Troubling: one of many fitting descriptive terms concerning the Bush nomination of Gen. Michael V. Hayden as the next director of the CIA. The bipartisan congressional outcry - Republicans as well as Democrats hate the idea - especially in our current antagonistic political environment, speaks volumes. Hayden has, as our president states, "vast experience," in intelligence-gathering; however, because he is, first, career military, and second, active career military, he does not belong at the head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The history of espionage in the United States is scattered: although we have always used spies, it wasn't until 1946 that we employed them full-time. When crafting the National Security Act in 1947, which created our full-time intelligence system, Congress made a conscious decision to place intelligence-gathering fully in civilian, rather than military control. There are several reasons, foremost among which is that in the U.S., the military has always been under civilian control: our founders, while realizing that an effective military was necessary, realized that if a military is not adequately controlled, it can be used to take control of the government. This is an intelligent maneuver: recent world history alone holds countless examples of too-strong executives using the military to turn democracy into dictatorships. Thus the civilian "commander in chief," who is limited by our constitutional system of checks and balances.
"It hasn't happened here" is a foolhardy, illogical excuse. If it hasn't happened here, that doesn't mean it can't. It only means that we haven't yet had the proper convergence of situations in which "it" could, and did, happen. Four-star generals are exemplary military figures; however, career military officers are insulated from the realities of civil liberties, including due process, by nature of their chosen professions: the military, for a very good reason, is not democratic. Military officers exercise absolute authority under the rules of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: soldiers follow orders; they have no room for debate. Citizens do not follow orders, again for good reason: they must debate in order for our republic to operate properly.
We need a civilian head of the CIA. We need someone who understands accountability to the people, not just the President. Our intelligence operations, military and otherwise, must be centralized - just as the rest of our governmental operations are - under civilian authority.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Mike Nifong should be disbarred
The nation has by now become completely inundated with news reports about Durham DA Mike Nifong winning the primary election; an election that many consider to be the reason he came after the Duke Lacrosse team so hard and fast in the media in the first place. I think, honestly, that he should be disbarred for violation of the rights of the accused. Regardless of what one thinks of the case itself, it is hard to ignore the manner in which he so blatantly violated the rights of the players, trying the case in the national media before physical evidence of any sort had been gathered. Now, the city of Durham has seen itself dragged through the mud in newspapers and national television outlets of all kinds, partly as a result of his disgusting pandering to the worst voyeuristic desires in all of us.
When the national media visits Durham, it goes to the worst parts of town: this so that they can fit the story to Nifong's vision of an elite institution whose rich students run rampant over the poor local citizenry. The national news photographs show perhaps 5% of the city: I lived there for four years, in three different apartments all over the town: central Durham (3-5 min from downtown), southwest Durham (near Chapel Hill), and North Durham, near I-85 ... and Duke University. I delivered pizzas (love the graduate school life, don't you) to people living in subsidized housing (what many call "the ghetto"). On the same route, I wound my way through some of the wealthiest suburbs in North Carolina - million dollar mansions on PGA golf courses. I also visited every type of home in-between. Durham was, and remains, a typical mid-sized city in the urban south, the northern corner of the Triangle metropolitan area.
What you don't see is the other 80% of Durham: the arts, the mecca of small specialty shops, the majority of the citizens who don't realize that they live in a hellhole dominated by northeastern college elites - because they don't. The Research Triangle Park - huge for pharmaceuticals and computer technology - is entirely within the city limits of Durham: billions of dollars of research and development that share a zip code (277##) with the disgusting hole portrayed in the media. Think about that.
Back to the topic. Mike Nifong should be disbarred, not re-elected. Why? He tried his case in the media: we had a classic case of the first amendment (free press) clashing with the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments (rights of the accused: include impartial jury and speedy trial, as well as due process). The media had help: it was hard to turn on the damn news or open a paper without seeing his face. He manipulated a photo lineup: for traditional lineups, you're supposed to have five "fillers" for every shot of a suspect; instead, he had the police show her only photos of lacrosse players who were at the party. He ignored photographs and phone records placing one of the two arrested players far away from the house at the time of the alleged rape.
