Note: To see what Shuffleathon 2008 was about,see here.

This was a very difficult piece to begin writing.

 

Usually, when I need or want to write something, I think about it a while and then I sit down and write it. I can write about things I never even thought about before researching them for a piece. I can write about things I don't WANT to write about, like those damn reflective essays Burbank likes to assign (and which are always useful). I can even write fairly easily about the time I saw my grandma's tits even though I trytryTRY not to ever, ever remember that.

 

But for this piece I had a definite and longstanding pattern of avoidance and that really got to bugging me, mainly because I was still doing it after I recognized it. Hell, I continued doing it even after I decided to write about it.  What was that about?

 

I mean, a day without music doesn't happen very often to me. One wall of my living room is devoted to CD racks, and even when – as now- my player is on the fritz, I have Gregory, my Cowon iAudio7 (named for Pope Gregory I, whose contribution to the spread of music was considerable to say the least). There is always something to listen to – piles and piles of stuff to listen to. I thought that Shuffleathon was a good idea, I was pleased as punch to get a post from England  (hey, who was that? All I have is an e-mail address, as I've long since lost the envelope.) and was impressed with the nifty origami card stock thingie that the disc was placed in, although it made the list a bit challenging to read as it was spread about the perimeter of the unfolded sheet. It listed only a couple bands that I've heard of, and none that I had actually listened to. "Cool," I thought, "I can learn about some new bands."

 

Then it languished. And languished. And languished on. Meanwhile, I listened to a hundred+ bootlegs over the course of a semester. With so much music at my beck and call (at time of this writing, I still have well over 50 burned discs awaiting a spin and 182 folders of mp3s waiting to be loaded onto Gregory, each representing a concert – and high multiples of those numbers in discs and folders already listened to) it is easy for something to be lost in the tide. On the other hand, how difficult is it for me to put something on TOP of the stack? Shouldn't break an arm.

 

After several reminders, I sat down to listen to it and take notes about what I heard (and I'd sure like to know where THOSE walked off to!). I did just that and liked, for the most part, what I heard. I kept thinking about other things I should be doing, though. After about six songs, I stopped it and went on to something else. I needed to, and that bugged me even as I did it.

 

I remember the excitement that greeted a new LP in my youth. I would sit and give it most of my attention, reserving just a little for the cover art, the inner sleeve, the notes, any and all information that came as part of the package. Then, if I liked it I would do this over and over again. I could easily memorize albums, and become familiar with every detail of the packaging. I was the guy who always knew who was in the band and what they played, who produced it, who guested even to the tiny details like Toni Tenille's spoken role in Pink Floyd's The Wall (Wanna take a bath?), and who made the cover art (usually Hipgnosis).

 

I'm not really certain when that ended. Did it end when the cover art became postage-stamp sized, or because I got older and have more stuff to do? Gregory helps me listen to a lot more music because I can have the music with me when I'm DOING things, which, it seems, is how I always listen anymore. But I wasn't busy when I tried to listen to this disc, just restless. Did I simply outgrow the desire to pay that much attention to a disc, or is it that there isn't as much these days to become enrapt in? Is it because the albums themselves grew longer as the format shifted? Was it the result of the great musical deluge?

 

The deluge started when I joined the BMG music club and designed a way to get loads and loads of CDs at their cheapest price, "free" (which comes to approx. $2.50 per disc). I stocked the blues and jazz collection up quite a bit, but didn't sit and absorb anymore. I had begun school part time and worked full time, and listened to discs mainly in my car. Then the concert deluge began. For a long time, I gathered as much as I could, figuring that the opportunity would be brief. Two of my favorite sites, in fact, were shut down within a few months of my getting into it even though they had policies against sharing commercially available material. I had to get what I could while the getting was good, I thought. So I did. Months turned into years, and I slowly realized that even if this scene disappeared overnight I had enough to last a lifetime, so I've slowed down considerably. I can't stop completely, of course – Jeff Beck still tours, after all. Still, a new acquisition doesn't have the emotional impact it did when I had to save my sheckels for weeks to buy something.

 

So, having realized the problem, I addressed it by converting the disc to mp3 and loading it into Gregory. And there it languished. And thus I learned a couple more things about how I've changed.

 

First, I don't really think about individual songs that much anymore. While buying individual tunes online has, for most people, ushered in a new era for the single, I tend to listen mostly to concerts and see things in terms of entire performances. Just as I used to say "That was a good album" I will now say "That was a good show." This happens even more when I listen to several shows from the same tour, which will frequently have the same or similar setlists. I listen to it as a performance, and judge it as a performance, not a collection of songs. It is the instrumentation that really matters – what the musicians can do in the moment. For instance, I haven't listened to the studio version of Stairway to Heaven in over a decade, and I don't want to. As part of a Led Zeppelin concert, however, I can listen to it over and over (I've picked up a lot of 1980 Zep shows lately) and always hear it freshly when I do, because it isn't Stairway to Heaven as much as it is part of a Zep show. Does that make sense?

 

Secondly, I pick what show I'm going to listen to according to my mood. Am I in a Pink Floyd mood, or would a Dexter Gordon show suit me better at the moment? If Floyd, am I in the mellow, mysterious mood good for a 1970 show or would the harder, more cynical edge of the 1977 shows be better? Mix discs, by nature, usually try to express a flow from one mood to another, encompassing several. But I'm never in SEVERAL moods at once. I've grown more accustomed to the thematic thread that will run through a performance most of the time.

 

Still I managed to listen to it all while on campus, and found it to be an enjoyable listen. Still, I didn't write, mainly because of finals. After finals, I found that I still didn't have notes for each song, which seemed requisite, so I really had to listen to it over again. There we have another change – I realize now that rarely do I listen to anything twice in a year. If you had over 200 things ready to listen to at any given time, how often would you listen to the same thing? I consider, for example, Led Zep's June 18 1980 show in Cologne to be different from their June 21 1980 performance in Rotterdam despite the identical setlist. The solos aren't exactly the same, the energy isn't exactly the same, and so it isn't the same to me. It's hard to listen to ANYTHING again when there are a couple hundred things awaiting their first listen. Especially if you have to sit there and pay complete attention to it.

 

Ultimately, the music and I reached a compromise. I listened once again and took notes while writing all of this. You'll see them below. Taken as a whole, I enjoy this disc, even though my tastes for years have been running more toward blues, jazz, and instrumental jams – I almost never pay attention to lyrics anymore, except (as in this instance) when I really try to (ever try paying attention to lyrics while you write? Not the easiest thing I've attempted so far today). I've decided, over the years, that nothing can kill a great tune faster than stupid or trite lyrics (Elton John's Rocket Man being my favorite example). Given that, my notes below may seem incomplete or unfair. Music, like any other interpretive art, unfolds itself to me slowly, however, and many times I don't know how much I like a new song for quite awhile, and the music itself better be interesting enough to get us there. The sound of it comes first in all instances. That said, I like the feel of this disc, I like the way it flows from one feel to the next, and I can genuinely respect the thought that was obviously put into it. There are a couple bands here that I will definitely try to find more of – and I'll be interested to see what they can do live, naturally. Any time I learn something new, I like.

