What do Marie Antoinette and Mitt Romney have in common (besides big hair)?
A massive case of foot in mouth disease.
Luckily for the Mittster, we're not likely to set up the guillotine on the Mall in D.C. anytime soon (though sometimes...)
Mitt was talking to a group of rich people, trying to get his hands on some of their money, and he delivered a Mr. Burns-like indictment of "those people," you know the ones who are on the dole, the ones who feel "entitled to healthcare and food," imagine that. The now infamous 47% who support Obama because they like to be victims of society, who pay no income tax, who are there mainly because they're not smart and hard working enough to pull themselves up by their bootstraps just like Mitt Romney... or, um, well just like his George Romney anyway.
Mitt doesn't want to backpedal too fast because, for the first time, the Rush Limbaughs of the world are giving him props for being a "true conservative," which if I read it right means someone who doesn't give a hoot about the middle class, let alone the poor, because they're not the ones who really matter. This is a dangerous way to structure a society, ask Marie.
Karl Marx may have gone too far when he started talking about abolishing religion, families and private enterprise, but he at least diagnosed one of the fundamental divisions in modern society: Bourgeois from Proletariat. Mitt is the prototype of the Bourgeois, rich (because he was born that way), power-hungry and rather disdainful of all those who don't fit into his caste. Obama, on the other hand, is a rather stunning example of the Proletariat dream, a man of the people who worked his way up through community organizing and public service. The funny thing is that the Proletariat, as Marx portrays them before he goes off on his "let's throw our entire cultural system out the window because it's just too corrupt" rampage, is actually much closer to the "American Dream," than the sort of aristocratic nepotism that Romney embodies.
We saw in the 20th century that communism was not the way that the proletariat, the common man, was going to rise up and cast off the chains of oppression and stand on his own two feet. In fact, it seemed to have the opposite effect, creating more oppressive, soul-crushing circumstances for the majority of people. Now, we're finding out that unhindered capitalism is not really any better. Oh it works for some people, it works for Mitt Romney, but it definitely does not work for everyone.
I am a perfect example, for nearly 15 years, I have had zero or close to zero federal income tax liability. First, it was because I was a Divinity student who made no money. Then it was because I was a Pastor starting out near the minimum salary of around $30,000/year. Then I had a couple of kids, my wife stayed home to be a mother (of all the silly, lazy things to do), so I got a deduction that more than kept pace with the growing tax liability. Now I have two kids and, thanks to taking on what amounts to a second job (adding another church to my charge), I make nearly $50,000/year and still pay almost no Federal Income tax. I work, I'm a Pastor, a community leader, I have a Masters degree, I am not a leech on society, but I am part of the 47%.
When my kids started school, they were eligible for reduced lunches and we were glad they were, it helped and every little bit helps for those on the lower end of the middle class. Do I believe that the government ought to take care of my every need? No, but I do believe that they ought to do what they can to help out those who are working hard and barely making ends meet. I do believe that they ought to help out those who are born into poverty instead of the governor's mansion (I'm talking to you Romney).
Society is measured by how it treats its weakest members, a sentiment that has been trotted out by many wise folk, from Dostoevsky to Pope JPII, is thoroughly resonant with Christian theology, but not with the current dialogue coming from the Republican party.
Just so you know, I've got issues with Obama and the Dems too, but that's for another day.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
Confusion to Pretty Much Everyone
I'm not going to try to be funny about this. I don't understand it enough.
Muslims all over the world are attacking US Embassies; killing people and burning flags because of a video that pretty much no one has seen. This is crazy on so many levels; so what I'm going to try to do here is sanely analyze the reality that I have gleaned from various news outlets. I have tried to read a bit from both sides of the political spectrum and for once Fox News and the Huffington Post pretty much agree: there's enough crazy to go around.
First, let's start with the video: a low budget, anti-Islam propaganda piece produced by an Egyptian Coptic going by the name of Sam Bacile, or some similar alias. The Innocence of Muslims, apparently is a piece designed to disillusion Muslims watching the film by depicting the Prophet Mohammed in a negative, insulting and vulgar light. However, since Muslims consider any depiction of Mohammed to be blasphemy, it probably was not ever going to have the intended effect, which makes it not only an act of poor taste, but an exercise in futility.
