Ohio. Lovely place. Home of the Cuyahoga River, which has caught fire no less than five times (June 1949, March 1951, November 1952, December 1951, and the "big one" of 1969) [see a picture of the 1969 fire on the NOAA.gov site]. Home, more recently, to the second great American electoral fraud scandal of the 21st century (which is how old, now? Oh, SIX YEARS). Finally, someone's called them on it. Widely covered everywhere but in the national media (with it's huge "liberal bias" and all - see my last post for more on this), it's another case of widespread disenfranchisement of voters. A team of independent investigators has turned up massive irregularities, including denial of provisional ballots - which is illegal in the United States following the passage of the Voting Rights Act - as well as "loss" of legitimately cast ballots, election returns coming in hours prior to the closing of the polls, the closing of polls with voters waiting in hours-long lines in minority districts, and more.
Responsible for this? Well, the secretary of state runs the elections. I'm sure he has no guilt in the matter, despite resisting independent investigations into the matter for over a year, until he finally caved in to a subpoena. He was going to destroy the paper ballots - per state law, they are allowed to be destroyed after two years - until he caved again when threatened with a lawsuit. Now, according to the New York Times, he's temporarily placing the destruction on hold, but that doesn't do a hell of a lot of good, at least as long as he's got the authority to lift that hold whenever he pleases. Even in Florida, they've placed the ballots from the notorious 2000 election scandal into the state archive.
At this point, I'm sure that I'll be accused of partisan raving. That's all well and good - the corporatization of media organizations made sure that a profit-seeking press would have to resort to making all news adversarial and sensational. When day after day, we read about our world through a conflict-driven lens rather than an informational one, which buffers conflict through actual in-depth discussion, I expect nothing less.
The fact remains, however, that this should not be a partisan concern. The right to cast a vote is a fundamental cornerstone of American citizenship. This is not about Democrats, Republicans, Ralph Nader, George W. Bush, or John F. Kerry. This is not about abstract interpretation of legal fine points extrapolated from overly broad amendments to our Constitution. This is about our fucking right to vote. When any group engages in tactics designed to disenfranchise the citizenry, when "widespread irregularities" and "tampering" indicate that anyone has interfered with the basic right of a citizen to cast a vote and have it count, when evidence PROVES that something is not right, every member of our society should be concerned.
One small example of the tampering? In one precinct of Miami County, the official tally recorded 550 votes cast. The official signature books and ballots indicate that 450 people voted in that precinct. This means that 122% of the votes in that precinct were counted. More disturbing? In several other counties, blank ballots were found - ballots with votes recorded that indicated no precinct of origin - which once upon a time would indicate ballot box stuffing - Tammany Hall type shit.
-------------
currently on miPod - String Quartet no. 9, Antonin Dvorak
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
blogs vs. the media vs. the citizens
First, I'll state the following, which should be obvious to everyone but - apparently - is not: there is no communication, no statement, without bias. From birth, we are conditioned to see and think by our unique individual experiences. I'll give you a basic lesson in semiotics, ripped straight from Saussure's Course in General Linguistics: every utterance is composed of a chain of signs. Each of these signs is composed of a signifier (the word) and a signified (that which the word is supposed to connote). Each signifier initially holds a different meaning for the hearer - if I say the word "tree" to you, you may think of a pine, while I think of an oak - thus, chains of signifiers tend to lessen (but never erase) the lack of clarity. This is a thumbnail description, but adequate for my purposes - if you want to understand more, visit the wikipedia entry (this one's accurate enough, I've checked it out).
Anyone engaging in a communicative act must thus be able to adequately arrange his chain of signifiers to convey a meaning close enough to the thoughts coursing through his mind. Thoughts that are intended for communication must be arranged and ordered - translated - through the conscious mind. This is why we have such cliches as, "Words cannot express," "I don't have the words, " "Words alone are inadequate to ..." and so on. All utterances thus translated will have some taint of bias, of individual perception, because, after all, it is the individual perception that serves as the origin of meaning. Any attempt at objective language merely conceals bias by suppressing the appearance of interpretation: even the results of scientific experiments must be interpreted by the human experimentors.
Now to get down to the fucking point. The constant barrage of accusations of "bias" hurled around in our society is beginning to make me ill; furthermore, it's sickening our nation. Everyone is biased. Those who feel drawn to careers as reporters and analysts are not immune, they may, in fact, be even more guilty than the rest of us. Hate and invective on both sides of the political spectrum are exacerbated by and reciprocally fuel the "bias wars." Editors-in-chief of our media do not help things by assuming that accusations of bias, coming from both sides, mean that their coverage is, after all, unbiased. Think of the motto of the New York Times, coined by Adolph Ochs in the way-back-when: "All the news that's fit to print." Who exactly chooses what news is fit to print? Human beings, with human perceptions, and thus, human biases.