 

More important, though, is the way it made me look at things. Sure, it took a long time to get into it, but that time, I see now, was an essential part of the journey. This disc didn't just turn me on to Death Cab for Cutie (whom I had hard of before, but ignored, frankly, because of their name) – this made me actually spend considerable time in introspective analysis about how I listen to music, and how the change in how I treat music reflects greater changes in my life and my personality. In that, this may be one of the most important discs I have received in my adult life.

 

I think I'll keep it on Gregory for a while. That Rotterdam show should be so lucky.

1) Quote from TV or something..... all the pieces matter, obviously her intended approach to making the disc.

2) Fuse - Joe Henry. Mellow, bluesy, kind of just flows through me.

3) Strawberry Letter 23 - Shuggie Otis. A little faster, kind of Beatle-ish. Catchy tune. Repetitious bit at the end that could be much shorter. What's a Shuggie?

4) Angel - Massive Attack. I like this. Starts really moody and builds to greater intensity, going back and forth. This would be a great Chicago-expressway-in-the-middle-of -the-night song. The type of song that should never be heard in adequate lighting.

5) I Will Possess Your Heart - Death Cab for Cutie. Great groove, wonderful bass line. Reminds me of New Order in a way. I don't know who plays bass for this band but the style evokes Sara Lee, formerly of Fripp's League of Gentlemen and the B-52s. Would work great as a mood piece even without the vocals. In fact, I would probably prefer it as an instrumental. It's a shame more artists aren't brave enough to do that. Still, it's my favorite from this collection.

6) A & E - Goldfrapp. I don't know the name, but the voice sounds familiar. Is this because I've heard them before, or because so many female vocalists these days are going for that breathless, wispy sound? Anyway, I'm thinking of a pharmaceutical commercial because they often use this kind of tune with these kind of vocals. Mind you, I don't DISLIKE it, but I'm not intrigued.

7) Station Approach- Elbow. I almost didn't notice the song had changed, as I am writing while I listen. This shows how well one song leads into another on this disk.

8) Driving Away from Home - It's Immaterial. Kind of rockabilly sounding, a nice little romp with a haunting echo to the vocals.

9) Faron Young - Prefab Sprout. I remember this name from WXRT long ago. The flow remains steady. This has the rockabilly undercurrent but moves more into pop territory.

10) Apres Ski- Cinerama. Pop. It doesn't piss me off, but doesn't interest me, either. Kind of like the Cure when they aren't trying.

11) Mardy Bum - Arctic Monkeys. I don't know what this sounds like, which is odd because it doesn't sound outstandingly original. One of the few attempts at soloing on this disc, but not much.

12) The Opposite of Hallelujah - Jens Lekman. More interesting. Quite pop-ish, yet using an interesting mix of piano, strings, and bells. Brain-pop. Toes definitely tapping.

13) When the Morning Comes - Lloyd & Michael. Suzanne Vega's more depressing twin? Still, the minimalist tune is somewhat entrancing, especially the solo that reminds me of that Playskool xylophone I had as a tot. I like when instumentalists think outside of the box. The sound perfectly fits the simple, childlike melody and lyrics.

14) This track wasn't listed. Shades of the Kingston Trio! Their sound somewhat updated for the new century, but still evoking the old folksy-railroad sound of the early 60s.

15)I just realized that this is track 15 on the disc but it is obviously "Ghosts" by Laura Marling, which is listed as #14. This is obvious because the chick just sang the word "ghosts" about ten times in the past five seconds.

16)Young Folks - Peter, Bjorn, & John. Similar in mood to the Death Cab song, so I liked it right away. Intriguing bass groove, and I like the whistling for the melody where many others would have used guitar or synth.

17) Time to Pretend - MGMT. I can't decide on this one. None of the elements are especially interesting. The rhythm is old, the meaning is not exactly new (lost childhood innocence) and the weird sounds I can remember being used by Gabriel-era Genesis. Still, it seems to work as they've put it together, and makes quite a listenable song.

18) Love You, Love You - Yachts. Put Blondie's keyboardist into a Devo song, and this is what you get.

19) Another Girl, Another Planet - The Only Ones. Quirky pop. Strong Robyn Hitchcock influence, and a good guitar solo - the only one I've really noticed on this collection.

20) Mr. November - The National. Rock. Not much to say, really. It was there.

21) Endcap, similar to track 1. Yeah, the bitch is happy. 

 

Like almost everyone with a computer, I have an aunt who e-mails me cute inanities regularly. I usually ignore them – those that aren’t just plain unfunny are usually quite old- but she recently sent one titled “Bill Cosby Does It Again!” that caught my notice as a longtime Cosby fan. It seemed familiar instantly. It began with Cosby’s stated intent to be a write-in Presidential candidate, and outlined a platform: English as our official language, isolationist economics, closed borders, adoption of “Turkish-style” corporal and capital punishments, and elimination of foreign aid were among the planks. It took me less than five minutes of Googling to debunk it for it was, as I suspected, quite old, and has been attributed to George Carlin, Robin Williams, and Andy Rooney as well as Cosby. Snopes.com and several others quoted Cosby: “The platform attributed to me [and others] does not represent my views and in many respects is abhorrent to me.” Bad information is nothing new, of course, but this e-mail – one of millions sent across the world every day – exemplifies how the Internet, a fountain of information that forms history’s most powerful research tool, is instead just as likely to enable and simplify the spreading of untruths.

 

 

What is Information?

            Information comes in several distinct forms. Information as discussed here in broad terms is data set in a context for relevance – it tells us something that we can use to take action or make decisions. Propaganda is distinguished by purpose; whether true or false, the information is presented in such a way as to provoke a specific action or attitude, and is thus subjective at best (Kirk 1). Misinformation, unlike propaganda, is always untrue but innocently so; it isn’t a lie, it’s just wrong (2). Many people who spread misinformation are repeating something they assume is true, while others simply mishear or misread something and repeat what they mistakenly absorbed (“The Misinformation Highway?” 6). Anyone who has seen a rumor get passed around or played the old game of “telephone,” where a story is passed from person to person, knows how this works, and one would have to be a lifelong hermit to be completely innocent. (This was the case with my aunt. When I told her that the e-mail was bogus, she simply said that it sounded to her like something Cosby would say. Since Cosby himself used the word “abhorrent” to describe some items on the list, it obviously isn’t something he would say. It did, however, give her use of Cosby’s image and reputation to back up things that she would say.) Disinformation is the most insidious; it is intentionally disseminated falsehood. Often, misinformation begins as disinformation, though it can be difficult to prove (Kirk 3).

 

            If bad information is nothing new, why should Internet misinformation concern us? Because bad information may cause bad decisions, it affects us adversely anywhere. False information on a pseudo-scientific website, for instance, might wrongly sway someone to let a symptom go unchecked, or panic a healthy person. A widely spread falsehood caused a 60% drop in Emulex Corporation stock; although the company bounced back mostly, there were still losses suffered (Weinstein 1). On a larger scale, dis- or misinformation can have extreme consequences, such as helping to create demand for a war. Far more regularly it is used to influence elections; while you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, it may be sufficient to fool enough people by Election Day (“The Misinformation Highway?” 5).