The movie was made in America, but its vision, as nearly as we can tell belongs to an Egyptian Coptic Christian, which begins to make a little sense. The Coptic Christians have been hanging around North Africa for a a very long time, being oppressed and persecuted by one empire after another and generally developing a bunker mentality that makes the modern state of Israel look like Switzerland. It's no wonder that an Egyptian Coptic would have an ax to grind with Islam, his people have been getting a royal stomp down from the "peaceful" servants of Allah for centuries.
Enter the American dream, with all our inalienable rights, like free speech. We are allowed to say anything we want (within limits, but I'll get to that presently). If an American wants to be a Nazi, or join the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church, or (until 9-11) be in Al-Qaeda, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. It's one of the things that makes our nation great, we allow everyone to have a voice, even (for the most part) our enemies.
The vast majority of Muslims do not live in a world where that is true. In Egypt, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Syria and all over the Islamic world, what you can say and do is strictly limited by the imposition of religious laws like Shariah, it is limited by totalitarian governments and theocracies, it is most limited by the fact that they are poor, uneducated and oppressed by systems of global economics and politics. It's a powder-keg of angry young men, and a hatefully bad movie or some Danish political cartoons can set it off just like that.
I notice a lot of side stories being played out surrounding this whole drama, and it's the side stories that make it really complicated. We have Christians in America and Jews in Israel sounding the alarm of Muslim aggression: "See? We told you this was going to happen again!" We have Republicans criticizing Democrats for offering an apology for the movie in an attempt to diffuse the bomb. We have Democrats (and some other Republicans) criticizing the Republicans who criticized the White House, because they talked before they thought. But mostly what we have is fear, which is becoming really dangerous.
Americans like free speech, but we really hate being afraid. If there's one thing that the last eleven years should have shown the world it's that you really don't want to push us too far. We believe in freedom, but we'll take yours and even give up some of our own if it's necessary to be safe. We believe in peace, diplomacy and democracy, but if we can't reason with you, we have bombs, lots of bombs.
I'm sure Osama Bin Laden felt triumphant on 9-11, I'll bet he thought that Allah had rewarded a faithful servant. I doubt he felt that way when Seal Team Six showed up in the middle of the night. I have no doubt that Ambassador Steven's blood is going to be avenged seven fold in good Biblical fashion, however, this time it's not going to be against a terrorist mastermind, it's going to be against a bunch of poor, angry young Muslims who took to the streets to protest something someone told them was an affront to everything they believe.
Which brings me to the limits that we all need to start taking seriously. First, this sort of violence is not okay, I don't care what you're mad about, storming the walls of an embassy and killing diplomats is not acceptable for any citizen of a civilized species. Islam, the peaceful, just, Islam that I keep hearing exists out there somewhere needs to get its house in order. I don't know how they're going to do it, but I do know that religions are not going to survive for long in the world that is coming, if they don't learn to exhibit simple human decency.
Christians, particularly American Christians, need to understand that we live in a bubble of freedom and security, and that bubble is fragile. Our freedom is maintained not only by military might but by the hope of many civilized people of all races and creeds that somehow this "liberty and justice for all," thing might actually work. We are free to say what we want, to believe what we want, but there are always limits. The famous example of limiting free speech is that you're not allowed to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If you do that you are putting others in danger. In my humble opinion, given the Arab spring, given the ongoing tension within Islam between moderates and radicals, given the general crushing effect of poverty and desperation felt by so many young Muslims, a movie like The Innocence of Muslims, is EXACTLY like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and therefore does not deserve the protection of our First Amendment.
As a Christian, I believe that one day wars shall cease and the nations will cease their raging, but that day is not today. Until God saves us from ourselves, the best we can do is try to treat each other with Love and Justice. Surely, all of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, pagan, atheist, whatever, we can do better than this.
Muslims all over the world are attacking US Embassies; killing people and burning flags because of a video that pretty much no one has seen. This is crazy on so many levels; so what I'm going to try to do here is sanely analyze the reality that I have gleaned from various news outlets. I have tried to read a bit from both sides of the political spectrum and for once Fox News and the Huffington Post pretty much agree: there's enough crazy to go around.
First, let's start with the video: a low budget, anti-Islam propaganda piece produced by an Egyptian Coptic going by the name of Sam Bacile, or some similar alias. The Innocence of Muslims, apparently is a piece designed to disillusion Muslims watching the film by depicting the Prophet Mohammed in a negative, insulting and vulgar light. However, since Muslims consider any depiction of Mohammed to be blasphemy, it probably was not ever going to have the intended effect, which makes it not only an act of poor taste, but an exercise in futility.