Regardless of what one thinks of the case, this is negligence. Prosecutorial misconduct - call it what you will. The man should be the night manager at a bowling alley, not trying cases in a court of law.
--------
currently on miPod - "Come Back" - Pearl Jam
When the national media visits Durham, it goes to the worst parts of town: this so that they can fit the story to Nifong's vision of an elite institution whose rich students run rampant over the poor local citizenry. The national news photographs show perhaps 5% of the city: I lived there for four years, in three different apartments all over the town: central Durham (3-5 min from downtown), southwest Durham (near Chapel Hill), and North Durham, near I-85 ... and Duke University. I delivered pizzas (love the graduate school life, don't you) to people living in subsidized housing (what many call "the ghetto"). On the same route, I wound my way through some of the wealthiest suburbs in North Carolina - million dollar mansions on PGA golf courses. I also visited every type of home in-between. Durham was, and remains, a typical mid-sized city in the urban south, the northern corner of the Triangle metropolitan area.
What you don't see is the other 80% of Durham: the arts, the mecca of small specialty shops, the majority of the citizens who don't realize that they live in a hellhole dominated by northeastern college elites - because they don't. The Research Triangle Park - huge for pharmaceuticals and computer technology - is entirely within the city limits of Durham: billions of dollars of research and development that share a zip code (277##) with the disgusting hole portrayed in the media. Think about that.
Back to the topic. Mike Nifong should be disbarred, not re-elected. Why? He tried his case in the media: we had a classic case of the first amendment (free press) clashing with the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments (rights of the accused: include impartial jury and speedy trial, as well as due process). The media had help: it was hard to turn on the damn news or open a paper without seeing his face. He manipulated a photo lineup: for traditional lineups, you're supposed to have five "fillers" for every shot of a suspect; instead, he had the police show her only photos of lacrosse players who were at the party. He ignored photographs and phone records placing one of the two arrested players far away from the house at the time of the alleged rape.
Regardless of what one thinks of the case, this is negligence. Prosecutorial misconduct - call it what you will. The man should be the night manager at a bowling alley, not trying cases in a court of law.
--------
currently on miPod - "Come Back" - Pearl Jam
Friday, April 28, 2006
Happy Birthday, Hubble!
Sixteen years. The Hubble Telescope has been functioning for sixteen years - with only periodic maintenance from shuttle technicians. It's still in use. Question: how long do we use our computers without upgrading? I stand amazed.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Visual Rhetoric and Politics...
It's always interesting to me to look at political sites (for either party) and think about the visual rhetoric expressed by the content. Not photographic content, which is far more interesting on political parody pages; standard party websites haven't yet stooped to manipulating photography on their main page. I mean backgrounds and minor graphic details such as buttons, banners, and color interplay, graphics that people don't study, that people don't internalize and filter as they do standard print artifacts such as alphanumeric text and photographs. One of the purposes of rhetorical criticism is the production of "metaknowledge," explicit understanding and evaluation of messages that pass through our lives.
Make no mistake: these graphics are messages, deliberately crafted (whether consciously or not) to convey a general feeling; thus the danger of allowing them to pass unfiltered. How do such things become messages? Think: how many images, sounds, and pieces of text just pass through your mind without a second thought? How do we "know" what things mean? We know because human beings are social animals: we communicate. Rhetoric is not necessarily windy, neither is it necessarily poetic or otherwise discursively exaggerated: Moliere reminds us that, while almost none of us speak poetry in the day to day, all of us speak prose. We persuade. We argue. We debate and discuss. We also unconsciously consume discourse: when was the last time you looked at a Stop sign and thought about it?