 

The Subjective Mind

            Before exploring the Internet’s role, it helps to understand how people absorb information and form opinions. We like to tell each other and ourselves that we base our opinions factually, but studies have repeatedly suggested otherwise. Even when we have reasonably balanced and factual sources of information, we tend to remember items that support our already established opinions and discount news that contradicts them (Wang and Aamodt 1). When Yale political scientist John Bullock showed a group an advertisement that accused John G. Roberts Jr., then a Supreme Court nominee, of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber," Democratic disapproval in the group leapt from 56% to 80%. After a refutation was shown, it lowered to 72%; obviously, the refutation – which was true - was less convincing to Democrats than the lie. On the other hand, the refutation completely eliminated the disapproval increase among the group’s Republicans. Shankar Vedantam, writing about this study in the Washington Post, concluded ” The damaging charge, in other words, continued to have an effect even after it was debunked among precisely those people predisposed to buy the bad information in the first place (1).”

 

            The effect refutations have is even more fascinating when dealing with conservative opinions. We saw how Republicans, who were predisposed to approve of Roberts, accepted the refutation over the damaging claim. In another study, two groups were given the Bush administration’s pre-Iraq War statements about that nation’s weapons programs, which, as Republicans (these groups were not mixed), they viewed sympathetically. Only one group was shown the 2004 Duelfer report stating that the WMDs did not exist prior to U.S. invasion. Among the group that heard only the initial information, 34% thought that Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons. In the group that saw both information and refutation that number jumped to 64%. Refutation did not strongly convince Democrats; Republicans shown a refutation actually believed the misinformation in greater numbers. Some postulate that this may result from Republicans having “more rigid views” than liberals; they may argue back against refutations that they don’t want to believe, thereby strengthening belief in the misinformation (Vedantam 2). Either way, these studies show what we tend to notice ourselves anyway: that people, on the whole, will believe what they want to believe. Constant repetition, such as we have online, via e-mail, or on 24-hour news channels, simply reinforces that situation.

 

            Shouldn’t the source of the information influence belief? It does, but not entirely as expected. In a 1951 Yale University study, two groups were given identical information( Hovland and Weiss, 636). One group was told that the information came from sources generally considered reliable, while the other group was told the information came from less reliable sources. The groups were quizzed on their knowledge and opinions before, immediately after, and four weeks after being given the information. Prior opinion’s effect on belief was again noted, but the second quiz made plain that the “reliable source” influenced belief more than the “unreliable source.” There was absolutely no difference learned information between the two sources – the only thing that differed was belief (641-2). This is not surprising; however, the results of the third quiz, administered a month later, were.

 

            After four weeks, the third quiz revealed that belief in the information gained from the “reliable” source had lowered, while belief in the information gained from the “unreliable source” had increased. This “sleeper effect” was attributed to people gradually forgetting the source (645). Where one source’s perceived reliability created confidence in the information, the opposite perception about the other source created a barrier to belief, with prior bias mitigating both effects. After four weeks, the sources – and the perceptions about them – were retained in fewer individuals. What remained was the information – the absorption and retention of which was still unchanged between the two sources – and the personal bias that influenced belief in that information (650).

 

            This phenomenon has since been proven and named “source amnesia.”  The information we gather is initially stored in a brain section called the hippocampus. Stored with it is contextual information: where we learned it, from who we learned it, our opinions of that source, etc. Recalling the information reprocesses it, but not necessarily with all the contextual information. Eventually, the information is stored in the cerebral cortex without the contextual information (Wang and Aamodt 1). This is why we are able to do things like drive cars without having to recall the initial process of learning to drive. It also explains how we can cling to beliefs that are not true – even after being told they are not true, as in the case of those who still believe that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

           

The Internet’s Role

            When considering the Internet’s role in spreading untruths, it is pertinent to remember that the Internet was originally called the Information Superhighway. This is a much more descriptive name; the Internet certainly is, if nothing else, an informational Autobahn. With its speed and near-ubiquity, it is by far the best vehicle for moving, storing, and retrieving data ever conceived. Therein lies the problem, however; as far as movement, storage, and retrieval goes, false information is no different than true information, and a system that spreads one is equally suited to spreading the other.

             

            Access to the Internet is widespread not only for users, but equally so for content originators. One needn’t even go to personal expense, as Internet connections are available to everyone via schools, libraries, work, or friends and relatives. Anyone who can see Internet content can also create it in many ways, such as thread comments, e-mails, blogging, website creation, or sites such as Wikipedia that encourage audience interaction. Because of this, people can always find what they want – they aren’t limited to what the news media chooses to tell them or what publishers see as marketable. The modern Internet is truly a marketplace for ideas. That means that no matter what preconceived notions a person might have, information that supports and feeds those notions is only a search engine away. If someone is inclined to believe, for instance, that President Obama was not born in the United States, that person will find ample support for that belief, despite the fact that it was disproved long ago. That support strengthens the belief since the fact that someone else believes the same thing provides a sense of community, and the false belief is then easy to spread further via comments, blog posts, or mass e-mails.

 

Aggravating this is, of course, the fact that the Internet has few content controls. Some serious sites have editors that verify content’s veracity; far more have editors that simply filter content to reflect their beliefs. Comments on threads, where they are monitored, are usually just monitored for profanity, not accuracy. Therefore a person who believes that President Obama’s birth certificate is fake can spread that untruth pretty much anywhere, as long as he doesn’t swear while he does it. The ease with which it is done increases its likelihood and frequency. Before the Internet, my aunt may have heard a false story about Bill Cosby’s political views, and she may have passed it on to my other aunts and assorted relatives during one of  many “henhouse” gab sessions, but she would not have written it out and mailed it via the postal service to 30 people. With the Internet, however, she can simply read it in her mailbox and with a few clicks, send it to 30 people in less than a minute. In her mind, the fact that she didn’t take the time to research it is a waiver, not a problem – after all, she didn’t write it in the first place, did she? All she did was pass it on. While I may consider that being part of the problem, many others see it as an exoneration. It is apparent that while misinformation today may not be worse than it has been through more traditional media, it is certainly easier to spread (“The Misinformation Highway?” 1). This means that the spreading of bunk is not only more widespread, but also more tenacious. The birth certificate story, for instance, disappeared from the newspapers after it was disproved, but not from the Internet where it can still be found well after the election. If people are inclined to believe things that they already agree with, and they can easily find sites that present information that fits that criteria, then literally anything that anyone wants to believe can be absorbed as a truth that is then spread with the words “I read somewhere that….”

 

Yet while information is easily found on the Internet, the accuracy of it is harder than ever to judge. As the amount of sources available increases, the criteria by which a source’s trustworthiness may be judged wanes. In the mainstream media’s heyday, which many say is now long over, a newspaper or network could establish a strong ethos, or reputation, for accuracy or integrity by making sure of their facts and having consequences for those that did not. When Walter Cronkite said “That’s the way it is,” people trusted that it was that way after his and his employer’s reputations were cemented. If the editor of the New York Sun says there’s a Santa Claus, well, that’s good enough for Virginia. 

