AlvinBlah

It’s fitting that on Memorial Day we Americans remember those that are no longer with us. Traditionally this day is reserved for those of the armed services that have fallen from combat, but the sentiment can and should be extended to all those that are now gone. President Bush has held office for nearly eight years now, and of those that started that journey with him, few remain of the original staff. The Cabinet of the 43rd President has been a veritable revolving door of appointments and confirmations. I will take today, to remember those members of President Bush’s ruling body that have been fired, resigned, or quit in protest. The list is long, and the reasons for their not being here today are varied, but they shall be remembered.

Colin Powell:
Secretary of State from 2001-2005

Colin Powell served in the U.S. Army with distinction and making many firsts, both with being the youngest person to be Secretary of The Joint Chiefs, but the first, and so far only African American to do so. His position as Secretary of State is one of the highest positions in civilian government that an African American has held as well. Mr. Powell is famously known for his Powell Doctrine and his advocation for war in Iraq with the United Nations. While Secretary of State Mr. Powell frequently came into policy and ideology conflict with Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney. When more information came forward that many of the pretexts for war were either exaggerated or false, Mr. Powell turned in his resignation. There may have been presidental pressures for resignation, but Mr. Powell also worked closely with an international community that he had willfully misled.

John W. Snow:
Secretary of The Treasury from 2003-2006

John W. Snow has been in and out of public service for many years, and has received most of his appointments from Republican presidents. He is record is not a stand out record, nor has he drawn much media attention. While he was Secretary of The Treasury it was discovered that his brokers had invested in debt holdings that created a conflict of interest unknown to Mr. Snow who did divest the debt holdings. An ethics lawyer for the Treasury decided that it did not create an immediate conflict of interest, but could do so in the future, Mr. Snow filed his resignation shortly after.

Donald H. Rumsfeld:
Secretary of Defense from 2001-2006

Mr. Rumsfeld was one of the key architects of the Iraq war. He has served in Washington cabinets as far back as President Nixon, and under President Ford served as the Secretary of Defense. Mr. Rumsfeld is both the youngest and oldest person to have served in the position, and the only one who has served the position non-consecutively. Mr. Rumsfeld has been an advocate of his own self-named doctrine that advocates for a small and highly tactical U.S. Armed force. His approach was successful when fighting in Afghanistan, but when applying the same tactics to the larger, more populous, and more stable nation of Iraq much of the doctrine did not apply. The armed forces learned that a small and highly capable force can eliminate a government, but like a police force, civilian stability comes from a large authoritative presence, one that was in direct conflict with Mr. Rumsfeld’s philosophies. It is widely regarded that these short sights, and massive failures in containing the ensuing protracted violence in Iraq brought about the call for his resignation.

Gale A. Norton:

Secretary of the Interior from 2001-2006

Ms. Norton was senior council for a law firm that lobbied for the Lead industry before being appointed to Secretary of the Interior by Mr. Bush. She is one of many that suffered from association to lobbyist Jack Abramoff and subsequently resigned. Ms. Norton, we hardly got to know you…

John D. Ashcroft:

Attorney General of The United States from 2001-2004

John Ashcroft is a character. In his position as Attorney General he quickly made enemies of those that advocate for the protection of civil liberties. He attempted to implement the T.I.P.S. program, he had the nude statue of Justice covered because of exposed breasts, he was a strong advocate of mandatory jail sentences for drug crimes, specifically marijuana charges, and he was a strong spokesman on the “War on Terror” in supporting the Patriot Act and performing press conferences where he warned of unknown, but impending attacks by Al Qaeda. It was assumed that his health problems, and wide unpopularity in an election year brought about his resignation, but current news is revealing that Mr. Ashcroft may have been more frictional than initially known. While in the hospital, and drugged after surgery, Mr. Ashcroft was approached by Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card to reauthorize the domestic wiretap program, Mr. Ashcroft refused.

Tommy G. Thompson:
Secretary of Health and Human Services 2001-2004

Mr. Thompson served as the Governor of Wisconsin for four consecutive terms, quite an accomplishment, oh and he left his state in debt. His work as Secretary was concentrated on finding a vaccine for the Bird Flu, but left office announcing that a pandemic was inevitable, and admitted surprise that American food supplies had not been subject to terrorism citing how easy it would be. Aside from his current presidential bid, I cannot find anything more about why he left office. Mr. Thompson stated that it was time to spend more time with his family.