The movie was made in America, but its vision, as nearly as we can tell belongs to an Egyptian Coptic Christian, which begins to make a little sense. The Coptic Christians have been hanging around North Africa for a a very long time, being oppressed and persecuted by one empire after another and generally developing a bunker mentality that makes the modern state of Israel look like Switzerland. It's no wonder that an Egyptian Coptic would have an ax to grind with Islam, his people have been getting a royal stomp down from the "peaceful" servants of Allah for centuries.
Enter the American dream, with all our inalienable rights, like free speech. We are allowed to say anything we want (within limits, but I'll get to that presently). If an American wants to be a Nazi, or join the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church, or (until 9-11) be in Al-Qaeda, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. It's one of the things that makes our nation great, we allow everyone to have a voice, even (for the most part) our enemies.
The vast majority of Muslims do not live in a world where that is true. In Egypt, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Syria and all over the Islamic world, what you can say and do is strictly limited by the imposition of religious laws like Shariah, it is limited by totalitarian governments and theocracies, it is most limited by the fact that they are poor, uneducated and oppressed by systems of global economics and politics. It's a powder-keg of angry young men, and a hatefully bad movie or some Danish political cartoons can set it off just like that.
I notice a lot of side stories being played out surrounding this whole drama, and it's the side stories that make it really complicated. We have Christians in America and Jews in Israel sounding the alarm of Muslim aggression: "See? We told you this was going to happen again!" We have Republicans criticizing Democrats for offering an apology for the movie in an attempt to diffuse the bomb. We have Democrats (and some other Republicans) criticizing the Republicans who criticized the White House, because they talked before they thought. But mostly what we have is fear, which is becoming really dangerous.
Americans like free speech, but we really hate being afraid. If there's one thing that the last eleven years should have shown the world it's that you really don't want to push us too far. We believe in freedom, but we'll take yours and even give up some of our own if it's necessary to be safe. We believe in peace, diplomacy and democracy, but if we can't reason with you, we have bombs, lots of bombs.
I'm sure Osama Bin Laden felt triumphant on 9-11, I'll bet he thought that Allah had rewarded a faithful servant. I doubt he felt that way when Seal Team Six showed up in the middle of the night. I have no doubt that Ambassador Steven's blood is going to be avenged seven fold in good Biblical fashion, however, this time it's not going to be against a terrorist mastermind, it's going to be against a bunch of poor, angry young Muslims who took to the streets to protest something someone told them was an affront to everything they believe.
Which brings me to the limits that we all need to start taking seriously. First, this sort of violence is not okay, I don't care what you're mad about, storming the walls of an embassy and killing diplomats is not acceptable for any citizen of a civilized species. Islam, the peaceful, just, Islam that I keep hearing exists out there somewhere needs to get its house in order. I don't know how they're going to do it, but I do know that religions are not going to survive for long in the world that is coming, if they don't learn to exhibit simple human decency.
Christians, particularly American Christians, need to understand that we live in a bubble of freedom and security, and that bubble is fragile. Our freedom is maintained not only by military might but by the hope of many civilized people of all races and creeds that somehow this "liberty and justice for all," thing might actually work. We are free to say what we want, to believe what we want, but there are always limits. The famous example of limiting free speech is that you're not allowed to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If you do that you are putting others in danger. In my humble opinion, given the Arab spring, given the ongoing tension within Islam between moderates and radicals, given the general crushing effect of poverty and desperation felt by so many young Muslims, a movie like The Innocence of Muslims, is EXACTLY like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and therefore does not deserve the protection of our First Amendment.
As a Christian, I believe that one day wars shall cease and the nations will cease their raging, but that day is not today. Until God saves us from ourselves, the best we can do is try to treat each other with Love and Justice. Surely, all of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, pagan, atheist, whatever, we can do better than this.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
The War on War
I want to declare war! It seems like everybody's doing it. We had the war against Communism that spawned two armed conflicts (Korea and Vietnam) that some people didn't even call wars (notably the people who actually fought in those wars and their families don't suffer such semantic confusion). Of course the majority of the 20th century was consumed by what we refer to as the Cold War, which was actually a lot less of a war than Korea and Vietnam.
