Archive for 'Politics & Society' Category
Olbermann
27 September 2006Where did this guy come from? (Click the links, ferserious.)
I must admit, regarding the whole quagmire that is our current political landscape, I’ve just felt resigned about it all lately. It feels like the whole system, the one party with the chimp in the office, and the other party who can’t seem to organize well enough to beat the chimp, it’s all just one big self-sustaining loop that we, the American people, are left out of entirely. Maybe in dire times, it takes someone like Keith Olbermann to be a beacon.
You can’t exactly credit the guy with originality… Olbermann clearly patterns himself after Edward R. Murrow, but then, why not? The man is regarded as one of the best journalists of all time, so perhaps patterning one’s career after him as opposed to that of modern “journalists”–O’Reilly, Limbaugh, even Franken–isn’t a bad idea. Watching his stuff, I wonder if maybe the American people are capable of sitting in one spot long enough to listen, not to soundbytes, but to ten minutes of well-reasoned, empassioned, enlightening crticism. They just haven’t known where to find it.
I think I’m gonna have to start watching MSNBC.
Edit: Just ran across an article mentioning that, apparently, Olbermann received a suspicious envelope yesterday containing a powdery substance. The substance was harmless, but obviously meant to scare, with an included note reading the package was “payback” for some of his commentaries. Because, y’know, the threat of lethal substances is fair payback for truth-telling. :P But if you can measure the mark of a journalist by the amount of feathers he ruffles, I guess I’m not the only one who thinks Olbermann’s doing a good job!
Gimme That Nut (or, A Random Lesson in Causality)
8 August 2006Wow, I was on a streak of nearly all personal, non-political posts for, what, a few weeks? Time for a relapse. :P
So today on Google News one of the top stories is that “Fans of Crude Music Have Sex Sooner“. Apparently there’s a correlation between kids who listen to raunchy lyrics (defined as lyrics that are both sexual and derogatory in nature) and kids who have sex earlier than other kids. Ok, makes sense. But here comes the flawed journalistic logic that I’m all too sick of: “Adolescents who listen to a lot of music containing these objectifying and limiting characterizations of sexuality progress more quickly in their sexual behaviour…” Or, in other words, kids have sex earlier because they listen to raunchy music. Wuzzah?
I never listened to much raunchy music (although I must admit to enjoying a bit of it, from Eazy E to The Thong Song) and it’s no secret that I was far from being a sexually active kid. So it would seem that I would’ve fit the pattern of no-raunchy-music, no-teen-sex. But I cease to believe that music will simply compel a kid to have sex.
First of all, why’s the kid listening to raunchy lyrics to begin with? I never found the appeal in it, aside from the sheer silliness of some of it, which is not unlike how I’ve felt about sex. If someone’s listening to that music, and really enjoying it, I’ve got to believe their mind is already in the gutter, that they listen to that kind of music because they’re already thinking about the subject matter, or are at least unusually curious about it. See, just because A and B are true, does not mean that B is the result of A.
Don’t get me wrong… I’ve thought for a long, long time that we live in a culture that is way too sex-obsessed in many ways, and unfortunately quite immature about most of them. But I think to blame music or movies or television on it is too simplistic & too short-sighted a point of view. To what extent this is a true “problem” in terms of negative impact on society, the solution is to reinforce better priorities amongst kids and amongst ourselves.
Read This… While You Still Can
14 June 2006Excuse me for being mildly dramatic. There’s something on my mind that I have to share. Have you heard the debate going on about Net Neutrality? Probably not. For as significant as this issue is, it’s been getting surprisingly little attention… Even among technologists.
Net Neutrality is that all types of data sent over the Internet is, shall we say, “created equal”, and endowed with the same rights as other data. Doesn’t matter if you’re sending a plain-text email or pictures of your trip to Disneyland or an MP3 of your amateur radio show… A kilobyte is a kilobyte, a megabyte is a megabyte. Quite a noble concept, really, and as with all noble concepts, the time has come when certain people have decided there is a less-noble, and far more profitable alternative.
Enter the telecoms. Yeah, those same companies that, for years, have already been getting away with extortion: roaming fees, overages, charging an arm and a leg for long distance (and always rounding up to the next minute). Cable companies have perhaps been the most notorious, not only charging consumers $50 for 200 channels of infomercials and Paris Hilton, but also charging the content providers for the “privilege” of being on cable TV. It sounds like a joke, but it’s true: they like to get you coming & going.