Norman Y. Mineta
Secretary of Transportation 2001-2006

Mr. Mineta is the only Democrat to have served under President Bush, and was a holdover from President Clinton. He was also the longest serving Transportation Secretary in the department’s history. He is known for issuing the FAA airplane grounding order on September 11th 2001, the first and only time the United States has ever stopped all flights, over 4,000 airplanes were in the air at the time. Mr. Mineta resigned because “he wanted to”.

     I’m looking over some of the notes, and websites that I’ve been using as reference, and the list of White House casualties is great indeed. I will continue with the list in further posts till I get to the end. Each major resignation will be recognized and remembered. The list is long, and we will persevere…

In a more somber sense it’s still important to recognize the significance of Memorial Day, and remember that the price for war is very high, human lives are valuable, and we can all universally recognize that value. When a day is nationally devoted to remembering that price, it is fitting, that during wartime our society also reflects on whether continued conflicts are worthy of that price as well, so as each reader goes to bed, ask yourself…

     …was the war worth it all?

~C

(x posted)

{ 0 comments }

Part I

The Graphical Logo:

Now moving onto the second aspect of the transgressing site, is their logo. At first and quick glance, it’s a picture of a dude spanking a lady. But, this is not the full depth of the image. When getting in good and looking hard at the picture, you have masked man in a costume, spanking a woman that is in a dress, has curled hair, and is wearing heals. One could infer that this is an image of either domination, bondage, or some form of roleplaying. However, PBH is not a sex site, nor is it a site focused on abuse.

I personally think there is less wrong, or negative in the image than in the title of PBH. I think the picture is a resounding and valid representation of satire. It is implied that the costume style of the male is similar in the unifying designs of american superhero costumes, and in fact the male looks very similar to “The Phantom“, a DC comic character that has been in production since the middle 30s (first appearance in 1936).

If indeed the male character is emulating or drawing off a cultural recognition of The Phantom, then the assumption of satire still holds. It is absurd, that a super hero, an icon of extra ordinary abilities, idealized senses, and cultural significance is forced to a position of chastising another. The dress of the woman and the style of drawing elicits thoughts of the early 60s and late 50s with overblown gender roles, and an idealized domestic lifestyle with very entrenched social gender roles.

What this creates is an image filled, first with stereotypes, and second an image that plays on what these cultural figures mean in relationship to each other. What develops is an image of one stereotype chastising another. But at the same time the roles of the stereotypes are being twisted, and played upon. I have found a few comments about the female’s clothing being in question, specifically that the clothes are tight, and she is wearing high heels. That these two aspects imply a sexual connotation is absurd in my mind. The dress may be drawn tighter, because of implied gravity. Within the picture, the lower portions of the dress are still loose and billowy. In fact the only tight areas, are on the highest points of the cloth, exactly how gravity works on cotton fabrics. The heels, instead of a sexual foot fetish are closer to the full costumed stereotype of suburban women.

It is conceivable that a person will only see a man spanking a woman, but this isn’t due to a similar fate as the website title. It’s not because the image begs great explanation, that one will come around to see an innocent side, but more this is an image that does speak of satire. The image is laden with stereotypes, including those personified by the ideal male hero (an ideal of rippling muscles, nationalism, do-goodedness, and the ultimate stalwarts of anything moral and positive…I’m a batman fan), but all is perverted and twisted, while emphasizing the absurd.

It is ridiculous that a superhero must resort to such base means of punishment, and I know that with my upbringing and social groups that I am part of it is just as absurd to assume that the image of the female in the logo is a realistic representation of women today. If someone accuses that the image helps to sustain the stereotypes amongst the ignorant, I argue that is not the responsibility of the site. In fact PBH’s responsibility is to maintain their content within the bounds of first impressions, or to not mislead those that enter the site.

The racy aspect of the logo, and the controversy it has developed are 100% in step with what PBH tries to accomplish, and also keeps within the definition of satire. It may be wise considering the debates that the name and logo have fostered, to create a specific subsection on the site about the two, and a page discussing the overview of the style of content that can be found on PBH, but it is not a requirement.

In my personal estimation it is hard to envision the logo as anything but satire. The context of the site name does damage the logo, and it’s intentions, but addressed on it’s own, the logo is more innocent than title. I also think that this counts as an example where intent can indeed override interpretation. One of facets of satire, is that is sits in that grey area where one must be in the know to get the joke, but not being in the know incenses someone enough to find out, but doesn’t make the joke wrong or offensive, it just means you’re outside the joke.