I know of someone who once claimed that all reporters should be round up and shot as traitors. They were letting their biases get in the way of their responsibility, he claimed, as the so-called "fourth estate" of government. Where did we get this "fourth estate" shit? By assuming that the "freedom of the press" clause in the First Amendment meant that the press, as an unbiased governmental watchdog, served as an unofficial "fourth branch" of the government. The trouble is, back when the First Amendment was penned, all newspapers were openly controlled by political parties. The American Star of Philadelphia was owned and controlled by the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson. The Federal Gazette was controlled by (surprise, surprise) the Federalists. The "freedom of the press" was basically a safety clause ensuring that political parties could freely organize without suppression by an opposition party in power. The expectation that the press should be unbiased didn't surface until the early twentieth century, and then only in the U. S.
Fast-forward to the rise of the blogosphere. One theory concerning the rise of the political blog in the U. S. is directly related to the "unbiased-biased media." Several observers in the U. K. write that the reason for the explosive growth in popularity of political blogs in the U. S. as opposed to the U.K. is the nature of media bias in the two countries: in the U.K., the press is openly biased, much like the early American press; thus, they don't need a pack of bloggers to point out every factual error or indication of bias, as we do.
I understand the rationale behind the political blogosphere: if a media entity claims to be unbiased, "fair and balanced," etc., then evidence to the contrary should be made public so that those responsible are held accountable. I will agree that we have a first amendment; however, in a capitalist society, we also have a concept called "truth in advertising," as well as slander and libel laws. The problem I have with the self-appointed media watchdogs is that they take it too far: in their reactions to "biased reporting," they automatically assume three points that they take as matters of fact:
My advice? Take it as a matter of course: not everyone will agree with your point of view. Some events will paint your candidate/elected official of choice in a bad light. Some of their actions are shitty, and need to be shared. Some of the things that the opposition does may actually benefit the nation in the long run. Above all? Realize that although everyone is "biased," not everyone is deliberately misleading you. Grow the fuck up.
---------
currently on miPod - Piano Concerto no. 23 II - "Adagio" - Mozart
Anyone engaging in a communicative act must thus be able to adequately arrange his chain of signifiers to convey a meaning close enough to the thoughts coursing through his mind. Thoughts that are intended for communication must be arranged and ordered - translated - through the conscious mind. This is why we have such cliches as, "Words cannot express," "I don't have the words, " "Words alone are inadequate to ..." and so on. All utterances thus translated will have some taint of bias, of individual perception, because, after all, it is the individual perception that serves as the origin of meaning. Any attempt at objective language merely conceals bias by suppressing the appearance of interpretation: even the results of scientific experiments must be interpreted by the human experimentors.
Now to get down to the fucking point. The constant barrage of accusations of "bias" hurled around in our society is beginning to make me ill; furthermore, it's sickening our nation. Everyone is biased. Those who feel drawn to careers as reporters and analysts are not immune, they may, in fact, be even more guilty than the rest of us. Hate and invective on both sides of the political spectrum are exacerbated by and reciprocally fuel the "bias wars." Editors-in-chief of our media do not help things by assuming that accusations of bias, coming from both sides, mean that their coverage is, after all, unbiased. Think of the motto of the New York Times, coined by Adolph Ochs in the way-back-when: "All the news that's fit to print." Who exactly chooses what news is fit to print? Human beings, with human perceptions, and thus, human biases.
I know of someone who once claimed that all reporters should be round up and shot as traitors. They were letting their biases get in the way of their responsibility, he claimed, as the so-called "fourth estate" of government. Where did we get this "fourth estate" shit? By assuming that the "freedom of the press" clause in the First Amendment meant that the press, as an unbiased governmental watchdog, served as an unofficial "fourth branch" of the government. The trouble is, back when the First Amendment was penned, all newspapers were openly controlled by political parties. The American Star of Philadelphia was owned and controlled by the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson. The Federal Gazette was controlled by (surprise, surprise) the Federalists. The "freedom of the press" was basically a safety clause ensuring that political parties could freely organize without suppression by an opposition party in power. The expectation that the press should be unbiased didn't surface until the early twentieth century, and then only in the U. S.