Like the stop sign, political visuals are deliberately crafted: color and shape have definite meanings in politics. A map can be seen as nothing more than a political artifact, a representation of perceived borders: I am here, I am not there. Look at the planet from space, and you see no borders. The use of a map shape in a political site, with colored pieces in the shape of smaller map shapes, has a rhetorical purpose. The Republican National Committee homepage uses map and color messages in a subtle and brilliant fashion. If you want to see the maps of which I speak, you can visit this page.
The first map, which was used in a "Donate" animation, shows faded red and blue. Keep in mind that the rest of the site shows only dark, blood red. Fading in this context suggests uncertainty: we're winning, but we haven't won. It enhances the effectiveness of the large, red button reading "Donate," in all caps, and does so quite subtly, in a way that the average visitor won't notice. The second map shows a bloodred "heartland" with isolated blue spots that represent highly urban areas. This, too, is a rhetorical appeal, one designed to demonstrate that first, 80% of the United States is "Red" country, and second, that those folks in big cities (notice the blue swath in the Northeast, following the Canadian border, and along the California Coast, the very immigrant southwest, and the isolated blue islands in cities such as Chicago, Charlotte, Indianapolis, etc) don't agree with the overwhelming majority. Its brilliance lies in its subtlety: the map is only a physical representation of space, and ignores population entirely. We all know that the popular election was not an 80/20 landslide, but this map displays something entirely different: power and victory.
In the interest of fairness, I should mention the Democratic National Committee homepage, which engages in similarly suble rhetorical devices. The bloodred map of Iraq in the center of the page has two major implications that immediately come to mind: first, the blood spilled in the nation, and second, an implication of political responsibility. The blood of the Iraq war is placed squarely in the hands of the Republican party (despite the fact that a number of Dems voted to go to war). Another interesting visual is the dollar bill button on the right hand side of the page, which is labeled "Republican culture of Corruption," the latter word in gray. The dollar bill is a subtle reference to lobbying money, which many Dems are tied to as well. The gray: think what you will of shades of gray or corruption. Here I must admit that I wrote about the visuals on the RNC site earlier in the semester: I'm working on the DNC visuals right now for a different paper, so my criticism isn't as broad as it otherwise would be. Nonetheless, you get my point: visual elements such as these are subtly designed to enhance the party message.
This is, of course, exactly the goal, as it is on all such pages: political parties want three things from visitors to their websites: votes, donations, and volunteerism. Party sites are designed to appeal to current party members, active or inactive. Active party members can learn the party's stance on current events; inactive members can be informed as to just why they need to be more active. Undecided voters may visit to learn party stances, but the odds are likely that they'll also be looking at the opposition: if they seek information, undecideds are far more likely to go to traditional news media outlets. Opposition members may visit, but only to shake their heads and mutter terrible things about "spin," then return to the homepage of their party of choice and gleefully read what they'll see as accurate, informative news.
Make no mistake: these graphics are deliberate constructs. Graphic designers and website creators have far too much control over color and pixel definition for it to be anything but. Whether conscious or not (some of it may be unconscious, but I doubt that most of it is), these are rhetorical devices. If the cornerstone of a deliberative democracy is an informed citizenry, then twenty-first century democracy demands that we become informed not just of textual and photographic content, but of the subtle, background content that enhances the former two.
--------
currently playing on miPod - Symphony no. 3, second movement - Schumann
Make no mistake: these graphics are messages, deliberately crafted (whether consciously or not) to convey a general feeling; thus the danger of allowing them to pass unfiltered. How do such things become messages? Think: how many images, sounds, and pieces of text just pass through your mind without a second thought? How do we "know" what things mean? We know because human beings are social animals: we communicate. Rhetoric is not necessarily windy, neither is it necessarily poetic or otherwise discursively exaggerated: Moliere reminds us that, while almost none of us speak poetry in the day to day, all of us speak prose. We persuade. We argue. We debate and discuss. We also unconsciously consume discourse: when was the last time you looked at a Stop sign and thought about it?