The Criticism:

This is something that I think has developed as my writings have progressed, I’ve done the best that I can to do a point counterpoint about the whole issue as I’ve gone along. I’m not going to spend much time with this other than saying a few small pieces. First, nothing is inherently simple or one sided. Both parts of this argument have real claims and grievances, what is worth doing is seeking a middle ground. Not necessarily about changing things, but really getting where the other side developed their views. The second stems from this, that while not being obligated or required to change, and personal disagreement about how both Alec, and Kit have framed some of their arguments, their right and stance in both title and logo are valid and acceptable. But, the feminist communities that have been deeply offended are not baseless, more this is a real matter of personal disagreement where life experiences have changed how this issue is perceived. I find that some of the attacks by the feminist communities over the issue have been in poor form with demanding ownership of the issue, PBH has also not been a good team player with avoiding personal or inflammatory insults.

In the end, I think everyone needs to take a breather and really relax over the whole thing, it is just a blog, but also remember that these are not faceless arguments with brainwashed misguided pundits, but a debate that involves real human beings with real and genuine emotions…ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.

I call for letting it lie as it is, and placing this whole flareup into the realm of a communication breakdown. But, these are just opinions, and my opinions can be wrong.

What say you of those that care? Let’s start a real debate, not name calling.

The floor is open.

~C

(x-posted)

{ 2 comments }

I have recently been asked to contribute to a community of weblogs called “Prose Before Hos” I’ve known two of the guys that launched the site for many years and consider them good friends. Recently a…dispute…has been erupting between PBH and another tight community of online writers. You can read the full backstory here, here, and here. The nut of the argument comes down the appropriateness of the PBH logo and some of the website content. It has been erupting into more and more frequent arguments online between these communities and the debate between the sides is beginning to deteriorate into name-calling and poor taste insults. Neither side has been exempt from inflaming the argument.

An issue like this does bely a deeper undercurrent of appropriateness and validity in content about what circulates online, and what is considered to be of good taste. Until now I personally have not weighed in on the issue. Until I became a PBH contributor, this was something between PBH and another community, but being a new voice, and possibly bringing a new perspective I felt that it was appropriate for me to express some feelings on the issue. I also feel a deeper need to support my friends, but this support is never blind.

I will do my best to approach this issue within a framework, and address counterpoints. I will also do my best to keep my personal gender out of it too, but everyone comes with a personal bias about anything, we all just do our best to stay reasonable, this is my attempt.

Overall the issue stems from the sexism seen in the weblog community name “Prose Before Hos” and the graphical logo that comes with the site.

The most severe criticisms have come from feminist blogs and their followers. And the most staunch support for the name and logo comes, obviously, from the creators. I’m going to break the analysis of this into three rough parts, a treatment on the site name, the logo, and finally direct criticism of both. I’m also going to lay out my personal opinions of the matter next so no one feels…mislead, about my following writing.

My Take:

On the surface, my immediate gut response over the issue is to protect the name and logo. I feel that although there is some validity in claiming sexism on the logo and name it is not extreme enough for a real call of removal. Accusations of direct misogyny are over-reaching, and I find it unnecessary for a web community to devote it’s time and effort to the suppression of another, or at the bare minimum active efforts of discrediting where able. I also don’t think that the transgressions of the offended necessarily create a more valid reason to keep the name and logo.

I also feel, that while not creating a “clean” argument for both the logo and name neither are on the fringe of what is considered acceptable by societal standards. Some sexism can be inferred by the logo, and altrusitically sexism should not spread. But it’s important to remember that what counts as sexism is subjective, sexism is rampant enough in American society that although not appropriate, one must pick and choose their battles. It is also significant to determine if the image and title, are invasive, aggressive, and/or threatening, if they are none of those, both the logo and name (no matter how sexist it may be) are protected, and the PBH community has a right to continue their use. Hence the debate.

I also think that while I have a natural inclination to one side, I can see both perspectives of the issue. I will do my best to address what I am aware of as arguments, and counterpoints. But I stress that I’m writing from personal experience, and only with the abilities that I have. I expect to make some mistakes, neglect talking points, and otherwise not get it 100% right. I state this to avoid accusations that I’m cultivating a specific view in neglect of another, rather, I make mistakes, and I’m not going to get a touchy subject like this entirely right to everyone’s satisfaction, I just hope that I am not undermined by honest mistakes.