Wars apparently are popular. We have the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, both of which have become terrible quagmires that make Vietnam look like a well-defined and executed operation. These wars illustrate the difficulty of waging war against an abstraction. We should learn that perhaps declaring war on enemies that you have a hard time defining, let alone locating, is a bad idea.
That brings us to the many and various wars that people think are being fought against them and their interests. The War against Families, the War against Morality, the War against Freedom, who is fighting these wars I'm not sure, but judging by how often people talk about them someone must be. I have noticed lawn placards around my area that talk about a war on coal, surely this is the first time in human history that anyone has declared war on a mineral, but before I launch into some absurd analysis of the semantics of the phrase, "war on coal," I'm going to stop.
Because what I think I really want to talk about is how ridiculous it is that we use the word war so lightly. Anyone I have ever talked to who has been a part of an actual war has at least mentioned that it was about the most awful thing they've ever been through. My Uncle, who was an Army Officer in both Korea and Vietnam, said one time that it was always a little difficult to figure out exactly why the people "over there" wanted so badly to kill you. That sort of thing tends to leave a mark on your psyche.
Maybe it would be better if we stopped tossing the word war around quite so much.
There's this thing that happens, call it a semantic phenomenon: the more you use a word, the less it means. The perfect example of this is the F-Bomb, in some circumstances (Church services and kindergarten classes) it is shocking, profane and completely unacceptable. In other circumstances (construction sites and Tarantino movies), it's punctuation. I would argue that the ideas and realities implied by the word war should always be a little bit shocking and terrifying. Maybe the word should hold onto the horror of all that it inevitably entails. Maybe if we stopped calling everything a war, we wouldn't be so ready to start them.
Wars apparently are popular. We have the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, both of which have become terrible quagmires that make Vietnam look like a well-defined and executed operation. These wars illustrate the difficulty of waging war against an abstraction. We should learn that perhaps declaring war on enemies that you have a hard time defining, let alone locating, is a bad idea.
That brings us to the many and various wars that people think are being fought against them and their interests. The War against Families, the War against Morality, the War against Freedom, who is fighting these wars I'm not sure, but judging by how often people talk about them someone must be. I have noticed lawn placards around my area that talk about a war on coal, surely this is the first time in human history that anyone has declared war on a mineral, but before I launch into some absurd analysis of the semantics of the phrase, "war on coal," I'm going to stop.
Because what I think I really want to talk about is how ridiculous it is that we use the word war so lightly. Anyone I have ever talked to who has been a part of an actual war has at least mentioned that it was about the most awful thing they've ever been through. My Uncle, who was an Army Officer in both Korea and Vietnam, said one time that it was always a little difficult to figure out exactly why the people "over there" wanted so badly to kill you. That sort of thing tends to leave a mark on your psyche.
Maybe it would be better if we stopped tossing the word war around quite so much.
There's this thing that happens, call it a semantic phenomenon: the more you use a word, the less it means. The perfect example of this is the F-Bomb, in some circumstances (Church services and kindergarten classes) it is shocking, profane and completely unacceptable. In other circumstances (construction sites and Tarantino movies), it's punctuation. I would argue that the ideas and realities implied by the word war should always be a little bit shocking and terrifying. Maybe the word should hold onto the horror of all that it inevitably entails. Maybe if we stopped calling everything a war, we wouldn't be so ready to start them.
Monday, September 10, 2012
The Revolution Will, in Fact, Be Televised (but probably by accident)
Visual media is virtually inescapable. The Inter-web has taken things three steps beyond the saturated, sensory blitz that was television. Now, viral videos make people instantly famous with the sort of demographic numbers that would send ecstatic tremors through the psyche of a TV station manager.
Half of the things that become massively popular are completely inane, and many of them are rather vulgar. It's hard to see how this is possibly making the world a better place.
Most likely, it's not.
The level of discourse demanded by a society with a collective consciousness shaped by Twitter is perhaps tenfold more disturbing than anything Orwell or Huxley envisioned (though Huxley was closer to the mark). We cannot follow even the simplest rhetorical path, or evaluate the dozens, if not scores of logical absurdities launched at us from every quarter.