Then there is the Internet. (My god, it wasn’t a fad, after all.) For six years, give or take, these same telecoms have been making a killing on high-speed Internet–on bandwith that’s probably been used for pirating music and movies, more than anything else. Since there were no legal content providers, the telcos were content to charge the consumer, work with the RIAA for the occasional lawsuit against a 90-year-old granny, and that was that. But times, they have a-changed. Now there are completely legal online content providers: iTunes, Movielink, “Urge” (whatever that is) and more. Heck, some providers–like podcasters and video bloggers–even offer their content for free.
I consider this and think it’s inspirational. I think it’s a revolution, albeit not yet fully matured, in the fundamental nature of media and journalism.
What do the telecoms think? Yay, another opportunity to get their money coming & going.
Let me explain their argument a bit: they’ll tell you that Net Neutrality is equivalent to government regulation of the Internet. That the internet is already “tiered” because some people have high-speed and some are still on dial-up. (Show of hands, anyone?) That their approach, “Net Competition”, is business as usual. That Net Neutrality will let the terrorists win.*
(*Seriously, they want you to believe that Net Neutrality will “hinder public safety and homeland security“.)
The truth is, they want to be able to charge Internet content providers simply for the privilege of being content providers. Nevermind that those content providers already pay for hosting and domain fees and, especially, for their bandwidth. Nevermind that the consumers are already paying the telecoms for access to the content. Telecoms want to make you believe that a megabyte is no longer just a megabyte. That 2+2=5, or 6 or 10 or whatever they can get away with charging.
Make any sense to you?
Everyone’s selfishly motivated. The telecoms would have you believe they’re out for your best interests, though it’s pretty clear they just see dollar signs in their future. Allow me to take the honest approach. I am a content provider. I run SMART-POPCORN.com, and have a stake in a few other ventures. I host & produce a podcast. I’ve even dinked with video blogging a bit. So yes, obviously it’s in my best interest to keep the Net neutral. But my selfish motivations end there, and the issue is much, much bigger than I. (I wish I were even a blip on the radar, but I’m not.) The sad truth is that, when the time comes to pay their abitrarily determined cost, average joes like myself won’t be able to afford it. The Ted Turners and Rupert Murdochs can afford it. So, instead of new media usurping old media or forcing them to change, old media will be able to maintain their status quo. Meanwhile, the Internet as we’re getting to know it will break camp and leave us indefinitely.
As my favorite filmmaker once wrote, “The Internet has given [everybody] a voice.” Telecoms want to take that voice away. Do you want that to happen?
- Thom Stricklin
- - - - - - - - - -
If this issue concerns you, please pass this along. Post it on LiveJournal, MySpace, wherever. Check out: http://www.savetheinternet.com/ Check out Net Competition to see who’s really lobbying against neutrality. Google for “Net Neutrality” and see what comes up. Our best bet is to raise awareness and nag our representatives.
Bush Flu Plan Puts State, Local Officials in Charge
3 May 2006( link )
Yeah, because they’ve done such a great job with disaster recovery (Katrina, anyone?), border security, and the likes. Then again, they’ve done no worse than the feds.
In other news, I may be migrating my LJ to my own hosted solution in coming months. Stay tuned.
Scribblings… Church vs. Academics and beyond
26 April 2006…some may make the argument that the conservative, fundamentalist, Christian movement(s) have thrown science, logic, and reason out the window. This may be true; in some circles, I think it’s safe to say, this is true. But why are Christians so strongly opposed to what most others see as clearly well-established systems of thinking? “Fear of God” is an acceptable answer. But having felt the effects of being a “church member”, all the while never being a particularly god-fearing person, I think it’s something more: a sense of community, which church and, more generally, “Christendom” provide (Does the term “Christendom” work in the 21st century?) and which so few other societal constructs provide.
From within, the church community is a very warm & welcoming place. Sure, some demoninations are more fire & brimstone than others–as a Presbyterian, I was frankly terrified by the Southern Baptist churches my friends went to. And one occasionally feels the pangs of society–elitism, alienation, “That family’s closer to the preacher,” and what not. But by and large, a congregation is a group of folk who all know each other’s names, who keep up on personal events and care and show concern for one another in times of trouble. In contrast, how many of us know our neighbors on a first name basis? Their occupations, hometowns? What about our coworkers? Or, more to the point, how much does a science class–thirty high-schoolers, brought together for just fifty minutes a day and expected to remain mostly on-task–care about one another? How much does Anthropologist Bob in Palo Alto care about Anthropologist Carl from San Diego, and his wife’s bout with pnemonia?
Let’s make a distinction hear: we’re not actually talking about science, but about education. And just as Christians reject seemingly sound educational material, perhaps educators have forsaken an important sense of community. Is it possible that this simple, mode-of-operation incompatibility is as great a contributor to the church-versus-school chasm as any Creationist mumbo-jumbo?