The Name:

When I read or hear “Prose Before Hos” two thoughts immediately come to mind, one is an acknowledgement of the play on words happening (referring to the term “Bros Before Hos”), and the other is the questioning of what writing has to do with “Hos”. Since I was not privy to mindset of those that created the term I can only write about my take with any authority. My first response is not to assume that the title is a clever and thought provoking “wink” at systemic societal gender problems. I think it’s a lame pun. I also think that alone, puns are pretty neutral. but let’s break this thing down further.

There is a developed resentment to the use of the term “Ho” within the title, carrying the implication that the use of the term carries an intentional degrading of women, and places men in superiority by implications of where the initial term came from. I just got back from a quick web search on the term ho, here’s wikipedia, google search, and google image results. There are some offensive results but in my internet rovings, still mild. Urban Dictionary comes up as the first hit, and I’d argue that this website is worth much more debate about it’s usefulness and contributions to sexism than any blog. Not to suprising, the letters HO are also often part of larger words, and the searches reflect that. What I find interesting though, is the utter lack of vulgar material that my searches found, with one exception in hoslap.com, which has entered a merger with another site. I checked out the wikipedia page that whore sends you to, and like most wikipedia, it’s pretty good, even attempting to discuss the issue in regards to feminism and prostitution the discussion page is solid as well.

In my back and forth diatribes amongst friends, and other folks, I’ve never personally used ho or even whore as gender specific, although the term spawns from a working caste of women. In my day to day life the word is used and defined as anyone that plies their sexual wares for personal gain. Not necessarily for money. Or it’s a term used to criticize someone for essentially brown nosing.

“Mike is really whoring him self out to upper management to get that promotion.”

“Dude, if you weren’t being such a ho about getting it, I’d lend you my car.”

I think though, that it is undisputed that the term is a negative one, and within many contextual situations can be wielded an insult. But the issue is still whether, the title of the PBH community is sexist. For if the term was simply insulting, there would be no need for real debate, it would end at a difference of opinions. But the baggage of insult and implication of prostitution carries much greater connotation with the word.

My assessment, is that while the site creators have no direct intent to insult or degrade women with the use of the term, (drawing from similar experiences as myself of the term being more gender neutral) it still validly upsets and insults. Ho is indeed a loaded word, and there is a responsibility that comes with the decision to place “ho” in a title that people will be offended, and rightly so. But I don’t think that the use of the word “ho” alone is enough to validate for a boycott of PBH, or claims of misogyny.

The rest of the phrasing derives from “Bros before hos”. To me, and people my age, this is a quip of solidarity. And one that although spoken of in terms of gender, and crude language, is universal. The phrase covers over the root idea, that one should not reject long term friendship and loyalties for a quick fling. I have heard used a female retort of “Chicks above pricks” and other variations. Still sexist, still insulting, but carries the same underlying emphasis of loyalty to those that a person already knows. The terms do carry a competitive, and immature view of burgeoning relationships, or casual sex, but when making a critical view of the phrase, one must look at the intended meaning. And for a short, “social parable” it fits. And it works. And it is a phrase that has pervaded culture to the point of desensitization. This doesn’t validate it, but it explains why it’s being used.

Switching “Bros” for “Prose” capitalizes on a familiar phrase, while eliciting feelings associated with loyalty, competition, and shades of defiance. It’s a touchy term , and it’s being taken on full force with PBH. Prose is pretty simple to grasp, it’s writing; and it often carries a connotation of intellectually driven writing. Under this style of review of the phrase, it seems to me that “Prose Before Hos” carries a deeper meaning of thus:

“Intellectual writing is here valued greater than selfish actions of gain.”

There is a problem with such a conclusion though, look at how much writing was needed to come to this point, and defend it. This is the greatest drawback and failure of the site name. To understand why it was chosen, and how it’s not offensive, means one must sit and take the time to learn contextual background of the specific intent. This is a great and unrealistic burden to place on a casual reader of the site.