Gil Scott Heron sang: "The Revolution will not be Televised," in the 1970's. While I love the song, while there are certain prophetic edges that are still sharp, there is absolutely no way anything so significant as a revolution will not be televised. Because television has become more ubiquitous and the progeny of television, including the Inter-Web, are legion. We have a 24 hour news cycle that was just coming into its own during the LA riots in the wake of the Rodney King incident. In fact, Heron's wonderful line: "there will not be pictures of you and Willy Mays pushing that shopping cart down the block on the dead run or trying to slide that color TV into the back of a stolen ambulance," was proven absolutely false, as such behavior, minus Mr. Mays, was in fact displayed for all to see on the evening news.
It's fairly certain that soon, probably sooner than any sane person would like, almost everything we do will be televised, or tweeted, or... God only knows what's coming next, but viewers will probably be doing more than tuning in for details at eleven.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Back to School
Synchronicity is more than just the best Police album.
Earlier this morning I was reading more Neil Postman, this time from Technopoly, specifically a section that describes the relative absurdity of defining intelligence numerically (ala IQ tests). First of all, intelligence is a word that can possibly signify an incredibly wide range of mental faculties, and as some of the wiser guides will tell you there are different kinds of intelligence. Second, as Postman points out, intelligence is a word that signifies an idea, not an object. If I were to say I have five cans of soda, you would know exactly what I was talking about. If I were to say I have five intelligences, you might think I was talking some sort of new Oprah-self-help-babble, or, if you were actually intelligent, you might realize that I actually had very little grasp of the English language. Yet, when we rank people in order of Intelligence Quotient, essentially that is exactly what we're doing.
I have taken IQ tests, I know what they test. I have had psychology courses, and I know that, in some frames of thought, there is certain validity to such instruments. However, if we are to assume in a pseudo-scientific manner that IQ is the only measure of intelligence we are probably proving that we have an IQ of about 90. The fact of the matter is that IQ tests only test a very narrow band of human intelligence, and the idea that a number defines our intellectual potential is a little offensive to our humanity.
So, dinner comes and we are talking about the fact that Jack will have a new teacher this year in the Gifted program at his school, which he is in primarily because he performed quite well on those tests that like to grade intelligence numerically. Cate, teacher's pet that she is, wonders if she should be in the program as well. She almost certainly will be once they apply those numerical intelligence meters to her. While I am explaining these realities to my privileged and gifted children I had Postman's spot-on critique of the very idea ringing in my ears.
I am certainly proud of my children and their precociousness. I am certainly glad that their school will give them the opportunity for a little extra push. But I wonder how many intelligent and wonderful children we will fail because we don't happen to have a good number to define them. Jack is artistic and mechanically inclined, and his talents in these areas probably far outstrip his numerical scores, he's lucky that the numbers opened a gateway that will allow him to more fully explore his talents. But what about the children who don't have a high enough number?
The challenges of mass public education are such that it is probably impossible to function without numerical measures of intelligence, but maybe, just maybe, we should at least ask a few questions about the nature of intelligence that prove that it's more than just a number.
Earlier this morning I was reading more Neil Postman, this time from Technopoly, specifically a section that describes the relative absurdity of defining intelligence numerically (ala IQ tests). First of all, intelligence is a word that can possibly signify an incredibly wide range of mental faculties, and as some of the wiser guides will tell you there are different kinds of intelligence. Second, as Postman points out, intelligence is a word that signifies an idea, not an object. If I were to say I have five cans of soda, you would know exactly what I was talking about. If I were to say I have five intelligences, you might think I was talking some sort of new Oprah-self-help-babble, or, if you were actually intelligent, you might realize that I actually had very little grasp of the English language. Yet, when we rank people in order of Intelligence Quotient, essentially that is exactly what we're doing.
I have taken IQ tests, I know what they test. I have had psychology courses, and I know that, in some frames of thought, there is certain validity to such instruments. However, if we are to assume in a pseudo-scientific manner that IQ is the only measure of intelligence we are probably proving that we have an IQ of about 90. The fact of the matter is that IQ tests only test a very narrow band of human intelligence, and the idea that a number defines our intellectual potential is a little offensive to our humanity.
So, dinner comes and we are talking about the fact that Jack will have a new teacher this year in the Gifted program at his school, which he is in primarily because he performed quite well on those tests that like to grade intelligence numerically. Cate, teacher's pet that she is, wonders if she should be in the program as well. She almost certainly will be once they apply those numerical intelligence meters to her. While I am explaining these realities to my privileged and gifted children I had Postman's spot-on critique of the very idea ringing in my ears.