Like the stop sign, political visuals are deliberately crafted: color and shape have definite meanings in politics. A map can be seen as nothing more than a political artifact, a representation of perceived borders: I am here, I am not there. Look at the planet from space, and you see no borders. The use of a map shape in a political site, with colored pieces in the shape of smaller map shapes, has a rhetorical purpose. The Republican National Committee homepage uses map and color messages in a subtle and brilliant fashion. If you want to see the maps of which I speak, you can visit this page.
The first map, which was used in a "Donate" animation, shows faded red and blue. Keep in mind that the rest of the site shows only dark, blood red. Fading in this context suggests uncertainty: we're winning, but we haven't won. It enhances the effectiveness of the large, red button reading "Donate," in all caps, and does so quite subtly, in a way that the average visitor won't notice. The second map shows a bloodred "heartland" with isolated blue spots that represent highly urban areas. This, too, is a rhetorical appeal, one designed to demonstrate that first, 80% of the United States is "Red" country, and second, that those folks in big cities (notice the blue swath in the Northeast, following the Canadian border, and along the California Coast, the very immigrant southwest, and the isolated blue islands in cities such as Chicago, Charlotte, Indianapolis, etc) don't agree with the overwhelming majority. Its brilliance lies in its subtlety: the map is only a physical representation of space, and ignores population entirely. We all know that the popular election was not an 80/20 landslide, but this map displays something entirely different: power and victory.
In the interest of fairness, I should mention the Democratic National Committee homepage, which engages in similarly suble rhetorical devices. The bloodred map of Iraq in the center of the page has two major implications that immediately come to mind: first, the blood spilled in the nation, and second, an implication of political responsibility. The blood of the Iraq war is placed squarely in the hands of the Republican party (despite the fact that a number of Dems voted to go to war). Another interesting visual is the dollar bill button on the right hand side of the page, which is labeled "Republican culture of Corruption," the latter word in gray. The dollar bill is a subtle reference to lobbying money, which many Dems are tied to as well. The gray: think what you will of shades of gray or corruption. Here I must admit that I wrote about the visuals on the RNC site earlier in the semester: I'm working on the DNC visuals right now for a different paper, so my criticism isn't as broad as it otherwise would be. Nonetheless, you get my point: visual elements such as these are subtly designed to enhance the party message.
This is, of course, exactly the goal, as it is on all such pages: political parties want three things from visitors to their websites: votes, donations, and volunteerism. Party sites are designed to appeal to current party members, active or inactive. Active party members can learn the party's stance on current events; inactive members can be informed as to just why they need to be more active. Undecided voters may visit to learn party stances, but the odds are likely that they'll also be looking at the opposition: if they seek information, undecideds are far more likely to go to traditional news media outlets. Opposition members may visit, but only to shake their heads and mutter terrible things about "spin," then return to the homepage of their party of choice and gleefully read what they'll see as accurate, informative news.
Make no mistake: these graphics are deliberate constructs. Graphic designers and website creators have far too much control over color and pixel definition for it to be anything but. Whether conscious or not (some of it may be unconscious, but I doubt that most of it is), these are rhetorical devices. If the cornerstone of a deliberative democracy is an informed citizenry, then twenty-first century democracy demands that we become informed not just of textual and photographic content, but of the subtle, background content that enhances the former two.
--------
currently playing on miPod - Symphony no. 3, second movement - Schumann
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Free speech & the Internet... What's the fuss?
What exactly constitutes a violation of free speech online? Consider two recent, and very different cases. In one, a group of college students from Harvard, MIT, Swarthmore, and others posted damaging internal documents about Diebold online. Diebold, if you remember, is the company whose electronic polling systems caused such a panic among voters' rights groups - the machines that incorrectly tallied votes in Cleveland, OH among other places. In the article from PCWorld.com, Paul Roberts, a correspondent from IDG news service, discusses the students' actions:
"One of those who set up a mirror site was C. Scott Ananian, a graduate student in computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of three students to mirror the Diebold document's on the institute's network. After downloading the documents from Why War?'s Web site, Ananian posted links to copies of the documents on his work computer on October 27, making the documents accessible through MIT's connection to the Internet.