Is “Prose Before Hos” offensive?

well, probably. It’s obviously been generating fervor, and insult is always left for the receiver of communication to define. Is it sexist? Not really. I can see where that comes from, but an accusation of sexism, or greater misogyny comes with it the debate about why, within that debate comes explanation. It’s also not a phrase that is being wielded in an intrusive manner. It’s not forcing pop-up ads onto your computer, or overriding you web-browser. And if it is a little sexist, it’s not outside societal norms, nor is it pushing a philosophy onto anyone. It’s a site that posts unto itself.

The title of the site is still a success though, the name alone has generated stimulated and intellectual debate. People are impassioned and care. That alone is the heart of the site, and this debate proves the embodiment of that spirit.

Part 2: The graphical logo

NEXT!

(x-posted)

{ 1 comment }

I’m a communications student. Specifically in video production, but a large aspect of the degree program is studying the cultural relevancy and impact of medias in society, specifically American or western society. I’m no expert by any means, but I think I’ve got enough of a handle to encourage debate, and provide an alternate view. Most of my viewpoint has been cultivated by my class-load over the past year and a specific book; “Rich Media, Poor Democracy” by Robert W. McChesney.

There is an underlying thought, or vibe online. A philosophy of thought that is percolating within the online world of the connected. Everyone has this little voice in the back of their head telling them that being online is making things better. That being an active “web-guy” is a contribution to culture and society; the thought that being online is good for everyone.

This can be vague at times and specific examples of activity can certainly refute it, but we’re not discussing the exceptions, but the overall trend. We’re talking about how online use and the perpetual bombardment of media related stimulation on a day to day basis has become so pervasive and overwhelming online users are forced to devote most of their online experience to collecting and processing all this data. This complex statement is boiled down to easy examples. Like someone that spends more than an hour reading news articles online. Yes, they’re very informed, but more time is devoted to reading, than discussion, debate, and action.

It is impossible to maintain a healthy democratic process by only being informed. The information must be coupled with both understanding, and action. Comprehension is pretty easy to get over. That’s developing a comfortable level of knowledge and creating a familiarity with the subject that allows one to talk about it. Following the news on a day to day basis is precisely thus. But this is also a minimum, the lowest level of the bar. Everyone should be making it a personal priority to be well educated in what their local, regional, and federal governments do and believe. Education on the issues creates transparency, transparency helps to prevent and regulate hidden agendas. I know it’s a self-defining system, but it also makes sense. The more people know about the less they can be deceived on.

This isn’t a conspiratorial act either. There is no hidden attempt to keep people distracted and out of the democratic process. Instead it has been a natural evolution of events and practices that has led us here. Even the “hidden” agendas aren’t necessarily done for some evil plan to dominate the globe, but stems from a much more subtle and simple issue. Those in power are used to a system where citizenry doesn’t press the issues. When no one cares about what’s going on, what motivation is there for pubic officials to keep the public updated, they don’t care anyway.

And here is the failure of major media. For a quick and unnecessary overview, we have six or seven major companies that essentially control all aspects of media from creation to long term distribution. It’s a vertical oligopoly. I’ve read class literature that has people advocating for less deregulation of media when there was still over fifty major media companies in the United States, that data is pulled from articles written in the 80s, not some distant past, but recently. It was considered unusual for a company to own the production studio, broadcast company, and after market distribution system (VHS & DVD sales, or rental stores like Blockbuster). All of these were considered distinct and separate industries. It was rare for the Broadcast company to make the shows that they air, no in-house television production is the norm. An enormous amount of consolidation has happened since 1996, the year of deregulation.

This deregulation has created some unique environments that have generated debate within industry communities. On one hand there has been a tidal wave of content that has washed over America. TV shows, movies, news, and online products have seen a huge rise in variety, availability, cross integration, and quality of content. The result of a capitalistic system of demand and efficiency placed on entertainment has created a near renaissance of quality and quantity. But on the other hand. Human beings have a physiological limit on the amount of data the brain can absorb. It’s called attention and concentration. We’re hard wired to give aspects of out environment greater attention at the expense of others. No other point of human history has one had so much potential data and information to access. My teacher liked to mention that one can read more words in a Sunday issue of the NYT than colonialists saw in their entire lives. Put that on a lifetime comparison of media access, and the two aren’t even comparable.