I am certainly proud of my children and their precociousness. I am certainly glad that their school will give them the opportunity for a little extra push. But I wonder how many intelligent and wonderful children we will fail because we don't happen to have a good number to define them. Jack is artistic and mechanically inclined, and his talents in these areas probably far outstrip his numerical scores, he's lucky that the numbers opened a gateway that will allow him to more fully explore his talents. But what about the children who don't have a high enough number?
The challenges of mass public education are such that it is probably impossible to function without numerical measures of intelligence, but maybe, just maybe, we should at least ask a few questions about the nature of intelligence that prove that it's more than just a number.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Isn't it Ironic, or at least what most people think of as Ironic.
See if you can follow this, because something keeps striking me as peculiar, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is.
I read a blog post that someone linked on Facebook this morning. The blog post mentioned Neil Postman's book, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Showbusiness. It was a book that I had heard of in several conversations and thought might be worth reading, but somehow, probably because of my technology depleted attention span, I could never remember to buy it, borrow it or otherwise obtain a copy. Upon reading the blog post, I was reminded and did not waste time. I had been looking for something to read for about a day and a half (in the age of my Kindle Fire that's a long time), since finishing some short stories by Flannery O'Connor. For those of you not familiar with O'Connor, which also means those of you who have never been clinically depressed, let me recommend A Good Man Is Hard to Find, and Other Stories, for that troubling day when you feel like human beings are basically good. If you ever want a refresher in the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity or a general refresher on sin, pick up some O'Connor.
I digress, there's that short attention span again, back to Postman, I guess he needs to ring twice (snare drum please). Amusing Ourselves to Death was written in 1985, in the heart of the Reagan years. He observes in a rather more serious manner the same thing that Doc observes in Back to the Future: "No wonder your president's an actor, he has to look good on television." Postman's premise is that television as a medium was in the process of changing the nature of public discourse. The book as a whole is filled with prescient observations of modern American society that have only become more true as time marched on, but he was only talking about TV.
In 1985 we were playing Atari and the only thing personal computers were good for was writing book reports and playing games like Choplifter in monochromatic green and black. And yet Postman was so right, so very right. "Change changed," the speed at which the culture has changed and is changing is facilitated and defined by the ability to communicate and exchange information. This is sort of a raw data flow phenomenon, meaning it doesn't matter what the quality of the information is, as long as it can move fast and grab people's attention. Which, I think, probably explains why the Fifty Shades of Gray Trilogy is atop the bestseller list.
The book, using mainly the age of "new" cable networks like MTV and CNN, traces how television defines and limits cultural discourse to a decidedly more shallow milieu than the age of print media. Ideas had to "fit" into soundbytes, yeah, yeah, yeah, we've heard that grumpy old man talk a thousand times since then: public discourse blah, blah, blah... I wonder what those crazy Kardashians are up to now?
Oh, dear Lord, maybe we need to change Amusing to Amused, past tense. Whatever damage television may have done to the public discourse, the internet, has visited a hundred fold. Now any idiot (like me), with a computer (like the one I'm typing on), can become part of the public discourse. No vetting, no requirements, no accountability; an easy, anonymous voice to spew nonsense, hate, dirty pictures, whatever you want, whatever people will read or look at, or tweet about.
Great googly moogly, we is in trouble!
Oh yeah, so here's the funny thing: I read about a book that discusses how technology is changing the public discourse in 1985, on a blog by some guy who I have no connection to whatsoever, and an hour later I've downloaded that book on my Kindle Fire and am reading about how an electronic media has supplanted the good old fashioned printed word, but I'm reading the printed word on an electronic medium and now I'm writing about the printed word on another electronic medium, and maybe tomorrow, someone will read this and go read the book about how electronic media are changing the public discourse, and then maybe they'll write a blog about it and so on and so forth and this is getting to be a really long sentence and if I was talking I'd need to take a breath right about... Now.