Prior to posting the documents, Ananian followed reports about security flaws in Diebold systems, including a July report from researchers at Johns Hopkins University about software flaws in Diebold's AccuVote-TS voting terminal." [read the full article here]
In another case, the EFF started up its propaganda machine, whining about AOL censoring its members for circulating a petition concerning the "E-mail tax" that it is considering. This so-called "tax" is really a fee that AOL is charging legitimate companies who don't want their e-mail deleted as spam. Such companies would get lead billing in AOL users' e-mail inboxes, above non-paid messages from AOL members' e-mail lists. [read the full article here]
Which one is "censorship?" Both companies are protecting their fiscal interests: Diebold has a vested stake in online polling; AOL stands to make buckets of money by charging companies to deliver e-mail past its vaunted "Spam blocker." Both companies are attempting to quash those who stand in their respective paths to additional fortune. Both companies are enraging online free speech activists, many of whom don't understand the nature of rhetoricized speech, that which our founders were protecting. Which case deserves outrage, and which one is just a pointless gesture?
In all honesty, the Diebold case is that which should be a matter of concern. In this case, voting citizens were publicizing a legitimate, documentable concern about the accuracy of voting in the United States. Although their methods were unorthodox, their actions fall well within the purview of the First Amendment: they were engaged in journalistic activity that served the public interest, raising concerns about fellow citizens' loss through inaccuracy of voting rights. The so-called "copyright infringement" that Diebold is using against the students, a part of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, is a smokescreen. Students were not using copywritten material, such as the Diebold operating software code, to make a profit or cause a loss of profit for personal gain; rather, they were publishing internal documents obtained by unorthodox measures (similar to means that journalists use all the time, but a little more technological) for the purpose of informing the public. Again, a journalistic act that is protected by the First Amendment.
The AOL article is not cause for concern. AOL customers are not publicizing an issue of public concern, instead, they are complaining about the practices of a corporate entity that they voluntarily pay to provide a selective internet service. AOL is not a standard ISP: AOL is a corporate entity that provides an online forum with select options available to members, among which is restricted use of the Internet. AOL users, when they sign up, must agree to the Terms of Service, within which it clearly states that: "You may not use the AOL Network in any manner that could damage, disable, overburden, or impair our servers or networks, or interfere with any other party's use and enjoyment of the AOL Network. You may not attempt to gain unauthorized access to any services, user accounts, computer systems or networks, through hacking, password mining or any other means. We may take any legal and technical remedies to prevent the violation of this provision and to enforce these Terms of Service."
The actions by the AOL members were in violation of the TOS - AOL feels that certain members would benefit from selective paid e-mail advertisements; therefore, anyone interfering with this can be shut down: "We may take any ... technical remedies to prevent the violation of this provision[.]" Is it a crappy thing to do? Yes it is; however, AOL users may, at any time, terminate their AOL accounts and sign up for another service, one less restrictive. AOL served a valuable purpose in the early days of the Internet: people who were not technologically savvy could go "online" easily, with AOL software doing all the hard work. Most DSL or Cable Internet services cost the same as (or less than) AOL, and these ISPs will gladly come to your home and set up your computer to use their services.
Users worried about "e-mail taxes" will always be able to find an e-mail account that does not send commercial e-mail for a fee. Jettison AOL, and your problem goes away. The critical difference is in rights: people have the right to vote. People pay for the privilege of Internet use. You can take your money elsewhere for an ISP. You can't take your vote elsewhere without giving up your citizenship. I'm now officially tired of this, and I'm going to bed.