This, culture, of overabundance is the direct result of a major machine that is making money by pumping out entertainment and distractions. I’m not trying to go Luddite on these facets. Distraction is good, and huge resources can streamline and allow for specific visions to come about. As a film and TV fan I personally get, and for the most part dig that major companies have been able to deliver better programing today than any other time before. I’ll take a new season of “The Office” over “Patty Duke” any day of the week. But there is too much of a good thing. A fully commercialized system without regulation has no idea, nor cares, when too much stuff is being made, nor does it get bothered when entry for new companies into the industry becomes impossible.

A closed system of capitalism is a transgression of the concept.

In two major fields of media the systems are functioning to provide more for a person to look at and read, than a person can handle. The cultured system of monolithic media for bombardment of a viewing/listening/reading audience, and the free and open repository of all human data that is the internet creates a situation where all a savvy person can do to keep abreast is to stay “switched on” all the time. Thus making one a receptor to all that can be drawn in.

This creates a failure of action. Action being any form of behavior that contributes to the overall decision making process of the nation. Active citizenship is a trait that is taught to children and young adults as an ideal. It’s where we’re all supposed to be. But we are not. General awareness for what is going on in the world is on the rise. But this awareness is not coupled with direct responses. People still find that contacting a representative does little, that public offices are sacred and to be respected. That ideological belief, and political competition for influence is healthy. We have become passengers of our own nation.

OUR NATION, this concept too easily becomes taken for granted, or used as a weapon of partisanship. When it becomes accepted and assumed that one will always be reading about the decisions and actions of others, it too easily slides into being assumed that it’s not anyone’s place to interject or get involved. No conspiracy, we’ve just turned into the proverbial couch potato, but we’re not watching TV, we’re watching our national policy process. A government of the people and for the people cannot subsist when the people think that government is too complicated to be involved with.

To back up these claims I argue that voter participation has not seen dramatic improvements that could be correlated to the rise of internet communications. The education levels of the average American haven’t improved either with the increase of media and internet usage. The open-source philosophies of full and unrestricted access and training for online use, is still struggling to make an impact on the political process. For all the bloggers and five dollar donations they still haven’t created a long lasting or meaningful impact on an election. If Howard Dean had won the Democratic nomination in 2004, maybe there’d be a case. What has happened instead is a great surge in content commentary found online. Vanity publishing, and personal opinions (founded and unfounded) have swarmed all over the webspaces. And still this has translated into minimal impact in creating a new “Digital Democracy”.

I also posit, that without a vocal desire for such a democratic and relevant forum either online or over our pubic airwaves (TV news is just another product) we will never have one. I also argue that as a society and culture we are currently unaware that such a thing must take place. It is seductive to believe that because anyone can place content online, that we actually have created a free, relevant, and open forum. Instead we have created a great playground for self-indulgence.

Think about PBS. Its a public system for television, and the airwaves are classified as a natural resource. It didn’t stem naturally, it was a political movement and fight. Where is the online equivalent of public TV? PBS has been ranked as the most trusted department within US government for the past five years, by popular opinion, and is recognized for maintaining and fostering political discourse, education, and honest discussion of hot issues. There is Public radio as well; for literature, the Library of Congress. What is out there for the internet? Do we need a publicly protected aspect? What would that mean?

The possibility of creating a similar organization online carries the great potential of nurturing the type of centralized, honest, credible, and active forum environment necessary that the online world can create an impact. And it isn’t all just about making a “Public Online Service” but advocating for an actual and recognized community of civic affairs. The online community has yet to move beyond the cosmetic role of observation, and runs the great risk of never doing so in the future.

Thus is the great seduction of content.

When an online arena for civic issues develops, the progression from relevant discussion to action becomes so much easier. Being informed is easy, taking that information into a national arena for conversation is also easy. Arguing within a global forum displays full understanding of a point, and it displays passion for an issue. When one becomes impassioned, action is a necessity, not an option. And thus is active citizenship.

It’s not a magic plan. It’s not a fast fix, but it’s a logical transition from one step to the next. Information spurs debate, debate proves someone cares, when someone cares they act. It’s not about altruism on issues. The world won’t be magically fixed. It won’t usher in an era enlightened American policy either. Instead it creates a way for all Americans to directly communicate about issues. This is something we don’t have. And if we continue this progression of passively collecting information about the world around us, we slip further and further away from self-governance and closer to a ritualized representative class with little or no need for a relationship with the civilian masses. This is something to warn about, and advocate against.

We all must do our part.