I think this whole thing might be ironic, at least in the Alanis Morrisette kind of way, which at one time made me really angry because none of the things in that song were actually ironic by the correct definition which is: when the intended meaning of a word is the exact opposite of its actual meaning. But now Alanis doesn't make me angry, she kind of makes me nostalgic for a time when an mediocre looking girl who sang angry songs, even if they were rhetorically flawed, could actually be popular. That is, I guess before the public discourse regarding music shifted from Nirvana to Nickelback, Chuck D to Lil' Wayne, Alanis to Christina Aguilera, or whatever other junk the kids are listening to today. I'm probably a little behind on those changes, because I'm 38 now and I like me my old timey music, like Nine Inch Nails and the Beastie Boys and I don't want to have ANYTHING to do with Justin Beiber, because I lived through Milli Vinilli and Vanilla Ice, so, in the words of the Who, "we won't get fooled again."
So, did you notice?
Are you lost?
Or could you actually follow that incoherent rant?
If you could, congratulations, you're probably a member of Generation X, just like me.
If not, don't worry, you're probably a sane reasonable person who has not been completely corrupted and discombobulated by the rapid changing of change. Hold on to your sanity. Read a book, while you still can.
I read a blog post that someone linked on Facebook this morning. The blog post mentioned Neil Postman's book, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Showbusiness. It was a book that I had heard of in several conversations and thought might be worth reading, but somehow, probably because of my technology depleted attention span, I could never remember to buy it, borrow it or otherwise obtain a copy. Upon reading the blog post, I was reminded and did not waste time. I had been looking for something to read for about a day and a half (in the age of my Kindle Fire that's a long time), since finishing some short stories by Flannery O'Connor. For those of you not familiar with O'Connor, which also means those of you who have never been clinically depressed, let me recommend A Good Man Is Hard to Find, and Other Stories, for that troubling day when you feel like human beings are basically good. If you ever want a refresher in the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity or a general refresher on sin, pick up some O'Connor.
I digress, there's that short attention span again, back to Postman, I guess he needs to ring twice (snare drum please). Amusing Ourselves to Death was written in 1985, in the heart of the Reagan years. He observes in a rather more serious manner the same thing that Doc observes in Back to the Future: "No wonder your president's an actor, he has to look good on television." Postman's premise is that television as a medium was in the process of changing the nature of public discourse. The book as a whole is filled with prescient observations of modern American society that have only become more true as time marched on, but he was only talking about TV.
In 1985 we were playing Atari and the only thing personal computers were good for was writing book reports and playing games like Choplifter in monochromatic green and black. And yet Postman was so right, so very right. "Change changed," the speed at which the culture has changed and is changing is facilitated and defined by the ability to communicate and exchange information. This is sort of a raw data flow phenomenon, meaning it doesn't matter what the quality of the information is, as long as it can move fast and grab people's attention. Which, I think, probably explains why the Fifty Shades of Gray Trilogy is atop the bestseller list.
The book, using mainly the age of "new" cable networks like MTV and CNN, traces how television defines and limits cultural discourse to a decidedly more shallow milieu than the age of print media. Ideas had to "fit" into soundbytes, yeah, yeah, yeah, we've heard that grumpy old man talk a thousand times since then: public discourse blah, blah, blah... I wonder what those crazy Kardashians are up to now?
Oh, dear Lord, maybe we need to change Amusing to Amused, past tense. Whatever damage television may have done to the public discourse, the internet, has visited a hundred fold. Now any idiot (like me), with a computer (like the one I'm typing on), can become part of the public discourse. No vetting, no requirements, no accountability; an easy, anonymous voice to spew nonsense, hate, dirty pictures, whatever you want, whatever people will read or look at, or tweet about.
Great googly moogly, we is in trouble!
Oh yeah, so here's the funny thing: I read about a book that discusses how technology is changing the public discourse in 1985, on a blog by some guy who I have no connection to whatsoever, and an hour later I've downloaded that book on my Kindle Fire and am reading about how an electronic media has supplanted the good old fashioned printed word, but I'm reading the printed word on an electronic medium and now I'm writing about the printed word on another electronic medium, and maybe tomorrow, someone will read this and go read the book about how electronic media are changing the public discourse, and then maybe they'll write a blog about it and so on and so forth and this is getting to be a really long sentence and if I was talking I'd need to take a breath right about... Now.