           

            On today’s Internet, however, so many sources are available that it can be hard to tell the good ones from the bad. Ownership of most sites is very unclear, and not easy to find should someone be curious. Internet writers often use a nom de plume or “Internet identity (in fact, I know a guy like that),” or simply write anonymously. There are no standards or guidelines as in journalism, and no governing bodies as far as veracity is concerned. This makes it easy not only to avoid building a clear ethos, but also to create a false one. A false identity, title, education, or level of experience is easily created “behind the curtain,” so to speak. A real ethos may also be “borrowed,” as the e-mail attributed to Cosby, Williams, and Rooney illustrates.

 

            Of course, the audience helps writers circumvent ethos development in many ways. People may be so impressed with a site’s layout or features that they assume that the information presented can be believed. In cases like this, the medium truly is the message, as it is the presentation more than anything else that is convincing. The reader may not be expert enough to judge if the information is accurate or even likely to be. Someone with no medical training, for instance, may be fooled by information that a medical doctor would laugh at. Cannier readers than that can still be fooled by foreign sources, simply because of their unfamiliarity. Most people can judge the worth of a paper from Oxford University, but how does one judge an Icelandic university that one has never heard of? Second-hand information from known, reliable sources may be difficult to find in such a situation (Vedder 5).

 

            Of course, such questions of ethos are largely academic because of source amnesia. What does ethos mean in the long run, when the source itself is likely to be forgotten in a month and the information believed or disbelieved on the basis of personal preference more than the source’s integrity? The fact that people can find whatever information they want and find as many repetitions as it takes to convince them that it is true is all that truly matters in the Internet’s spreading of misinformation. Lack of clear ethos at the onset merely makes the process go even faster.

Is there a solution?

            What may be done to improve this situation? So far, there is no concrete answer to that question – in fact, the problem itself, while universally acknowledged as existing, is not universally acknowledged as being important. Certainly, those whose business it is to influence opinion are fine with the status quo. Those who are not see two broad approaches. One is to control Internet content more strictly; the other is a user-based approach.

 

            The former solution is a sticky wicket. Does it involve more government control? More corporate control? Most Americans see too much control as no better for veracity than too little. Certainly, Hitler’s propaganda machine and the Soviet Union’s Pravda were both tightly controlled disinformation spreaders. Many equate limiting anonymity with limiting freedom of speech (Vedder 7). The need to balance necessary freedoms with the control needed to limit disinformation makes this an unlikely solution, as Americans are inherently distrustful of those who would act as censors or filters of information for the public good. A third-party authority with which to establish a site’s ethical criteria could help, but who would establish such an authority, and how? What authority would be acceptable across cultural and political lines?

 

            User-based solutions are educationally based, and involve developing a more critical attitude in the general populace (Vedder 5). This would, ironically, have to begin in early education where learning by rote is often more valued than critical thinking (which can often get you sent to the principal’s office). This critical attitude would be akin to the “don’t believe everything you read in the paper” credo of old. While we are all familiar with this old saw, it does not always translate to the Internet – possibly because, as stated, what we want to read is always out there and easily found, reinforcing what we wanted to believe in the first place. It is one thing to acknowledge that there are “dogs” on the Internet and that they lie, but it’s another to associate that definition with those we agree, or “lie,” with. How readily can people be educated to resist the lure of easy, palatable answers, especially when so many people endeavor to pass their pre-conceived notions to their children regardless of what the educational system says about those notions? Still, if more people can be taught to use the same tools that spread disinformation to debunk the same by researching issues instead of simply looking for what they want to see, perhaps the spread of misinformation can at least be slowed over time, and outlets with established ethos and integrity- like newspapers and networks of the past – built up as well. Then, the Internet can be what it could and should be – a way of empowering individuals with accurate, usable information – rather than a simple marketplace of good and bad information alike, where truth must be dug for but attractive lies are always at the ready. 

 

 

Works Cited

Vedantam, Shankar. “The Power of Political Misinformation.” The Washington Post. 15 September 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375.html

 

Weinstein, Lauren. “PFIR Statement on Internet Hoaxes and Misinformation.” People for Internet Responsibility. 28 August 2000. http://www.pfir.org/statements/hoaxes

 

Author unknown. Interview with Anne Mintz. “The Misinformation Superhighway?” Now. 4 January 2008. PBS.org. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/401/internet-politics.html

 

Kirk, Elizabeth E. “Information and Its Counterfeits: Propaganda, Misinformation, and Disinformation.” The Sheridan Libraries. Johns Hopkins University. 2001. http://www.library.jhu.edu/researchhelp/general/evaluating/counterfeit.html

 

Wang, Sam and Sandra Aamodt. “Your Brain Lies to You.” New York Times. 27 June, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27aamodt.html

 

Hovland, Carl I. and Walter Weiss. “The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly. Oxford University Press. Winter, 1951-52: 635-650. Synapse.Princeton.edu. <http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/hovland_weiss_source-credibility-Public-Opinion-Quarterly-1951-52.pdf>

 

Vedder, Anton. “Misinformation Through the Internet: Espistemology and Ethics.” In: Anton Vedder (ed.), Ethics and the Internet. Antwerpen, Groningen, Oxford: Intersentia, 2001, p.125-132. http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=4795. (Prints with page numbers 1-8)

 

Mikkelson, Barbara and David. P. “Bill of Write-Ins.” Snopes.com. 21 April 2009. http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/platform.asp

 

Steiner, Peter. “On the Internet, Nobody Knows You’re a Dog.” The New Yorker. 5 July, 1993, p. 61. School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.27 August 1997. http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html

                                                                                                           

 

Marijuana has been prohibited for almost a century, with effects on the nation such as high prison populations and an expensive “War on Drugs” that many call detrimental. For the past 40 years, the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML) and similar organizations have sought to change that. While it sometimes seems as if these efforts are gaining ground, victory remains aloof. Despite the ever-growing number of users and increasingly relaxed attitude toward marijuana, prohibition maintains a momentum that has proven difficult to counter. Recent developments in America, most notably the recession and the skyrocketing deficit, have provided fresh hope and a newborn kairos, or timeliness, for the argument that marijuana should be legalized for both medical and recreational use.

 

Medical data contradicting the established attitude toward marijuana as a dangerous narcotic has been stacking up for decades, yet has gained no ground. Indeed, while official studies are occasionally trotted out which purportedly prove that it is more dangerous than ever, these appeals to logos (logic) are secondary at best and are never trumpeted. Most of the arguments, some of which have almost become commonplaces, are based on ethos (the speaker’s authority), pathos (appeals to emotion), or a combination of the two. The major challenges are as follows:

 

• Claims by authorities, such as the DEA, that marijuana is both harmful to health and a “gateway” drug that leads to harder drugs
• The argument that marijuana causes gang violence
•  The argument that marijuana ruins lives (and, if legalized, maybe the economy) by sapping motivation and creating “slackers”
• The argument that marijuana use is immoral
• The argument that marijuana arrests prevent more serious crimes by taking the users off the street
• The argument that marijuana is addictive
• The argument that legalization would send the wrong message to young people, in effect “giving permission” to smoke it

 

All of these arguments are highly debatable. For instance, it can be countered (and has been many times) that gang violence is caused by prohibition instead of by marijuana itself, that slackers exist independent of pot, and that the government has no place enforcing morals or acting as our children’s parent. However, prohibition has lasted so long that few people bother questioning it, even some who use marijuana. The government no longer needs to back up prohibition with logical, medically based arguments, as such sound proof’s existence is largely accepted sight unseen by the general populace. Only ethical and pathetic arguments are needed to keep the status quo. Those who want legalization carry the burden of proof.

