From time to time, while bored, hope rears its ugly head and I go searching the interweb for information to help me vote. The process usually hands hope a slow, painful bludgeoning, whereupon it hides in the corner playing video games and licking its wounds. If the discussion is not a freehanded, predestined, lopsided and completely interested interpretation of the latest vaguely reported news story, then it no doubt will involve the invocation of "common sense;" an all-encompassing and quite tidy ideal and abstract political theory; some form of a well-rehearsed narrative stereotyping: ("Republican Corporate Whores" and "Fascist Liberal Democrats" and now I am quoting--"hell bent on the destruction of the REPUBLIC!"*); or, 53% of the time, unsourced statistics without even a reference towards methodology or ambiguity.
So, it's kinda nice when you actually stumble upon that bane of the college freshman's existence, a Primary Source--a firsthand, comparative account of two health-care systems (British and American), with their strengths and weaknesses. Ahh, now there's a breath of fresh aire...
Both experiences underscored something for me: my growing belief that if something is important and needs to be done right, and it can't be done yourself, you better keep a close eye on the process. No one takes care of you like...you!
*(Seriously...do you really think they are out there, plotting the downfall of the nation? Because that's treason...)
27 June 2008
21 June 2008
epistemology
Hmmmmm....the sanctity of Google-truth is under attack? Google's search algorithms partially rely on making connections between search terms and websites using the labels that people apply to links when linking to those sites. So if a large number of people, or one person over a large number of sites, link to George W. Bush's official White House website biography with the label "miserable failure," they can influence the Google Search results for "miserable failure" to include that web page in the top 100...despite the fact that the authors of the page probably did not intend that to be the subject or that page. This is one example of a successful "Google Bomb."
The previous actually happened, as a joke. Then radical political activists caught wind of the Google Bomb.
Foucoult said, "Power is knowledge." Any process of knowing something reveals and is influenced by systems of power. Or, as the conservatives would howl, "The news media is biased!"
What's interesting is that Google's techniques for providing information are reflective of associations that people make--they are generally generated unconsciously, by mapping common trends. But when the mapping techniques are known, they can be manipulated. Either way, it's sort of participatory truth manufacturing, right? Soooooo postmodern. We create the answers to Google searches, together. All hail the human hive mind!
In this case, we see the Google search algorithms, and the internet as a whole, as a sort of commons, or "public good." The Google search works accurately (to a certain point) as long as a majority of the public are sincere, transparent, and nonmanipulative. But, if a significant enough minority starts breaking the "rules" and trying to manipulate the system, it ceases to function well, for everyone. And then, to rob from Billy Madison, "truly dumber," because our collective knowing has been hijacked for selfish gain.
Four years out of COD and I'm still thinking with the Oakersonian frameworks. I think he and Dr. Perkins were the two most influential thinkers I have ever studied under.
Discussion Question
Since the systems of information gathering and dissemination intentionally or unintentionally choose and spin the information they provide, is it better to have multiple, competing, ideologically committed, knowingly subjective systems, or to have an atmosphere where diverse opinions and an attempt at editorial objectivity are expected--where the will to power is constrained by ideals of earnest discussion and cooperation?
Is it better to belong to a system where information is disseminated by organizations which wear their opinions, nay, their agendas, on their shirtsleeves, or one in which public morality demands those shirtsleeves be covered up, and in the name of gentlemanly good taste, that those men attempt to sublimate their opinions and agendas in the name of fair play and improving the public discourse?
It's my opinion that newsrooms--and Google searches, too, it appears--reflect the nature of their patrons. If we are willing to give our neighbors the benefit of a doubt when they disagree with us, we would be more willing to listen to them, and our news outlets of choice would be less one sided and propagandistic. But, since we seem to be set in our ways, resistant to new ideas, and content to enjoy ridicule, militancy, slander, and selfrighteous verbal abuse in lieu of discussion...we have what we have: institutions with lots and lots of noise, and very little public trust.
The previous actually happened, as a joke. Then radical political activists caught wind of the Google Bomb.
"In the 2006 US midterm elections, many left-wing bloggers, led by MyDD.com, banded together to propel neutral or negative articles about many Republican House candidates to the top of Google searches for their names.[1] Right-wing bloggers responded similarly."
Foucoult said, "Power is knowledge." Any process of knowing something reveals and is influenced by systems of power. Or, as the conservatives would howl, "The news media is biased!"
What's interesting is that Google's techniques for providing information are reflective of associations that people make--they are generally generated unconsciously, by mapping common trends. But when the mapping techniques are known, they can be manipulated. Either way, it's sort of participatory truth manufacturing, right? Soooooo postmodern. We create the answers to Google searches, together. All hail the human hive mind!
In this case, we see the Google search algorithms, and the internet as a whole, as a sort of commons, or "public good." The Google search works accurately (to a certain point) as long as a majority of the public are sincere, transparent, and nonmanipulative. But, if a significant enough minority starts breaking the "rules" and trying to manipulate the system, it ceases to function well, for everyone. And then, to rob from Billy Madison, "truly dumber," because our collective knowing has been hijacked for selfish gain.