I think this whole thing might be ironic, at least in the Alanis Morrisette kind of way, which at one time made me really angry because none of the things in that song were actually ironic by the correct definition which is: when the intended meaning of a word is the exact opposite of its actual meaning. But now Alanis doesn't make me angry, she kind of makes me nostalgic for a time when an mediocre looking girl who sang angry songs, even if they were rhetorically flawed, could actually be popular. That is, I guess before the public discourse regarding music shifted from Nirvana to Nickelback, Chuck D to Lil' Wayne, Alanis to Christina Aguilera, or whatever other junk the kids are listening to today. I'm probably a little behind on those changes, because I'm 38 now and I like me my old timey music, like Nine Inch Nails and the Beastie Boys and I don't want to have ANYTHING to do with Justin Beiber, because I lived through Milli Vinilli and Vanilla Ice, so, in the words of the Who, "we won't get fooled again."
So, did you notice?
Are you lost?
Or could you actually follow that incoherent rant?
If you could, congratulations, you're probably a member of Generation X, just like me.
If not, don't worry, you're probably a sane reasonable person who has not been completely corrupted and discombobulated by the rapid changing of change. Hold on to your sanity. Read a book, while you still can.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Editing
Since discovering the ability to self-publish kindle books a couple of months ago, I have felt rather excited about the prospect of putting some longer form writing out there onto the inter-web. However, given my occupation, I have also felt the keen need for some good editing. Most people, especially in the blogosphere, feel they are entitled and perhaps even compelled to say whatever comes to mind. Experience has taught me that this is not a good idea; it may get you into trouble, you may say things that you regret, you may say things that hurt people, you may just end up giving people who have it in for you ammunition.
Editing yourself is not censorship, it is being a responsible member or society.
So I came to the task of editing the rather prolific amount of material that I have written surrounding the life and death of my brother Jonathan. Written over the course of seven years, it ranges widely and wildly in content and theme, some is raw, some is polished, some is poetry (see the below blog entry, Seven), some is prose, narrative, discursive, theological, there was just a heap of dissimilar parts.
There were some shiny things in the pile, there were some painful things in the pile, there was also a lot rusty, maudlin junk that needed to be done away with.
But that was not always easy, because that rusty, maudlin junk was a record of some very deep water, like an old ship that once proudly sailed through a horrific storm and came out a little damaged. It represented some things I thought and felt, at moments when my approach to life was less than circumspect and pastoral. We all have a right to such times, such thoughts, such words, but perhaps, unless we're C.S. Lewis, we should not inflict them on the world.
Freedom should come with responsibility. Freedom to drive a car comes with the responsibility to obey the rules. Freedom to own a gun should, despite some who would frame it in more rhetorical terms, be accompanied by the responsibility to register the weapon, keep it away from those who would misuse it, and learn the proper and safe handling of the weapon.
Words are weapons sharper than knives, quoth INXS. In an age of Twitter it seems that we are throwing knives rapidly and blindly. How many times in the past year or so have you heard about someone "catching it" for something they said on Twitter and then acting surprised that anyone took notice? Haven't we figured it out? Even with the way language is cheapened and devalued these days, the right words can still move mountains and the wrong words can still ruin lives.
Be careful, little children, what you say
Editing yourself is not censorship, it is being a responsible member or society.
So I came to the task of editing the rather prolific amount of material that I have written surrounding the life and death of my brother Jonathan. Written over the course of seven years, it ranges widely and wildly in content and theme, some is raw, some is polished, some is poetry (see the below blog entry, Seven), some is prose, narrative, discursive, theological, there was just a heap of dissimilar parts.
There were some shiny things in the pile, there were some painful things in the pile, there was also a lot rusty, maudlin junk that needed to be done away with.
But that was not always easy, because that rusty, maudlin junk was a record of some very deep water, like an old ship that once proudly sailed through a horrific storm and came out a little damaged. It represented some things I thought and felt, at moments when my approach to life was less than circumspect and pastoral. We all have a right to such times, such thoughts, such words, but perhaps, unless we're C.S. Lewis, we should not inflict them on the world.
Freedom should come with responsibility. Freedom to drive a car comes with the responsibility to obey the rules. Freedom to own a gun should, despite some who would frame it in more rhetorical terms, be accompanied by the responsibility to register the weapon, keep it away from those who would misuse it, and learn the proper and safe handling of the weapon.
Words are weapons sharper than knives, quoth INXS. In an age of Twitter it seems that we are throwing knives rapidly and blindly. How many times in the past year or so have you heard about someone "catching it" for something they said on Twitter and then acting surprised that anyone took notice? Haven't we figured it out? Even with the way language is cheapened and devalued these days, the right words can still move mountains and the wrong words can still ruin lives.
Be careful, little children, what you say
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)