 

It must also be noted that those who oppose legalization do not come from one identifiable group. They are not all rich Republicans or poor Democrats or white people or college graduates. Legalization’s opponents come from all races, all political parties, and all social strata. The same can be said, however, for legalization’s proponents.

 

This is an important point because NORML tends to preach to the choir. Their booths are present at events such as rock concerts, hemp rallies, and Libertarian Party functions, where the message has a friendly audience. Their advertisements appear in cause-friendly magazines like High Times. This is good from a fundraising point of view, but is ineffective for spreading the message. While those who attend these functions and believe in legalization may indeed try to convince others, they are frequently dismissed by those others as “hippies” and “stoners” who don’t really care about the issue beyond their desire to get high. Their ethos cannot go up against the DEA’s. President Obama’s chuckling dismissal of the notion in a recent webcast illustrates this perfectly.

 

NORML cannot forget these people, of course. They form the movement’s core. They should be encouraged to donate and vote. In order to gain the momentum needed to change drug policies, however, NORML must expand their scope and bring their arguments to those that don’t support legalization. Ads should appear in magazines besides High Times. By appearing in publications such as Rolling Stone, People, U.S.News and World Report, and scores of other mainstream magazines, NORML will reach not only marijuana users but also legalization opponents. NORML should also use newspapers, radio, television (if it can be budgeted), and grass roots efforts such as flyers and handbills to reach as broad an audience as possible. Also, a presence at Republican and Democratic functions will increase visibility. If this is done aggressively enough, it will attract media and political attention. Thus, the media can be used not only to spread the message, but also to refute the inevitable political opposition that will come with greater visibility. Minds can be changed, but only when they are challenged frequently over a significant period of time, as in the case of global warming. No one cared about global warming 30 years ago, but it is considered a priority by much of the world after constant and varied presentation of data, arguments, and appeals to pathos.

 

Most importantly, legalization efforts thus far have been based on countering emotion and disinformation with facts, and have largely failed. As noted, this is because prohibition arguments are mostly based on emotion and the assumption that the facts were established long ago. Again, the burden of proof is on the pro-legalization side, so logos cannot be ignored – the arguments for legalization must be based on fact. In order to be more effective, however, these facts must be consistently tied to emotional arguments as well. Rhetorically speaking, arguments of pathos that persuade by creating a particular emotion can best be countered by arguments that create a different and stronger emotion.

 

For instance, it is often advertised that legal prescription drugs are more dangerous than marijuana. Recent reports claim that prescription drugs actually cause more deaths than all illicit drugs combined, with marijuana’s historic death toll equaling exactly zero. Alone, this argument fails to get much attention, but it can easily be connected to arguments more emotional in nature, such as the economy.

 

The U.S. economy – with its record setting deficit- has become the most emotional issue of the year. Doomsday scenarios are easy to find, and even those who support President Obama’s stimulus plan are nervous. People are very sensitive to any waste – or even appearance of waste – in government spending. What better time, then, to remind Americans that a recent estimate for federal, state, and local drug enforcement is $44 billion dollars – $10 billion for marijuana alone? That the same estimate puts possible tax revenues at $33 billion? That this is already America’s biggest cash crop, with uses ranging from medicine to fuels, from food to plastics, from paper to insulation? These facts can all be bundled in one argument – that while our economy dwindles and manufacturing dies in America, we are spending money to prohibit a non-lethal substance that could instead put Americans to work and help pay off the deficit by great bounds – that blends these facts with a vital emotional component. The question is, in the final analysis, “Can America afford to continue prohibiting marijuana?”

 

Furthermore, another appeal to pathos comes from the fact that manufacturing fuels and plastics with hemp instead of petroleum and making paper from hemp instead of wood pulp are both more environmentally friendly. The quick rate at which the plant creates biomass is another environmental appeal, as biomass converts carbon dioxide to oxygen and thus combats global warming. These facts have been aired before, but only as part of a larger, clinical whole. Highlighting hemp oil use to replace petroleum, however, can strike an emotional chord more than ever for economic and cultural reasons as well as ecological ones. Many people who don’t like the idea of legalizing pot may like the idea of being dependent on OPEC even less, and may be swayed by the idea of replacing petroleum with something available domestically.

 

Marijuana’s medical uses provide a strong opportunity to combine logos and pathos. So much has been made of medical marijuana over the past few years that resistance to the idea is down when regarding terminal patients. The Obama administration has already adopted a policy of leaving medical marijuana alone in states that have legal programs. Prohibitionists point out that a legal prescription marijuana derivative, Marinol, is available to treat those conditions that marijuana is used for: glaucoma, pain, and appetite stimulation for cancer and AIDS patients. Patients, however, overwhelmingly testify that the derivative is ineffective compared to the actual plant. This opens the door for the claim that the government is less concerned with those suffering from disease than they are with protecting the profits of America’s biggest lobbyists – the pharmaceutical industry. Lobbying is another political topic that Americans have become emotional about – anything connected with lobbying is eyed suspiciously these days. Furthermore, the death statistics for prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco can be brought into play. Actual patient photographs can give the abstract idea of human suffering a face. A picture of an emaciated cancer patient bearing the message that a medicine that could help her eat and regain her strength – a medicine proven safer than prescription drugs - is prohibited by law so that drug companies can make a profit from a less effective version of the same natural substance carries a factual message with a strong emotional component. Who doesn’t know someone who suffered such a painful death? Who wouldn’t have helped that loved one escape the pain and nausea if they could have?

 

Criminality is an aspect of marijuana policy that is already mired in pathos – usually as a scare tactic to drum up support. That could easily be reversed, however. The cost of enforcement mentioned before has a human component: 872,000 arrests per year, more than for murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault combined. Connect this to the medical evidence and it is clear that the greatest risk a marijuana smoker faces is the risk of arrest. 30 percent of those arrested are under 19 years of age. Prohibition forces have been successful at giving these people a hardened criminal’s face, but another face could be used- that of America’s children. The argument that their lives were disrupted more by the arrest and conviction than by the marijuana itself can easily be made, especially when linked to the ethos argument to be outlined later. Using the commonplace that petty criminals become highly trained criminals while serving time, these people can be shown as normal young adults that weren’t criminals, but became criminals in jail as a result of policies that protect pharmaceutical profits, show skewed justice priorities, and waste taxpayer money.