-------------
currently on miPod - "Way Out Basie" - Count Basie
"One of those who set up a mirror site was C. Scott Ananian, a graduate student in computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of three students to mirror the Diebold document's on the institute's network. After downloading the documents from Why War?'s Web site, Ananian posted links to copies of the documents on his work computer on October 27, making the documents accessible through MIT's connection to the Internet.
Prior to posting the documents, Ananian followed reports about security flaws in Diebold systems, including a July report from researchers at Johns Hopkins University about software flaws in Diebold's AccuVote-TS voting terminal." [read the full article here]
In another case, the EFF started up its propaganda machine, whining about AOL censoring its members for circulating a petition concerning the "E-mail tax" that it is considering. This so-called "tax" is really a fee that AOL is charging legitimate companies who don't want their e-mail deleted as spam. Such companies would get lead billing in AOL users' e-mail inboxes, above non-paid messages from AOL members' e-mail lists. [read the full article here]
Which one is "censorship?" Both companies are protecting their fiscal interests: Diebold has a vested stake in online polling; AOL stands to make buckets of money by charging companies to deliver e-mail past its vaunted "Spam blocker." Both companies are attempting to quash those who stand in their respective paths to additional fortune. Both companies are enraging online free speech activists, many of whom don't understand the nature of rhetoricized speech, that which our founders were protecting. Which case deserves outrage, and which one is just a pointless gesture?
In all honesty, the Diebold case is that which should be a matter of concern. In this case, voting citizens were publicizing a legitimate, documentable concern about the accuracy of voting in the United States. Although their methods were unorthodox, their actions fall well within the purview of the First Amendment: they were engaged in journalistic activity that served the public interest, raising concerns about fellow citizens' loss through inaccuracy of voting rights. The so-called "copyright infringement" that Diebold is using against the students, a part of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, is a smokescreen. Students were not using copywritten material, such as the Diebold operating software code, to make a profit or cause a loss of profit for personal gain; rather, they were publishing internal documents obtained by unorthodox measures (similar to means that journalists use all the time, but a little more technological) for the purpose of informing the public. Again, a journalistic act that is protected by the First Amendment.
The AOL article is not cause for concern. AOL customers are not publicizing an issue of public concern, instead, they are complaining about the practices of a corporate entity that they voluntarily pay to provide a selective internet service. AOL is not a standard ISP: AOL is a corporate entity that provides an online forum with select options available to members, among which is restricted use of the Internet. AOL users, when they sign up, must agree to the Terms of Service, within which it clearly states that: "You may not use the AOL Network in any manner that could damage, disable, overburden, or impair our servers or networks, or interfere with any other party's use and enjoyment of the AOL Network. You may not attempt to gain unauthorized access to any services, user accounts, computer systems or networks, through hacking, password mining or any other means. We may take any legal and technical remedies to prevent the violation of this provision and to enforce these Terms of Service."
The actions by the AOL members were in violation of the TOS - AOL feels that certain members would benefit from selective paid e-mail advertisements; therefore, anyone interfering with this can be shut down: "We may take any ... technical remedies to prevent the violation of this provision[.]" Is it a crappy thing to do? Yes it is; however, AOL users may, at any time, terminate their AOL accounts and sign up for another service, one less restrictive. AOL served a valuable purpose in the early days of the Internet: people who were not technologically savvy could go "online" easily, with AOL software doing all the hard work. Most DSL or Cable Internet services cost the same as (or less than) AOL, and these ISPs will gladly come to your home and set up your computer to use their services.
Users worried about "e-mail taxes" will always be able to find an e-mail account that does not send commercial e-mail for a fee. Jettison AOL, and your problem goes away. The critical difference is in rights: people have the right to vote. People pay for the privilege of Internet use. You can take your money elsewhere for an ISP. You can't take your vote elsewhere without giving up your citizenship. I'm now officially tired of this, and I'm going to bed.