~C

(x-posted)

{ 4 comments }

This is my first post in my new Blog, I had only intended to ask Kit if I could link to PBH, but he asked me to write as well. Kick ass for me. I love audiences. I’m cross posting ’cause fuck if I’m going to write it all again when Copy and Paste will do it for me. Not sure exactly what kind of content I’ll contribute here on PBH, but something will happen and it will all work out in the end. Either way, hello all. I’m the new guy.

I’ve finally launched my own private shouting booth. It was a long time coming, but I was able to rationalize my way out of embracing the vanity press since Live journal came on the scene. Truth be told I still don’t fully understand the “Blog” phenomenon, and the incessant need for folks to passively read other people’s opinions. Opinionated slants on anything don’t carry much weight with me. When too many opinions fall into the mix of any debate I think it dilutes the impact of the discussion and an issue can lose focus. Every time I see anything within the major news sphere that refers to blogs, bloggers, or the blogosphere as a credible and viable news alternative I want to stab someone, anyone, in the fucking eye.

I’m very much one of those mid-20s guys that has watched a major transformation in the way Americans receive and perceive information and data and I get that new and innovative ways of utilizing these new…”things” will develop, and it’s unpredictable. No one really knows were the new cultural offshoots will start. I get that. I really do, but I don’t get how news reporting agencies, where a common requirement of employment within journalism often requires a degree in the field or a close alternative. By supporting and giving the blog world validation as a real place to turn to for news it ultimately discredits any and everything a journalist does.

If any dude on the street with a little internet savvy can be up and posting, and ultimately reporting on emerging stories, what on earth are the “real” journalists for? I read the New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, The Nation, International Herald Times, United Press International, and a few others. Most of them I’d consider good sources of news stories, and usually report stories in a reasoned and well articulated way. I basically trust these sources, and the journalists that write what I read. I don’t trust a Blog entry that I find off Digg.

There is a value and commodity with trusting your news source. That trust is usually earned by having quality people understanding how to cultivate and create that trust, often those techniques are taught in a degree program, and generate careers. Just because someone can write on the interweb doesn’t mean that they should be a respected opinion on the interweb spaces.

I’m starting to stray into the dark and bitter realms of conservatism that attacks ideas that are not familiar or part of old traditions, I’m not trying to sink into a bitter rant without either rationality or balance, I’m laying out problems I see with the blind acceptance of blogging as credible. It’s true that a degree doesn’t make someone a stalwart of decent reporting, but neither does it immediately create a failure. Not everyone that has a blog, or even a blog with a following has anything to say.

Basically I’ll still take the word of Helen Thomas on presidential affairs over a blog that has over 1000 Diggs. Experience and education in my book still carry weight.

So, now, with that laid out why am I here blogging away?

Because I do think there’s a place for it all, and I don’t think it needs to be reduced. Blogs and online forums have developed into the greatest continual discussion of, well, everything ever. Why wouldn’t I want to be part of it? I have my grumpy old man moments from time to time. I don’t wholly get why blogs are given the credence that they are, I don’t get the distrust of print journalism, and I really really don’t get Myspace. But that’s me. I remember when my family upgraded our modem from a 14.4 to a 28.8. That, was an exciting day. When I’d get home from school in 7th grade I’d start trying to dial up to our service provider trying to get online (about a 5-10 min wait), and I’d talk with my friends on a local BBS. Anyone out there from the old “Good News BBS”? Yeah, used to hit that shit.

I’ve been online basically since there were graphical browsers. I’m not coding language savvy, I dig the gui interface pretty hard, without it I’d never would have become a computer user, but my knowledge isn’t deep, however I’ve been around since the earlier days of the 90s, I got on right when everything was indeed starting to explode. I don’t want to fall by the wayside now, and I can feel that slip and disconnect already with people that are currently coming out of High School that just don’t remember either what it was like before we lived “wireless”, or those periods of radical transition. I’m getting on board with Blogging because I will never become part of a generation that rejects what it doesn’t fully grasp.

It’s sad too. I probably should have been doing this blogging stuff earlier, but what the fuck, now I’ve got something to say. I didn’t have much a few years ago. To get back on track…I think that blogs shouldn’t carry the influence that they do, but I think they need to be part of the conversation. I also think that the blog world is becoming very insular, and starting to develop some disconnect with the less switched on majority.

…Yeah, I guess that’s what I’ve got to contribute to the conversation.

Good talking.

~C

{ 0 comments }