 

There are two more forms a pathetic argument involving criminality might take. First, legalization opponents are generally seen as serious, straight people who are not at all counter-cultural; think of the Brady Bunch. Prohibition, however, creates black-market profits, profits that drug dealers violently protect. With legalization, these profits – and motives – disappear. Thus, an argument can be made that legalization’s staunchest opponents aren’t Mr. And Mrs. Main Street, but the murderous drug cartels themselves. The second is related: a direct comparison of Roaring Twenties era gang violence to the gang violence of today, and a reminder that the violence of alcohol prohibition was ended by repeal. The recent murder sprees in Juarez give this argument excellent kairos. As Secretary of State Clinton admits that American demand for illegal drugs fuels the mayhem along the Mexican border, Americans can also be reminded that eliminating demand for drugs has never been effective, meaning that the only realistic hope for eliminating the motivation for violence is eliminating the black market by legalizing.

 

            Finally, the prohibition forces can no longer be allowed to control this debate’s ethos. It has been established that those who keep marijuana illegal speak from a position of highly informed authority, and that marijuana users are stoners and slackers who are fabricating evidence for legalization only so that they can legally get high. There are many people, however, who are not “slackers” yet have expressed support for legalization, or at least a more open debate. Jocelyn Elders is among the latter, but it may be more effective to trumpet a noted conservative like William F. Buckley, Jr., who along with former NM governor Gary Johnson and Republican Secretary of State George Shultz, is among the former. To combat the “slacker” ethos that users have been saddled with, a campaign can be started that highlights people who have admitted or been caught smoking marijuana but have been highly successful, such as Olympic athlete Michael Phelps (who would have needed no apology had he been caught guzzling tequila straight from the bottle), actors Jack Nicholson, Johnny Depp, John Wayne, and Woody Harrelson, as well as Republican governor Arnold Schwartzenegger. Others include William Shakespeare, Mozart, Steve Jobs, Barbara Streisand, Pablo Picasso, and even Bing Crosby, who openly advocated legalization in the 1960s. Care must be taken not to put some of these people, such as Schwartzenegger, in the position of advocating for legalization if they have not publicly done so. The point to be made is only that smoking pot did not prevent them from becoming productive and successful people, mainly because they were never arrested for it.

 

The constant increase in marijuana use over the past few decades, the advances in medical marijuana rights, and the federal deficit have all combined to create a far more receptive atmosphere for legalization than ever before. California is currently considering legalization, in fact. Still, the pendulum can swing back quickly, or the moment be simply forgotten, if this kairos is not acted upon. The arguments for prohibition have become commonplaces while facts supporting legalization are ignored. The time is ripe to change that, but efforts must go beyond merely repeating facts to friendly audiences. These facts must be bundled with powerful pathetic and ethos-based arguments and presented to a much wider demographic, particularly those who support the status quo or are neutral. Only by increasing support drastically can drug policy be changed. Only by combining facts with emotional and ethos-based arguments for legalization and presenting them widely over an extended time period can NORML and other pro-hemp organizations reach the support levels needed to bring about this much-needed change.

Works Cited

 

 

“About Marijuana.” National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws Website. 17 March 2009. http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7305

 

            “Annual Causes of Death in the United States.” Drug War Facts.org. 2000-2008. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

 

            Thompson, Keith. “Michael Phelps in Good Company.” The Huffington Post. 5 February 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/michael-phelps-in-good-co_b_164504.html

 

            Miron, Jeffrey A. “Commentary:Legalize Drugs to Stop Violence.” CNN.com. 24 March 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html

 

            “Arguments for and Against the Legalization of Marijuana.” Legalization of Marijuana.com. Date unknown. http://www.legalizationofmarijuana.com/marijuana-for-and-against.html

 

            Messerli, Joe. “Should Marijuana Be Legalized Under Any Circumstances?” Balanced Politics.org. 7 April 2008. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/marijuana_legalization.htm

 

            “U.S. Shares Blame for Mexico Drug Violence, Clinton Says.” CNN.com: Political Ticker. 26 March 2009. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/26/us-shares-blame-for-mexico-drug-violence-clinton-says-2/

 

            “Obama Goes Online for Town Hall Meeting.” CNN.com. 26 March 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/26/obama.online/index.html?iref=newssearch

Private political debate – that is, debate between ordinary citizens - is as old as politics itself. From the agora to the water cooler, people have gathered to argue their views, oftentimes quite vehemently. Editorial pages and call-in shows have long reflected this psychological need and provided an outlet for it. Never before, however, have ordinary citizens had the outlet that the Internet provides. The increased use of the Internet in homes, schools, and businesses has given the majority of Americans access to sites (which often echo the contents of print and broadcast sources) where they can express their views without the editorial filter that the call-in shows and Op-Ed pages employ. While the availability of political debate has increased, the quality of the discourse has not risen. It seems that the rhetorical elements of kairos, ethos, and pathos are as hale and hardy as ever they were, as they are the elements that drive modern online political discussion. Stasis and heuristics, however, are continually ignored, and in some cases even disdained.

 

Pathos, of course, is readily available in even the most benign political discussions. Even when the main item in the discussion is reasonably objective, pathos will appear promptly in the comments. "Soon the taxpayers will all be unemployed and no longer able to carry the beast of President Obama and his minion's (sic) government on their backs" writes a reader in response to a CNN Ticker story about the first White House dinner party. "I don't care how bad you thought you had it before this bunch came on the scene. We are all going to miss our old way of life." Obviously, the person posting under the name "Burdened" feels strongly about the President's economic plan, although placing that concern in the dinner party story, rather than one about the stimulus plan, makes it seem hyperbolic at best and exemplifies the misplaced attempts at creating kairos that one is forced to wade through in such discussions. Such purely pathetic (using both definitions of the word) arguments are ubiquitous and easily dismiss anything resembling research or factual basis because making people think is not their function. Anyone who thinks is going to realize that a dinner for the Governors – an occasion hosted annually by every President – is hardly going to be the straw that breaks America's economic back. This argument exists only to make people feel something: fear of unemployment, fear of economic depression, fear of losing their status, and fear of the current administration. While this tactic fails to create kairos for that particular complaint in that particular context, it will contribute to the community's ethos – but only amongst those already inclined to oppose the stimulus plan and to latch onto any available argument against it. Those who are disinclined will reject the argument as off topic, and may find their own sense of community with those who bash the offender.

 

Kairos is, naturally, not just present in every online political discussion – it is the source of them. Politics, by nature, is about what's happening now. No one hears arguments for or against the Spanish American War these days unless they're watching Citizen Kane, itself filmed 43 years after that war's kairotic moment. Some arguments, of course, are seemingly eternal. Crowly and Hawhee point out the excellent example of the never-ending abortion debate in Ancient Rhetorics, a debate whose kairos is elongated by a lack of stasis. The question of abortion's morality and legality can't be answered until both sides agree what the argument is about in the first place, as the constant bickering at the Daily Lobo website about when life begins exemplifies. Another example is the constant debate over gun rights, although this currently gains kairos not through a lack of stasis, but rather a lack of research. After all, President Obama has not said a thing about curtailing gun rights, and Joe Biden is pro-hunting. The gun debate's kairos is fueled in part by faulty or missing heuristics. This is common in online arguments, however. After all, a hunting website doesn't come and go like newspaper articles do – they are there every day looking for readers and advertisers. As a result, topical websites such as these have good reason to try and reinvent their kairos on a regular basis.

