-Mart workers tended to overuse emergency rooms and underuse prescriptions and doctor visits, perhaps from previous experience with Medicaid.

The memo noted, ''The least healthy, least productive associates are more satisfied with their benefits than other segments and are interested in longer careers with Wal-Mart.''

The memo proposed incorporating physical activity in all jobs and promoting health savings accounts. Such accounts are financed with pretax dollars and allow workers to divert their contributions into retirement savings if they are not all spent on health care. Health experts say these accounts will be more attractive to younger, healthier workers.

''It will be far easier to attract and retain a healthier work force than it will be to change behavior in an existing one,'' the memo said. ''These moves would also dissuade unhealthy people from coming to work at Wal-Mart.''

Ron Pollack, executive director of Families U.S.A., a health care consumer-advocacy group, criticized the memo for recommending that more workers move into health plans with high deductibles.

''Their people are paying a very substantial portion of their earnings out of pocket for health care,'' he said. ''These plans will cause these workers and their families to defer or refrain from getting needed care.''

The memo noted that 38 percent of Wal-Mart workers spent more than one-sixth of their Wal-Mart income on health care last year.

By reducing the amount of time part-timers must work to qualify for health insurance, Wal-Mart is hoping to allay some of its critics.

One proposal under consideration would offer new employees ''limited funding'' so they could ''gain access to the private insurance market'' after 30 days of employment while waiting to join Wal-Mart's plan.

Such assistance, the memo stated, ''would give us a powerful set of messages to use in combating critics. (For instance, 'Wal-Mart offers associates access to health insurance after they've worked with us for just 30 days.')''

Keith OBrien wrote an October 21 story BlogOn Event Confuses as it Informs PR Pros highlighting the confusion surrounding social media. He is right. It is confusing. But that isn't the point. Any new market bears a hefty dose of confusion as the various players fumble for ways to participate. Confusion is good. To quote Henry Miller:

Confusion is a word we have invented for an order which is not yet understood.

The problem here is not confusion. The problem stems from a far more basic weakness. There are far too many PR practioners who fail to follow basic best practices when it comes to engaging with the media. Period. A frequent result of this ineptitude is friction and even, at times, animosity between marketing/PR and the media with whom they try to work.

As far as confusion goes, events like BlogOn are a splendid way to expedite our collective education by bringing together participants from all facets of the ecosystem. Tossing the haves and have nots together enables learning and engagement ... even if some of the players are resistant.

Disclosure: My firm, Porter Novelli, works with Guidewire Group. Though I am not on the account team for this business, I do interact with the team often, and have participated in meetings and planning for this organization. I also chaired a panel discussion on pitching to social media at the Guidewire Group conference BlogOn 2005.

The communications ecosystem has always catered to myriad constituencies. Social media increases that diversity by an order of magnitude greater than we have ever seen. The only difference between the old-school media (print, TV, radio) and the new world order (blogging, podcasting) is the extent to which transparency and accountability play into the mix. The Blogosphere has a powerful self-editing aspect that means poorly placed pitches could mean a public evisceration of a person's credibility. The gloves are off, and anything is fair game.

It is time to remember the basics, starting with why the media need marketers and vise versa. One group has something. The other group needs something. One group believes that their thing has value to the other. The other may or may not agree with that assessment. It is an ecosystem, an elaborate web of communicators, each with their particular requirements and processes.

As in any ecosystem, there is a certain level of symbiosis. There are also contradictions and conflicts. Some members of the public relations community do not do their homework. Others still insist on spouting marketing puffery as if it were fact. The media have issues too. There are members of the media community who do not fact check, spell check or in any other way check their work. Some will refuse to work with PR people and others will collaborate without hesitation.

That is just the way it is.

By trying to shove a square peg in a round hole, all marketing folks do is perpetuate the perception of our industry as a group of not-so-smart people with a single-minded focus on pushing clients’ products. In doing so, we also perpetuate the sense that our kind cannot be trusted, and that PR people are a source of irritation rather than a resource or an asset.

How about in thinking about social media, the marketing/communications community puts the same attention towards reviewing and evaluating the new media as they should with the old media?

Even better, how about we realize that the delineation between one media outlet and another should be based on its credibility and relevance to the particular story, product, service or trend for which we may be working.

There is no question that this is how we should be doing business anyway, but we all know that there are those who do not follow these best practices. This is where problems arise and it is in those moments of conflict when you have situations such as the one described in Keith's story.

What took place at BlogOn was a great start for the conversation, and should serve as a clarion call to all communicators. Our ecosystem is evolving, and in the interest of economic Darwinism we need to step to the plate. There will always be detractors whose modi operandi as naysayers will shoot holes in any new ideas. Generally I find that this is because overall people are rather adverse to change. (That is a different article altogether.) If we join their complaint cacophony we are part of the problem, and not the solution.