-------------
currently on miPod - "Way Out Basie" - Count Basie
Monday, April 17, 2006
Updates & News-in-Brief
First, if you have yet to read my "Screaming into a Box" posts [links below], I recommend that you do so, to avoid calumny and/or misinterpretation in any responses you may send my way. The next post or two will refer to topics covered more in-depth there.
Screaming into a box - intro
Screaming into a box - revisited - I
Screaming into a box - revisited - II
I received a number of invitations in response to one of my last posts - most of which involved insertion of an iBook into orifices it was never meant to be placed. If you responded thoughtfully, I happily allow your comment to appear, if not, I moderate it straight into the trash. I welcome intelligent, thoughtful responses, but not flamebait. Don't take it personally: I don't allow my students to hand me thoughtless, rote-response driven trash, I request that they provide evidence and discussion. A. Nonny Mouse, who responds with aggressive, well-thought-out statements, even if we disagree on several points, is allowed in every time.
Second, if you reach this page most frequently via my homepage, you may notice some changes there, as well. I finally updated much of it and posted the base structure, but many pages have yet to be added, so there will be broken links. My links page will be under construction continually, but I invite bloggers and essayists to submit their links to me via e-mail from the contact page. If I read it and like it, I'll post your site. The link to my homepage is http://www4.ncsu.edu/~cbberg/index.html. I'm working on an easy response form through which you can send a link without having to open your e-mail, but my University contains a high number of computer nerds, and the cgi servers are expanding. It'll be a while.
Third, and final - from this point forward, in a number of entries, I'll probably refer to a paper, article, or other document I've created for academic purposes. Because of the limits of the weblog format, there is no possible way to include the necessary information, discussion, and citation involved in a scholarly paper. If you see a parenthetical citation such as the following:
(Berg )
The blue will indicate a link to a document (as I post them on my site) or an e-mail address, at which you can contact me and read the entire piece. I should tell you now that all links, whether noted thus or not, are covered by the same Creative Commons License seen in the right hand navigation bar.
Thanks.
---------
currently playing on miPod - "Pennsylvania 65000" - Glen Miller
Screaming into a box - intro
Screaming into a box - revisited - I
Screaming into a box - revisited - II
I received a number of invitations in response to one of my last posts - most of which involved insertion of an iBook into orifices it was never meant to be placed. If you responded thoughtfully, I happily allow your comment to appear, if not, I moderate it straight into the trash. I welcome intelligent, thoughtful responses, but not flamebait. Don't take it personally: I don't allow my students to hand me thoughtless, rote-response driven trash, I request that they provide evidence and discussion. A. Nonny Mouse, who responds with aggressive, well-thought-out statements, even if we disagree on several points, is allowed in every time.
Second, if you reach this page most frequently via my homepage, you may notice some changes there, as well. I finally updated much of it and posted the base structure, but many pages have yet to be added, so there will be broken links. My links page will be under construction continually, but I invite bloggers and essayists to submit their links to me via e-mail from the contact page. If I read it and like it, I'll post your site. The link to my homepage is http://www4.ncsu.edu/~cbberg/index.html. I'm working on an easy response form through which you can send a link without having to open your e-mail, but my University contains a high number of computer nerds, and the cgi servers are expanding. It'll be a while.
Third, and final - from this point forward, in a number of entries, I'll probably refer to a paper, article, or other document I've created for academic purposes. Because of the limits of the weblog format, there is no possible way to include the necessary information, discussion, and citation involved in a scholarly paper. If you see a parenthetical citation such as the following:
(Berg )
The blue will indicate a link to a document (as I post them on my site) or an e-mail address, at which you can contact me and read the entire piece. I should tell you now that all links, whether noted thus or not, are covered by the same Creative Commons License seen in the right hand navigation bar.
Thanks.
---------
currently playing on miPod - "Pennsylvania 65000" - Glen Miller
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