I could list a page full of compliants about my old church. I could let slip a few of my genuine personal beliefs that would probably have the congregation brand me as a heretic. Spiritually, I’m much more fulfilled following my own, multi-cultural and very loosely structured, hodge podge of beliefs than any church doctrine. And yet I still look back at my time in church with great fondness, and the sense of community is precisely why I miss it.
Before I digress, I suggest checking out Dumbing Us Down by John Taylor Gatto, who much more eloquently describes the difference between communities and “networks” (which is the model for schools, corporations, and far too many other organizations).
And now I wish to ponder what could get, say, a dyed-in-the-wool, Creationist-trained fundie kid to at least consider, if not accept, the Theory of Evolution? Hmm… Critical thinking, perhaps? On that note, how many agnostic/nonspiritual/indifferent high schoolers understand how to apply critical thinking to an issue?
…
The answer is “not a lot”, for anyone who didn’t see a rhetorical question coming from a mile away. Perhaps there’s something else we should teach kids before we think about teaching Evolution OR Intellient Design OR …
Incomplete & Partial Thoughts about Immigration, Illegal and Otherwise
10 April 2006First thing’s first: I do not support amnesty, nor do I believe illegal immigrants have any legal rights in this country. Quite the contrary, we—the United States, its government and citizens—have every right to deport illegal immigrants if we so choose.
These days it would seem popular to dismiss me as racist or anti-immigration, but I am neither. I simply believe that immigration laws were put in place to give everyone—laborers, corporations, consumers, et cetera—a fair shot, an even playing ground. I would go so far as suggest that many of my fellow citizens advocating amnesty are racists themselves. Were these same people alive 150-200 years ago, would they be advocating the continuation of slavery and the African slave trade? Their motivations seem to be in keeping: create, secure, or expand a population of second-class citizens—non-citizens, moreover—to live in a state of perpetual poverty while performing the most grueling, toilsome labor.
I suggest these “immigration sympathizers” to put their money where their mouth is, quite literally. Along with amnesty, demand a mandatory minimum wage for migrant workers that is no less than the minimum for U.S. Citizens. To do otherwise would be to support double standards putting to disadvantage those very same people you advocate and sympathize for.
Alas, I do not believe this sympathy is genuine, but motivated either by guilt over taking advantage or our Hispanic friends, or by the desire to continue taking advantage. It is said that we who speak out against the “rights” of illegal immigrants are taking our maids/janitors/landscapers/food servers for granted. Not true. I clean my own house, do my own dishes, mop up my own messes. I don’t drive to the bus stop to hire day laborers for yard work. I trim my own trees, or else pay a landscaper on the legal up-and-up a healthy hourly wage to do the work for me.
I am not anti-immigration. I am a fan of rich cultures, and I know that some of the richest cultural spots in our nation—Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco—are so rich exactly because of their immigrant roots. It is with pride that I recognize my own immigrant roots, tracing back to 19th-century English & Scottish commonfolk who, just like today’s immigrants, simply wished to better their lives and pursue the American dream. The difference is this: my forefathers came to this country and played by the rules, what rules there were. They mingled. They didn’t call themselves Scottish-Americans, but rather just Americans, not out of some forced cultural assimilation but out of the desire to share in the American dream with other Americans, immigrant and natural-born alike. They wouldn’t dare raise a Scottish flag in place of a U.S. flag, as they took pride in what the stars & stripes meant to them: not simply a paycheck, but a home, an ideal. They had their share of being taken advantage of, but just the same, they played by the rules—a notion that today seems lost on illegal immigrants and all too many American corporations, citizens, and state officials.
Vive le iTunes
23 March 2006Just had to comment about this whole France-tries-to-take-on-iTunes issue.
I was a Napster user. I was one of the ones kicked off by Metallica. (No hard feelings–not any more.) I was also one of the sneaky devils who got back on using a quippy “Metallica bites!”-derived username. I used Morpheus and Kazaa and Limewire, and tried eMule and some others. I was a pirate, and I felt justified… I didn’t like the idea of having to buy a full $15 CD for one or two good songs, and since there was no viable alternative, I’d download illegal copies as a form of symbolic speech: “Fuck you, RIAA.”