Disclosure: Though I often define myself as a Journalist when asked the age-old question: So, what do you do? I currently lean towards the marketing side of the fence. Since May 2003 I have run business development for Porter Novelli, one of public relations’ Big 5 (though hopefully this industry can avoid the depth of the scandals that rocked those folks.). Prior to that, I ran guest booking (and for a time ran the on-air talent department, but that is another story), at what was then called ZDTV, which became TechTV, which then was eaten by Comcast, merged with G4 and subsequently disappeared.

If you are interested, feel free to peruse my CV.

(Interesting thing about that phrase, curriculum vitae, the literal Latin definition is race of life. No wonder I am so exhausted after updating my resume.

Disclaimer: In my role at Porter Novelli I am tasked with identifying new business opportunities and then overseeing the process of preparing for, pitching and (hopefully) winning the business. My focus is largely within the Bay Area, although I work unofficially in the same capacity with other offices on an as needed basis. I do not have any day-to-day responsibilities for existing clients, though on occasion I will provide support for a specific project or a particular client.

I believe in my firm, and have respect for those with whom I work. There may be clients within our network the businesses of which do not map to my own beliefs. The writings here reflect purely my personal beliefs and general precepts that guide my actions and do not represent those of the firm for which I work.

Whew.

If you have made it this far, congratulations.

I’m the one writing and I’m exhausted by reading through all of this. If this were a podcast I could have buried all that information as a tagline spoken like an LP being played at the wrong speed.

But in this new world’s emerging civilization of social media, it seems you are better off getting everything on the table right away. It’s all about transparency.

Unless you know me already, why should you give a good goddamn about what I have to say? How you know that you can trust what I say? How do you know that my perspectives and statements mean anything in the big picture?

It's about trust.

Presumably you came to this site through other trusted sources and so the whole guilt by association thing comes into play. But does that work for you if the links are four, five and six degrees separated? Truthfully, besides believing things for myself based on my own experience, there aren’t that many degrees away that I am comfortable traveling.

Or at least that's where my comfort level has been until now.

The explosion of social media (blogging, podcasting and the like) offers anyone with access to the Internet an immediate and transparent filter for verifying validity.

So even if this tome is the first thing of mine you see, you can go elsewhere on my site, or run my name through your search resource of choice and see what other items come up. You have access to information that can assuage any doubts you may have about the credibility of my voice. If you find I have lied or misrepresented myself, then you cease to trust me, making any future information I share inconsequential.

It’s a basic equation. If I’m truthful, I’m seen as credible. When I gain credibility I become a valued source of information.

You may ask what makes this any different from how things have always been?

The answer is that things are not all that different, at least not in terms of theory. In terms of practice it's a whole new paradigm.

I have been in and around communications since I was knee-high to a grasshopper, and there is an irrefutable fact that truth and transparency are not always the hallmarks of marketing communications. In the old world order, it sometimes took quite some time before the façade of a false pitch was revealed.

Things have changed.

In this open, honest, transparent and accountable arena of social media, the time has come to be honest – with our clients, with the public and with our selves.

In the world of social media, the gloves are off.

If you would like to know more about my thoughts on this, see my entry entitled: “Social Media: A Catalyst for Corporate Darwinism.”

Let's face it, Darwin was wrong.

At least it would seem to be that way. I haven't done a scientific study or anything, but in my personal experience, if there's one thing that can be said for certain it's that all the new technology, which is allegedly improving and streamlining how we communicate and stay in touch, seems to be leaving general human consideration behind in the dust.

Newsflash people: Just because you have a more expedient way of communicating, doesn't mean that you ditch good old fashioned polite behavior.

Okay. Ranting over.

I'm not suggesting that humans can somehow change the course of tides, hold back storms or prevent tectonic plates from shifting. We can, however, do our part to try and keep the delicate balance of nature that can help alleviate major storm catastrophies. Paying attention to things like greenhouse gas emissions, toxic dumping, water conservation. Making sure that we're not raping the land by strip mining, clear cutting or any form of mass animal life execution (think overfishing and hunting animals for sport).

There are some organizations who decry any danger related to global warming saying that it's nothing more than a construct of special interest groups trying to scare people and get government funding. A year or so ago, I actually attended an event where this was the topics of discussion..

Recent scientific findings, such as the fact that the polar ice cap is the smallest it's ever been due to excessive heat, would seem to prove that these naysayers are wrong; and that all those hippie-dippy-green-conscious-zealots are right.

But therein lies the problem. Unfortunately, the strident tone of most environmental groups has turned off many a moderate whose interest in saving the planet takes a back seat to their interest in avoiding association with crunchy-tree-hugging-left-wing crazies.

Since more often than not the person or persons delivering the information determines the way in which the message is received, and let's face it, when someone screams most folks generally tune out.

But now there's screaming from another sector. Mother Nature herself.

Look at the hurricane season of 2004. Five major hurricanes ripped across the state of Florida. Mere months later, a vicious tsunami wreaked havoc on the other side of the world. Earthquakes, volcanos belching ash, torrential rains, blizzards and ice storms.