Fast-forward to the rise of the blogosphere. One theory concerning the rise of the political blog in the U. S. is directly related to the "unbiased-biased media." Several observers in the U. K. write that the reason for the explosive growth in popularity of political blogs in the U. S. as opposed to the U.K. is the nature of media bias in the two countries: in the U.K., the press is openly biased, much like the early American press; thus, they don't need a pack of bloggers to point out every factual error or indication of bias, as we do.
I understand the rationale behind the political blogosphere: if a media entity claims to be unbiased, "fair and balanced," etc., then evidence to the contrary should be made public so that those responsible are held accountable. I will agree that we have a first amendment; however, in a capitalist society, we also have a concept called "truth in advertising," as well as slander and libel laws. The problem I have with the self-appointed media watchdogs is that they take it too far: in their reactions to "biased reporting," they automatically assume three points that they take as matters of fact:
- Any and all evidence of bias is deliberately aimed as an attack upon the "victim" of the bias.
- Any and all evidence of bias is also evidence that one political party or another is controlling the publishing medium in which the story appeared.
- It is possible to be unbiased.
My advice? Take it as a matter of course: not everyone will agree with your point of view. Some events will paint your candidate/elected official of choice in a bad light. Some of their actions are shitty, and need to be shared. Some of the things that the opposition does may actually benefit the nation in the long run. Above all? Realize that although everyone is "biased," not everyone is deliberately misleading you. Grow the fuck up.
---------
currently on miPod - Piano Concerto no. 23 II - "Adagio" - Mozart
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Book Review: Richard Lanham's Economics of Attention
I wouldn't normally plug any books on this blog: I think it's somewhat stupid to advertise for someone for free. However, Richard Lanham's new book, The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance In the Age of Information (University of Chicago Press, 2006), addresses so many of the cultural quirks and rhetorical fallacies that I discuss here that I couldn't avoid it. I'll admit, I read and enjoyed his earlier work on rhetoric and the digital - his 1994 book The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts was one of the texts used in a seminar I took last year - but this book takes the ideas he posited in TEW (most of which proved to be correct) and examines them twelve years later.
Lanham's book is probably one of the finest pieces of rhetorical theory and application to appear in the past five years. In the Preface, he addresses the very reason I gave for writing when this blog appeared:
I won't spoil the entire book for you. I will say, however, that anyone interested in rhetoric, language, or digital media should at least read this book, if not purchase it. Mine's already full of pencil marks and marginalia.
----------------
Currently on miPod - Overture (Suite) no. 4 in D-Major, 1st mvmt., J. S. Bach
Lanham's book is probably one of the finest pieces of rhetorical theory and application to appear in the past five years. In the Preface, he addresses the very reason I gave for writing when this blog appeared:
"Rhetoric" has not always been a synonym for humbug. For most of Western history, it has meant the body of doctrine that teaches people how to sepak and write and, thus, act effectively in public life. Usually defined as the "art of persuasion," it might as well have been called the "economics of attention." It tells us how to allocate our central scarce resource, to invite people to attend to what we would like them to attend to. Rhetoric has been the central repository of wisdom on how we make sense of and use information since the Greeks first invented it sometime in the last millenium before Christ.The book discusses the "information economy" from a rhetorical perspective: we live in a society in which information is so abundant, and so key to economic success, that those whose work is most attractive to consumers are those who thrive, while others fall by the wayside. The key to understanding the "information economy" is understanding the rhetorical means - visual and linguistic - by which our attention is garnered by information providers; for, as Lanham would suggest, these means are rhetorical: they are conscious decisions related to persuasive means, with all facets save audience under the absolute control of the designer.
I won't spoil the entire book for you. I will say, however, that anyone interested in rhetoric, language, or digital media should at least read this book, if not purchase it. Mine's already full of pencil marks and marginalia.
----------------
Currently on miPod - Overture (Suite) no. 4 in D-Major, 1st mvmt., J. S. Bach
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Egregious Excuses
I have no idea how our government thinks we function. It must feel that, in most cases, we're so blindly stupid that we barely have enough brainpower to keep our hearts beating, but a recent article in the Washington Post really takes the cake. Defense attorneys - military officers all, appointed for said purpose by our government - for soldiers accused of raping and murdering a fourteen year old girl and killing her family afterward actually had the audacity to use the "War is Hell" defense [Story].
As one witness called by the defense testified, soldiers patrolling a hostile region in Iraq actually had to face a threat of death. These soldiers - all of whom must have joined after we went to Iraq (they're still low-rank enlisted men) - evidently signed up to go to war and never thought that they would have to endure cold food or the threat of death. So, one night while having some drinks and playing cards - how horrifying - they came up with a plan to rape the girl and murder her parents and five year old sister. I suppose the latter didn't share her dolls or blocks with the soldiers.