 

            Lack of heuristics isn't only found in the comments. Many pundits, people who are employed specifically to influence public opinion, are lax in their research. No one has ever accused Michelle Malkin or Randy Rhodes of digging too deeply for facts. Even George Will, a pundit with a highly situated ethos, has recently been caught fudging facts in his arguments against global warming; among other things he thoroughly misstated scientists' conclusions regarding the quantity of global sea ice. The defense is, of course, that Will is an opinion columnist rather than a journalist, and so can use faulty inferences and misstatement of facts in the name of opinion, as Rush Limbaugh does in the name of entertainment.  News items, however, will normally be more objective, although often incomplete.

 

            It would seem that, when discussing politics and current events, the value of making informed arguments, backed by solid facts, would be obvious. How better to show your point of view's superiority than to show the incontrovertibility of your argument's support structure? Yet heuristics are not always ignored, sometimes they are disdained outright. "I could use some statistics to support my view without taking in the full picture, however, I would rather just reason it out" said one of my more frequent opponents at the Daily Lobo website. Another writer echoes that sentiment in another thread; "…anyone can refer to something as being a fact." Ancient rhetors would not necessarily argue against those points. "Reasoning it out" was the accepted method for all intellectual endeavor long ago. It was, in fact (one that I pointed out in that conversation) the method that gave us the geocentric model of the universe, several philosophies, and much of what we call religion. In modern argumentation, however, it is easily dismissed as the method that, due to its inadequacy, led to the development of the scientific method. This response is especially cogent in discussions of policy, where prior experiences can have bearing and where the facts do not always agree with what can be reasoned.

 

Why are heuristics so frequently ignored or treated with contempt? The first possibility that jumps to mind is lack of education – perhaps people simply don't know how to find the information they need, or don't realize the importance of doing so. This rings a bit hollow, however. These people knew how to find the discussion, after all. They were techno savvy enough to participate. Everyone who knows how to use a web browser knows how to use Google. It may be, however, that those at lower educational levels adopt attractive ideas without skepticism, and may easily be manipulated into believing that someone else has done the research for them.

 

This trust is easy for several types of modern rhetor to take advantage of. The first type is the pundit. Pundits are everywhere – every channel and news source has them, and each of those pundits has a website – as do many that have no offline outlet. They seem to have larger audiences than the major news outlets, possibly due to their constant use of pathos. Many people who see the value of having facts and figures to back up their assertions assume that the facts and figures that the media pundits use have been researched and are accurate. These assumptions reflect the pundit's situated ethos; the pundit is, of course, an "expert" and knows what he is talking about. Rush Limbaugh demonstrates this ethos, and his listeners rarely doubt what he says.

 

His is a phony ethos, however. One minute's Internet research reveals that Limbaugh has no education in political science, foreign policy, economics, social sciences, or any of the subjects he is paid- quite highly – to opine on. He dropped out of college after three terms, having failed everything including a modern ballroom dancing class. His history shows that there is only one thing that he could be shown to be an absolute expert on – doing a radio show (and having someone repeat what he says on a website for those who can't listen in). His situated ethos derives not from what he knows, but the flair with which he tells his audience what they want to hear. Much the same can be said for liberal pundit Randi Rhodes, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, and many others.

 

People also skip research because they believe what they are told by people who should be accurate, but are not. Politicians and reporters are the main culprits here. When Sarah Palin repeats that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" enough times and the media quotes her saying it every time, people who believe in Sarah Palin will parrot it in complete disregard for the fact that Obama and Ayers have never been known to be "pals," or even casual friends. When Joe Biden talks about McCain voting against troop funding, he does so without mentioning McCain's objection to the war-ending timeline the provision contained. These inaccuracies aren't the result of shoddy research, however, only the repetition of them by others is. The initial falsehoods – often lies of omission - are the result of ulterior motives. A party-loyal Republican will, of course, be pro-war in Iraq, despite the array of justifications that have already floundered. Someone who owns oil company stock (or who, like a conservative pundit may, receives pay from these companies) will promote new offshore drilling contracts despite the fact that such drilling is already possible but is not as convenient as Exxon would like. The NRA will increase membership by creating a threat to gun rights where one does not exist (and the gun shop owners will promote it in hopes of increased sales to enthusiasts who want to "stock up while they can"). The primary lies will appear in news site columns and pundit websites as well as non-Internet sources like newspapers, television, and radio, to be relayed by the faithful in blogs, comments, and e-mails.

 

            Another reason why everyday people will skip heuristics in their arguments is posturing. When people aren't sure of their assertions or are not willing to accept opposing views easily, they can pretend that their ideas are so obvious that they don't warrant the effort of providing proof. "Ah, Joe the Troll, it's not my job to educate you on the candidates' backgrounds and their positions," said "lilamar" on the Daily Lobo site when asked to detail what she called Ralph Nader's "extensive political resume." While she ostensibly sought to put the onus of research upon the reader, she could not have honestly expected that to happen. Why would the reader take it upon himself to prove someone else's point? A few more intellectually curious ones may; most will not. To expect it would seem an inefficient way to sway opinions. More likely, the shifting of responsibility was meant to make the readers feel shamed into simply accepting her assertions as being more informed than their own opinions. While that may be true in some cases, it makes for an underhanded argument, one that provides plenty of room for doubt about lilamar's veracity. This is a tactic that can be used in any milieu; however, easy access to search engines makes it more effective on the Internet. It's harder to harangue someone into forgiving a lack of evidence when research facilities aren't  readily available to the audience, as they are when the audience is already online.

 

            It may be, also, that today's lack of heuristics can be traced to a misconception about how voters make decisions. Consider the abstract from It Feels Like We're Thinking: The Rationalizing Voter and Electoral Democracy by Larry Bartels and Christopher Achen:

           

            "The familiar image of rational electoral choice has voters weighing the competing candidates' strengths and weaknesses, calculating comparative distances in issue space, and assessing the president's management of foreign affairs and the national economy. Indeed, once or twice in a lifetime, a national or personal crisis does induce political thought. But most of the time, the voters adopt issue positions, adjust their candidate perceptions, and invent facts to rationalize decisions they have already made. The implications of this distinction between genuine thinking and its day-to-day counterfeit strike at the roots of both positive and normative theories of electoral democracy."

 

In other words, while we assume that people choose their candidates on the basis of their positions on the issues, the authors assert that people will instead choose the candidate that they like, then change their own positions to match the candidate's or misstate the candidate's to match theirs. One can easily find support for this in almost any political argument. It can certainly explain why middle class people who were wary of "tax and spend Democrats" have argued that McCain's tax policies were in their favor, despite the fact that the numbers said the opposite. It can also explain why anti-war Democrats are suddenly so supportive of increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, as President Obama intends. In such a process, facts can only get in the way. If a political decision is the result of pathos in the first place, it is pathos that will be used to support it, regardless of what the facts say. Thus, it is easy to find comments on CNN.com or MSNBC.com from Clinton supporting Democrats that criticize Obama's policies despite their close similarity to Clinton's policies. By the same token, conservative websites and blogs will brim with comments from those who supported Bush all the way, but have suddenly found a fear of big government that didn't arise when the Bush administration was increasing the government's size, mounting a huge deficit, and weakening Fourth Amendment protections.