I don't know about you, but I can take a hint. Mother Nature is pissed, or maybe she's just going through menopause, but either way it sure gives a whole new meaning to "Hell hath no fury ..." ... doesn't it?

Energy.

It sounds pretty simple and perhaps a bit new-agey, but the truth of the matter is that a conference is a conference is a conference. The thing that separates one SWAG bag from another is the sizzle.

With Tony Perkins you can be guaranteed that big name pundits will trot across the stage and serious play-ahs will roam the halls networking and drinking coffee.

The first AlwaysOn Innovation Summit had some sizzle because, well, it was the first one. Last year had some pop, probably due more to the fact that Silicon Valley was crawling out of its collective burrow in the aftermath of the bubble burst.

This year the panelists are arguing with each other. Nothing like blood in the water to get things moving.

It didn't start out that way. Frankly, I started writing this about half way through the first full day of the AlwaysOn Summit, and based on what I saw by that point this year was a snoozer.

Opening night at the AlwaysOn Summit was a yard-sale. After the traditional AlwaysOn 100 awards we were subjected to a panel pitting Republican in Democrat's clothing Sandy Berger against Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown and neo-con blabbermouth Michael MedVed. BORING. I think it was something about a bunch of white guys talking about abortion that really tipped the scales. It was after that when most folks up and left.

Day one - interesting interview with the CEO of Skype kicked off the day ... but I have to say that the panel with Mark Cuban took the cake for most fireworks.

Day two - started off innocently enough. We talked open source. We talked next generation of the Web. Then it was time to talk about technology and whether or not it makes us safe. KA-BOOM.

Next time George Gilder, Jaron Lanier and Bill Joy are in a room together, I'll take bets on who walks out.

... is Susan Sontag. She died Tuesday, December 28, 2004 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

I recently came across a quote from Ms. Sontag that reverberated in particularly clear fashion:

"The role of the writer is to make bouillon cubes out of chicken soup." -- Susan Sontag

With the cacophony of opinions that masquerade as fact assaulting our senses daily, it's damn near impossible to hear your own internal guiding principles above the noise. It's damn near impossible to even hear, let alone coalesce so that you can then consider them along with the myriad other perspectives in the world - behavior that should be the hallmark of truly thoughtful, educated, intelligent action.

And let's face it, for the most part, people are lemmings. They may say they have convictions for which they stand, but when push comes to shove, most people will take the path of least resistance.

So when people like Susan Sontag come along, people whose fierce commitment to their own voice allows them to rise over the din and lost neither integrity nor power, they should be celebrated ... and mourned.

If you weren't familiar with her, or perhaps only know of her name, here's an Associated Press article that gives a basic overview of her writing and career.

Author and Activist Susan Sontag Dies

NEW YORK (Dec. 28) - Susan Sontag, the author, activist and self-defined "zealot of seriousness'' whose voracious mind and provocative prose made her a leading intellectual of the past half century, died Tuesday. She was 71.

Sontag died Tuesday morning, officials at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center said. She had been treated for breast cancer in the 1970s.

Sontag called herself a "besotted aesthete,'' an "obsessed moralist'' and a "zealot of seriousness.''

She wrote a best-selling historical novel, "The Volcano Lover,'' and in 2000 won the National Book Award for the historical novel "In America.'' But her greatest literary impact was as an essayist.

The 1964 piece "Notes on Camp,'' which established her as a major new writer, popularized the "so bad it's good'' attitude toward popular culture, applicable to everything from "Swan Lake'' to feather boas. In "Against Interpretation,'' this most analytical of writers worried that critical analysis interfered with art's "incantatory, magical'' power.

She also wrote such influential works as "Illness as Metaphor,'' in which she examined how disease had been alternately romanticized and demonized, and "On Photography,'' in which she argued pictures sometimes distance viewers from the subject matter. "On Photography'' received a National Book Critics Circle award in 1978. "Regarding the Pain of Others,'' a partial refutation of "On Photography,'' was an NBCC finalist in 2004. She read authors from all over the world and is credited with introducing such European intellectuals as Roland Barthes and Elias Canetti to American readers.

"I know of no other intellectual who is so clear-minded with a capacity to link, to connect, to relate,'' Carlos Fuentes, the Mexican novelist, once said. "She is unique.''

Unlike many American writers, she was deeply involved in politics, even after the 1960s. From 1987-89, Sontag served as president of American chapter of the writers organization PEN. When the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called for Salman Rushdie's death because of the alleged blasphemy of "The Satanic Verses,'' she helped lead protests in the literary community.

Sontag campaigned relentlessly for human rights and throughout the 1990s traveled to the region of Yugoslavia, calling for international action against the growing civil war. In 1993, she visited Sarajevo and staged a production of "Waiting for Godot.''

12-28-04 13:44 EST
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press