Apple changed that. While the RIAA was still spending millions attempting to prosecute smalltime pirates not unlike myself (which, I guess they still do, right?), Apple came along with a business model that I loved and the music industry, despite their many levels of stupidity, could get behind. 99¢ per song. Don’t want a whole CD? Don’t buy it. Forget the sleek elegance of the iPod, the ease of use of iTunes as music store/jukebox and all that (albeit true) marketing hype. I was sold on, and my loyalty to Apple continues to be based on the fact that they came up with a viable business solution when nobody else would or could. Now, yes, I own an iPod, though it took me long enough. Anyhow, of the 420-ish tracks on the player (not counting the podcasts), 84 of them are iTunes purchases. And they’re among the highest ranked songs in my library, because I was able to pick out just the songs I wanted. (The whole wheat/chaff thing.)
So I guess it’s not surprising that I get defensive when I read an argument like this:
“I am probably not the only one to use iTunes on my PC even though I don’t have an iPod (I use my phone, and MP3 CD player in the car). For ripping my CDs, all works fine - I knew nothing of this DRM thingie, so when I first bought, yes PAID FOR some tracks off iTunes, how annoyed was I when I discoverered I could not play them on anything but the PC! It’s certainly made me not want to spend any more money with Apple - and that includes not buying an iPod - I’m not falling for that! I now want to go search for this ‘unlocking’ device to free up my music which is being held hostage by DRM. My point being, get rid of DRM and I will buy legit music again.”
I’d reply to the guy directly, but the originating site is having registration issues, so I had to vent here. Allow me to not mince words in my quasi-reply: “Don’t want DRM? Go buy a fucking CD, ass.” Why do people want an iTunes-like solution? Because they don’t want to buy ten songs they’ll never listen to, and a case that’ll only collect dust. iTunes cuts the fat out of the music business model, and the DRM restrictions are a reasonable trade-off, as far as I’m concerned.
My Political Profile
23 January 2006
Your Political Profile |
| Overall: 45% Conservative, 55% Liberal |
| Social Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal |
| Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal |
| Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
| Ethics: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal |
| Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
Hollywood, Middle America, and Me
18 January 2006So the Golden Globes have spun around once more, and this year, Christian groups and other conservatives are furious over an apparent barrage of “leftist propaganda”. Three of the night’s bigger awards went to Brokeback Mountain, Capote, and Transamerica, which these folk claim “glorify homosexuality, transsexuality, and every other kind of sexual immorality”.
I’m a little miffed, too. No, not because I feel myself duped by some liberal agenda… What bugs me is the quality of films we’re dealing with. In particular, Brokeback Mountain just… sucks. Ok, that’s a bit harsh, but for a movie about two gay cowboys dealing with their star-crossed romance in the hills of Wyoming, this is a pretty stock art-house film. There’s nothing particularly poignant to it, the ending isn’t thought-provoking, and the characters are one-dimensional–they’re gay, that’s it. The fact that they’re cowboys is entirely situational; were it not for the fact that they’re gay, they would be completely uninteresting, uncompelling characters. (They aren’t much better as it is.)
“Oh, but it’s based on a 35-page short story.” Sure, there’s little room for in-depth character development in a short story, but the process of adapting a screenplay is to embellish such a story and ensure its resonance on screen. Screenwriters Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana failed to do so, and yet they win the Globe for best screenplay? Miffage. (McMurtry, you’ve done so much better than this.)
Brokeback suffers from what I call “Mona Lisa Smile Syndrome”. (Note: While I hate, hate, HATE Mona Lisa Smile, I feel only indifference to Brokeback, to its credit I guess.) It tries to speak about relevant social issues, but having been set a good four decades in the past, it loses sight of any sort of relevance. Would Ennis and Jake have to sneak around with their love affair this day and age? No. They could buy their fabled tract of land together, live up there, and the worst the neighbors would do is gossip.
Besides, where is it written that two men splitting a ranch MUST be gay? Try telling that to Einar and Mitch from “An Unfinished Life”. Again, two cowboys. Same state. Big ranch. They live there together, and have for years. No gay love. And the only one who even suspects that Einar and Mitch are gay is the granddaughter, Griff. (We can assume she’s been brainwashed by leftist propaganda, correct?)
Enough about Brokeback Mountain. What about the others? Transamerica–and Felicity Huffman’s win–may be out of left field, but I’ve heard very very few people make a stink about the movie except for the conservative naysayers. I see no pushing of agendas going on here. As for Capote… Well, if Phillip Seymore Hoffman played a gay character, it’s because the real Truman Capote WAS gay, but to my understanding, his sexual orientation was a crux of neither the film or his life, so who cares? Personally, I look forward to seeing Capote, as I’ve always been impressed by Hoffman. If it takes a character who’s an eccentric gay novelist to show off the full breadth of Mr. Hoffman’s acting abilities? So be it.