I will admit: I never went to war. My father forbade my joining the military after his own service (two tours, 1967-68) in the Marine Corps in Vietnam. My knowledge, as such, is solely historical or secondhand. However, now as then, the vast majority of soldiers in hostile areas did not participate in disgusting acts such as this. Soldiers enlist. Soldiers fight in wars. I'm told that soldiers die in wars at the hands of other soldiers, and as such, that the threat of death is something that soldiers should expect. I'm fairly sure that premeditated rape and murder do not fall under accepted operational guidelines for our well-trained military personnel. As a matter of fact, rape and murder of any sort - especially the rape and murder of civilians - are prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and that the excuse of "war is hard on soldiers" is not an acceptable defense: there are none.
------------
currently on miPod - "Andante Spicatto" - A. Marcello
As one witness called by the defense testified, soldiers patrolling a hostile region in Iraq actually had to face a threat of death. These soldiers - all of whom must have joined after we went to Iraq (they're still low-rank enlisted men) - evidently signed up to go to war and never thought that they would have to endure cold food or the threat of death. So, one night while having some drinks and playing cards - how horrifying - they came up with a plan to rape the girl and murder her parents and five year old sister. I suppose the latter didn't share her dolls or blocks with the soldiers.
I will admit: I never went to war. My father forbade my joining the military after his own service (two tours, 1967-68) in the Marine Corps in Vietnam. My knowledge, as such, is solely historical or secondhand. However, now as then, the vast majority of soldiers in hostile areas did not participate in disgusting acts such as this. Soldiers enlist. Soldiers fight in wars. I'm told that soldiers die in wars at the hands of other soldiers, and as such, that the threat of death is something that soldiers should expect. I'm fairly sure that premeditated rape and murder do not fall under accepted operational guidelines for our well-trained military personnel. As a matter of fact, rape and murder of any sort - especially the rape and murder of civilians - are prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and that the excuse of "war is hard on soldiers" is not an acceptable defense: there are none.
------------
currently on miPod - "Andante Spicatto" - A. Marcello
Chickenhawk Jackasses
Yesterday (8/9/2006), in newspapers across the nation, Americans were subjected to yet another announcement in which our government - or agents acting directly on behalf thereof - assumed that our collective intellect was somewhere close to the "mildly retarded" mark (see last posting). In a not-so-stunning announcement, the Bush Administration drafted a proposed amendment to existing war crimes laws that would eliminate threats of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating and degrading prisoners [Story - Washington Post].
Interestingly, rape, murder, and torture remain on the list, while cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners (in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is signatory) would be just fine. What I want to know is just what these jackass chickenhawks - remember, everyone in charge up there found an excuse to avoid Vietnam, the President and Veep foremost among them - who are presently playing at war in the sandbox consider "torture." Included on the now-acceptable list:
To those of you who are ready to tell me all about the "terrorists" who would "gladly" do this to all of us, remember this: after lying to us about weapons of mass destruction and getting us into an unwinnable war - nobody has ever been successful in waging a modern war on two fronts simultaneously: witness the breakdown in Afghanistan because our forces are stretched too thin - our good president decided that the war in Iraq was not about WMDs at all, instead, we're there to promote the spread of democracy and Western values (that last one was implied rather than stated outright, but is no less true). How are we to set a good example when we encourage such behavior? It is, after all, encouragement, albeit backhandedly so. We prosecute "the troops" - all of whom we actively support - but after the brouhaha, we pass a law to allow our political appointees to abuse our prisoners - for whom we are setting a "good example" of "democracy in action" - in the exact manner for which we prosecuted "the troops."
-----------------
currently on miPod - "In the Fen Country" - Ralph Vaughan Williams
Interestingly, rape, murder, and torture remain on the list, while cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners (in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is signatory) would be just fine. What I want to know is just what these jackass chickenhawks - remember, everyone in charge up there found an excuse to avoid Vietnam, the President and Veep foremost among them - who are presently playing at war in the sandbox consider "torture." Included on the now-acceptable list:
- forced nudity
- doggie leashes
- simulated acts of homosexuality
- wearing women's underwear and doing the "peepee tuck"
To those of you who are ready to tell me all about the "terrorists" who would "gladly" do this to all of us, remember this: after lying to us about weapons of mass destruction and getting us into an unwinnable war - nobody has ever been successful in waging a modern war on two fronts simultaneously: witness the breakdown in Afghanistan because our forces are stretched too thin - our good president decided that the war in Iraq was not about WMDs at all, instead, we're there to promote the spread of democracy and Western values (that last one was implied rather than stated outright, but is no less true). How are we to set a good example when we encourage such behavior? It is, after all, encouragement, albeit backhandedly so. We prosecute "the troops" - all of whom we actively support - but after the brouhaha, we pass a law to allow our political appointees to abuse our prisoners - for whom we are setting a "good example" of "democracy in action" - in the exact manner for which we prosecuted "the troops."