Four years out of COD and I'm still thinking with the Oakersonian frameworks. I think he and Dr. Perkins were the two most influential thinkers I have ever studied under.
Discussion Question
Since the systems of information gathering and dissemination intentionally or unintentionally choose and spin the information they provide, is it better to have multiple, competing, ideologically committed, knowingly subjective systems, or to have an atmosphere where diverse opinions and an attempt at editorial objectivity are expected--where the will to power is constrained by ideals of earnest discussion and cooperation?
Is it better to belong to a system where information is disseminated by organizations which wear their opinions, nay, their agendas, on their shirtsleeves, or one in which public morality demands those shirtsleeves be covered up, and in the name of gentlemanly good taste, that those men attempt to sublimate their opinions and agendas in the name of fair play and improving the public discourse?
It's my opinion that newsrooms--and Google searches, too, it appears--reflect the nature of their patrons. If we are willing to give our neighbors the benefit of a doubt when they disagree with us, we would be more willing to listen to them, and our news outlets of choice would be less one sided and propagandistic. But, since we seem to be set in our ways, resistant to new ideas, and content to enjoy ridicule, militancy, slander, and selfrighteous verbal abuse in lieu of discussion...we have what we have: institutions with lots and lots of noise, and very little public trust.
11 June 2008
An Excellent Film
I wish Robert Redford had made this movie when I burning out towards the end of college. Basically, he plays a political science professor giving it with double barrels to some kid who is choosing cynicism, criticism and another major over engagement with the real nuts and bolts politics. During the same hour that their conversation takes place, a journalist and a senator square off over the ethics of their respective actions as the senator announces a new strategy in Afghanistan, and two young soldiers who used to be Redford's star students take part in the leading offensive of this new strategy.
To Quote:
Todd: "Well isn't that my point? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, they can't fix things, what the hell is Todd Hayes gonna do?"
Redford; "Bitch? Quit?"
Todd: "Hey, look, I'm gonna pay my taxes, all right? I'm gonna obey traffic lights, allright?"
Redford: "I was thinking about something bigger."
Todd: "Something bigger? Bigger like what, be a congressman? Oh, yeah, super, and then I get to be one of those turds in DC--and I mean, pure pieces of ****--make our laws? I get to be a doughboy, who parts his hair on the same side as everybody else, the guy who, who never says anything even though he never stops talking? Oh, I get to be the guy who, who lecture you on morality, while the page jacks me off under the desk? Oh, yeah, please, the guy who funnels away a million that doesn't belong to him and balls like an evangelist when he gets caught. And how many never get caught, doc? Hey, if that's something bigger than being a good joe with a good job, then, ****it. Yeah, that's where you lost me."
[long pause]
Redford: "You almost convinced me. You almost convinced me that you really know what you're talking about. You're great with words, son, but you know what would make them even better, is if they had a heartbeat. If they were rooted in any kind of experience. If you had knocked on doors, licked envelopes, been to a **** public rally...just put yourself on the line in any meaningful way."
[later]
Todd: "What changed?"
Redford: "You. The students sitting across from me."
Todd: "'Cause we're more shrewd, because we see how things work, because we don't want to live and die for these pieces of ****."
Redford: "No. Because you want to put as much distance between yourselves and the real world as possible. And these, these "pieces of **** [the corrupt and powerful]," they bank on your apathy--they bank on your willful ignorance. They plan strategies around it!
Todd: "So blame me for it all. Blame me because I, I just want to live the good life, because I'm smart enough to? You're gonna blame me, because I don't want to work elbow to elbow with you on a g-----n collective farm? Doc, you're starting to sound a **** of a lot like my parents. They're always harping on me about how they worked so hard to give me the better life, and then they resent the **** out of me because I got the nerve to enjoy it."
Redford: "Todd, what good is a $90,000 Benz...if there's not only not enough gas in the tank, but the streets and the highways are decaying to the point of becoming third world? With all your rants about Congress and the government are true, if things are really bad, as bad as you say they are...when thousands of American troops are dead and more are dying every day, probably as we are speaking, you tell me, how can you enjoy the good life? Rome is burning, son. And the problem is not with the people that started it--they're past, irredeemable--the problem is with us: all of us. Who do nothing. Who just sit, and try to maneuver around the edges of the flame. Now I tell you something. There are people out there, day to day, all over the world that are fighting to make this better..."
Todd: "You think it's better to have tried and failed that to never have tried, right? But what is the difference if you end up in the same place?"
Redford: "...Well at least you did something."
[then later, in class]
Student: "C'mon, when hasn't a big house with high walls been the American dream?"
Michael Pena: "July 5th, 1776."
Derek Luke: "What about December 8th, 1941?"
Pena: September 12th, 2001?"
[later, in the office.]