 

            Stubbornness is another causal agent in heuristics' seeming demise. As Christina Page reports on the Huffington Post:

 

Tony Perkins, President of the formerly anti-abortion Family Research Council, admitted to the Associated Press that the organization's previously stated mission of saving the "unborn" had been ceded to other priorities. Perkins, who opposes preventing abortion through contraception, says, "The issue is whether taxpayers should fund, and thereby encourage, behavior that's risky and morally questionable," by which Perkins means having sex.

 

Why would anti-abortion organizations, which are as active online as off, also oppose contraception when contraception is proven across the world to reduce the need for abortions? The HuffPo article mentions two possibilities. First, the organizations have a good fundraising shtick that they hesitate to let go of. Certainly, money has a way of talking. Secondly, the members of these organizations are simply so used to opposing anything that they see as "liberal" that they cannot see when their own goals and the "liberal" goal are aligned. For the purpose of online argumentation, fundraising can be dismissed for the most part. People who comment on news articles and blogs aren't raising funds from their efforts. They can, however, be so used to practicing "us vs. them" politics that they see no need to look beyond the personalities – that is, the ethos – of anyone they see as the opposition. Once again, facts and research can only get in the way in this scenario.

 

            Laziness, of course, cannot be discounted. Lack of heuristics may simply be the result of a person's being too lazy to look for anything to back up his claims, and hoping that anyone who reads his argument will be equally lazy. These arguments often rely on what they see as commonplaces, but can be accurately termed as stereotypes, such as the "tax and spend liberal" and the " intolerant Republican."  While these types of rants are expected in comments, where individuals have anonymity and can simply vent their feelings without being held accountable for accuracy, it is surprising how many online pundits and commentators rely on them and the laziness – or gullibility - of their audiences to make the use of such arguments profitable.

 

Is this a result of the Internet's relative youth? Will online political discussions become more factual as people become more accustomed to and educated by the instant communication and participation that the Internet offers? While one might hope so, only time will tell. It may be that the nature of the Internet – that is, constantly updating and wide open to the public – creates an environment where the driving forces of kairos, ethos, and pathos are sufficient bread and circus to please the masses. It may also be true that the presence of ulterior motives and special interests in political discussions online and off will always create resistance to heuristics. As it stands, however, it is evident that while all online political discussions hinge on some combination of kairos, pathos, and ethos, those looking for researched facts as a basis for argument have a lot of chaff to wade through for relatively little wheat.

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Crowley, Sharon and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. New York: Pearson Longman, 2009.

 

Bowers, Chris. "New Approaches to Political Decision Making." Open Left. 26 July 2007. 2 February 2009 http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=412

 

"Obama Has Already Failed to Deliver the Change He Promised." New Mexico Daily Lobo Online. 4 February 2009. <http://www.dailylobo.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=36d779e8-95d9-4314-b884-e3334cb61c85>

 

"President, First Lady Host Premier Dinner at WH." CNN.Com: Political Ticker. 20 February 2009. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/20/president-first-lady-host-premier-dinner-at-wh/#comments

 

"Nader's Resume Shows He is Most Qualified Candidate." New Mexico Daily Lobo Online. 23 September 2008.

http://www.dailylobo.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=27a0718d-452b-4e84-9fe1-70bd611d038b

 

            Page, Christina. "'Pro-Life' Movement Admits Pro-Abortion Stance." The Huffington Post. 24 February 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/pro-life-movement-admits_b_169489.html

 

            Linkins, Jason. "George Will, Washington Post Mount Defense of Widely Debunked Editorial." The Huffington Post. 26 February 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/george-will-to-mount-defe_n_170346.html

 

 

           

 

 

 

Evermore things I don't get. Perhaps you can explain?

1. How is McCain a hero?

His military credentials are never questioned, and he is unquestioningly considered a "hero" because of his experience in Vietnam. It's as if not calling him a hero means that you have nothing but battery acid in your heart for all military people. And of course, they're ALL heroes once they put that uniform on, right? They just stop being heroes when they come back and need medical care or a place to live or some such.

I say fuck it, though. I'll question his status, appearances be damned. From what I understand, he was making a bombing run and saw an incoming alert thingiebob (That's the military parlance. It means something is flying at you to blow your ass up). Instead of taking immediate evasive measures, he chose to continue bombing for a few seconds, after which his wing was blown off. Good judgement there. When he came down, he was almost torn apart by civilians but was saved by one. When I hear that part, I wonder how many of us would save an enemy soldier that was shot down while bombing us from an angry mob. Anyway, he was then hauled away to a prison camp where he was either the toughest nut in Hanoi or the ugliest songbird, depending on the report. This understanding is what I have from hearing this thing from all quarters over the last year.

So which part is heroic? Really, it sounds like he blew his mission all to hell and back. Shouldn't a "hero" be someone who did something right? In war, bullets are flying everywhere. I consider the true hero not to be the one who blunders into a bullet, but one who steps into one on purpose to save someone else. Or maybe even the smart guy who figures out how to save the other guy without getting shot. Let's not sell that guy short. That guy never gets far, though, because real heroes tend to get themselves killed sooner more than later.

Beside that, can anyone explain how McCain "knows how to win wars" when most of his war experience was as a prisoner during a war we didn't actually win?


2. How did conservation become a liberal cause?

It seems strange, doesn't it? Especially when you consider that the national park system was the baby of a very famous Republican, one Teddy Roosevelt. The same thing with the ACLU. You'd think that dogged adherence to the Constitution and equal application of same would be a conservative issue more than a liberal one. I think it's because people really have no idea what liberal and conservative are even supposed to mean anymore. A few years ago, I did a little poll of people that I met over a week's time, and asked them if they knew. I was dealing with some very well educated people at the time, but zero out of ten people could give me the definition of either. This is despite the fact that these people has very strong feelings about which word described them. It's no more meaningful today than the names of two opposing football teams.

3. Why is there a bike rack on the bus?

I'm on my way to class, or getting home after a long afternoon, and I'm hanging on a strap watching someone try to put their bike on the rack (and it always takes them several tries), and I'm thinking why don't you just ride the fucking bike?????

4. Why is calling something "political" supposed to be an insult when it comes from a politician?

Is this nutty or what? "That was just a political move on Sen. Bigballz part!" Of course it was. Sen. Bigballz is a politician. What he does is political. What mechanics do is mechanical. What artists do is artistic (Pollock notwithstanding). Why does anyone listen to such tripe from a politician, knowing that by definition it too is political?

5. How can anyone promote the idea that by voting for McCain this year they'll make the rest of us vote for Hillary in 2012?

That has to be the weirdest strategy I've seen since playing RISK on mushrooms. I keep seeing it, though. Are these people really serious?


   

This is just to inform the public that neither the Obama campaign nor the McCain campaign have asked me to provide any personal information.

Of course, I've been pretty thoroughly vetted right here.

That's all I can say right now.

I saw this the other day when I was waiting for class to start. This class is in a computer lab, so if the teacher is boring me I can surf. It's been stuck in my mind the past few days.