-----------------
currently on miPod - "In the Fen Country" - Ralph Vaughan Williams
Monday, July 31, 2006
"Tragedy" vs. "Common Sense"
On Thursday, July 20, 2006, the President addressed the NAACP for the first time in his six-year tenure in office. The gathered dignitaries were - surprise, surprise - rather lukewarm in their reception of ol' Dubya, whose initial election alone left a bad taste in the mouths of many African Americans, and whose administration has done more to curtail the advances of the Civil Rights movement than any since Woodrow "I Won't Pass a Law Against Lynching" Wilson.
Surprisingly, the president was somewhat candid, admitting that he "understood" that "racism still exists in America," and that he "understands" that "many African-Americans distrust my political party." He failed to mention the neoconservative pandering to the interests of white southerners, who have a notoriously bad track record - spanning back to the 1600's - concerning the rights of those with African heritage. Hearkening back to the last Republican President with any claim on the hearts and minds of African Americans, he labeled his party "the party of Abraham Lincoln" which "let go of its historical ties with the African American community." How have Republicans sunk so far in the estimation of the African American community? Perhaps by attacking such political ideas as Affirmative Action and Civil Rights.
Before my few conservative readers jump in with a remark about "reverse racism", I'll remind them of a remark about what the "squish" Bush (George Herbert Walker, that is) had to say on September 23, 1991 about the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism: "Zionism . . . is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people . . . to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and indeed throughout history" (New York Times 24 Sept. 1991 pg. A6). We know what happened in WWII, and we know what happened afterwards in the creation of a Jewish state. What Mr. Bush (the elder, and in my estimate, far better President) objected to is the logical fallacy through which those two actions were being declared equivalent because of a clause of racial exclusivity - that by ignoring the historical and cultural context of the events, the victims are named victimizers.
Affirmative action is designed - much like the UN resolution creating the Israeli state - to in some way atone for the imbalance created by centuries-old discrimination. Six million Jews perished during the Holocaust. Conservative estimates place about 30 million Africans who were directly involved in American slavery, of which no less than half perished en route to the New World. That's fifteen million dead on the boat - with no mention of those who died at the hands of their masters from brutality or deprivation. Add to this an institutionalized and state-perpetuated inequality, and we still have much to atone for.
Surprisingly, the president was somewhat candid, admitting that he "understood" that "racism still exists in America," and that he "understands" that "many African-Americans distrust my political party." He failed to mention the neoconservative pandering to the interests of white southerners, who have a notoriously bad track record - spanning back to the 1600's - concerning the rights of those with African heritage. Hearkening back to the last Republican President with any claim on the hearts and minds of African Americans, he labeled his party "the party of Abraham Lincoln" which "let go of its historical ties with the African American community." How have Republicans sunk so far in the estimation of the African American community? Perhaps by attacking such political ideas as Affirmative Action and Civil Rights.
Before my few conservative readers jump in with a remark about "reverse racism", I'll remind them of a remark about what the "squish" Bush (George Herbert Walker, that is) had to say on September 23, 1991 about the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism: "Zionism . . . is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people . . . to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and indeed throughout history" (New York Times 24 Sept. 1991 pg. A6). We know what happened in WWII, and we know what happened afterwards in the creation of a Jewish state. What Mr. Bush (the elder, and in my estimate, far better President) objected to is the logical fallacy through which those two actions were being declared equivalent because of a clause of racial exclusivity - that by ignoring the historical and cultural context of the events, the victims are named victimizers.
Affirmative action is designed - much like the UN resolution creating the Israeli state - to in some way atone for the imbalance created by centuries-old discrimination. Six million Jews perished during the Holocaust. Conservative estimates place about 30 million Africans who were directly involved in American slavery, of which no less than half perished en route to the New World. That's fifteen million dead on the boat - with no mention of those who died at the hands of their masters from brutality or deprivation. Add to this an institutionalized and state-perpetuated inequality, and we still have much to atone for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