Redford: "The decisions you make now, bud, can be changed...with years and years of hard work to re-do it. And in those years you become something different. Everybody does, as time passes--you get married, you get into debt...but you're never going to be the same person you are right now. And "promise," and "potential,"--it's a very fickle thing. And it just might not be there anymore...the tough thing about adulthood is that--it starts before your even know it starts: when you're already a dozen decisions into it. But what you need to know, Todd: no lifeguard's watching you anymore. You're on your own. You're your own man, and the decisions you make now are yours and yours alone from here until the end."
This is one of those movies that shows us what it is like to be part of our generation, in the flux: part of our generation and safe and not responsible, or part of our generation and courageous.
And it's really well filmed :) Watch this movie.
To Quote:
Todd: "Well isn't that my point? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, they can't fix things, what the hell is Todd Hayes gonna do?"
Redford; "Bitch? Quit?"
Todd: "Hey, look, I'm gonna pay my taxes, all right? I'm gonna obey traffic lights, allright?"
Redford: "I was thinking about something bigger."
Todd: "Something bigger? Bigger like what, be a congressman? Oh, yeah, super, and then I get to be one of those turds in DC--and I mean, pure pieces of ****--make our laws? I get to be a doughboy, who parts his hair on the same side as everybody else, the guy who, who never says anything even though he never stops talking? Oh, I get to be the guy who, who lecture you on morality, while the page jacks me off under the desk? Oh, yeah, please, the guy who funnels away a million that doesn't belong to him and balls like an evangelist when he gets caught. And how many never get caught, doc? Hey, if that's something bigger than being a good joe with a good job, then, ****it. Yeah, that's where you lost me."
[long pause]
Redford: "You almost convinced me. You almost convinced me that you really know what you're talking about. You're great with words, son, but you know what would make them even better, is if they had a heartbeat. If they were rooted in any kind of experience. If you had knocked on doors, licked envelopes, been to a **** public rally...just put yourself on the line in any meaningful way."
[later]
Todd: "What changed?"
Redford: "You. The students sitting across from me."
Todd: "'Cause we're more shrewd, because we see how things work, because we don't want to live and die for these pieces of ****."
Redford: "No. Because you want to put as much distance between yourselves and the real world as possible. And these, these "pieces of **** [the corrupt and powerful]," they bank on your apathy--they bank on your willful ignorance. They plan strategies around it!
Todd: "So blame me for it all. Blame me because I, I just want to live the good life, because I'm smart enough to? You're gonna blame me, because I don't want to work elbow to elbow with you on a g-----n collective farm? Doc, you're starting to sound a **** of a lot like my parents. They're always harping on me about how they worked so hard to give me the better life, and then they resent the **** out of me because I got the nerve to enjoy it."
Redford: "Todd, what good is a $90,000 Benz...if there's not only not enough gas in the tank, but the streets and the highways are decaying to the point of becoming third world? With all your rants about Congress and the government are true, if things are really bad, as bad as you say they are...when thousands of American troops are dead and more are dying every day, probably as we are speaking, you tell me, how can you enjoy the good life? Rome is burning, son. And the problem is not with the people that started it--they're past, irredeemable--the problem is with us: all of us. Who do nothing. Who just sit, and try to maneuver around the edges of the flame. Now I tell you something. There are people out there, day to day, all over the world that are fighting to make this better..."
Todd: "You think it's better to have tried and failed that to never have tried, right? But what is the difference if you end up in the same place?"
Redford: "...Well at least you did something."
[then later, in class]
Student: "C'mon, when hasn't a big house with high walls been the American dream?"
Michael Pena: "July 5th, 1776."
Derek Luke: "What about December 8th, 1941?"
Pena: September 12th, 2001?"
[later, in the office.]
Redford: "The decisions you make now, bud, can be changed...with years and years of hard work to re-do it. And in those years you become something different. Everybody does, as time passes--you get married, you get into debt...but you're never going to be the same person you are right now. And "promise," and "potential,"--it's a very fickle thing. And it just might not be there anymore...the tough thing about adulthood is that--it starts before your even know it starts: when you're already a dozen decisions into it. But what you need to know, Todd: no lifeguard's watching you anymore. You're on your own. You're your own man, and the decisions you make now are yours and yours alone from here until the end."
This is one of those movies that shows us what it is like to be part of our generation, in the flux: part of our generation and safe and not responsible, or part of our generation and courageous.
And it's really well filmed :) Watch this movie.
07 June 2008
Recent Accomplishments, in Ascending Order of Significance
1. Acended to Near Full Time Worker status with the college, thus...
2. Actually have health (and life!) insurance!
3. Learned to read and write Arabic script, conjugate Arabic verbs in the present/incomplete tense, and assemble basic grammatical structures (also Arabic).
4. Clawed my way back into the Land Grab Top 100! (look for "wyldebeenst"--then groan with envy!)
2. Actually have health (and life!) insurance!
3. Learned to read and write Arabic script, conjugate Arabic verbs in the present/incomplete tense, and assemble basic grammatical structures (also Arabic).
4. Clawed my way back into the Land Grab Top 100! (look for "wyldebeenst"--then groan with envy!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
